U.S. v. Navarro-Varelas, NAVARRO-VARELAS

Decision Date24 August 1976
Docket NumberNAVARRO-VARELAS,No. 76-1703,76-1703
Citation541 F.2d 1331
Parties1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1189 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis, aka Jose Dustano Beltran Martin, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Danilo J. Becerra, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before TRASK and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and EAST, * Senior District Judge.

EAST, Senior District Judge:

Luis Navarro-Varelas, Appellant, following a jury trial, was convicted on two separate counts of knowingly importing a quantity of cocaine into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960(a)(1) and knowingly possessing with intent to distribute the cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The District Court sentenced the Appellant to eight years imprisonment with a 15 year special parole term on each count, the sentences to be served concurrently. Appellant appeals. We affirm.

The two issues on review are:

(1) Did the District Court abuse its discretion by refusing to permit a defense witness to testify regarding common schemes employed in narcotics smuggling?

(2) Did the District Court deny Appellant his Sixth Amendment right to present evidence in his own behalf by:

(a) Refusing to admit into evidence a stipulation that the fingerprints found in the secret compartment containing the cocaine were smudged and thus not identifiable; and

(b) Refusing to allow the playing of a tape recording of a prior consistent statement of Appellant made at the time of his arrest?

Appellant, a resident of Medollin, Colombia, arrived at the Los Angeles International Airport about 1:30 p. m. on November 17, 1975 on a flight from Guatemala City, Guatemala. He held a round trip ticket and carried a forged Colombian passport in the name of Jose Dustano Beltran Martin. He had no other identification, no address book, photographs, letters or anything else bearing either a name or an address.

Appellant was ordered to a secondary inspection area by Customs Inspector Leonard Bury when the agent noticed that the lining on one of the Appellant's two suitcases was unusually thick. Appellant was ordered to sit down while his luggage was examined more closely. Bury drilled a small hole in the wooden lining of the suitcase and discovered a white powdery substance which subsequently field tested positively for cocaine. The testimony of the Government chemist that the substance was in fact four and a half pounds of cocaine was stipulated to by the parties.

Bury testified that the Appellant showed no reaction to the drilling of the hole in his suitcase, to the discovery of the white powder in the lining, nor to being informed of his arrest and reason therefor. On cross-examination, Bury stated that the concealment of the cocaine in the suitcase's false compartment was of good craftsmanship, and that the cocaine had been evenly compacted on all four sides of the suitcase.

The defense contended that the Appellant did not have any knowledge that his suitcase contained a secret compartment which contained cocaine or any other contraband.

The Appellant testified that:

He was 45 years old and a resident of Medollin where he had earned his living for the last 20 years as a bus or taxicab driver;

This was his first trip outside of Colombia;

The only thing he knew about cocaine was what he had read in magazines and had no knowledge that cocaine emanated from Colombia or that Americans smuggle cocaine out of Colombia;

He had met a Mr. Escolme during the month before in Medollin where he had driven Escolme around Medollin for a couple of days in his taxi seeing the various tourist sites, and Escolme had told Appellant that he owned a laundry in Los Angeles and could use a good driver like him for one of his trucks;

He had come to Los Angeles to meet Escolme for a year's work;

Escolme had made all arrangements for the trip, providing a passport, tickets, and $1,000 in expense money;

He had provided Escolme with three passport photos on a later occasion and was told he would receive the passport from Escolme.

Later he received a passport that was not in his name and was told by Escolme that everything was "O.K." since Escolme had a friend who worked at the Consulate, and that once in the United States, the papers would be straightened out; and

He had never traveled outside of Colombia and so did not have a large suitcase, and on the day before the trip, Escolme offered to lend him one which turned out to be the suitcase containing the cocaine.

Issue 1:

Appellant attempted to call Drug Enforcement Agent Larry Nance to testify as an expert as to a common ploy or scheme used by narcotics smugglers to smuggle contraband into the United States. The District Court denied the attempt and Appellant tendered an offer of proof that a common scheme or ploy used by narcotics smugglers was to plant narcotics in secret compartments of suitcases and have an unwary traveler bring the narcotics into the United States.

This court has determined in United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148, at 1152 (9th Cir. 1973), that "(t)he general test regarding the admissibility of expert testimony is whether the jury can receive 'appreciable help' from such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • 13 Septiembre 1978
    ...judgment as to any facts connected therewith and second, the testimony must be of a nature to aid the jury. United States v. Navarro-Varelas, 541 F.2d 1331 (9th Cir. 1976), Cert. den. 429 U.S. 1045, 97 S.Ct. 751, 50 L.Ed.2d 759 (1977); United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1973);......
  • U.S. v. Gibson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 20 Abril 1982
    ...of repetitions of it. Such evidence would ordinarily be cumbersome to the trial and is ordinarily rejected. United States v. Navarro-Varelas, 541 F.2d 1331, 1334 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1045, 97 S.Ct. 751, 50 L.Ed.2d 759 (1977) (emphasis added, citations omitted). See also U......
  • Chagra v. Commissioner, Docket No. 17826-85.
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 6 Agosto 1991
    ...on information from other narcotics agents); United States v. Pugliese, 712 F.2d 1574, 1581 (2d Cir. 1983); United States v. Navarro-Varelas, 541 F.2d 1331 (9th Cir. 1976). Having reviewed the substance of the witness' testimony, we conclude that he is an expert witness.6 His level of exper......
  • U.S. v. Shorter
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 16 Enero 1987
    ...to a jury's assessment of the salient factual issues, expert testimony will normally be excluded. See, e.g., United States v. Navarro-Varelas, 541 F.2d 1331, 1334 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1045, 97 S.Ct. 751, 50 L.Ed.2d 759 Appellant contends that the District Court utilized an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay Issues Most Relevant in Antitrust Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook. Second Edition
    • 28 Junio 2002
    ...(4th Cir. 1977) (error to admit prior consistent statement in absence of impeachment); see also United States v. Navarro-Varelas , 541 F.2d 1331, 1334 (9th Cir. 1976). (a) A charge of recent fabrication or improper motive may be implied. See , e.g. , United States v. Montague , 958 F.2d 109......
  • Table of Authorities
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook. Second Edition
    • 28 Junio 2002
    ..., 553 F. Supp. 621 (D.D.C. 1982)......................................................... 213 United States v. NavarroVarelas , 541 F.2d 1331 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied , 429 U.S. 1045 (1977) .... 34 United States v. NL Indus. Inc. , 1990-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 69,036 (E.D. La. 1990) ...........
  • § 45.03 STIPULATIONS OF FACT
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Evidence (CAP) Title Chapter 45 Stipulations
    • Invalid date
    ...of fingerprints, identified as Duffy's found on the rear-view mirror of the vehicle.").[11] See United States v. Navarro-Varelas, 541 F.2d 1331, 1334 (9th Cir. 1976) (irrelevant).[12] See Thompson v. Thompson, 965 N.E.2d 377, 392 (Ohio App. 2011) ("Although parties may stipulate to facts, t......
  • § 45.03 Stipulations of Fact
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Evidence (2018) Title Chapter 45 Stipulations
    • Invalid date
    ...of fingerprints, identified as Duffy's found on the rear-view mirror of the vehicle.").[11] See United States v. Navarro-Varelas, 541 F.2d 1331, 1334 (9th Cir. 1976) (irrelevant).[12] See Thompson v. Thompson, 965 N.E.2d 377, 392 (Ohio App. 2011) ("Although parties may stipulate to facts, t......

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