United States v. Perlaza
439 F. 3d 1149, 2006 WL 618930 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), disputed factual questions necessary to establish jurisdiction, such as a vessel's statelessness, are treated as elements of the offense that must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, due process requires the government to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the United States and a foreign-flagged vessel on the high seas, a requirement that cannot be circumvented by an aiding and abetting theory of liability.
Facts:
- In late Summer 2000, U.S. Navy and Coast Guard personnel were conducting counter-narcotics surveillance in the Eastern Pacific, focusing on a Colombian fishing vessel named the Gran Tauro.
- On September 3, 2000, a U.S. team boarded the Gran Tauro and found it possessed approximately 6,000 gallons of gasoline, far exceeding its permit, and that its fishing equipment was in poor, unused condition. The team ordered the vessel to return to its home port in Colombia.
- The Gran Tauro failed to return to port and was observed over the next week drifting or moving slowly with no fishing activity.
- In the early morning of September 11, 2000, U.S. radar detected a high-speed 'Go-Fast' boat merging with the Gran Tauro's position on the high seas.
- Upon being detected by a U.S. helicopter, the crew of the Go-Fast began jettisoning large bales of what was later recovered and identified as 1,964 kilograms of cocaine.
- The Go-Fast boat then traveled erratically toward the Gran Tauro and crashed into its stern, causing the Go-Fast to begin sinking.
- The Gran Tauro's crew offered no assistance as the Go-Fast sank; the Go-Fast crew members, including Fernando Lopez and David Murillo, stripped naked before being rescued.
- Gasoline samples taken from the Go-Fast's recovered fuel drum and from the Gran Tauro's tank were found to have come from the same source.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the Southern District of California returned a two-count indictment charging the crew members of the Go-Fast and the Gran Tauro with violating the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA).
- Defendants filed pre-trial motions to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the MDLEA was unconstitutional and that the district court (the trial court) lacked jurisdiction.
- The district court denied the motions to dismiss after holding an evidentiary hearing and finding it had jurisdiction.
- Two defendants, Aborno and Reina, pled guilty.
- The remaining ten defendants proceeded to a jury trial and were convicted on all applicable counts.
- The ten convicted defendants appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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:
Under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), are disputed factual questions necessary to establish jurisdiction, such as a vessel's statelessness, elements of the offense that must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Pregerson
Yes. Disputed factual questions essential to jurisdiction under the MDLEA are effectively elements of the offense that must be decided by a jury. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments require that every fact necessary to constitute a crime be charged in the indictment and proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Congress's attempt in 46 U.S.C. § 1903(f) to reclassify these jurisdictional facts as 'preliminary questions of law' for a judge is an unconstitutional manipulation of a crime's definition when those facts are in dispute. Because the statelessness of the Go-Fast was a disputed factual issue, it should have been submitted to the jury. For the foreign-flagged Gran Tauro, due process requires a nexus to the United States, which the government conceded it could not prove. This jurisdictional requirement cannot be satisfied by arguing that the Gran Tauro defendants were merely aiding and abetting the principals on the Go-Fast, as jurisdiction is a preliminary question distinct from substantive criminal liability. Additionally, the prosecutor's statement during closing argument that a 'presumption of guilt' would take over during deliberations was a severe, intentional error that the district court's delayed and inadequate curative instruction failed to fix, providing an alternative ground for reversal.
Dissenting - Judge Brunetti
The conviction of the Go-Fast defendants should be affirmed. Congress explicitly stated in § 1903(f) that jurisdiction is a preliminary question of law for the judge, and the judiciary should respect that legislative determination. Here, the evidence that the Go-Fast was a stateless vessel was uncontroverted, presenting no factual dispute for a jury to resolve, and therefore the district court properly decided the issue as a matter of law. While the prosecutor's 'presumption of guilt' comment was improper, it was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming strength of the evidence against the Go-Fast crew and the trial court's eventual curative instructions. The dissent concurs with the majority's decision to reverse the convictions of the Gran Tauro defendants because the government failed to establish the required jurisdictional nexus to the United States.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts MDLEA prosecutions by reinforcing the constitutional role of the jury under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in cases like Apprendi v. New Jersey. By holding that disputed jurisdictional facts are functional elements of the offense, the court limits Congress's power to statutorily define such facts out of the jury's purview. The ruling solidifies the Ninth Circuit's nexus requirement for exercising jurisdiction over foreign-flagged vessels, creating a higher due process bar for the government than in other circuits. This decision makes it more difficult for prosecutors to secure convictions in extraterritorial drug cases where key jurisdictional facts, like a vessel's nationality or a crime's connection to the U.S., are not clearly established.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Perlaza