Drug Traffickers’ Indictments Dismissed
United States v. Prado, 933 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2019).
By: Jacob Larriviere
OnJune 19, 2015, a United States Coast Guard patrol stopped and intercepted a“go-fast” vessel in international waters between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Uponboarding, the officers found the three defendants and 680 kilograms of cocaine.None of the defendants claimed to be the master of the vessel, and the boardingteam did not find any registration documents, flag, or any signs of registry onboard the vessel. The boarding team removed the cocaine and defendants from thevessel and then set fire to the go-fast and sank it.
Thedefendants moved to dismiss their indictment. The district court conducted ahearing and determined that the vessel was stateless and therefore subject to UnitedStates jurisdiction. Having declined to dismiss the indictment, the defendants pleadguilty and were convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and to possesscocaine with intent to distribute.
Onappeal, the Second Circuit first addressed whether the government showed thatthe vessel was subject to United States jurisdiction. To accomplish this, thegovernment had to prove that the defendants’ vessel was a “covered vessel” asdefined by the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). The trial courtdecided that the vessel was, in fact, a covered vessel because “despite having ‘everyreasonable opportunity, and every good reason, to make a claim of nationality,’failed to do so.”[1]Therefore, the vessel was subject to United States jurisdiction. The appealcourt noted that such a decision should have been impossible based on a numberof factors. First, the trial court reasoned that the defendant’s failure tomake a claim of nationality established statelessness – a reasoning, accordingto the Second Circuit is inconsistent with the standards of the MDLEA. A master’s failureto assert or claim nationality will only establish statelessness when hisfailure occurs on the request of an officer of the United States. Mere silencein the absence of a request for information, like the present case, supports noinference of statelessness. Second, the government did not present any evidenceto the court showing that the vessel lacked a means of identification, such asa hull identification number (“HIN”). Anyopportunity to find an HIN was further eliminated by the Coast Guard’sdestruction of the vessel. The district court also decided that a display ofthe flag of Ecuador on the side of the vessel was not prominent enough toqualify as flying Ecuador’s flag – a decision that cites no authority establishingsuch a prominence requirement. Therefore, because of legally insufficientevidence, the Second Circuit concluded that the District Court’s finding thatthe vessel was subject to United States jurisdiction must be vacated.
TheSecond Circuit then addressed whether this failure to prove that the vessel wassubject to United States jurisdiction meant that the court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to hear the case. The appeals panel rejected this idea by holdingthat the term “jurisdiction” as used in the MDLEA does not confer or limitsubject matter jurisdiction. Rather, it specifies the reach of the statutesbeyond the borders of the U.S.
Finally,the Second Circuit had to decide whether the defendant’s guilty pleas should betreated as waivers of their claim that U.S. jurisdiction was not shown. Thecourt found that the plea proceedings departed from the Rule 11 requirements intwo aspects. First, Rule 11 requires the court to inform the defendant of, anddetermine that the defendant understands, the nature of each charge to whichthe defendant is pleading. In this case, the court informed the defendants ofsome aspects of requirements of the charge but omitted the crucial issue ofstatelessness and U.S. jurisdiction. Second, Rule 11 requires the court todetermine that there is a factual basis for the plea. But, as it has alreadybeen addressed, the government could not demonstrate that the vessel wasstateless and subject to U.S. jurisdiction; so, the defendants’ drug possessionwas not within the reach of the MDLEA. There was no criminal offense committedunder U.S. law, and there was no valid basis for the defendants’ convictions.
Ultimately,the Second Circuit held both that the indictment should have been dismissed dueto the government’s failure to demonstrate that the vessel was subject to UnitedStates jurisdiction and that this failure was not negated by the defendants’guilty pleas.
[1] UnitedStates v. Prado, 933 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting United Statesv. Prado, 143 F. Supp. 3d 94, 99 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)).
