United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/54

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 11- 1689, 11- 1744

UNI TED STATES,

Appel l ee,

v.

CARLOS H. RI VERA- RODR GUEZ

and ALBERT MERCADO- CRUZ,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. J os Ant oni o Fust , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Thompson, Li pez, and Kayat t a,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Mi chael Covi ngt on Bagge, wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez-Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t orney, and Nel son Pr ez- Sosa and Thomas F.Kl umper , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neys, wer e on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Raf ael F. Cast r o Lang f or appel l ant Car l os H. Ri ver a- Rodr guezand Gui l l er mo A. Macar i - Gr i l l o f or appel l ant Al ber t Mer cado- Cr uz.

August 4, 2014


2/54

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appel l ant s Car l os H. Ri ver a- Rodr guez

and Al ber t Mer cado- Cr uz appeal t hei r convi ct i ons and sent ences on

dr ug possessi on and di st r i but i on char ges. Ri ver a- Rodr guez cl ai ms

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i mpr oper quest i oni ng of wi t nesses and i t s

handl i ng of a di sput e dur i ng cl osi ng ar gument s unf ai r l y pr ej udi ced

t he j ur y agai nst hi m. He f ur t her al l eges pr osecut or i al mi sconduct .

Mer cado- Cr uz, t hr ough counsel and by way of a pr o- se br i ef , al l eges

a number of er r or s r el at i ng t o hi s convi ct i on and sent enci ng,

i ncl udi ng a cl ai m t hat t he gover nment ' s cri mi nal hi st or y

i nf or mat i on shoul d not have t r i gger ed a mandat or y l i f e sent ence

because i t was not t i mel y f i l ed. See 21 U. S. C. 851( a) .

Af t er a cl ose r evi ew of t he r ecor d, we agr ee t hat Ri ver a-

Rodr guez' s convi ct i on must be vacat ed due t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

i mpr oper quest i oni ng of wi t nesses and i t s i nt er vent i on dur i ng

cl osi ng ar gument s. We af f i r m Mer cado- Cr uz' s convi ct i on and

sent ence.

I.

Ri ver a- Rodr guez and Mercado- Cr uz were among si xt y- f our co-

def endant s char ged wi t h i nvol vement i n a conspi r acy t o di st r i but e

var i ous t ypes of i l l egal dr ugs and pr escr i pt i on medi cat i ons f or

r ecr eat i onal use. 1 They wer e t he onl y t wo co-

1 The i ndi ct ment char ged Ri ver a- Rodr guez and Mercado- Cr uzwi t h: ( 1) conspi r i ng t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e oneki l ogr am or mor e of her oi n, f i ve ki l ogr ams or mor e of cocai ne,f i f t y gr ams or more of cocai ne base, one t housand ki l ogr ams or moreof mar i j uana, and detect abl e amount s of Oxycodone ( a/ k/ a,

-2-


3/54

def endant s who el ect ed t o st and t r i al r at her t han accept pl ea

agreement s.

Up t o and i ncl udi ng t he f i r st day of t r i al , Mer cado- Cr uz' s

counsel , At t or ney Li ncol n- San- J uan, at t empt ed t o per suade hi s

cl i ent t o accept a pl ea bar gai n t hat woul d have r esul t ed i n t he

gover nment r ecommendi ng a sent ence of between sevent y- seven and

ni net y- si x mont hs of i mpr i sonment . On t he day t r i al was schedul ed

t o begi n, t he gover nment sought t o i nt r oduce an i nf ormat i on

pur suant t o 21 U. S. C. 851 t o est abl i sh t hat Mer cado- Cr uz had

pr i or dr ug convi ct i ons and was t hus subj ect t o a mandat or y l i f e

sent ence i f convi ct ed on Count One. 2 Li ncol n- San- J uan asked t he

gover nment t o del ay f i l i ng t hat i nf or mat i on so t hat he coul d

Per cocet ) , and Al pr azol am ( a/ k/ a Xanax) , wi t hi n one t housandf eet of a publ i c housi ng pr oj ect and school , i n vi ol at i on of 21U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) , 846, and 860 ( Count One) ; ( 2) ai di ng andabet t i ng i n t he di st r i but i on of one or mor e ki l ogr ams of her oi n

wi t hi n one t housand f eet of a publ i c housi ng pr oj ect and school , i nvi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) and 860 and 18 U. S. C. 2( Count Two) ; ( 3) ai di ng and abet t i ng i n t he di st r i but i on of f i f t yor more gr ams of cocai ne base wi t hi n one t housand f eet of a publ i chousi ng pr oj ect and school , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1)and 860 and 18 U. S. C. 2 ( Count Thr ee) ; ( 4) ai di ng and abet t i ng i nt he di st r i but i on of f i ve or mor e ki l ogr ams of cocai ne wi t hi n onet housand f eet of a publ i c housi ng pr oj ect or school , i n vi ol at i onof 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) and 860 and 18 U. S. C. 2 ( Count Four ) ;and ( 5) ai di ng and abet t i ng i n t he di st r i but i on of a measur abl eamount of mar i j uana wi t hi n one t housand f eet of a publ i c housi ngpr oj ect and school , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) and 860

and 18 U. S. C. 2 ( Count Fi ve) .2 Under 851, when t he government expect s t o seek a

sent enci ng enhancement based on a def endant ' s pr i or convi ct i ons, i tmust pr ovi de not i ce t o t he cour t and t he def endant bef or e t r i al i nt he f or m of an i nf or mat i on l i st i ng t he convi cti ons t o be r el i edupon. 21 U. S. C. 851( a) ( 1) .

-3-


4/54

i mpl or e hi s cl i ent one f i nal t i me t o t ake t he pl ea deal af t er

i nf or mi ng hi m t hat he coul d f ace a mandat or y l i f e sent ence.

Mer cado- Cr uz el ect ed t o st and t r i al .

That same day, Mer cado- Cr uz compl ai ned t hat he was br ought t o

cour t f or t r i al wear i ng pr i son cl ot hes. The cour t r ef used t o

cont i nue t he t r i al on t hat basi s, expl ai ni ng t hat i t was t he

def endant ' s r esponsi bi l i t y t o suppl y hi s own al t er nat e cl ot hes.

Tr i al t hen began wi t h j ur y sel ect i on. The 851 i nf or mat i on was

f i l ed shor t l y t her eaf t er dur i ng t r i al .

Tr i al began wi t h t est i mony f r oma number of wi t nesses i nvol ved

wi t h t he l aw enf or cement i nvest i gat i on of a "dr ug poi nt " i n t he

Pr axedes Sant i ago Publ i c Housi ng Pr oj ect . These wi t nesses

t est i f i ed t o backgr ound i nf or mat i on about t he scope of t he al l eged

conspi r acy t o di st r i but e dr ugs t her e, but di d not , asi de f r om a

br i ef i dent i f i cat i on of Mer cado- Cr uz, pr ovi de any evi dence

speci f i cal l y t yi ng t he def endant s t o t he conspi r acy. 3 To i ncul pat e

t he def endant s, par t i cul ar l y Ri ver a- Rodr guez, t he gover nment

r el i ed pr i mar i l y on t he t est i mony of t wo cooper at i ng wi t nesses who

had al r eady pl ed gui l t y t o t hei r i nvol vement i n t he dr ug

conspi r acy. Dur i ng t he quest i oni ng of t hose wi t nesses by t he

3 I ndeed, t he di st r i ct cour t expr essed some f r ust r at i on wi t ht he gover nment ' s pr esent at i on of i t s case and the vast amount ofbackgr ound i nf ormat i on t hat was not t i ed t o t he co- def endant s ont r i al . At one poi nt t he cour t r emar ked t o t he Assi st ant Uni t edSt at es At t or ney, " I ' m l osi ng my pat i ence. I want you t o come andpresent evi dence about t hi s case. We have been one week here, andwe haven' t heard anyt hi ng about t hi s case. "

-4-


5/54

gover nment , t he cour t i nt er j ect ed i t s own i nqui r i es about t he pl ea

agr eement s t hat r equi r ed the cooper at i ng wi t nesses t o t est i f y

t r ut hf ul l y. I f t hey di d not , as t he cour t emphasi zed t hr ough i t s

quest i oni ng, t her e coul d be consequences f or t he cooper at i ng

wi t nesses, i ncl udi ng char ges f or per j ur y, f al se st at ement s, and

obst r uct i on of j ust i ce, as wel l as t he i mposi t i on of sent ences

beyond t he t erms of t he pl ea agreement s. 4

Mul t i pl e wi t nesses5 t est i f i ed t o seei ng Mer cado- Cr uz i n

possessi on of var i ous drugs i n and ar ound t he dr ug poi nt i n t he

Pr axedes Sant i ago Publ i c Housi ng Pr oj ect . Two cooper at i ng

wi t nesses, Pedr o Rodr guez Fer nndez, a/ k/ a Cunt a, and Adal ber t o

Tor r es Ocasi o, a/ k/ a Mar r uecos, i dent i f i ed hi mas a sel l er of t hese

i l l egal dr ugs. Mar r uecos al so t est i f i ed t hat Mer cado- Cr uz car r i ed

a f i r ear m ar ound t he dr ug poi nt . The pol i ce of f i cer who ar r est ed

Mer cado- Cr uz t est i f i ed t o f i ndi ng on hi s per son at t he t i me of

ar r est pr escr i pt i on pi l l s i n a bot t l e wi t h t he l abel t or n of f . The

pi l l s and t he bot t l e wer e t est ed and ent er ed i nt o evi dence agai nst

Mer cado- Cr uz.

4 Fur t her det ai l s of t he cour t ' s i nt er act i ons wi t h wi t nessesare exami ned i nf r a.

5 The wi t nesses who so t est i f i ed wer e not onl y t he t wocooper at i ng wi t nesses, but al so J os Mont aez- Sant os, a gover nmentwi t ness who was pr evi ousl y an i nf ormant wi t h t he DEA, and FBI AgentFranci sco Apont e. Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s wi t ness, Kei l a Fl or es- Ramos,al so i dent i f i ed Mercado- Cr uz as someone whom she had seen worki ngat t he dr ug poi nt .

-5-


6/54

Gover nment wi t ness J os Mont aez- Santos and def ense wi t ness

Kei l a Fl or es- Ramos t est i f i ed t hat Ri ver a- Rodr guez was not hi msel f

a dr ug user , but hi s son was a known addi ct who hung ar ound t he

dr ug poi nt . Cunt a and Mar r uecos, t he t wo cooperat i ng wi t nesses,

t est i f i ed that Ri ver a- Rodr guez set up a l ookout scheme to pr ot ect

dr ug deal er s by pr ovi di ng hand- hel d r adi os ( or "scanner s" ) t o pai d

l ookout s post ed at t he ent r ance t o t he housi ng pr oj ect who coul d

t hen war n t he sel l er s when t he pol i ce wer e comi ng. Test i f yi ng i n

hi s own def ense, Ri ver a- Rodr guez i nsi st ed t hat he i nt er act ed wi t h

dr ug deal er s and ot her s at t he dr ug poi nt onl y t o pr event t hemf r om

sel l i ng t o hi s son. Apar t f r om t he cooper at i ng wi t ness t est i mony,

t he gover nment i nt r oduced a hand- hel d r adi o i nt o evi dence t hat was

si mi l ar , but not i dent i cal , t o t he ones Ri ver a- Rodr guez al l egedl y

kept i n hi s home and used t o or chest r at e t he l ookout scheme. No

evi dence was sei zed f r om Ri ver a- Rodr guez or hi s home.

The j ur y f ound Ri ver a- Rodr guez gui l t y on al l count s and

Mer cado- Cr uz gui l t y on Count s One, Thr ee, and Four . At sent enci ng,

t he government of f ered t o amend t he 851 i nf ormat i on as t o

Mer cado- Cr uz i n exchange f or a wai ver of hi s r i ght t o appeal , whi ch

woul d have had t he ef f ect of l ower i ng t he appl i cabl e mandatory

mi ni mum sent ence t o t went y year s, r at her t han l i f e. Mer cado- Cr uz

r ef used t he deal . The cour t sent enced hi mt o t he mandatory t er mof

l i f e i mpr i sonment as t o Count One and to t wo t erms of 262 mont hs'

i mpr i sonment as t o Count s Three and Four , t o be served

-6-


7/54

concur r ent l y. 6 The cour t sent enced Ri ver a- Rodr guez to a t er m of

120 mont hs' i mpr i sonment as t o each count t o be served concur r ent l y

wi t h each ot her . Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

II.

A. Rivera-Rodrguez's Claims

1. The Court's Interventions

a. Legal Framework

I t i s wel l set t l ed t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i s mor e t han a

"mer e moder at or " i n a f eder al j ur y t r i al . Quer ci a v. Uni t ed St at es,

289 U. S. 466, 469 ( 1933) . Among ot her t hi ngs, t he j udge

"has t he pr er ogat i ve, and at t i mes t he dut y,of el i ci t i ng f act s he deems necessary t o t hecl ear pr esent at i on of i ssues. To t hi s end hemay exami ne wi t nesses who t est i f y, so l ong ashe pr eser ves an at t i t ude of i mpar t i al i t y andguar ds agai nst gi vi ng t he j ur y an i mpr essi ont hat t he cour t bel i eves t he def endant i sgui l t y. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Paz Ur i be, 891 F. 2d 396, 400- 401 ( 1st Ci r . 1989)

( quot i ng Ll ach v. Uni t ed St at es, 739 F. 2d 1322, 1329- 30 ( 8t h Ci r .

1984) ) ; see al so Fed. R. Evi d. 614( b) ( "The cour t may exami ne a

wi t ness r egar dl ess of who cal l s t he wi t ness. ") . The l aw af f or ds

t he t r i al cour t br oad di scr et i on f or j udi ci al i nt er r ogat i on. See

29 Char l es Al an Wr i ght & Vi ct or J ames Gol d, Feder al Pr act i ce &

Pr ocedure 6235 ( 1997) .

6 The cour t pr oper l y gr ouped these sent ences pur suant t oU. S. S. G. 3D1. 2( d) .

-7-


8/54

Nonet hel ess, i n quest i oni ng wi t nesses, as i n al l aspect s of

t r i al admi ni st r at i on, t he cour t must scr upul ousl y avoi d any

appear ance of par t i al i t y, l est i t r un af oul of t he maxi m t hat

" ' [ p] r osecut i on and j udgment ar e t wo qui t e separ at e f unct i ons i n

t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce; t hey must not mer ge. ' " Uni t ed

St at es v. Nor r i s, 873 F. 2d 1519, 1527 ( D. C. Ci r . 1989) ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St ates v. Marzano, 149 F. 2d 923, 926 (2d Ci r . 1945)

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ) . Each j udi ci al i nt er vent i on r ai ses t he

possi bi l i t y t hat t he j ur y wi l l per cei ve t he cour t as bi ased t owar d

one par t y or anot her . See St ar r v. Uni t ed St at es, 153 U. S. 614,

626 ( 1894) ( "I t i s obvi ous t hat under any syst emof j ur y t r i al s t he

i nf l uence of t he t r i al j udge on t he j ur y i s necessar i l y and

pr oper l y of gr eat wei ght , and t hat hi s l i ght est wor d or i nt i mat i on

i s r ecei ved wi t h def er ence, and may pr ove cont r ol l i ng. " ) . To

determi ne whether t he j ur y woul d percei ve bi as, we of t en must

exami ne each i nt er vent i on i n t he cont ext of t he t r i al as a whol e.

See Uni t ed St at es v. Pol i t o, 856 F. 2d 414, 418 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) .

Wher e, as her e, a convi ct ed def endant cl ai ms t hat t he t r i al

cour t over st epped i t s bounds and gave an appearance of j udi ci al

bi as t hat r equi r es a new t r i al , " ' we consi der whet her t he comment s

wer e i mpr oper and, i f so, whet her t he compl ai ni ng par t y can show

ser i ous pr ej udi ce. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Ayal a- Vazquez, 751 F. 3d 1,

24 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. DeCol oger o, 530 F. 3d

36, 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ) ; see al so Logue v. Dor e, 103 F. 3d 1040,

-8-


9/54

1045 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( "An i nqui r y i nt o t he j udge' s conduct of t he

t r i al necessar i l y t ur ns on t he quest i on of whet her t he compl ai ni ng

par t y can show ser i ous pr ej udi ce. " ) . Thi s r equi r ement t hat t he

def endant demonst r ate "ser i ous pr ej udi ce" appl i es even when t he

def endant has made cont emporaneous obj ect i ons t o the i nt ervent i ons

of t he t r i al cour t and has per suaded t he r evi ewi ng cour t t hat t hose

i nt er vent i ons gave t he appear ance of j udi ci al bi as. The

demonst r at i on of t he appear ance of j udi ci al bi as i s aki n t o a

showi ng of t r i al er r or . Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Of r ay- Campos, 534

F. 3d 1, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

Ther e t hen r emai ns t he quest i on of pr ej udi ce l i nked t o t he

appear ance of bi as. Or di nar i l y, i f t her e ar e pr eser ved obj ect i ons

t o t r i al er r or i n a cri mi nal case ( such as er r or s i n evi dent i ar y

r ul i ngs or j ur y i nst r uct i ons) , t he gover nment has t he bur den of

demonst r at i ng t hat t he er r or s wer e not prej udi ci al . See, e. g. ,

Uni t ed St at es v. J i mnez, 419 F. 3d 34, 41- 42 ( 1st Ci r . 2005)

( r eaf f i r mi ng t hat wher e " t he obj ect i on i s pr eser ved, er r oneous

admi ssi on of i mpr oper l y sei zed evi dence at t r i al i s r evi ewed f or

har ml ess er r or . . . . [ and] t he bur den i s on t he gover nment t o show

t hat t he supposed er r or di d not af f ect t he out come of t r i al " ) . But

i n t hi s ci r cumst ance, when t he cl ai ms of t r i al er r or i nvol ve

i nt er vent i ons by t he cour t t hat cr eat e t he appear ance of bi as, t he

def endant r et ai ns t he bur den of demonst r at i ng ser i ous prej udi ce.

Of r ay- Campos, 534 F. 3d at 33.

-9-


10/54

Ar gui ng, wi t h vi r t ual l y no r ef er ence t o t he r ecor d, t hat

Ri ver a- Rodr guez f ai l ed t o pr eser ve hi s obj ect i ons t o t he cour t ' s

i nt er vent i ons, t he gover nment cont ends t hat t he pl ai n er r or

st andar d of r evi ew appl i es t o Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s cl ai ms t hat t he

cour t ' s i nt er vent i ons made hi s t r i al f undament al l y unf ai r . The

gover nment may be cor r ect t hat t wo of t he f our i nt er vent i ons

di scussed bel ow were not subj ect t o cont emporaneous obj ect i ons by

Ri ver a- Rodr guez. The absence of cont emporaneous obj ect i ons,

however , does not j ust i f y the appl i cat i on of a di f f er ent pr ej udi ce

anal ysi s, based on t he t hi r d pr ong of t he pl ai n er r or st andar d, t o

t hose por t i ons of Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s cl ai m of f undament al

unf ai r ness i nvol vi ng t he i nt er vent i ons not subj ect t o

cont empor aneous obj ect i ons. Gi ven t he bur den on t he def endant t o

demonst r ate ser i ous prej udi ce i n a case such as t hi s even f or

pr eser ved obj ect i ons, and t he subst ance of t he ser i ous prej udi ce

t est , t he showi ng r equi r ed of t he def endant i s al r eady compar abl e

t o t he bur den on t he i ssue of pr ej udi ce when hi s cl ai m i s subj ect

t o t he pl ai n er r or st andar d. 7

7 We acknowl edge t hat t he "ser i ous prej udi ce" i nqui r y does notf or mal l y i ncor por at e t he ent i r et y of pl ai n er r or r evi ew. The pl ai ner r or st andar d has a f our t h el ement - t hat "t he er r or ' ser i ousl yaf f ect [ s] 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

pr oceedi ngs. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Ol ano, 507 U. S. 725, 736 ( 1993)( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. At ki nson, 297U. S. 157, 160 ( 1936) ) . However , i n a case such as t hi s, wher e aser i ous prej udi ce f i ndi ng means t hat t he j udge' s own conductcompr omi sed t he f undament al f ai r ness of t he t r i al , t he i mpr operconduct necessar i l y af f ects t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i cr eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs.

-10-


11/54

We have not pr evi ousl y had occasi on t o expl i ci t l y def i ne the

cont our s of "ser i ous pr ej udi ce" r esul t i ng f r om i mpr oper j udi ci al

i nt er vent i on. I n Ayal a- Vazquez, 751 F. 3d at 26, we l ooked t o our

anal ysi s of cl ai ms of pr osecut or i al mi sconduct i n Uni t ed St at es v.

Gent l es, 619 F. 3d 75 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Ther e, we hel d t hat " t he

t est [ f or t he r equi si t e pr ej udi ce] i s whet her t he [ ] mi sconduct so

poi soned t he wel l t hat t he t r i al ' s out come was l i kel y af f ect ed,

t hus war r ant i ng a new t r i al . " Gent l es, 619 F. 3d at 81 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Pl ai n er r or r evi ew al so r equi r es us t o

det er mi ne when an er r or " l i kel y ' af f ect ed t he out come of t he

di st r i ct cour t pr oceedi ngs. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Hebshi e, 549 F. 3d

30, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ol ano, 507 U. S.

725, 733 ( 1993) ) . I nt er pr et i ng t hat l anguage, we have expl ai ned

t hat a t r i al ' s out come was l i kel y af f ect ed when t her e i s "' a

r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , but f or [ t he er r or cl ai med] , t he

r esul t of t he pr oceedi ng woul d have been di f f er ent . ' " Hebshi e, 549

F. 3d at 44 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Padi l l a, 415 F. 3d 211, 221 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( en banc) ) . Accor di ngl y,

i mpr oper j udi ci al i nt er vent i on "ser i ousl y pr ej udi ced" a def endant ' s

case when we f i nd t hat t her e i s a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , but

f or t he er r or , t he ver di ct woul d have been di f f er ent . Mor eover , i n

cases wi t h mul t i pl e j udi ci al i nt er vent i ons, det er mi ni ng t he

appear ance of bi as and t he pr ej udi ci al ef f ect of t hat bi as

-11-


12/54

gener al l y i nvol ves a cumul at i ve ef f ect i nqui r y. 8 See Pol i t o, 856

F. 2d at 418.

I n conduct i ng t hat i nqui r y, we "consi der [ ] ' i sol at ed

i nci dent s i n l i ght of t he ent i r e t r anscri pt so as t o guar d agai nst

magni f i cat i on on appeal of i nst ances whi ch wer e of l i t t l e

i mpor t ance i n t hei r set t i ng. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Candel ar i a- Si l va,

166 F. 3d 19, 35 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Mont as,

41 F. 3d 775, 779 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ) . I n t hi s cont ext , t he Supr eme

Cour t has hel d t hat "expr essi ons of i mpat i ence, di ssat i sf act i on,

annoyance, and even anger . . . ar e wi t hi n t he bounds of what

i mper f ect men and women . . . somet i mes di spl ay. A j udge' s

or di nar y ef f or t s at cour t r oom admi ni st r at i on - - even a st er n and

shor t - t emper ed j udge' s ordi nar y ef f or t s at cour t r oomadmi ni st r at i on

- - r emai n i mmune" t o cl ai ms of j udi ci al bi as. Li t eky v. Uni t ed

St ates, 510 U. S. 540, 555- 56 ( 1994) .

8 Ther e i s a pr act i cal r eason t o exami ne t he cumul at i ve ef f ectof mul t i pl e i nt er vent i ons i n a case i nvol vi ng a demand f or a newt r i al on t he basi s of t he appear ance of j udi ci al bi as. An i ni t i ali ntervent i on by t he j udge t hat makes def ense counsel uneasy may notj ust i f y an obj ect i on f r om counsel , who i s sensi bl y r el uct ant t ochal l enge t he j udge pr emat ur el y. Over t he cour se of t he t r i al ,however , i f t hose one- si ded j udi ci al i nt er vent i ons mul t i pl y,

def ense counsel may t hen real i ze t hat he or she must obj ect on t hebasi s of t he appear ance of j udi ci al bi as, ci t i ng t he cumul at i veef f ect of t he j udge' s one- si ded i nt er vent i ons. Cf . Uni t ed St at esv. Ti l ghman, 134 F. 3d 414, 417 ( D. C. Ci r . 1998) ( st at i ng t hat "whenr evi ewi ng [ i mmedi at el y obj ect ed- t o] quest i ons [ of t he j udge] wemust r evi ew t he r ecor d as a whol e, i ncl udi ng [ pr evi ousl yunobj ected- t o] quest i ons [f r om a pr i or day of t r i al ] ") .

-12-


13/54

I n f ocusi ng on t he appear ance of bi as, cour t s have not ed t hat

t he concer n wi t h j udi ci al i nt er r ogat i on i s not wi t h " t he damagi ng

t r ut h t hat t he quest i ons mi ght uncover . " Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i n,

189 F. 3d 547, 554 ( 7t h Ci r . 1999) . Accor di ngl y, i f a t r i al cour t ' s

quest i oni ng of a wi t ness exposes bad f act s, i nconsi st enci es, or

weaknesses i n t he case i t sel f , t he exposur e i t sel f i s not t he

wor r i some pr ej udi ce. Prej udi ce becomes pr obl emat i c when t he cour t

gi ves j ur or s t he i mpr essi on t hat i t has an opi ni on on t he cor r ect

or desi r abl e out come of t he case. See i d. ; see al so Rocha v. Gr eat

Am. I ns. Co. , 850 F. 2d 1095, 1100 ( 6t h Ci r . 1988) . To t hi s end, we

have st r essed t hat "wher e t he j udge par t i ci pat es act i vel y, t he

j udge' s par t i ci pat i on must be bal anced; he cannot become an

advocat e or ot her wi se use hi s j udi ci al power s t o advant age or

di sadvant age a par t y unf ai r l y. " Cunan, 152 F. 3d at 37 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I t i s accor di ng t o t hi s "st andar d of

f ai r ness and i mpar t i al i t y" t hat we exami ne cl ai ms of pr ej udi ce.

I d. Mor e speci f i cal l y, t o be successf ul on appeal , a def endant

must demonst r at e t hat ( 1) t he cour t ' s i nt er vent i on gave t he

appear ance of bi as and ( 2) t he appar ent bi as ser i ousl y pr ej udi ced

hi m.

b. The Testimony Against Rivera-Rodrguez

The evi dence speci f i cal l y i mpl i cat i ng Ri ver a- Rodr guez was

l i mi t ed t o t he t est i mony of t wo cooper at i ng wi t nesses - - Cunt a and

Mar r uecos. Cunt a t est i f i ed t hat i n 2006 Ri ver a- Rodr guez set up a

-13-


14/54

l ookout scheme f or t he Pr axedes Sant i ago dr ug poi nt , i nvol vi ng t he

use of hand- hel d r adi os t o l i st en f or pol i ce and t o communi cat e

when t hey wer e i n t he area. Accordi ng t o Cunt a, Ri ver a- Rodr guez

woul d pay t wo l ookout s st at i oned at t he ent r ance of t he housi ng

pr oj ect and pr ovi de t hem wi t h r adi os each day. Cunt a t est i f i ed

t hat on one occasi on he saw hand- hel d r adi os chargi ng i n Ri ver a-

Rodr guez' s l i vi ng r oom. Cunt a al so t est i f i ed t hat Ri ver a-

Rodr guez act ed as a runner f or cocai ne i n 2007.

Ear l y i n Cunt a' s t est i mony, t he gover nment sought t o put hi s

pl ea agr eement i nt o evi dence and began aski ng hi m quest i ons about

i t . Dur i ng t hi s l i ne of quest i oni ng, t he di st r i ct cour t i nt er vened

t o ask a ser i es of l eadi ng quest i ons. Recogni zi ng t he di f f i cul t i es

of capt ur i ng t he dynami cs of a t r i al f r om t he col d r ecor d, we set

f or t h at some l engt h t he exchanges, bench conf erences, and def ense

obj ect i ons t hat pr eceded t he cour t ' s i nt er vent i on:

BY MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA [ speci al assi st antUni t ed St at es At t or ney] :

Q. Si r , pl ease t ake a l ook at what has beenmar ked Gover nment I D Number 30. Do your ecogni ze i t , s i r ?

A. Yes, I r ecogni ze i t . I t ' s got my i ni t i al s .

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: And we move t o mar k i t asan exhi bi t .

THE COURT: Sur e. I t ' s t he Pl ea Agr eement .

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: Yes, Your Honor .

THE COURT: Recei ved i n evi dence.

-14-


15/54

( At 1: 42 PM, Gover nment ' s Exhi bi t Number 30admi t t ed i nt o evi dence. )

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: I t ' s t he Pl ea Agreementand t he pl ea suppl ement , al so.

THE COURT: Ver y wel l . So you pl ead gui l t y i nt hi s case, cor r ect?

THE WI TNESS: Yes, I pl ead gui l t y.

BY MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA:

Q. Why di d you pl ead gui l t y i n t hi s case, si r ?

A. Because what I was doi ng i s t r ue.

Q. When you ent ered i nto a Pl ea Agreement wi t ht he Gover nment , what di d you get i n exchangef or t he Pl ea Agr eement , si r ?

A. I n exchange I was goi ng t o get ar ecommendat i on so my sent ence woul d bel owered.

Q. How many year s or mont hs wer e youexchangi ng f or t he Pl ea Agr eement ?

A. I si gned f or f i ve year s.

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: Let t he r ecor d r ef l ectt hat we ar e publ i shi ng t o the j ur y what hasbeen mar ked Gover nment Exhi bi t Number 30.

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: Your Honor , may weappr oach a moment ?

( Bench conf er ence hel d. )

THE COURT: Yes, Mr . Li ncol n.

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: Thi s i s not an accur at er ef l ect i on, and t he pr osecut or must know t hat ,what t he Pl ea Agr eement cont ai ns, number one,and - -

THE COURT: What - -

-15-


16/54

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: And, second, i t ' s notwhat he get s i n exchange, because t heGover nment has st i l l t o det er mi ne.

THE COURT: I don' t expect hi m t o answer t hosequest i ons. Remember , he' s a l ay person. He

says, I si gned f or f our year s. He shoul d knowt hat I gi ve what ever I want .

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: He di dn' t si gn f or f i veyears as such. That ' s number one.

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: Wel l - -

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: Let me expl ai n.

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: Okay. Go ahead.

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: Number t wo, she' s sayi ngi n exchange f or your cooper at i on. That ' s notan exchange f or cooperat i on.

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: I di dn' t say cooperat i on,Your Honor .

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: That ' s par t of a generalPl ea Agr eement wi t hout even get t i ng i nt o t hecooper at i on par t .

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: I di dn' t say cooperat i on,Your Honor .

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: So he' s expect i ng t o getbel ow t hat act ual l y.

THE COURT: I t hi nk al l t hi s i s goi ng t o comeout , i f you l et her do t hat .

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: I ' mnot sur e i t ' s comi ngout .

THE COURT: I f not , you can ask.MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: But I want t he l eeway t oget i nt o t hat .

THE COURT: Absol ut el y.

-16-


17/54

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: Wel l , Your Honor - -

THE COURT: I ' m sur e t hat by t he t i me we ar eover , everyone' s goi ng to get t o know whatt hi s i s.

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: I don' t want t henobj ect i ons, he' s a l ay per son, and t heGover nment can get t o ask you ver y cl eanl yj ust f i ve year s - -

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: No, no, no, no. Iment i oned - -

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: I ' m j ust sayi ng, I ' l ll et you do what ever you want . Let me do mypart.

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: No, no. I - -

THE COURT: I t ' s okay. We underst and eachot her . Go ahead.

( Bench conf erence concl uded. )

BY MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA:

Q. Si r , goi ng back t o your pl ea agr eement , youment i oned t hat you r ecogni zed what has beenmar ked Exhi bi t f or t he Gover nment Number 30.When you entered i nto t he Pl ea Agreement wi t ht he Gover nment , who expl ai ned t o you what wascont ai ned i n t hi s document ?

A. The l awyer , my l awyer expl ai ned i t t o meand t he AUSA.

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: Can we have t he name oft he AUSA, i f he knows, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Do you r emember t he name of t he

Assi st ant U. S. At t or ney who expl ai ned t hat t oyou?

THE WI TNESS: The name? Rosai da Mel endez.

-17-


18/54

Wi t h t hi s exchange havi ng been compl et ed, t he cour t began i t s

own quest i oni ng of t he gover nment ' s wi t ness:

THE COURT: So l et me see i f I can hel p you.You pl ed bef or e me, cor r ect ?

THE WI TNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And I expl ai ned t o you what wer et he pot ent i al penal t i es t hat you coul d beget t i ng i f you pl ed gui l t y?

THE WI TNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And I expl ai ned t o you al so t hati r r espect i ve of whatever your Pl ea Agr eementsai d, I r et ai ned di scr et i on t o sent ence youunder t he St atut e any way t hat I want t osent ence you, cor r ect ?

THE WI TNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And I al so expl ai ned t o you t hati f you wer e t o cooper at e, you had anobl i gat i on t o gi ve compl et e, t r ut hf ul , honestanswer s t o quest i ons, cor r ect ?

THE WI TNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And i f you di dn t , you woul d t henf ace addi t i onal penal t i es f or per j ur y or f ormaki ng f al se st at ement s?

THE WI TNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And f or obst r uct i on of j ust i ce?

THE WI TNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I t ol d you al so, r emember , t hat

once your cooperat i on i s over , t he Governmentmay or may not r ecommend t hat you be gi vensome sor t of r educt i on. Do you under st andthat?

THE WI TNESS: Yes.

-18-


19/54

THE COURT: And i t was t hen up t o me t o deci dewhet her I woul d do t hat or not , cor r ect ?

THE WI TNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. So when you say

you si gned f or f i ve year s, t hat i s yourexpect at i on?

THE WI TNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: But i t coul d be t hat or i t coul dbe t r i pl e t hat ?

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: Your Honor .

THE WI TNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Or i t coul d be anyt hi ng t hat Iwant t o gi ve you, cor r ect ?

THE WI TNESS: That i s so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: May I approach?

MR. BERKOWI TZ [ Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s counsel ] :Me, t oo.

( Bench conf erence hel d)

THE COURT: What i s t he pr obl em now?

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: Yes, Your Honor . I havegr eat di f f i cul t y wi t h t he Cour t acti ng i nessence as t o set t i ng t he condi t i ons t o t hedef endant .

THE COURT: You can obj ect t o i t .

MR. BERKOWI TZ: We do.MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: Yes, I am. Thi s i s whatI m not i ng.

-19-


20/54

THE COURT: Not ed, and deni ed, because I seeyou peopl e ar e havi ng di f f i cul t y get t i ngt oget her on how t o f i gur e thi s out .

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: That ' s t he pr obl em, YourHonor .

THE COURT: And I j ust want t o move al ong, andI j ust want ed t o get t hi s out - -

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: But t hat i s t he pr obl em.I f t hey don' t know how t o set f or t h t hei r case- -

THE COURT: They know how t o do i t , and youknow how t o do i t , t oo.

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: But when you t el l t hej ur y t hi s i s your expect at i on, t hat - - we al lknow, or at l east I know, l et me speak f ormysel f , t hat what you have j ust t ol d t hewi t ness, whi l e t echni cal l y and j udi ci al l yaccur at e, i s f ar f r om r eal i t y.

THE COURT: Wel l , you' d be sur pr i sed. I don' tknow.

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: I ver y r ar el y have met acooper at i ng wi t ness, f i r st of al l , who expect st o get what i s on t he f r ont par t of t he Pl eaAgr eement . They expect t o get l ess.

THE COURT: You have r ar el y seen t hat I gi ve acooperat i ng wi t ness what t he Gover nment asksme t o gi ve them. I do what I want .

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: I know. I ' ve seen yougi ve t hem one hour . But you' ve ment i oned thepossi bi l i t y of hi gher . You' ve onl y ment i onedt he possi bi l i t y of hi gher . You haven' tment i oned l ower .

THE COURT: You can ask hi m t hat .

MR. BERKOWI TZ: I t comes f r ommore aut hor i t y i fi t comes f r om you.

-20-


21/54

THE COURT: You want me t o ask t hat , t oo? I ' l lask that. 9

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: I t hi nk i t shoul d - -

THE COURT: I t hi nk we ar e wast i ng t i me wi t h

t hi s. I t hi nk you have made your poi nt , andl et ' s go.

( Bench conf er ence concl uded. )

The gover nment ' s second cooper at i ng wi t ness, Mar r uecos,

t est i f i ed t hat he obser ved Ri ver a- Rodr guez di st r i but i ng t he hand-

hel d radi os and saw t he radi os char gi ng i n Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s home.

Dur i ng the t est i mony of pr evi ous wi t nesses, DEA i nf or mant J os

Mont aez- Sant os and Puer t o Ri co Pol i ce Of f i cer Mar i sol Tor r es,

r egar di ng t he gener al oper at i ons of t he dr ug conspi r acy, t he

government i nt r oduced a hand- hel d r adi o f ound on Mar r uecos' s per son

upon hi s ar r est . When conf r ont ed wi t h t hi s evi dence dur i ng cr oss-

exami nat i on, however , Mar r uecos t est i f i ed t hat i t was not t he same

t ype of r adi o as t hose di st r i but ed by Ri ver a- Rodr guez ( t hey wer e

"a bi t smal l er " ) . He f ur t her cl ai med t hat Ri ver a- Rodr guez took

t he pl ace of a woman named Cel i t a as a r unner f or cocai ne.

The di st r i ct cour t i nt er vened dur i ng Mar r uecos' s t est i mony on

t wo occasi ons. Fi r st , t he cour t agai n i nt er vened t o emphasi ze t he

i mpor t ance of a cooper at i ng wi t ness t el l i ng t he t r ut h. The ent i r e

9 I t i s uncl ear what pr eci se quest i on t he cour t i nt ended t oask, but i t di d not ul t i mat el y ask any f ur t her quest i ons r el at ed t ot hi s i nqui ry.

-21-


22/54

exchange, cul mi nat i ng i n t he cour t ' s i nt er vent i on at t he end,

pr oceeded as f ol l ows:

[ BY MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: ]

Q. Si r , I ' m goi ng t o show you what has beenmar ked Gover nment I D Number 36. . . . Si r , doyou r ecogni ze t hat document ?

A. Yes.

Q. Why do you recogni ze i t ?

A. Because my i ni t i al s ar e on i t .

Q. Can you expl ai n what i s t he document about ?

A. Thi s i s a pl ea t hat I si gned f or t he t i met hat I was goi ng t o be gi ven, because I wasgui l t y of what I was bei ng accused.

Q. Taki ng a l ook at what i s bei ng depi ct ed i nt he scr een, si r , i s i t t he Pl ea Agr eement t hatyou si gned?

A. Yes.

Q. When di d you si gn - - when di d you si gn t hi sPl ea Agr eement , si r ?

A. Appr oxi mat el y a mont h ago. I si gned t hi sher e, wi t h t he - - wi t h t he J udge.

Q. Okay. Wer e you advi sed t hat t hi s i s onl y ar ecommendat i on t hat t he Uni t ed St at esGover nment wi l l do to t hi s Cour t r egar di ng t hesent enci ng i n t hi s case f or you?

A. Yes.

Q. Si r , r egar di ng t he amount of dr ugs t hatwer e - - f or whi ch - - t he one t hat you ar e hel dr esponsi bl e, i s t hat t he same amount of dr ugst hat you handl ed whi l e you wer e at t hi s drugt r af f i cki ng or gani zat i on?

A. More t han t hat was sol d.

-22-


23/54

Q. So par t of t he pl ea - - i t ' s cor r ect i f Ist ate that par t of t he Pl ea Agr eement was t hatyou wer e goi ng t o be pl eadi ng gui l t y f or al esser amount t han t he one t hat you used towork wi t h?

A. I don' t under st and.

THE COURT: You ar e admi t t i ng t hat you deal twi t h more dr ugs t han t hat ?10

THE WI TNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: That ' s i t . Go ahead.

BY MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA:Q. Regar di ng t he r ecommendat i on about t hemont hs t hat you wer e goi ng to be recommended,do you r emember how much, how many?

A. Fr om 87 t o 108.

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: The document - - t hedocument i s bei ng vi ewed by t he wi t ness, andi t has t he mont h ther e.

THE COURT: He' s bei ng asked, and he' s sayi ng87 t o 108. Go ahead.

BY MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA:Q. Si r , r egar di ng t he Pl ea Suppl ement t hat yousi gned, what was r equi r ed f r om you r egar di ngt he agreement wi t h t he Gover nment?

A. To say t he t r ut h at al l t i mes.

Q. Regar di ng t he ki nd of cooper at i on t hat t heGover nment was expect i ng f r om you, di d your ecei ve any advi ce? What di d - - t he Gover nmentwas expect i ng f r om you at t he t i me you si gnedt he Pl ea Agr eement , si r ?

10 Thi s i nt er vent i on, and t he t wo t hat f ol l ow i t , ser ved t hepur pose of cl ar i f yi ng t est i mony al r eady gi ven and wer e notpr obl emat i c. They ar e not t he f ocus of our anal ysi s her e.

-23-


24/54

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: Your Honor , he has noway of knowi ng what t he Gover nment expect s.

THE COURT: Wel l , I t hi nk he al r eady answer edt he quest i on.

BY MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA:Q. Were you advi sed t hat t he Uni t ed St at esGover nment i s not compel l ed t o f i l e any mot i onon your behal f f or your cooper at i on i n t hi scase?

A. Yes.

Q. Wer e you al so advi sed t hat t he onl y per sont hat can - - t hat i s goi ng t o be deci di ng aboutyour sent enci ng i s t he J udge pr esi di ng i n t hi scour t r oom?

A. Yes.

Q. Si r , wer e any t hr eats made t o you f or yourt est i mony?

A. No.

Q. Wer e you i nt i mi dat ed t o t est i f y, si r ?

A. No.

Q. Si r , on how many occasi ons di d you meetwi t h t he agent s? DEA agent s or pol i ce of f i ceragent s.

A. On many occasi ons.

Q. On how many occasi ons di d you meet wi t h t heprosecutors?

A. On many occasi ons.

Q. What wer e you t ol d f r om t he pr osecut ors ort he DEA agent s?

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: Your Honor , t hi s i ssel f - ser vi ng, mer el y sel f - ser vi ng. We know t hetruth - -

-24-


25/54

THE COURT: The t hi ng i s t hat everybody hereknows, everybody here knows and i s qui t e cl eart hat he s t est i f yi ng, t he Gover nment al waysexpect s hi m t o say t he t r ut h, and of cour sehe s hopi ng t hat I consi der t hat at t heappr opr i at e t i me that I make a sent ence i f you

make a r ecommendat i on. That s al l . That swhat happens.

The cour t ' s second chal l enged i nt er vent i on dur i ng t he

quest i oni ng of Mar r uecos occur r ed whi l e t he gover nment was t r yi ng

t o est abl i sh t he pr oxi mi t y of t he l ookout s and t hei r hand- hel d

r adi os t o Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s home. Mar r uecos was havi ng t r oubl e

marki ng the l ocat i on of t he home on an exhi bi t when t he cour t

i nt er vened as f ol l ows:

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: You ment i oned t hat youwent t o Car l os Ri ver a- Rodr guez house. Can youshow where i s t hat [ showi ng t he wi t ness anexhi bi t ] ?

[ THE WI TNESS THROUGH THE I NTERPRETER] : 11 I t - -t he mar k came a l i t t l e bi t - - i t was made al i t t l e bi t down.

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: You can erase i t .

[ THE WI TNESS THROUGH THE I NTERPRETER] : Do weerase?

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: Yes.

THE COURT: I t hi nk - - i s t he house mor e orl ess i n f r ont of t he pl ace wher e you had seent he scanner s?

11 Thi s por t i on of t he t r anscr i pt , and some ot her s when t hewi t ness was appar ent l y speaki ng i n Spani sh but not di r ect l yanswer i ng a quest i on, at t r i but es t he t est i mony t o t he i nt er pr et erher sel f . The par t i es do not addr ess t hi s di scr epancy. We wi l lt her ef or e t r eat t hi s por t i on of t he t r anscr i pt as i f i t conveys, ast he cont ext suggest s, t he t r ansl at ed st at ement s of t he wi t ness.

-25-


26/54

THE WI TNESS: Yes.

c. Rivera-Rodrguez's Defense

I n r esponse t o t he t est i mony of t he t wo cooper at i ng

wi t nesses, Ri ver a- Rodr guez t ook the st and t o t el l hi s si de of t he

st or y. He t est i f i ed t hat he was "t ot al l y agai nst dr ugs" and

descr i bed hi s el dest son' s st r uggl e wi t h addi ct i on. He t ook hi s

son t o dr ug- r ehabi l i t at i on pr ogr ams and t r i ed t o hel p hi mqui t . He

al so t est i f i ed t hat he woul d go t o t he Pr axedes Sant i ago dr ug poi nt

and t el l t he deal er s not t o sel l t o hi s son. On one such occasi on,

he got i nt o a heat ed exchange ( a " r un- i n" ) wi t h Mar r uecos. He

i nsi st ed t hat he never i nvi t ed any of t he dr ug deal er s f r om t he

dr ug poi nt , i ncl udi ng Mar r uecos and Cunt a, i nt o hi s home because he

di d not want any of t hem t her e. He f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat he sol d

j ewel r y ( " f ant as a") out of hi s car and t r ai l er t o ear n money. At

t i mes he woul d t ake t he car i nt o t he Praxedes Sant i ago Publ i c

Housi ng Pr oj ect t o sel l i t ems and col l ect payment s. Accor di ng t o

Ri ver a- Rodr guez, a woman named Cel i t a, who was charged i n the

i ndi ct ment her e as a dr ug r unner , was one of hi s r egul ar cust omer s.

He t est i f i ed t hat he woul d go t o her home, but not i nsi de i t , t o

del i ver her pur chases and col l ect payment f r om her - - t est i mony

t hat woul d become cent r al t o t he cour t ' s f i nal i nt er vent i on. He

deni ed r unni ng dr ugs wi t h or f or her at any t i me.

Ri ver a- Rodr guez al so cal l ed Kei l a Fl or es- Ramos, t he vi ce

pr esi dent of t he Pr axedes Sant i ago Publ i c Housi ng Pr oj ect , t o

-26-


27/54

t est i f y on hi s behal f . She t est i f i ed t hat she was awar e of t he

dr ug poi nt wi t hi n t he housi ng pr oj ect and had seen many of t he dr ug

deal er s and user s, but she had never obser ved Ri ver a- Rodr guez

sel l i ng dr ugs or ot her wi se be i nvol ved i n t he dr ug t r ade. Henonet hel ess went i nt o t he housi ng pr oj ect dai l y t o col l ect hi s son,

who was a dr ug addi ct . Last l y, she t est i f i ed t hat Ri ver a- Rodr guez

sol d f ant as a i n t he housi ng pr oj ect and t hat he "vi si t ed" 12 Cel i t a

appr oxi mat el y once a week t o br i ng j ewel r y and col l ect payment .

d. The Government's Closing Argument

Dur i ng t he gover nment ' s cl osi ng ar gument , i t char act er i zed

Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s t est i mony as i nconsi st ent wi t h t hat of hi s own

wi t ness - - Fl or es- Ramos - - by speci f i cal l y f ocusi ng on whet her he

ever went i nsi de Cel i t a' s home:

[ MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: ] Goi ng back t o Kei l aFl or es, t hei r wi t ness, I submi t her e shet est i f i ed seei ng Car l os Ri ver a- Rodr guez goi ngi nt o Cel i t a' s house. Do you r emember Cel i t a' sname? The def endant yest erday t ook t he st and.I submi t t hat i n cr oss- exami nat i on, he deni edent er i ng i nt o Cel i t a' s house.

At t orney Berkowi t z obj ect ed i n open cour t and was not asked

t o pr ovi de t he basi s f or t he obj ect i on. The cour t t hen over r ul ed

def ense counsel ' s obj ect i on and went on t o r emar k, "That ' s exact l y

what he sai d. " Al t hough t he cour t ' s st at ement i s accur at e - -

Ri ver a- Rodr guez di d deny ent er i ng Cel i t a' s home - - i t s

12 Thi s i s t he pr eci se t er mused i n t he yes- or - no quest i ons putt o Fl or es- Ramos, whi ch she answer ed af f i r mat i vel y.

-27-


28/54

i nt er vent i on seemed t o conf i r m t he gover nment ' s i nsi st ence t hat

t her e was a di scr epancy bet ween Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s t est i mony and

Fl ores- Ramos' s as t o whether he had ent ered Cel i t a' s home. 13

Thi s al l eged di scr epancy was i mpor t ant because of i t spossi bl e ef f ect on t he j ur y' s eval uat i on of Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s

credi bi l i t y. Al so, t he gover nment ' s i nsi st ence t hat Ri ver a-

Rodr guez ent er ed Cel i t a' s home had subst ant i ve si gni f i cance. As

we have descr i bed, Cel i t a f unct i oned as a dr ug r unner and Ri ver a-

Rodr guez was accused of hel pi ng her i n t hat ent er pr i se, whi ch

woul d l i kel y have i nvol ved r et r i evi ng packages of dr ugs f r om her

home. Fl ores- Ramos never t est i f i ed t hat she had seen Ri ver a-

Rodr guez i nsi de Cel i t a' s home. I nst ead, she had answer ed

af f i r mat i vel y when asked whet her he "vi si t ed" her as par t of hi s

f ant as a busi ness. Ri ver a- Rodr guez test i f i ed t hat he had i ndeed

13 Def ense counsel addr essed t he subj ect agai n wi t h t he cour taf t er cl osi ng ar gument s and out si de t he pr esence of t he j ur y dur i nga bench conf erence on anot her i ssue:

MR. BERKOWI TZ: Your Honor , whi l e we' r e here, I wantt o make sur e we have cl ear on t he r ecord my obj ect i onsdur i ng t he cl osi ngs was t o t he t wo ment i ons t hat mycl i ent went i nt o Cel i t a' s house.THE COURT: Wel l , t hat ' s what I underst ood t he evi dence t o say.

MR. BERKOWI TZ: I underst ood di f f erent .THE COURT: Wel l , you know, t hat ' s why I sai d [ ( t he cour tdi d not f i ni sh t hi s t r ai n of t hought ) ] . . .

Thi s exchange conf i r ms t hat t he cour t i nt ended t o convey i t sunder st andi ng of t he evi dence, whi ch was f avorabl e t o t hegover nment , t o t he j ur y.

-28-


29/54

been out si de t he house t o del i ver j ewel r y and col l ect payment . He

i nsi st ed that he had never been i nsi de the home.

2. The Appearance of Bias

The case agai nst Ri ver a- Rodr guez r equi r ed t he j ur y t o wei gh

t he t est i mony of t wo cooper at i ng wi t nesses agai nst t he t est i mony of

Ri ver a- Rodr guez and Fl ores- Ramos. I n such a cl assi c cr edi bi l i t y

cont est bet ween t he gover nment ' s wi t nesses and t he def endant ' s, t he

cour t must t ake par t i cul ar car e t o avoi d any appear ance t hat i t

f avor s t he gover nment ' s vi ew of t he case. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es

v. Ti l ghman, 134 F. 3d 414, 418- 19 ( D. C. Ci r . 1998) ( f i ndi ng

j udi ci al i nt er vent i on i mpermi ssi bl e when i t "may have gi ven t he

j ur y t he i mpr ess i on t hat t he j udge doubt ed t he def endant ' s

cr edi bi l i t y. The j udge' s quest i ons coul d have been par t i cul ar l y

damagi ng because . . . credi bi l i t y [ was] unusual l y cri t i cal t o hi s

def ense" ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es

v. Bar nhar t , 599 F. 3d 737, 745 ( 7t h Ci r . 2010) ( f i ndi ng t hat t he

cour t ' s conduct suggest ed t o t he j ur y t hat he doubt ed t he

pl ausi bi l i t y of t he def endant ' s ver si on of event s - - i t "went

beyond mer e cl ar i f i cat i on and i nst ead gave t he i mpr essi on t hat t he

j udge di sbel i eved [ t he] def ense" ) . Her e t he cour t di d not exerci se

t he r equi si t e car e.

a. The Court's Questioning about Plea Agreements

I t i s common pr act i ce f or t he gover nment t o quest i on

cooper at i ng wi t nesses about t he t er ms of t hei r pl ea agr eement s t o

-29-


30/54

pr eempt i vel y f end of f def ense counsel s' i nevi t abl e at t acks on t hei r

credi bi l i t y. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Ki nsel l a, 622 F. 3d 75, 77

( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( descr i bi ng how def ense counsel "aggr essi vel y

conf r ont ed [a cooper at i ng wi t ness] on cr oss- exami nat i on, usi ng thepl ea agr eement and l i ght sent ence t o at t ack hi s cr edi bi l i t y") ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Li Causi , 167 F. 3d 36, 47 ( 1st Ci r . 1999)

( uphol di ng a convi ct i on based on cooper at i ng wi t ness t est i mony

wher e " t he gover nment el i ci t ed on di r ect exami nat i on t he

cooper at i on ar r angement s f or each wi t ness and i nt r oduced i nt o

evi dence t hei r pl ea agr eement s" ) . By i nt r oduci ng t he pl ea

agr eement and r evi ewi ng i t wi t h a cooper at i ng wi t ness on di r ect

exami nat i on, t he gover nment bot h def ends agai nst t he ar gument of

t he def ense t hat a cooper at i ng wi t ness woul d say anyt hi ng t o get a

deal , and at t empt s t o r ei nf or ce t he cr edi bi l i t y of t he wi t ness by

emphasi zi ng t he i mpor t ance of t est i f yi ng t r ut hf ul l y.

Her e, af t er becomi ng f r ust r ated wi t h t he gover nment ' s at t empt

t o engage i n t hi s t ype of quest i oni ng, t he cour t i nt er vened and

t ook over t he pr osecut or ' s r ol e. I ndeed, t he cour t f i r st

i nt er j ect ed by sayi ng, "Let me see i f I can hel p you. " 14 The cour t

t hen asked t he cooper at i ng wi t ness a ser i es of l eadi ng quest i ons

desi gned t o emphasi ze t o t he j ur y t he obl i gat i on of t he wi t ness t o

14 I t i s uncl ear whomt he j udge was at t empt i ng t o "hel p" - - t hegover nment or t he cooper at i ng wi t ness. The di st i nct i on i s notmat er i al t o our anal ysi s as hel pi ng ei t her woul d benef i t t hegovernment ' s case.

-30-


31/54

t el l t he t r ut h, and t he consequences f or t he wi t ness i f he di d not .

I n t he i nst ance of t he second cooper at i ng wi t ness - - Mar r uecos - -

t he cour t i nt er vened at t he end of t he gover nment ' s i nqui r y about

hi s pl ea agr eement t o make a st at ement t hat al so emphasi zed t hei mpor t ance of t el l i ng t he t r ut h as a cooper at i ng wi t ness.

J ur or s woul d expect t he gover nment ' s at t or ney t o pose

quest i ons t o cooper at i ng wi t nesses emphasi zi ng t hei r obl i gat i on t o

t el l t he t r ut h. When t he cour t vi si bl y and f or cef ul l y assumes t he

pr osecut i on' s r ol e, as i t di d her e, t he cour t r uns t he r i sk of

suggest i ng t o t he j ur y t hat t he cour t i t sel f has a st ake i n t he

j ur or s' underst andi ng of t he obl i gat i on of t he gover nment ' s

wi t nesses t o t el l t he t r ut h. I ndeed, as At t or ney Li ncol n- San- J uan

emphasi zed dur i ng the si debar conf er ence on hi s obj ect i on to t he

cour t ' s quest i ons, i t i s pr obl emat i c f or t he cour t t o emphasi ze t o

t he j ur y the st ake t hat t he cooper at i ng wi t ness has under t he pl ea

agr eement i n t est i f yi ng t r ut hf ul l y, wi t hout equal l y emphasi zi ng, as

def ense counsel woul d sur el y do, t he i ncent i ve t hat t he wi t ness has

t o say anyt hi ng, t r ut hf ul or not , t hat mi ght hel p t he gover nment ' s

case and t hus cur r y f avor wi t h the prosecutor who mi ght r ecommend

a l ower sent ence. 15

As t he excer pt s above demonst r at e, t hough t he cour t di d ask

t he wi t ness one quest i on per t ai ni ng t o the gover nment ' s abi l i t y to

15 As t he t r anscr i pt r eveal s, see supr a, At t or ney Ber kowi t z,Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s counsel , j oi ned t he obj ect i on.

-31-


32/54

r ecommend a reduced sent ence on t he basi s of hi s cooper at i on, i t s

i nqui r y f ocused much mor e heavi l y on t he wi t ness' s obl i gat i on t o

t el l t he t r ut h. Mor eover , when t he cour t agai n i nt er vened dur i ng

Marr uecos' s t est i mony, i t st r essed t hat "ever ybody her e knows andi s qui t e cl ear t hat he' s t est i f yi ng, t he Gover nment al ways expect s

hi m t o say t he t r ut h, " wi t hout any r ef er ence t o t he pot ent i al

benef i t t o t he wi t ness, i n t he f or m of t he gover nment ' s

r ecommendat i on f or a r educed sent ence, i f he gi ves t est i mony t hat

hel ps t he gover nment ' s case. Gi ven t hi s extended one- si ded i nqui r y

about t r ut hf ul ness, t he cour t ' s i nt er vent i on ser ved t o enhance t he

cr edi bi l i t y of t he gover nment ' s key wi t nesses, and t her eby had an

ef f ect si mi l ar t o t he j udi ci al conduct f ound i mper mi ssi bl e i n

Barnhar t , 599 F. 3d at 745. See supr a.

b. The Court's Intervention during

Testimony about the Location of Rivera-

Rodrguez's House

The l ocat i on of Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s house, whi ch was r i ght

out si de t he gat es t o the Pr axedes Sant i ago Publ i c Housi ng Pr oj ect ,

was i mpor t ant t o t he gover nment ' s case because that l ocat i on l i nked

Ri ver a- Rodr guez t o t he l ookout s. As r ecount ed above, t he wi t ness,

Mar r uecos, was apparent l y havi ng t r oubl e marki ng t he l ocat i on of

t he house on an exhi bi t , as t he government had asked hi mt o do. To

get over t hi s hur dl e, t he cour t agai n assumed t he pr osecut or ' s r ol e

and asked a l eadi ng quest i on ( " [ I ] s t he house mor e or l ess i n f r ont

of t he pl ace where you had seen t he scanner s?" ) t hat made t he

-32-


33/54

gover nment ' s poi nt about t he pr oxi mi t y of Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s house

t o t he hand- hel d r adi os.

Thus, t he cour t ' s quest i on had t he ef f ect of movi ng t he

pr osecut or and t he wi t ness away f r om t he l i ne of di scussi on t hatwas suggest i ng conf usi on and i mpr eci si on on an i mpor t ant poi nt and

t owar ds a descr i pt i on of t he l ocat i on cr edi bl y anchor ed i n t he

wi t ness' s t est i mony. I n shor t , t he cour t ' s quest i on was a much

more ef f ect i ve way t o accompl i sh what t he pr osecut or was t r yi ng t o

accompl i sh, and i t added t o t he over al l sense t hat t he j udge was

hel pi ng t he government make i t s case.

c. The Court's Intervention during Closing Arguments

As descr i bed above, t he government was at t empt i ng t o pai nt

Ri ver a- Rodr guez as a l i ar , a por t r ayal i mpor t ant t o i t s case

because he t ook t he st and i n hi s own def ense. The government al so

want ed t o est abl i sh that he went i nsi de Cel i t a' s home because t hat

was pr esumabl y wher e she kept t he drug packages she del i ver ed as a

runner. 16 To make t hese argument s t he government t r i ed t o i dent i f y

an i nconsi st ency bet ween Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s t est i mony and t he

t est i mony of t he def ense' s onl y ot her wi t ness - - Fl or es- Ramos.

Def ense counsel obj ect ed t o t he gover nment ' s char act er i zat i on of

t he t est i mony of bot h wi t nesses.

16 The gover nment ' s cooper at i ng wi t ness, Cunt a, had t est i f i edt hat Cel i t a and Ri ver a- Rodr guez both oper ated as runner s and t hatshe want ed t o move t he dr ugs f r om her house t o hi s i n l i ght ofpol i ce act i vi t y i n t he Pr axedes Sant i ago Publ i c Housi ng Pr oj ect .

-33-


34/54

I n deal i ng wi t h t hi s f ai r l y r out i ne obj ecti on t o a cl osi ng

ar gument t hat char act er i zes t est i mony, t he cour t di d not si mpl y

t el l t he j ur y, as j udges usual l y do i n t hi s ci r cumst ance, t hat i t

was t hei r dut y t o deci de what t he wi t nesses sai d. See, e. g. ,Uni t ed St at es v. J oyner , 191 F. 3d 47, 53- 54 ( 1st Ci r . 1999)

( f i ndi ng t hat "t he di st r i ct cour t qui ckl y and adequat el y addr essed"

a si mi l ar obj ect i on dur i ng cl osi ng ar gument s by i mmedi at el y

i nst r uct i ng t he j ur y, "Member s of t he j ur y, you wi l l t ake your own

r ecol l ect i on of t he evi dence and not what ei t her counsel has t ol d

you t he evi dence i s") . I nst ead, t he cour t over r ul ed t he obj ect i on

and t hen went on t o r emark, "That ' s exact l y what he sai d. " Wi t h

t hi s i nt er vent i on, t he cour t once agai n hel ped t he gover nment wi t h

i t s case by appear i ng t o agr ee wi t h t he government t hat t here was

an i nconsi st ency bet ween Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s t est i mony and Fl or es-

Ramos' s t est i mony on an i ssue i mpor t ant t o the government ' s t heor y

of t he case - - whet her Ri ver a- Rodr guez had ent er ed Cel i t a' s home.

Thi s i nt er vent i on was al so unreasonabl e f act - f i ndi ng by t he cour t

on an i ssue t hat shoul d have been l ef t t o t he j ur y. See Quer ci a,

289 U. S. at 470 ( " [ A t r i al j udge] may not assume t he r ol e of a

wi t ness . He may anal yze and di ssect t he evi dence, but he may not

ei t her di st or t i t or add t o i t . ") . Maki ng mat t er s wor se, t he

cour t ' s st at ement came dur i ng cl osi ng ar gument s - - j ust bef or e t he

case went t o t he j ur y.

-34-


35/54

d. The Cumulative Effect of the Court's Interventions

Our i nqui r y as t o t he ef f ect of t he cour t ' s i nt er vent i ons

t akes i nt o account t he recor d as a whol e, assessi ng t he cumul at i ve

ef f ect of t he i nt er vent i ons on t he t r i al . See Pol i t o, 856 F. 2d at418 ( not i ng t hat " [ c] har ges of par t i al i t y shoul d be j udged not on

an i sol at ed comment or t wo, but on t he record as a whol e" ) .

Al t hough t he cour t ' s i nt er vent i ons t hus shoul d not be vi ewed i n

i sol at i on, t hei r cumul at i ve ef f ect cannot be under st ood wi t hout

f i r st assessi ng t hei r i ndi vi dual si gni f i cance i n t he cont ext of t he

t r i al at t he t i me t hey occur r ed.

The f our i nt er vent i ons17 of t he j udge j ust descr i bed al l had

a common t heme - - t he cour t hel pi ng the government wi t h i t s case.

Fi r st , t hr ough quest i oni ng and st at ement s, t he cour t emphasi zed t o

t he j ur y the t r ut h- t el l i ng obl i gat i ons of t he cooper at i ng

wi t nesses. Next , t he cour t asked a l eadi ng quest i on t o hel p

est abl i sh t he pr oxi mi t y of Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s house t o t he l ocat i on

wher e t he l ookout s wer e st at i oned. Fi nal l y, t he cour t suggest ed

t hat t he pr osecut or accur at el y r ecount ed an i nconsi st ency i n t he

def endant ' s case. Taken t oget her , t hese i nt er vent i ons, and t he

consi st ent appearance t hey conveyed of t he cour t hel pi ng t he

government wi t h i t s case, i nescapabl y conveyed an appear ance of

17 The f our i nt er vent i ons we r ef er t o i ncl ude t he t woi nt er vent i ons ( one wi t h each cooper at i ng wi t ness) r egar di ng t r ut h-t el l i ng obl i gat i ons, t he i nt er vent i on dur i ng t he quest i oni ng ofMar r uecos about t he l ocat i on of Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s home, and t hei nt er vent i on dur i ng t he gover nment ' s cl osi ng ar gument .

-35-


36/54

j udi ci al bi as t o t he j ur y i n f avor of t he government and agai nst

Ri ver a- Rodr guez.

3. Serious Prejudice

Havi ng det er mi ned that t he cour t ' s i nt er vent i ons

i mper mi ssi bl y gave t he appear ance of j udi ci al bi as t o t he j ur y, and

hence wer e aki n t o t r i al er r or , we now t ur n t o t he quest i on of

ser i ous pr ej udi ce.

We begi n by consi der i ng t he evi dence agai nst Ri ver a-

Rodr guez, whi ch was f ar f r omover whel mi ng. There were no vi deo or

audi o r ecor di ngs t hat i mpl i cat ed Ri ver a- Rodr guez i n t he

conspi r acy. The gover nment ' s case depended al most ent i r el y on t he

t est i mony of t wo cooper at i ng wi t nesses. 18 I mpat i ent wi t h t he

gover nment ' s awkwar d quest i oni ng of Cunt a, t he f i r st cooper at i ng

wi t ness, t he cour t i nt er vened i n a manner t hat bol st er ed hi s

credi bi l i t y, and t hen l at er si mi l ar l y i nt er vened t o bol st er t he

cr edi bi l i t y of Mar r uecos, t he second cooper at i ng wi t ness.

Moreover , when i nt er veni ng, t he cour t empl oyed l eadi ng quest i ons,

whi ch ar e gener al l y not per mi ssi bl e on di r ect exami nat i on. See

Fed. R. Evi d. 611( c) . The cour t ' s assumpt i on of t he pr osecut or ' s

r ol e i n quest i oni ng t he cooper at i ng wi t nesses, and i t s use of

l eadi ng quest i ons t o f aci l i t at e t he i nqui r y, undoubt edl y made t he

18 The onl y ot her pi ece of evi dence i nt r oduced agai nst Ri ver a-Rodr guez was t he hand- hel d radi o t hat was admi t t edl y di f f er entf r om t he ones al l egedl y used by Ri ver a- Rodr guez.

-36-


37/54

t r i al mor e ef f i ci ent , but t hey al so cr eat ed t he i mpr essi on t hat t he

cour t f avor ed t he gover nment ' s ver si on of event s.

I mpor t ant l y, t her e wer e a number of cr uci al poi nt s of f act on

whi ch t he t est i mony of t he cooper at i ng wi t nesses and t hat ofRi ver a- Rodr guez and Fl ores- Ramos wer e at odds. Accordi ng t o

Ri ver a- Rodr guez, he ent er ed t he housi ng pr oj ect onl y t o ei t her

r et r i eve hi s son, who was addi ct ed t o dr ugs, or t o sel l j ewel r y t o

r esi dent s. The cooper at i ng wi t nesses cl ai med t hat he ent er ed t he

Pr axedes Sant i ago Publ i c Housi ng Pr oj ect dai l y t o del i ver t he

scanner s and pay t he l ookout s. Mar r uecos al so t est i f i ed t hat

Ri ver a- Rodr guez br i ef l y ser ved as a dr ug- r unner f or cocai ne,

wor ki ng wi t h Cel i t a. On t hese di sput ed f act s t he cour t i nt er vened

t o hel p t he gover nment make i t s case, f i r st by emphasi zi ng t he

pr oxi mi t y of Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s house to t he l ocat i on of t he hand-

hel d r adi os, and t hen by i ncor r ect l y suggest i ng t o t he j ur y t hat

Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s own wi t ness, Fl or es- Ramos, had cont r adi ct ed hi s

i nsi st ence t hat he never ent er ed Cel i t a' s home.

The j udge' s cont i nued one- si ded i nt er vent i ons here - -

r epeat ed even af t er counsel l odged an obj ect i on t o the j udge' s

f i r st f or ay - - cumul at i vel y gave j ur or s t he i mpr essi on t hat t he

cour t f avored a gui l t y ver di ct , and hence made t he j ur y more

i ncl i ned t o bel i eve t he gover nment ' s ver si on of event s. Wi t hout

t hose i mpr oper i nt er vent i ons, t her e i s a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y

-37-


38/54

t hat Ri ver a- Rodr guez woul d not have been convi ct ed. 19 Accor di ngl y,

we must vacat e Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s convi ct i on. 20

19 I n i t s br i ef and at oral argument , t he gover nment cont endedt hat t he cour t ' s j ur y i nst r ucti ons at t he out set of t he t r i almi t i gat ed any pot ent i al pr ej udi ce caused by i t s l at eri nt er vent i ons. Speci f i cal l y, t he cour t i nst r ucted t he j ur y "not[ t o] r ead f r om my i nt er vent i on t hat I may have any message as t owhat your ver di ct shoul d be. " The D. C. Ci r cui t and t he SecondCi r cui t have adopt ed t he posi t i on t hat wher e " t he t r i al j udge askedquest i ons, obj ect ed t o by counsel , t hat coul d have i nf l uenced t hej ur y' s assessment of t he def endant ' s ver aci t y, such i nt er f er encewi t h j ur y f act - f i ndi ng cannot be cur ed by st andar d j ur yi nst r uct i ons. " Ti l ghman, 134 F. 3d at 421 ( adopt i ng by r ef er ence

t he Second Ci r cui t ' s appr oach i n Uni t ed St at es v. Fi l ani , 74 F. 3d378, 386 ( 2d Ci r . 1996) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Hoker , 483 F. 2d359, 368 ( 5t h Ci r . 1973) ( hol di ng t hat " [ n] o amount of boi l er pl at ei nst r uct i ons t o t he j ur y - - not t o dr aw any i nf er ences as t o t hej udge' s f eel i ngs about t he f act s f r omhi s aski ng quest i ons, or t hatt hey ar e f r ee to di sr egar d f act ual comment by t he j udge, or as t ot he pr esumpt i on of i nnocence - - coul d be expect ed to er ase f r om aj ur y' s mi nd t he par t t aken i n t hi s t r i al by t he di st r i ct j udge") .Cat egor i cal r ul es ar e not hel pf ul i n cases such as t hi s. Somet i mest he cour t ' s j ur y i nst r uct i ons about how t he j ur y shoul d r egar d t hecour t ' s i nt er vent i ons and quest i oni ng may mi t i gat e pr ej udi ce andot her t i mes t hey may not . I n t hi s case t hey di d not serve t o

mi t i gat e t he ser i ous pr ej udi ce.20 Because we hol d t hat Ri ver a- Rodr guez' s convi ct i on must be

vacat ed on t he basi s of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i mpr oper i nt er vent i on,we need not r each t he ot her i ssues he pr esent ed on appeal ,i ncl udi ng whet her t her e was prosecut or i al mi sconduct r i si ng t o al evel t hat woul d al so war r ant a new t r i al .

-38-


39/54

B. Mercado-Cruz's Claims21

1. Timeliness of 851 Information

J ust pr i or t o j ur y i mpanel ment , t he f ol l owi ng exchange t ook

pl ace concer ni ng t he gover nment ' s f i l i ng of i t s i nf or mat i on

pur suant t o 21 U. S. C. 851, l i st i ng t he pr i or convi ct i ons t hat

woul d t r i gger a l i f e sent ence f or Mer cado- Cr uz:

THE COURT: Let me ask Mr . Li ncol n whether het al ked to hi s cl i ent , because we have beendeal i ng wi t h t hi s, you know, f or a l ong, l ongt i me.

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: Yes, I t al ked t o hi m

many t i mes, and he r ej ect ed a pl ea of f er of 77t o 96 a whi l e back. I t hought i f he had beenconvi ct ed, because he was f aci ng [ anothert r i al i n st at e cour t ] , he mi ght consi derpl eadi ng her e. I don t know. The pr osecut or st el l me t oday t hat t hey woul d st i l l be wi l l i ngt o, . . .

MR. BAZAN- GONZALEZ: Ar e we goi ng to . . .

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: Let me tal k t o t hedef endant , and I wi l l si gnal you and we canpr oceed t o t r i al . I m not goi ng t o ar gue hedi dn t r ecei ve not i ce.

MR. BAZAN- GONZALEZ: So we may st ar t wi t h t hej ur y once Mr . Li ncol n has spoken wi t h hi scl i ent - -

21 To t he ext ent t hat Mer cado- Cr uz at t empt s t o adopt Ri ver a-Rodr guez' s ar gument t hat t he i mpr oper j udi ci al i nt er vent i on

r ender ed hi s t r i al f undament al l y unf ai r , we decl i ne t o ent er t ai nt he argument . We have l ong hel d t hat co- def endant s cannot si mpl yadopt each other s' argument s whol esal e. " [ T]o be meani ngf ul , t hear gument s adopt ed must be r eadi l y t r ansf er r abl e f r om t hepr oponent ' s case t o t he adopt er ' s case. " Uni t ed St at es v. Davi d,940 F. 2d 722, 737 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) . The case agai nst Mer cado- Cr uzwas markedl y st r onger t han t he case agai nst Ri ver a- Rodr guez.

-39-


40/54

THE COURT: You don t have t o f i l e bef or est ar t i ng. That s t he agr eement - -

MS. MELENDEZ- RI VERA: Fi ne.

MR. LI NCOLN- SAN- J UAN: We ve seen t he document ,

and I ve expl ai ned t o my cl i ent al l t hat - -THE COURT: That s f i ne. Let s pr oceed.

Mer cado- Cr uz ar gues t hat he was i mpr oper l y sent enced t o l i f e

i n pr i son because t he gover nment f ai l ed t o t i mel y f i l e t he 851

i nf or mat i on, and, t her ef or e, t he cr i mi nal hi st or y i ncl uded t her ei n

shoul d not have been at t r i but ed t o hi m. Sect i on 851( a) provi des

t hat , as a pr er equi si t e f or seeki ng a mandatory sent ence based on

a def endant ' s pr i or dr ug convi ct i ons, "bef or e t r i al , or bef or e

ent r y of a pl ea of gui l t y, t he Uni t ed St at es at t or ney f i l e[ ] an

i nf or mat i on wi t h t he cour t ( and ser ve[ ] a copy of such i nf or mat i on

on t he per son or counsel f or t he per son) st at i ng i n wr i t i ng t he

pr evi ous convi ct i ons t o be r el i ed upon. " 21 U. S. C. 851( a) .

Though t hese t emporal r equi r ements have been st r i ct l y enf or ced, we

have hel d t hat " [ b] ecause [ t hey] exi st f or t he def endant ' s benef i t ,

i t makes per f ect sense t o gi ve t he def endant t he power t o wai ve

( and t he obl i gat i on not t o f or f ei t ) st r i ct compl i ance wi t h t hem. "

Pr ou v. Uni t ed St at es, 199 F. 3d 37, 47 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ; see al so

i d. at 46 ( expr essl y r ej ect i ng t he ar gument t hat "an enhancement

based on an unt i mel y f i l i ng . . . i s nul l and voi d") .

Her e, i t i s undi sput ed t hat t he 851 i nf or mat i on was not

t i mel y f i l ed. Mer cado- Cr uz' s appeal t hus t ur ns on whet her he

-40-


41/54

wai ved any obj ect i on t o t he 851 i nf or mat i on on t he basi s of i t s

unt i mel i ness. As t he above col l oquy r eveal s, t he gover nment was

pr epar ed t o f i l e i t s 851 i nf or mat i on pr i or t o j ur y sel ect i on, but

Mercado- Cr uz' s counsel r equest ed, and t he government agr eed, t hatt he f i l i ng be del ayed unt i l he had t he chance t o speak wi t h hi s

cl i ent one f i nal t i me about a pot ent i al pl ea deal . I n maki ng t hi s

r equest , Mer cado- Cr uz' s counsel expr essl y st at ed that he woul d not

di sput e t hat Mercado- Cr uz had r ecei ved not i ce of t he 851

i nf ormat i on. The cour t t hen descr i bed t he agr eement between t he

par t i es, sayi ng t o t he gover nment , " [ y] ou don t have t o f i l e bef or e

st ar t i ng. That s t he agr eement . " Accor di ngl y, i t i s evi dent t hat

Mer cado- Cr uz' s counsel i nt ended t o wai ve t he t emporal r equi r ement s

of 851( a) .

I n Uni t ed St at es v. J ones, 674 F. 3d 88, 95 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , we

hel d t hat t her e can be a val i d agr eement , made i n ai d of pl ea

bargai ni ng, t o wai ve t he t emporal r equi r ement s of 851( a) and

post pone t he deadl i ne f or f i l i ng t he i nf or mat i on. Mer cado- Cr uz

nonet hel ess ur ges t hat what t r anspi r ed her e di d not const i t ut e such

an agr eement because i t di f f er ed f r om J ones i n t wo r espect s.

Fi r st , he argues t hat he never per sonal l y endorsed t he agr eement t o

post pone t he f i l i ng, wher eas i n J ones t he def endant si gned t he

agr eement . Second, he argues t hat t he agr eement di d not const i t ut e

an "expl i ci t wai ver . "

-41-


42/54

The l at t er ar gument i s mor e easi l y di sposed of . As di scussed

above, t he exchange, i n open cour t , bet ween t he cour t , t he

government , and def ense counsel was cl ear l y an at t empt t o post pone

t he f i l i ng and wai ve any obj ect i on t o i t s unt i mel i ness.Accor di ngl y, i t suf f i ces as an agr eement t o expl i ci t l y wai ve any

t i mel i ness obj ect i on.

As t o t he f ormer argument , we f i nd no suppor t i n case l aw f or

t he pr oposi t i on t hat a def endant must per sonal l y wai ve t he t emporal

r equi r ement s of 851. Rat her , our pr evi ous deci si ons deal i ng wi t h

t hose r equi r ement s f ocus on t he i ssue of not i ce, and whet her t he

def endant was made aware of t he gover nment ' s i nt ent i on t o f i l e a

851 i nf or mat i on bef or e el ect i ng t o go t o t r i al or ent er a gui l t y

pl ea. See, e. g. , Pr ou, 199 F. 3d at 44 n. 3 ( "[ C] our t s occasi onal l y

have excused unt i mel y f i l i ngs as l ong as t he def endant has been

made awar e bef or e t r i al or ent r y of a gui l t y pl ea of bot h t he

gover nment ' s i nt ent t o seek an enhancement and t he par t i cul ar pr i or

convi ct i on( s) upon whi ch t he gover nment aspi r es t o r el y. " ) . I n

Prou, we r eaf f i r med t hat t he r equi r ement s of 851( a) wer e subj ect

t o pr ocedur al def aul t i n t he habeas cor pus cont ext ( i . e. , counsel ' s

f ai l ur e t o obj ect as t o t he t i mel i ness of a 851 i nf or mat i on at

t r i al or on di r ect appeal wi l l r ender such a cl ai mdef aul t ed) . 199

F. 3d at 47. I f counsel ' s act i ons can r ender a cl ai m as t o

t i mel i ness def aul t ed, i t f ol l ows t hat counsel can agr ee t o f or ego

-42-


43/54

an obj ect i on i f i t i s i n t he i nt er est of hi s or her cl i ent t o del ay

t he f i l i ng of a 851 i nf or mat i on. 22

Fol l owi ng t hese pr ecedent s, we hol d t hat when, as her e,

def ense counsel and t he gover nment agr ee t o post pone t he f i l i ng ofa 851 i nf or mat i on, t he tempor al r equi r ement s of 851( a) ar e

deemed wai ved and r epl aced by the agr eed- upon f i l i ng deadl i ne.

Because her e t he gover nment f i l ed i t s 851 i nf or mat i on at t he

agr eed- upon t i me, we r ej ect Mer cado- Cr uz' s chal l enge t o hi s l i f e

sent ence on t he basi s of t he unt i mel y f i l i ng of t he i nf or mat i on.

2. Application of Fair Sentencing Act (FSA)

Mer cado- Cr uz chal l enges hi s t er mof i mpr i sonment based on t he

Sent enci ng Gui del i nes changes i mpl ement ed by t he Fai r Sent enci ng

Act of 2010 ( "FSA") , whi ch he cont ends shoul d have appl i ed t o

modi f y hi s sent ence. See 18 U. S. C. 3582( c) ( 2) . Thi s ar gument i s

moot as t o hi s t er m of l i f e i mpr i sonment on Count One because of

our hol di ng above t hat t he 851 i nf or mat i on was not i nval i dat ed by

t he t i mi ng of i t s f i l i ng. Due t o t he pr i or convi ct i ons enumer at ed

i n t he i nf or mat i on, Mer cado- Cr uz was subj ect t o a mandat or y l i f e

sent ence r egar dl ess of any changes t o t he dr ug quant i t y gui del i nes.

See J ones, 674 F. 3d at 95 ( " [ U] nder 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) , a

def endant who has t he requi si t e dr ug quant i t y and ' t wo or more

22 We expr ess no opi ni on on whet her an i nef f ect i ve assi st anceof counsel cl ai m i n a habeas cor pus pet i t i on coul d have i t s basi si n a counsel ' s act i ons as t o wai ver of t he pr ocedur al r equi r ement sof 851( a) . No such cl ai m i s par t of t hi s appeal .

-43-


44/54

pr i or convi ct i ons f or a f el ony dr ug of f ense' must be sent enced t o

l i f e i n pr i son. " ) .

However , t he concur r ent sent ences of 262 mont hs on Counts

Three and Four coul d pot ent i al l y have been af f ect ed by t he FSAchanges. Those sent ences wer e based, i n par t , on t he j ur y' s

f i ndi ng t hat Mer cado- Cr uz possessed wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e at

l east f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne and at l east f i f t y gr ams of cocai ne

base. I n t he FSA, Congr ess amended t he st at ut ory mandat ory

mi ni mums f or cocai ne base under 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ; however , i t

di d not change t he penal t i es f or cocai ne. Accor di ngl y, t he

r el evant dr ug quant i t y f or t he concur r ent sent ences on Count s Thr ee

( cocai ne base) and Four ( cocai ne) , whi ch wer e cal cul at ed usi ng a

groupi ng approach, woul d not have changed. See

U. S. S. G. 5G1. 2( b) ; U. S. S. G. 5G1. 2 cmt . n. 3( C) ( 2012) ( advi si ng

t hat a mandat or y mi ni mumsent ence on one count shoul d appl y t o t he

gr oup sent ence on al l count s) . Accordi ngl y, Mer cado- Cr uz cannot

show t hat t he FSA shoul d have appl i ed to r educe hi s sent ence.

3. Other Preserved Claims of Error

Mer cado- Cr uz, t hr ough counsel and by way of hi s pro- se br i ef ,

r ai ses a number of ot her cl ai ms of er r or at t r i al , whi ch wer e

r ai sed bel ow and hence pr eser ved f or our r evi ew. Though we f i nd

t hat none of t hose pr eserved cl ai ms provi de a basi s f or a new

t r i al , we wi l l br i ef l y addr ess them i n t ur n.

-44-


45/54

a. Appearing Before the Jury in Prison Attire

Mer cado- Cr uz obj ect ed t o t he j ur y i mpanel ment on t he f i r st day

of t r i al because he was dr essed i n pr i son at t i r e. The di st r i ct

cour t over r ul ed t he obj ect i on, st at i ng t hat Mer cado- Cr uz had beeni nf or med of hi s r i ght t o wear or di nar y cl ot hi ng, and i t was hi s

r esponsi bi l i t y t o obt ai n t hat cl ot hi ng. Mer cado- Cr uz r esponded by

al l egi ng t hat he di d not know t r i al was set t o begi n on t hat day,

despi t e t he f act t hat t he t r i al had l ong been set t o begi n i n

Oct ober 2010, and t he cour t had set t he speci f i c date i n a

publ i shed or der f i ve days pr i or .

Al t hough we have i ndeed hel d t hat a def endant has a

const i t ut i onal r i ght not t o be f or ced t o wear "i dent i f i abl e pr i son

gar b" bef or e t he j ur y, Uni t ed St at es v. Pi na, 844 F. 2d 1, 8 ( 1st

Ci r . 1988) , we have st r essed t hat " [ a] due pr ocess vi ol at i on occur s

not f r om an accused' s appear ance i n pr i son cl ot hes but f r om t he

compul si on t hat he so appear , " Uni t ed St ates v. Rodr guez- Dur n,

507 F. 3d 749, 777 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( ci t i ng Est el l e v. Wi l l i ams, 425

U. S. 501, 512- 13 ( 1976) ) . Her e, t he cour t af f orded Mer cado- Cr uz an

oppor t uni t y t o wear di f f er ent cl ot hi ng and he f ai l ed t o t ake

advant age of i t . He had a subst ant i al amount of t i me t o ar r ange

f or r egul ar cl ot hi ng t o be avai l abl e f or hi m bef or e t he Oct ober

t r i a l . 23 Accor di ngl y, no due pr ocess vi ol at i on occur r ed.

23 Mercado- Cr uz di d not argue that he di d not own any st r eetcl ot hes or t hat he l acked t he r esour ces t o obt ai n t hem. Thus, weneed not deci de, as some ci r cui t s have, whet her a def endant i n such

-45-


46/54

b. Testimony About his Criminal History

Mer cado- Cr uz ci t es t he gover nment ' s al l eged sol i ci t at i on of

admi t t edl y i nadmi ssi bl e t est i mony about hi s cr i mi nal r ecor d. He

ar gues t hat t he cour t er r ed i n not gr ant i ng a mi st r i al on t he basi s

of t hi s t est i mony, or at l east speci al l y i nst r ucti ng t he j ur y t o

di sr egar d i t . The t est i mony at i ssue was l i mi t ed t o one r esponse

by FBI Agent Fr anci sco Apont e, a wi t ness f or t he gover nment . Asked

by what names he knew Mercado- Cr uz, Agent Apont e t est i f i ed, i n

par t , "I t ' s not unt i l I am wor ki ng at t he St r i ke For ce, t hat we

begi n t he i nvest i gat i on, and f r om t he cri mi nal r ecor ds, I not i ce

t hat t he r eal name i s Al ber t Mer cado Cr uz. " Def ense counsel

i mmedi atel y obj ect ed and moved f or a mi st r i al . At a si debar

conf er ence, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on f or a mi st r i al ,

r ul i ng t hat t he of f endi ng r emark was spont aneous. The cour t

nonet hel ess di r ect ed counsel t o i nst r uct t he wi t ness ( by way of a

wr i t t en not e) t hat he was not t o ment i on the def endant ' s cr i mi nal

r ecor d. No f ur t her di scussi on of t he mat t er occur r ed, and t he

cour t gave no cur at i ve i nst r uct i on, nor was one r equest ed.

a si t uat i on woul d be const i t ut i onal l y ent i t l ed t o have t he cour t

pr ovi de st r eet cl ot hi ng f or hi m. See, e. g. , Bent l ey v. Cr i st , 469F. 2d 854, 856 ( 9t h Ci r . 1972) ( hol di ng t hat "an accused who i sf or ced t o st and t r i al i n pr i son gar b because of f i nanci al i nabi l i t yt o obt ai n ot her at t i r e i s under a compul si on equal t o t hat of t hepr i soner who i s not al l owed t o don r eadi l y avai l abl e ci vi l i anat t i r e" ) .

-46-


47/54

Under t he ci r cumst ances, i t was wi t hi n t he cour t ' s di scr et i on

t o deny t he mot i on f or a mi st r i al . Uni t ed St at es v. Gl enn, 389

F. 3d 283, 287 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( "We wi l l r ever se a deni al of a

mot i on f or a mi st r i al onl y when t he def endant shows cl ear pr ej udi cer ender i ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al a mani f est abuse of

di scret i on. ") . The mor e di f f i cul t quest i on i s whet her t he cour t

er r ed i n f ai l i ng t o, sua spont e, gi ve a cur at i ve i nst r ucti on.

" [ C] our t s have l ong r ecogni zed t hat , wi t hi n wi de mar gi ns, t he

pot ent i al f or pr ej udi ce st emmi ng f r om i mpr oper t est i mony or

comment s can be sat i sf act or i l y di spel l ed by appr opr i at e cur at i ve

i nst r uct i ons. " Uni t ed St at es v. Sepl veda, 15 F. 3d 1161, 1184 ( 1st

Ci r . 1993) . We have al so suggest ed t hat when i mpr oper t est i mony

pr ompt s a mot i on f or a mi st r i al , i t i s advi sabl e f or t he cour t t o

gi ve a cur at i ve i nst r uct i on; however , we have never hel d t hat such

an i nst r uct i on i s al ways necessar y. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Tor r es,

162 F. 3d 6, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( "Wher e . . . a cur at i ve i nst r uct i on

i s pr ompt l y gi ven, a mi st r i al i s war r ant ed onl y i n r ar e

ci r cumst ances i mpl yi ng ext r eme [ as opposed t o si mpl y cl ear ]

pr ej udi ce. ") .

I n decl i ni ng t o gi ve a cur at i ve i nst r uct i on sua spont e, t he

cour t apparent l y det er mi ned t hat dr awi ng more at t ent i on t o t he

spont aneous comment woul d do mor e har m t han good. Dur i ng t he

af or ement i oned si debar conf er ence t he cour t r epeatedl y sai d that

t he best cour se was "not t o t ouch [ t he i mpr oper t est i mony] wi t h a

-47-


48/

Documents

United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 1st Cir. (2014)