We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

THE CLEANING LADY

When the authorities busted a methamphetamine house, they found Maria De La Cruz Nava hiding in the master bedroom behind a locked door with ringleader Gus Guzman and one other person. Other persons were present in the kitchen as well as outside the house, which was dirty, held few furnishings, and contained contraband.

Maria explained that she was just the cleaning lady. When an officer mentioned that drugs and guns were all over the house, Maria shrugged, “They all used drugs.”

Maria and Gus were charged with a drug trafficking conspiracy, an 18 USC § 924(c) charge and a money laundering charge. After the jury convicted her, she filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion for acquittal and an FRCrimP 33 motion for a new trial. The district court denied the Rule 29 motion, finding that her conviction as a co-conspirator was supported by the record because (1) she was barricaded in a bedroom with Gus; (2) meth was found in the bathroom attached to the bedroom; ( (3) a knife was recovered from a “purse” in the kitchen, and Maria was the only female present; (4) meth was found next to the purse; (5) drug paraphernalia was scattered throughout the house; (6) the expert testimony admitted as to the varying roles of individuals involved in a drug conspiracy; and (7) witnesses placed Maria at the house on other occasions screen.

Last week, the 8th Circuit reversed. There was no doubt that the evidence showed a conspiracy, the Circuit ruled, but “while our precedent recognizes that proof a defendant joined a conspiracy may be shown entirely through circumstantial evidence… mere association or acquaintance with a drug dealer and mere presence at the location of the crime are insufficient to establish guilt on a conspiracy charge. Furthermore, we will not lightly impute constructive possession of drugs or other contraband to one found in another’s house.”

The 8th noted that

Maria did not admit involvement in the conspiracy, there is no evidence in the record that she was ever in physical possession of either methamphetamine or drug proceeds, and no… witness testified that Maria was involved in drug activity. We are also unable to find evidence that she acted as a courier, facilitated any drug activity, directed any of the conspiracy’s activities, or acted in any manner to advance the illegal end of the conspiracy. The government argues that because Maria was the only woman in the house, a reasonable jury could infer that the bag in the kitchen was a purse and belonged to her. But nothing in the bag demonstrates or even suggests that it was a purse that belonged to a woman. There is no ornamentation on the bag. There were no feminine personal items in the bag. There was no identifying information tying it to Maria. The nondescript, plain bag contained only drug trafficking-related items and is just the sort of storage container that a drug trafficker might use to conceal items without calling attention to himself or herself.

Nevertheless, the Circuit ruled, “while evidence in the record of Maria’s knowledge of and participation in a drug trafficking conspiracy is scant, it is a high burden to overturn a jury’s verdict. We cannot say on this record, although a close call, that no reasonable jury could have found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Mary’s FRCrimP 33 motion for a new trial was another matter. In its order, the district court recited the correct standard for a Rule 33 motion but “it conducted no analysis specific to Maria’s new trial motion,” the Circuit said. Instead, the district court disposed of the motion with one sentence throwaway that said “sufficient evidence was presented against Defendant such that there was not a miscarriage of justice in the jury finding her guilty of Counts 1-3… There is no indication that the court weighed the evidence anew. Likewise, we are unable to determine whether the district court disbelieved any of the witnesses. Given the lack of any analysis, we are unable to discern whether the district court incorrectly applied the standard applicable under Rule 29 to the new trial request or whether it applied the proper, broader standard applicable under Rule 33… We remand to the district court for consideration of Maria’s motion for a new trial as it relates to the drug trafficking conspiracy and related firearms count.”

As to the money laundering conspiracy, the Circuit reversed Maria’s conviction outright. “There is no evidence that she acted in a manner to conceal the nature, source, location, ownership, or control of the conspiracy’s proceeds.”

United States v. De La Cruz Nava, Case No. 22-2914, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 23601 (8th Cir. September. 6, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root