Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-2232
Appellee,
v.
CARLOS R. CAMACHO-SANTIAGO,
Defendant, Appellant.
Before
Of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by
designation.
KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Carlos
I. Background
Pereira. See United States v. Pereira, 848 F.3d 17, 1920 (1st
- 2 -
ten-year period beginning in 1999. The indictment charged Camacho
with two counts of joining and aiding and abetting this conspiracy.
the cocaine that made its way onto American Airlines flights. The
supplier was Carlos Arce Lopez ("Arce"), who first connected with
brought him a new supplier, and that Camacho accepted that offer
testified that Camacho worked for Arce and that on one occasion
- 3 -
other witness who offered first-hand testimony as to Camacho's
supplier, and that Camacho was the person who delivered Arce's
cocaine.
II. Discussion
than the one conspiracy alleged in the indictment was not grounds
- 4 -
that the court read testimony back to the jury during deliberations
without taking adequate steps to ensure the jury did not place
not one, and he was not a part of the only one alleged in the
1
In the table of contents to his opening brief, Camacho also
lists as one issue for review whether "the district court committed
reversible error by applying a higher than legally mandated
guideline range for Mr. Camacho and when it sentenced Camacho to
360 months based on such erroneous guideline." His briefs, though,
never address this issue or argue that such error occurred. The
issue is therefore waived. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d
1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) ("[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory
manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation,
are deemed waived.").
- 5 -
to smuggle cocaine into the continental United States. This "two-
trial, a reasonable jury could find more than one such illicit
- 6 -
variations in personnel and their roles over time.'" Id. (quoting
United States v. Shea, 211 F.3d 658, 665 (1st Cir. 2000)). "'The
v. Portela, 167 F.3d 687, 695 (1st Cir. 1999) (footnotes and
States v. Daz, 670 F.3d 332, 350 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing United
States v. De La Cruz, 514 F.3d 121, 139 (1st Cir. 2008)). "In the
- 7 -
distribute; Rodrguez recruited Camacho into the conspiracy to
out the route and delivered drugs and money himself. In short, if
steps does not mean that each step could reasonably be seen as a
aware of all the steps. See, e.g., United States v. Hansen, 434
F.3d 92, 101 (1st Cir. 2006) (observing that it was not plainly
that those drugs successfully made their way through his packaging-
- 8 -
and-distribution operation, Camacho's "aspect of the scheme [was]
ball to the quarterback but was otherwise not a part of the team.
that Rodrguez and Camacho met each other when they "started"
verdict.
conspiracy that predated the one alleged and that involved Sierra,
- 9 -
trafficker used Rodrguez's same smuggling method and facilities
does not argue, nor does the record show, that the government's
indictment.
Niemi, 579 F.3d 123, 12627 (1st Cir. 2009); United States v.
Balthazard, 360 F.3d 309, 31516 (1st Cir. 2004). And while more
24, 34 & n.20 (1st Cir. 2007), this was not such a case.
- 10 -
The foregoing discussion also removes the heart from
B. Hearsay
were not admissible against him. This argument fails in the wake
- 11 -
think it fairly plain that the court was including the leader of
the conspiracy even though the court did not mention him by name.
inclusion was obvious), Camacho did not object or in any way point
out the exclusion when it was clear that the court would have
C. Jury Contamination
- 12 -
Questioning revealed that Camacho's stepson had approached Juror
also indicated that she had not spoken to any other jurors about
"not contact any of the jurors about this case or what happened or
that he recognized Juror Number 60. The officer informed the court
- 13 -
Delgado's testimony. Juror Number 60 told the court that he had
not made any other comments to any other members of the jury.
Juror Number 8 stated that she did not know whether or not Juror
He didn't say for sure, as far as I know." She said that she
"didn't talk to anybody about it" and that it would "[n]ot at all"
for complete voir dire of the entire jury and denied the
contact with the other jurors. It did not excuse Juror Number 8,
- 14 -
first incident (involving Juror Number 23), we find that Camacho
that she could remain impartial and did not feel threatened.
now argue on appeal that it was plain error for the court not to
omitted)).
v. Zimny, 846 F.3d 458, 464 (1st Cir. 2017); United States v.
- 15 -
Bristol-Mrtir, 570 F.3d 29, 42 (1st Cir. 2009). "[T]he trial
United States v. Bradshaw, 281 F.3d 278, 290 (1st Cir. 2002). We
will defer to a trial court's finding that the jury was not
its effects, and thereafter spells out his findings with adequate
that he had seen the witness before and knew the witness worked
alternate did not abuse his discretion in excusing Juror Number 60,
that decision did not turn Juror Number 60 into a Typhoid Mary of
- 16 -
contamination. In any event, the district court took adequate
impartially and that those comments were not shared with any other
have no reason not to believe that both jurors followed the court's
58788 (1st Cir. 2013); see also Correia v. Fitzgerald, 354 F.3d
this screen [of voir dire], the trial court may operate on the
on its merits."). The district court did not abuse its discretion.
D. Testimony Read-Back
again. The parties agreed that the court would read back Torres's
The jury returned to the courtroom and the courtroom deputy read
- 17 -
Camacho from New Jersey to Puerto Rico. When the court finished
objection polled the jury, and every one of the jurors confirmed
that they did not want to hear cross-examination again. The court
direct testimony just because they did not rehear the cross.
that the court's choice to permit the jury to return to the jury
while Camacho flew back from New Jersey. As Camacho sees it,
- 18 -
Torres as a witness and reasserted his faulty testimony. Camacho
The district court did not plainly err. For one thing,
back procedures." Id. The district court thus could not have
obvious, and "an error will not be clear or obvious where the
486 F.3d 52, 57 (1st Cir. 2007). We need keep in mind, too, a
know when this happens. The fact that in this instance we happen
- 19 -
III. Conclusion
below, we affirm.
- 20 -