U.S. v. Gonzales-Benitez
| Decision Date | 02 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | 75--3718,HERNANDEZ-CORONE,Nos. 75--3749,GONZALES-BENITE,A,s. 75--3749 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Aidappellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ambrosioppellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before SNEED and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and CONTI, * District Judge.
Aida Gonzales-Benitez and Ambrosio Hernandez-Coronel were convicted for importing and distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a) (1), 841(a)(1). On appeal they argue that the trial court gave incorrect jury instructions on the defense of entrapment and that the court erred in various other respects. We consider these contentions below, after stating the facts. 1
Ana Maria Gutierrez, a paid informer who had worked on prior occasions with the Drug Enforcement Administration, initiated a series of telephone conversations with appellant Gonzales, who was staying in Culiacan, Mexico. Gonzales indicated the could obtain good quality heroin for the informant. Gonzales asked if Gutierrez would distribute the narcotic to reliable persons, and Gutierrez responded that her buyers could be trusted. In June Mrs. Gutierrez and her daughter traveled to Culiacan, where they spent all day with Gonzales and also met with appellant Hernandez. Together they discussed delivery and transportation of heroin in further detail. Gonzales offered to sell 16 ounces to Gutierrez and allow Hernandez to travel to the border with Gutierrez for protection, but the informer refused to make a purchase at that time.
There followed other telephone conversations and another meeting in which Mrs. Gutierrez introduced Gonzales to a purported buyer, Hector Berrellez. Berrellez was an agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Thereafter a sale was arranged. It was agreed that Berrellez would take delivery of the drugs within the United States. On the day of the border crossing Mrs. Gutierrez and her daughter met with Gonzales and Hernandez in a hotel room in Nogales, Mexico. Appellants produced 13 ounces of heroin and Hernandez stated he would bring two additional kilograms of heroin the next day. He demonstrated certain belts with pouches which he used to transport heroin on his person.
The heroin was then secreted in Mrs. Gutierrez' purse. Gonzales left and walked across the border by herself, while the other three drove through the border checkpoint with the heroin. The crossing was accomplished in Mrs. Gutierrez' car. Hernandez was in the front seat. He had removed the heroin from the purse and placed it in a grocery bag which he held on his lap. He placed cheese in the bag to mask any heroin smell.
The three met Gonzales on the Arizona side and together they drove to the motel to meet Berrellez, the ostensible buyer. After Berrellez took possession of the heroin, a signal was given and appellants were arrested.
On voir dire examination, the court asked prospective jury members if they would be prejudiced against any defendant or witness who spoke Spanish and not English. The court, however, refused to ask a question requested by Hernandez, namely, whether any of the prospective jurors themselves spoke Spanish fluently.
Hernandez argues that since both the appellants and the chief government witness, Mrs. Gutierrez, spoke virtually no English, a Spanish-speaking juror would be capable of better credibility determinations than a juror who was dependent on a translator. He contends his peremptory challenges would have been exercised more wisely if he had the opportunity to select Spanish-speaking jurors.
The trial court is given wide discretion in directing a voir dire examination that will result in selection of an impartial and qualified panel. United States v. Heck, 499 F.2d 778, 790 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1088, 95 S.Ct. 677, 42 L.Ed.2d 680 (1974); United States v. Williams,417 F.2d 630, 631 (10th Cir. 1969). While it was within the trial judge's discretion to ask the proffered question, it was clearly not an abuse of discretion to refuse to do so.
Appellants contend the trial court erred in permitting testimony that related their conversations with the informers during a certain meeting in a motel room in Arizona. They claim that since the conversations were recorded on tapes, the tapes themselves, and not testimony of one of the participants, were the 'best evidence' of the conversations. We are puzzled that this argument should be advanced so seriously and would not consider it if attorneys for both appellants had not argued the point so strenuously both in their briefs and in the court below. Certainly the trial court was correct in dismissing the objection out of hand.
The appellants simply misconstrue the purpose and effect of the best evidence rule. The rule does not set up an order of preferred admissibility, which must be followed to prove any fact. It is, rather, a rule applicable only when one seeks to prove the contents of documents or recordings. Fed.R.Evid. 1002. Thus, if the ultimate inquiry had been to discover what sounds were embodied on the tapes in question, the tapes themselves would have been the 'best evidence.'
However, the content of the tapes was not in itself a factual issue relevant to the case. The inquiry concerned the content of the conversations. The tape recordings, if intelligible, 2 would have been admissible as evidence of those conversations. But testimony by the participants was equally admissible and was sufficient to establish what was said.
Appellant Gonzales argues the trial judge erred in refusing to grant a motion for acquittal based on insufficient evidence. Our review of the transcript of testimony at trial shows evidence tending to prove the following: that Gonzales participated in the negotiations for the sale; that she aided in secreting the heroin prior to its being transported across the border; that she then joined Hernandez and the two informers on the United States side to continue their journey; and that she was present when the heroin was transferred to Berrellez. This testimony was contradicted by the appellants. The jury, however, need not have believed the appellants. There was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Gonzales was directly concerned in performing the acts charged and hence was guilty of the crimes.
There was a fundamental inconsistency in the testimony of the appellants and that of the informants. The appellants claimed that Mrs. Gutierrez had suggested the entire importation scheme and that she and her daughter had supplied all of the heroin used in the transaction. On this basis, they claim that they were entrapped, and should therefore have been acquitted.
Evidence that government agents participated in a criminal scheme, and in fact suggested it, and even supplied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.S. by and through Stern v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.
...WL 3611049, at *4, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155344, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021) (Sammartino, J.) (quoting United States v. Gonzales-Benitez , 537 F.2d 1051, 1053 (9th Cir. 1976) ) (internal quotations omitted). Because Mr. Feinberg's declaration is based on personal knowledge, Plaintiffs’ ......
-
U.S. v. Bagnariol
...government's involvement in the criminal scheme reaches such an outrageous level as to violate due process." United States v. Gonzales-Benitez, 537 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 923, 97 S.Ct. 323, 50 L.Ed.2d 291 (1976). See United States v. Prairie, 572 F.2d 1316, 1319 ......
-
Robles v. Agreserves, Inc.
...testimony is equally admissible as the recording in order to prove the content of the conversation. United States v. Gonzalez–Benitiez, 537 F.2d 1051, 1053–54 (9th Cir.1976). In any event, a copy of the recording was not provided to the Court. Whether the sounds of pushing (or paper being s......
-
In re State T.H.
...have been held as equally admissible as a tape of the conversation to establish what was said. United States v. Gonzales–Benitez, 537 F.2d 1051 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied,429 U.S. 923, 97 S.Ct. 323, 50 L.Ed.2d 291 (1976); United States v. Rose, 590 F.2d 232 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied,44......