United States v. Montero

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-18-2005
USA v. Montero
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-4213
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Montero" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1561.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1561
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-4213
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CLAUDIO MONTERO,
Appellant
On Appeal from the District
of the Virgin Islands, Division
of St. Thomas and St. John
(D.C. Crim. No. 01-195)
Honorable Thomas K. Moore, District Judge
Argued December 16, 2004
BEFORE: SLOVITER, FUENTES and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed: January 18, 2004)
Stephen A. Brusch, Esq. (argued)
No. 28-29 Norre Gade, Second Floor
P.O. Box 988
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00804
Attorney for Appellant
Anthony J. Jenkins, Esq.
Acting United States Attorney
Bruce Marshak, Esq. (argued)
Nelson L. Jones, Esq.
Assistant U. S. Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Office of the United States Attorney
5500 Veterans Drive, Suite 260
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas
U.S. Virgin Islands 00802-6424
Attorneys for Appellee
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter comes on before this court on appeal from a judgment of conviction
and sentence entered in the District Court of the Virgin Islands on October 15, 2003,
against Claudio Montero. The investigation which ultimately resulted in Montero’s
prosecution began in 1991 in Brooklyn, New York, with the Joint Organized Crime Task
Force’s investigation into the illegal distribution of narcotics by the Francisco Baez
organization. Agents of the task force, pursuant to a court ordered wiretap, identified
Antonio Marte (a/k/a “Pacheco”) as Baez’s supplier. Following this lead, agents using
court authorized wiretaps found that Edwin Arturo Paillier was acting, in turn, as Marte’s
supplier. The agents then turned their attention to Paillier and obtained a court order to
intercept his telephone conversations. These intercepts produced information that Paillier
and his associates were transporting large quantities of cocaine from the island of St.
2
Maarten, through St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, with the ultimate destination being New
York.
The agents, on May 5, 2001, intercepted a conversation between Paillier and
Montero detailing how Paillier would send his “couriers” to Montero’s premises,
apparently a bar, whereby Montero would lead them to the M afolie Hotel to see his
“secretary.” Montero also was instructed to stay with them “to make sure everything was
ok.” App. at 126. The couriers arrived at Montero’s premises on May 8, 2001. He
escorted them to the Mafolie Hotel and entered a room registered to Lucille Demaris,
Paillier’s girlfriend (a/k/a M iguelina). The agents ultimately arrested Montero, Demaris
and the couriers and recovered 5.9 kilograms of cocaine base (commonly referred to as
crack) and six kilograms of powder cocaine.
Montero and two co-defendants, Cesar A. Isasis and Anthony Wilkins, were
indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (count I), and possession with the intent to
distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and
(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II) (count II). In addition, M ontero was indicted for use of a telephone to
facilitate drug offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (count III). Montero was tried
to a jury beginning on December 16, 2002, and on December 18, 2002, was convicted on
all counts. On October 15, 2003, the court sentenced Montero to 130 months
incarceration on Counts I and II, and 48 months incarceration on Count III, with all
3
sentences to run concurrently. Montero filed a notice of appeal on October 21, 2003.
On this appeal Montero argues that we should reverse his conviction and dismiss
the indictment against him because (1) there was insufficient evidence to support a jury
finding that M ontero knew that the persons with whom he was involved were engaged in
a drug smuggling offense, and (2) the prosecutor, during rebuttal summation,
“impermissibly made egregious” statements that denied him the right to a fair trial as
guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
II. JURISDICTION
The district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1612 and
18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have jurisdiction on the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
We start our discussion by recognizing that “[t]he burden on a defendant who
raises a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is extremely high.” United States v.
Serafini, 233 F.3d 758, 770 (3d Cir. 1993). Thus, in reviewing a verdict for sufficiency
of the evidence, “we determine whether there is substantial evidence that, when viewed in
the light most favorable to the government, would allow a rational trier of fact to
4
convict.” United States v. Helbling, 209 F.3d 226, 238 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Charles, 72 F.3d 401, 410 (3d Cir.1995)).
Accordingly, we “must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government and affirm the judgment if there is substantial evidence from which any
rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Frorup,
963 F.2d 41, 42 (3d Cir. 1992); see Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S. Ct.
457, 469 (1942). Moreover, we review both direct and circumstantial evidence where
there is a dispute as to the sufficiency of the evidence. See United States v. Kapp, 781
F.2d 1008, 1010 (3d Cir. 1986).
Montero claims that evidence against him is “insufficient to support a reasonable
juror’s finding that [he] knew that the object of the conspiracy was cocaine smuggling, or
that the accomplices were engaged in possession with intent to distribute cocaine.”
Appellant’s br. at 13. Montero’s argument is that there simply was not enough evidence
offered by the prosecutor to prove that Montero knew that he was engaged in a drug deal.
Id. at 14. M ontero claims that he “merely” believed he was engaged in a counterfeit
money scheme.1 See app. at 420, 482-83.
We reject M ontero’s contention because we are satisfied that there was, in fact,
substantial evidence from which the jury could have found that Montero knew that the
illegal activity in which he was engaged was a drug smuggling offense, and therefore
1
Montero testified that he was paid between $1,500 and $1,800 on each of three
separate occasions, to take counterfeit money to St. M aarten. See app. 420, 422-23.
5
there was substantial evidence from which the jury could have found M ontero guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. First, Paillier testified that it was clear to him that Montero
understood that he was partaking in a drug smuggling offense, Montero allowed Demaris
to store drugs in M ontero’s bar, Montero helped secure the drugs while Pailler was
locating people willing to transport the drugs, Montero knew that Demaris was storing
drugs at the Mafolie hotel, and Montero facilitated the drug deal when he escorted the
couriers to the hotel. See app. at 212-16, 256-58, 267-70, 272-75. Pailler also testified
that after Demaris introduced him to Montero, but before the incident in the Mafolie
hotel, M ontero traveled to Miami were he was paid approximately $2,500 to $2,800 to
take approximately $25,000 to $28,000 from Miami, Florida, to a man on the island of St.
Maarten.2 App 149-52. Pailler testified, “that money was destined to expenses related to
the transportation of drugs.” App. at 152.3
Second, Montero, upon his arrest told Special Agent Robert Lasky that he knew
that Paillier and Demaris were drug dealers. App. at 380-81. Montero also stated that
while he did not know about the couriers’ destination after he transported them to the
hotel, “he stated that he knew they were not going to church.” Id. at 381.
2
This evidence was offered as background to the introduction of the intercepted
communications.
3
Paillier did testify, however, that, “[Montero] probably didn’t know the purpose
himself” for delivery of the money to Miami. App. at 152. Later in Paillier’s testimony,
though, he noted that Miguelina “having spoken to [Montero] several times, must have
tell [sic] him that’s what they were.” App. at 256. And, “Don’t worry, he’s like my
brother. He knows everything.” Id. at 257.
6
Third, it is entirely possible that the jury weighed Montero’s claim that he did not
know that he was involved in an illicit drug deal and found him, and this assertion, to be
entirely lacking credibility. To lend legitimacy to Montero’s defense that he believed he
merely was engaged in counterfeiting, his attorney attempted to elicit testimony from him
that smuggling counterfeit money was a crime, and that therefore Montero was a criminal.
Montero, however, refused to even concede this point. App. at 421-26. It was not
unlikely that, given his unwillingness to capitulate on even this point, Montero lost all
credibility with the jury, and the jury therefore was unwilling to believe his claim that he
was unaware he was involved in a drug ring.
In sum, when the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the government, a
rational trier of fact clearly could have chosen to convict Montero. Montero knew that he
was engaged in an illegal operation with known drug dealers, his co-conspirator testified
that he believed Montero knew that he was part of a drug smuggling operation, and
Montero’s claims of ignorance justifiably could be treated skeptically given his lack of
credibility. There is clearly substantial evidence in the record from which the jury could
have found Montero guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
B. Prosecutorial Misconduct
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for mistrial arising out of alleged
prosecutorial misconduct for abuse of discretion in light of the entire trial record. United
7
States v. Gambino, 926 F.2d 1355, 1365 (3d Cir. 1991); United States v. Tyler, 878 F.2d
753, 761 (3d Cir. 1989). We will reverse a defendant’s conviction if “the prosecutor’s
remarks, taken in the context of the trial as a whole, were sufficiently prejudicial to have
deprived [the defendant of his] right to a fair trial.” United States v. DiPasquale, 740 F.2d
1282, 1297 (3d Cir. 1984). We therefore must consider the probable effect the
prosecutor’s rebuttal would have on the jury’s ability to judge the evidence fairly. See
Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339, 359 n.15, 78 S. Ct. 311, 323 n.15 (1958).
“[A] criminal conviction is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a
prosecutor's comments standing alone, for the statements or conduct must be viewed in
context; only by so doing can it be determined whether the prosecutor's conduct affected
the fairness of the trial.” United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11, 105 S. Ct. 1038, 1044
(1985). Therefore, the defense counsel’s conduct, as well as the nature of the prosecutor's
response, is relevant. Id. Accordingly, we must examine the prosecutor’s comments
within the context of the trial to determine whether his behavior was unfairly prejudicial.
Lawn, 355 U.S. at 359 n.15, 78 S. Ct. at 323 n.15; see Young, 470 U.S. at 12; 105 S.Ct. at
1044.
In making our determination we recognize that Montero contends that “the
prosecutor relentlessly and impermissibly engaged in egregious misconduct during
rebuttal summation” and therefore “denied Montero his right to a fair trial.” Appellant’s
8
br. at 15.4
A fair reading of the prosecutor's remarks leads us to conclude that “the
prosecution was only meeting the defense on a level of the defense's own choosing.”
United States v. LaSorsa, 480 F.2d 522, 526 (2d Cir. 1973). The defense counsel, over
the entirety of his case, made numerous inflammatory and questionable assertions. For
4
Montero’s brief sets forth the prosecutor’s closing argument nearly verbatim.
Nevertheless inasmuch as we write for the parties we will include only those statements
that are most questionable:
2. These are drugs that Claudio Montero was helping to put
on the streets in this country, and God knows who would have
been the one ended with this junk in their body
App. at 511-12.
4. [Montero’s lawyer] knew that if he called Lucy Demaris to
the stand, that in order for Lucy Demaris to say that Claudio
didn’t know anything about it, she would have had to do
exactly what he did yesterday, take that stand and lie, lie, lie.
That is what she would have to do. If he had called Lucy
Demaris, Lucy Demaris, if she told the truth, if she told the
truth, as she would have been sworn to tell the truth, would
have said this: I told Claudio Montero that the money was for
drugs. Claudio Montero saw the drugs. Claudio Montero
helped with the drugs. Claudio Montero is guilty. That’s
what she would have said.
Id. at 510-11.
Why would Agent Lasky take the stand and raise his hand and
run the risk of his career, run the risk of committing perjury to
lie on Claudio? Why? It don’t [sic] make sense.
Id. at 529.
9
example, he claimed that Agent Lasky was lying under oath when the agent testified that
Monetero told him shortly after his arrest that he knew Paillier and Demaris were drug
dealers, see app. at 419-20; defense counsel insinuated that the only way for the
prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Montero knew that he was involved in
a drug deal was to have called Demaris to the stand, see app. at 492; and defense counsel
put forth incomplete portions of Pailler’s testimony in an attempt to demonstrate
Montero’s unawareness of the drug component of the crime, see app. at 512. While the
prosecutor’s response to these improprieties was vigorous, we note that such action was
taken in a defensive response rather than in an affirmative attack upon Montero. See
United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1126 (3d Cir. 1990).
After considering all the circumstances, we will not hold that the prosecutor’s
remarks were unfairly prejudicial. The evidence demonstrating Montero’s involvement in
illegally distributing narcotics, as well as conspiring to distribute illegal narcotics was
substantial. The prosecutor was able to offer intercepted telephone conversations
documenting Montero’s role in the drug smuggling ring and also presented testimony
from one of the co-conspirators linking Montero to the crime. Furthermore, there was
physical evidence documenting Montero’s role in the drug operation. Given the weight
of this evidence, we cannot hold that the prosecutor’s rebuttal statements unfairly
prejudiced Montero by unduly influencing the jury in their decision to convict. See
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Joseph, 770 F.2d 343, 351 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding
10
improper summation remarks attacking defendant and defense counsel’s credibility
should not result in mistrial in light of the substantial evidence of defendant’s guilt).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence of
October 15, 2003.
11