United States v. Navarro Viayra

Citations: 206 F. Supp. 2d 1057; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11032; 2002 WL 1354838Docket: CR. S-00-512 FCD

Court: District Court, E.D. California; June 12, 2002; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendants Miguel Navarro Viayra and Manuel Alvarez Guerra sought judgment of acquittal on all counts under Rule 29(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Government opposed their motions. The court, however, converted these motions into motions for a new trial under Rule 33 and granted them. 

The defendants faced charges including conspiracy to manufacture over 1,000 marijuana plants, actual manufacture of over 1,000 marijuana plants, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien. After a jury trial commencing on January 7, 2002, the jury found the defendants guilty on the conspiracy and manufacturing counts but deadlocked on the firearm-related counts. Following the verdict, the defendants renewed their Rule 29 motions, leading to further briefs and arguments regarding jurisdiction, which the court eventually upheld.

On September 20, 2000, law enforcement discovered a concealed water intake in the Mendocino National Forest, indicative of marijuana cultivation. Subsequent investigations led officers to a trailhead and further into the forest where they encountered signs of human activity and, later, two individuals emerging from a marijuana cultivation site.

A man drew a handgun and pointed it towards agents attempting to conceal themselves, after which he and another man retreated towards a marijuana cultivation site, neither of whom was identified as Viayra or Guerra. Later, an officer observed two other men approaching and ducked down, believing one had spotted the agents. After waiting, the agents discovered a five-acre marijuana cultivation site around 11 p.m., where they found three individuals sleeping in a camp. Two of these individuals were identified as Viayra and Guerra. Agents noted a 30-caliber M-1 carbine rifle near Viayra and an SKS rifle closer to Guerra. When the agents charged, all three men fled; Guerra was captured, while Viayra eventually stopped and went on his hands and knees. The third individual escaped.

After the arrest, agents secured the firearms for safety and later returned them for photographic purposes, but did not submit them for fingerprint testing. They did submit ammunition found in the sleeping area, which yielded no fingerprints from either defendant. Additional items found included a hand cultivation tool, discarded marijuana stems, and a cassette player. The cultivation site, located in Mendocino National Forest, was approximately 40 miles from Corning, the nearest town, with a small community, Paskenta, situated halfway. The road from Corning to Paskenta is a two-lane paved road, and there is a significant elevation climb towards the trailhead, about five miles away, with no houses or stores on that road.

Witnesses estimated it would take 8-10 hours to run from the camp to Paskenta, and at night, lights from Paskenta or Corning could be visible from a nearby ridge. However, there was no specific evidence regarding the ridge's elevation or location. The campsite was not fenced, and government testimony indicated it likely had an organizational structure, with estimates of up to twenty people involved. Fourteen sleeping bags were scattered throughout the site, which contained approximately 1,890 marijuana plants across eight growing areas.

The camp featured a kitchen area with a propane stove, garbage disposal, three marijuana processing areas, and two sleeping areas; one was smaller where the defendants were located, and a larger one covered by a canopy. The kitchen contained 49 cans of beans, 168 cans of tuna, and sacks of potatoes, onions, and tortillas, with no restrictions on food access. An air rifle was found near the canopied sleeping area, and two types of handgun ammunition were discovered, but no guns were present. Stripped marijuana stems were scattered throughout the site, which lacked vehicles, cell phones, or electricity.

Viayra, who illegally entered the U.S., testified that on September 17, 2000, he was approached by a man offering construction work in Sacramento. He was picked up in a red van that lacked seats and traveled at night. Upon arrival, Viayra was confronted by four or five armed men who forced him to follow them. He was scared and struggled to walk downhill. The men indicated he would be killed if he attempted to leave, and he saw around 20 other young Mexican men working under similar threats.

From September 19 until his arrest, Viayra was forced to work stripping leaves from marijuana plants under armed supervision. He received three meals a day but was not free to eat at will or talk to other workers without reprimand. He was guarded even during sleep and was afraid to escape due to threats of death. There were no physical restraints or fences, but he was monitored closely. The camp's leader, who also carried a gun, occasionally entered to issue orders. The day before his arrest, Viayra and another worker, Guerra, were moved to a different processing area and later returned to sleep, still under guard. Viayra was startled awake by something falling on him, prompting a frightened reaction to run, but he did not see a gun on the ground and claimed to have never touched any of the firearms found at the site.

Viayra reported that after he fell asleep the night of his arrest, he did not see the guards again. He observed over six firearms at the site but did not handle any, stating he would have attempted to leave if they had not been armed. Viayra's background includes time in Fresno, Madera, and Milwaukee, and he had briefly passed through Calexico. He has limited knowledge of firearms and dropped out of school at a young age after his mother died.

Guerra, 20 years old at the time of the incident and with only a third-grade education in Mexico, recounted being recruited by a man named 'Jesus' for a job in California. After illegally crossing the border with the help of a 'coyote,' Guerra was picked up by a van and instructed to lie down during transport. He carried minimal money and, upon arrival at his destination, was met by an armed man who forced him to walk downhill for an hour to watch a water source for seven days. He was then moved to another location, where he was threatened with death if he attempted to escape and tasked with cooking.

The case raised the affirmative defense of duress, with the Government required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the absence of duress. The elements of duress include an immediate threat of death or serious injury, a well-founded fear that the threat would be executed, and a lack of reasonable opportunity to escape. The Government could meet its burden by disproving any one of these elements. The defense filed Rule 29 motions for acquittal, which require viewing evidence favorably for the Government, and could have also filed for a new trial under Rule 33, which offers broader grounds for relief. The standards for conviction and acquittal are outlined, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence and the district court's discretion in new trial motions.

The district court is not required to view evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict but can weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility. If the court determines that the evidence, while sufficient in theory, heavily favors the opposing view, it may set aside the verdict, grant a new trial, and submit the issues to a new jury. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 allows for a new trial if justice requires, but does not clarify whether a district court can sua sponte convert a Rule 29 motion for acquittal into a Rule 33 motion for a new trial. The Sixth Circuit in United States v. Taylor affirmed that the district court can deny a timely acquittal motion and instead grant a new trial if justified by the motion's arguments. Therefore, if a defendant timely files a Rule 29 motion and the court finds insufficient grounds to grant it under the Rule 29 standard, yet feels that upholding the verdict would lead to a miscarriage of justice, the court may, sua sponte, evaluate the case under the Rule 33 standard. If the evidence significantly contradicts the verdict, the court may convert the Rule 29 motion into a Rule 33 motion.

In the case at hand, the defendants faced charges of conspiring to manufacture and manufacturing over 1,000 marijuana plants. The jury was instructed that acting under duress negates the knowledge or intent required for the charges. The Government contended that it proved the absence of duress beyond a reasonable doubt, arguing that the jury could dismiss the defendants' claims based on evidence such as firearms found nearby, suggesting the defendants were not under guard. Additionally, the Government argued that the defendants' well-being—having toiletries and being well-fed—indicated they were not hostages but rather willing participants in the conspiracy.

The court acknowledges evidence indicating the absence of duress but also finds substantial support for the defendants' claims of being threatened by armed guards. Key points include: 

1. Prior to reaching the camp, agents encountered individuals, one of whom displayed a handgun.
2. An agent believed one of these individuals spotted them.
3. Upon arrival, the agents observed that while the defendants slept soundly, a third man appeared restless and vigilant.
4. Testimony suggested there may have been a fourth sleeping bag at the defendants' location.
5. The campsite inspection revealed only the defendants and the restless man present.
6. The defendants stated that the restless man and another individual guarded them before they fell asleep.
7. Firearms and ammunition were found nearby, but no fingerprints matched the defendants, supporting their claim that these belonged to their guards.

Additionally, the camp's organization indicates a sophisticated operation, located in a remote national forest to avoid detection, with potential for significant marijuana production. The court infers that if the defendants were active participants in the conspiracy, they would have been warned of law enforcement's approach, but their peaceful sleep suggests otherwise. They appeared to be expendable, lacking knowledge of the operation. 

The circumstantial evidence, combined with the defendants' backgrounds as vulnerable individuals, led the court to conclude that the government failed to disprove the initial elements of duress. 

Regarding the third element of duress, the government contended that the defendants had a reasonable opportunity to escape due to the proximity of a community and walkable terrain. However, the context of their situation undermines this assertion.

Defendants had opportunities to escape from an unfenced camp, as evidenced by testimony that individuals could quickly disappear from sight in the nearby forest. One defendant, described as 'restless,' successfully fled arrest, suggesting that others could do the same. Viayra had connections in Milwaukee, which could imply potential help if they escaped. However, their behavior did not align with that of hostages; they did not question the camp's conditions and slept soundly. The Ninth Circuit's ruling in United States v. Contento-Pachon established that the opportunity to escape must be reasonable. In that case, the defendant's circumstances were deemed to present a triable issue regarding escapability, as fleeing would have required significant personal sacrifice and risk.

The current inquiry focuses on whether a reasonable avenue of escape was available to the defendants. Evidence indicates they were left alone at times and could have left the camp, potentially reaching nearby towns. Yet, it appears they lacked knowledge of their surroundings, having been transported at night without windows. Both defendants claimed ignorance of their location, and there was no evidence they had previously been in that area of California. Their status as young, illegal, and likely illiterate Mexican nationals further suggests they would not have ventured into the Mendocino National Forest willingly. Thus, while they might have left the camp undetected, it is questionable whether they could have navigated the dangers of the wilderness or found help, making it unreasonable to expect them to escape into an unfamiliar and perilous environment.

A prison escape due to duress is not excusable if the escapee does not report to authorities after reaching safety, as established in United States v. Michelson. The Government's assumption that the defendants could have safely left a heavily guarded camp is deemed unrealistic. The camp was designed to avoid detection, and armed conspirators would likely use force to protect their valuable marijuana harvest, posing a serious risk of harm to anyone attempting to escape. The court concludes that the circumstances do not provide a reasonable opportunity for escape beyond a reasonable doubt. Although evidence might abstractly support the verdict, it heavily favors the defendants, indicating a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court sets aside the verdict, grants a new trial, converts the defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal into motions for a new trial under Rule 33, and grants those motions.

References to 'Rule' or 'Rules' pertain to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Viayra faces Counts One, Two, Three, and Four, while Guerra faces Counts One, Two, Three, and Five. Guerra's counsel expressed support for Viayra's briefs without filing a separate one. The number of guns found at the cultivation site is unclear, but at least two guns and an air rifle were recovered, with no fingerprints linking the defendants to any weapons. Viayra's age is not documented, but he appears to be the same age as Guerra. The Ninth Circuit, in United States v. Rojas, stated that defendants must file a timely Rule 33 motion after a guilty verdict to preserve the option for a new trial if a Rule 29(c) acquittal motion is reversed on appeal. Broadly interpreted, this could imply that a Rule 33 motion must be filed before a court can grant one; however, the intent was to clarify filing requirements rather than limit a district court's authority to sua sponte change a Rule 29 motion to a Rule 33 motion, as noted in United States v. Jimenez Recio. Although Viayra’s and Guerra’s situations differ factually regarding their arrival at the cultivation site, their legal analysis is treated similarly. Post-arrest video shows the defendants in a disheveled condition, contradicting the Government's portrayal of their treatment. The Government implied that the defendants' claims of duress were fabricated; however, their post-arrest statements, made after being advised of their rights, asserted they were coerced into working under threat. These statements corroborate their trial testimony but are not considered evidence in the court's decision. The camp included multiple functional areas such as sleeping quarters, a kitchen, and several cultivation gardens. At arrest, Guerra possessed one U.S. dollar and 20 pesos, while Viayra had no money. Testimony revealed that the farthest north they had traveled in California was Fresno for Viayra and Merced for Guerra, but no evidence indicated the distance from these locations to Mendocino National Forest.