Page 23 - TPA Journal March - April 2018

tect us, were implied. And, although it is true that Gamino v. State, Tex. Ct. Crim. App., No. PD-
Appellants version of what happened differed 0227-16, Sept. 27th, 2017.
from the version told by the States witnesses, we
agree with the court of appeals that Appellant
was not required to concede the States version of DRUG CONSPIRACY - ELEMENTS
the events in order to be entitled to a self defense
instruction. Admitting to the conduct does not nec- After a 14-day jury trial, a jury in the Eastern
essarily mean admitting to every element of the District of Texas convicted Defendants-
offense. For example, a defendant can sufficient- Appellants William Edmund Kiekow (Kiekow),
ly admit to the commission of the offense of mur- Felipe U. Uriarte (Uriarte), and Arthur James
der even when denying an intent to kill. Pierre (Pierre) (collectively, Appellants) of
conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to
In this case, Appellant was entitled to receive a distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
self defense instruction if there had been some evi- Appellants challenge venue and the sufficiency of
dence, even if contradicted, that he believed the the evidence supporting their convictions. Kiekow
display of his gun was immediately necessary to and Uriarte also challenge their sentences. Pierre
protect himself against the victims use or attempt- moves for a new trial based on a Government wit-
ed use of unlawful force, that his purpose in dis- nesss post-trial change in testimony and chal-
playing his weapon was limited to creating an lenges the admission of a drug-sniffing dog alert.
apprehension that he would use deadly force if Pierre and Uriarte challenge statements made dur-
necessary, and that his conduct was not in ing the Governments closing argument rebuttal.
response to verbal provocation alone. We find that For the reasons explained herein, we AFFIRM
there was such evidence Appellants convictions and the district courts
denial of Pierres motion for a new trial. As to
Appellants testimony presented evidence that he challenges to the district courts sentencing, we
produced his gun for the limited purpose of creat- AFFIRM Uriartes sentence, but will VACATE
ing an apprehension that he would use deadly and REMAND Kiekows sentence to the district
force if necessary. There was evidence presented court for resentencing.
that Appellant reasonably believed his use of force
was immediately necessary to protect himself and This case arises from a longtime federal investiga-
his girlfriend against Khans use or attempted use tion into drug trafficking from Mexico into the
of unlawful force. United States. Appellants were charged in a Third
Superseding Indictment for their involvement
We agree with the court of appeals that it was the with the importation and sale of marijuana and
jurys call whom to believe and what to believe. It cocaine from Mexican cartels, most prominently
was not the trial courts prerogative to preempt the the Zeta Cartel. A jury convicted Appellants of
issue because it thought Appellants version was conspiring to distribute cocaine, but not marijua-
weak, contradicted, or not credible. Viewing the na. Over the 14-day trial, nearly fifty Government
evidence in the light most favorable to the defen- witnesses, consisting primarily of alleged co-con-
dants requested submission, we hold that the jury spirators-turned-Government cooperators, testi-
should have been given the opportunity to assess fied to a far-reaching drug trafficking scheme that
whether Appellants conduct was justified as self began with an individual named Jose Arce work-
defense. We affirm the judgment of the Second ing with Miguel Trevino, the then-second-in-com-
Court of Appeals. mand of the Zeta Cartel, and others to ship cocaine

March/April 2018 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 19