U.S. v. Leanos-Marquez, Criminal No. 01-151 (S.D. Iowa 2/12/2002), Criminal No. 01-151.
| Decision Date | 12 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | Criminal No. 01-151. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MATLAS LEANOS-MARQUEZ, JAVIER EDUARDO MIRANDA, NICHOLAS M. BARRIOS, and ANNA MARIA MARTINEZ, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Now before the Court is defendant Anna Maria Martinez's ("Martinez") January 7, 2002 motion for acquittal or for a new trial. The motion was joined by Matias Leanos-Marquez ("Leanos-Marquez"), co-defendant, on January 24, 2002. The government filed a resistance on January 25, 2002. The motions are now fully submitted.
On August 15, 2001 a grand jury indictment was filed in this case. A superseding indictment was filed on September 11, 2001. The indictment contained 11 counts against 8 defendants. In the indictment, Martinez was charged under counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11. Leanos-Marquez was charged under counts 1, 2, 8, and 9.1 A trial of four defendants, those named in the caption of this Order, began on December 10, 2001. The jury returned its verdicts on December 14, 2002. Martinez was found not guilty on counts 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10. The jury determined she was guilty of the charges alleged in counts 6 and 11. Leanos-Marquez was found not guilty of count 2, but was found guilty of the other charges brought against him.
Under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this Court may grant a defendant" a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment or information after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses." FED.R.CRIM.P.29(a). "In ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal, the role of the district court is not to weigh evidence or consider the credibility of the witnesses, but rather to determine whether the Government has presented evidence on each element sufficient to support a jury verdict." United States v. Chavez, 230 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 2000) (citingBurks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 (1978)) (other citation omitted). The jury's verdict "should not be overturned lightly," United States v. Burks, 934 F.2d 148, 151 (8th Cir. 1991), the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, and the Court must accept as established all reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. See United States v. Oberhauser, 142 F. Supp.2d 1118, 1126 (D. Minn. 2001) (citation omitted).
If the Court grants a judgment of acquittal to either defendant, it must still make a conditional ruling on the defendants' alternative motions for a new trial. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 29(d) ();see also Oberhauser, 142 F. Supp. 2d at 1130. If the Court does not grant a judgment of acquittal, it will then proceed to rule on the motions for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.
This Court "may grant a new trial . . . if the interests of justice so require." FED.R.CRIM. P. 33. Unlike the standard under Rule 29, in a motion for a new trial the district court may weigh the evidence and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses "`to determine if a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.'" United States v. Saborit, 967 F. Supp. 1136, 1145 (N.D. Iowa 1997) (citations omitted). Like the standard under Rule 29, however, the power to grant new trials should be used sparingly and with caution. Id. (citation omitted).
The indictment charged Martinez and another defendant who did not go to trial, Rogelio Reynosa Ornelas ("Reynosa"), in count 6 with possessing more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute. The jury found Martinez guilty of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, as charged by this count of the indictment. However, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that the quantity of marijuana she possessed with such intent to distribute was not more than 50 kilograms.
The record of the grand jury hearing clearly indicates that it returned an indictment against Martinez and Reynosa on count 6 because a large amount of marijuana was found at a house located at 1672 Northwest 84th Street in Des Moines, Iowa. At the trial, Reynosa was a witness for the government. Reynosa testified that he came to Iowa from California in the middle of July 2001, and lived at the house at 1672 Northwest 84th Street until his arrest at the house on July 27, 2001. The transcript of the grand jury hearing discloses that the government urged the grand jury to indict Martinez because her name was on the lease of the house at 84th Street as the tenant. At trial, however, the rental agent for the house testified that Martinez was not the one who signed the lease, and that someone else used Martinez identity to rent the house. There was no evidence presented at trial that Martinez ever gave anyone permission or allowed anyone to use her identity. The government stipulated at trial that defendant Anna Martinez was not the person who leased the house on 84th Street.
At trial, Reynosa testified about his contacts with Martinez and his knowledge of her involvement with marijuana. This was the only evidence presented at trial relevant to count 6 against Martinez.
Gov't:2 Did you meet a person called Anna Martinez?
Reynosa: That's right.
Gov't: And who introduced you to Anna Martinez?
Reynosa: The girl, Jenny.3
Gov't: How many times did you meet her?
Reynosa: I met her — I saw her, like, around five or six times.
Gov't: Did you ever see Anna Martinez at the 84th Street house?
Reynosa: That's right.
Gov't: How many times did you see her there?
Reynosa: Maybe two or three times only.
Gov't: And did you ever sell her any marijuana?
Reynosa: No, not to her.
Gov't: Did you know to whom she was married?
Reynosa: She's married to one of Mr. Nicholas' sons.
Gov't: And do you know his name?
Reynosa: Yes. He introduced himself with the name of Jose.
Gov't: And did you sell marijuana, then, to Jose?
Reynosa: That's right.
Gov't: And how much marijuana did you sell to Jose?
Reynosa: I didn't sell her — sell him the drugs. We can say that I just fronted the marijuana to him, and it was, like, 25 or 26 pounds.
Gov't: Now, was Anna involved in that transaction?
Reynosa: Yes.
Gov't: In what way?
Reynosa: She and the girl named — called Jenny, they went to pick it up at the house where the marijuana was.
Gov't: And were you there when they picked it up?
Reynosa: That's right.
Gov't: Were you present when the marijuana was picked up?
Reynosa: That's right.
Gov't: And where did the marijuana pick up occur?
Reynosa: There at the house that is mentioned when I was arrested.
Gov't: Did you have any discussion with Anna about the marijuana?
Reynosa: Not with her.
Gov't: I want to ask you, is that transaction of 25 pounds reflected in the notes that you kept in Government's Exhibit 5?
Reynosa: That's right.
Gov't: And could you look through the Government's Exhibit 5 and direct us to that transaction?
Reynosa: Yes. It's right here. It was not 26, there were 30.
Gov't: So it had been 30 pounds of marijuana?
Reynosa: That's right.
Gov't: With regard to the writing on that page [showing the witness the page of Government's Exhibit 5], who wrote the notes on that page? Reynosa: I did.
Gov't: And which set of numbers are you talking about, the whole page, that represent the transaction?
Reynosa: No. I wrote it in that part where I crossed it.
Gov't: Okay. And you have some notations there on that transaction that look like A-N-A; is that correct?
Reynosa: Yes. That's right.
Gov't: And why did you make that notation on that?
Reynosa: Because Jenny had made that transaction with — I'm sorry, Your Honor, I will clarity — that agreement with his brother. And since Jenny was the one that had made the agreement with her and with me, and since Anna had come to pick it up with her, that's the reason why I wrote it that way.
See Partial Trial Transcript, Testimony of Rogelio Reynosa-Ornelas at 47-51 (filed January 17, 2002).
Martinez argues that this testimony cannot serve as the factual basis to support the crime charged in the indictment. Martinez argues the indictment charges her with possession of the marijuana found in the house on 84th Street because her name appeared on the lease of that home. Testimony from one individual that she picked up marijuana one time from that home cannot support the crime charged in count 6. The issues raised by Martinez with respect to count 6 are: whether through the evidence and testimony presented at trial, the indictment in this case was constructively amended so as to permit the jury to convict her of a different crime than that charged; or, whether there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof presented at trial. See United States v. Griffin, 215 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2000). These issues address important protections provided to individuals in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution — addressing the right that some charges have to be made by a grand jury, and that a defendant has a right to know the nature and cause of accusations brought against her. See generallyUnited States v. Marshall, 53 F.3d 1500, 1512 n. 4 (10th Cir. 1995).
"An indictment is sufficient `if it contains all of the essential elements of the offense charged, fairly informs the defendant of the charges against which he must defend, and alleges sufficient information to allow a defendant to plead a conviction or acquittal as a bar to a subsequent prosecution."' United States v. Summers, 137 F.3d 597, 601 (8th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). The indictment in this case charged Martinez with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(B). The elements of the offense — that Martinez was in possession...
To continue reading
Request your trial