United States v. Diaz, No. 13-1122 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence and conviction for distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence and statements where defendant was not in custody at the time the statements at issue were made to the law enforcement agent; the district court correctly determined that the facts in evidence did not warrant duress or coercion instructions because defendant had various opportunities to seek help over many hours and in many places but elected not to do so; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where the jury was not obligated to credit defendant's testimony; and the district court did not commit clear error or otherwise abused its discretion in denying safety valve relief based on defendant's statements before and during trial where defendant failed to provide completely and truthfully all of the evidence and information he had concerning the offense.
Court Description: Criminal Case - conviction and sentence. The district court did not err in finding Diaz was not in custody when he was interviewed by police officers, as a reasonable person in Diaz's position would have felt at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. The district court did not err in refusing to submit a duress or coercion jury instruction, as the district court correctly determined Diaz failed to show he was under a threat at all, much less a threat of death or serious bodily injury, and he had various opportunities to seek help and elected not to do so. The district court did not err in denying Diaz's motion for judgment of acquittal, as the government presented strong direct and circumstantial evidence that Diaz knowingly took part in the conspiracy as a drug courier. The district court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion in denying safety valve relief, as the district court concluded Diaz failed to provide completely and truthfully all the evidence and information he had and because his testimony was internally inconsistent.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.