United States v. Guzman-Ortiz

Facts

1. 2 Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object not no-evidence

   None of the intercepted communications referred to or were exchanged with defendant, nor was there any evidence of his knowledge thereof.

2. 2 Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object not no-evidence

   Although forensics later identified latent fingerprints on the bricks matching Soto-Peguero's, no such evidence of defendant's participation was adduced.

3. 2 Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object not no-evidence

   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.

4. 2 Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object not no-evidence

   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.

5. 2 Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object not no-evidence

   Criminal conspiracies are naturally secretive and the government need not prove an express agreement between co-conspirators.

6. 2 Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object not no-evidence

   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.

7. 2 Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object not no-evidence

   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.

8. 4 Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement not no-evidence

   Similarly, the fact that a defendant "knew what was going on" is, by itself, "not enough to establish intent to conspire."

9. 4 Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement not no-evidence

   Guzman-Ortiz's only drug-related activity occurred in response to the raid by law enforcement.

10. 4 Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement not no-evidence

    There was, however, evidence of his participation in gathering and moving groceries and later dining with Soto-Peguero and Cabral.

11. 4 Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement not no-evidence

    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.

12. 4 Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement not no-evidence

    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.

13. 4 Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement not no-evidence

    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.