United States v. Stewart-Carrasquillo
997 F.3d 408 (2021)
Rule of Law:
A conviction for drug trafficking can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence, including the quantity of drugs, vessel type, crew relationships, and evasive actions, even when defendants claim innocent bystander status. Demonstrative evidence may be excluded if it fails the 'substantial similarity' test, meaning its conditions are not sufficiently comparable to the actual event, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion.
Facts:
- In the early morning of December 10, 2016, FURA maritime agents on routine patrol picked up an object moving at high speed in an unusual area off Puerto Rico's eastern coast.
- The FURA agents approached a blue and white 'fishing' boat equipped with two 175-horsepower engines, noting its unusual speed and water displacement, which indicated it carried a large amount of weight.
- Upon nearing the boat, Agent Del Valle and Sergeant Diaz observed James Stewart-Carrasquillo and Harold Esquilin-Montañez throwing black packages into the water.
- Despite verbal orders to stop, Stewart-Carrasquillo and Esquilin-Montañez continued to throw packages overboard until the FURA boat rammed their vessel.
- After the arrests, agents recovered four bales from the water and found another twenty-one identical, dry bales on the boat, totaling 25 bales of cocaine weighing over 1,200 pounds and worth $10-12.5 million.
- The seized vessel contained three fishing poles but no bait, fishing boxes, lobster boxes, ice, food, or cell phones, and one bale of cocaine was tied to heavy 'potala' weights used to sink drugs.
- Stewart-Carrasquillo is the nephew of the boat's captain, Juan Carrasquillo-Soto, and both defendants worked for Carrasquillo-Soto in his construction business.
- Stewart-Carrasquillo testified that he, Esquilin-Montañez, and Carrasquillo-Soto laid lobster traps at sea, and later Carrasquillo-Soto alone loaded the floating packages onto the boat after defendants refused to assist due to fear it could be drugs or money.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a three-count indictment charging James Stewart-Carrasquillo, Harold Esquilin-Montañez, and Juan Carrasquillo-Soto with aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance on a U.S.-jurisdiction vessel (Count 1), conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance on a U.S.-jurisdiction vessel (Count 2), and aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine (Count 3).
- Juan Carrasquillo-Soto pleaded guilty to Count 3, while Stewart-Carrasquillo and Esquilin-Montañez proceeded to a joint trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
- Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing the government lost or destroyed exculpatory evidence (a 'Fish Finder GPS Hummingbird 698'), which the district court denied.
- At the close of the government's case-in-chief, both defendants moved for judgments of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, which the district court denied.
- After the defense presented its case, defendants again moved for judgments of acquittal under Rule 29, and the district court reserved decision.
- The jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts against Stewart-Carrasquillo and Esquilin-Montañez.
- The district court subsequently denied the defendants' written post-verdict Rule 29 motions in a written opinion.
- The district court sentenced each defendant to 121 months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised release.
- Stewart-Carrasquillo and Esquilin-Montañez appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the First 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:
1. Does a jury's finding of guilt for drug trafficking offenses stand when challenged on grounds of insufficient evidence, where defendants claim innocent bystander status, and the evidence largely consists of circumstantial factors such as the quantity of drugs, vessel characteristics, crew associations, and actions taken during law enforcement interdiction? 2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by excluding a demonstrative video reenactment offered by the defense to challenge the government's evidence, based on a lack of 'substantial similarity' between the reenactment and the actual event?
Opinions:
Majority - Katzmann
Yes, the jury's finding of guilt for drug trafficking offenses stands, and no, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the demonstrative video reenactment. The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the defendants knowingly participated in a drug trafficking enterprise. Applying the 'two-step inference' framework (United States v. Guerrero, 114 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 1997); United States v. Jimenez-Perez, 869 F.2d 9 (1st Cir. 1989)), the court found ample evidence for both prongs: (1) the vessel was engaged in obviously illegal activity, given the massive quantity of cocaine ($10-12.5 million street value, 1,200+ pounds) on a small, turbocharged vessel in an unusual area, the lack of legitimate fishing gear, and Stewart-Carrasquillo's own admission that he 'presumed that it could be either drugs or money.' (2) Each defendant was ready to assist in the criminal enterprise, inferred from the fact that drug traffickers would not entrust such a valuable shipment to 'unwitting bystanders' (United States v. Angulo-Hernández, 565 F.3d 2 (1st Cir. 2009)), the defendants' close association with the captain, and the reasonable inference that both defendants must have assisted in loading the heavy bales, contradicting their testimony that the 59-year-old captain loaded them alone. Their frantic efforts to dump cocaine as FURA agents approached further supported their active participation. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the defendants' homemade video 'reenactment' under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The reenactment, which depicted a woman loading bales onto a different boat near a dock in daylight, failed the 'substantial similarity' test (Fusco v. Gen. Motors Corp., 11 F.3d 259 (1st Cir. 1993)). The conditions of the reenactment (controlled environment, different boat, boat being captained during loading, daylight) were not substantially similar to the actual event (rocky, open, shark-infested waters, boat left adrift for 40-45 minutes, early morning), meaning it could have misled or confused the jury. The court upheld the district court's broad discretion as gatekeeper of evidence. Finally, the court found that a prosecutor's isolated misstatement in closing argument (referring to a 'broken ankle' instead of 'twisted ankle') did not constitute reversible error. The district court promptly issued a strong cautionary instruction reminding the jury that lawyers' arguments are not evidence and their own recollection of facts controls. The misstatement was tangential and highly unlikely to have affected the outcome of the case.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar defendants face when challenging a conviction based on sufficiency of evidence, especially in drug trafficking cases involving large quantities of contraband. It underscores that juries are given broad deference in assessing credibility and drawing reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, the decision solidifies the 'substantial similarity' test for demonstrative evidence in criminal cases, emphasizing judicial discretion under Rule 403 to exclude reenactments that do not accurately replicate crucial conditions, thereby minimizing potential for jury confusion or prejudice. It also highlights the efficacy of timely curative instructions in mitigating isolated instances of prosecutorial misstatement.
