Source: cases/21usc846/f-supp-3d-365-215-us-v-guzman-ortiz.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_365/0215_01/index.html
Criminal conspiracies are naturally secretive and the government need not prove an express agreement between co-conspirators.
That evidence provides an insufficient basis for finding or inferring the existence of an agreement between defendant and Soto-Peguero to possess and distribute heroin, and to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally entered into such a compact with the requisite knowledge and purpose.
Because the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict on Count 6, the verdict on that Count is set aside, and it is ordered that judgment of acquittal be entered on that Count.
Similarly, the fact that a defendant "knew what was going on" is, by itself, "not enough to establish intent to conspire."
In sum, no evidence showed defendant's participation or agreement to participate in any drug-related activity except the attempted hiding of a package of heroin in response to the law enforcement raid.
# author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) casedsl 1.2 case /f-supp-3d/365/0215-01 name United States v. Guzman-Ortiz cite 365 F. Supp. 3d 215 (2019) # IR court field says: United States District Court for the District of Columbia court United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts date 2019-03-14 url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_365/0215_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_365.jsonl sha1=b003eebd823ac4173874e7d80e995a02ae6180f7 chars=19935 opinion op : order by Zobel @0..19935 controlling law 21usc846 role applied posture Post-verdict Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal on conspiracy count result claimant-lost element agreement : not-satisfied [no-evidence] scope merits route inferred-from-dealings pattern two-person-conspiracy/visitor-helps-hide-heroin-during-raid rule @9062..9187 | Criminal conspiracies are naturally secretive and the government need not prove an express agreement between co-conspirators. fact @4646..4877 [supports] | One kilogram of heroin, wrapped entirely in black electrical tape, was partially stuffed in an air vent below the window in the upstairs room where defendant and Soto-Peguero had been observed during the attempted front door entry. fact @3305..3442 [cuts-against absent] | None of the intercepted communications referred to or were exchanged with defendant, nor was there any evidence of his knowledge thereof. fact @3673..3826 [cuts-against absent] | Although forensics later identified latent fingerprints on the bricks matching Soto-Peguero's, no such evidence of defendant's participation was adduced. fact @6367..6617 [cuts-against absent] | There was no evidence that the drug distribution paraphernalia had been used on the day in question, or that the heroin seized from Cabral had been prepared and packaged that day, or that defendant was aware of or had participated in such activities. held @15875..16185 | That evidence provides an insufficient basis for finding or inferring the existence of an agreement between defendant and Soto-Peguero to possess and distribute heroin, and to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally entered into such a compact with the requisite knowledge and purpose. held @18191..18381 | Because the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict on Count 6, the verdict on that Count is set aside, and it is ordered that judgment of acquittal be entered on that Count. gloss The charged conspiracy had only two members (defendant and Soto-Peguero). Helping to hide a kilogram of heroin when agents pounded on the door was the only evidence of any agreement, and the court held a tacit agreement to distribute could not reasonably be inferred from it. ? route: no course of dealing existed; the sub-question is whether a tacit agreement can be inferred from presence plus one reactive act of concealment. inferred-from-dealings is the nearest menu route (tacit rather than express agreement). element intentional-joinder : not-satisfied [no-evidence] scope merits route _whole pattern mere-presence-at-stash-apartment/knowledge-without-participation rule @9830..9952 | Similarly, the fact that a defendant "knew what was going on" is, by itself, "not enough to establish intent to conspire." fact @15456..15649 [supports] | In this case, as noted earlier, defendant's presence in the apartment is undisputed and the evidence supports a finding that he, at some point, knew illegal drug activity was conducted therein. fact @13982..14076 [cuts-against] | Guzman-Ortiz's only drug-related activity occurred in response to the raid by law enforcement. fact @14077..14207 [cuts-against] | There was, however, evidence of his participation in gathering and moving groceries and later dining with Soto-Peguero and Cabral. fact @17014..17306 [cuts-against absent] | The evidence did show that Soto-Peguero spoke with and texted Mejia-Ramos about heroin sales on several occasions during the afternoon and evening of July 6, 2015, but, as noted earlier, there was no testimony that defendant heard or viewed these communications, or had any knowledge thereof. held @17686..17887 | In sum, no evidence showed defendant's participation or agreement to participate in any drug-related activity except the attempted hiding of a package of heroin in response to the law enforcement raid. gloss Presence in the apartment and probable awareness of drug activity were accepted; what failed was proof that defendant chose to participate. The court refused to infer membership from "human experience" absent evidence of the parties' relationship. misfit The court decides agreement and joinder in one breath (the charged conspiracy had two members, so no agreement without defendant's joinder); the two blocks split a single holding. misfit Claimant outcome refers to the prosecuting government; claimant-lost reflects the post-verdict Rule 29 judgment of acquittal vacating the jury's conspiracy conviction for insufficient evidence.