United States v. Nestor Garcia
In United States v. Garcia, No. 23-40269 (5th Cir. May 13, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s jury-trial conviction for conspiring to import and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine.
Trial Evidence: “Garcia arrived at a port of entry carrying, inter alia, a very large box containing smaller boxes of candy. He had travelled in a van in Mexico, transferred to a taxi to take him to the port of entry, and planned to then transfer back to the van past the port of entry. After he was referred for further inspection, packages of the above-described illegal substances were found inside the large box of candy.”
Holding 1: There was sufficient evidence of Garcia’s knowledge and possession of the drugs. When illegal substances are hidden or concealed, the Government must present “additional circumstantial evidence” of the defendant’s guilty knowledge. United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 621 F.3d 354, 361 (5th Cir. 2010).
Here, that threshold was met because “Considered together, Garcia’s demeanor, inconsistent statements, admissions to several lies, implausible story, and the value of the illegal substances provided a sufficient basis for the jury to find Garcia had the requisite knowledge.”
Holding 2: There was no error in the testimony provided by the Government’s case agent. The court rejected all of Garcia’s arguments to the contrary: (1) he showed no prejudice from the Government’s failure to designate the agent as an expert; (2) on appeal he failed to sufficiently brief an argument that the agent was not qualified to give expert testimony; (3) there was no “clear-or-obvious error” in the agent’s testimony about code words; (4) “an experienced narcotics agent may testify about the significance of certain conduct or methods of operation unique to the drug distribution business, as such testimony often is helpful in assisting the trier of fact understand the evidence,” United States v. Washington, 44 F.3d 1271, 1283 (5th Cir. 1995) (footnote omitted); (5) it was permissible for the agent to testify that Garcia was “deceptive and not forthcoming” because that was an “explanation of his personal observations” that was helpful because the jury did not have video that would have showed Garcia’s body language; and (6) there was no “clear-or-obvious error” in the testimony that Garcia “was not genuinely crying, was feigning surprise, was withholding information, and was putting on an act.”
Holding 3: The district court did not abuse its discretion “by admitting an audio recording of a bilingual interview without a certified translation.” At trial, Garcia objected and requested that the recording be played only in the presence of a court interpreter, and that was granted. “Because Garcia effectively received the requested relief, review is only for plain error.”
There was no “clear-or-obvious error” here because the Fifth Circuit “has not previously held that the translation of foreign-language phrases by a trial witness or court interpreter is not competent trial evidence.” Moreover, Garcia failed to “produce evidence showing that the translation was erroneous or supporting a different translation.”
Holding 4: There was no “clear-or-obvious error” in the district court' “improperly commenting on Garcia’s failure to call a witness.” Garcia did not object in the district court, and any error was no plain “in light of the court’s jury instructions.”