United States v. Etienne, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Etienne, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/39

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1387

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

ESTEVENSON ETI ENNE,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Geor ge A. O' Tool e, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Thompson, Ci r cui t J udge,

and Smi t h, * Di st r i ct J udge.

Char l es W. Ranki n, wi t h whom Ker r y A. Haber l i n was on br i ef ,f or appel l ant .

Mar k T. Qui nl i van, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whomCar men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Oct ober 29, 2014

* Of t he Di st r i ct of Rhode I sl and, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/39

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Thi s appeal ar i ses out of t he

government ' s at t empt t o pr ove the ol d adage, where t her e' s smoke

t her e' s f i r e. Appel l ant Est evenson Et i enne ( "Et i enne") appeal s hi s

convi ct i on on a char ge of conspi r i ng t o di st r i but e cocai ne base,

ot her wi se known as "cr ack. " Thanks t o t he j ur y' s gui l t y ver di ct ,

Et i enne f ound hi msel f sent enced t o sevent y mont hs ( near l y si x

years ) i n j ai l .

Now, Et i enne asks us t o vacat e hi s convi ct i on because he

says t he di st r i ct j udge admi t t ed i mpr oper over vi ew t est i mony f r om

a government agent , al l owed government wi t nesses t o i dent i f y voi ces

on r ecor di ngs wi t hout pr oper f oundat i on, and er r oneousl y per mi t t ed

l aw enf or cement of f i cer s t o i mpr oper l y i nt er pr et f or t he j ur y what

was t aki ng pl ace on t hose r ecor di ngs. I n t he al t er nat i ve, Et i enne

seeks r esent enci ng pur suant t o Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct .

2151 (2013) .

We af f i r m.

I. BACKGROUND

Because Et i enne' s appeal f ol l ows t he j ur y' s f i ndi ng of

gui l t , we vi ew t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

ver di ct . Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez, 731 F. 3d 20, 23 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) , cer t . deni ed, 134 S. Ct . 1329 ( 2014) . We begi n by

summar i zi ng t he evi dence at t r i al , r eser vi ng addi t i onal det ai l s f or

our di scussi on of Et i enne' s speci f i c ar gument s.

-2-


3/39

A. The ATF Investigation

2009 f ound t he Bur eau of Al cohol , Tobacco, Fi r ear ms, and

Expl osi ves ( "ATF") l ooki ng t o smoke out dr ug deal er s on Bost on' s

Nor t h Shor e. Our st or y begi ns wi t h an i ndi vi dual i dent i f i ed onl y

as "Paul . " Paul f ound hi msel f i n hot wat er af t er t he ATF

di scover ed he had i l l egal l y pr ocur ed a gun f or an i ndi vi dual we' l l

cal l "Smi t h, " 1 a known cr i mi nal i n t he Nor t h Shore town of Lynn,

Massachuset t s. When conf r ont ed wi t h t he evi dence agai nst hi m, Paul

agr eed t o wor k wi t h t he ATF i n or der t o avoi d pr osecut i on.

Ul t i mat el y, t he ATF had Paul buy $40 of cocai ne f r om Smi t h.

The ATF went up t he chai n, so t o speak, and l et Smi t h

know t hey had hi m on dr ug di st r i but i on. Li ke Paul bef or e hi m,

Smi t h agr eed t o become an i nf ormant and cooperate i n t he ATF' s

i nvest i gat i on. Ul t i mat el y, Smi t h wor ked wi t h t he ATF f or about a

year and hel ped out wi t h over a dozen i nvest i gat i ons. Over t he

cour se of t he year , t he ATF pai d hi m i n excess of $4100 f or hi s

assi st ance, $400 of whi ch was at t r i but abl e t o hi s wor k enabl i ng

t hi s par t i cul ar pr osecut i on.

Maki ng use of Smi t h' s knowl edge, ATF Speci al Agent J ohn

Mer cer ( "Mer cer ") i dent i f i ed sever al addi t i onal t ar get s i n t he

area. Among t hemwere Andr e J ean- Fr ancoi s, known as "Bl ack, " and

1 "Smi t h" i s an al i as. We have changed hi s name i n l i ght ofconcer ns about t he saf et y of cooper at i ng wi t nesses r ai sed by t heCommi t t ee on Cour t Admi ni st r at i on and Case Management of t heJ udi ci al Conf er ence of t he Uni t ed Stat es.

-3-


4/39

Et i enne, who went by t he ni ckname "Smoke, " and Smi t h descr i bed t hem

as dr ug deal er s f r om whom t he ATF coul d buy cr ack. Mer cer had hi m

set up cont r ol l ed buys t o cat ch t hem i n t he act . Each t r ansact i on

( t her e wer e t wo) began wi t h Smi t h cal l i ng J ean- Fr ancoi s t o

negot i at e the deal , af t er whi ch J ean- Francoi s ar r anged f or Smi t h t o

make t he physi cal pur chase f r om Et i enne. Al t hough t he deal s wer e

r ecorded t hr ough t he use of a body wi r e, t he government di d not

i nt r oduce any vi deo or phot ogr aphi c evi dence depi ct i ng t he deal s as

t hey went down.

The f i r st deal t ook pl ace on J ul y 22, 2009. On Mer cer ' s

i nst r uct i ons, Smi t h had cal l ed J ean- Francoi s t he pr evi ous day

l ooki ng t o buy hal f an ounce of cr ack, and t he two agr eed on a

pr i ce of $600. On J ul y 22, Smi t h met wi t h Mer cer and other l aw

enf or cement agent s bef or e get t i ng back i n t ouch wi t h J ean- Francoi s.

Wi t h t he agent s l i st eni ng i n and r ecor di ng t he conver sat i on, Smi t h

cal l ed J ean- Fr ancoi s t o hammer out t he det ai l s, and t hey agr eed t o

meet at a house where Smi t h' s young son l i ved i n Lynn. Bef ore

l eavi ng f or t he rendezvous, Smi t h donned a body wi r e and l aw

enf or cement of f i cer s gave hi m $600 t o pay f or t he dr ugs. Smi t h

t hen went t o hi s son' s house t o wai t f or J ean- Francoi s.

Shor t l y af t er Smi t h got t o t he house, J ean- Francoi s

cal l ed hi m back t o say t hat pl ans had changed. Smi t h woul d now be

buyi ng t he dr ugs f r om Et i enne i nst ead, and Smi t h was t o go t o

Et i enne' s home, whi ch was al so i n Lynn. J ean- Francoi s tol d hi mt he

-4-


5/39

pr i ce had gone up t oo, and was now $650. Mercer aut hor i zed Smi t h

t o use $50 f r om hi s own pocket t o cover t he di f f er ence.

Af t er hear i ng f r omJ ean- Francoi s, Smi t h cal l ed Et i enne t o

conf i r m t he new pl an. Et i enne conf i r med t hey woul d make t he

exchange at hi s house on Hol l i ngswort h St r eet , and Smi t h headed

over . Massachuset t s St ate Trooper J ames Br uce ( "Br uce") - - who was

conduct i ng sur vei l l ance and l i st eni ng t o Smi t h' s body wi r e as a

par t of t he ATF' s i nvest i gat i on- - obser ved Smi t h ar r i ve at Et i enne' s

house. Br uce observed Smi t h speak br i ef l y wi t h Et i enne on t he

por ch bef ore bot h men headed i nsi de.

Once i nsi de, Smi t h and Et i enne spoke f or a f ew mi nut es

about Smi t h' s car and young son ( who was si ck wi t h cancer ) , and

Et i enne' s daught er , who Et i enne had cust ody of because her mother

was i n j ai l . Et i enne al so asked Smi t h whet her Smi t h was st i l l

sel l i ng mar i j uana, t o whi ch Smi t h r epl i ed t hat he onl y sol d cr ack

now. Whi l e i nsi de, Smi t h gave Et i enne t he $650 and i n r et ur n

r ecei ved a pl ast i c bag cont ai ni ng what Smi t h bel i eved t o be hal f an

ounce of cr ack.

Af t er a f ew mi nut es, Br uce obser ved Smi t h emerge f r om

Et i enne' s house, get i n hi s vehi cl e, and dr i ve up t he st r eet Mer cer

i nt er cept ed Smi t h at t he end of t he st r eet and f ol l owed hi mback t o

a pr ear r anged meet i ng l ocat i on. When t hey arr i ved at t he spot ,

Smi t h handed a pl ast i c baggi e over t o l aw enf orcement agent s. The

-5-


6/39

par t i es st i pul at ed t hat t he pl ast i c bag cont ai ned 15. 25 gr ams of

cr ack.

The second t r ansact i on happened on J ul y 30, 2009. Thi s

t i me, Mer cer i nst r uct ed Smi t h t o cal l J ean- Francoi s t o ask about

buyi ng a whol e ounce of cr ack. Smi t h di d so, and J ean- Fr ancoi s

agr eed t o make t he sal e f or $1300. Once agai n, Smi t h met wi t h l aw

enf or cement agent s bef or e t he buy. Whi l e i n t hei r pr esence, Smi t h

pl aced t hr ee r ecor ded cal l s t o J ean- Francoi s t o f ur t her di scuss t he

t erms of t he deal , ul t i matel y conf i r mi ng he woul d buy one ounce of

cr ack f or $1300. As bef or e, t he pl an was f or Smi t h t o physi cal l y

get t he dr ugs f r omEt i enne, al t hough t hi s t i me J ean- Francoi s want ed

Smi t h t o f i r st vi si t hi m at hi s aut o- det ai l i ng shop i n Sal em,

Massachuset t s.

Law enf orcement agent s equi pped Smi t h wi t h a body wi r e

and gave hi m$1300 t o cl ose t he deal bef or e sendi ng hi mout . Smi t h

went t o see J ean- Fr ancoi s at hi s shop, where they smoked weed

t ogether and t al ked about t he i mpendi ng cr ack deal . They al so got

i nt o some of t hei r past hi st or y and di scussed a debt Smi t h st i l l

owed J ean- Fr ancoi s. The debt dated back t o a t i me ( bef ore Smi t h

became an i nf ormant ) when J ean- Fr ancoi s " f r ont [ ed] " hi msome cr ack

but , unf or t unat el y f or both, Smi t h "ended up get t i ng l ocked up" and

was unabl e t o pay f or i t .

Af t er l eavi ng J ean- Francoi s' s shop, Smi t h cal l ed Et i enne

t o say he was on t he way. At f i r st , Et i enne sai d he wasn' t r eady

-6-


7/39

f or Smi t h because he hadn' t got t en t he dr ugs yet , but cal l ed Smi t h

r i ght back and t ol d hi m t o come on over . When Smi t h ent ered

Et i enne' s house, Br uce was agai n l i st eni ng t o t he body wi r e and

wat chi ng f r om a di st ance.

Et i enne asked Smi t h how much he had wi t h hi m, and Smi t h

r esponded " t hi r t een. " Smi t h gave t he $1300 t o Et i enne, and

r ecei ved back a "r egul ar sandwi ch baggi e" cont ai ni ng an ounce of

cr ack. As bef or e, Smi t h t r avel ed t o a pr ear r anged meet i ng l ocat i on

( agai n under t he watchf ul eyes of l aw enf orcement ) where he t ur ned

t he pl ast i c bag over t o l aw enf or cement agent s. The par t i es

st i pul at ed t hat t hi s bag cont ai ned 27. 82 gr ams of cr ack.

B. Criminal Proceedings

On Mar ch 23, 2011, a f eder al gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed J ean-

Francoi s and Et i enne, char gi ng t hem wi t h conspi r acy t o di st r i but e

cr ack i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) and 846. The

i ndi ct ment al l eged t he conspi r acy began at "a t i me unknown, " but

was i n exi st ence "at l east by on or about J ul y 22, 2009, and

cont i nui ng t her eaf t er unt i l on or about J ul y 30, 2009. " I t f ur t her

al l eged Et i enne and J ean- Francoi s conspi r ed t o di st r i but e at l east

f i ve gr ams of cr ack, whi ch at t he t i me i t i ssued woul d have

t r i ggered a mandatory mi ni mum sent ence of f i ve years under 21

U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( B) . 2

2 The Fai r Sent enci ng Act of 2010 i ncreased t he amount ofcr ack necessar y t o t r i gger t he mandat or y f i ve- year mi ni mumsent encef r om f i ve gr ams t o t went y- ei ght gr ams. See Fai r Sent enci ng Act of

-7-


8/39

Et i enne' s j ur y t r i al began on J ul y 30, 2012, and l ast ed

t hr ee days. 3 The government cal l ed t hr ee wi t nesses: Mercer , Smi t h,

and Br uce. Et i enne di d not t est i f y or put on an af f i r mat i ve case.

I nst ead, he f ocused on at t acki ng Smi t h' s char act er and cr edi bi l i t y

dur i ng cr oss exami nat i on, homi ng i n on Smi t h' s pot ent i al mot i ves

f or cooper at i ng wi t h l aw enf or cement . I n par t i cul ar , Et i enne got

Smi t h t o admi t t hat i f he di d not cooper at e, he was l ooki ng at "mad

t i me" f or hi s own past cr i mes, whi ch i nvol ved dr ug deal i ng,

car r yi ng a f i r ear mwi t hout a l i cense, and assaul t wi t h a danger ous

weapon. Smi t h al so admi t t ed t hat he r ecei ved "$200 every t i me, no

mat t er what " f or each dr ug deal he engaged i n at t he ATF' s behest .

I n hi s cl osi ng, def ense counsel i mpugned Smi t h' s

credi bi l i t y, r epeat edl y soundi ng "i f you can' t bel i eve t he

messenger , you can' t bel i eve t he message" as hi s r ef r ai n. Counsel

t ol d t he j ur y Smi t h i s "a bad guy, wi t h mul t i pl e convi ct i ons f or

dr ugs and guns, been t o j ai l t wi ce, " and " [ d] oesn' t want t o go back

and he' s l ooki ng at t en pl us mor e year s" i f char ged wi t h t he cr i mes

t he gover nment over l ooked i n r et ur n f or hi s t est i mony. Counsel

descr i bed Smi t h as a man who "coul d dr eam up a case agai nst hi s

2010, Pub. L. No. 111- 220, 2( a) ( 2) . Et i enne was sent enced af t ert he ef f ect i ve dat e of t he Fai r Sent enci ng Act , and t hus t he t went y-

ei ght gr am r equi r ement appl i es to hi s sent ence. See Dor sey v.Uni t ed St at es, 132 S. Ct . 2321, 2335 ( 2012) . The par t i es anddi st r i ct cour t r ecogni zed t hi s at sent enci ng.

3 J ean- Francoi s pl eaded gui l t y t hr ee days ear l i er . He wasul t i mat el y sent enced t o si xt y mont hs ( or f i ve year s) ofi mpr i sonment , f ol l owed by f our year s of super vi sed r el ease.

-8-


9/39

gr andmot her f or t wo hundr ed bucks and a get - out - of - j ai l - f r ee car d. "

I n sum, counsel t r i ed t o sel l t he j ur y on t he i dea t hat Smi t h had

l i ed on t he st and and si mpl y made up the dr ug deal s wi t h Et i enne.

The j ury di d not buy what Et i enne was peddl i ng, and

r et ur ned a gui l t y ver di ct . At sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct j udge

det er mi ned Et i enne was r esponsi bl e f or di st r i but i ng mor e than

t went y- ei ght gr ams of cr ack, and concl uded Et i enne was subj ect t o

a mandatory mi ni mum sent ence of f i ve years based on t hi s drug

quant i t y. He went on t o i mpose a sevent y- mont h ( f i ve years and t en

mont hs) sent ence t o be f ol l owed by f our year s of super vi sed

r el ease, pl us a $100 speci al assessment .

Et i enne t i mel y appeal ed.

II. ANALYSIS

Et i enne chal l enges bot h hi s convi ct i on and hi s sent ence.

Fi r st , he asks us t o t hr ow out hi s convi ct i on because t he di st r i ct

j udge i mproper l y admi t t ed cer t ai n overvi ew, i dent i f i cat i on, and

i nt er pr et i ve t est i mony, al l of whi ch he says i mpr oper l y bol st er ed

Smi t h' s quest i onabl e cr edi bi l i t y and consequent l y "evi scer at ed

[ hi s] excl usi ve def ense at t r i al - - t hat [ Smi t h] was l yi ng. "

Et i enne al so ar gues Mer cer i mpr oper l y of f er ed hi s per sonal opi ni on

about t he st r engt h of t he gover nment ' s case. Fai l i ng t hat , Et i enne

asks us t o vacat e hi s sent ence because t he j udge supposedl y

commi t t ed an Al l eyne er r or at sent enci ng by appl yi ng the mi ni mum

-9-


10/39

f i ve- year sent ence i n t he absence of a j ur y f i ndi ng as t o dr ug

quant i t y.

We addr ess t hese cl ai ms i n t ur n, begi nni ng wi t h t he

evi dent i ar y chal l enges.

A. Evidentiary Challenges

1. Standard of Review

Et i enne di d not obj ect t o any of t he t est i mony he now

cl ai ms was admi t t ed i n er r or . Accor di ngl y, he admi t s t hat none of

t he ar gument s r ai sed here have been pr eser ved f or appel l ate revi ew.

We revi ew unpr eserved evi dent i ar y chal l enges f or pl ai n

er r or onl y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Whi t ney, 524 F. 3d 134, 139- 40

( 1st Ci r . 2008) . " [ A] par t y who negl ect s to cal l a l oomi ng er r or

t o t he t r i al cour t ' s at t ent i on acts at hi s per i l ; under pl ai n er r or

r evi ew, we have l eeway t o cor r ect onl y t he most egr egi ous of

unpr eserved er r or s. " Uni t ed St at es v. Snchez- Ber r os, 424 F. 3d

65, 73 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . Thus, Et i enne bear s t he heavy bur den of

demonst r at i ng ( 1) t hat an er r or occur r ed, ( 2) whi ch was pl ai n or

obvi ous, ( 3) af f ected hi s subst ant i al r i ght s, and ( 4) "ser i ousl y

af f ect[ ed] t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on of

j udi ci al proceedi ngs. " Whi t ney, 524 F. 3d at 139- 40 ( ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We r ever se onl y

spar i ngl y i n t he pl ai n er r or cont ext , i d. , and we shoul d be

especi al l y l oat h t o do so wher e i t appear s f r om t he r ecor d t hat a

f ai l ur e t o obj ect was t he r esul t of counsel ' s t r i al t acti cs, see

-10-


11/39

Uni t ed St at es v. Gr i f f i n, 818 F. 2d 97, 100 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( "Nor

can we t r i f l e wi t h t he t act i cal deci si ons of counsel " on pl ai n

er r or r evi ew. ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a, 872 F. 2d 507, 509

( 1st Ci r . 1989) ( "[ W] e r eal i ze, t oo, t hat pl ai n er r or wi t h r espect

t o a mat t er r eadi l y r emedi abl e, i f not a t r ap f or t he cour t

( adver t ent or i nadver t ent ) , gi ves a def endant a f r ee second bi t e at

t he cher r y, and i s t o be nar r owl y l i mi t ed. ") .

Agai nst t hi s backdr op, we addr ess each of Et i enne' s

evi dent i ar y chal l enges i n t ur n.

2. Overview Testimony

Et i enne f ocuses hi s evi dent i ar y chal l enges pr i mar i l y upon

what he dubs Agent Mercer ' s "over vi ew" t est i mony. An "overvi ew

wi t ness" i s a gover nment agent who t est i f i es as one of t he

pr osecut i on' s f i r st wi t nesses and, as t he t er mi mpl i es, pr ovi des an

overvi ew or r oadmap of t he pr osecut i on' s case t o come. Uni t ed

St at es v. Br own, 669 F. 3d 10, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Over vi ew

t est i mony i s i nher ent l y pr obl emat i c f or at l east t hr ee r easons:

" ( 1) t he j ur y coul d be i nf l uenced by st at ement s of f act s and

credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons not i n evi dence; ( 2) l at er t est i mony

coul d be di f f er ent f r omwhat t he over vi ew wi t ness assumed; and ( 3)

t he j ur y may pl ace gr eat er wei ght on evi dence t hat t hey per cei ve

has the i mpr i mat ur of t he gover nment . " I d. at 24 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Fl or es- de- J ess, 569 F. 3d 8, 16- 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Casas, 356 F. 3d 104, 119- 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ) .

-11-


12/39

Di sf avor ed over vi ew t est i mony i n dr ug conspi r acy cases i s

general l y el i ci t ed when t he government cal l s a l aw enf orcement

agent as i t s f i r st wi t ness t o t est i f y- - based on t he r esul t s of t he

agency' s over al l i nvest i gat i on, r at her t han on hi s own per sonal

knowl edge or par t i ci pat i on- - t hat t he char ged dr ug conspi r acy

act ual l y exi st ed. See Uni t ed St at es v. Rosado- Pr ez, 605 F. 3d 48,

55 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( "Over vi ew t est i mony at t i mes i nvol ves a

wi t ness' s assert i on of f act s not based on hi s own knowl edge when

t hose f act s ar e not ot her wi se pr oven. " ) . The over vi ew wi t ness

commonl y goes on t o t est i f y about a def endant ' s speci f i c r ol e i n

t he char ged conspi r acy. I n ot her wor ds, f ar f r om pr ovi di ng an

"over vi ew" of t he case, t he wi t ness act ual l y t est i f i es t hat t he

def endant i s gui l t y of t he cr i me char ged.

For mor e t han a decade now, we have r epeatedl y admoni shed

pr osecut or s who i nsi st on pr esent i ng t hi s sor t of t est i mony.

Br own, 669 F. 3d at 24; see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Mei ses, 645 F. 3d

5, 14- 16, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( i mpr oper over vi ew where gover nment ' s

wi t ness t est i f i ed, wi t hout per sonal knowl edge, t hat cer t ai n

def endant s were member s of t he charged dr ug conspi r acy and

i dent i f i ed t hei r speci f i c rol es wi t hi n t hat conspi r acy) ; Fl or es- de-

J ess, 569 F. 3d at 14- 15, 17- 27 ( gover nment ' s f i r st wi t ness

i mpr oper l y ci r cl ed phot ogr aphs of t he t hr ee def endant s appear i ng on

a char t depi ct i ng t went y- f i ve member s of t he al l eged dr ug

conspi r acy and t ol d t he j ur y t hat one def endant was a "sel l er " and

-12-


13/39

t he ot her t wo wer e "bot h sel l er s and r unner s" i n t hat conspi r acy) ;

Casas, 356 F. 3d at 118- 20 (government agent , goi ng "wel l beyond hi s

per sonal knowl edge, " i mpr oper l y "t est i f i ed t hat t her e was a dr ug

t r af f i cki ng or gani zat i on, . . . t hat al l f our of t he def endant s

wer e member s of t hi s organi zat i on, and t hat t he or gani zat i on

handl ed speci f i c massi ve quant i t i es of cocai ne and her oi n" ) .

Never t hel ess, we have not i mposed a bl anket ban on al l

overvi ew t est i mony. Rather , we have r ecogni zed t hat " [ t ] here may

be val ue i n havi ng a case agent descr i be the cour se of hi s

i nvest i gat i on i n or der t o set t he st age f or t he t est i mony t o come

about t he nat ur e of t he conspi r acy and t he def endant s i nvol ved. "

Fl ores- de- J ess, 569 F. 3d at 19 ( emphasi s added) . A government

agent ' s t est i mony, when based on hi s per sonal knowl edge and l i mi t ed

t o a descri pt i on of hi s act i vi t i es i n t he cour se of an

i nvest i gat i on, may i n some ci r cumst ances be hel pf ul t o pr ovi de

backgr ound i nf ormat i on and t o expl ai n how and why agent s became

i nvol ved wi t h a par t i cul ar def endant i n t he f i r st pl ace. I d.

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Goosby, 523 F. 3d 632, 638 ( 6t h Ci r .

2008) ) ; see al so Rosado- Pr ez, 605 F. 3d at 55- 56 ( f i ndi ng t hat

government wi t ness' s t est i mony, based on hi s personal knowl edge,

about how sur vei l l ance "vi deos and wi r et ap r ecor di ng f i t i nt o t he

r est of t he conspi r acy . . . [ was] not over vi ew t est i mony and [ was]

pr oper l y admi t t ed") .

-13-


14/39

What i s not accept abl e i s when "a government wi t ness

t est i f i es about t he r esul t s of a cri mi nal i nvest i gat i on, usual l y

i ncl udi ng aspect s of t he i nvest i gat i on [ t hat ] t he wi t ness di d not

par t i ci pat e i n"- - and t her ef or e l acks per sonal knowl edge of - - "bef or e

t he gover nment has pr esent ed evi dence. " Rosado- Pr ez, 605 F. 3d at

55. I ndeed, such t est i mony i s nothi ng more t han an i mpr oper

at t empt t o t r ansmut e t he pr osecutor ' s openi ng argument i nt o

subst ant i ve evi dence. See Fl or es- De- J esus, 569 F. 3d at 17 ( "The

l aw al r eady pr ovi des an adequate vehi cl e f or t he government t o

' hel p' t he j ur y gai n an over vi ew of ant i ci pat ed evi dence as wel l as

a pr evi ew of i t s t heor y of each def endant ' s cul pabi l i t y: t he

openi ng st at ement . " ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gar ci a, 413 F. 3d

201, 214 ( 2d Ci r . 2005) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i on

omi t t ed) ) .

Wi t h t hese pr i nci pl es i n mi nd, we t ur n t o t he t est i mony

Et i enne chal l enges as i mpr oper over vi ew t est i mony. The government

opened i t s case wi t h Mer cer . Af t er br i ef l y descr i bi ng hi s twent y-

t wo years of l aw enf orcement exper i ence and hi s assi gnment t o

i nvest i gate "gangs, guns and dr ugs" on t he Nort h Shore, Mercer

expl ai ned how he came to i nvest i gat e J ean- Fr ancoi s and Et i enne.

Mer cer t est i f i ed t hat he f i r st secur ed Smi t h' s cooper at i on, and

t hen Smi t h i dent i f i ed J ean- Fr ancoi s and Et i enne, among ot her

i ndi vi dual s, as pot ent i al t ar get s. Mer cer expl ai ned t hat Smi t h

knew who Et i enne and J ean- Fr ancoi s were because they were "past

-14-


15/39

cr i mi nal associ at es t hat he had done busi ness wi t h, dr ug busi ness

wi t h i n t he past . " He al so sai d t hat Smi t h r ef er r ed t o Et i enne and

J ean- Fr ancoi s by t hei r r espect i ve ni cknames, "Smoke" and "Bl ack. "

Mercer t hen pr oceeded t o di scuss t he ATF' s general

i nvest i gat or y techni ques, whi ch i ncl uded mobi l e sur vei l l ance,

r ecor di ng phone cal l s, and usi ng body wi r es t o moni t or and r ecor d

i n- per son conver sat i ons. Mer cer descr i bed t he speci f i c st eps he

t ook t o set up and i mpl ement t he J ul y 22 and J ul y 30 dr ug buys,

whi ch i ncl uded i nst r uct i ng Smi t h t o make t el ephone cal l s t o J ean-

Fr ancoi s and Et i enne. Al ong t he way, he conf i r med t hat he had

l i st ened to t he var i ous r ecor ded t el ephone and body- wi r e

conver sat i ons bet ween Smi t h, J ean- Francoi s, and Et i enne i n r eal -

t i me and had r evi ewed t he r ecordi ngs af t er war ds. He al so

summar i zed por t i ons of t he recor di ngs as par t of t he gover nment ' s

i nt r oduct i on i nt o evi dence of t he t r anscr i pt of each r ecor ded

conver sat i on. 4

On appeal , Et i enne ar gues t hat t he government used

Mercer ' s t est i mony t o do exact l y what we have pr ohi bi t ed. He

speci f i cal l y compl ai ns about Mer cer ' s t est i mony that Smi t h knew

J ean- Fr ancoi s and Et i enne as past cr i mi nal associ at es wi t h whomhe

had done dr ug busi ness bef or e, al ong wi t h Mer cer ' s t est i mony t hat

he want ed t o use Smi t h t o i dent i f y and go af t er peopl e who were

4 None of t he act ual r ecor di ngs were pl ayed whi l e Mercer wason t he st and.

-15-


16/39

suppl yi ng Smi t h wi t h dr ugs. Accor di ng t o Et i enne, hi s t est i mony

was " t ant amount t o t el l i ng t he j ur y that a conspi r acy exi st ed and

t hat Et i enne was par t of i t . " He f ur t her i nt i mat es t hat Mer cer ' s

t est i mony about t he nat ur e of Smi t h' s r el at i onshi p wi t h hi msel f and

J ean- Fr ancoi s was i mproper because i t "necessar i l y der i ved f r om

[ Smi t h' s] hear say accusat i on. "

I n r esponse, t he gover nment t el l s us Mer cer di d not of f er

an i mpr oper over vi ew. I t says Mercer ' s t est i mony was pr oper

because he based i t on hi s per sonal knowl edge of t he i nvest i gat i on

and di d not opi ne on Et i enne' s r ol e i n t he char ged conspi r acy. The

government al so ar gues t hat Mercer ' s t est i mony about Smi t h' s past

deal i ngs wi t h Et i enne and J ean- Francoi s di d not vi ol at e t he r ul e

agai nst hearsay: per t he gover nment , Mer cer ' s t est i mony had t he

nonhear say pur pose of pr ovi di ng backgr ound and expl ai ni ng t o the

j ury how t he ATF came t o i nvest i gat e Et i enne i n t he f i r st pl ace.

The r ecor d her e l eads us t o si de wi t h t he gover nment .

Mer cer ' s t est i mony i s not aki n t o t he t ype of over vi ew t est i mony i n

whi ch a gover nment agent ki cks of f t he pr osecut i on' s case wi t h a

bl anket asser t i on t hat a def endant was a member of t he charged

conspi r acy, and whi ch we shar pl y cr i t i ci zed i n Mei ses, Fl or es- De-

J esus, and Casas. 5 Wi t h r espect t o t he conspi r acy char ged here,

5 Mer cer ' s t est i mony t hat Smi t h was f ami l i ar wi t h Et i enne andJ ean- Fr ancoi s because t hey wer e "past " cr i mi nal associ at es gi ves ussome pause. Thi s t est i mony r egar di ng Et i enne' s pr i or bad act s wasof quest i onabl e r el evance. I t al so r an t he danger of pr ej udi ci ngt he j ur y and encour agi ng i t t o convi ct based on Et i enne' s unchar ged

-16-


17/39

Mer cer t est i f i ed t o t he act i vi t i es he under t ook i n set t i ng up each

J ul y 2009 drug deal . Mer cer descr i bed hi s cont empor aneous

moni t or i ng of conver sat i ons i nvol vi ng Smi t h and Et i enne or Smi t h

and J ean- Fr ancoi s, expl ai ned t o t he j ur y what t he speaker s wer e

t al ki ng about i n each conver sat i on, and st at ed t hat Smi t h and

Et i enne ul t i matel y exchanged money f or dr ugs on J ul y 22 and J ul y

30. Havi ng t hor oughl y r evi ewed t he r ecor d, we ar e sat i sf i ed t hat

at l east most of Mer cer ' s t est i mony about Et i enne' s i nvol vement was

based on hi s per sonal knowl edge and "r epr esent ed t he f r ui t s of

f i r st - hand pol i ce wor k. " Uni t ed St at es v. Val di vi a, 680 F. 3d 33,

48 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . To t he ext ent t hat t her e i s any ambi gui t y

about Mer cer ' s knowl edge of pr i or act s, we wi l l not , on pl ai n er r or

r evi ew, per mi t Et i enne t o gai n any benef i t f r om hi s choi ce not t o

cl ar i f y t he ambi gui t y. Accor di ngl y, we concl ude Mer cer di d not

of f er i mpr oper over vi ew t est i mony. See Rosado- Pr ez, 605 F. 3d at

55- 56.

As f or t he hear say obj ect i on embedded i n Et i enne' s

ar gument , Et i enne di d not r ai se a hear say obj ect i on at t r i al and

t he i ssue i s wai ved her e gi ven t hat he f ai l ed t o devel op i t on

appeal . See Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r .

conduct . Al t hough we have anal yzed t he "pr opr i et y of [ a] t r i alj udge' s admi ssi on of pr i or bad act s evi dence under t he aegi s ofRul es 404( b) and 403 of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence, " Uni t edSt at es v. Doe, 741 F. 3d 217, 229 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , cer t . deni ed, No.13- 10728, 2014 WL 2919345 ( Oct . 6, 2014) , Et i enne di d not argue att r i al , nor does he asser t on appeal , t hat t he t est i mony shoul d havebeen bar r ed by ei t her or bot h of t hese rul es.

-17-


18/39

1990) ( "[ A] l i t i gant has an obl i gat i on t o spel l out [ hi s] ar gument s

squar el y and di st i nct l y, or el se f or ever hol d [ hi s] peace. "

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . 6

Summi ng up, we concl ude t hat Mercer di d not pr ovi de

i mpr oper overvi ew t est i mony.

3. Interpretive Testimony

Movi ng on, Et i enne ar gues t he t r i al j udge er r ed i n

per mi t t i ng Mer cer and Br uce t o of f er speci f i c i nst ances of what he

dubs "i nt er pr et i ve" t est i mony. He compl ai ns bot h wer e per mi t t ed t o

t est i f y t o t hei r "i nt er pr et at i ons" of t he r ecor ded conver sat i ons.

By t hi s he means t hat t he l aw enf or cement of f i cer s t ol d t he j ur y

what t hey t hought t he conver sat i ons were about . They al so

i nt erpr eted t he meani ng of words t hey sai d had t o do wi t h dr ug

sal es, and t est i f i ed t hat an exchange of dr ugs t ook pl ace dur i ng

cer t ai n conver sat i ons.

6 We al so not e t hat Et i enne may have wai ved the obj ect i on t oover vi ew t est i mony ent i r el y because t he l ack of evi dent i ar ychal l enges t hr oughout t r i al appear s t o be t he r esul t of hi sconsci ous l i t i gat i on t act i cs. See Uni t ed St at es v. Washi ngt on, 434F. 3d 7, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( f i ndi ng wai ver where "counsel made adel i ber at e st r at egi c choi ce" t o admi t cer t ai n evi dence) . Et i enne' scounsel f i l ed a pr e- t r i al mot i on i n l i mi ne seeki ng t o pr ecl udeover vi ew t est i mony and was cl ear l y sensi t i ve t o t he pi t f al l s of

i mpr oper over vi ew t est i mony. Dur i ng t he hear i ng on hi s mot i on,def ense counsel expl i ci t l y agr eed wi t h t he t r i al j udge' s st at ement st hat " [ s] ome gener al cont ext i s appr opr i at e, " and t hat Mer cer ' st est i mony i s " somethi ng we have to pol i ce as we go al ong. "Mer cer ' s actual t est i mony, i n def ense counsel ' s eyes, appar ent l ynever cr ossed t hat l i ne. Thi s pr ovi des yet anot her basi s f or ourr ef usal t o f aul t t he t r i al j udge.

-18-


19/39

Et i enne ar gues t hi s t est i mony, whi ch we wi l l di scuss i n

mor e det ai l moment ar i l y, went hand- i n- hand wi t h Mer cer ' s i mpr oper l y

admi t t ed over vi ew t est i mony and was especi al l y pr ej udi ci al because

Smi t h of f er ed hi s own i nt er pr et at i on ( whi ch par r ot ed Mer cer ' s) as

t o what t r anspi r ed dur i ng t hose conver sat i ons. I n Et i enne' s vi ew,

t hi s can onl y mean t he l aw enf or cement of f i cer s' t est i mony unf ai r l y

"bol st er ed" Smi t h' s t est i mony and served t o shor e up hi s " shaky

cr edi bi l i t y. " Taki ng a cont r ar y vi ewpoi nt , t he gover nment says t he

t est i mony const i t ut ed per mi ssi bl e l ay opi ni on based upon t he

of f i cer s' per sonal knowl edge of t he dr ug t r ade, and par t i cul ar l y,

i t s par l ance.

" [ W] e have l ong hel d that government wi t nesses wi t h

exper i ence i n dr ug i nvest i gat i ons may expl ai n t he dr ug t r ade and

t r ansl at e coded l anguage f or j ur i es, ei t her t hr ough l ay or , i f

qual i f i ed, exper t t est i mony. " Rosado- Pr ez, 605 F. 3d at 56.

I nt er pr et i ve t est i mony, we have made cl ear , " i s not over vi ew

t est i mony and i s pr oper l y admi t t ed. " I d.

Al t hough Et i enne r ai ses t he i ssue of i nt er pr et i ve

t est i mony, he ci t es l i t t l e aut hor i t y i n suppor t of hi s bel i ef t hat

t he speci f i c t est i mony at i ssue here was i mpr oper . He has not come

f or war d wi t h a si ngl e case i n whi ch we have r ever sed a convi ct i on

on pl ai n er r or r evi ew due t o er r oneousl y admi t t ed i nt er pr et i ve

t est i mony. To hi s cr edi t , Et i enne f or t hr i ght l y acknowl edges t hat

i n t he case he hi ghl i ght s most we act ual l y uphel d t he admi ssi on of

-19-


20/39

t he chal l enged i nt er pr et i ve t est i mony. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Al ber t el l i , 687 F. 3d 439, 446- 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

We have revi ewed t he speci f i c t est i mony chal l enged as

i nt er pr et i ve, and onl y a f ew por t i ons can be f ai r l y descr i bed as

such. Fi r st i s Mer cer ' s t est i mony r egar di ng t he J ul y 30 deal and

sever al r el at ed conver sat i ons, al l of whi ch he moni t or ed i n

r eal t i me. Mer cer t ol d t he j ur y Smi t h and J ean- Francoi s had a

t el ephone conver sat i on i n whi ch J ean- Fr ancoi s used the word "cake"

t o mean "money. " When Smi t h met wi t h Et i enne l at er , t he t wo men

used t he number "13" t o mean t he pr i ce of t he dr ugs, $1300. Mercer

al so test i f i ed t hat whi l e Smi t h and Et i enne wer e di scussi ng t he

pr i ce, " [ y]ou coul d hear [ over t he recor di ng] what appear ed t o be

t he sound of money bei ng handed over , count ed out , cash. "

We ar e sat i sf i ed t he di st r i ct cour t di d not pl ai nl y er r

i n admi t t i ng t hi s t est i mony based upon Mer cer ' s t went y- t wo year s of

exper i ence as an ATF agent and hi s cont empor aneous moni t or i ng of

t he conver sat i ons as t hey occur r ed.

Next i s Br uce' s t est i mony i n whi ch he t ol d t he j ur y that

he moni t ored Smi t h' s body wi r e on J ul y 30 and "hear d what sounded

l i ke a deal bei ng consummat ed af t er i ni t i al gr eet i ngs" bet ween

Smi t h and Et i enne. At t he t i me of t r i al , Br uce had been a st at e

t r ooper f or al most t went y years, wi t h more than a decade of

exper i ence as a dr ug det ect i ve. He had been act i vel y i nvol ved i n

t he ATF' s i nvest i gat i on of Et i enne and J ean- Francoi s, and he

-20-


21/39

moni t or ed t hese par t i cul ar conver sat i ons i n r eal t i me. The nat ur e

of Br uce' s t est i mony di f f er ed l i t t l e f r om Mer cer ' s. Accor di ngl y,

we cannot say t he al l owance of hi s i nt er pr et i ve t est i mony was

er r or , pl ai n or other wi se.

4. Mercer's Opinion of Guilt

Et i enne next cl ai ms Mer cer i mpr oper l y "expr essed hi s vi ew

t hat t he government had pr oved beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat t here

exi st ed a conspi r acy and Et i enne was par t of i t " bef or e opi ni ng

t hat "t he j ur y coul d convi ct " Et i enne. Et i enne poi nt s t o Mer cer ' s

t est i mony on r e- cr oss exami nat i on about Smi t h' s obl i gat i on t o

t est i f y t r ut hf ul l y i n accor dance wi t h hi s cooper at i on agr eement .

Thi s t est i mony came onl y af t er def ense counsel asked several

quest i ons gear ed at pi nni ng down exact l y who woul d determi ne

whether Smi t h had l i ed on t he st and. Et i enne never moved t o st r i ke

i t as non- r esponsi ve, nor di d he ask t he di st r i ct j udge t o i nst r uct

t he j ur y t hat t hey al one det er mi ne whet her a wi t ness' s t est i mony i s

credi bl e. We' l l set f or t h t he exchange t o put i t i n cont ext .

Q. [ By def ense counsel ] Who det ermi nes whet heror not [ Smi t h' s] t est i mony i s t r ut hf ul ?

A. [ Mer cer ] I guess t he j ur y.

Q. How about t he government?

A. I t hi nk ul t i mat el y t he j ur y. Agai n, i f we- - i f I t hought t hat he l i ed and I coul d pr ovei t , I woul d br i ng i t t o t he at t ent i on of t heU. S. At t or ney per sonal l y and I guess t hey' l lmake t hei r own eval uat i on at some poi nt .

-21-


22/39

Q. So, t hen i f Mr . Et i enne doesn' t getconvi ct ed, t hen you assume t hat t he j ur yt hi nks [ Smi t h] i s l yi ng and i f he doesn' t geta convi ct i on i n t hi s case, [ Smi t h] get schar ged wi t h everyt hi ng goi ng back to 2003,2004, when he bought t he guns i n Woburn wi t h

Paul , r i ght ?

A. No.

Q. I sn' t t hat what you j ust t est i f i ed t o?

A. I f your def endant - - i f your cl i ent[ Et i enne] i s f ound not gui l t y, t hat ' s t hej ury' s deci si on. That doesn' t mean t hat[ Smi t h] l i ed. I t may be we di dn' t have enoughevi dence, whi ch I don' t - - I t hi nk we have - -

Q. So t hat i t won' t be t he j ur y t hatdet er mi nes whet her or not [ Smi t h] i s l yi ng ort el l i ng t he t r ut h, i t ' s goi ng t o be t hegover nment , t he one t hat he made t he dealwi t h, who det ermi nes whether or not he' st es t i f i ed t rut hf ul l y?

A. That wi l l be one of t he f act or s, yes.

Et i enne' s ar gument t hat t hi s t est i mony mandates a new

t r i al i s ut t er l y wi t hout mer i t . Def ense counsel el i ci t ed t he

compl ai ned- of t est i mony, and even t hen onl y af t er an ext ended back-

and- f or t h wi t h Mer cer . Counsel not onl y opened t he door t o t hi s

r esponse t hr ough hi s l i ne of i nqui r y, but pr act i cal l y begged Mer cer

t o wal k t hr ough i t by cont i nui ng t o pur sue i t . We wi l l not now

suf f er t o hear Et i enne compl ai n of a pur por t ed er r or f or whi ch he

al one was r esponsi bl e.7

7 I n a si ngl e par agr aph of hi s br i ef , Et i enne cher r y- pi ckssever al unobj ect ed- t o st at ement s f r omt he pr osecut or ' s openi ng andcl osi ng argument s, t hen advances t he not i on t hat t he governmentpr esent ed i t s case i n such a way as t o i mpr oper l y vouch f or Smi t h' s

-22-


23/39

5. Identification Testimony

Fi nal l y, we addr ess Et i enne' s ar gument s r egar di ng

Mer cer ' s and Br uce' s t est i mony i dent i f yi ng t he speaker s hear d i n

var i ous r ecor ded conver sat i ons. Gener al l y speaki ng, i n t he

compl ai ned- of t est i mony t he of f i cer s i dent i f i ed ei t her Et i enne' s or

J ean- Fr ancoi s' s voi ce on t hose r ecor di ngs. Et i enne asser t s ( 1)

t hat t hi s t est i mony was i nadmi ssi bl e because t he gover nment f ai l ed

t o l ay a f oundat i on f or ei t her l aw enf or cement of f i cer ' s abi l i t y t o

i dent i f y any of t he voi ces i n t he r ecor di ngs, and ( 2) t he of f i cer s'

opi ni ons were not hel pf ul t o t he j ur y ( and shoul d not have been

admi t t ed) because Smi t h made the same i dent i f i cat i ons when he took

t he st and.

I n r ej oi nder , t he gover nment ar gues t hat t he l ack of a

pr oper f oundat i on f or Mer cer ' s i dent i f i cat i on t est i mony cannot be

pr esumed i n the absence of an obj ect i on, whi ch woul d have l ed t o an

on- t he- r ecor d pr of f er of a f oundat i on. As f or Br uce, t he

gover nment ar gues t hat hi s unobj ect ed- t o test i mony est abl i shed a

f oundat i on based on hi s opport uni t y t o obser ve and hear both Smi t h

and Et i enne dur i ng t he i nvest i gat i on. Fi nal l y, t he gover nment says

t hat even i f any of t he t est i mony was admi t t ed i n er r or , Et i enne i s

t est i mony. Al t hough he expounds on t hi s t heor y at great er l engt hi n hi s r epl y br i ef , Et i enne has pr ovi ded us wi t h no aut hor i t y f orhi s cont ent i on t hat t he di spar at e st at ement s wer e i mpr oper or t hatt hey f or m any basi s f or r ever sal on pl ai n er r or r evi ew.Accor di ngl y, we f i nd any pot ent i al ar gument al ong t hese l i nes t o bewai ved. See Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r .1990) .

-23-


24/39

unabl e t o sat i sf y t he t hi r d or f our t h pr ongs of pl ai n er r or r evi ew

because Smi t h hi msel f was compet ent t o i dent i f y t he i ndi vi dual s i n

t he recor di ngs, he di d so on the st and, and Smi t h' s t est i mony was

consi st ent wi t h t hat of Mer cer and Br uce.

Because t he government di d not seek t o qual i f y ei t her

Mer cer or Br uce as an exper t , we anal yze t hei r i dent i f i cat i on

t est i mony as l ay opi ni on under Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 701. To be

admi ssi bl e, l ay opi ni on must "be ' hel pf ul t o cl ear l y under st andi ng

t he wi t ness' t est i mony or t o det er mi ni ng a f act i n i ssue, ' " Uni t ed

St at es v. D az- Ar i as, 717 F. 3d 1, 11- 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng

Fed. R. Evi d. 701( b) ) , and "' r at i onal l y based on t he wi t ness' s

per cept i on, ' " i d. at 13. ( quot i ng Fed. R. Evi d. 701( a) ) . We have

det er mi ned t hat a l ay opi ni on i s not "' hel pf ul ' t o t he j ur y ' when

t he j ur y can r eadi l y dr aw t he necessar y i nf er ences and concl usi ons

wi t hout t he ai d of t he opi ni on. ' " I d. at 12 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es

v. Sanabr i a, 645 F. 3d 505, 515 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) .

Mor eover , and despi t e Et i enne' s f ai l ur e t o r ai se t he

i ssue at t r i al , t he gover nment bor e t he "bur den [ of l ayi ng] a

f oundat i on t hat est abl i shed t he basi s of [ Mer cer ' s and Br uce' s]

knowl edge or opi ni on i n connect i on wi t h al l of [ t hei r ] t est i mony. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Vzquez- Ri ver a, 665 F. 3d 351, 361 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ;

see al so Rosado- Pr ez, 605 F. 3d at 55 ( "A f oundat i on shoul d be l ai d

est abl i shi ng t he basi s of a wi t ness' s knowl edge, opi ni on, or

expert i se. ") .

-24-


25/39

Wi t h t hese pr i nci pl es i n mi nd, we may qui ckl y di spose of

t he chal l enge t o Br uce' s t est i mony. The i dent i f i cat i ons Br uce made

wer e of voi ces on t he body wi r e recor di ngs f r om J ul y 22 and 30.

Br uce t est i f i ed t hat he est abl i shed sur vei l l ance of Et i enne' s home

on J ul y 22 i n a spot t hi r t y t o f or t y- f i ve f eet away wher e he had an

unobst r uct ed vi ew. Br uce t est i f i ed he had met Smi t h bef or e t hat

day, and t hat Smi t h' s body wi r e- - whi ch al l owed Br uce t o hear hi s

conver sat i ons "i n r eal t i me"- - was "wor k[ i ng] ver y wel l . " Fur t her ,

Br uce personal l y obser ved Et i enne st andi ng on hi s por ch when Smi t h

ar r i ved at hi s Hol l i ngswor t h St r eet home. Br uce wat ched as Smi t h

appr oached and exchanged gr eet i ngs wi t h Et i enne, af t er whi ch t hey

both went i nsi de, whereupon he coul d no l onger see thembut coul d

st i l l "hear what was bei ng sai d, " t hanks t o Smi t h' s body wi r e.

Cont r ar y t o Et i enne' s pr ot est at i ons, Br uce' s t est i mony

adequat el y est abl i shed t hat he was capabl e of i dent i f yi ng Et i enne' s

voi ce on t he r ecor di ngs by vi r t ue of hi s pr evi ous f ami l i ar i t y wi t h

Smi t h coupl ed wi t h hi s abi l i t y t o observe and hear Smi t h' s

i nt er act i on wi t h Et i enne on t he f r ont por ch. Br uce' s opi ni on was

cl ear l y hel pf ul t o t he j ur y. Not onl y di d i t assi st t he j ur y- -

whi ch was not f ami l i ar wi t h t he voi ces of Smi t h, J ean- Francoi s, or

Et i enne- - i n det er mi ni ng f or i t sel f who sai d what i n t he r ecor di ngs,

-25-


26/39

i t al so t ended t o show Smi t h spoke wi t h Et i enne and not some ot her

per son i nsi de t he house. 8 Ther e was no er r or , pl ai n or ot her wi se.

As f or Mer cer , he i dent i f i ed t he r ecor ded voi ces of bot h

Et i enne and J ean- Fr ancoi s i n t el ephone conver sat i ons and on t he

body wi r e. The gover nment , as Et i enne cont ends, di d not l ay a

f oundat i on f or t hi s t est i mony, and on appeal i t does not ar gue i t

di d. I nst ead, t he gover nment of f er s specul at i on as t o pot ent i al

f oundat i onal t est i mony t hat Mercer may have of f ered had he been

asked. Specul at i on i s not f oundat i on evi dence, and we f i nd t he

gover nment ' s f ai l ur e t o el i ci t Mer cer ' s i dent i f i cat i on t est i mony

wi t hout at t empt i ng t o l ay a f oundat i on was a pl ai n and obvi ous

error.

That bei ng sai d, t he t hi r d and f our t h prongs of our pl ai n

er r or r evi ew nonet hel ess bl ock Et i enne' s pat h t o r el i ef . Recal l

t hat i n addi t i on t o demonst r at i ng pl ai n er r or , Et i enne must al so

pr ove t he er r or af f ect ed hi s subst ant i al r i ght s and "seri ousl y

af f ect[ ed] t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on of [ t he]

j udi ci al proceedi ngs. " Whi t ney, 524 F. 3d at 140 ( i nter nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . On t hi s r ecor d, he i s abl e t o do

nei t her .

8 We, t her ef or e, r ej ect Et i enne' s argument t hat because t her ecor di ngs spoke f or t hemsel ves, and because Smi t h pr ovi ded hi s owni nt er pr et at i on of what was goi ng on, t he di st r i ct j udge shoul d haveexcl uded Mer cer ' s and Br uce' s i nt er pr et i ve t est i mony as not hel pf ult o t he j ur y.

-26-


27/39

Al t hough t he gover nment f ai l ed t o l ay a f oundat i on f or

Mer cer ' s i dent i f i cat i on t est i mony, i t di d do so f or Smi t h' s and

Br uce' s t est i mony. Smi t h, who had act ual l y par t i ci pat ed i n t he

conver sat i ons, made hi s voi ce i dent i f i cat i ons whi l e t he act ual

t apes wer e pl ayi ng, whi l e Mer cer and Br uce si mpl y test i f i ed t o

t hei r r ecol l ect i ons as t o who sai d what i n each conver sat i on. Al l

t hr ee of f er ed consi st ent t est i mony, and each was subj ect t o

r i gor ous cross- exami nat i on. Gi ven t hat Et i enne had t he oppor t uni t y

t o expose any weaknesses i n t he t est i mony, we can not say t he

gover nment ' s f ai l ur e t o l ay a f oundat i on f or Mer cer ' s

i dent i f i cat i on t est i mony af f ected Et i enne' s subst ant i al r i ght s.

The st r ength of t he evi dence agai nst Et i enne onl y

r ei nf or ces t hi s concl usi on. The i ndi ct ment char ged Et i enne as a

member of a dr ug di st r i but i on conspi r acy i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C.

846. To convi ct , t he government had t o pr ove t hat Et i enne

"ent ered i nt o an agr eement wi t h another t o commi t a cr i me, " here,

an agr eement wi t h J ean- Francoi s to di st r i but e cr ack. Uni t ed St at es

v. I nnamor at i , 996 F. 2d 456, 470- 71 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) .

The r ecor di ngs est abl i shed t hat J ean- Fr ancoi s

orchest r ated each dr ug deal and i nst r uct ed Smi t h t o make the

physi cal exchange wi t h Et i enne. Et i enne' s pr esence at t he t i me and

pl ace wher e J ean- Fr ancoi s t ol d Smi t h t o pi ck up t he dr ugs, combi ned

wi t h hi s pr eexi st i ng awar eness of t he pr i ce ( i ncl udi ng t he l ast -

mi nut e $50 i ncr ease on J ul y 22) , i s power f ul ci r cumst ant i al

-27-


28/39

evi dence agai nst hi m. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Andj ar - Basco,

488 F. 3d 549, 558 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( The def endant ' s " ver y ar r i val at

t he appoi nt ed t i me and pl ace desi gnat ed f or t he t r ansf er of

[ cer t ai n amount s of cash] i s st r ong ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of hi s

i nvol vement i n t he conspi r acy. " ) . The r ecor di ngs t hemsel ves, as

hear d by t he j ur y, est abl i shed t hat t he speaker s used dr ug l i ngo,

and they coul d be hear d consummat i ng a dr ug deal as wel l .

Addi t i onal evi dence came f r om t he par t i es' st i pul at i ons

as t o dr ug quant i t y. Whi l e we wi l l have occasi on t o di scuss t hem

i n mor e det ai l l at er , t he par t i es st i pul at ed- - and t he j ur y was t ol d

dur i ng t he gover nment ' s case- i n- chi ef - - t hat Smi t h t ur ned baggi es

over t o l aw enf orcement contai ni ng 15. 25 grams and 27. 82 grams of

cr ack on J ul y 22 and J ul y 30, r espect i vel y. As one ounce i s

appr oxi matel y 28. 35 gr ams, Smi t h obt ai ned appr oxi matel y hal f - an-

ounce of cr ack on J ul y 22, and j ust shy of one ounce on J ul y 30.

Thi s compor t ed wi t h t he r ecor ded conversat i ons i n whi ch Smi t h t ol d

J ean- Fr ancoi s how much he was l ooki ng f or on each occasi on, and

const i t ut ed f ur t her evi dence of Et i enne' s i nvol vement i n t he

conspi r acy.

Al l t ol d, t he evi dence of gui l t was over whel mi ng. We ar e

sat i sf i ed t her ef or e, t hat t he er r oneous admi ssi on of Mer cer ' s

i dent i f i cat i on t est i mony di d not af f ect Et i enne' s subst ant i al

r i ght s or ser i ousl y i mpai r t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c

reput at i on of hi s t r i al .

-28-


29/39

B. Alleyne

Because Et i enne i s unabl e t o show he i s ent i t l ed t o a new

t r i al , we move on to addr ess hi s argument t hat we must vacate hi s

sevent y- mont h sent ence. Et i enne t el l s us t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed

by i mposi ng a st atut ory mi ni mummandatory sent ence i n vi ol at i on of

hi s Si xt h Amendment r i ght s as art i cul ated by the Supr eme Cour t i n

Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2151 ( 2013) . Et i enne di d not

obj ect t o t he i mposi t i on of a mi ni mum sent ence at sent enci ng, and

as wi t h hi s evi dent i ar y chal l enges, he concedes t hat pl ai n er r or

r evi ew appl i es her e. Bef or e get t i ng i nt o hi s ar gument , we pr ovi de

a br i ef pr i mer on Al l eyne.

" I n Al l eyne, t he Supr eme Cour t extended t he rul e

[ announced i n Appr endi v. New J ersey, 530 U. S. 466, 490 ( 2000) , ]

r equi r i ng a j ur y t o f i nd, beyond a r easonabl e doubt , any f act t hat

i ncr eases a maxi mum st at ut or y penal t y to any f act t hat r equi r es

i mposi ng a st at ut or y mi ni mum penal t y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Doe, 741

F. 3d 217, 233 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , cer t . deni ed, No. 13- 10728, 2014 WL

2919345 ( Oct . 6, 2014) ( ci t i ng Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at 2160) .

Al l eyne r ecogni zed t hat "a f act t r i gger i ng a mandat or y mi ni mum

[ sent ence] al t er s t he pr escr i bed r ange of sent ences t o whi ch a

cr i mi nal def endant i s exposed. " Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at 2160.

Ther ef or e, "a f act i ncr easi ng ei t her end of t he [ sentenci ng] r ange

pr oduces a new penal t y and const i t ut es an i ngr edi ent of t he

of f ense. " I d. I n t oday' s post - Al l eyne wor l d, any such f act "must

-29-


30/39

be submi t t ed t o and f ound beyond a reasonabl e doubt by a j ur y, not

by a j udge ut i l i zi ng a pr eponderance of t he evi dence st andar d at a

sent enci ng hear i ng. " Doe, 741 F. 3d at 233.

Her e, t he f i ve- year mi ni mumsent ence was t r i gger ed by t he

amount of dr ugs i nvol ved i n t he conspi r acy. At t he t i me t he

i ndi ct ment i ssued, t he conspi r acy onl y needed t o have i nvol ved 5

gr ams of cr ack f or t he f i ve- year mi ni mum t o appl y. The par t i es

agr ee t hough that an i nt erveni ng st atut ory amendment upped t he ant e

and r equi r ed t he gover nment t o convi nce the j ur y t hat i t i nvol ved

at l east 28 gr ams t o r equi r e a mi ni mum f i ve- year sent ence.

Al t hough t he or i gi nal i ndi ct ment al l eged t he conspi r acy i nvol ved

more than 5 gr ams of cr ack, t he government decl i ned t o seek a

super sedi ng i ndi ct ment r ef l ect i ve of t he new 28- gr am t hr eshol d.

At sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct j udge st at ed, "[ w] el l , t he

j ury di dn' t f i nd i t , but as a sent enci ng mat t er t her e' s l i t t l e

quest i on t hat t he quant i t i es i nvol ved, as st at ed i n t he

[ Present ence Repor t ] , exceed 28 gr ams. " The pr osecut or r epl i ed

t hat t hi s was " [ c] or r ect , " whi l e the def endant made no r esponse.

The gover nment and def endant proceeded wi t h t hei r sent enci ng

argument s ( t he def endant ' s f ocused on what he consi dered t o be hi s

mi nor i nvol vement wi t h t he dr ug deal s) , wi t h no di scussi on as t o

t he dr ug quant i t i es i nvol ved i n t he t wo t r ansact i ons. The j udge

noted t hat t he Uni t ed St ates Sent enci ng Gui del i nes r ecommended a

sent ence between si xt y- t hr ee and sevent y- ei ght mont hs, and he

-30-


31/39

opi ned t hat " t he Gui del i nes t hemsel ves do a good j ob of consi der i ng

and r ecogni zi ng t he f act or s t hat t he [ sent enci ng] st at ut e set s

out . " The j udge t hen i mposed a sevent y- mont h sentence. Whi l e t he

sent ence ul t i matel y i mposed exceeded t he f i ve- year mi ni mum, t here

i s no doubt t he di st r i ct j udge consi der ed t he mi ni mum sent ence t o

have been t r i gger ed by the i nvol ved dr ug quant i t i es.

Accor di ng t o Et i enne, t he di st r i ct j udge er r ed i n doi ng

so because t he j ur y di d not make any determi nat i on as t o t he amount

of dr ugs i nvol ved i n ei t her t r ansact i on. Fur t her , he st at es, t her e

was no evi dence as t o dr ug composi t i on or wei ght at t r i al . And

because t he j udge, as opposed t o t he j ur y, i mpr oper l y made the

f i ndi ng i t mat t er s not t hat t he di st r i ct j udge i mposed a wi t hi n-

Gui del i nes sent ence t hat exceeded t he st atut ory mi ni mum. Thus,

Et i enne ur ges us t o remand f or r esent enci ng wi t hout r egar d t o the

st at ut or y mi ni mum ( and, pr esumabl y, wi t hout t aki ng any dr ug

quant i t y i nt o consi der at i on) .

The gover nment , somewhat surpr i si ngl y, concedes t he

di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed a cl ear or obvi ous er r or by i mposi ng a

mandatory mi ni mumsent ence. I t f ocuses i t s ar gument i nst ead on t he

t hi r d and f our t h pr ongs of pl ai n er r or r evi ew, cont endi ng t hat

Et i enne i s unabl e t o show t he er r or af f ect ed hi s subst ant i al r i ght s

or ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on

of t he j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. The gover nment ar gues none of

Et i enne' s subst ant i al r i ght s wer e af f ect ed t hanks t o t he

-31-


32/39

uncont r over t ed evi dence at t r i al t hat t he t wo t r ansact i ons i nvol ved

more t han enough cr ack t o t r i gger t he f i ve- year mi ni mum. Fur t her ,

t he government says t hat no pl ai n er r or can be shown because t he

sentence i mposed- - sevent y mont hs- - was based upon t he Gui del i nes

r ange and t he 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) f act or s, not on t he cour t ' s

det er mi nat i on of dr ug quant i t y.

Al t hough t he par t i es agr ee an Al l eyne er r or occur r ed,

t hei r st i pul at i on on t hi s quest i on of l aw i s of no i mpor t . See

Uni t ed St at es v. Teet er , 257 F. 3d 14, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2001)

( "St i pul at i ons about l egal i ssues . . . nor mal l y ar e not bi ndi ng on

a cour t . " ) . Accor di ngl y, we t ake a de novo l ook at t he Al l eyne

i ssue.

What happened her e i s t he par t i es st i pul at ed t o sever al

f act s pr i or t o t r i al , i ncl udi ng dr ug wei ght and composi t i on. The

gover nment i nt r oduced t hose st i pul at i ons i n i t s case- i n- chi ef

dur i ng Mer cer ' s t est i mony, each t i me wi t hout obj ect i on. Bef or e

ment i oni ng t he f i r st st i pul at ed f act , t he pr osecut or addr essed t he

cour t , st at i ng "at t hi s t i me we woul d ask, and we have agr eed wi t h

[ t he] def ense, t o i nt r oduce por t i ons of t he st i pul at i on of

undi sput ed f act s. " The t r i al j udge made t he f ol l owi ng r esponse:

Okay. Let me j ust say t o t he j ur y, somet i mes

f act s are at i ssue i n t he case, somet i mest hey' r e not . The part i es may somet i mes agr eet hat some t hi ngs ar e f act ual . So, t hey ent eri nt o what we cal l a st i pul at i on, whi ch i sevi dence of t he f act s t hat t hey woul d r eci t e.That means t her e i s no cont r oversy bet ween t hepar t i es about t hese mat t er s.

-32-


33/39

The prosecutor proceeded t o i nf or mt he j ury t hat t he par t i es agr eed

t hat i n J ul y of 2009 Et i enne ( 1) l i ved i n Lynn, Massachuset t s, and

( 2) was t he pr i mar y car et aker and had sol e physi cal cust ody of a

young daught er . He t hen cont i nued hi s l i ne of quest i oni ng

r egar di ng t he f i r st dr ug deal on J ul y 22.

As Mer cer concl uded hi s t est i mony about t hat deal , t he

pr osecut or ent er ed t he f ol l owi ng st i pul at i on i nt o evi dence wi t hout

obj ect i on: "The whi t e subst ance whi ch was cont ai ned i n a pl ast i c

baggi e pr ovi ded by [ Smi t h] t o f eder al agent s on J ul y 22, 2009 was

cocai ne base, al so known as cr ack, and t he net wei ght of t he

cocai ne base i t sel f was 15. 25 gr ams. " Lat er on, whi l e Mer cer was

st i l l on t he st and, t he pr osecut or si mi l ar l y r ead t he f ol l owi ng

st i pul at ed f act s about t he second dr ug buy: "The whi t e subst ance

whi ch was cont ai ned i n a pl ast i c baggi e pr ovi ded by [Smi t h] t o

f eder al agent s on J ul y 30t h, 2009, was cocai ne base, al so known as

cr ack, and t he net wei ght of t he cocai ne base i t sel f was 27. 82

grams. "

Fol l owi ng bot h si des' cl osi ng ar gument s, t he t r i al j udge

gave t he f ol l owi ng j ur y i nst r uct i on r egar di ng t he par t i es'

st i pul at i ons:

Now, you have some di f f erent categor i es of

evi dence. You have some st i pul at i ons, what wecal l , and t hey wer e read at var i ous pl aces andyou' l l have, I bel i eve, a copy of t he documentwhi ch r ecor ds t he st i pul at i ons. Thest i pul at i ons ar e agr eement s bet ween t hegover nment and the def endant t hat you may t aket he f act s st i pul at ed t o as bei ng est abl i shed.

-33-


34/39

Those ar e not i n cont est . App. at 316( emphasi s added) .

Et i enne di d not obj ect t o t hi s i nst r uct i on, but even i f he had, t he

i nst r ucti on was cor r ect. I t i s wel l - est abl i shed t hat a st i pul at i on

i s a f or m of evi dence t hat " shoul d be pr esent ed t o t he j ur y, i n

what ever manner t he par t i es and t he cour t s agr ee to, pr i or t o t he

cl ose of evi dence. " Uni t ed St at es v. Pr at t , 568 F. 3d 11, 18 n. 6

( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

Thus, t he prosecut i on i nt r oduced evi dence dur i ng i t s

case- i n- chi ef showi ng t hat t he t wo t r ansact i ons t oget her yi el ded a

t ot al of 43. 07 gr ams of cr ack. Not onl y was t he evi dence

uncont est ed, Et i enne expr essl y agr eed t o i t . Thi s cl ear l y

est abl i shed t he mi ni mum dr ug quant i t y at t r i but abl e and/ or

f or eseeabl e t o Et i enne dur i ng hi s i nvol vement i n t he conspi r acy.

Thi s number easi l y exceeded t he 28 grams r equi r ed t o t r i gger a

mi ni mum f i ve- year sent ence.

The drug quant i t y cases upon whi ch Et i enne r el i es al l

i nvol ve si t uat i ons i n whi ch t he dr ug quant i t y evi dence di d not come

i n at t r i al . Those cases necessar i l y i nvol ved an Appr endi or

Al l eyne vi ol at i on, as t he ul t i mat e dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ngs wer e made

by t he j udge at sent enci ng. See Uni t ed St at es v. Zaval a- Mar t i , 715

F. 3d 44, 52- 54 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( Appr endi vi ol at i on wher e j udge' s

dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ng at sent enci ng exceeded amount set f or t h i n

t he i ndi ct ment and t r i gger ed a har sher maxi mum j ai l t er m) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Har akal y, 734 F. 3d 88, 96- 97 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( Al l eyne

-34-


35/39

err or where dr ug quant i t y t r i gger i ng mandatory mi ni mumwas nei t her

al l eged i n i ndi ct ment nor st i pul at ed at t i me gui l t y pl ea ent er ed) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Del gado- Mar r er o, 744 F. 3d 167, 183- 84, 188- 89 ( 1st

Ci r . 2014) ( Al l eyne er r or where j udge i mposed enhanced mi ni mum

af t er j ur y answer ed post ver di ct "speci al " quest i on as t o dr ug

quant i t y, but had not been i nst r uct ed i t s f i ndi ng must be beyond a

r easonabl e doubt ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Bar nes, - - - F. 3d - - - ,

No. 11- 1093, 2014 WL 5072846, at *2 ( 1st Ci r . Oct . 10, 2014)

( Al l eyne er r or where j udge f ound dr ug quant i t y t r i gger i ng mandat or y

mi ni mumby t he pr eponderance of t he evi dence) . Here, by cont r ast ,

Et i enne hi msel f af f i r mat i vel y rel i eved t he gover nment of t he bur den

of pr oof wi t h r espect t o dr ug quant i t y.

"Fact f i ndi ng pr emi sed on a def endant ' s admi ssi on i s not

a pr act i ce i nval i dat ed by Appr endi , " Al l eyne' s pr e- cur sor . Uni t ed

St at es v. Ei r by, 515 F. 3d 31, 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . By t hat same

t oken, nei t her i s i t pr ohi bi t ed by Al l eyne, whi ch mer el y ext ends

Appr endi ' s r ul e to f act s t hat t r i gger mandat or y mi ni mumsent ences.

Gi ven Et i enne' s admi ssi on t hat t he t wo t r ansact i ons i nvol ved mor e

t han 28 gr ams of cr ack, t he di st r i ct j udge' s i mposi t i on of a

mi ni mum sent ence si mpl y di d not i nvol ve t he t ype of " j udi ci al

f act f i ndi ng" t he Supr eme Cour t f ound concerni ng i n Al l eyne. We

-35-


36/39

concl ude, t her ef or e, t hat Et i enne' s sent ence i s not vi ol at i ve of

Al l eyne. 9

I n a l ast - gasp ef f or t t o undo hi s st i pul at i ons, Et i enne

ci t es Uni t ed St at es v. Tor r es- Rosar i o, 658 F. 3d 110, 116 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) , t o t el l us t hat "cour t s may excuse wai ver s and di sr egar d

st i pul at i ons wher e j ust i ce so r equi r es. " He t hen asks us t o

di sr egar d hi s st i pul at i ons wi t h r espect t o dr ug quant i t y. Et i enne,

t hough, does not speci f y how or why j ust i ce r equi r es t hat he be

r el i eved of t he st i pul at i ons. Mor eover , he conveni ent l y i gnor es

our observat i on i n t he ver y case he ci t es t hat , "wher e a par t y

makes an expl i ci t and speci f i c concessi on, pr act i cal r easons f avor

hol di ng a par t y t o such a concessi on, whet her gi ven i n exchange f or

a qui d pr o quo or merel y t o avoi d evi dence that t he part y woul d

pr ef er not t o be pr esent ed. " I d.

Et i enne cl ear l y st ood t o benef i t f r omthese st i pul at i ons.

Fi r st , t hey reduced t he number of wi t nesses agai nst hi m by

r el i evi ng t he gover nment of i t s bur den t o cal l wi t nesses t o

est abl i sh t he wei ght and chemi cal makeup of t he subst ances Smi t h

9 True, t he di st r i ct j udge at sent enci ng obser ved t hatal t hough " t he j ur y di dn' t f i nd i t , but as a sent enci ng mat t ert her e' s l i t t l e quest i on t hat t he quant i t i es i nvol ved, as r epor t ed

i n t he [ Present ence Report ] , exceed 28 gr ams. " The r eason " t hej ury di dn' t f i nd i t , " of cour se, i s because Et i enne had agr eed t ot he dr ug quant i t i es, t her eby l eavi ng not hi ng f or t he j ur y t o do ont hat i ssue. Regar dl ess, we may af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t on anybasi s appear i ng i n t he r ecor d, such as Et i enne' s st i pul at i ons.Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Pea, 470 F. 3d 431, 433 ( 1st Ci r . 2006)( per cur i am) . We do so here.

-36-


37/39

t ur ned over t o l aw enf orcement . 10 Such t est i mony woul d have

di st r act ed f r om t he def ense st r at egy of f ocusi ng sol el y on Smi t h

and hi s mot i vat i on f or , as Et i enne saw i t , f eedi ng hi m t o t he ATF

i n or der t o save hi s own ski n. I ndeed, t est i mony f r om one or mor e

expert s t hat t he subst ances Smi t h t ur ned over t o l aw enf orcement

were what he had pur por t ed t hem t o be coul d onl y ser ve t o enhance

Smi t h' s cr edi bi l i t y.

We al so not e t he gover nment i ndi cat ed i n i t s t r i al

memor andumt hat , shoul d t he j ur y convi ct , i t woul d seek t o pr ove at

sent enci ng " t hat t he def endant s [ i . e. , J ean- Francoi s and Et i enne]

conspi r ed t o di st r i but e at l east 280 gr ams of [ cr ack] , t hus

t r i gger i ng a 10- year mandatory mi ni mum sent ence under [ 21 U. S. C. ]

841. " 11 Thi s put Et i enne on not i ce t hat t he gover nment l i kel y had

evi dence beyond t he t wo sal es i n J ul y 2009. Had Et i enne chal l enged

dr ug composi t i on or quant i t y, t he government may have i nt r oduced

10 The gover nment had st at ed i n i t s t r i al memor andum ( f i l edbef or e t he par t i es st i pul at ed t o dr ug quant i t y) t hat i t i nt ended t ocal l an exper t wi t ness t o t est i f y t hat t he subst ances Et i enne sol dt o Smi t h i n J ul y 2009 t ogether cont ai ned more than 28 gr ams ofcr ack.

11 A dr ug conspi r acy i nvol vi ng 280 gr ams of cr ack act ual l yexposed Et i enne t o a pot ent i al l i f e sent ence. See 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i i ) ( pr ovi di ng t en- year t o l i f e sent ence as

puni shment f or any per son who knowi ngl y or i nt ent i onal l ydi st r i but es or possesses wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e at l east 280gr ams of cr ack) ; 21 U. S. C. 846 ( r ender i ng any person who"conspi r es t o commi t any of f ense def i ned i n t hi s subchapt er . . .subj ect t o t he same penal t i es as t hose pr escr i bed f or t he of f ense,t he commi ss i on of whi ch was t he obj ect of t he at t empt orconspi r acy") .

-37-


38/39

evi dence of addi t i onal dr ug sal es. Thi s obvi ousl y woul d have been

har mf ul t o Et i enne' s i nt er est s, and st i pul at i ng t o t he l ower dr ug

quant i t y f or estal l ed t hi s possi bi l i t y.

As i t t ur ns out , and al t hough Al l eyne had not yet been

deci ded when Et i enne was sent enced, t he government di d not at t empt

t o pr ove at sent enci ng t hat t he conspi r acy i nvol ved at l east 280

gr ams of cr ack. See Uni t ed St at es v. Mi l l s, 710 F. 3d 5, 15 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) ( r ecogni zi ng i n a pr e- Al l eyne opi ni on t hat dr ug

quant i t i es may be f ound at sent enci ng by a pr eponderance of t he

evi dence) . At t he t i me of t r i al , Et i enne woul d have under st ood t he

government onl y needed t o i nt r oduce enough evi dence t o obtai n a

convi ct i on on t he conspi r acy char ge, but coul d t hen i nt r oduce

evi dence of dr ug quant i t y at sent enci ng i n an at t empt t o t r i gger

t he t en- year mi ni mum. Al t hough t he r ecor d does not expl i ci t l y

r eveal why Et i enne deci ded t o st i pul at e t o dr ug composi t i on and

quant i t y at t r i al , i t i s not ewor t hy t hat , af t er he di d so, t he

government chose not t o seek t he possi bl e ten- year mi ni mum at

sent enci ng.

Et i enne obvi ousl y f el t t he benef i t s of st i pul at i ng t o

dr ug quant i t y war r ant ed gi vi ng up t he oppor t uni t y t o chal l enge dr ug

wei ght and composi t i on. That he has come t o r egr et hi s st i pul at i on

i s not gr ounds f or r el i evi ng hi m of i t s ef f ect . Doi ng so woul d

al l ow Et i enne t o r eap i t s benef i t s at t r i al , onl y t o t ur n ar ound

and seek t o r ever se hi s convi ct i on because the t r i al pr oceeded i n

-38-


39/39

t he exact manner he want ed. Et i enne' s posi t i on boi l s down t o an

absur d desi r e t o have hi s cake ( t he sugar - based ki nd, t hat i s) and

eat i t t oo. We, t her ef or e, decl i ne t o per mi t Et i enne t o t ake back

hi s dr ug quant i t y sti pul at i ons.

III. CONCLUSION

Et i enne' s convi ct i on and sent ence ar e af f i r med.

Documents

United States v. Etienne, 1st Cir. (2014)