United States v. Paul Sureff and Michael Cardone, Maritza Metral

Citations: 15 F.3d 225; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 584Docket: 286

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; January 12, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Maritza Metral appeals her jury conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846. She argues two main points: the insufficiency of the government's evidence, which she claims was purely circumstantial and lacked direct evidence of drug dealing; and the assertion that the evidence presented indicated multiple conspiracies rather than the single conspiracy charged in the indictment. 

The court upheld the conviction. The circumstantial evidence included taped telephone conversations with coded language, surveillance revealing suspicious activities, and a false exculpatory statement from a coconspirator. Notably, the government did not seize narcotics or provide direct references to cocaine during these conversations. 

The investigation, lasting seven months, involved wiretaps on Metral's residence and her real estate business, Raysun Enterprises. Conversations among Metral, Paul Sureff, and Michael Cardone referenced various unrelated topics, but were tied to disputes over pricing for an undisclosed commodity. Expert testimony from FBI Special Agent Kent Paulin and Robert Gates, a member of a Drug Enforcement Agency Task Force, suggested that these conversations pertained to cocaine distribution, with specific references to amounts and pricing indicative of drug transactions. Paulin's analysis of the coded language signified efforts to sell two to three kilograms of cocaine, and Gates provided insights into the terminology and packaging methods used by traffickers.

The government presented surveillance testimony indicating inconsistencies between the topics of coded conversations between Metral and Cardone and Metral's actual activities. During calls on February 25 and 26, 1990, Metral discussed a loan with Cardone but was only observed visiting three locations, none being financial institutions, and did not contact any banks. One location was a house in Queens, suspected of being linked to drug sales, as surveillance revealed suspicious deliveries of brick-like objects and evasive driving behavior from visitors. Cardone, when stopped by police, claimed to be coming from the airport, further indicating potential drug trafficking. 

Metral faces a significant challenge in contesting her conviction due to the standard that evidence must be viewed favorably to the government. The prosecution's burden does not require exclusion of all reasonable hypotheses of innocence, and circumstantial evidence alone can support a conviction. Although Metral argues the absence of direct evidence, like cocaine seizures or co-conspirator testimony, the law permits convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence if a jury can reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in the criminal conduct. The court is confident that the evidence satisfies this standard.

Metral's phone conversations with Sureff and Cardone were intentionally obscure and often unclear, suggesting she wanted to avoid detection and feared surveillance. This behavior could be interpreted as strong evidence of involvement in contraband trafficking. The discussions explicitly referenced the price of a 1989 Honda Prelude, indicating a connection to the sale of illicit commodities. Furthermore, the commodity in question was likely cocaine, supported by Gates' testimony regarding its market value on Long Island at the time, which significantly exceeded the value of the Honda. Paulin’s credible account of the conversations and indications of potential violence in the deals further reinforced this inference. 

Surveillance of the Raysun office, the Queens residence, and Metral's activities provided additional corroboration of the government's case, particularly with evidence of Cardone's efforts to hide his presence at the Raysun office, reflecting a guilty conscience. Metral's visit to the Queens residence coincided with discussions about a "bank" and aligned with evidence of cocaine trafficking at that location. 

Metral's argument for insufficiency of evidence, based on a belief that circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence, is dismissed. The provided circumstantial evidence, including the implications of Metral’s behavior, is deemed reliable and compelling. The case is considered stronger than scenarios relying solely on witness testimony that could be biased. Ultimately, there is no credible innocent explanation for Metral’s actions, with the evidence strongly suggesting her involvement in cocaine trafficking, allowing for a reasonable conviction by a rational fact-finder.

Metral argues that two distinct conspiracies exist—one involving her and Cardone, and another involving her and Sureff—contradicting the single conspiracy claimed in the indictment. She does not dispute the jury instructions on this issue but asserts that there is no evidence linking Sureff and Cardone to support a unified conspiracy. The determination of whether there is a single or multiple conspiracies is a factual question for the jury. To establish a single conspiracy, the government must demonstrate that all participants agreed to a collective enterprise towards a common goal. Metral must prove that no rational jury could have found a single conspiracy based on the evidence.

The claim is deemed meritless, as a single conspiracy can include members unaware of each other's identities or specific details of the conspiracy. Lack of direct evidence linking Cardone and Sureff does not preclude a finding of a single conspiracy if they understood their roles were part of a larger narcotics operation. Evidence suggests that both knew Metral was an intermediary for a broader organization, as indicated by her references to "the bank" and "the catering" in conversations with them.

The court affirms the ruling, noting that Metral, Cardone, and Sureff were indicted for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and related charges, with Cardone pleading guilty to one count and Sureff convicted of conspiracy and several counts of using a telephone in furtherance of the conspiracy. The court also upholds the admissibility of testimony regarding the interpretation of coded language used in narcotics transactions, clarifying that the testimony did not infringe upon the jury's role in determining guilt.