Clarifying Sufficiency of Evidence in Federal Drug Prosecutions and Admissibility Standards for Foreign-Language Electronic Messages

Introduction

This commentary examines the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Melissa Guardado, No. 23-12954 (11th Cir. Jan. 15, 2025), in which the court addressed two central issues: (1) whether the evidence supporting Guardado’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute over one kilogram of heroin was sufficient as a matter of law; and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding un-translated, Spanish-language WhatsApp messages as hearsay. The appellant, Melissa Vasquez Guardado, and her codefendant, Villanueva, were stopped by deputies after meeting a third party in a restaurant parking lot. Guardado retrieved a blue pillowcase containing six kilograms of heroin and remained in possession of it until law enforcement intervened. Guardado moved for acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 and sought admission of WhatsApp messages between her codefendant and a minor witness, L.S., to show her own innocence. The district court denied both requests, and this appeal followed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and the evidentiary ruling. In a per curiam opinion, the court held:

• The evidence—viewed in the light most favorable to the government—was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Guardado knowingly possessed heroin and intended to distribute it. The court applied settled precedent on de novo review of Rule 29 denials and upheld the jury’s inference of knowledge and intent from circumstantial evidence and large drug quantity.
• The exclusion of the Spanish-language WhatsApp messages was not an abuse of discretion. Guardado failed to provide a proper foundation, certified translation, or a reliable proffer sufficient to overcome hearsay and relevancy objections. Even if the exclusion were erroneous, it was harmless because the substance of the messages was elicited through testimony from one of the parties, L.S.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Standard of Review for Sufficiency
  • United States v. Beach, 80 F.4th 1245 (11th Cir. 2023): de novo review of Rule 29 denials.
  • United States v. Holmes, 814 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2016), and United States v. Williams, 865 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2017): affirming that convictions stand if any reasonable construction of the evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • United States v. Farley, 607 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2010): sustaining verdicts with a “reasonable basis in the record.”
• Circumstantial Evidence and Intent
  • United States v. Morley, 99 F.4th 1328 (11th Cir. 2024): knowledge and intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and guideposts (instrumentality, opportunities to discover facts, frequency of contact).
  • United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2016): large drug quantities support inference of intent to distribute.
  • United States v. Camacho, 233 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2000): elements of § 841(a)(1) offense; aiding and abetting framework.
• Evidentiary Rules for Hearsay and Translation
  • Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), 802: definition and exclusion of hearsay.
  • United States v. Kent, 93 F.4th 1213 (11th Cir. 2024): reaffirming hearsay principles.
  • United States v. Hawkins, 934 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2019): abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings.

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s analysis unfolded in two parts:

1. Sufficiency of Evidence
   Under de novo review, the court recited the well-established standard: if any reasonable interpretation of the evidence permits a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict must stand. Here, multiple strands of circumstantial evidence supported each element of § 841(a)(1):
   
   • Possession: Guardado personally retrieved the bag of heroin in the restaurant parking lot, kept it in her lap under a blanket, and remained in possession until the traffic stop.
   • Knowledge: Her behavior—defensiveness, refusal to engage with officers, “shock” exchanged with her codefendant—indicated awareness of the contraband.
   • Intent to Distribute: The sheer volume—six kilograms—combined with guiding principles from Cruickshank, allowed a rational inference that she intended distribution rather than personal use.
   The court also clarified that the jury could find Guardado either as principal or aider and abettor, rendering her aiding-and-abetting argument immaterial given the verdict form and jury instructions.
2. Admissibility of Foreign-Language Electronic Messages
   The district court excluded “potentially exculpatory” WhatsApp messages because Guardado failed to:
   
   • Provide the actual text or a certified translation;
   • Lay a foundation to authenticate the messages and their context;
   • Overcome the government’s hearsay and relevancy objections.
   The Eleventh Circuit unanimously held that these omissions constituted a sound exercise of discretion. Even if mistaken, any error was harmless: the minor witness, L.S., testified to the content of the messages, so the jury had access to their substance through admissible testimony.

Impact

This decision reinforces and clarifies several important principles:

• Federal trial courts must sustain guilty verdicts supported by reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence on de novo sufficiency review.
• Defendants seeking to introduce non-English electronic evidence must provide certified translations or a complete, authenticated proffer to satisfy hearsay and relevancy requirements.
• Even if translation or authentication errors occur, they may be deemed harmless if the evidence’s substance is otherwise before the jury.

Practitioners in federal criminal defense and prosecution should heed these requirements when handling bilingual communications and evaluating the strength of circumstantial proofs in drug-distribution cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal: A defendant’s request, after jury verdict, that the court enter judgment of acquittal because the evidence is legally insufficient.
• De Novo Review: An appellate standard in which the court re-examines questions of law and sufficiency of evidence without deference to the district court’s decision.
• Circumstantial Evidence: Indirect evidence that requires the fact-finder to infer a material fact (e.g., knowledge or intent) from other proven facts.
• Hearsay: An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; generally inadmissible unless an exception applies or the evidence is not offered for its truth.
• Harmless Error: A legal mistake that does not warrant reversal because it had no substantial influence on the trial’s outcome.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Guardado affirms the bedrock standards for reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in federal drug prosecutions and underscores precise foundation and translation requirements for foreign-language electronic evidence. By reaffirming these principles, the court provides clearer guidance to trial courts and litigants on how to present and contest both proof of knowledge and intent and the admissibility of bilingual communications. This judgment will serve as a touchstone for future prosecutions and defenses in multi-lingual contexts and in cases relying heavily on circumstantial evidence.