Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Murray

United States District Court, D. Vermont

March 20, 2017

United States of America
v.
William Murray

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOCS. 726, 762, 777)

          John M. Conroy United States Magistrate Judge

         William Murray, proceeding pro se, has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. In 2011, following an 11-day jury trial, Murray was convicted of knowingly and willfully conspiring with others to distribute heroin and 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. (Doc. 591 at 1; Doc. 479 at 1-2; Doc. 477 at 1.) United States District Judge William K. Sessions III sentenced Murray to 100 months in prison, followed by a four-year term of supervised release. (Doc. 591 at 2-3.) Murray's conviction was affirmed on appeal, United States v. Aguiar, 737 F.3d 251 (2d Cir. 2013) (No. 11-2562-cr(L)), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 400 (2014), and he is currently serving his sentence (Doc. 726 at 1).

         In the instant Motion, Murray claims that Attorney Robert Behrens provided ineffective assistance of counsel before the district and appellate courts. (Doc. 726.) Murray sets forth five main ineffective assistance arguments, which mirror those made by his codefendant, Stephen Aguiar, in his respective § 2255 motion. The identical claims made by Aguiar have been rejected by the Court in their entirety in an Opinion and Order denying Aguiar's § 2255 motion and numerous related motions. United States v. Aguiar, No. 2:09-cr-90-1 (D. Vt. 2009), ECF No. 780 (adopting Report and Recommendation, id., ECF No. 767).

         The government filed a Response in Opposition to Murray's Motion. (Doc. 749.) Murray filed a Reply (Doc. 753) and also moved, with Aguiar, to join four motions filed by codefendant Aguiar (Doc. 762). All motions by Aguiar that Murray sought to join were denied by the Court's Opinion and Order on January 23, 2017, Aguiar, No. 2:09-cr-90-1, ECF No. 780, and the Motion for Joinder, as to Aguiar, was accordingly denied as moot, id., ECF No. 781.

         Attorney Behrens responded to Murray's assertions of ineffective assistance in an Affidavit.[1] (Doc. 779.) Therein, Behrens describes the pretrial motions he filed on behalf of Murray and the motions filed by co-counsel Attorney David Williams that he joined. (Id.) In particular, Behrens describes his efforts to challenge the government's use of wiretap and other electronic evidence. (Id.)

         As discussed below, Murray's claims, replicating Aguiar's, fail for many of the same reasons that the Court addressed in denying Aguiar's § 2255 motion. See Aguiar, No. 2:09-cr-90-1, ECF Nos. 767, 780. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated below, Murray's Motion for Joinder (Doc. 762), like Aguiar's, is DENIED as moot, in light of the Court's Opinion and Order dismissing all of Aguiar's motions that Murray seeks to join. See Aguiar, No. 2:09-cr-90-1, ECF Nos. 767, 780, 781. Murray's Motion to Strike Affidavit (Doc. 777) is also DENIED as both moot and meritless. Finally, I recommend that the Court DENY Murray's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 726).

         Background

         Much of the following background was set forth in this Court's Report and Recommendation, Aguiar, No. 2:09-cr-90-1, ECF No. 767, subsequently adopted in an Opinion and Order, id., ECF No. 780, denying Aguiar's § 2255 motion and related motions. The facts presented here are derived from filings in the extensive pretrial proceedings in this case, the trial and sentencing transcripts, and the U.S. Probation Office's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). This summary is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to include only those facts essential to the pending § 2255 Motion.

         I. Investigation and Investigative Techniques

         In 2008, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), in coordination with the Burlington Police Department, began to investigate a large-scale heroin and cocaine distribution ring operating in the Burlington, Vermont area. (PSR at 4, ¶ 12; Doc. 613 at 96-97; Doc. 633 at 52-53.) It was later determined that this distribution ring was organized, led, and managed by Stephen Aguiar. (PSR at 4, ¶ 12.) Trial testimony and documentary evidence revealed that Aguiar regularly traveled to Dorchester, Massachusetts to acquire bulk quantities of heroin and cocaine for distribution in Vermont. (Id. at 5, ¶¶ 13-15.) He distributed these drugs through numerous Burlington-area distributors, including William Murray. (Id. at 4, ¶ 12.)

         The interception of wire communications between members of the conspiracy, pursuant to Title III intercept orders, [2] and contemporaneous GPS tracking, were key components of the government's investigation. The Court granted Title III wiretap applications involving cell phones linked to Aguiar on June 3, June 18, July 2, [3] and July 21, 2009. See In re Tahair, No. 2:09-mc-34 (D. Vt. 2009), ECF Nos. 8, 14, 18, 20. As discussed below, the July 2 application did not include the complete Department of Justice (DOJ) authorization memorandum required by statute. See id., ECF No. 18; (Doc. 624 at 77); see also 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1). The Court also granted multiple government applications to install and use pen register and trap and trace (pen/trap) devices[4] (Doc. 371 at 4-5, 28), including one granted on April 3, 2009 that contained an incorrect phone number. (Id. at 26.) The pen/trap orders also authorized the collection of cell-site-location data.[5] (Id. at 5 n.4, 28); see, e.g., In re Tahair, No. 2:09-mc-34, ECF Nos. 1, 2; (see also Doc. 624 at 13; Doc. 284 at 9; Doc. 625 at 19-20.)

         In conjunction with the monitoring of wire communications, law enforcement also used GPS devices to track the movement of Aguiar's vehicles within Vermont and Massachusetts, and between the two states. (See, e.g., Doc. 614 at 108-29, 134-64.) The GPS devices were surreptitiously installed on the vehicles and law enforcement did not obtain search warrants authorizing the installation. (See, e.g., Doc. 371 at 37-38.)

         The government's proof at trial included recorded conversations between the conspirators and other electronic evidence garnered from these investigative techniques. The PSR summarized wire intercepts of conversations between Aguiar and Murray between July 4 and July 23, 2009, concerning cocaine transactions. (PSR at 7, ¶ 24.) During trial, the government presented these many digital recordings, including one in which Aguiar and Murray discussed Murray's heroin distribution and sales. (Doc. 633 at 202-03 (Tahair testimony deciphering phone call played in court).)

         II. Preliminary Proceedings and Indictments

         On July 29, 2009, Murray was initially charged in a Complaint that alleged he, Stephen Aguiar, Brian Tahair, Jessica Adcock, Daniel Reyes, Lisa Foy, Jeremy Mackenzie, Herbert Lawrence, Franklin Grant, and Jason Opalenik engaged in a conspiracy “among themse[lv]es and others, known and unknown, to knowingly and intentionally distribute cocaine and heroin, Schedule I and II controlled substances.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) Murray was arrested (Doc. 48) following the issuance of a warrant. Murray did not oppose detention (Doc. 63), and the Court ordered him detained pending trial (Doc. 67).

         On August 13, 2009, the Grand Jury returned an Indictment charging Murray, Aguiar, and others with multiple violations of the Controlled Substances Act. (Doc. 86.) Murray was charged in a series of Superseding Indictments (Docs. 97, 175, 265), and ultimately the Grand Jury returned a Fourth Superseding Indictment charging Murray in one count (Doc. 409). Aguiar was charged in nine counts, together with a forfeiture allegation. (Id.) Murray was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. (Doc. 416; Doc. 613 at 45.) Murray and codefendants Aguiar and Whitcomb later proceeded to trial on the Fourth Superseding Indictment. (Doc. 613.)

         Trial was held on a Redacted Fourth Superseding Indictment, which alleged the following: Count 1 charged Aguiar, Murray, and Whitcomb with conspiring with Tahair, Grant, Mackenzie, Adcock, Opalenik, Foy, and Reyes to distribute heroin and five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846 (Doc. 477 at 1); Counts 2 and 3 charged Aguiar and Tahair with distributing cocaine on two different occasions, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (id. at 2, 3); Counts 4, 5, and 6 charged Aguiar and Mackenzie with distributing cocaine on three different occasions, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (id. at 4, 5, 6); and Count 7 charged Aguiar with possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (id. at 7). Count 8 provided a forfeiture notice that if convicted, Aguiar would have to forfeit proceeds derived from, and property used or intended to be used in the commission of, the charged offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 853. (Id. at 8.)

         III. Pretrial Motions

         The pretrial proceedings concerning the Title III intercepts and other electronic evidence were complex. A review of the record reveals that Attorney Behrens argued zealously on Murray's behalf and appropriately raised numerous issues by means of motions to suppress, in a vigorous effort to challenge and suppress the electronic evidence garnered by the government during the investigation. Behrens also joined in codefendant Aguiar's motions, which are discussed below.

         Attorney David Williams, who was appointed to represent Aguiar, filed a Motion to Suppress on March 9, 2010, seeking suppression of the following: (1) any wire communications that were intercepted pursuant to the Title III warrants issued by this Court; (2) evidence discovered pursuant to the April 3, 2009 order that authorized the installation and use of pen/trap devices and required production of “telecommunication records and information”; (3) evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant for Aguiar's Quincy, Massachusetts residence, including cell phones; (4) evidence seized without a search warrant from Aguiar's iPhone following his arrest; and (5) evidence seized through the warrantless GPS tracking of Aguiar's vehicles. Aguiar, No. 2:09-cr-90-1, ECF No. 171 at 1-2. In the Motion, Williams challenged this evidence on statutory and Fourth Amendment constitutional grounds. See Id. He buttressed his challenges to the evidence with 21 exhibits in an effort to highlight inconsistencies and alleged improprieties committed by the investigators. Id. ECF Nos. 171-1-171-21.

         On behalf of Murray, Attorney Behrens also filed a Motion to Suppress. (Doc. 180.) Behrens sought suppression of “all oral communications intercepted under the authority of [the] Title III warrant issued by this Court on July 2, 2009.” (Id. at 1.) Raising issues previously set forth by Attorney Williams, Behrens asserted that the government: (1) did not have “proper authorization” for the July 2 application (id. At 2); (2) “improperly monitored” phone calls before the July 2 authorization (id. At 3-4); (3) “failed to demonstrate normal investigative techniques were tried and failed” (id. at 4); and (4) did not immediately seal the communications after the July 2 authorization was terminated (id. at 6-7). Behrens also noted that Murray was joining and incorporating by reference Aguiar's arguments to suppress evidence from the April 3, 2009 pen/trap order and “[a]ny evidence discovered under the authority” of the other Title III warrants. (Id. at 7.)

         At a hearing on the initial suppression motions, Attorney Williams outlined the factual and legal bases for suppression of the electronic evidence, and Behrens joined in the arguments advanced by Williams. (Doc. 624 at 29.) The evidentiary portion of the hearing focused on the “necessity” requirement[6] of wiretap applications. (Id. at 53, 55-56; 57-70.) The government presented the testimony of DEA Agent Justin Couture to establish that a Title III intercept was in fact necessary because of the limitations of other investigative procedures. (Id. at 57-63.)

         Defense counsel also challenged the authorization of the July 2, 2009 wiretap application. Attorney Williams argued that the government had failed “to provide the Court with the full [Title III intercept] authorization memo”[7] for this wiretap. (Id. at 76-77.) In a Supplemental Motion, Williams elaborated on the claim that law enforcement lacked probable cause to search Aguiar's iPhone, and requested that the Court review the six Orders authorizing the installation of pen/trap devices to determine if the applications were supported by probable cause. Aguiar, No. 2:09-cr-90-1, ECF No. 284 at 1. Attorney Behrens also challenged the July 2 wiretap application (Doc. 624 at 90-91) and filed a Motion to Join Aguiar's motions, including the supplemental motion, “to the extent applicable to Defendant Murray” (Doc. 286).

         A second suppression hearing was held on October 29, 2010, during which counsel renewed challenges to the warrantless search of Aguiar's iPhone, the use of a trap and trace authorization to obtain cell-site-location data, and the government's failure to seal the June 3, 2009 intercept on a timely basis. (Doc. 625 at 9-18, 23.) Attorney Williams then filed a second Supplemental Motion to Suppress, Aguiar, No. 2:09-cr-90-1, ECF No. 323, again challenging various wiretap applications and related evidence, and a purportedly misleading affidavit that supported the April 3, 2009 pen/trap order, id. at 1-3.

         On January 2, 2011, the Court issued a comprehensive 47-page Memorandum and Order (Doc. 371) denying both Aguiar's and Murray's Motions to Suppress (see Doc. 180). The Court granted Murray's Motion to Join Aguiar's motions to suppress (see Doc. 286), but ultimately denied the suppression motions. See Aguiar, No. 2:09-cr-90-1, ECF Nos. 171, 284, 323; (Doc. 371). The Court thoroughly analyzed all issues raised in the motions except the cell-site-location issue. (Doc. 371 at 30, 47.) The Court explained that this issue was moot because the prosecution indicated that it did not intend to introduce cell-site-location data at trial. (Id. at 30.) Revisiting the issue after granting Aguiar's Motion to Reconsider, Aguiar, No. 2:09-cr-90-1, ECF No. 406 at 1-2, the Court held that the challenged Title III warrant was adequately supported by probable cause, even without considering the challenged cell-site data, id., ECF No. 428 at 3-5.

         Approximately a week before the start of trial, the prosecution reversed course and filed a Motion in Limine indicating that it would offer cell-site-location data into evidence. (Doc. 444 at 1.) Given this changed posture, the Court issued an Order to “address the merits of Mr. Aguiar's [supplemental] motion to suppress [regarding the cell-site-location-data issue] and request for review of probable cause” (Doc. 449 at 1-2), which Murray had joined (see Doc. 286; see also Doc. 371 (granting motion to join)). The Court granted the motion for a probable cause review of various hybrid cell-site-data applications-which requested both “pen register and trap and trace information” and cell-site-location data (Doc. 449 at 2)-and “assume[d], without deciding, that the Fourth Amendment requires that the Government meet the probable cause standard in order to collect [cell-site-location information]” (id. at 4). After “re-review[ing]” the hybrid applications (id. at 5), the Court found that probable cause supported each pen/trap order (id. at 8). The Court denied the Supplemental Motion to Suppress the cell-site-location data, and granted the government's Motion in Limine, permitting the introduction of that evidence at trial. (Id.)

         Attorney Behrens filed a number of other pretrial motions that are relevant to Murray's current § 2255 claims of ineffective assistance. First, Behrens filed a Motion to Dismiss “Count 1 of the second superseding indictment as to Defendant Murray for violation of his right to a speedy trial.” (Doc. 200 at 1.) Behrens also filed a Motion to Sever Murray's trial from that of his codefendants. (Docs. 212, 212-2.) He argued that his client would be prejudiced by a joint trial because “the evidence against Mr. Murray is minor and his role is small.” (Doc. 212-2 at 3.) Behrens asserted, “[t]here is no dispute that the vast majority of the evidence will pertain to the activities and lives of Aguiar and other co[]defendants, ” and as a result, “[t]here is . . . a real and substantial risk that a jury will likely confuse any role Mr. Murray may have played in the conspiracy and, more importantly, not be able to fairly and impartially decide the issues as they relate specifically to Mr. Murray.” (Id.) The Court denied both motions. (Doc. 377.) Behrens then filed a motion seeking exclusion of “Aguiar's ongoing . . . communications about Defendant Murray [made] while in jail, ” because they were not “statements made in the furtherance of the conspiracy.” (Doc. 446 at 4.) The Court denied this motion (Doc. 493) after a hearing (Doc. 451).

         IV. Trial

         On March 28, 2011, trial commenced against Murray, Aguiar, and Whitcomb. Other codefendants in the case pleaded guilty, many agreeing to cooperate by providing testimony. (PSR at 4, ¶ 12); see also United States v. Opalenik, No. 2:09-cr-90-8 (D. Vt. 2009), ECF No. 232; United States v. Foy, No. 2:09-cr-90-6 (D. Vt. 2009), ECF No. 250; United States v. Grant, No 2:09-cr-90-5 (D. Vt. 2009), ECF No. 253; United States v. Tahair, No. 2:09-cr-90-4 (D. Vt. 2009), ECF No. 273; United States v. Reyes, No. 2:09-cr-90-9 (D. Vt. 2009), ECF No. 280; United States v. Mackenzie, No. 2:09-cr-90-10 (D. Vt. 2009), ECF No. 287; United States v. Adcock, No. 2:09-cr-90-7 (D. Vt. 2009), ECF No. 302; United States v. Lawrence, No. 2:09-cr-90-3 (D. Vt. 2009), ECF No. 317. After an 11-day trial, the jury found Aguiar guilty of Count One, conspiring to distribute heroin and at least five kilograms of cocaine, and guilty of six other counts all relating to the individual distribution of cocaine. (Doc. 479.) It also found Murray and Whitcomb guilty of conspiring to distribute heroin and at least 500 grams of cocaine. (Id. at 2.) During trial, the government called 25 witnesses and introduced roughly 200 exhibits. (See Docs. 484, 486.) The most relevant evidence is summarized below.

         A. Trial Testimony

         The government called multiple DEA agents who were involved in the investigation. DEA Task Force Agent Couture, one of the lead investigators, outlined the initiation of the conspiracy investigation and investigative techniques used by the agents. (Doc. 613 at 113.) Couture described the July 30, 2009 arrest of Aguiar, who was apprehended after a short foot chase during which he dropped a bag containing “[a] digital scale and two syringes.” (Id. at 101, 112-15, 138.) Couture detailed the post-arrest searches of Aguiar's vehicle, cell phones, and iPhone (id. at 141-44, 147-49), and the discovery of a package containing 140 grams of cocaine in the immediate area where Aguiar was apprehended (PSR at 6; Doc. 613 at 158, 162-64).

         Couture and his co-case agent Jared Hatch described controlled purchases of drug evidence from members of the conspiracy. These included purchases from coconspirators Jeremy Mackenzie, Herbert Lawrence, Brian Tahair, and Franklin Grant. (See, e.g., id. at 215-34, 244-52; see also PSR at 6.) Couture and Hatch detailed the surveillance of members of the conspiracy. (Doc. 614 at 15-27 (Couture), 30-36 (Hatch).) For instance, after “receiv[ing] information from the wiretap” that Aguiar and Murray would be meeting (id. at 31), Couture described conducting surveillance around Murray's home in Burlington (id. at 18), and observing Aguiar with a man who “matched Mr. Murray's description” (id. at 32; see also Id. at 33). Couture also described: the data that was collected through the pen/trap devices and wiretaps, [8] such as calls between various codefendants (Doc. 521 at 49-88), telephone “switch” information (Doc. 614 at 173-218), Aguiar's MySpace page (Doc. 615 at 149-54), and Aguiar's credit card statements (Doc. 617 at 23-26).

         Additional DEA agents testified about their roles in the investigation and surveillance of members of the conspiracy. (Doc. 614 at 39-63, 93-108.) For example, Agent Adam Chetwynd testified that after learning through a wiretap that Aguiar was going to meet Tahair and Murray (Doc. 614 at 98), he observed two males in a car, one of whom “matched the general description of what William Murray was wearing earlier in the night” (id. at 99). Later, those males were seen outside of Murray's apartment building. (Id. at 102.) Agent Richard Carter testified about his installation of GPS tracking devices and the tracking of Aguiar's vehicles. (Doc. 614 at 104-19, 134-64.) Using the GPS data, Agent Carter described Aguiar's travel pattern between Vermont and Dorchester, Massachusetts. (Id. at 134-64.) Other DEA Special Agents testified about physical surveillance of Aguiar conducted in Massachusetts (Doc. 616 at 205-22), and the execution of search warrants at Aguiar's Vermont and Massachusetts residences, including the seizure of $45, 000 in currency from a secret compartment in a closet at Aguiar's Quincy, Massachusetts residence (Doc. 617 at 111-16, 120-30).

         Several records custodians and summary witnesses corroborated the government's other evidence. This evidence included the following: evidence of Aguiar's vehicle purchases (Doc. 616 at 188-204); Aguiar's substantial cash deposits into his bank accounts (Doc. 617 at 54-71; 73-98); Verizon wireless cell phone data and court orders Verizon received in this case (Doc. 523 at 208-47); technology used by law enforcement to capture the audio from phone calls between Aguiar and his associates (Doc. 521 at 5- 44; 49-69); analyses of phone calls between the coconspirators (Doc. 616 at 4-47); laboratory analyses of samples in this case that tested positive for cocaine and heroin (id. at 48-68); and an arrest of Aguiar in New Hampshire for reckless driving, during which a New Hampshire State Trooper seized $8, 600 in currency from Aguiar (Doc. 617 at 98- 109).

         The government called multiple codefendants who recounted their involvement with Aguiar and their participation in the Burlington-area drug distribution. (See Doc. 521 at 92-222, 235-48; Doc. 522 at 4-159; Doc. 523 at 16-207; Doc. 615 at 4-101; Doc. 616 at 76-188; Doc. 633 at 124-208.) These individuals described their respective roles in the lengthy drug conspiracy, their illicit dealings with Aguiar, and Aguiar's supervisory role. In summary, each described in detail how, when, and where they acquired cocaine and heroin from Aguiar, and Murray's role in the conspiracy.

         Brian Tahair testified at length about his dealings with Murray. (Docs. 615, 633.) He stated that “[a]t some point” Murray asked Tahair if he “was interested in moving some cocaine.” (Doc. 633 at 151.) Tahair explained that he received “two ounces to six ounces” of cocaine for four to six weeks from Murray, and received more than that amount a “couple times.” (Id. at 157.) Tahair acknowledged that he knew that the cocaine was coming from Aguiar through Murray. (Doc. 615 at 5-7.) Tahair explained that he became involved with Aguiar after Murray had apparently left for Maine (Doc. 633 at 175), and described Aguiar's anger because Murray had “ripped him off for eight or [ten] ounces of cocaine” (id. at 171). Tahair testified that he began receiving cocaine directly from Aguiar (id. at 175-77), and that the packaging of this cocaine was the same as that which had come from Murray (id. at 194). Tahair told Murray he was dealing directly with Aguiar when Murray returned from a trip to Maine. (Id. at 176-77.)

         Jessica Adcock described accompanying Aguiar, who brought cocaine to the residence where Murray lived with his girlfriend Pat. (Doc. 522, at 27-28.) As discussed below, Pat was identified as Patricia Niemann. Adcock explained that Murray “arrang[ed] to get a certain amount of cocaine from [Aguiar], and . . . he fell through with his part of the bargain and ended up owing [Aguiar] money and took off . . . to Maine.” (Id. at 28.)

         Former Burlington Police Officer Michael Morris searched the residence of Patricia Niemann, Murray's former girlfriend, where he seized a small quantity of cocaine. (Id. at 163-64.) As Niemann's testimony later revealed, she had been in an intimate relationship with Murray from late 2007 into 2008 and lived with him beginning in 2007. (Id. at 182.) Burlington Police Officer Matthew Cannon also searched Niemann's residence after receiving a call from Niemann about “drugs or paraphernalia in her apartment.” (Id. at 172.) According to Cannon, Niemann had found some of Murray's items and “didn't want them in the house anymore.” (Id. at 173.) Cannon testified that the items included “spoons, syringes, [and a] prescription bottle, ” which “contained what appeared to [Cannon] to be a large marble-sized rock of heroin.” (Id.) The marble-sized rock later tested positive for heroin. (Id. at 175.) Cannon confirmed that the heroin “looked like it had broken off . . . a finger of heroin, ” which Cannon described as a compressed piece of heroin. (Id. at 173.)

         Niemann testified that Murray kept an item she described as resembling a “chalk stick” under the mattress (id. at 183), and that she observed Murray shaving bits of the stick into bags in their living room (id. at 184). She also described receiving heroin from Murray on one occasion. (Id. at 186.) She described Aguiar's visits to their house, during which Murray and Aguiar met in private. (Id. at 193-94.) Moreover, she testified about two instances when the Burlington Police came to her house, seizing cocaine the first time and a “stash box” containing the “chalk stick” in a pill bottle the second time- neither of which belonged to Niemann. (Id. at 197-99.)

         B. Other Evidence

         Over 200 documents and tangible objects were admitted at trial. (Docs. 482, 484.) These included: quantities of cocaine purchased or otherwise seized in the investigation; recordings of the controlled purchases; photographs of key locations in the investigation; photographs taken from Aguiar's MySpace page and iPhone; various cell phones, including TracFones and an iPhone; contact lists from cell phones; call details;[9] the duffle bag found during Aguiar's arrest, which contained syringes and a scale in a hidden compartment; letters from Aguiar to his codefendants; and court orders. (Id.)

         C. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.