Wiretap, Slang Evidence Admissible in Drug Case
U.S. v. Verdin-Garcia, --- F.3d ----, 2008 WL 435495 (10th Cir. Feb. 19, 2008)
Defendants convicted of marijuana and methamphetamine trafficking conspiracies and related counts.
- The DEA investigation relied heavily on gathering information on the structure and operations of the conspiracy from wiretaps (obtained with warrants). The 10th finds that the government made a sufficient showing of necessity under the wiretap statute–that it showed that traditional investigative techniques would not be sufficient. Read the opinion for a fairly careful dissection of what are some of the challenges that can be made to affidavits in support of a wiretap warrant.
- Voice exemplars of Defendants taken from jail phone calls (to compare with wiretap intercepts) complied with statute: Defendants were warned at jail that calls could be monitored or recorded, and Defendants use of phones amounted to a consent to have them recorded.
- Government translator could testify that a meaning for “jale,” besides job or work, is “dope”; a translator may provide nonliteral translation of slang terms which are widely used and understood by the native speakers, and the translator does not need to be an expert in code language interpretation. Evidence showed that use of jale for dope was slang, not code.
- amounts of drugs not seized but discussed in wiretapped calls are legitimately included in calculating drug quantity guidelines. Sentence (life) within the guideline range presumptively substantively reasonable; 10th discusses fairly extensively what appeared to be an extensive consideration by the district court. Also, 10th says that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) requires a judge to take into account only disparities nationwide among defendants with similar records and Guideline calculations, not disparities within a particular case.
Defendants convicted of marijuana and methamphetamine trafficking conspiracies and related counts.
- The DEA investigation relied heavily on gathering information on the structure and operations of the conspiracy from wiretaps (obtained with warrants). The 10th finds that the government made a sufficient showing of necessity under the wiretap statute–that it showed that traditional investigative techniques would not be sufficient. Read the opinion for a fairly careful dissection of what are some of the challenges that can be made to affidavits in support of a wiretap warrant.
- Voice exemplars of Defendants taken from jail phone calls (to compare with wiretap intercepts) complied with statute: Defendants were warned at jail that calls could be monitored or recorded, and Defendants use of phones amounted to a consent to have them recorded.
- Government translator could testify that a meaning for “jale,” besides job or work, is “dope”; a translator may provide nonliteral translation of slang terms which are widely used and understood by the native speakers, and the translator does not need to be an expert in code language interpretation. Evidence showed that use of jale for dope was slang, not code.
- amounts of drugs not seized but discussed in wiretapped calls are legitimately included in calculating drug quantity guidelines. Sentence (life) within the guideline range presumptively substantively reasonable; 10th discusses fairly extensively what appeared to be an extensive consideration by the district court. Also, 10th says that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) requires a judge to take into account only disparities nationwide among defendants with similar records and Guideline calculations, not disparities within a particular case.
posted by Anonymous at 10:51 AM
<< Home