United States v. Concepcion Carrasco and Francisco Diaz
1989 WL 123129, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 16012, 887 F.2d 794 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's knowing participation in a conspiracy can be established beyond a reasonable doubt solely through circumstantial evidence. A buyer-seller relationship elevates to a conspiracy when a party purchases contraband from a conspirator for resale with knowledge of the conspiracy's general aims.
Facts:
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) received information that Concepcion Carrasco was selling counterfeit documents.
- In October 1986, INS confidential informant Guillermo Herrera met with Carrasco to purchase a counterfeit alien registry card and social security card for a friend.
- Carrasco stated his supplier was unavailable but quoted prices for the documents and provided Herrera with his phone number to arrange a future transaction.
- On November 6, 1986, Herrera paid Carrasco $70 and received the counterfeit documents.
- Over the following months, Herrera completed several more purchases of counterfeit documents from Carrasco.
- In February 1987, Carrasco instructed Herrera to coordinate a new purchase with a man named 'Pancho' at a different residence.
- Carrasco identified 'Pancho,' later identified as Francisco Diaz, as his brother-in-law.
- On February 12, 1987, after several phone calls, Herrera met Diaz ('Pancho') and purchased counterfeit documents from him for $60.
- During a subsequent transaction in March 1987, an unidentified woman at Diaz's residence delivered a counterfeit card to Herrera and stated that 'Pancho's' last name was Diaz.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury returned indictments against Concepcion Carrasco and Francisco Diaz for conspiracy to sell and selling counterfeit documents.
- The defendants were tried in a bench trial in the U.S. District Court.
- The district court found both defendants guilty on multiple counts.
- Carrasco and Diaz, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant knowingly joined an existing conspiracy to sell counterfeit documents, as opposed to merely participating in isolated transactions?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffey, Circuit Judge.
Yes, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove a defendant's knowing participation in a conspiracy. The court found that a conspiracy existed between Carrasco and his document supplier prior to Diaz's involvement, as the supplier must have known the documents were for resale to third parties, thus demonstrating knowledge of the conspiracy's general aims. The government successfully proved Diaz was the individual known as 'Pancho' through direct voice identifications and substantial circumstantial evidence, including phone records, the location of the transactions, and statements by Carrasco identifying 'Pancho' as his brother-in-law, Francisco. Diaz's knowing participation was established by his repeated actions in furtherance of the conspiracy, such as taking calls, arranging deliveries, and personally transferring counterfeit documents for cash, which demonstrated he understood the 'general scope and objective' of the criminal enterprise.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant power of circumstantial evidence in securing conspiracy convictions, affirming that direct evidence of an agreement is not required. The court's analysis solidifies the distinction between a simple buyer-seller relationship and a co-conspirator relationship, making it clear that a buyer who purchases for resale with knowledge of the broader criminal scheme becomes a member of the conspiracy. This precedent strengthens the prosecution's ability to build conspiracy cases against peripheral actors by linking their actions, through a web of indirect evidence, to the central criminal objective. It underscores that even a 'slight' connection is sufficient for conviction if the defendant's participation is established beyond a reasonable doubt.
