IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________
NO. 93-8539
______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROGELIO PARADA-TALAMANTES, Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________
(August 31, 1994)
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge:
Defendant-Appellant Rogelio Parada-Talamantes ("Parada") was
convicted by a jury of importing and possessing marihuana, and
conspiring to import and possess it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(3), 846, 952(a), 960(a)(1) and 963. Parada appeals his
conviction on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to
prove he had knowledge or possession of the marijuana hidden inside
the side panels of the van, and that the introduction of
inadmissible and highly prejudicial evidence that Co-defendant
Huriel Ramirez ("Ramirez") purchased the van from Parada's brother
led to a finding of "guilt by association." We REVERSE.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 12, 1993, Parada approached the port of entry in Del
Rio, Texas in a taxi cab. According to the Customs Agent, Parada
appeared nervous. His responses to questions were quick and
evasive. A secondary inspection of the luggage Parada carried with
him did not contain contraband. However, believing he might be
involved in something illegal, the Customs Service decided to
follow Parada into Del Rio.
About a mile from the port of entry, Parada got out of the cab
and got into a van owned by Ramirez. The van drove to another
location where a woman and at least one child entered the van. The
van next proceeded to a grocery store parking lot, but no one
exited the van. Then the van drove to another grocery store,
parking in front of the public phones. Two men exited the van.
They took turns entering the store and using the phones. Both men
then looked under the wheels and hood of the van.
The two men got back into the van and drove to a fast food
restaurant. The van pulled into the parking lot and drove through
the drive-thru lane. After the van left the restaurant, it was
stopped by a Department of Public Safety officer. The officer was
joined by several Customs Agents. The driver of the van identified
himself as Ramirez. Parada was in the passenger seat. Also in the
van were Parada's wife and four children.
Ramirez consented to a search of the van. After a cursory
search was conducted of the interior of the van, the agents
requested that a drug detection dog be brought to the scene. The
dog altered to the area in front of the right rear tire of the van.
Ramirez and Parada were arrested. The van was taken to the port of
entry where agents found 114.6 pounds of marijuana secreted in
2
false compartments in the walls on both the driver's and
passenger's side of the van.
Parada and Ramirez were tried together before a jury. A jury
found Parada guilty of marijuana conspiracy, importation, and
possession charges in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(3), 846,
952(a), 960(a)(1) and 963. He was sentenced to 33 months in
prison, three years of supervised release and $200.00 in mandatory
special assessments.
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
Parada contends that the district court erred by admitting
evidence against him that Parada's brother, Carlos Parada, sold the
van used to smuggle the marijuana to Ramirez. He argues that the
fact that Carlos Parada sold the van containing hidden compartments
for smuggling marijuana to Ramirez bore no logical relationship to
any issue in controversy at Parada's trial. Because no reasonable
inferences could be drawn from this evidence by a reasonable juror,
the evidence is not relevant. Moreover, the admission of the
evidence was improper and highly prejudicial because the Government
used it to try and establish Parada's guilt by showing he was
related to a guilty person. See United States v. Singleterry, 646
F.2d 1014, 1018-20 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1021,
103 S.Ct. 387, 74 L.Ed.2d 518 (1982). Because evidence of "guilt
by association" is typically highly prejudicial, it should be
excluded. See United States v. McAfee, 8 F.3d 1010, 1017 (5th Cir.
1993).
We will reverse a district court's rulings on the
3
admissibility of evidence only on finding an abuse of discretion.
United States v. Liu, 960 F.2d 449, 452 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
___U.S.___, 113 S.Ct. 418, 121 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992). "Evidence in
criminal trials must be 'strictly relevant to the particular
offense charged.'" United States v. Anderson, 933 F.2d 1261, 1267-
68 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241,
247, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1083, 93 L.Ed.2d 1337 (1949)).
This Court has previously established and upheld the rule that
a defendant's guilt may not be proven by showing that he is related
to an "unsavory" person. Singleterry, 646 F.2d at 1014. In
Singleterry, this Court held that an attempt to show guilt by
association was "plain error." Id. at 1018. We have no doubt that
the Government's introduction of evidence regarding Carlos Parada's
connection with Ramirez's van and his familial relation with Parada
"was a highly prejudicial attempt to taint defendant's character
through 'guilt by association.'" United States v. Romo, 669 F.2d
285 (5th Cir. 1982) (quoting United States v. Labarbera, 581 F.2d
107, 109 (5th Cir. 1978)). Certainly, the fact that the man who
sold the van to Ramirez was also Parada's brother had no relevance
with regard to the offenses charged against Parada. Even less
relevant was the evidence regarding Carlos Parada's alleged
involvement in marihuana smuggling, especially in light of the fact
that Carlos Parada was not charged in this case.
Parada objected to the introduction of the evidence regarding
the sale of the van from Carlos Parada to Ramirez at the time it
was offered. The district court overruled his objection. While we
4
recognize that the facts surrounding the purchase of a van
containing secret compartments from someone who had owned other
vans with secret compartments that had been previously seized by
U.S. Customs might have been admissible against Ramirez, it was not
connected to Parada in any way except for the fact that the seller
was his brother. To saddle Parada's defense with the
transgressions of his brother places a sisyphean burden on this
search for the truth effectively foretelling the result.
Therefore, we find that the admission of such highly prejudicial
evidence in the absence of any curative instruction amounts to
reversible error.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Parada also contends that the evidence adduced at trial was
insufficient to support his conviction because the evidence failed
to even show Parada had knowledge that marijuana was hidden in
Ramirez's van. Parada argues that his actions and statements,
viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, only arguably
show he was conscious of some illegality. Without proof that he
knew of the presence of marijuana in the van, Parada could not
properly be convicted of possessing or importing marijuana, or of
conspiracy to possess or import marijuana.
The question raised is whether the evidence is sufficient to
support the jury's conclusion that Parada knowingly and
intentionally possessed the marijuana and that he knowingly
participated in a conspiracy to possess and import it. We must
affirm a jury verdict so long as there is evidence sufficient to
5
allow a reasonable jury to find a defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. United States v. Henry, 849 F.2d 1534 (5th Cir.
1988). We must view the evidence and all inferences from the
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. United States
v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), aff'd, 462
U.S. 356, 103 S.Ct. 2398, 76 L.Ed.2d 638 (1983).
Assuming the jury accepted the version of the evidence
favorable to the verdict, we find that several factors could have
led the jury to conclude that Parada knew the marijuana was hidden
in Ramirez's van and conspired with Ramirez to smuggle the
marijuana into the United States. First, Parada's wife and
children traveled through the port of entry in the marijuana-laden
van with Ramirez. Parada, however, drove across the border in a
separate vehicle with all their luggage. This plan of entry into
the United States is common modus operandi in drug-smuggling
operations. The jurors could have inferred that Ramirez and Parada
planned to enter separately so that the van would not be inspected
by Customs Agents.
Second, Parada acted nervous and answered the Customs Agents'
questions regarding where he was traveling in an evasive manner.
Once he entered the U.S., he quickly joined his family and Ramirez
in the van. The van stopped frequently, and at one stop both
Ramirez and Parada exited the van to use the phone. The jurors
could have inferred that Ramirez and Parada were attempting to set
up a purchase of the marijuana.
Third, Ramirez and Parada inspected the underside of the van.
6
The jurors could have inferred that they were looking for marijuana
leaking from the van.
The above facts demonstrate more than merely Parada's
knowledge of the possibility of some illegality. We are satisfied
that a properly instructed jury could have inferred from the
evidence outlined above that Parada knew that the marijuana was
hidden in the van, had constructive possession of the marijuana,
and participated with Ramirez in a conspiracy to smuggle the
marijuana into the United States for distribution.
CONCLUSION
Because the district court erroneously admitted evidence
regarding Carlos Parada based on "guilt by association" and did not
give a curative instruction, we REVERSE Parada's conviction. We
REMAND the case for a new trial with instructions to exclude any
evidence regarding Carlos Parada.
7