United States v. Adames-Santos
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
July 18, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-2323
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
MARCELINA ENRIQUE ADAMES-SANTOS,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Michael c. Shklar on brief for appellant. _________________
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Zechariah Chafee, __________________ ________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Marcelina Enrique Adames-Santos ___________
appeals his conviction on three grounds. We summarily
affirm.
I. Brady Violation _______________
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-
Appellant has failed to show a reasonable
probability that if he had been informed of Morel's identity
prior to trial, the result of the proceeding would have been
different. Morel testified on cross-examination that the
money he earned as an informant for the Drug Enforcement
Administration ("DEA") was his main source of income. Even
now, appellant has failed to identify any additional evidence
that could have been used to further impeach the witness.
The government's failure to disclose Morel's identity prior
to trial does not undermine confidence in the jury's verdict.
See Kyles, 115 S. Ct. at 1566. Therefore, there was no ___ _____
constitutional violation.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence ___________________________
To establish a violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, the
government is required to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, in
addition to the existence of the conspiracy itself, an intent
on the part of the defendant: "to agree and . . . to
effectuate the commission of the substantive offense. A
defendant need not have had the intent personally to commit
the substantive crime." United States v. Piper, 35 F.3d 611, _____________ _____
615 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1118 (1995). _____________
The government establishes the requisite intent by proving
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant "agree[d] to
undertake activities that facilitate[d] commission of a
substantive offense, [notwithstanding that he did] not intend
-4-
to commit the offense himself." Id.1 "[T]he Government 1 ___
need not prove the commission of any overt acts in
furtherance of the conspiracy." United States v. Shabani, _____________ _______
115 S. Ct. 382, 385 (1994).
"When a criminal defendant undertakes a sufficiency
challenge, all the evidence, direct and circumstantial, must
be viewed from the government's coign of vantage, and the
viewer must accept all reasonable inferences from it that are
consistent with the verdict." United States v. Valle, 72 _____________ _____
F.3d 210, 216 (1st Cir. 1995). The government's burden of
proof "may be satisfied by either direct or circumstantial
evidence, or any combination thereof." United States v. _____________
Gifford, 17 F.3d 462
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Adames-Santos, (1st Cir. 1996).
United States v. Adames-Santos (United States v. Adames-Santos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Weatherford v. Bursey
429 U.S. 545 (Supreme Court, 1977)
United States v. Shabani
513 U.S. 10 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Kyles v. Whitley
514 U.S. 419 (Supreme Court, 1995)
United States v. Gifford
17 F.3d 462 (First Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Pierro
32 F.3d 611 (First Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Piper
35 F.3d 611 (First Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Taylor
54 F.3d 967 (First Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Daniel Reis
788 F.2d 54 (First Circuit, 1986)