United States v. Wilson ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-51096
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARTHA ARREOLA WILSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-99-CR-366-ALL-H
--------------------
July 31, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Martha Arreola Wilson appeals from her convictions of
importing marijuana into the United States and of possessing
marijuana with intent to distribute. She contends that the
evidence was insufficient for a rational jury to conclude that
she was aware that marijuana had been secreted in the tires of
the car she was driving at the time of her arrest. She further
urges that her response of “I don’t know” to many of the
questions put to her after she was given a Miranda warning cannot
be used as evidence of her guilty knowledge. Lastly, she urges
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-51096
-2-
that the district court reversibly erred when it permitted the
prosecutor to use information she had provided to her pretrial
services officer in order to impeach her general credibility.
Wilson presented a plausible story about how she had been
duped by a Mexican automobile mechanic into driving the
marijauna-laden car into the United States. Nevertheless, a
rational juror could have inferred from her suspicious conduct
during questioning that she was a knowing participant in the
scheme to smuggle the marijuana into this country. During
questioning by customs officials, Wilson refused to identify the
car’s true owner or to explain how she had come to be in
possession of the car. The jury could have determined from this
that she was attempting to protect her coconspirators. See
United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 1998).
Wilson also refused to provide customs agents with even the most
innocuous information, such as where she lived or what her
destination was. She even lied about having a job. The jury
could have concluded that this was not the behavior of an
innocent person.
Wilson’s assertion that her refusal to answer some of the
customs agents’ questions cannot be used against her is similarly
unavailing. We have refused to find a due-process violation
when, as here, the defendant does not expressly invoke her right
to remain silent but merely replies “I don’t know” to the border
patrol agents’ questions. See United States v. Cardenas
Alvarado, 806 F.2d 566, 573 & n.4 (5th Cir. 1986).
We also reject Wilson’s argument concerning the prosecutor’s
No. 99-51096
-3-
use of information she provided during her interview with the
pretrial services officer. Although the question of Wilson’s
credibility was paramount in this secret-compartment case, we
conclude that Wilson’s reticence and evasiveness during
questioning render any error stemming from the admission of the
pretrial-services information harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
52(a). Accordingly, her convictions are
AFFIRMED.