United States v. Armando Benitez

Citation: 741 F.2d 1312Docket: 83-5551

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; December 5, 1984; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Armando Benitez was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for conspiring to murder DEA agents, assaulting them with deadly weapons, and robbing them of their official credentials. The charges were brought under various sections of the U.S. Code, specifically 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1114, 1117, and 2112. Following his conviction on all five counts, Benitez appealed the decision. 

The events leading to the conviction occurred in Colombia in early February 1982, where DEA agents Kelly McCullough and Charles Martinez were conducting an operation called Tiburon to identify drug-carrying ships. Both agents were in Colombia with official government passports, sanctioned by the Colombian government. While at the Don Blas Hotel in Cartagena, they sought information regarding a fugitive named Rene Benitez. Martinez attempted to gather information from the hotel manager but received no cooperation. On the evening of February 9, 1982, after a series of unsuccessful inquiries, Martinez encountered a maid who appeared suspicious, prompting him to alert McCullough. 

The appeal was heard by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the conviction on September 17, 1984, with a subsequent denial of rehearing on December 5, 1984.

At 12:30 a.m., Martinez and McCullough were awakened by loud banging on the door of room 1804. McCullough entered from an adjoining room and encountered individuals claiming to be police. Martinez observed four armed men outside room 1804, prompting him to lock the door of room 1803. When he requested identification, Jose Ivan Duarte presented a Colombian National Police ID, while Rene Benitez threatened to shoot down the door. After hotel security confirmed their police status, Martinez opened the door. Duarte and his associates entered, armed, and led Martinez to room 1804, demanding he get dressed for questioning at the police station.

While Martinez was interrogated, McCullough was held in room 1803, where Rene Benitez searched him at gunpoint, confiscating his DEA credentials and passports. The Colombians identified both men as DEA agents, and Rene threatened Martinez by stating that he could not contact the Embassy. The four individuals forcibly removed Martinez and McCullough from the hotel, directing them to a car. 

During the drive, Rene pointed his gun at Martinez and expressed hostility towards American involvement in drug activities, ultimately shooting Martinez in the hip. Despite Martinez's request for medical assistance, the car passed a hospital without stopping, with assurances from Duarte and Rene that they were taking him to a hospital.

Duarte stopped the car three miles past Turbaco, alerting agents that others were following. Rene Benitez, Duarte, and Valencia exited the vehicle, with Rene brandishing a gun and ordering Martinez out. Martinez expressed his fear of being killed and struggled to exit the car, ultimately being shot in the shoulder by Rene. Despite another attempted shot that misfired, Martinez managed to confront Rene but was struck down. McCullough escaped the back seat during this chaos, attempted to seize Duarte's gun, and ran away, sustaining gunshot wounds to his knee and hip before being shot in the neck by Duarte. Both men evaded capture, with Martinez hiding in the woods overnight and later reaching a hospital, while McCullough sought help from a priest and a policeman. They returned to the crime scene but encountered Rene, who was not disarmed by the policeman. Subsequently, both Martinez and McCullough were airlifted to a U.S. Military Hospital.

The document outlines several legal issues raised by Benitez. His claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper exclusion of expert testimony were deemed not meritorious. The district court properly admitted statements made by coconspirator Rene Benitez under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) and upheld the identification testimony from agents based on reliable procedures. Benitez's arguments regarding the fairness of his trial were also rejected, affirming that he received a fair jury trial.

Jurisdiction over Benitez was affirmed despite his non-citizen status and the crimes occurring in Colombia. The offenses included assault and attempted murder of United States DEA agents and theft of government property, establishing a sufficient basis for jurisdiction due to the victims' nationality and the impact on U.S. national interests. The court referenced Rivard v. United States, which outlines that jurisdiction can be justified under the protective and passive personality principles of international law. The protective principle applies as the crimes posed a threat to U.S. security, while the passive personality principle is relevant due to the victims being U.S. agents. 

Benitez argued against jurisdiction by citing a presumption against extraterritorial application of statutes. However, the court found clear congressional intent for the statutes to apply extraterritorially, particularly for crimes against government personnel. The court concluded that the district court had the authority to enforce U.S. law in this case.

Benitez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, asserting that he was merely a bystander during the events in Colombia. The legal standard requires that evidence be viewed favorably to the government, with credibility determinations made in favor of the fact-finder. The court must assess whether a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without needing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

The evidence indicated that Benitez actively participated in the illegal activities, including entering agents' hotel rooms at gunpoint, searching for and seizing official documents, and identifying the agents for his conspirators. His argument that he lacked knowledge of his co-defendants' intent to assault the agents is countered by evidence showing he was aware of their intentions, as he was present during threatening statements made by his accomplices. 

Benitez's defense that the conspiracy's objective changed after he left the scene is unsupported; the evidence shows that the conspiracy's goal remained the same throughout the events leading to the agents' attempted murder. His testimony, which claimed he was not present during the critical events, was discredited by the jury, which found that he was integral to the chain of actions leading to the assaults. Overall, the court determined that the government presented sufficient evidence to uphold the convictions for assault and robbery.

Evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to determine that Benitez was part of a conspiracy and was aware of its objectives, contradicting his claim of being a mere bystander. Benitez sought jury instructions on the conspiracy's scope and the 'mere association' rule, along with a specific instruction asserting that conviction for conspiring to murder agents McCullough and Martinez required proof that he knew they were on official business in Colombia. The trial court correctly instructed the jury on the first two points, despite not using Benitez's exact language. However, the court rightfully denied his third request, as it misrepresented the law; Benitez could be found guilty of conspiracy even without knowledge of the agents' identities. The district court's judgment was affirmed. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Bowman clarified that the jurisdiction for criminal offenses is not strictly limited by locality, especially for crimes committed by citizens against the government, allowing for extraterritorial application based on the nature of the offense.