A federal appeals court has upheld the conviction of a man caught with over five kilograms of cocaine in Chicago, ruling that while the trial judge made a mistake by letting prosecutors tell the jury about a past heroin discussion, the error was harmless because of the mountain of other evidence against him.

The Case

The case stems from a January 2018 Drug Enforcement Administration investigation. Undercover Task Force Officer Rodolfo Avalos posed as a buyer and arranged a deal with Miguel A. Morales-Garcia. During a recorded meeting at a Chicago restaurant on January 11, 2018, Avalos asked if Morales-Garcia had access to “ugly kind”—a slang term for heroin. Morales-Garcia mentioned he had recently sold heroin to someone else before handing Avalos a sample of cocaine.

Weeks later, on January 27, 2018, law enforcement officers watched Morales-Garcia carry a laundry bag out of a home, put it into his car, and drive toward the meeting spot. Officers pulled him over and found multiple packages of cocaine inside the bag, weighing over five kilograms. Following his arrest, Morales-Garcia confessed to his involvement in the deal and admitted he knew what was in the bag.

The Trial and Appeal

During his trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Morales-Garcia did not dispute that he planned to sell cocaine or that he was on the recordings. Instead, his defense team focused strictly on challenging the drug weight, arguing prosecutors failed to prove the amount crossed the five-kilogram threshold required for a mandatory minimum sentence.

Over defense objections, District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly allowed prosecutors to present the recorded conversation about heroin under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which governs evidence of other acts. Prosecutors argued the statement showed Morales-Garcia was familiar with drug trafficking. A jury ultimately convicted Morales-Garcia on all counts, including conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

In writing the opinion for the Seventh Circuit, Circuit Judge Jackson-Akiwumi noted that the district court should not have allowed the heroin evidence. The court explained that using a conversation about heroin to prove intent to sell cocaine relies on an improper inference that the defendant is a “drug dealer generally,” which federal evidence rules prohibit.

However, the panel determined the mistake did not warrant a new trial. The court highlighted the overwhelming amount of direct evidence, including recorded phone calls, text messages, officer testimony, lab tests, and Morales-Garcia’s own post-arrest confession.

Original reporting: Tampa Free Press — read the source article.