Page 40 - TPA Journal July August 2017
P. 40
The government also presented evidence that the presence of the methamphetamine.
Lopez-Monzon omitted mention of a second
tractor-trailer in his interview with Agent Agent Santiago testified that Lopez-Monzon
Santiago. Guadiana and Buentello-Garcia tes- told him that “he noticed that one of the tanks
tified that Lopez-Monzon brought two tractor- was not functioning properly” but that it “did
trailers to Hotel Pena, and that he hired them not bother him.” According to Agent Santiago,
to drive both tractor-trailers into the United Lopez-Monzon stated that “he thought that the
States. Guadiana testified that people he tank was full and the fuel inside was left there
believed to be members of the Mexican Mafia by . . . the previous owner.” Lopez-Monzon
retrieved the second tractor-trailer from the also told Agent Santiago that he purchased the
parking lot of Hotel Pena after Lopez-Monzon’s tractor-trailer “four to five months” earlier. A
arrest. In addition to the testimony of Guadiana rational jury could have concluded that Lopez-
and Buentello-Garcia, the government intro- Monzon’s statement—that it “did not bother
duced evidence that Lopez-Monzon’s compa- him” that a fuel tank containing 100 gallons of
ny had two insurance policies. De Leon was valuable fuel was defective on a trip from
insured to drive the seized Freightliner, and Guatemala to the United States border—was
Lopez-Monzon was insured to drive a second implausible. Again, Lopez-Monzon admitted
tractor-trailer. The insurance policies began that he knew that the fuel tank was not “func-
and ended on the same date. A rational jury tioning properly.” A rational jury could infer,
could infer from this evidence that Lopez- given the totality of the circumstances, that
Monzon told Agent Santiago that he followed Lopez-Monzon took advantage of the defect to
De Leon in a pickup truck because he did not conceal the methamphetamine and import it
want to admit the existence of the second trac- into the United States.
tor-trailer.
Lopez-Monzon also told Agent Santiago that “if
An “implausible account provides persuasive someone had put something inside the gas
circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s con- tank, it would have been Ruben.” Lopez-
sciousness of guilt.” A rational jury may infer Monzon stated that Ruben owned a dealership
from “[a]n implausible account of exculpatory in Guatemala and that they purchased the trac-
events . . . that the defendant desires to obscure tor-trailer together. But Lopez-Monzon failed to
his criminal responsibility.” relate any other information about Ruben.
Agent Santiago asked for additional informa-
The government presented evidence from tion, but Lopez-Monzon did not provide even a
which a rational jury could infer that Lopez- surname. A rational jury could infer that Lopez-
Monzon attempted to hide his knowledge of Monzon’s implausible statements regarding
the methamphetamine from Agent Santiago by Ruben were an attempt to deflect blame from
giving an implausible account of the defective himself.
fuel tank and attempting to blame Ruben for
36 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
