It seems that Rolando Ramos was a marijuana dealer. I say that because the police had him on a wire doing drug deals, found marijuana in his house when the executed a search warrant, and because he pled guilty to being involved in a conspiracy to distribute marijuana.
Mr. Ramos worked at a auto repair shop - which he dealt marijuana out of. One guy who worked at the repair shop had a brother in law who was a cop. The cop's name is Carlos Burgos.
Mr. Burgos was convicted of being a part of Mr. Ramos's drug distribution conspiracy. But the First Circuit, in United States v. Burgos, overturned that conviction because there wasn't enough evidence.
Mr. Burgos worked as a uniformed officer in Worchester, Massachusetts. His beat included a high-crime area known as "Main South." In Main South was a car repair shop - G & V General Auto Repair. Mr. Burgos's brother-in-law worked at G & V.
Mr. Burgos's brother in law gave him discounts on car repairs. Mr. Burgos took advantage of those discounts.
Also working at G & V was Mr. Ramos. Mr. Ramos wasn't really a mechanic, he was more of a gopher - running money to the bank and picking up parts.
Also, Mr. Ramos was dealing drugs. Though more on that later.
As time went on, Mr. Burgos got to be friendly with many of the other mechanics at G & V. Eventually, his brother in law moved on to greener pastures, though the mechanics at G & V kept giving Mr. Burgos discounts.
Savvy shopper that he is, Mr. Burgos kept using G & V for his automotive needs.
Mr. Ramos And Mr. Burgos
Mr. Ramos never talked to Mr. Burgos about his drug dealing. When he pled guilty, he flipped, and testified at Mr. Burgos's trial. Mr. Ramos described Mr. Burgos as being a personal friend. The First Circuit seemed skeptical.
Ramos met some members of Mr. Burgos's family, but never went into his house; the only time that Ramos went to Mr. Burgos's house was to tow a car. Mr. Burgos never went to Ramos's house. On one occasion, Ramos helped Mr. Burgos's sister and her infant son by towing her car and repairing a flat tire, which he did without charging her.
Though the court of appeals also noted that Mr. Ramos did sell Mr. Burgos some automotive equipment and, at one point, a used laptop for slightly less than market price. And they exchanged a phone call on Christmas Day once.
But one would hope that each man had closer friends.
Mr. Ramos Needs Information
Eventually, Mr. Ramos became convinced that the police were watching him at the store. This was because police were watching him at the store.
Mr. Ramos asked Mr. Burgos for information about whether he was under surveillance. Mr. Burgos found out that the Vice Squad was, indeed, watching the auto shop.
In the worst evidence for Mr. Burgos, they spoke on a recorded call and Mr. Burgos told Mr. Ramos that he should "take it easy for now" because the police were on to something at the auto shop.
Mr. Burgos Goes To Trial
Mr. Burgos was indicted for being a part of Mr. Ramos's drug conspiracy.
The government looked at this evidence and tried to convince a jury that Mr. Burgos was a dirty cop helping a drug dealer. In fact, they did convince a jury that Mr. Burgos was dirty cop helping a drug conspiracy. The government did not, however, convince the First Circuit.
The First Circuit Addresses Whether This Cop Has This Specific Dirt
The First Circuit first laid out the standard for whether a sufficiency of the evidence challenge would succeed:
Mr. Burgos was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. To affirm his conviction, we must determine whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime: (1) "a conspiracy existed," (2) Mr. Burgos "had knowledge of the conspiracy" and (3) Mr. Burgos "knowingly and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy."
The First Circuit rejected the government's argument that it made a sufficient showing on the second requirement - that Mr. Burgos knew of the conspiracy.
The government argued that Mr. Burgos knew that there was a drug conspiracy, because he likely knew that the vice squad was investigating. The First Circuit stopped the government short on this claim:
a reasonable jury could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Burgos knew that Main South was an area of high crime, and specifically high drug crime, that the Vice Squad investigated crimes involving drugs, prostitution and gaming, and that the Vice Squad was surveilling G & V. From this, a jury certainly could infer that Mr. Burgos was aware that the Vice Squad was investigating G & V for possible criminal activity that fell within its purview--drug crimes, prostitution or gaming. None of the evidence, however, establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Vice Squad was investigating a drug crime, as opposed to prostitution or gaming.
Since there wasn't any reason to think - based just on the fact that the vice squad was looking into the shop - that Mr. Burgos knew this was for drugs, he couldn't have been convicted for being a part of a drug conspiracy.
The government argued, then, that Mr. Burgos should have known that something was afoot - he was a trained police officer after all. The First Circuit thought Mr. Burgos probably should have known something was up, but not what it was:
The combination of both the Gang Unit and the Vice Squad surveilling G & V, Ramos's ability to secure items at well-below retail cost for resale to Mr. Burgos, and Ramos's inquiries, on two occasions, concerning surveillance, were warning signs that something illegal was afoot at G & V. There simply is no evidence, however, that Mr. Burgos knew, or was aware of a high probability, that the illegal actions involved drugs.
The case was vacated and remanded. Mr. Burgos goes home (I'm betting he won't be going back to his old job though).
About This BlogThe Federal Criminal Appeals Blog is published by Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon PLLC in Washington, DC. Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon PLLC represent people who have been charged with federal crimes, are under federal investigation, or have a federal criminal appeal.
If you'd like to speak with us, please call (202) 640-2850. Odds are we'd love to talk to you.