United States v. Medina

Decision Date13 August 2020
Docket NumberNo. 19-1909,19-1909
Citation969 F.3d 819
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orlando MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Jonathan H. Koenig, Attorney, Rebecca Taibleson, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John A. Birdsall, Attorney, Birdsall Obear & Associates SC, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant-Appellant

Before Bauer, Kanne, and Barrett, Circuit Judges.

Bauer, Circuit Judge.

Orlando Medina was convicted of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. At a bench trial, key evidence included the testimony of police officers from Puerto Rico, four mail receipts, and the testimony of co-conspirator Rodolfo Duenas. Medina argues his conviction must be reversed because the judge should have found this evidence lacked credibility as a matter of law. He also argues this evidence constituted false testimony and violated his due process rights. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 19, 2014, Puerto Rico police received a tip that Medina was transporting firearms. When officers attempted to stop Medina's car, he fired gunshots and fled. Police then seized Medina's abandoned car. Upon searching the car, police found Medina's birth certificate and four mail receipts. Three receipts were for packages sent to Puerto Rico by Duenas in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The United States Postal Inspection Service identified suspicious packages sent from Puerto Rico to Duenas. Milwaukee-based police officers intercepted and followed a package containing cocaine and arrested Duenas once he accepted delivery. Duenas mentioned the shooting incident and stated that Medina had repeatedly shipped him cocaine from Puerto Rico.

Forensic scientists determined that the powdery substance in the intercepted package contained cocaine and that the forty small bags amounted to more than one kilogram. A print analyst found that three of the seven fingerprints inside the package matched Medina's fingerprints.

Medina was indicted with one count of conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. He received a bench trial, which took place in early 2018. The government's witnesses included three officers from Puerto Rico, two Milwaukee-based police officers, and Duenas. The government also offered expert testimony identifying Medina's fingerprints. The defense moved for a judgment of acquittal after the government's case, but the court denied the motion. The parties proceeded to closing arguments.

The court found Medina guilty. The defense suggested that the fourth mail receipt—labeled as being sent from Milwaukee on August 19, 2014 at 3:25pm—could not have been in Medina's car. The judge said the receipt raised a "mystery" but dismissed the idea that it created a reasonable doubt as to the Puerto Rico officers’ testimony or the receipts bearing Duenas’ name. The judge stated that Duenas had a "tenuous relationship with the truth" but nevertheless, after considering the entirety of the evidence, determined his testimony helped establish the existence of a conspiracy with Medina.

II. DISCUSSION

We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in a bench trial under the same deferential standard that applies to a jury verdict: we reverse "only if we conclude, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, that no rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Wasson, 679 F.3d 938, 949 (7th Cir. 2012). We do not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility and may uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Id.

The government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Medina conspired to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. § 841 ; 21 U.S.C. § 846. Medina seeks acquittal by challenging the credibility of witness testimony, which is particularly difficult under our deferential standard of review. United States v. Carraway, 612 F.3d 642, 645 (7th Cir. 2010). Testimony lacks credibility as a matter of law only in situations where "it would have been physically impossible for the witness to observe what he described, or it was impossible under the laws of nature for those events to have occurred at all."...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • United States v. Foy
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • October 3, 2022
    ...the prosecution, that no rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Medina , 969 F.3d 819, 821 (7th Cir. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In doing so, we may not "reweigh evidence or reassess witness credi......
  • Salazar-Marroquin v. Barr, No. 19-1669
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • August 13, 2020
  • United States v. Garcia
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • June 23, 2022
    ...determined that the Government had met its burden. We therefore apply the more deferential standard of review. Cf. United States v. Medina , 969 F.3d 819, 821 (7th Cir. 2020).20 1. Mr. Garcia claims that the Government failed to show lack of inducement and also did not meet its burden of pr......
  • United States v. Goodwill
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • January 21, 2022
    ...is thus whether the alleged detour prolonged the traffic stop. This question is factual, not legal."); see also United States v. Medina , 969 F.3d 819, 821 (7th Cir. 2020) ("We do not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility ...."). A trial judge is better positioned to evaluate the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT