Page 39 - TPA Journal July August 2017
P. 39
“Inconsistent statements are inherently suspi- Lopez-Monzon knew that the invoices were
cious.” Such statements, whether inconsistent falsified, that is not the relevant inquiry. Even if
with previous statements or with other evi- the jury found that Lopez-Monzon thought the
dence, are circumstantial evidence of knowl- invoices were entirely accurate, his statements
edge. to Agent Santiago regarding the timing, price,
purchaser, and location of the sale were incon-
A rational jury could credit the government’s sistent with the invoices he possessed and
presentation of documentary and other testi- allegedly thought to be accurate.
monial evidence as true, and infer that Lopez-
Monzon’s statements to Agent Santiago were The government also presented evidence that
inconsistent with Lopez-Monzon’s understand- Lopez-Monzon’s statements to Agent Santiago
ing of what actually happened. In other words, about his travel to Guatemala were inconsis-
a rational jury could infer that Lopez-Monzon tent with what actually happened. Lopez-
attempted to mislead Agent Santiago—and Monzon told Agent Santiago that he and De
such attempts to mislead certainly present cir- Leon traveled together, and that De Leon drove
cumstantial evidence of “consciousness of the Freightliner and Lopez-Monzon “fol-
guilt.” low[ed]” in a Ford F-150 pickup truck. But
according to the exit stamps in Lopez-
The government presented evidence from Monzon’s and De Leon’s passports, Lopez-
which a rational jury could conclude that Monzon actually departed Guatemala a day
Lopez-Monzon omitted or changed details earlier than De Leon. Lopez-Monzon failed to
regarding his purchase of the Freightliner in his provide an explanation to Agent Santiago
interview with Agent Santiago. Lopez-Monzon when asked about the discrepancy. He now
told Agent Santiago that he was the owner of contends that “the only logical inference . . . is
the Freightliner, and that he had bought the that Lopez-Monzon entered Mexico first, wait-
Freightliner with a man named Ruben “four to ed for his traveling companion to cross the bor-
five months” earlier. But Lopez-Monzon’s der the next day, and then the two men contin-
statements about his purchase and possession ued the rest of their travels across Mexico
of the Freightliner were inconsistent with together.” Even accepting Lopez-Monzon’s
invoices and money orders found in his lug- explanation on appeal, that “logical inference”
gage—and the government presented evidence is still inconsistent with Lopez-Monzon’s state-
that those documents were themselves falsi- ment to Agent Santiago that he “follow[ed]” De
fied. Lopez-Monzon contends that “the indi- Leon from Guatemala and through the first part
vidual who sold the vehicle to Lopez-Monzon of their trip through Mexico. A rational jury
furnished him with a deceptive sales receipt.” could infer that Lopez-Monzon attempted to
Although Lopez-Monzon is correct that the mislead Agent Santiago regarding his travel
government presented no direct evidence that from Guatemala.
July - August 2017 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 35
