United States v. Jaime Ramos, Jose Angel Castorena, Andres Ramos, Armando Espinosa, and Jose Alvaro Cervantes

Citation: 71 F.3d 1150Docket: 94-10122

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; January 26, 1996; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences of five defendants for drug and money-laundering offenses, with the exception of Jaime Ramos' sentence, which was vacated and remanded for resentencing. This followed a major Drug Enforcement Administration investigation that led to a superseding indictment of 16 individuals on 56 counts related to drug and money-laundering crimes. The five defendants—Jose Castorena, Jose Cervantes, Armando Espinosa, and brothers Andres and Jaime Ramos—were tried separately and found guilty of various charges, including conspiracy and distribution of cocaine. Sentences included life imprisonment for Castorena and various terms for the others. 

During the trial, concerns arose regarding potential juror intimidation by an individual identified as Ruben Hernandez, who was observed following the jurors. Juror Eckardt expressed that this behavior could influence their verdict. The judge addressed the issue by questioning Eckardt privately and then reassuring the full jury, instructing them to remain unaffected by outside influences. The trial was recessed for the weekend to allow for a cooling-off period.

Defense counsel raised concerns about juror Eckardt's potential bias after a troubling incident during the trial. The court questioned Eckardt in chambers, where she indicated she could remain impartial. Despite this, the defense moved for her removal and for the questioning of the entire jury, but both requests were denied by the court, which believed further inquiry would highlight the incident unnecessarily. 

Hernandez, a witness, was absent for the remainder of the trial due to a violation of the witness sequestration order. The jury noted spectator misconduct, prompting the judge to issue a warning that mitigated further issues. 

The defendants argued that the court's refusal to remove Eckardt and to fully question the jury denied them due process, claiming that prejudice should be presumed and the limited hearing insufficient. The standard for evaluating such claims is based on the Supreme Court's ruling in *Smith v. Phillips*, which requires a hearing to assess juror bias but does not mandate a comprehensive evidentiary hearing for every instance of external influence. 

The appellate court acknowledged the trial judge's discretion in handling these situations and emphasized the importance of balancing the potential harm of misconduct with the implications of conducting a hearing. It affirmed the trial judge's broad discretion to evaluate the impact of external influences on the jury, applying the established standard in this case.

The trial judge conducted an extensive examination of juror Eckardt regarding the 'stalker's' contact with jurors and the concerns raised among them, allowing defense counsel to participate by suggesting questions and safety measures. The judge explicitly ruled out any connection between the defendants and the 'stalker's' behavior. The 'stalker' did not directly communicate with jurors, and the judge decided against questioning other jurors to avoid emphasizing a minor incident. To ensure juror safety, the judge identified and removed the 'stalker' from the courtroom and instructed spectators to avoid intimidating conduct, while reassuring the jury about their safety and the importance of continuing with the trial. This incident occurred after the first week of a five-week trial focused on evidence authentication. The court's decision not to prolong the hearing or question other jurors was deemed within the judge's broad discretion.

Regarding potential prejudice, the court found no error in ruling there was no prejudice from the incident, countering the defendants' argument that prejudice should be presumed. The government referenced the Supreme Court's guidance in United States v. Olano, asserting that the critical question is whether the jury's deliberations and verdict were affected, which the court concluded they were not. 

Defendants also challenged the government's use of exhibits during closing arguments, claiming they included information not in evidence. Although the defense's objection was overruled, the jury was instructed that the charts were not independent evidence and should be considered only as aids to understanding the actual testimony and documents. The court found the prosecutor's use of the summaries appropriate and determined that the instructions adequately mitigated any potential issues, deeming the defendants' claims meritless.

Castorena contests the adequacy of evidence supporting four money-laundering counts, specifically regarding the source of funds and his intent to conceal them. The government needed to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Castorena engaged in financial transactions with proceeds from illegal activities with the intent to disguise their nature and source. The evidence indicated that most of Castorena's income was derived from drug trafficking, allowing the jury to reasonably infer that the substantial sums in question were from illegal activities. The jury could also infer that Castorena had the intent to conceal the proceeds based on his handling of the funds.

Additionally, Castorena argues that the trial judge improperly denied his request for a continuance to secure new counsel, Gerald Goldstein. After being arrested on October 8, 1992, Castorena changed counsel multiple times, ultimately seeking to have Goldstein represent him shortly before trial. The trial judge denied the motion to continue, citing that Castorena had a qualified right to counsel of his choice but could not manipulate the judicial process. The judge's analysis included several factors: the short duration of the requested delay, Castorena’s prior attorney changes, the inconvenience to the government and the court, and potential dilatory motives due to prior contact with Goldstein. Goldstein's associate represented Castorena effectively during the first two weeks of the trial, with Goldstein joining later. The court found no abuse of discretion regarding counsel decisions.

Espinosa challenges the evidence supporting his conviction for interstate travel in aid of racketeering, arguing that the government needed to prove he traveled with the intent to engage in illegal activities as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(1, 3). The court confirmed that the drug-trafficking actions in question fell within the scope of this statute.

The Espinosa indictment stemmed from a traffic stop involving Cervantes, the driver, and Espinosa, a passenger, during which nearly two kilograms of cocaine were discovered after a drug dog scan. Evidence indicated Espinosa's involvement in the drug operation, including prior dealings with co-defendants, participation in trip preparations, and a covertly recorded conversation suggesting he was willing to assist Cervantes in misleading law enforcement. Testimony from witness Kevin Milton, which the jury found credible, established that Espinosa had previously assisted in drug distribution trips to Kansas, supporting the conclusion that he was aware of the cocaine and acted in furtherance of a criminal enterprise. Espinosa's arguments against his conviction and sentencing, including claims of improper drug quantity calculation and minimal participant status, were rejected as unpersuasive and unsupported by the evidence.

Andres Ramos contested the trial court's decision not to instruct the jury to disregard a statement by witness Enrique Soto, who mentioned prior issues between his accomplice and Ramos. The trial court instructed the jury that Ramos was not on trial for unrelated actions, and the prosecutor disavowed any implication of Ramos's responsibility for the attack. Despite Ramos's claims of prejudice from Soto's comment, the court found any potential error harmless due to the context of the trial and overwhelming evidence against him.

The Ramos brothers contested a two-point increase in their offense levels due to firearm possession. A government informant observed them expressing interest in firearms, and firearms were later seized from Castorena's residence, along with drugs at a location associated with the Ramos brothers. They challenged the connection between the firearms and their offenses, seeking to dispute the justification for the sentencing increase.

The Ramos brothers faced an increase in their sentences due to their involvement in a drug-trafficking conspiracy. The court established that the government can demonstrate personal possession of a weapon by showing a relevant connection between the weapon, the illegal activity, and the defendant. It is also recognized that one coconspirator can be assessed an increase based on another's firearm possession if such use was foreseeable. Evidence linked the weapons to the drug activity and supported the brothers' convictions.

For Andres Ramos, sufficient evidence was found to justify the sentence enhancement. Two pistols and cocaine were discovered in a location he used for storing drugs, and he participated in negotiations related to purchasing firearms, indicating both constructive possession and foreseeability of firearm use in the conspiracy. Therefore, the district court's application of the enhancement to his sentence was upheld.

In contrast, Jaime Ramos did not demonstrate a sufficient connection to the firearms. The government could not prove he visited the location where the firearms were seized or that he had any knowledge of their existence, as his only involvement was attending a meeting where no firearms were purchased or observed being used. Consequently, the court determined that the evidence did not support a reasonable foreseeability of firearm use for Jaime Ramos, leading to the conclusion that the two-point increase in his offense level was unjustified.

All convictions and sentences are affirmed except for Jaime Ramos, whose sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing. The document references various legal precedents and factors relevant to decision-making, including the length of delays, preparedness of counsel, previous continuances, and the legitimacy of requested delays. It emphasizes that possession hinges on accessibility rather than ownership, citing several cases that illustrate this principle. Additionally, it notes that the district court's potential error in applying a two-point increase in sentencing guidelines would not have affected the outcome, as the guideline range remained unchanged at 360 months to life. The trial judge's imposition of the minimum sentence indicates that any error would be deemed harmless.