United States v. Vera, No. 16-50364 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseIn 2008, the Veras and 13 co-conspirators, were charged with conspiracy to distribute narcotics. The co-conspirators pled guilty. A jury found the Veras guilty and returned a special verdict holding them responsible for at least: 100 grams of heroin, 500 grams of cocaine, and 280 grams of cocaine base. The court sentenced Salvador to 360 months’ and Armando to 210 months’ imprisonment. The Ninth Circuit vacated their sentences. The government’s “key witness,” FBI Special Agent Lavis, had opined about the government’s “primary evidence” against the Veras: over 70 wiretapped phone calls that were played or read before the jury. Aside from one proven sale of heroin, Lavis’ opinions interpreting the wiretapped calls were the only evidence of specific quantities. The court concluded the testimony “did not rest on reliable methods” but on speculation. On remand, the government relied heavily upon the co-conspirators’ plea agreements to establish the quantities of drugs attributable to the brothers. The court found the evidence reliable. The plea agreements, which the government drafted, pointed fingers at the Veras. Citing Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3), (statement-against-interest exception to the hearsay rule), the court concluded that the co-conspirators’ admissions amounted to declarations against interest and sentenced Salvador to 324 months’ and Armando to 168 months’ imprisonment. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. The factual bases in the plea agreements were neither inherently reliable as statements against interest nor corroborated by other information that made their reliability apparent.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated two defendants’ sentences imposed on remand for resentencing in a drug-trafficking conspiracy case, and again remanded for resentencing. In the prior appeal, this court affirmed the convictions but remanded the sentences because unreliable evidence had been presented to the jury. The panel held that the district court, on remand, committed reversible error by relying heavily upon co- conspirator plea agreements to determine the drug quantities attributable to the defendants on the ground that the plea agreements were reliable statements against interest under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). The panel held that district courts may not rely solely on Rule 804(b)(3) to use non-self- inculpatory statements in a co-conspirator’s plea agreement to determine a defendant’s drug-quantity liability. The panel recognized that co-defendant plea agreements could have some probative value at sentencing if otherwise
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.