Appellate Law

CA1: no safety valve for drug mule

By S. COTUS

US v. Ayala-Tapia, No. 06-2781.  This is a ?drug courier ? prosecution.  The mule claims she didn?t know what was in the packages.  She was convicted and challenges on sufficiency grounds.  Before affirming, the First dances around a bit, and concludes that because the packages were opaque it could ?cut against the defendant.?  But, the First also says that the jury could infer an inference of guilt from a ?deliberate false alibi? and that it seemed weird that someone would ask them to transport coffee into the US. 

Based on these ?false? things, the First also says that the defendant was not entitled to a safety valve reduction, because she was found to be lying.  Since she told the government that she was tell them what she knew (but it would be a repeat of her testimony), the First says it just wasn?t a truthful disclosure.

It is obvious that the First has some hesitation about these drug mule prosecutions, so it seems to be relying on the defendant?s ?lies.?  But, the strange part about this is, is that she wouldn?t have made the ?untrue? statements if she had not testified.  In fact, the government?s case would have been much, much weaker.  So, it really does look like the First is punishing her for testifying.  There probably is something that defense counsel can use in this case, but it is obvious that the First really cannot understand how someone could unknowingly transport narcotics into the US.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on March 19, 2008 (boomark / email).