# United States v. Shonubi

> District Court, E.D. New York · August 4, 1995 · 895 F. Supp. 460

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1570712

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, v. Charles O. SHONUBI, Defendant
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** August 4, 1995
- **Citations:** 895 F. Supp. 460; 1995 WL 472704
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Weinstein
- **Judges:** Weinstein
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by United States v. Charles O. Shonubi, 103 F.3d 1085 (1997).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1570712

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that a finder of fact "may consider the demeanor and actions of a person even when that person is not testifyine and quoting Jerome Frank, Law and the Modern Mind 109 (1931), "The tongue of the witness, it has been said, is not the only organ for conveying testimony."

## Opinion text

AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.
CONTENTS
I. Introduction.464
II. Facts.465
III. Procedural History.466
*463
A. Aborted plea bargain.466
B. Trial.466
C. Sentencing.466
D. Appeal.467
E. Proceedings on remand utilizing Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of
F. Summary of arguments on remand-OO O
G. Statement of the issue before the court 05 <£>
IV. Sentencing Law.470
A. Burden of proof.470
1. Generally.470
2. Burden of proof at sentencing.471
B. Operation of the Guidelines.472
1. Drug cases.473
2. Non-drug cases.474
C. Caselaw on estimation and specific evidence.475
1. Estimation.475
2. Estimates based on extrapolation.477
3. Specific evidence.478
V. Available Sources of Information.479
A. Background knowledge .479
B. Knowledge of the drug trade.480
C. Demeanor.480
1. How judges use demeanor.481
2. Demeanor and appellate review.481
D. Assumptions about criminal behavior.481
VI. How Decision-Makers Learn and Decide. 00 CO
A. Inferences based on prior information and training £8. 00 CO
B. Methods of reaching conclusions. 00 CO
1. Classical step-by-step analysis. 00 CO
2. Bayesian and statistical analysis. 00
3. Biases. 00 05
4. Storytelling. 00
VIL Application of Law to Facts on Original Sentence.488
A. Evidence from trial .488
B. Demeanor and character.489
C. Knowledge of the drug trade: the trip effect .490
D. Storytelling analysis.491
VIII. Desirability of Further Analysis.492
IX. The General Federal Rule Favoring Admissibility Of and Reliance on All Helpful Evidence.492
A. Mechanistic rules versus flexible general principles.493
B. Development of twentieth century conceptions of evidence codes.494
C. Model Code of Evidence.496
D. Federal Rules of Evidence.497
E. Recent developments.499
X. Additional Material Available to Sentencing Judge On Remand
A.Experts’ reports .
1. Government expert.
2. Defense expert.
3. Rule 706 Panel.
a. Use of fictions.
b. Problems with government’s assumptions .
c. Comments on defendant’s report.
*464
d. Non-statistical analysis. ©> LO
e. Statistical analysis. ©■ LO
f. Simulations accounting for trip effect.... <© LO
g. Conclusion . T — l LO
B. Survey of the Eastern District bench. tH 1C
C. Testimony on economics of heroin smuggling_ 1 — I )lO
XI. Law Applicable to Statistical and Other Information Supplied After Remand CO
i
— i U5
A. Admissibility of probabilistic evidence. CO i“H
B. Use of bare statistics. © tH
1. Generally. © t*H
2. Criminal cases. 00 tH lO
XII. Application of Law to Facts After Remand. co H
iO
A. Conclusions about experts’ reports.-.. ca H
lO
B. Random versus non-random sampling. © CJ ©
C. Use of statistics to illustrate non-statistical decision-making. h (M ©
D. Conclusions on proper role of statistics in this ease. co (M ©
E. Cross-checking. co (M ©
F. Conclusion in light of statistics and other information provided on remand. Cn 52
XIII. Obstruction of Justice Enhancement. cn to iN
A. Purposes of sentencing and of § 3C1.1. cn to
B. Double-counting. cn to cn
C. Discretion to enhance under Dunnigan. cn to ©
D. Unconstitutionally of automatic enhancement. cn to -q
E. Particularized finding of perjury. cn to
F. Conclusion. cn to OO
XIV. Additional Sentencing Considerations. cn to oo
A. “Penalty” for going to trial. Cn to oo
B. Sentencing within prescribed Guidelines range. cn to ©
C. Added time in prison required by Guidelines system cn co ©
XV. Conclusion. © CO no
I. Introduction
The defendant was caught entering the country with 427.4 grams of heroin in his digestive tract. It is believed that he made seven prior drug smuggling trips, but not how much he carried on those trips. The court is required, under the Sentencing Guidelines, to estimate the total quantity of heroin imported.
At the original sentence, the court multiplied 427.4 by eight, arriving at a total of 3419.2 grams. The sentence was 151 months in prison, the low end of the Guidelines range for importation of 3,000 grams of heroin or more.
See United States v. Shonubi,
802 F.Supp. 859 (E.D.N.Y.1992)
[Shonubi
7 ],
conviction affirmed, sentence reversed,
998 F.2d 84 (2d Cir.1993)
[Shonubi III
The court of appeals rejected this solution and remanded. On reconsideration, the trial court now concludes that the defendant should be sentenced for importing between 1,000 and 3,000 grams of heroin. For reasons indicated in Parts XIII, XIV, and XV,
infra,
the term of imprisonment is unchanged.
This memorandum is largely devoted to explaining how a sentencing judge — and a trier of fact generally — reaches a decision. The case presents an opportunity to observe, explain, and discuss forensic decision-making. The absence of exclusionary rules of evidence at sentencing, the availability of statistics against which to “check” non-statistical proof, and the assistance of skilled experts have permitted the court to examine the decision-making process more fully than circumstances usually permit.
It should come as no surprise that in addition to rational analysis, the forensic factfin-
*465
der depends upon assumptions and methods of thinking that may introduce biases and errors. Articulating the assumptions used in this case may provide valuable perspectives on decision-making practice and theory.
Because the sentencing judge found the problems raised by this case difficult, he issued a draft memorandum before resen-tencing and circulated it for comment. The parties and a number of scholars responded. These responses are on file with the court. The sentencing judge also posed questions to his colleagues on the court; their responses are described below. The final memorandum benefits from all of this assistance. While it generally follows the earlier draft, it includes a number of revisions.
The memorandum is written with great diffidence since those of us involved in the daily quest for the truth in the courtroom are out of close touch with those academics endeavoring to understand and explain decisionmaking.
See, e.g.,
Ronald J. Allen, David J. Balding, Peter Donnelly, Richard Friedman, David H. Kaye, Lewis Henry LaRue, Roger C. Park, Bernard Robertson & Alexander Stein,
Probability and Proof in State v. Skipper: An Internet Exchange,
35 Jurimetrics Journal 277 (1995) [hereinafter, Ronald J. Allen et al.,
An Internet Exchange
]. The separation between courts on the one hand and scientists, including statisticians and students of the human mind and emotions, on the other needs to be reduced by such projects as those of the Carnegie Foundation and the Federal Judicial Center described below. How to make available to triers, in a way they can understand, the work of scientists remains a central task of science and the law.
II. Facts
Charles 0. Shonubi, a 34-year-old Nigerian citizen, lived in New Jersey while studying architecture and working as a toll collector at the George Washington Bridge. His salary was $12,000 a year. On December 10, 1991, Shonubi flew from Lagos, Nigeria, to Amsterdam, and then on to New York.
A customs service officer at John F. Kennedy Airport noticed Shonubi near a baggage carousel; he was “turning rapidly” and “scanning the customs area” rather than looking for his luggage. The officer examined Shonubi’s passport and then questioned him about the frequent trips to Nigeria indicated on the passport. The defendant’s answers were contradictory and confusing. For example, Shonubi said the purpose of his last trip was to get married. Minutes later, he said the object was to visit his ailing mother. Reminded of his previous statement, he told the officer that he had forgotten that he had just said that he had gone to Nigeria to get married. Shonubi was “visibly nervous, avoided eye contact, and was wringing his hands”; he was “trembling and sweating.” (The interesting question of what “avoiding eye contact” means in different cultures is not at this stage of the case a matter of concern.)
In response to the agent’s request, Shonu-bi consented to an X-ray. Taken to a “search room,” he was patted down, read his Miranda rights, and handcuffed. A search of his person turned up a slip of paper bearing the name of a Nigerian customs official. An X-ray revealed a number of foreign bodies in his intestine.
Shonubi was escorted to a trailer designed for the observation of passengers suspected of carrying drugs internally. The trailer has two levels. Material expelled into a toilet on the upper level drops into a holding tank, where agents on the lower level can observe it. Shonubi passed a total of 103 balloons over two days.
A forensic chemist found that four of the balloons, selected at random, contained a heroin mixture. The mixture represented 60.49 percent of the gross weight of the four balloons.
Cf. United States v. Esieke,
940 F.2d 29, 32 (2d Cir.1991) (weight of heroin mixture “is usually several hundred grams lower than the gross weight [of heroin plus balloons]”).
Multiplying the average weight of the heroin mixture in the four tested balloons by 103, the chemist arrived at an aggregate weight of 427.4 grams. Chemical testing established that the purity of the heroin mixture in the four balloons was 53 percent.
A customs service agent interviewed Sho-nubi while he was in the tráiler. When she asked him where he had obtained the narcotics, Shonubi answered that he had bought
*466
them from “an ordinary man on the street.” She asked him what he was supposed to do with the drugs, and he answered that they were his, and that he “wasn’t giving them to anyone else.”
III. Procedural History
A. Aborted plea bargain
The defendant attempted to plea bargain. However, during a plea allocution before the chief magistrate judge, he alternately admitted and denied knowledge of the drugs found in his system. The allocution was aborted. Had Shonubi accepted the plea agreement, it is likely — given the disposition of similar cases in this district — that he would have been sentenced to a maximum of thirty-six months in prison. Instead, he elected to go to trial.
B. Trial
At trial, two customs agents described Shonubi’s behavior at Kennedy Airport. Another customs agent testified that 427.4 grams of heroin, at 53 percent purity, would have a wholesale value of $44,000 and, if cut following the normal procedures of heroin distributors in New York, would produce 20,000 “hits.” That the heroin had to be diluted was, according to the agent, certain: ingestion of 53 percent heroin can be fatal. The heroin, he concluded, could not have been for Shonubi’s personal use.
Cf. United States v. Martinez,
54 F.3d 1040, 1043 (2d Cir.1995) (jury properly inferred, “viewing the evidence in its totality,” that cocaine found on defendant was not for defendant’s own use).
The date stamps on Shonubi’s passport conflicted with his accounts of when he had traveled, as well as with employment records at the George Washington Bridge. Those records showed eight absences from work. Entries on Shonubi’s passport strongly supported the inference that eight trips had, in fact, been made, but that Shonubi had made some legs of the trips using a second passport.
Warned by his attorney not to testify, Sho-nubi — after visibly remonstrating with his attorney — chose to take the stand. He proved an effective witness for the prosecution.
Confronted with his passport and work records proving that he had made at least eight trips to Nigeria in the previous fifteen months, Shonubi nonetheless denied making more than four trips to Nigeria. He also denied traveling abroad except to see his family. He was unable to explain how he could afford eight round-trip tickets, costing a minimum of $900 each, while earning $12,-000 a year and paying college expenses. He also denied defecating in the medical van.
Shonubi was convicted by the jury of heroin importation, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a) and 960(b)(2)(A), and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(B).
C.Sentencing
At his sentencing hearing, Shonubi reiterated, under oath, that he had made only four trips to Nigeria and had not imported heroin on any of those trips. The sentencing judge found that Shonubi had lied throughout the trial and was lying at the sentencing proceeding. His fabrications included his statements about the number of trips he had made, about the purposes of those trips, about his employment history, about his use of multiple passports, and about events inside the customs service trailer.
Based on evidence at the trial and at sentencing, the judge found that the defendant had made a total of eight smuggling trips to Nigeria between September 1, 1990 and December 10, 1991. Multiplying the amount of heroin found on Shonubi by eight produced a total of 3,419.2 grams. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, possession of at least 3,000 but less than 10,000 grams of heroin is a “level 34” offense.
See
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (1994) (drug quantity table).
The sentencing court rejected the defendant’s argument that he deserved a reduction for his “minor” role in the offense.
See
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. It held that a
preponderance of the evidence at his trial established that defendant imported large quantities of heroin on eight occasions, using two passports. Defendant was not the
*467
foolish, occasionally even unwitting, drag mule who frequently comes before this court. He regularly and systematically engaged in the business of narcotics trafficking between Nigeria and the United States. He deserves no leniency for being a “minor” or “minimal” criminal.
Shonubi I,
802 F.Supp. at 864 .
The government contended that the defendant’s perjury at trial and sentencing constituted per se obstruction of justice, requiring enhancement under § 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The sentencing court held the enhancement provision should not be imposed whenever a defendant lies in court, but only in furtherance of the goals of sentencing enumerated by Congress at 18 U.S.C. § 3551
et seq.
In this case, the defendant’s lies had led to the discovery of seven previously unknown smuggling trips. The sentencing judge observed:
The Guidelines’ predilection for incarceration should be satisfied by adding ten years for defendant’s exercising his right to a trial and to testify. Penalizing defendant additionally for what amounts to the same conduct (the maintenance of his own defense) would be inappropriate and cruel.
802 F.Supp. at 863 .
The sentencing range for a level 34 offense, for an offender in defendant’s criminal history category—“I”—is 151-188 months. Shonubi was sentenced to 151 months, plus five years’ supervised release and a $100 assessment.
D. Appeal
Shonubi appealed from his sentence on two grounds. First, he argued that the government had failed to prove how much, if any, heroin he had imported on trips prior to the offense of conviction. Second, he contended that the court should have reduced his offense level by four points for his “minimal role in the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.
The government cross-appealed. It argued that the court was obligated, in light of Shonubi’s perjury, to impose a two-point obstruction of justice enhancement under § 3C1.1.
The court of appeals found that the record amply supported the trial court’s determination that Shonubi had made a total of eight related smuggling trips in 1990 and 1991.
The conflicting accounts in Shonubi’s passport and his work attendance records amply prove that he made eight trips to Nigeria on more than one passport. It may also be inferred that appellant imported heroin during each of these journeys because he used two passports, traveled frequently, avoided using direct flights ... and could not have afforded the air fare on his toll collector’s salary.
Shonubi II,
998 F.2d at 89 . The court of appeals also found that, for sentencing purposes, the eight trips should be considered a single course of conduct, which the court defined as “an identifiable pattern of criminal conduct.”
Id.
In making this finding, the court considered “such factors as the nature of defendant’s acts and how frequently the ... acts have been repeated.”
Id.
(citing
United States v. Perdomo,
927 F.2d 111, 115 (2d Cir.1991)). It also found that Shonubi was not a minor participant in the offense. In reaching this conclusion, the cpurt noted that “appellant. regularly engaged in drag smuggling_[and that his] pattern of travel ... suggests broad knowledge and culpability in the heroin trade.”
Shonubi II,
998 F.2d at 90 .
The court of appeals was not satisfied with the sentencing judge’s finding that Shonubi had imported more than 3,400 grams of heroin on his eight trips. It pointed to a lack of “specific evidence,” which it defined as “e.g., drag records, admissions or live testimony.”
Id.
at 89 . It found that on the issue of quantity the evidence “does not constitute proof by the requisite preponderance of the evidence,”
id.
at 86 , and that the sentencing court had relied on “surmise and conjecture.”
Id.
at 90 .
Finally, the court of appeals held that the sentencing judge was required to impose the obstruction of justice enhancement once it had determined that Shonubi had lied under oath. In light of
United States v. Dunnigan,
— U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1111 , 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993), decided after Shonubi’s initial sentence, the court held that enhancement is
*468
mandatory when a defendant lies about a material matter on the stand.
Id.
at 88.
The court of appeals vacated and remanded for resentencing.
E. Proceedings on remand utilizing Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
On remand the government indicated that it would rely on statistical evidence to establish the total quantity of heroin imported by Shonubi. The defendant was authorized to retain an expert at government expense to respond.
To help the court evaluate the statistical evidence proffered by the parties’ experts, the court appointed a panel of experts. Federal Rule of Evidence 706 provides that “the court may appoint expert witnesses of its own selection.” Judges are encouraged to avail themselves of this procedure.
See, e.g., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
— U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2797-98 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (Judges should be “mindful” of the Rule 706 power);
see also
Kenneth R. Foster et. al.,
Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law
437 (1994) (encouraging judges to appoint experts);
The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts
171 (Report of the Panel on Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts) (Stephen E. Fienberg ed., 1989) [hereinafter
Evolving Role
] (recommending “the increased use of court-appointment procedures”);
cf. Science and Technology in Judicial Decision Making: Creating Opportunities and Meeting Challenges
16 (Report of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, March 1993) (urging judges to “take an active role” in evaluating scientific proof); Federal Judicial Center,
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence
531-42 (1994) (describing uses of court-appointed experts) [hereinafter
Reference Manual
].
Pursuant to Rule 706, both the defense and the government were given opportunities to respond to the report of the Rule 706 Panel.
See generally
Joe S. Cecil & Thomas E. Willging, “Court-Appointed Experts,”
in Reference Manual, supra,
at 527-73 (describing Rule 706 procedures).
Cf.
Edwin J. Wesely,
Practical Workings of the Special Master,
N.Y.L.J., Mar. 22, 1994, at 1 (recommending circulation of reports of special masters). The parties were also permitted to respond to the draft memorandum. Based on responses to that draft, the court requested the parties to provide additional information on the economics of heroin smuggling. This occurred at a final
Fatico
hearing described in Part X.C,
infra.
F. Summary of arguments on remand
The government statistician, Dr. David Bo-yum, obtained customs service data on the amount of heroin recovered from 117 Nigerian heroin swallowers apprehended at John F. Kennedy Airport between September 1, 1990 and December 10,1991, the dates of the first and last trips indicated on Shonubi’s passport. Using this data, statistical methods, and a computer program, Dr. Boyum determined that it was “99 percent probable” that Shonubi had imported more than 2090.2 grams of heroin. This analysis, the government argued, satisfied its burden of proving that Shonubi had smuggled enough heroin to constitute a level 32 offense. It did not attempt to prove importation of at least 3,000 grams of heroin, the amount found by the court at the first sentence.
The defense, relying on an analysis by Professor Michael O. Finkelstein, argued that no statistics about other smugglers could satisfy the government’s burden of proof vis-a-vis Shonubi. It also disputed Dr. Boyum’s methodology. His calculations, it argued, failed to account for the likelihood that smugglers carry more heroin with each successive trip, a putative learning curve it termed the “trip effect.” Finally, it argued that smugglers of large amounts of heroin are more likely than smugglers of small amounts to be caught, suggesting that the DEA data overstate average quantities smuggled.
The Rule 706 Panel agreed with the defense that statistics about other smugglers, taken alone, could not satisfy the government’s burden of proof. The Panel, however, suggested a number of possible uses for the statistical evidence in conjunction with evidence already available to the court. The
*469
combination of statistical and non-statistical proof, the Panel suggested, would support a finding that Shonubi had imported, at a minimum, 1,000 grams of heroin on his eight trips.
The experts’ reports will be examined in detail in Part X.A,
infra.
G. Statement of the issue before the court
As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently observed
“direct evidence” is described as evidence tending to show, without resort to inference, the existence of a fact in question... But ...
“all knowledge is inferential.”
Tyler v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.,
958 F.2d 1176, 1183 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting
Visser v. Packer Engineering Assoc.,
924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir.1991) (en banc) (emphasis added)).
The relevance of any evidentiary fact depends on the premises adopted by the trier.
Whenever an item of evidence is offered as tending circumstantially — that is, inferentially — to establish a proposition the truth of which is at issue in a case, it is essential to articulate honestly and fully the inference or series of inferences invited. Each specific step of reasoning must invariably match a premise,
usually unarticulated,
which the judge judicially notices.
“Relevancy and Related Problems”
in
John H. Mansfield, Norman Abrams, Margaret E. Berger, et al.,
Cases and Materials on Evidence
1, 3 (8th ed. 1988) (emphasis added).
No rule prevents a judge or jury from “drawing an inference upon an inference.”
Fenner v. General Motors Corp.,
657 F.2d 647, 650 (5th Cir.1981). Without this ability
hardly a single trial could be adequately prosecuted. For example, on a charge of murder, the defendant’s gun is found discharged; from this we infer that he discharged it; and from this we infer that it was his bullet which struck and killed the deceased.... All departments of reasoning, all scientific work, every day’s life and every day’s trial, proceed upon such data.
1
Wigmore on Evidence
§ 41, at 435-36 (Peter Tillers rev. ed. 1983) (footnote omitted).
Estimation is a type of inference. As Professor Alan Wolf observed in his comparison of science and the law, both require “ ‘[a]p-proximations of many types.... Often it is necessary to make assumptions that are not testable ... simply to be able to proceed with a computation.’”
See
Eva H. Hanks, Michael E. Herz & Steven S. Nemerson,
Elements of Law
505 (1994) (quoting Wolf). Under the Sentencing Guidelines, approximations are not only permitted but are frequently required. See
infra
Part IV.B.
One variety of estimation is extrapolation — broadly defined as the application of knowledge about an event to a series of similar events, using “inferences based on an assumed continuity, correspondence, or other parallelism.”
Webster’s Third New Internay tional Dictionary
807 (1967). Extrapolation requires circumstances that permit the inference that known conduct will recur, or has recurred, under similar conditions.
See, e.g., United States v. McMillen,
8 F.3d 1246 (7th Cir.1993) (using extrapolation to determine drug quantity under the Guidelines),
cert. denied,
— U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1649 , 128 L.Ed.2d 368 (1994);
United States v. Sklar,
920 F.2d 107 (1st Cir.1990) (same), described in Part IV.C,
infra.
Extrapolation has been used by courts in a variety of contexts. In mass torts cases, extrapolation is required to predict the quantity and quality of future claims.
See, e.g., In re Joint E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig. (Findley v. Falise),
878 F.Supp. 473 (E. & S.D.N.Y.1995) (“Courts cannot wait for the near certainty that may come with a post hoc perspective.”). For other examples of extrapolation in forensic decision-making,
see, e.g., Integrated Circuits Unlimited v. E.F. Johnson Co.,
691 F.Supp. 630 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (purchaser’s actions in rejecting shipment of radio parts, based on sampling of eight percent of shipped parts, was proper use of statistical methods) (citing James,
Relevancy, Probability and the Law,
29 Calif.L.Rev. 689, 692 (1941)),
rev’d on other grounds,
875 F.2d 1040 (2d Cir.1989);
United States v. 449 Cases Containing Tomato Paste,
212 F.2d 567 (2d Cir.1954) (approving sampling of de
*470
fective shipment as meeting burden of proof);
In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation,
MDL No. 840, Report of Special Master Sol Schreiber (Dec. 30, 1994) (depositions of 137 randomly selected claimants used to predict validity rates of 10,059 claims).
Extrapolation has already played a role in the instant case. Only four of the 103 balloons expelled by Shonubi were tested for heroin. Yet it is highly probable that all 103 balloons contained heroin mixture at a purity of roughly 53 percent.
See People v. Argro,
37 N.Y.2d 929, 930 , 379 N.Y.S.2d 840, 841 , 342 N.E.2d 601, 602 (1975) (approving toxicologist’s procedure of choosing envelopes of heroin at random from a large batch to estimate total weight seized),
approved, People v. Hill,
85 N.Y.2d 256 , 624 N.Y.S.2d 79 , 648 N.E.2d 455 (1995) (statistical sampling may be used to determine quantity of drugs). Sampling, as practiced in
Hill ,
is common in drug cases. In the Second Circuit, where sentences are not reduced in accordance with reasonable belief,
see, e.g.,
Fred A. Bernstein,
The Denigration of Mens Rea in Drug Sentencing,
7 Fed.Sent.Rep. 121 (1994), sampling is often the basis of drug quantity determinations.
Conclusions based on extrapolation require assumptions about human behavior (i.e., no one carries sugar in balloons from Nigeria to New York) and about statistics (i.e., 4 balloons chosen at random out of 103, when there is no ostensible reason for variation, is a sufficient sample). Moreover, the trier’s sense of “story,”
see infra
Part VLB.4, suggests that the balloons were all filled from the same batch of heroin, using the same filling technique. This combination of thought processes permits the rejection as highly unlikely of any scenario in which the 103 balloons did not contain heroin in roughly similar amounts.
The same combination of beliefs about how people act in the real world and assessments of probability may permit a finding that each of Shonubi’s eight trips involved similar quantities of heroin. This is true despite the differences between a random sample — the choice of four out of 103 balloons — and the court’s non-random reliance on the eighth trip as a basis for conclusions about earlier offenses. This matter is discussed at length in Part XII.B,
infra.
Understood this way, the question before the court is how likely it is, based on all available information, that the seven smuggling trips about which little is known were similar to the eighth, about which a great deal is known. The sentencing judge had previously concluded that the defendant’s first seven trips were substantially like the trip leading to his arrest. This memorandum explores the bases for that conclusion.
See infra
Parts V through XII.
IV. Sentencing Law
A. Burden of proof
1. Generally
In a judicial proceeding, “all the factfinder can acquire is a belief of what
probably
happened.”
In re Winship,
397 U.S. 358, 370 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1075-76 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring) (emphasis in original). For that belief to become a decision, the court must utilize a burden of proof.
[A] standard of proof represents an attempt to instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions.
Id.; see also, e.g.,
Ronald J. Allen,
Burdens of Proof, Uncertainty, and Ambiguity in Modern Legal Discourse,
17 Harv.J.L. & Pub.Pol’y 627, 633 (1994) (burden of proof “provides the decision rule under uncertainty”).
Courts do not generally quantify burdens of proof as a matter of law.
See
John M. Maguire, James H. Chadbourn, et al.,
Cases and Materials on Evidence
871-73 (6th ed. 1973) (collecting literature on quantification of burdens of proof);
see also
Richard H. Gaskins,
Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse
20 (1992) (observing that implications of burdens of proof have been “neglected” in legal discourse).
But see
Terence Anderson & William Twining,
Analysis of Evidence
338 (1991) (correlating verbal and mathematical measures of certainty and doubt). Despite the absence of explicit quantification,
*471
the phrases ‘preponderance of the evidence’ and ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ ... communicate to the finder of fact different notions concerning the degree of confidence he or she is expected to have in the correctness of [his or her] conclusions.
In re Winship,
397 U.S. at 370 , 90 S.Ct. at 1076 .
Judges — who deal with burdens of proof on a daily basis — are inclined to think of those burdens in probabilistic terms. A survey of judges in the Eastern District of New York found general; agreement that “a preponderance of the evidence” translates into 50 + percent probability. Eight judges estimated “clear and convincing” as between 60 and 70 percent probable (while two found this standard unquantifiable). Estimates for “beyond a reasonable doubt” ranged from 76 to 90 percent, with 85 percent the modal response.
See United States v. Fatico,
458 F.Supp. 388, 410 (E.D.N.Y.1978) (chart),
aff'd on other grounds,
603 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir.1979), ce
rt. denied,
444 U.S. 1073 , 100 S.Ct. 1018 , 62 L.Ed.2d 755 (1980); C.M.A. McCauliff,
Burdens of Proof: Degrees of Belief, Quanta of Evidence, or Constitutional Guarantees?,
35 Vand.L.Rev. 1293 (1982); Vern R. Walker,
Direct Inference in the Lost Chance Cases: Factfinding Constraints Under Minimal Fairness to Parties,
23 Hofstra L.Rev. 247, 257 (1994) (“A number of courts have ... explained the meaning of preponderance ... using the quantitative terminology of mathematical probability.”). As
Fatico
demonstrated, there is a consensus among judges that burdens of proof can be stated in numerical terms. Moreover, with some variation, there is agreement as to what those numbers are.
2. Burden of proof at sentencing
At sentencing, a defendant is entitled to a full evidentiary hearing.
See United States v. Fatico,
458 F.Supp. 388, 409-11 (E.D.N.Y.1978),
aff'd,
603 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir.1979), ce
rt. denied,
444 U.S. 1073 , 100 S.Ct. 1018 , 62 L.Ed.2d 755 (1980);
United States v. Naugle,
879 F.Supp. 262 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (Appendix) (listing defendant’s rights at sentencing proceeding). The government must prove disputed facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
See, e.g., United States v. Concepcion,
983 F.2d 369, 388 (2d Cir.1992),
cert. denied,
— U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 163 , 126 L.Ed.2d 124 (1993);
see also
U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 (1994) (commentary) (endorsing preponderance standard).
A fact has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, according to the court of appeals, if “ ‘the scales tip, however slightly, in favor of the party with th[e] burden of proof.’”
Ostrowski v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Cos.,
968 F.2d 171, 187 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting Leonard B. Sand et al.,
Modern Federal Jury Instructions
¶ 73.01, at 73-4 (1992)).
See also Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston,
459 U.S. 375, 390 , 103 S.Ct. 683, 691-92 , 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983) (preponderance standard allows “both parties to share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion”); McCormick,
Evidence
§ 339, at 794 (2d ed. 1972) (preponderance standard requires proof that “the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence”). Although these definitions derive from civil cases, the courts have not defined the standard differently in criminal litigation.
See, e.g., United States v. Gigante,
39 F.3d 42, 47 (2d Cir.1994) (in sentencing, “preponderance standard is ... a tie-breaker dictating that when the evidence on an issue is evenly balanced, the party with the burden of proof loses”) (citing Sand’s
civil
instruction).
Commentators have argued that a preponderance standard provides the defendant with inadequate protection at sentencing under the Guidelines.
See, e.g.,
Joseph P. Sargent, Comment,
The Standard of Proof Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Raising the Standard to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt,
28 Wake Forest L.Rev. 463 (1993); W. Crews Lott,
Balancing the Burden of Proof and Relevant Conduct: At What Point Is Due Process Violated?,
45 Baylor L.Rev. 877 (1993); Richard Husseini, Note,
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Adopting Clear and Convincing Evidence as the Burden of Proof,
57 U.Chi.L.Rev. 1387 (1990); Susan N. Herman,
The Tail That Wagged the Dog: Bifurcated Fact-Finding Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Limits of Due Process,
66 S.Cal.
*472
L.Rev. 289, 309 (1966) (advocating burden higher than preponderance).
Several appellate courts have expressed concern about the burden of proof at sentencing.
See, e.g., United States v. Restrepo,
946 F.2d 654, 659-60 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc) (suggesting that a clear and convincing standard be applied to facts that will dramatically increase a sentence),
cert. denied,
503 U.S. 961 , 112 S.Ct. 1564 , 118 L.Ed.2d 211 (1992);
United States v. Townley,
929 F.2d 365, 370 (8th Cir.1991) (same);
see also United States v. Sepulveda,
15 F.3d 1161, 1198 (1st Cir.1993) (that “drug quantity has a dramatic leveraging effect [under the Guidelines] ... informs the preponderance standard, requiring that ... where uncertainty reigns, [district courts] must ‘err on the side of caution’ ”) (quoting
United States v. Sklar,
920 F.2d 107, 113 (1st Cir.1990)),
cert. denied,
— U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2714 , 129 L.Ed.2d 840 (1994).
Cf. O’Neal v. McAninch,
— U.S. -, -, 115 S.Ct. 992, 993 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995) (rejecting the application of a civil burden of proof to a habeas action, although it is “technically” a civil proceeding, because “the errors being considered by a habeas court occurred in a
criminal
proceeding [where] ... someone’s custody, rather than mere civil liability, is at stake”) (emphasis in original).
In the Second Circuit, the Chief Judge has stated that “a strong argument can be made that the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard should be used, at least for substantial enhancements [under the Guidelines].”
See United States v. Concepcion,
983 F.2d 369, 394 (2d Cir.1992) (Newman, J., concurring),
cert. denied,
— U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 163 , 126 L.Ed.2d 124 (1993). Another panel of the court of appeals has suggested that, at the very least, “there is a constitutional requirement of some rough proportionality between the weight of the evidence of ... uncharged conduct and the degree of adjustment or departure [to which that evidence leads].”
United States v. Gigante,
39 F.3d 42, 47 (2d Cir.1994). Although it noted that “the preponderance test continues to govern,”
id.
at 48 , the
Gigante
court suggested that some correspondence between the evidentiary standard and the consequence of the fact in question is warranted:
We find it difficult to believe that a district judge who had to resort to a tie-breaking rule to find facts justifying an upward departure would actually depart in any substantial way. We also believe that an appellate court would and should take the weight of the evidence into account in reviewing the reasonableness of a departure.
Id.
The court further warned of “the danger of substantial error [that] would permeate a substantial upward departure based on a finding of, say, six uncharged crimes ... proven by a bare preponderance,”
id.
at 47 , and noted that this problem is particularly acute under the Guidelines, which “mandat[e] that [judges] take uncharged conduct into account.”
Id.
at 48 .
In light of these concerns, many sentencing judges employ a sliding scale, adjusting burdens of proof in proportion to the significance of the fact at issue.
See United States v. Fatico,
458 F.Supp. 388, 409-11 (E.D.N.Y.1978) (surveying sentencing practices of judges in the Eastern District of New York),
aff'd on other grounds,
603 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir.1979),
cert. denied,
444 U.S. 1073 , 100 S.Ct. 1018 , 62 L.Ed.2d 755 (1980);
see also A Trial Judge’s Second Impression of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,
66 S.Cal.L.Rev. 357, 360 (1992) (surveying judges). This court follows the Second Circuit practice— described most recently in
Gigante
— of assessing the weight of evidence in light of its impact on the sentence.
B. Operation of the Guidelines
Sentencing for nearly all federal crimes is controlled by the Guidelines.
United States v. DeRiggi
45 F.3d 713 (2d Cir.1995);
see also
United States Sentencing Commission,
Guidelines Manual
10 (Nov. 1, 1994) (Guidelines apply to 90 percent of federal crimes) [hereinafter
Guidelines Manual
]. In creating the Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission relied on “statistical analyses” of “40,000 convictions [and] ... 10,000 augmented pre-sentence reports.”
Guidelines Manual
at 10.
See also
Stephen G. Breyer,
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Key Compromises Upon Which They Rest,
17 Hofstra
*473
L.Rev. 1, 7 n. 50 (1988) (describing computer program used by the Commission to analyze data about 100,000 “criminal dispositions”); Reena Raggi,
Foreword
to Tony Garoppolo,
The Sentencing Reform Act: A Guide for Defense Counsel
at v (2d ed. 1994) (describing Guidelines as a “statistically based” system). The goal was to tie the Guidelines ranges to “typical, or average ... past practice.” Breyer,
supra,
17 Hofstra L.Rev. at 17. In this respect, the Guidelines are at heart probabilistic.
The centerpiece of the Guidelines system is a one-page “Sentencing Table.” The table resembles a tax chart. Its vertical axis lists “offense levels,” numbered from 1 to 43; its horizontal axis lists “criminal history categories,” from I to VI. The meeting point of offense level and history category determines the applicable sentencing range. Both horizontally and vertically, each range “overlap[s] ... the ranges in the preceding and succeeding levels.”
Guidelines Manual
at 9.
The objective of overlapping ranges, according to the Sentencing Commission, was to “discourage unnecessary litigation.”
Id.
For example, the Commission explained, “little purpose will be served in ... trying to determine ... whether $10,000 or $11,000 was obtained as a result of fraud.”
Id.
at 9-10. Instead of discouraging litigation, the Guidelines have, of course, generated tens of thousands of appeals, required resentencing in a large number of cases, and caused unacceptable distortions, disparities, and irrationalities in sentencing.
See, e.g.,
Steven L. Chanenson,
Consistently Inconsistent: Circuits Rulings on the Guidelines in 1991,
7 Fed.Sent.Rep. 224, 225 (1995) (in 1994, 8,400 cases—some 59.5% of all federal criminal appeals — presented Guidelines issues). The proliferation of appeals and reversals illustrates the dangers of using statistical data for
substantive
law-making purposes. This use is quite different from the function of statistics in the instant and like cases as a means of improving
fact-finding
in litigation.
1. Drug cases
In drug cases, offense level is based on quantity, possessed, sold, or imported. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) (1994) (drug quantity table). For example, possession of more than 1,000, but less than 3,000, grams of heroin is a Level 32 offense. Within such ranges, estimation is encouraged. However, at the margins, a difference of a few grams can make a large difference in prison time.
See, e.g., United States v. Rivera,
821 F.Supp. 868, 869 (E.D.N.Y.1993) (describing effects on sentence of possible errors in weighing);
cf. United States v. Ekwunoh,
12 F.3d 368 (2d Cir.1993) (applying mandatory minimum sentencing statute requiring 10 years in prison for possession of more than 1,000 grams to offense involving 1,013 grams);
modified on remand,
888 F.Supp. 369 (E.D.N.Y.1994). When the amounts are close to a critical step-up, at, for example, 1,000 or 3,000 grams, the possibility of a substantial increase in sentence suggests the need for extreme care in estimation.
Under the “modified real offense” system adopted by the Sentencing Commission, relevant conduct, in drug cases, is not limited to the offense of conviction.
See Guidelines Manual
at 4-5. Instead, the quantity of drugs includes any amounts “that were part of the same course of conduct” or “common scheme or plan.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) (1994);
United States v. Madkour,
930 F.2d 234, 237 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied,
502 U.S. 911 , 112 S.Ct. 308 , 116 L.Ed.2d 251 (1991);
United States v. Cousineau,
929 F.2d 64, 67 (2d Cir.1991). In the Second Circuit, inclusion of such quantities is mandatory.
See, e.g., United States v. Schaper,
903 F.2d 891, 898 (2d Cir.1990) (reversing trial judge’s decision to base sentence solely on quantity seized);
United States v. Telesco,
962 F.2d 165, 168 (2d Cir.1992) (such quantities
“must
be considered in determining the base offense level”) (emphasis in original);
United States v. Vazzano,
906 F.2d 879, 882 (2d Cir.1990) (same; citing, inter aha, William J. Wilkins, Jr. & John R. Steer,
Relevant Conduct: The Cornerstone of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,
41 S.C.L.Rev. 495, 513-17 (1990)).
Given their obligation to consider drugs from transactions that predate the offense of conviction — in some cases by over a year— judges must sometimes estimate the weight of drugs that neither the court nor the gov-
*474
eminent has seen.
See, e.g., United States v. Santiago,
906 F.2d 867, 872 (2d Cir.1990) (offenses 14 months apart included in quantity computation). In such cases, the Guidelines offer this instruction:
Where there is no drug seizure or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the court shall
approximate
the quantity of the controlled substance.
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, application note 12 (1994) (emphasis added). The Guidelines give examples of the kinds of evidence on which approximations may be based:
[T]he court may consider,
for example,
the price generally obtained for the controlled substance, financial or other records,
similar transactions in controlled substances by the defendant,
and the size or capability of any laboratory involved.
Id.,
application note 12 (emphasis added). This non-exclusive list is consistent with the rule that sentencing judges may consider any evidence that has “sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 (1994);
see also
18 U.S.C. § 3661 (“[N]o limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct” of the defendant which the court may consider in sentencing).
For many drugs, including marijuana, mescaline, and PCP, the Guidelines provide farther instructions for estimation.
If the number of doses, pills, or capsules but not the weight of the controlled substance is known, multiply the number of doses, pills or capsules by the typical weight per dose in the table below.... The Typical Weight Per Unit Table, prepared from information provided by the Drug Enforcement Administration, displays the typical weight per dose, pill or capsule for certain controlled substances.
Do not use this table if any more reliable estimate of the total weight is available from case-specific information.
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, application note 11 (1994) (emphasis added). The Guidelines thus provide for estimation based on the activities of typical offenders (as determined by the Drug Enforcement Administration) when “ease-specific” evidence is lacking.
Similarly, in cases involving clandestine laboratories “in which the manufacture of a controlled substance has not been completed ... the court must estimate the amount of controlled substance that would have been manufactured....” 60 Fed.Reg. 2430, 2456 (Jan. 9, 1995) (construing U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (1994)). For this purpose, the Drug Enforcement Administration provides a formula for estimating theoretical yields from the quantities of precursor chemicals seized.
Because actual yield depends on a multiplicity of factors, according to the Sentencing Commission, “[t]he use of theoretical yield frequently [results] in a higher offense level for someone who ... does not produce any controlled substance than for someone who [does].” 60 Fed.Reg. at 2456-57. The Sentencing Commission has proposed adding a rebuttable presumption that actual yield is half of theoretical yield.
Id.
This amendment, even if it improves the result, will still require courts to impose sentences based on data culled from other cases.
2. Non-drug cases
The use of approximations under the Guidelines is not limited to drug cases. Such provisions can be found throughout the Guidelines. For example, in tax evasion cases, the “tax loss shall be treated as equal to 28% of the unreported gross income ...
unless a more accurate determination ... can be made.”
U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1(c)(1)(A) (1994) (emphasis added). Similarly, in sentences for fraud,
the loss need not be determined with precision. The court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available information. This estimate, for example, may be based on the approximate number of victims and an estimate of the average loss to each victim, or on more general factors, such as ... the revenues generated by
similar operations.
U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, application note 8 (1994) (emphasis added);
see also
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, application note 3 (1994) (permitting estimation of loss in theft and embezzlement cases).
See United States v. Stanley,
54 F.3d 103, 106 (2d Cir.1995) (approving “reasonable” calculation under § 2F1.1 because “[t]he
*475
Guidelines require no more”);
see also, e.g., United States v. Whitlow,
979 F.2d 1008 (5th Cir.1992) (estimating loss in odometer rollback case);
United States v. Hernandez,
952 F.2d 1110 (9th Cir.1991),
cert. denied,
— U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 334 , 121 L.Ed.2d 252 (1992) (estimating loss in audiotape counterfeiting ease). In
Hernandez ,
the court rejected a method of loss calculation, suggested by the defendant, which would have “required detailed information and complex ... calculations.”
Id.
at 1119 . The court held that “the Guidelines do not require such precision.”
Id.
In short, the Guidelines recognize that precise quantification required may be impossible in many cases. In such instances the trier, relying on practical good sense and experience, must estimate from the best available information, including information culled from similar cases.
C. Caselaw on estimation and specific evidence
In reversing the sentencing judge’s finding in the instant ease, the court of appeals stated that estimates of drug quantity must be based on “specific evidence.”
Shonubi II,
998 F.2d at 89 . As examples of such evidence it listed “drug records, admissions or live testimony” — that is, written or spoken statements.
Id.
This rule, it asserted, is a “careful practice” necessitated by a system in which drug quantity determinations can significantly affect terms of incarceration. 998 F.2d at 89-90 .
1. Estimation
The court of appeals pointed to six cases that illustrate this “careful practice”:
United States v. Lasanta,
978 F.2d 1300, 1309 (2d Cir.1992);
United States v. Rivera,
971 F.2d 876, 892-93 (2d Cir.1992);
United States v. Burnett,
968 F.2d 278, 280 (2d Cir.1992);
United States v. Colon,
961 F.2d 41, 43 (2d Cir.1992);
United States v. Santiago,
906 F.2d 867, 871-72 (2d Cir.1990); and
United States v. Schaper,
903 F.2d 891, 896-97 (2d Cir.1990). Examination of the evidence and inferences relied on in these cases is instructive.
In
Lasanta ,
a government analysis of wiretapped conversations led to a finding that the defendant had sold 14.7205 kilograms of cocaine and .336 kilograms of heroin. The court adopted these amounts after reviewing the conversations. By “converting” heroin to cocaine (using the “drug equivalency table” of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 and the conversion practices described in application notes 6 and 10 of that section), the court determined that Lasanta had sold 16.4005 kilos of “cocaine equivalent.” This, it determined, was a “level 34” offense, which requires possession of “[a]t least 15 KG but less than 50 KG of Cocaine.”
See
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (1994). The court of appeals affirmed. 978 F.2d at 1309 .
In
Rivera,
the sentencing court found that defendants who worked at one of a conspiracy’s five “distribution points” were responsible for quantities estimated to have been sold at the other four points. Finding that the defendants’ familiarity with the “management team to which they reported” and knowledge of the sophisticated wrapping of the' heroin packets, along with the fact that they had attended a party with eo-conspira-tors, indicated awareness of the scope of the conspiracy, the court affirmed the sentence. 971 F.2d at 893 .
In
Burnett ,
a government witness testified that he had sold the defendant “[t]wo kilos, three kilos” of cocaine. 968 F.2d at 280. He later “clarified” his testimony, indicating that he had sold three kilos to the defendant.
Id.
The court sentenced the defendant to a term based on possession of more than three kilograms of cocaine. Deferring “to [the] sentencing judge’s credibility determinations,” the court of appeals affirmed. 968 F.2d at 280.
In
Colon ,
the defendant told a probation officer that he had sold 80 glassine envelopes of heroin every two or three days for a “few years.” The court estimated, “conservatively,” that the defendant must have sold 8,000 envelopes. It multiplied this figure by the average estimated amount of heroin (.05 grams) in the 149 bags that had been seized, arriving at a gross weight of 400 grams. The court of appeals affirmed. 961 F.2d at 43 .
In
Santiago ,
the defendant admitted that he had made five heroin sales to an infor
*476
mant named Shattuck. Shattuck, in turn, testified that he bought heroin from Santiago on
“approximately
a dozen occasions.” 906 F.2d at 869 (emphasis added). The court multiplied the amount found in one bag of heroin by five and twelve to arrive at low and high estimates — either of which, it noted, would translate into a level 26 offense. The court of appeals held that a finding “that Santiago had in fact made a dozen prior sales to Shattuck was amply supported.”
Id.
at 872.
In
Schaper ,
the sentencing court considered only amounts seized. The appeals court remanded for estimation of drug quantity above the amount known to have been possessed. 903 F.2d at 899 .
A few “rules” can be derived from this series of cases. The court of appeals will affirm a sentence based on an estimated quantity 50 times greater than the amount actually seized.
Colon .
It will accept an estimate that pushes a defendant just over the “line” into a higher offense level.
Lasan-ta.
It will accept figures that, in their apparent precision, mask the inexactitude of human interactions.
Lasanta
(analysis of phone conversations translates into finding that 14.7205 kilograms of cocaine was sold). It will permit estimates based on judges’ inferences about other people’s inferences about what third parties are doing.
Rivera.
It will base sentences on quantity estimates proffered by witnesses whose statements are inconsistent,
Burnett ,
or equivocal.
Santiago .
Finally, it will accept, without discounting, estimates of drug quantity based on statements of witnesses whose credibility is doubtful.
Burnett .
Referring to the six cases, the court of appeals stated that “[c]ase law uniformly requires” such “specific evidence” for quantity determinations.
Shonubi II,
998 F.2d at 89 . The practice, however, is less “uniform” than the court believes. In
United States v. Mickens,
926 F.2d 1323 (2d Cir.1991),
cert. denied,
502 U.S. 1060 , 112 S.Ct. 940 , 117 L.Ed.2d 111 (1992), the sentencing court “approximated that [a] conspiracy distributed in excess of fifty kilograms of cocaine,” a finding it “based on [the defendant’s] unexplained income of over $2,000,000 during the operation of the conspiracy.”
Id.
at 1331. The court of appeals held that this estimate — based upon inferences from financial records — was “proper.”
Id.
at 1332;
see also United States v. Jacobs,
955 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir.1992) (endorsing estimation procedure used in Miekens);
cf. United States v. Perrone,
936 F.2d 1403, 1419 (2d Cir.),
clarified,
949 F.2d 36 (2d Cir.1991) (disapproving estimation because “[t]here is no evidence here of any conversations about the amount of drugs, ... no records of past sales,
no mon
ey”) (emphasis added).
In drug manufacturing cases, the court has permitted estimation based on seized chemical bottles whose contents were discarded before testing.
See, e.g., United States v. Macklin,
927 F.2d 1272 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied,
502 U.S. 847 , 112 S.Ct. 146 , 116 L.Ed.2d 112 (1991). In
Macklin ,
the court found an estimate based primarily on the bottles’ labels to be “thoroughly reasonable,”
id.
at 1282 , despite significant testimony that the government’s expert had overstated the laboratory’s capability. By contrast, in
Perrone,
936 F.2d at 1403 , the court rejected an estimate of the amount of cocaine a laboratory could produce. Distinguishing
Macklin ,
the
Perrone
court noted that neither cocaine base nor hydrochloric acid — two crucial ingredients — had been found in the laboratory. 936 F.2d at 1419 . The court was careful to note, however, that “we are not holding that a court can never reach a reliable estimate as to quantity on the basis of some drug ingredients if other drug ingredients are missing,” especially “[i]f the missing ingredients are demonstrated to be readily available to the defendant.”
Id.; see also United States v. Pirre,
927 F.2d 694, 696-97 (2d Cir.1991) (upholding sentence based on possession of more than 15 kilograms of cocaine, when chemist estimated that the offense involved 15.09 kilograms of cocaine, then discarded much of the evidence, in order to save space, prior to trial).
In another estimation case, the court relied heavily on the defendant’s phone bill.
See United States v. Prescott,
920 F.2d 139, 142 (2d Cir.1990) (in finding that defendant distributed 150 kilograms of cocaine, “[pjerhaps most telling was the fact that in the two and
*477
one-half months that [he] owned a cellular telephone ... telephone company records revealed a total of 12,611 incoming and outgoing calls in 79 days or nearly 160 calls a day on average”).
Other circuits have followed the
Mickens
approach, translating sums of money into quantities of drugs.
See, e.g., United States v. Ortiz-Martinez,
1 F.3d 662, 675 (8th Cir.1993) (approving estimate of cocaine quantity by dividing sum of money by cost of cocaine),
cert. denied,
— U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 355 , 126 L.Ed.2d 319 (1993);
United States v. Duarte,
950 F.2d 1255, 1265 (7th Cir.1991) (same),
cert. denied,
— U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 174 , 121 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992);
United States v. Jackson,
3 F.3d 506, 511 (1st Cir.1993) (same; large amounts of cash in proximity to drug supply can be assumed to represent drug profits). They have also utilized the
Macklin
technique for estimating the capacity of laboratories.
See, e.g., United States v. Evans,
891 F.2d 686, 687-88 (8th Cir.1989) (sentence may be based on amount defendant is capable of producing),
cert. denied,
495 U.S. 931 , 110 S.Ct. 2170 , 109 L.Ed.2d 499 (1990);
United States v. Smallwood,
920 F.2d 1231, 1236-37 (5th Cir.) (same, despite findings that facility was not operational and that several “necessary precursor [chemicals]” were missing),
cert. denied,
501 U.S. 1238 , 111 S.Ct. 2870 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1035 (1991).
2. Estimates based on extrapolation
Estimates based on extrapolation from known events have been approved in a number of eases. For example, in
United States v. McMillen,
8 F.3d 1246, 1249-51 (7th Cir.1993), ce
rt. denied,
— U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1649 , 128 L.Ed.2d 368 (1994), the defendant was a member of a conspiracy for eight weeks, during which approximately 34 heroin sales took place. An average of 39 grams of heroin changed hands in each transaction. The trial court, with some rounding, multiplied the number of transactions by the average size of the transactions to arrive at a total quantity of 1,280 grams. The court of appeals approved the extrapolation:
Because these transactions were similar in nature, the court inferred that these transactions involved a similar quantity of heroin. It was the district judge’s function to ... make a finding supported by a preponderance of the evidence....
8 F.3d at 1250-51 .
Similarly in
United States v. Thomas,
12 F.3d 1350, 1369 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied,
— U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 1861 , 2119, 128 L.Ed.2d 483 , 676 (1994), ledgers showed that 56 kilograms of cocaine were distributed during one third of the duration of a conspiracy. The court multiplied by three to arrive at a sentence based on “more than 150 kilograms” of cocaine.
In
United States v. Sklar,
920 F.2d 107 (1st Cir.1990), the defendant was arrested after mailing a package of cocaine. His relevant conduct included sending eleven other packages, none of which was seized. The government knew the weights of the eleven packages. It multiplied those weights by the percentage of cocaine (by weight) of the seized package, rounded down. The court of appeals affirmed “this conservative approach,” noting that, by rounding down, the court had “insulated the challenged finding from clear-error attack.” 920 F.2d at 113.
United States v. Hilton,
894 F.2d 485 (1st Cir.1990), involved a sailboat which caught fire during a mid-ocean interception by government agents. A member of the boarding party saw ten packages in the bilge and retrieved one of them; he observed twelve additional packages floating away. The retrieved bundle had a gross weight of 14 pounds and was found to contain marijuana. The sentencing court “concluded that it was reasonable to assume that the remaining twelve packages each contained at least 10 pounds of marijuana, notwithstanding that they were never seized.” 894 F.2d at 486 . The court of appeals affirmed, “agree[ing] with the district court that the evidence offered by the government ... satisfies the sufficiency test,
even beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
at 488 (emphasis added).
Such cases follow Guidelines policy by basing estimates on “similar transactions in controlled substances
by the defendant.”
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, application note 12 (1994) (emphasis added).
*478
Such estimates have been disapproved where the court overlooks evidence that the defendant’s prior transactions were not similar to the offense of conviction. In
United States v. Zimmer,
14 F.3d 286 (6th Cir.1994), the defendant possessed 802 marijuana plants at the time of arrest; he also admitted to having grown marijuana for seven or eight years. Based on this evidence, the district court found that the defendant had produced an “absolute minimum” of 200 additional plants over the last eight years — for a total of 1,000 plants.
Id.
at 289 . The court of appeals reversed, finding that “the court’s determination that the defendant grew an additional 200 plants is not supported anywhere in the record.”
Id.
at 290 . In reaching this conclusion, the court pointed to the district court’s failure to consider strong evidence that the defendant’s “‘sophisticated’ indoor growing operation was but a few months old.”
Id.
Courts have also rejected estimates based entirely on the conduct of others. For example, in
United States v. Garcia,
994 F.2d 1499 (10th Cir.1993), the district court relied on an FBI agent’s knowledge of the average size of shipments being trafficked by dealers along the route followed by the defendant. The agent testified at the sentencing hearing that, based on past experience, “the loads ... that come from El Paso to Oklahoma City ... average between [sixty] and a hundred pounds, and we went with the low end.”
Id.
at 1508 . No evidence was introduced relating the shipments in question to average shipments along the route. Reversing, the court of appeals held that the
average size shipment of all marijuana traffickers is simply not evidence of the size of these particular shipments of marijuana. To find that these particular shipments were of average size is nothing more than a guess.
Id.
at 1509 (citation omitted).
Courts have sometimes rejected estimates by trial judges even while encouraging estimates by witnesses and parties. In
United States v. Sepulveda,
15 F.3d 1161, 1197 (1st Cir.1993),
cert. denied,
— U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2714 , 129 L.Ed.2d 840 (1994), an informant estimated that a defendant had made between fifteen and twenty buys, each of which involved between four ounces and one kilogram of cocaine. The court averaged the number of buys and the size of each buy suggested by the testimony, and multiplied the numbers. Citing
Shonubi II,
998 F.2d at 89-90 , the court rejected this “wholly eonelu-sory” approach.
Id.
[B]y using not one, but two, unsupported averages ... the court compounded the error of its ways. This is, after all, not a case in which a witness testified that, in his or her estimation, “X” equalled the average drug quantity involved in a specific number of drug transactions. That kind of estimate from a lay witness may itself be troublesome, but at least the witness can be cross-examined_
Sepulveda,
15 F.3d at 1199 . Apparently, had the informant said “about 17” instead of “between 15 and 20,” the estimation would have been affirmed.
3. Specific evidence
In
Shonubi II,
the court of appeals called for “specific” — i.e., “direct” — evidence of drug transactions. This recalls the discredited notion that in a murder prosecution, the government must produce the body.
See, e.g.,
Morris,
Corpus Delicti and Circumstantial Evidence,
68 L.Q.Rev. 391 (1952);
Regina v. Onufrejczyk,
1 All.E.R. 247 (Crim.App.1955). The belief that only direct evidence suffices in criminal cases is a shibboleth.
See, e.g., O’Brien v. National Gypsum Co.,
944 F.2d 69 , 72 (2d Cir.1991) (“[I]t is beyond any doubt that circumstantial evidence alone may suffice [at trial].”) (citation omitted);
Holland v. United States,
348 U.S. 121, 139-40 , 75 S.Ct. 127, 137-38 , 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954) (no “circumstantial evidence instruction” is required when the jury is properly instructed on burden of proof). In
Tyler v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.,
958 F.2d 1176, 1183 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied,
— U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992), the court of appeals reviewed the history of the direct-circumstantial distinction, concluding that “[i]f a jury can give equal or greater weight to circumstantial evidence, then
requiring only ‘direct’ evidence
to sustain a ... bur
*479
den of proof
is not only unhelpful, it is baffling.”
958 F.2d at 1184 (emphasis added).
Today, even non-lawyers — for whom trials are becoming daily television fare — understand that circumstantial evidence can be as persuasive and reliable as “direct” proof.
See, e.g., DNA Tests Clear Man of Rape Nearly 8 Years After Conviction,
N.Y. Times, Jan. 31, 1995, at B5 (defendant convicted after victim identified him in police photographs and two lines-ups was released after DNA testing); Daniel Goleman,
Studies Point to Flaws in Lineups of Suspects,
N.Y. Times, Jan. 17, 1995, at C1 (eyewitness errors constitute largest single factor in wrongful convictions, based on review of 1,000 eases).
See also, e.g.,
Edwin Borchard,
Convicting the Innocent
(1932); P. Wall,
Eye-Witness Identification Testimony in Criminal Cases
(1965); Elizabeth F. Loftus,
Eyewitness Testimony,
81 Colum.L.Rev. 441 (1981) (book review).
Perhaps the appellate court, embarrassed either by the Guidelines’ excessive reliance on quantity as a surrogate for culpability or by the low burden of proof required at sentencing,
see supra
Part IVA, believes that a specific or direct evidence requirement offers defendants some necessary protection.
See, e.g.,
Mare Miller & Daniel J. Freed,
The Disproportionate Imprisonment of Low-Level Drug Offenders,
7 Fed.Sent.Rep. 3 (1994) (describing inequities in quantity-based sentencing scheme); Jon O. Newman,
Five Guideline Improvements,
5 Fed.Sent.Rep. 190 (1993) (urging Sentencing Commission to “[a]bandon the current excessive reliance on the drug quantity table”). If so, it has taken a road that leads to less accurate fact-finding with haphazard over- and under-“protection” of defendants. The “specific evidence” rule does not guard against injustice. Instead, it introduces — in the language of the court of appeals — a “baffling” distinction.
The court of 'appeals’ statement that the sentencing judge relied on “surmise and conjecture,”
Shonubi II,
998 F.2d at 90 , is better understood as a statement that the chain of inferences leading to the quantity determination was impermissibly weak, or appeared so as summarized in
Shonubi I.
This memorandum, accordingly, provides a more comprehensive recounting of the sentencing judge’s analysis. The sections that follow contain: 1) a description of the information used — albeit not fully described — in reaching the initial sentencing decision; 2) a statement of the need for further information and analysis after remand; 3) a description of the evidence provided by the parties and 706 Panel on remand; and 4) a discussion of the appropriate uses of that evidence in reaching a decision.
V. Available sources of information
A sentencing judge relies heavily on evidence introduced at trial and post-trial proceedings. Such evidence, however, is not the judge’s only source of information. Common sense, knowledge of criminal behavior and of behavior generally, and real proof (notably, the demeanor of witnesses and parties) are also employed. These will be explored in turn.
A. Background knowledge
Background knowledge — also called common sense — has long been recognized as necessary in evaluating forensic proof.
[W]hen a juryman takes up his office his mind is already ... stocked with a vast number of commonplace generalizations about acts, attitudes, intentions, etc. ... Without this stock of information ... he could understand very little.
L. Jonathan Cohen,
The Probable and the Provable
274-76 (1977);
see also
Michael & Adler,
Real Proof,
5 Vand.L.Rev. 344, 365 (1952);
United States v. Cortez,
449 U.S. 411, 418 , 101 S.Ct. 690, 695 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981) (recognizing that factfinders must reach “commonsense conclusions about human behavior”); David Binder & Paul Bergman,
Fact Investigation
85 (1984) (describing use of generalizations — “vast storehouses of commonly-held notions about how people and objects generally behave” — in drawing inferences from facts); Richard O. Lempert
&
Steven A. Saltzburg,
A Modern Approach to Evidence
990 n. 5 (2d ed. 1982) (“judicial notice” of common experience is an exception to the general requirement that evidence be formally offered and admitted). A judge is, in this respect, no different from a juror,
*480
except perhaps in the quantity and reliability of relevant experience on which he or she can draw and in awareness of possible biases that may require discounting.
B. Knowledge of the drug trade
In this case, the court was aided by its knowledge of the drug trade. “Judges in the district courts in the Second Circuit have had extensive experience with the nuances of the drug trade.”
United States v. Ekwunoh,
813 F.Supp. 168, 178 (E.D.N.Y.1993),
rev’d on other grounds,
12 F.3d 368 (2d Cir.1993);
see also
Reena Raggi,
Local Concerns, Local Insights: Further Reasons for More Flexibility in Guideline Sentencing,
5 Fed.Sent. Rep. 306, 306 (1993) (“[F]ew judges have as broad an experience dealing with drug importation and large-scale distribution as my colleagues in the Eastern District of New York.”). Judges must use this knowledge in reaching decisions.
See, e.g., United States v. Jessup,
757 F.2d 378, 386 (1st Cir.1985) (Breyer, J.) (knowledge of drug trade improves decision-making);
Stein v. New York,
346 U.S. 156, 181 , 73 S.Ct. 1077, 1091 , 97 L.Ed. 1522 (1953) (the “jury and the trial judge—knowing local conditions, close to the scene of events, hearing and observing the witnesses and parties—have ... undeniable advantages over any appellate tribunal”). In this case, on remand, the sentencing judge confirmed his beliefs about the drug trade by consulting with his colleagues on the bench.
See infra
Part X.B.
C. Demeanor
“The tongue of the witness,” it has been said, “is not the only organ for conveying testimony.” Jerome Frank,
Law and the Modern Mind
109 (1931). Given this obvious truth, jury instructions routinely state that consideration of demeanor is not merely permitted, but expected.
Cf. Henriod v. Henriod,
198 Wash. 519, 524-25 , 89 P.2d 222 , 225 (1938) (to watch attitude and demeanor “is not only the right but also the duty of the trier of facts”); 3A
Wigmore on Evidence
§ 946, at 783 (James H. Chadbourn rev. ed. 1970) (demeanor, “without any definite rules as to its significance, is always assumed to be in evidence”); Fed.R.Evid., art. VIII, Advisory Committee’s introductory note (hearsay rule) (“The demeanor of the witness traditionally has been believed to furnish trier ... with valuable clues.”);
NLRB v. Dinion Coil Co.,
201 F.2d 484, 487-90 (2d Cir.1952) (Frank, J.) (recounting the history of “demeanor evidence” from Roman times); Olin Guy Wellborn,
Demeanor,
76 Cornell L.Rev. 1075 (1991) (summarizing social science data relating to potential uses of demeanor).
Demeanor includes facial expressions, body language, and such matters as a defendant’s forcefulness in consulting with an attorney during court proceedings.
See, e.g., United States v. Schipani,
293 F.Supp. 156 (E.D.N.Y.1968) (judge, at a bench trial, confirmed conclusions about susceptibility to coercion by observing and assessing demeanor), af
f'd,
414 F.2d 1262 (2d Cir.1969),
cert. denied,
397 U.S. 922 , 90 S.Ct. 902 , 25 L.Ed.2d 102 (1970). Triers must decide cases on the basis of evidence, which is on the record, interpreted in light of demeanor, which is not.
A judge may consider the demeanor and actions of a person even when that person is not testifying. In
Schipani ,
the defendant whose demeanor influenced the trial judge’s conclusions never took the stand. 293 F.Supp. at 163 . The court of appeals agreed with the district court that “[t]he trier’s observation of the non-witness defendant’s demeanor and general appearance may be—and almost invariably is—considered by him in evaluating evidence introduced at the trial.”
Schipani,
414 F.2d at 1268 . The Supreme Court has also implicitly recognized that triers can rely on non-witness demeanor.
See Stein,
346 U.S. at 181 , 73 S.Ct. at 1091 (noting advantages of “observing the
witnesses and parties
”) (emphasis added);
United States v. Grayson,
438 U.S. 41, 50 , 98 S.Ct. 2610, 2615-16 , 57 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978) (“[O]ne serious study has concluded that the trial judge’s ‘opportunity to observe the defendant, particularly if he chose to take the stand in his defense, can often provide useful insights into an appropriate disposition.’ ” (quoting ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice,
Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures
§ 5.1, at 32 (App. Draft 1968))).
See also
Michael &
*481
Adler,
Real Proof, supra,
at 365 (“Demeanor, whether that of a witness while testifying or of a person who is not giving testimony, is ... a kind of event ... which occurs in the presence of a jury and is sensibly apparent to it. Consequently, such an event need not be offered and cannot be excluded.”).
Cf. United States v. Nichols,
56 F.3d 403, 412-13 (2d Cir.1995) (“We must ... defer to the judgment of the district court, which had the benefit of examining [the defendant] ... that [the defendant had] ... the ability to assist his lawyer in mounting his defense.”).
1. How judges use demeanor
Gauging credibility is the best known application of demeanor. Ironically, this may be one of its least effective uses.
See, e.g.,
Victor Barall, Book Review,
Thanks for the Memories: Criminal Law and the Psychology of Memory,
59 Brook.L.Rev. 1473, 1482 (1994) (“[T]he proverbial sweaty palms and averted gaze may be more indicative of language difficulties, cultural differences in etiquette or stowage than of fabrication.”); Jeremy A. Blumenthal,
A Wipe of the Hands, A Lick of the Lips: The Validity of Demeanor Evidence in Assessing Witness Credibility,
78 Neb.L.Rev. 1157 (1993) (similar).
Cf. Quercia v. United States,
289 U.S. 466 , 53 S.Ct. 698 , 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1933) (reversible error for trial judge to tell jury that wiping hands during testimony “is almost always an indication of lying”).
Other applications of demeanor may produce more reliable results. In
Stein, supra,
the issue before the trial court was whether the defendants’ confessions had been coerced. Demeanor was relevant to the susceptibility of the defendants to coercion. Likewise, in an action for an order of physical protection, no judge would ignore a threatening gesture made by the respondent on his way out of the courtroom. In such situations, behavior in the courtroom properly supports inferences about behavior out of court.
2. Demeanor and appellate review
As Professors Michael and Adler have observed:
In observing ... demeanor and in coming to a conclusion on that demeanor a judge does not use any approved formulas; nor does he practice any art; nor does he proceed in any scientific way. So there is no terminology that he may employ to explain to an appellate court what has taken place.
Michael & Adler,
Real Proof, supra,
at 102. Thus, while demeanor evidence must be used by the trier in evaluating evidence, it is generally unavailable to the court of appeals in reviewing that evaluation. The trial court cannot “transmit” demeanor to the court of appeals. At most, it can attempt to briefly describe that demeanor, and assume that the court of appeals will give its judgments adequate deference. It is desirable at times, for purposes of assisting appellate review, for the judge to describe demeanor that departs from that suggested by the transcript.
The opportunity, which exists in the trial court alone, to observe and assess credibility explains in part the reluctance of appellate courts to overturn findings of fact.
See
Olin Guy Wellborn,
Demeanor,
76 Cornell L.Rev. 1075, 1077 (1991) (“The opportunity of the trier to observe the demeanor of the witnesses is a principal basis for the deference accorded by reviewing courts to factual determinations of trial courts....”);
see also United States v. Pfeiffer,
No. 94-1331, at 2, 50 F.3d 3 (2d Cir. Feb. 23, 1995) (unpublished) (“[D]eference is owed to the district court’s determinations with respect to competence when they are based on observation of the defendant during the proceedings.”). Since appellate courts cannot withhold “permission” to consider demeanor, they must allow for the existence of factors not discernible from the written record.
D. Assumptions about criminal behavior
Every sentencing judge receives daily instruction in criminology. He or she generally takes from this continuing education the strong belief that many criminals lack flexibility. Some will repeat the same crime, in the same way, until caught. Criminologists have long noted this tendency.
See, e.g.,
Arnold Miles,
How Criminals Are Caught
32 (1940) (tendency to form habits well-known
*482
to police); Charles E. O’Hara,
Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation 597
(1970) (criminals are “loath to alter ... operational procedure”). This propensity to repeat criminal conduct combines two distinct phenomena. First, criminals, like many others, are creatures of “habit.”
See generally,
Don C. Gibbons,
Society, Crime, and Criminal Careers: An Introduction to Criminology
(1973). Second, criminals, like rational businesspeople, tend to adhere to methods that have worked.
See
Mark Moore, “The Pusher As a Rational Business Man,”
in Crime in Society
716, 741 (Leonard D. Savitz & Norman Johnston eds., 1978) (describing criminals as choosing “portfolios of tactics” that maximize profits); C. Peter Rydell & Susan S. Everingham,
Controlling Cocaine: Supply Versus Demand Programs
59 (Report of Rand Drug Policy Research Center, 1994) (“[Suppliers have learned how to run their business more efficiently over time.”).
See also
discussion of economies of smuggling in Part X.C,
infra.
The inflexibility of many criminals was described by Wigmore.
See, e.g.,
J.H. Wigmore,
The Principles of Judicial Proof or the Process of Proof as Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience
161 (2d ed. 1931) (“It is now well known to detective police officials that professional criminals tend to limit their misdeeds to special kinds and methods. In short, they develop a
habit
with respect to the crime”) (emphasis in original);
id.
at 161 n. 1 (“[This] fact has of course been known ever since the institution of organized police.”). Such observations underlie Federal Rule of Evidence 404, which permits introduction of evidence of prior acts for a number of purposes, including identity — that is, the likelihood that a crime was committed by a defendant known to have committed a similar crime in a similar manner in the past.
The reverse inference — that a defendant known to have committed previous crimes used the same method of operation on each occasion — is permissible in some cases. Every decision by a court allowing the introduction of evidence of prior crimes is an endorsement of the theory that criminals develop routine methods of operation.
See, e.g., People v. Peete,
28 Cal.2d 306 , 169 P.2d 924 ,
cert. denied,
329 U.S. 790 , 67 S.Ct. 356 , 91 L.Ed. 677 (1946) (strikingly similar murders committed 20 years apart);
id.,
28 Cal.2d at 328 , 169 P.2d 924 (Carter, J., dissenting) (arguing, unconvincingly, that the defendant would not have used the same “m.o.” that resulted in earlier arrest). Assumptions about modus operandi underlie much of the work of law enforcement and judicial personnel.
VI. How decision-makers learn and decide
A. Inferences based on prior information and training
Recently, Judge Frank M. Coffin applauded another judge’s “candid recognition of the judge’s ‘hunch’ ... [,] that intuitive flash of understanding which makes the jump spark connection between question and decision.” Frank M. Coffin,
Judging Books,
A.B.A. Judge’s J., Spring 1994, at 47 (reviewing Edward F. Hennessey,
Judges Making Law
(1994) (quoting Joseph Hutcheson,
The Judgment Intuitive: The Function of the “Hunch” in Judicial Decision,
14 Cornell L.Q. 274, 278 (1929))). What is sometimes called a hunch is an important part of judging — given the need to reach initial determinations quickly.
See
1A
Wigmore on Evidence
§ 25, at 955-56 (Peter Tillers rev. ed. 1983) (time constraints make judging as much art as science). A trial judge’s “hunch” is generally based on the evidence and experience, albeit with the inferential chain unstated. As Justice Holmes recognized, “[m]any honest and sensible judgements ... express an intuition of experience which outruns analysis and sums up many unnamed and tangled impressions, ... which may be beneath consciousness without losing their worth.”
Chicago, B & Q Ry. v. Babcock,
204 U.S. 585, 598 , 27 S.Ct. 326, 329 , 51 L.Ed. 636 (1907);
see also
Oliver W. Holmes, Book Review, 5 Am.L.Rev. 539, 540 (1871), reprinted in
Holmes Uncollected Papers
90 (Shiver ed. 1936) (“[Jjudges know how to decide a good deal sooner than they know why.”). Thus a hunch, when its underlying assump
*483
tions are examined and articulated, may be validated as a sound conclusion. As Justice Shientag observed 50 years ago:
During the course of a trial or the argument of a motion or an appeal, there is a constant interplay of intelligence, sensibility and intuition. When at the conclusion of a trial or argument the judge has what is called a “first impression,” that may be the result of quick reasoning by a disciplined mind; it may be an inference made so rapidly as to be almost instantaneous; it may be an intuition, depending for its strength on the background of learning and experience behind it; it may be shrewd, native horse sense; or it may be little more than a guess. The conscientious judge checks up his first impressions.
Bernard L. Shientag,
The Personality of the Judge
74 (1944). Justice Shientag concluded:
[T]he term “judicial hunch” ... is misleading. ... The use of that term tends to underestimate the logical quality of the judge’s thought and judgment_ Properly used and understood, it is a great aid to reflective reasoning, and instead of merely giving the judge an easy way out of his difficulty, it adds clarity and strength and validity to the conclusion he finally reaches.
Id.
at 73-74.
B. Methods of reaching conclusions
In using available information to arrive at an estimate of the probability that a material proposition is true, a judge may employ a number of analytic methods. Several are described below. None in itself fully explains how the mind of the trier works in any case. Each, however, provides a useful partial view.
1. Classical step-by-step analysis
A trier’s conclusion — whether presented as the “hunch” or elucidated in a full opinion— utilizes observed evidence, draws inferences from that evidence based upon hypotheses predicated upon knowledge of the world (or supplied by experts), and results in an informed decision. Wherever practicable, a conclusion should be tested and explained.
See, e.g.,
John H. Mansfield, Norman Abrams, Margaret E. Berger, et al.,
Cases and Materials on Evidence,
ch. 1 (8th ed. 1988); James Bradley Thayer,
Select Cases on Evidence at the Common Law
(1892); Edward M. Morgan, John M. Maguire, et al.,
Cases and Materials on Evidence
(4th ed. 1957); John M. Maguire, James H. Chadbourn, et al., Cases
and Materials on Evidence
(6th ed. 1973). In the language of classical forensic analysis, a line of proof necessarily consists of a series of minor and major premises and conclusions — a sequence of inferential steps ending in an estimate of the probability of a material (ultimate) fact.
See, e.g.,
Jerome Michael & Mortimer Adler,
The Nature of Judicial Proof
(Colum.L.School 1931); 1A
Wigmore on Evidence
§ 37.3, at 1026-30 (Peter Tillers rev. ed. 1983); Jerome Michael & Mortimer Adler,
The Trial of an Issue of Fact: I and II,
34 Colum.L.Rev. 1224, 1252, 1462 (1934).
Except when provided by experts, major premises, or hypotheses, are generally based on background knowledge, which will vary from trier to trier.
See, e.g.,
Peter Tillers,
Webs of Things in the Mind: A New Science of Evidence,
87 Mich.L.Rev. 1225, 1226 (1989) (“[TJheory of relevancy and inference ... put[s] great emphasis on the role of experience and on generalizations based on experience.”).
The classical analysis of scholars such as Michael and Adler relies on a series of inferential steps, each utilizing a probans, a hypothesis, and a probandum to prove or disprove a material proposition. The analysis employs the following terminology:
Material proposition:
Statement about a matter of fact which is a specific example falling within the general class which is one of the elements of the applicable rule of law.
Evidence:
Perceptive objects — e.g., persons, things and events presented to the senses of the tribunal; all evidence must be perceived through senses.
Probandum:
Proposition being proved; if ultimate, a material proposition.
*484
Probans:
Proposition being used to prove another; if ultimate, an immediate proposition (i.e., based on sense impression with minimal inference).
Evidentiary hypothesis:
General proposition employed as a pro-bans.
Step of proof:
A syllogism containing a probandum, an evidentiary hypothesis, and a probans.
Line of proof:
Series of steps of proof ... ending in a material proposition.
Syllogism:
Minor premise (probans) — > Major premise (general proposition, evidential hypothesis) — > Conclusion (probandum).
John H. Mansfield, Norman Abrams, Margaret Berger, et al.,
Cases and Materials on Evidence
10 (7th ed., 1983) (with minor alterations);
see also id.
at 11 (illustrative diagram); Jerome Michael & Mortimer Adler,
The Nature of Judicial Proof
(1931); Jerome Michael & Mortimer Adler,
The Trial of an Issue of Fact,
34 Colum.L.Rev. 1224, 1252 (1934) (using diagram for analysis); John Henry Wigmore,
The Principles of Judicial Proof
(2d ed. 1931).
Once it is established that a defendant made prior smuggling trips, as in this case, an intermediate probans could be: “The defendant smuggled drugs internally on trip number X.” The evidentiary hypothesis could be: “A drug smuggler carries as much as he can on each trip.” The probandum: “The defendant smuggled as much as he could on trip X.”
The next step would start with the proban-dum of the prior step as a probans. The evidentiary hypothesis here could be: “The defendant has demonstrated a capacity to swallow and deliver Y grams of heroin.” The conclusion or probandum would be: “On X trip, the defendant smuggled Y grams.” The material proposition under the Guidelines would constitute a summation of trips: i.e., Yi + Y2 + ... Y3. Since under that theory of the case the amounts are the same on each trip, the total would be 8Y. The validity of this analysis would depend upon the probability that the hypothesis that a smuggler carries the maximum possible amount on each trip reflects the real world situation. It also assumes that his capacity does not vary appreciably from trip to trip — i.e., that there is no learning curve (the “trip effect” discussed by the experts in Part X.A,
infra).
2. Bayesian and statistical analysis
A judge, in the position of factfinder, enters the courtroom in much the same position as a juror. Early on, he or she may form an opinion of the likelihood that a proposition is true. This perceived likelihood then rises and falls as each item of evidence is introduced. Despite admonitions not to “decide” until all of the evidence is in, triers tend to keep a running estimate of probabilities.
As Professor David Schum has noted:
[T]he structure of arguments we make from evidence [has] to undergo revision if we are to keep abreast of recognized changes in the world. Structural revisions ... involve changes in our hypotheses or possible conclusions, changes in our assumptions, premises and generalizations, and, of course, changes in the amount and kind of evidence we obtain.
1 David Schum,
Evidence and Inference for the Intelligence Analyst
318 (1987),
quoted in
Peter Tillers,
Webs of Things in the Mind: A New Science of Evidence,
87 Mich.L.Rev. 1225, 1250 (1989).
Bayes’ Theorem is useful in describing this dynamic process. Analysis begins with a “subjective probability” — the factfinder’s “opening” estimate of the likelihood of the end proposition. After each item of proof is introduced, this “subjective probability” is recalculated based on the degree to which the new evidence supports or contradicts the proposition to be proven. This recalculated probability is then treated as a “prior” assessment in processing a further item of proof, and so on. The calculation is repeated over and over, until all the items in a line of proof have been considered. The end result of all these calculations is called a “posterior probability” — a judgment accounting for each successive element of proof.
See
David H. Kaye, “What is Bayesianism?,”
in Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence:
*485
The Uses and Limits of Bayesianism
1 (Peter Tillers & Eric D. Green eds. 1988); Federal Judicial Center,
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence
386-87 (1994); Brian Skyrms,
Choice and Chance: An Introduction to Inductive Logic
(3d ed. 1986); Michael O. Finkelstein,
Quantitative Methods in Law
87 (1978) (describing utility of Bayesian analysis in combining quantitative assessment with intuitive assessment of probabilities).
Building on the work of Professor Leonard Savage, who demonstrated that the rules of probability could be applied to “personal” or “subjective” judgments, Professor Michael Finkelstein and others have favored use of Bayesianism in legal decision-making.
See
Leonard J. Savage,
The Foundations of Statistics
(1st ed. 1954); Michael O. Finkelstein & William B. Fairley,
A Bayesian Approach to Identification Evidence,
83 Harv.L.Rev. 489 (1970) (advocating use of Bayes’ Theorem in jury trials). They have convinced much of the current generation of evidence scholars that Bayes’ Theorem provides a helpful description of appropriate legal fact-finding techniques.
See, e.g.,
Ward Edwards, Comment,
The Society of Bayesian Trial Lawyers,
66 B.U.L.Rev. 937, 937 (1986) (Bayesian theory is “orthodoxy” among evidence professors); David H. Kaye,
Apples & Oranges: Confidence Coefficients and the Burden of Persuasion,
73 Cornell L.Rev. 54, 54 (1987) (Bayesianism is “reigning theory”);
see also The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts
193 (Report of the Panel on Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts) (Stephen E. Fienberg ed., 1989) (arguing that Bayesian analysis comports with the assumptions underlying Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence).
These ideas have traveled from the university to the courtroom as judges have observed that, among academicians, “Bayes’ Theorem ... is practically universally accepted as valid.”
State v. Spann,
130 N.J. 484, 505 , 617 A.2d 247 (N.J.1993) (applying Bayesian analysis to paternity determination);
see also State v. Klindt,
389 N.W.2d 670 (Iowa 1986) (statistical evidence properly used, in conjunction with non-statistical evidence, to prove identity of mutilated body).
But see State v. Skipper,
228 Conn. 610 , 637 A.2d 1101 (1994) (criticizing application of Bayes’ Theorem in paternity hearing), discussed in Ronald J. Allen et al.,
Probability and Proof in State v. Skipper. An Internet Exchange,
35 Jurimetrics Journal 277 (1995).
The problem for the courts is not so much whether this type of analysis is valid, but how to make it comprehensible to the trier.
See, e.g.,
Ronald J. Allen et al.,
An Internet Exchange, supra,
at 277. Research on the utility of explicit Bayesianism in jury trials remains “in an incunabular phase.” D.H. Kaye & Jonathan J. Koehler,
Can Jurors Understand Probabilistic Evidence?,
154 J. Royal Stat.Soc’y (A), 75, 80 (1991).
Professors Finkelstein and Fairley wisely advocate the application of Bayes’ Theorem primarily to cases in which a probability assessment based on non-mathematical evidence is modified by the later introduction of explicitly quantitative proof. In fact, they have argued that Bayes’ Theorem is most useful where statistical evidence is “added to the mix” after “particularistic” evidence has already been considered. In such situations, they believe, “Bayesian analysis would demonstrate that the evidentiary weight of an impressive figure like one in a thousand— which might otherwise exercise an undue influence — would depend on the other evidence in the case, and might well be relatively insignificant if the prior suspicion were sufficiently weak.” Finkelstein
&
Fairley,
supra,
at 514. If, by contrast, the probability of guilt based on the initial, non-statistical evidence is high,
jurors may be surprised at the strength of the inference of guilt flowing from the combination of their prior suspicions and the statistical evidence. But this, if the suspicions are correctly estimated, is no more than the evidence deserves.
Id.
It is possible to accept the validity of Bayes’ Theorem as a guide to, and description of, decision-making, without attempting the complex calculations literal application of the Theorem would require. Bayes’ Theorem is useful, even without quantification, to explain how triers think.
Cf.
Allen,
Burdens of Proof, supra,
at 642 (“Bayes’ Theorem [is]
*486
the best available explanation of reasoning under the conditions at trial, but it imposes impossible computational demands.”); Cohen,
Response, supra,
at 91, 95 (Bayesian concepts should be used “heuristieally”; focus should be “on the conceptualization rather than the mathematics of legal decision-making”). As utilized subconsciously by laypersons — or even consciously by judges — to structure their decision-making, Bayes’ Theorem is often not a mathematical formula but a heuristic device.
Cf.
John Maynard Smith,
Life at the Edge of Chaos?,
N.Y. Rev. Books, Mar. 2, 1995, at 28 (proposing use of “dynamics,” Darwinian theory requiring computation, in “loose and metaphorical sense”).
Professor Neil Cohen has developed a Bayesian gloss on confidence intervals as used by statisticians. He suggests that at least some judicial decision-making involves more than determining the most likely probability that an event has occurred.
See
Neil B. Cohen,
Confidence in Probability: Burdens of Persuasion in a World of Imperfect Knowledge,
60 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 385 (1985). For example, in a preponderance setting, according to Professor Cohen, “[n]ot only must factfinders determine that their best estimate of the probability in question exceeds the threshold level — 0.5 ... — but they also must have a certain level of confidence that the true probability, based on all possible evidence, exceeds that threshold.”
Id.
at 399;
see, e.g., DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
911 F.2d 941 , 948 (3d Cir.1990) (proposing use of confidence intervals, as indicative of the “risks inherent” in decision-making), cer
t. denied,
— U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 691 , 126 L.Ed.2d 658 (1994);
DeLuca,
911 F.2d at 959 n. 24 (discussing relationship of confidence intervals to burden of proof). In
O’Neal v. McAninch,
— U.S. -, -, 115 S.Ct. 992, 994 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995), the Supreme Court discussed the proper disposition of habeas cases in which the reviewing court is left in “grave doubt” about whether an error was harmless. The Court’s analysis suggests that this doubt is not the knife-edge of equipoise, but a “band” or interval of uncertainty.
Professor Cohen’s theory of “confidence intervals” may be useful in understanding decision-making in cases where a range of values rather than a precise figure is required, such as the
Manville
asbestos case,
In re Joint E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig. (Findley v. Falise),
878 F.Supp. 473, 490 (E. & S.D.N.Y.1995) (discussing problem of projecting future claims), or Guidelines sentencing cases requiring estimation. However, some statisticians take issue with Cohen’s linking of Bayesianism and the concept of “confidence intervals”.
Cf.
Letter from Professor D.H. Kaye 2 (Apr. 30, 1995) (on file in the instant case) (disputing propriety of Bayesian interpretation of frequentist confidence intervals as used by statisticians).
Although Professor Cohen’s article on confidence intervals prompted a heated response from Professor Kaye,
see Apples & Oranges, supra,
their disagreement does not diminish the value to triers of their work.
See
Neil B. Cohen,
Conceptualizing Proof and Calculating Probabilities: A Response to Professor Kaye,
73 Cornell L.Rev. 78, 81, 86 (1987) (acknowledging common ground); Kaye,
Apples & Oranges, supra,
at 77 (same). Professor Cohen’s belief that a court must sometimes find not only a “point probability,” but a range of most likely probabilities, the
lower
limit of which must satisfy the relevant burden of proof, is consistent with the trier’s obligation to maintain an oscillating doubt in tension and to appreciate the range of possible conclusions about a given set of facts.
3. Biases
A great deal of research has been done on how people think, remember, reason, and come to conclusions. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman have offered descriptions of systemic biases in human decision-making.
See, e.g.,
Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman,
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,
185 Science 1124 (1974). While their work needs to be applied with some skepticism in the courtroom setting, they do identify a number of common biases, including “availability” (the tendency to assess the frequency of an event based on the ease with which occurrences can be brought to mind) and “anchoring” (the tendency to stick too closely to initial estimates of probability, after contrary evidence has been introduced).
*487
Professors Tversky and Kahneman suggest that these “biases are not restricted to laymen,” but affect professional decision-makers as well.
Id.
at 1180. Factfinders who are aware of such biases can, they suggest, make valuable efforts at correction.
Id.
Given the complexity of analysis in even the simplest cases, rational analysis of every strand of evidence is almost never possible. As Professor Richard Friedman points out: [W]e naturally batch hypotheses, [as] a way to make the problem intellectually tractable and the demand for information economically feasible....
Ronald J. Allen et al.,
An Internet Exchange, supra,
at 295 (citing Richard Friedman,
Infinite Strands, Infinitesimally Thin: Storytelling, Bayesianism, Hearsay and Other Evidence,
14 Cardozo L.Rev. 79 (1992)).
See also,
Norman Davies,
The Misunderstood Victory in Europe,
N.Y.Rev. Books 7, 8 (May 25,1995) (“It’s generally understood ... that we can only conceive of human activities by using collective names and stereotypes.... Without collective names, we could not process the otherwise unmanageable material.”).
Building partly on the work of Professors Tversky and Kahneman, Professors Michael J. Saks and Robert F. Kidd have assessed the role of heuristic biases in forensic decision-making.
See
Michael J. Saks & Robert F. Kidd,
Human Information Processing and Adjudication: Trial by Heuristics,
15 Law & Soc’y Rev. 128 (1980-1981). In recognizing the fallibility of human fact-finders, they note:
[I]n many areas, decision aids [can be] developed to compensate for the fact that “... man’s cognitive capacities are not adequate for the tasks which confront him.” These aids range from the advice to engage in explicit calculation of probabilities, to decision analysis, to human/machine systems. We hope it is not unduly optimistic to suppose that the law could be another area in which less than reliable, less than accurate decision making can be identified and corrective strategies developed.
Id.
at 134.
Trying to understand and correct for the biases of decision-makers is an essential part of trial practice.
See, e.g.,
Donald E. Vinson,
Jury Persuasion: Psychological Strategies & Trial Techniques
(1993); Donald E. Vinson,
Jury Trials: The Psychology of Winning Strategy
(1986). Dr. Vinson, echoing the language of Professors Tversky and Kahneman, observes that jurors tend to be swayed by
relatively small numbers of
anchoring
ideas which they use to form their own understanding of a case. These ideas can be legal points, but they are often psychological or emotional issues which may not be immediately evident from a legal standpoint.
Id.
at xiii (emphasis added).
Judges are subject to the same biases as jurors. Unlike jurors, however, judges tend to explain their decisions. Explanation, in turn, encourages analysis and efforts at bias correction. Biases cannot be ignored; rather, “fairness must take into account, and correct for, the judge’s sympathies and background.” Essay,
Limits on Judges’ Learning, Speaking, and Acting: Part II Speaking and Part III Acting,
20 U.Dayton L.Rev. 1, 5 (1994).
4. Storytelling
One standard heuristic device is the tendency to weave discrete facts into stories that “explain” evidentiary data in light of the trier’s background knowledge. “[F]act-finders ... make ‘holistic’ judgments — they are persuaded by stories_ From that premise, some holists have argued that atomistic [presentations are] not only wasteful but ... counterproductive.” Terence Anderson & William Twining,
Analysis of Evidence
168 (1991);
cf.
James L. Kainer,
The Rationalist Tradition at Trial,
60 Fordham L.Rev. 1085, 1085 (1992) (distinguishing between “narrative holists” and “logical atomists”) (reviewing Anderson & Twining, supra); Peter Tillers,
Mapping Inferential Domains,
66 B.U.L.Rev. 883 (1986); James S. Liebman, “Relevance and Scientific Proof Revisited: Probabilistic Proof and Decisionmaking,”
in Second Supplement: The Rules of Evidence 5
(Fall 1994 course materials, Columbia University); James S. Liebman, “Psychological Perspectives on Lay Factfinding Under Con
*488
ditions of Uncertainty: Heuristics and Holisties,”
in Second Supplement, supra,
at 236. This tendency influences trial practice. See Allen,
Burdens of Proof, supra,
at 642-43 (arguing that advocates prove stories, not facts, and that the preponderance standard “simply refers to which [story] is more plausible”); Michael E. Tigar,
Examining Witnesses
5 (1993) (“[JJudges and jurors ... understand and restate events in terms of stories. If pieces are missing, they will fill in the gaps based on intuition.”).
In light of this inevitable tendency, lawyers are advised not to present items of proof that are “logically inconsistent with the [story].” Anderson & Twining,
supra,
at 166;
see also
James W. McElhaney,
Putting the Case Together,
A.B.A.J., March 1995, at 81, 85 (urging litigators to “[p]lan your story line”). Thus the danger is not only that decision-makers will ignore facts that do not fit their “story,” but that advocates will fail to present those facts in the first instance. Nevertheless, bias in favor of coherent stories can be helpful to the trier in reconciling disparate facts with his or her own experience. The judge, no less than the juror, properly seeks a coherent story.
One way to minimize bias is to attempt to analyze the same problem using both statistical and non-statistical techniques. For example, “[i]t is nearly always instructive for decision makers to compare their subjective impressions to data objectively summarizing the actual events they are deciding about.” Saks & Kidd,
supra,
at 139;
see also
Barbara D. Underwood,
Law and the Crystal Ball: Predicting Behavior with Statistical Inference and Individualized Judgment,
88 Yale L.J. 1408 , 1432 (1979) (describing differences between “clinical,” i.e. individual, and statistical modes of decision-making, and the biases that accompany each). As the Panel on Statistical Assessment as Evidence in the Courts has noted, the vividness of anecdotal evidence may outweigh statistical evidence in some situations, the specificity of statistical evidence may outweigh anecdotal evidence in other situations, and “[b]oth possibilities may occur ... within the context of a single case.”
The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts
154 (Report of the Panel on Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts) (Stephen E. Fienberg ed., 1989). Applying both statistical and other forms of reasoning in one case can permit cross-checking and correction. The advantages of cross-checking in this case will be re-examined in Part XII.E,
infra,
after the available statistical material has been described in greater detail.
VII. Application of Law to Facts on Original Sentence
A. Evidence from trial
Evidence introduced at trial established that the defendant made eight heroin smuggling trips from Nigeria to the United States; the court of appeals found that these trips were “amply prove[n]”.
Shonubi I,
998 F.2d at 89 .
That the defendant is capable of carrying 103 balloons, containing approximately 430 grams of heroin, in his digestive tract for more than a day was also proven to the satisfaction of the court. (The jury was not required to make a quantity determination in finding the defendant guilty.)
It is also clear that Shonubi is not averse to using false documents and telling lies both in and out of court in an attempt to conceal his unlawful activities. The predisposition of the defendant — a mature person, set in his ways — to he is unlikely to have appreciably changed between his first and final trips. Yet the connection between perjury and other criminal conduct varies from case to case; not every criminal lies under oath and not every liar is a criminal. The continuing controversy regarding Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence illustrates the doubt surrounding this “perjury therefore criminality” hypothesis.
See West’s Federal Criminal Code and Rules
247-51 (notes following Fed. R.Evid. 609) (West 1993); Margaret A. Berger et al.,
Evidence,
1990 Amendment, 1987 Amendment, Initial Congressional Action, ¶¶ 609[01]-609[04] (1994). Invocations of the perjury hypothesis require skepticism by the trier.
But cf.
Samuel Yochelson & Stanton E. Samenow,
The Criminal Personality
348 (1975) (describing habitual lying as concomitant of criminal behavior); Jeremy A. Blu-
*489
menthal,
Demeanor Evidence,
72 Neb.L.Rev. 1157, 1167 (1993) (“[A] defendant’s ‘truthfulness or mendacity while testifying on his behalf ... [is] probative of his attitudes toward society.’”)
(quoting United States v. Grayson,
438 U.S. 41, 50 , 98 S.Ct. 2610, 2616 , 57 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978)) (alterations supplied).
In the instant case the defendant’s particular form of perjury suggests persistence, rigidity, and stoicism. These qualities, in turn, support an inference of uniform criminal conduct—in this case, the smuggling of the largest amount he believed he was capable of carrying on every trip. See discussion in Part VII.B,
infra.
B. Demeanor and character
Both the trial and post-conviction proceedings provided the court with a clear view of the defendant’s demeanor. His decision to go to trial, his control of the defense through forceful conversations with his attorney, and his insistence on taking the stand—despite his counsel’s admonitions—revealed an extremely low level of risk aversion and an overconfidence in his own powers. It is not inappropriate to infer from these observations, which the sentencing judge could not have failed to make, that the defendant was reckless in other situations.
Carrying heroin internally is a highly risky endeavor.
See United States v. Gonzalez-Rincon,
36 F.3d 859 (9th Cir.1994) (Kozinski, J., concurring) (“[T]he containers in which drugs are carried are not foolproof; packages have been known to rupture or leak, severely intoxicating or killing the carrier.”),
cert. denied,
- U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1323 , 131 L.Ed.2d 203 (1995); Punit S. Ramrakha & Ian Burton,
Drug Smuggler’s Delirium: Suspect Cocaine Intoxication in Travellers With High Fever and a Bizarre Mental State,
306 Brit.Med.J. 470 (1993); Sue Leeman,
Many Nigerian Women Pay With Lives in Tricky British Drug Traffic,
L.A. Times, Feb. 7, 1993, at A24. The risk of a burst balloon increases with the number of balloons swallowed.
Individuals’ risk-aversion has a significant effect on their behavior.
See, e.g.,
Louis Kaplow,
Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis,
42 Duke L.J. 557 , 605 (Dec.1992) (describing risk aversion); Peter Reuter, Robert MacCoun & Patrick Murphy,
Money from Crime: A Study of the Economics of Drug Dealing in Washington, D.C.
111 (1990) (describing importance of risk-taking in facilitating the drug trade). Observations about the defendant’s attitude toward risk permit inferences about his activities as a smuggler.
Similarly, observations about the defendant’s consistency of behavior permit inferences about his criminal conduct. The views of commentators on the appropriate uses of “prior-act” evidence in criminal cases support this view.
See
Edward J. Imwinkelried,
Undertaking the Task of Reforming the American Character Evidence Prohibition: The Importance of Getting the Experiment Off on the Right Foot,
22 Fordham Urban L.J. 285, 286-87 (1995) (drive to revise the American character evidence doctrine has been “fueled,” in part, by theory of “interactionism,” which holds that a person’s known behavior can be used to “forecast ... [his] behavior in analogous settings”);
see also
Susan Marlene Davies,
Evidence of Character to Prove Conduct: A Reassessment of Relevancy,
27 Crim.L.Bull. 504, 516-17 (1991) (concluding, from social science literature, that even “[t]he most outspoken critic of trait theory has conceded that traits exist and that trait theorists
‘can
predict many things about people at levels of confidence that are reasonable for various goals and purposes’”) (emphasis in original). These views are reflected in the “inclusionary approach” to the admission of prior-act evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. “Under the ‘inclusionary’ approach [of the Second Circuit] ..., ‘evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible for
any
purpose other than to show a defendant’s criminal propensity.’ ”
United States v. Lasanta,
978 F.2d 1300 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting
United States v. Brennan,
798 F.2d 581, 589 (2d Cir.1986) (emphasis added),
cert. denied,
490 U.S. 1022 , 109 S.Ct. 1750 , 104 L.Ed.2d 187 (1989)).
See also United States v. Gelzer,
50 F.3d 1133, 1139 (2d Cir.1995) (“Rule 404(b) does not bar all ‘other crime’ evidence; it bars [such evidence] only to prove the propensity to commit the crime charged”).
*490
See
Fed.R.Evid. 404 and notes following the Rule,
West’s Federal Criminal Code and Rules
227-29 (West 1993); Margaret A. Berger et al.,
Evidence,
¶¶ 404[04], 404[08]-404[18] (1994). Such purposes commonly include knowledge, ability, and motive. Here, information about Shonubi’s eighth trip is evidence of knowledge (of swallowing techniques), ability (to perform those techniques), and motive (to maximize the economic benefits of each smuggling trip).
The sentencing judge has no alternative in sentencing but to try to assess the defendant’s character and danger to society based on all available information, including in-court observation. The ability to observe the defendant at trial and during argument of motions and at sentence over a period of days or weeks is useful, so long as the trier is careful not to overstate his or her limited capacity to predict the character of another person in the artificial courtroom setting. In this case, observations of the defendant supported the sentencing judge’s conclusion that, given Shonubi’s ability and character and the nature of the drug trade, he would have carried some 430 grams, or close to it, on each of his smuggling trips.
C. Knowledge of the drug trade: the trip effect
The defense has argued that, as a general proposition, amounts of heroin found on smugglers who are caught are greater than amounts usually carried. Several theories are advanced by the defense for why this might be true.
One theory is that the more a smuggler has swallowed, the more likely that smuggler is to be caught. If true, this would mean that seized quantities are greater, on average, than quantities that evade detection, and that the Customs Service data would, therefore, overstate average quantities carried. No available information supports this conclusion, nor does it comport with the sentencing judge’s observations. Neither Shonubi nor any other defendant who has come before the court has shown outward signs of internal heroin smuggling at the time he or she was arrested. There is also no reason to conclude that swallowers of large quantities tend to look more nervous than swallowers of small amounts.
A theory put forward by both the defense and the 706 Panel (see
infra
Part X.A.3) and worthy of more credence is that there is a learning curve—that smugglers adjust to carrying larger amounts of heroin on each successive trip. The underlying assumptions would be that swallowers carry only the amount of heroin they are comfortable carrying, and that the quantity they can comfortably carry increases over time.
It seems highly improbable that smugglers carry only the amount of heroin they are comfortable carrying. Who would be “comfortable” holding any number of heroin-filled condoms in his or her body, given the associated dangers? More likely, smugglers carry the amount their associates tell them it is possible to carry. That they have associates is clear. Even assuming Shonubi was working for himself—that is, assuming his testimony that he owned the heroin was true—he could not have operated without substantial assistance in the Nigerian heroin network. Although, according to some reports, 80 percent of the heroin seized at John F. Kennedy Airport in recent years has passed through Lagos, Nigeria, none of it was produced there.
See
Scott Kraft,
A Gaping Gateway for Drugs: Corruptions and Lax Security Make Nigeria One of the World’s Top Transit Points for Cocaine and Heroin; Nightly, Couriers Fly off With Illegal Stashes—Many Bound for the United States,
L.A. Times, Feb. 17, 1994, at Al (describing shipment of heroin from the Far East to Lagos, and then from Lagos to the United States); United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
A National Report: Drugs, Crime, and the Justice System
48 (1992) (describing Nigeria’s role as “transshipment location”).
It is highly unlikely that any smuggler can prepare to cross the Atlantic Ocean with large amounts of heroin in his digestive tract without assistance. The task of swallowing involves substantial preparation. First, the heroin must be purchased from underworld connections. Second, balloons must be filled and sealed in a way that minimizes air con
*491
tent; otherwise, they will expand during the plane’s ascent. Third, the balloons must be cleaned before swallowing, lest the small amounts of heroin spilled on the outside enter the swallower’s system. Fourth, the swallower must ingest the balloons, which may entail coating the stomach (with an ulcer medication) and the esophagus (with jelly). Suzanne Bilello
&
Adam Z. Horvath,
‘It’s a Risky Business’; Drug ‘Mules’ Desperate for Cash Endanger Their Lives,
Newsday, Feb. 19, 1990, at 3 (describing swallowing techniques). Fifth, the smuggler must make his way to the airport, and onto the plane, without giving himself away. Since he cannot know exactly how many hours will elapse before he arrives in New York, he will want to swallow as close to boarding as practicable; this may require helpers, including, conceivably, airline and customs employees, in expediting movement through the airport. In this regard, it may be relevant that Sho-nubi was found with the name of a Nigerian customs official in his pocket. Each of these steps will require the assistance of others familiar with smuggling procedures.
A smuggler who is preparing for his or her first trip will be instructed and most likely controlled by experienced people. It is their institutional memory, skills, and practice, not the swallower’s comfort, that dictates how much he or she will carry.
Cf.
Nicholas Dorn, Karim Murji & Nigel South,
Traffickers: Drug Markets and Law Enforcement
47 (1993) (describing hierarchical, commercially organized trafficking operations); Edwin H. Sutherland & Donald R. Cressey,
Criminology
275 (1970) (describing tendency of criminals to share knowledge). If, in fact, it is difficult for a potential smuggler to swallow 103 balloons on the first try, there may be extensive practice sessions over a period of days. As one investigative reporter observed:
[d]rug bosses wrap little balls of heroin in condoms and feed 80 to 100 of them to each courier, often washed down with a thick green okra soup. Arrested couriers have told of pre-flight training sessions in which recruits were given oversized grapes to swallow.
Those who gagged were rejected.
Joseph B. Treaster,
Nigerian Connection Floods U.S. Airports With Asian Heroin,
N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1992 at 1 (emphasis added);
see also
Bilello & Horvath,
supra.
These accounts not only suggest that smugglers learn to carry large amounts
before
they take their first trip, but also that those who cannot quickly learn to swallow large amounts will not be useful in the drug trade. The supply of willing swallowers far outstrips demand.
See, e.g., United States v. Ekwunoh,
813 F.Supp. 168, 178-79 (E.D.N.Y.1993) (describing lack of deterrent effect of U.S. drugs laws because of vast supply of willing smugglers),
rev’d on other grounds,
12 F.3d 368 (2d Cir.1993); Bilello & Horvath,
supra,
at 3 (in Nigeria, which is “increasingly filled with people out of work and often desperate to get to America, there has been no shortage of people willing to take the risk of being caught — or killed”); Donal Conaty,
Plight of the ‘Drug Mules,’
Irish Times, Nov. 25, 1992, at 13 (to mules, payment represents “a small fortune”);
see also
Jessica C. Vapnek,
Portrait: The Ghanaian Drug Smuggler,
The Accra Weekly Advertiser, Mar. 7, 1994, at 10 (describing impotence of smugglers in dealings with drug kingpins).
The defense theory that the economics of heroin smuggling create an incentive for smugglers to carry more heroin with each successive trip (which implies that, on an appreciable number of trips, they will carry less than the maximum possible amount) is inconsistent with the available data. In fact, the economics and sociology of heroin smuggling suggest an incentive to smuggle as much heroin as possible on every trip.
D. Storytelling analysis
The defendant’s story is that while earning $12,000 a year and paying for college he took eight trips to Nigeria, in a period of fifteen months, to visit his family. Unfortunately for him, there is another story that is more believable, considering all of the available data. That story is that the defendant paid or was paid for each of his eight trips by smuggling as much heroin as he could carry. This story is consistent with evidence interpreted in light of demeanor, as well as the court’s knowledge of the drug trade, its un
*492
derstanding of criminal behavior, and its background knowledge.
Based on all of these sources of information, the sentencing judge inferred that the defendant, who was capable of carrying some 430 grams on each trip, was encouraged, ordered, or had a strong economic incentive to do so on every trip, beginning with his first trip. Thus the court concluded that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the best estimate of the total quantity of heroin imported was 427.4 times 8.
VIII. Desirability of Further Analysis
Having conducted, although not fully described, the above analysis, the sentencing court believes that its original conclusion satisfied the preponderance standard. On remand, however, the court has elected not only to explain its rationale for the initial sentence, but to consider additional factors. It does so for at least three reasons:
First, given the operation of the Guidelines, a sentencing judge’s analysis need not produce a specific figure. For example, a finding that the defendant carried just over 1,000 grams is, for Guidelines purposes, the equivalent of a finding that he carried just under 3,000 grams. This sentencing scheme — encouraging estimation and discouraging over-quantification — suggests that the court should, whenever possible, determine the most likely range, rather than a specific number.
Second, the sentencing judge must take account of potential sources of error, includ

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1570712. Public record. Not legal advice.