Case Brief: United States v. Rosario-Diaz, 202 F.3d 54

	studentJD
	Students Helping Students	Currently Briefing & Updating

Student Case Briefs, Outlines, Notes and Sample Tests Terms & Conditions
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission.
In accordance with UCC § 2-316, this product is provided with "no warranties,either express or implied."
The information contained is provided "as-is", with "no guarantee of merchantability."

Back To Evidence Briefs

United States v. Rosario-Diaz, 202 F.3d 54

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

2000

Chapter	5	Title	Evidence A Contemporary Approach
Page	112	Topic	Witnesses
Quick Notes	Prosecutors Task o The prosecution's principal task is often to convince the jury that the witness's account is credible. o The prosecution simply must do so through competent and reliable evidence and NOT through improper vouching that could invite the jury to find guilt on the basis of something other than the evidence presented at trial.
Book Name	Evidence: A Contemporary Approach. Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves. ISBN: 978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

o Whether a witness the prosecution may make personal assurances about the credibility of a witness before the jury hears the witnesss testimony? No.

Procedure
District	o All 5 men convicted of carjacking and conspiracy to carjack.
Appellant	o We hold that the improper bolstering solicited by the prosecution from Agent Huff was harmless error NOT warranting reversal

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl United States

Df Rosario-Diaz (Appellant)

Party Description

o Ralph Rosario-Diaz, Wilson Montalvo-Ortiz, Ada Melendez-Garcia, Juan Baez-Jurado, and Wilfredo Lopez-Morales were each convicted on both counts of a grand jury indictment charging them with (1) aiding and abetting each other in a carjacking that resulted in the death of the victim, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2 & 2119(3); and (2) conspiring to commit that carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371.

District Court To Life

o The district court sentenced each defendant to life in prison on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.

Appeal

o All five defendants now appeal.

Aponte-Lazu Inconsistent Statement

o Lazu gave the first of several inconsistent statements to law enforcement.

o Among those statements was the assertion that Lopez-Morales had had nothing to do with the crime, which the government claimed at trial was made in an attempt to gain the release of Lopez-Morales so that Lopez-Morales could murder the government's witnesses.

Agent Huffs Testimony Bolstering

o He identified omissions and falsities in Aponte-Lazus statements.

o Q: Okay. Now, how were those omissions discovered?

o A: Again through interview and through seeing the discrepancies, inconsistencies and just things that didn't make sense in the statement. It became pretty obvious in most cases.

o Q: And did you use or need a polygraph in order to do that?

o A: No, a polygraph is a last resort technique. There was no need for a polygraph in the particular situation. We were pinning him down without a polygraph. We could tell when he was lying.

Bolstering Witnesss Credibility Rule

o Prosecutors may not place the prestige of the United States behind a witness by making personal assurances about the credibility of a witness or by indicating that facts not before the jury support the witness's testimony.

Other witnesss cannot bolster a witnesss credibility Rule

o It is also undisputed that the prosecution cannot accomplish such improper bolstering of a witness through the testimony of other government witnesses.

What Government Witnesses can Testify to

o Government witnesses may of course testify to facts within their personal knowledge that support or corroborate another witness's testimony.

Prosecutors Task

o The prosecution's principal task is often to convince the jury that the witness's account is credible.

o The prosecution simply must do so through competent and reliable evidence and NOT through improper vouching that could invite the jury to find guilt on the basis of something other than the evidence presented at trial.

Court Agent Huffs testimony was improper Bolstering, but..

o The testimony of Agent Huff was improper.

What can Huff testify to?

o [He] could properly testify as to the actions he took to corroborate Aponte-Lazu's testimony,

What he cannot testify to?

o He could not properly opine on whether particular statements by Aponte-Lazu were "lies," nor could he represent that the statements not singled out as lies had been "tested" and verified through interrogation techniques.

Purpose of training and experience testimony (Bostering)

o The clear purpose and effect of his testimony was to put the prestige of his professional knowledge as a federal agent behind the testimony of Aponte-Lazu.

o That is the very definition of improper bolstering, and it is impermissible.

Court In Mazza When Bolstering is Dangerous

o In Mazza, agents testimony came at the opening of the trial.

o The agent testified to items that would never come into evidence and the defendants testimony was bolstered by the law enforcement before the jury could evaluate it independently.

Court In This Case

o Thus we are not faced here with the Mazza danger.

o The government was justified in seeking admission of this testimony because of the defense's attacks on the informant's credibility.

o Aponte-Lazu testified before Agent Huff took the stand.

o Aponte-Lazu was subject to vigorous cross-examination.

o Furthermore, the district court took pains to instruct the jury that they were to judge Aponte-Lazu's credibility on the basis of his testimony alone, and not that of Agent Huff.

Court Holding

o We hold that the improper bolstering solicited by the prosecution from Agent Huff was harmless error NOT warranting reversal.

Courts - Warning