United States v. Oscar Fernando Cuevas

847 F.2d 1417 25 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1217 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Fernando CUEVAS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 87-5007. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 5, 1988. Decided June 2, 1988. Victoria B. Eiger and Nathan Z. Dershowitz, Dershowitz & Eiger, New York City, and Alan M. Dershowitz, Cambridge, Mass., for defendant-appellant. Gordon Greenberg and Jeffrey C. Eglash, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before ALARCON, FERGUSON and BEEZER, Circuit Judges. BEEZER, Circuit Judge: 1 Oscar Cuevas was convicted of conspiracies to possess and distribute cocaine and to violate federal currency reporting laws. He was also convicted of 13 substantive offenses. He argues that the convictions should be reversed for insufficient evidence, nonconformity of his indictment to a Swiss extradition order and multiple trial errors. He argues that his cumulative sentences violate double jeopardy. We affirm. FACTS 2 This case involves sizable currency transactions 1 between the United States and foreign countries from 1983…

Oscar Cuevas was convicted of conspiracies to possess and distribute cocaine and to violate federal currency reporting laws. He was also convicted of 13 substantive offenses. He argues that the convictions should be reversed for insufficient evidence, nonconformity of his indictment to a Swiss extradition order and multiple trial errors. He argues that his cumulative sentences violate double jeopardy. We affirm. FACTS

This case involves sizable currency transactions 1 between the United States and foreign countries from 1983 to 1985. The alleged purpose of the currency transactions was “laundering” 2 of profits from a United States-based narcotics conspiracy.

In October 1983, under the assumed name of “Hector Gomez,” Cuevas began receiving Brinks bags labeled “promissory notes” at an address in Zurich, Switzerland. The bags were shipped by Alvaro Lozano (“Lozano”) from Miami, Florida. Seven shipments of putative “promissory notes” passed from Lozano to Gomez between November 2,1983 and December 9,1983. The shipments halted on December 9, 1983, when a Customs official discovered $240,-000 cash in a bag labeled “promissory notes.” Since Brinks did not suspect cash transport, a…

dissenting:

I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Cuevas’ expert witness to testify, and therefore I dissent.

Cuevas was charged with violating narcotics and currency reporting laws. The district court found that the testimony of an expert witness proffered by Cuevas would be irrelevant to the issues in the case and would not help the jury reach a verdict. Given the facts at issue in the case, however, the testimony was clearly relevant and material to Cuevas’ defense. Thus the district court’s conclusion could only have been predicated on an assumption favoring the government, which resolved a key disputed fact. This violates foundational principles of our system of justice, grounded in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution: that the defendant has the right to present a defense to the charged offenses, and that the defendant has the right to present the testimony of favorable witnesses. Cuevas was denied these rights, and he is entitled to a new trial.

While the district court has broad discretion to determine whether evidence is relevant, that discretion “is limited by the [defendant’s]…