United States v. Amaya

• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANGEL AMAYA and JAVIER AMAYA, Defendants.
• Docket Number: No. CR 11-4065-MWB,CR 11-4065-MWB
• Decision Date: 10 August 2012

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 ......................................33

Page 2

a. 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

Page 3

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 distribute

Page 4

methamphetamine, 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...