United States v. Amaya

• Decision Date: 10 August 2012
• Docket Number: No. CR 11-4065-MWB,CR 11-4065-MWB
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANGEL AMAYA and JAVIER AMAYA, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

v.ANGEL AMAYA and JAVIER AMAYA, Defendants.

No. CR 11-4065-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

Dated: August 10, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER REGARDING THE

DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL

MOTIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................3

A. The Indictment......................................................................3

B. The Two Mistrials..................................................................4

C. The Third Trial.....................................................................6

1. Pre-trial matters............................................................6

2. Trial proceedings...........................................................7

a. The "vouching" incident.........................................7

b. The motion for mistrial...........................................9

c. Further trial proceedings.......................................11

3. Verdict and post-verdict proceedings.................................14

D. Post-Trial Motions................................................................17

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS......................................................................18

A. Standards For Post-Trial Relief................................................18

1. Motions for judgment of acquittal....................................18

2. Motions for new trial ....................................................21

3. Plain error.................................................................23

B. Relief From The Drug Conspiracy Conviction..............................27

1. Sufficiency of the evidence.............................................28

a. Arguments of the parties .......................................28

b. Analysis ............................................................ 29

2. The effect of improper vouching ......................................33a. Arguments of the parties.......................................33

b. Analysis............................................................34

3. Summary...................................................................39

C. Relief From The Money-Laundering Conviction...........................39

1. The elements of the offense............................................39

a. Proof of a substantive money-laundering offense.........40

i. Arguments of the parties...............................40

ii. Analysis....................................................41

b. The "knowledge" element......................................49

i. Arguments of the parties ...............................49

ii. Analysis....................................................50

2. Sufficiency of the evidence.............................................53

a. Arguments of the parties .......................................53

b. Analysis ............................................................ 55

3. Other errors...............................................................57

a. "Vouching".......................................................57

b. The answer to the jurors' first note..........................58

c. Burden of proof..................................................59

d. Verdict form....................................................... 61

i. Arguments of the parties............................... 61

ii. Analysis .................................................... 64

4. Summary ................................................................... 71

III. CONCLUSION............................................................................ 71

As one defendant asserts, this case, involving drug conspiracy and money-laundering conspiracy charges, was jinxed from the outset. The first two jury trials resulted in mistrials during the testimony of the prosecution's same first witness. Although the third trial survived yet another motion for mistrial on the first day and finally reached a jury verdict, the defendants, two brothers, have filed post-trial motions attacking their convictions. One brother, Angel Amaya, who is charged with both conspiracies, asserts that judgment of acquittal is appropriate, because the evidence is insufficient to convict him of either conspiracy offense; that another mistrial is warranted, because the prosecutor improperly vouched for a witness; and that a new trial is required, because an error in the verdict form suggested that, if one brother was guilty of the money-laundering conspiracy, they must both be guilty. The other brother, Javier Amaya, who is charged only with the money-laundering conspiracy, asserts that he is entitled to judgment of acquittal, because proof of a money-laundering conspiracy requires proof of at least one substantive money-laundering offense, which was lacking here, and that he is entitled to a mistrial or a new trial, because of an error in the verdict form, an erroneous supplemental instruction on conspiracies, and insufficiency of the evidence. The prosecution argues that the jury's verdicts should stand and that this case should proceed to sentencing for both defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. The Indictment

In Count 1 of a Superseding Indictment (docket no. 77), handed down July 28, 2011, defendant Angel Amaya and four co-defendants were charged with a drug conspiracy offense, alleging a conspiracy to possess with intent to distributemethamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In Count 2, Angel Amaya, his brother Javier Amaya, and two other co-defendants were charged with a money-laundering conspiracy offense, alleging a conspiracy to conduct financial transactions involving the proceeds of unlawful drug activity, (a) with intent to promote the carrying on of that unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (b) to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of that unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), and (c) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under federal law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii), all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Four of the Amayas' co-defendants subsequently pleaded guilty to the charge or charges against them, but the Amayas proceeded to trial.

B. The Two Mistrials

The first attempt to try the Amayas on the charges against them began on October 11, 2011. However, I declared a mistrial that day, when the prosecution's first witness, a government agent, referred to material barred by a sealed ruling on a motion in limine. See, e.g., Hearing Minutes (docket no. 220); Memorandum Opinion And Order Regarding Defendants' Oral Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice (docket no. 292) (sealed).¹ The second attempt to try the Amayas began on December 19, 2011, but it fared no better. I granted another mistrial on the first day, again during the testimony of the prosecution's first witness, the same government agent, when that witness disclosed for the first time the use of GPS devices to collect evidence in this case. See Text Order (docket no. 266). I then entertained briefing on whether or notthe second mistrial should result in dismissal with prejudice based on prosecutorial misconduct. On January 26, 2012, after considering the parties' briefs and hearing oral arguments, I concluded that the defendants had failed to meet the demanding standard for dismissal with prejudice after a mistrial. See Memorandum Opinion And Order Regarding Defendants' Oral Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice (docket no. 292) (sealed).

By Order (docket no. 296), filed January 31, 2012, I set deadlines for filing and briefing of any motions to suppress GPS evidence, in light of the United States Supreme Court's ruling on GPS evidence in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), which, coincidentally, had been handed down just a week earlier. On February 9, 2012, Angel filed such a Motion To Suppress-GPS System (docket no. 299), which the prosecution resisted. On April 10, 2012, I entered a Memorandum Opinion And Order Regarding Defendant's Motion To Suppress GPS System (docket no. 350). See also United States v. Amaya, 2012 WL 1188456 (N.D. Iowa April 10, 2012) (slip op.). In that Order, I rejected Angel's challenge to the GPS evidence based on a constitutional violation, because the government had acted in good faith reliance on existing circuit precedent, but I found that the government agent's failure to disclose the GPS evidence had been in bad faith. Consequently, I set a hearing for April 20, 2012, to determine whether a sanction less severe than evidence suppression, such as taking away the prosecution's peremptory strikes and/or rebuttal closing argument, was appropriate to punish the prosecution for its discovery violation. By Order (docket no. 359), filed April 12, 2012, I reset the sanctions hearing for April 30, 2012.

On April 18, 2012, the prosecution filed a Motion To Reconsider (In Part) And Memorandum On Imposition Of Sanctions (docket no. 362), asking me to reconsider my finding of bad faith by the government agent. I consolidated the hearing on that motion with the hearing on sanctions by Text Order (docket no. 371), entered April 25,2012. After the sanctions hearing on April 30, 2012, I entered a Memorandum Opinion And Order Regarding The Imposition Of Sanctions And The Prosecution's Motion To Reconsider (docket no. 377) on May 1, 2012. See United States v. Amaya, _ F. Supp. 2d _, 2012 WL 1523045 (N.D. Iowa May 1, 2012). In that Order, I granted the prosecution's Motion To Reconsider, withdrew the portion of my prior opinion in which I had found that the government agent had acted in bad faith, and determined that no sanctions should be imposed on the prosecution for failure to disclose the use of GPS devices.

C. The Third Trial

By Order (docket no. 356), filed April 11, 2012, the jury trial in this matter was reset to begin on May 29, 2012, and the third attempt to try the Amayas began as scheduled. See ...