United States v. Hinojosa
In United States v. Hinojosa, No. 22-10584 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit rejected the three defendants’ challenges to their convictions and sentences relating to drug distribution because “there was extensive evidence in support of each” charge.
Broadly speaking, the trial focused on third-party drug sales at nightclubs owned by Hinojosa. Several defendants went to trial and disputed whether they “passively acquiesced to the drug sales … or actively allowed” them, and disputed when they first learned about the drug sales.
Ruling 1: The Fifth Circuit held that it was not error to admit testimony regarding the arrest of Hinojosa’s niece, when she had cocaine and nightclub business records that were described as “red flags indicating that [she] was probably engaged in money laundering.” The court bypassed the question of whether admission of that evidence was error because it found that any error would have been harmless in light of the “extensive evidence supporting each of the convictions.” The court’s opinion includes almost eight full pages detailing that evidence, concluding for each count of conviction that there was no “reasonable probability that the testimony [about the niece’s arrest] contributed” to the outcome.
Ruling 2: Two defendants argued that admission of one of Hinojosa’s redacted statements violated their Sixth Amendment rights. Hinojosa had made inculpatory statements to the Government, which it later admitted at trial. The Fifth Circuit relied on Samia v. United States, 599 U.S. 635, 647 (2023), which recently explained that “confessions that directly implicate a co-defendant fall within Bruton [and the Sixth Amendment], while those that do so indirectly do not.” Once again, the court declined to decide whether error occurred, instead holding that any violation would have been harmless in light of the “otherwise ample evidence.”
Ruling 3: One defendant challenged the admission of expert testimony that “numerous red flags indicat[ed] that Hinojosa was probably using the clubs for money laundering,” arguing that it was irrelevant and prejudicial because the defendants were not charged with money laundering. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, finding the testimony relevant to the defendant’s motive for allowing the drug sales and not prejudicial because the jury was reminded that there was no money laundering charge.
Ruling 4: Given its earlier rulings, it should come as no surprise that the court rejected the defendants’ claims that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions.
Concurrence: Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote a separate opinion agreeing that the admission of the contested evidence was harmless error, but she wrote separately “to explain why these harmless errors nevertheless constituted an abuse of discretion and Bruton error.” First, the niece’s arrest should have been excluded because that testimony carried “a substantial danger that it was more prejudicial than probative” because that arrest “lacked any connection to any of the charges except that someone associated with the clubs was found with a large quantity of drugs.”
As for Bruton, Judge Elrod acknowledged that Hinojosa’s confession did not name his codefendants, but his reference to the “manager” and “promotion’s guy” — references to their job titles — was sufficient to implicate them, and the “risk of a violation [was] heightened by the lack of a jury instruction.” Nevertheless, Judge Elrod agreed with the majority that these errors were harmless in light of the extensive evidence of guilt.