United States v. Villa-Guillen

102 F.4th 508

UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Ricardo A. VILLA-GUILLEN, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 21-1545

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

May 17, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge]

Rachel Brill for appellant.

David C. Bornstein, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, and Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, were on brief, for appellee.

Before Rikelman, Hamilton,^* and Thompson, Circuit Judges.

RIKELMAN, Circuit Judge.

After a short trial consisting of almost no physical evidence, a jury convicted Ricardo Villa-Guillen ("Villa") of conspiring to traffic cocaine from Puerto Rico to the continental United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. On appeal, Villa alleges an array of errors in the district court proceedings. We agree with Villa that two of the district court's evidentiary rulings led to prejudicial error. Those rulings involved types of evidence that are likely to lead a jury astray -- the admission of a letter discussing Villa's potential interest in a plea deal, which the government claimed was tantamount to a confession, and the admission of testimony suggesting that Villa was more likely to have committed this crime because he had supposedly participated in a different drug transaction (for which he was never charged). We therefore reverse and order a new trial.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Relevant Facts

"Because we review the challenged evidentiary rulings using a balanced approach, 'objectively viewing the evidence of record,' we present the background facts in a similarly balanced manner." United States v. Irizarry-Sisco, 87 F.4th 38, 41-42 (1st Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Velazquez-Fontanez, 6 F.4th 205, 212 (1st Cir. 2021)); accord Lech v. von Goeler, 92 F.4th 56, 61 (1st Cir. 2024) (citation omitted). In recounting the facts, we draw from the testimony of the government's witnesses. See Irizarry-Sisco, 87 F.4th at 42.

Villa began working as a cocaine courier or "mule" around 2005, after learning that his childhood friend, José Herrera-Olavarría ("Herrera"), was part of a trafficking organization run by Humberto Concepción-Andrades ("Concepción"). Concepción transported narcotics from Puerto Rico to New York, relying on corrupt Transportation Security Agency and airline employees who helped his couriers circumvent security screenings to check suitcases containing cocaine onto commercial flights to New York City.¹ The couriers then boarded the same flights, retrieved the suitcases at baggage claim upon arrival, and transported the suitcases to designated hotels in the New York area. Once at the hotels, couriers received instructions to transfer the cocaine to distributors; couriers also would collect money from prior sales, and one trial witness suggested that sometimes couriers would travel to New York only to collect money, not to deliver drugs. According to Herrera, between 2005 and 2007, Villa acted as a courier in Concepción's operation seven or eight times, five or six of which were in Herrera's presence.

Around 2009, the start date of the conspiracy charged in this case, Herrera took on a greater role in Concepción's operation and began organizing cocaine shipments on Delta flights. Herrera claimed that Villa was a courier on three of his shipments between 2009 and 2013. After arriving in New York, Villa would travel to the destination hotel by taxi, usually driven by Harold Domínguez.²

By the time Villa completed those trips, he had served as a courier about ten times, and the organization's leadership required Villa to change roles out of concern he might otherwise be recognized. Accordingly, Villa became a "watcher," recommending new couriers to the organization and keeping an eye on them during their trips to New York. Herrera recounted that Villa served as a watcher on two trips. In addition, Herrera claimed, Villa invested his own money in five shipments, purchasing one or two kilograms of cocaine in Puerto Rico and paying haulage fees of $2,000 per kilogram for Herrera's couriers to transport the cocaine to New York; Villa would then keep the profit on those sales.

B. Legal Proceedings

In June 2017, a federal grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a superseding indictment charging Villa, Concepción, Herrera, and five others with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.³ The alleged conspiracy took place from "2009 through December 2013," and "included, but was not limited to," traveling or arranging travel "on commercial flights that departed from the Luis Munoz-Marin International Airport in Carolina, Puerto Rico to the continental United States with kilograms of cocaine concealed inside suitcases." The indictment also alleged that the conspirators "mailed controlled substances to the continental United States." Villa was arrested in July 2017 and ordered held without bail.

One after another, Villa's co-defendants struck plea agreements, but after unsuccessful negotiations, Villa went to trial. The government's trial evidence consisted of three days of testimony from five witnesses, including Herrera and Domínguez.⁴ The only physical or documentary evidence the government introduced were photographs: some identified several of Villa's co-conspirators, one depicted money found during a collateral incident, and several showed suitcases from another courier's cocaine shipment that had been seized at John F. Kennedy (JFK) Airport. Villa did not testify, nor did the defense put on other evidence.

The government's first witness after opening statements was Guillermo Salas, a paid Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) informant. Salas testified that Villa had tried to purchase eleven kilograms of cocaine from him in a sham drug sale in March 2012 near Miami. After agreeing with Villa to the terms of the sale by phone, Salas met Villa and two other men in the Miami area and instructed Villa to follow him to a nearby warehouse to consummate the transaction. A DEA task force tracked the convoy as it traveled to the site of the ostensible deal, and after seeing Villa make an illegal lane change, DEA agents pulled his vehicle over. While a task-force agent spoke to Villa, a drug-detection dog "alerted" to the passenger side of the vehicle, prompting a search that produced two white plastic bags containing $296,014 wrapped in "quick-count" bundles.⁵ The officers did not find cocaine in the vehicle and did not arrest Villa or his associates, nor was Villa separately charged in connection with the incident. Guillermo Cuba testified after Salas. Cuba, a Miami-Dade police officer assigned to the DEA task force involved in the sting operation, largely corroborated Salas's account of the Florida incident (collectively, "the Florida testimony"). Villa objected to all the Florida testimony, contending that it was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. The district court overruled his objections and denied post-trial motions based on those objections.

Domínguez testified next, focusing on Villa's courier activities between 2009 and 2012. Villa sought to cross-examine Domínguez about statements he made to the grand jury that were inconsistent with his trial testimony. But the district court limited the scope of the cross-examination on the ground that it would involve "impeachment by omission."

Next, Dustin Genco, a New York City police officer assigned to a DEA Task Force, testified about the arrest at JFK Airport in August 2010 of a courier named Mapula, who was carrying fifteen kilograms of cocaine. (Herrera later testified that Villa had invested in two of those kilograms of cocaine.) At the time, Mapula was working as a mule to pay off a debt he owed Herrera for losing three kilograms of cocaine while facilitating a previous drug sale in New York. Genco also identified six government exhibits, which consisted of photographs of the suitcases from which Mapula's cocaine had been seized. He offered no testimony about Villa.

Herrera, the government's final witness, testified across two days of trial. Herrera described the structure and operations of the conspiracy and Villa's roles within it, including that Villa had been a "mule," a "watcher," and an "investor" in ten shipments of twenty to twenty-five kilograms of cocaine each.

At the close of its case, the government asked to read into evidence a redacted version of a letter Villa had written to the court seeking information about a pending motion. In the letter, Villa stated that he "ha[d] expressed . . . [his] desire to reach an agreement with the Government." Villa had continuously objected under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to the letter's admission, but the district court overruled his objection. After the letter was read to the jury, the court took judicial notice of it and later instructed the jury on the meaning and effect of judicial notice. Following approximately three hours of deliberation, the jury found Villa guilty. The district court sentenced Villa to 300 months' imprisonment and five years' supervised release, and Villa timely appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review preserved objections to a district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Monteiro, 871 F.3d 99, 110 (1st Cir. 2017). Although this standard of review affords latitude to the district court's judgment calls, it is "not a 'rubber stamp.' " Colón Cabrera v. Esso Standard Oil Co. (P.R.), 723 F.3d 82, 88 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Negrón-Almeda v. Santiago, 528 F.3d 15, 21 (1st Cir. 2008)). Rather, we must carefully examine the record to ascertain whether "a material factor deserving significant weight [was] ignored, . . . an improper factor [was] relied upon, or . . . all proper and no improper factors [were] assessed, but the court [made]...