United States v. Morales

1

UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. SHELDON MORALES and EDUARDO SANTANA, Defendants.

No. 19-CR-850

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

October 26, 2023

MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION

MARY M. ROWLAND, United States District Judge

On August 5, 2022, a jury convicted defendants Sheldon Morales and Eduardo Santana of conspiracy to distribute controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. After trial both defendants' counsel filed timely motions for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 [209] [210] [213]. Morales also filed a pro se motion arguing for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 and/or a new trial [207]. The Government opposed both defendants' motions. [216]. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES both defendants' motions for a new trial. The Court also DENIES Morales's pro se motions for acquittal and/or a new trial and allows him to withdraw his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

I. Background

On December 11, 2019, a grand jury returned a multi-count indictment charging both Morales and Santana with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 or more grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841 (a)(1) and §846 (Count One). [14]. Morales was also charged with attempted possession with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count Two) and engaging in a monetary transaction of criminally derived property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Count Three). Id. The Government proceeded to a jury trial on Counts One and Two. [155] [162].

At trial, the Government's primary evidence was intercepts of Morales's cell phone calls for two 30-day periods from February 12, 2019 to March 13, 2019, and March 29, 2019 to April 27, 2019. [191 (Tr. 8/2/22)] at 176-79. Officer Mikail Geyer, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent assigned to the case, testified to the phone calls. Id. at 173-76. The earliest call indicating Morales and Santana's agreement was on February 15, 2019 between Morales and an individual in Belize. Id. at 185-90. There, Morales discussed splitting profits with “Guajo,” Santana's nickname. Id.^[1]In a series of subsequent calls to unknown individuals who were incarcerated and acted as brokers, Morales arranged for mailed samples of heroin, cocaine, and meth. Id. at 193-95. Morales then directed his sister Elisheba to retrieve the package of samples for him and place it in an orange vehicle at a car wash; that same day, a DEA agent observed Morales and his sister at the car wash standing over an orange vehicle. Id. at 201-02. Morales was seen later that day opening a box from Elisheba's vehicle and putting its contents in his pockets. Id. at 206-09. After retrieving and testing the samples, Morales was recorded talking with the brokers to order more drugs on consignment. Id. at 212-15. On March 1, 2019, the DEA intercepted a package containing meth and fentanyl. Id. at 217-22, 226-27. The package was sent to an associate of Morales with a return address of “Johnny's Commercial Kitchen.” Id. at 226. During the first time period the DEA was recording Morales' telephone calls, Santana acted as translator for Morales on one phone call on March 9, 2019. Id. at 231-36.

The second wire period began March 29, 2019. [192 (Tr. 8/3/22)] at 314. Santana then began translating regularly for Morales when he spoke to his supplier, Omar. See, e.g., id. at 246. In a call on March 30, 2019, Morales sought an assurance that drugs would arrive that week, as “a lot of people lined up” to purchase from him. Id. at 243. Morales then told Santana that he purchased a brick compressor to process his stores of cocaine, id. at 406, to which Santana said that he hoped Morales would get more drugs soon to replenish Santana's own supply for customers. Id. at 412 (“Man, I hope you eventually get that shit cause, man . . .I just be like, ‘Man I'm popped.”). Morales then assured Santana that “we straight, though . . . we finna go to the moon, bro.” Id. at 409. In a call dated April 2, 2019, Morales warned Santana to be “respectful to Omar,” as “he said that they gonna make us the office of Chicago . . . we're the head of Chicago, bro, from their cartel.” On April 10, 2019, Santana checked on a delivered package for Morales that wound up being empty. Id. at 24955. The DEA later seized this empty package. Id. at 256-57.

Phone calls between Morales, Santana, and Omar continued for the rest of April 2019. On one call, the three talked about a shipment from Omar that contained “6.6 keys” of meth, meaning 6.6 kilograms. Id. at 282-83. Between themselves, Morales and Santana discussed tricking Omar with a fake police seizure to keep the drugs but avoid payment, id. at 274, tracking numbers for additional shipments of narcotics, id. at 246, and the risk of surveillance by federal agents. Id. at 280-85. On the latter topic, Santana warned Morales that “we need a goon bitch in the squad that she gonna do whatever the fuck is necessary.” Id. Officer Geyer testified that he interpreted Santana's use of “squad” to refer to “their narcotics trafficking organization.” Id. at 283.

After the second wire period ended, DEA agents seized two more packages containing cocaine and fentanyl. The first package was seized from an Evanston address on May 10, 2019 with the same “Johnny's Commercial Kitchen” return address, and contained at least two kilograms, of which a sample tested positive for cocaine. Id. at 286-90. The second package was seized on September 16, 2019 from Morales's home. That package contained two samples of 30.48 grams and 844.1 grams, both with traces of fentanyl. Id. at 291-95.

After five days of trial, the jury returned a verdict, finding Morales guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine, at least 400 grams of fentanyl, and cocaine (Count One), and attempted possession with intent to distribute the same quantities (Count Two). [178]. As to Santana, the jury found him guilty of the conspiracy charged in Count One, but only involving at least 500 grams of methamphetamine, not for quantities of fentanyl or cocaine. [179].

II. Standard

Criminal defendants seeking a judgment of acquittal on the basis of insufficient evidence face an “uphill battle.” United States v. Perryman, 20 F.4th 1127, 1133 (7th Cir. 2021) (further describing Rule 29 as “a heavy burden,” “momentous task,” and “a nearly insurmountable hurdle.”). Courts reviewing Rule 29 motions “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Garcia, 919 F.3d 489, 496 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Seidling, 737 F.3d 1155, 1159-60 (7th Cir. 2013)). In conducting this review, courts do not reweigh evidence or second-guess witnesses' credibility. United States v. Campbell, 985 F.2d 280, 283 (7^th Cir. 2020). If there is a “reasonable basis in the record for the verdict, it must stand.” United States v. Moshiri, 858 F.3d 1077, 1082 (7th Cir. 2017).

Rule 33 allows district courts to vacate judgment and grant a new trial in the “interest of justice.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. Still, “jury verdicts are not to be overturned lightly, and therefore a Rule 33 motion is not to be granted lightly.” United States. v. Santos, 20 F.3d 280, 285 (7th Cir. 1994). The Seventh Circuit has made clear that there must be a “reasonable possibility that the trial error had a prejudicial effect on the jury's verdict” to warrant a new trial. United States v. Flournoy, 842 F.3d 524, 530 (7th Cir. 2016). Granting relief under Rule 33 is hence “reserved for only the most extreme cases.” United States v. Coscia, 4 F.4th 454, 465 (7th Cir. 2021).

III. Analysis

A. Morales's Motion for New Trial

Morales contends, both through counsel and his own pro se motion, that the Court erred in refusing to give a buyer-seller jury instruction. The Court previously addressed this argument during the parties' jury instruction conference. [193 (8/4/2022 Tr.)] at 89-96. There, Morales asked the Court to give the Seventh Circuit pattern instruction 5.10(A), which distinguishes a defendant's participation in a drug distribution conspiracy from a mere sales transaction. Id. The Court declined to give the instruction at that time, finding that the evidence in the case, particularly Morales's conversations with the incarcerated individuals who acted as brokers, did not support a buyer-seller theory under U.S. v. Cruse, 805 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2015). Id. at 94. Morales now renews his objection, arguing that the Court's denial amounts to an error requiring a new trial. [213]. In opposition, the Government contends that the jury had no evidence to reasonably find that Morales was only a buyer-seller. [216].

“Defendants are not automatically entitled to any particular theory-of-defense jury instruction.” United States v. Walker, 746 F.3d 300, 307 (7th Cir. 2014). Instead the “defendant must demonstrate: 1) the instruction is a correct statement of law, 2) the evidence in the case supports the theory of defense, 3) that theory is not already part of the charge, and 4) a failure to provide the instruction would deny a fair trial.” United States v. Maldonado, 893 F.3d 480, 487 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Choiniere, F.3d 967, 970 (7th Cir. 2008)). A buyer seller-instruction in particular should “be used only in cases in which a jury reasonably could find that there was only a buyer-seller relationship rather than a conspiracy.” 7th Cir. Pattern Crim. Jury Instructions 5.10(A) cmt. (2012); see also United States v. Askew, 403 F.3d 496, 503 (7th Cir. 2005) (stating...