United States v. Vizcarra-Martinez

Fernando Vizcarra-Martinez (defendant) and six other alleged coconspirators (defendants) were federally charged with both conspiring to possess and actually possessing a listed chemical used to manufacture methamphetamine. Both crimes required knowing that the possessed chemical, hydriodic acid, would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Before trial, Vizcarra-Martinez moved to exclude evidence of his possession of a small amount of methamphetamine for personal use (the personal-possession evidence) that police discovered in Vizcarra-Martinez’s pocket during his arrest. The district court denied the motion, finding that the personal-possession evidence was admissible as other-act evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) as proof that Vizcarra-Martinez knew that the hydriodic acid would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. At trial, the government (plaintiff) presented no evidence that Vizcarra-Martinez was involved in manufacturing the personal-possession evidence or that Vizcarra-Martinez obtained the personal-possession evidence from any of his alleged coconspirators. Vizcarra-Martinez primarily argued that he did not know that the chemicals he transported would be used for methamphetamine production. The jury convicted Vizcarra-Martinez of both crimes. Vizcarra-Martinez appealed from his conviction, arguing in relevant part that the district court had erred by admitting the personal-possession evidence. The government argued that even if the personal-possession evidence was not admissible as proof of Vizcarra-Martinez’s knowledge, the personal-possession evidence was admissible because it was inextricably intertwined with the underlying listed-chemical-possession and conspiracy charges.