Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Adames-Santos, 89 F.3d 824, 1st Cir. (1996)
United States v. Adames-Santos, 89 F.3d 824, 1st Cir. (1996)
3d 824
The first argument is that the government's failure to disclose prior to trial the
identity of the confidential informant Miguel Morel, violated Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). "[F]avorable evidence is material, and
constitutional error results from its suppression by the government, 'if there is a
reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the
result of the proceeding would have been different.' " Kyles v. Whitley, 115
S.Ct. 1555, 1565 (1995). The Brady rule does not require the prosecution to
reveal before trial the names of all witnesses who will testify against the
defendant. See Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977). "There is no
requirement under F.R.Crim. P. 16 or otherwise in the law, mandating the
disclosure to the defense of the identity of the government's trial witnesses....
[T]he decision to admit the testimony or evidence is within the discretion of the
trial judge." United States v. Reis, 788 F.2d 54, 58 (1st Cir.1986); see also
United States v. Edwards, 47 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir.1995) ("It is well-settled
that the Constitution does not require pretrial disclosure of prosecution
witnesses.")
3
The evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to sustain defendant's guilty
verdict. The record contains, among other evidence, accounts of frequent
meetings between Morel, Domingo Peguero and appellant in which they
discussed drugs and, specifically, ways to "make some transactions of crack."
Morel recounted a specific conversation in which appellant said that he had
contacts in New York who could supply crack to Morel's contacts in Boston.
The evidence also included the transcript of a telephone call from appellant to
Morel, made for the purpose of notifying Morel that Peguero was in Boston
"doing business" and that "in case these people call you, tell them to hold on
until Monday." DEA agents testified that during the October 30 drug
transaction, appellant was circling the area in Peguero's car.
Appellant's final argument is that the district court erred in not granting a
mistrial because of the testimony by DEA agent John D. Adams that he had
purchased a firearm from Peguero. "[B]ecause mistrials are strong medicine, ...
it is only rarely--and in extremely compelling circumstances--that an appellate
panel, informed by a cold record, will venture to reverse a trial judge's on-thespot decision that the interests of justice do not require aborting an ongoing
trial." United States v. Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 617 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115
S.Ct. 919 (1995). In United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1184-85 (1st
Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2714 (1994), this court identified three
factors that should be considered in reviewing a district court's decision to deny
a mistrial: 1) the appropriateness of the curative instruction, 2) the swiftness of
the judicial response, and 3) the presumption that jurors will follow a direct
curative instruction.
In this case, consideration of the three Sepulveda factors indicates that there
In this case, consideration of the three Sepulveda factors indicates that there
was no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to deny a mistrial or its
failure to revisit the issue sua sponte at the end of the trial. The court's curative
instructions, given almost immediately after the testimony in question, were
swift, clear and direct. There was no room for misinterpretation by the jurors
regarding the meaning of the court's instructions. Finally, appellant's claim that
the evidence against him was so weak that the jurors must have relied upon the
firearm testimony is belied by the record. As discussed above, the evidence was
sufficient to support the conviction. Appellant has failed to rebut the
presumption that the jury followed the court's curative instructions.
10
Defendant argues that the evidence does not show "an intent on the defendant's
part to engage in the sale of crack." Appellant's Brief, p. 15. No such showing is
required, however