## Facts

- Max Jeri arrived at Miami International Airport from Lima, Peru, with luggage that contained 7.95 kilograms of cocaine concealed inside various items.
- Jeri was charged in federal court with importing cocaine and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.
- Jeri’s trial defense was lack of knowledge that cocaine was hidden in his bags.
- On the eve of trial, the government obtained a reality television video (“Drug Wars”) depicting the airport seizure; defense counsel received it the morning trial began.
- The district court denied Jeri’s motion to continue the trial to review the video.
- At trial, a federal agent testified—over objection—that he believed Jeri was not truthful during a post-arrest interview, based on the interview and the agent’s experience with drug couriers.
- The government presented testimony about drug-trafficking methods, and the district court instructed the jury on deliberate ignorance (willful blindness).
- The jury convicted Jeri on both counts, and the district court denied his motion for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether denying a continuance after late disclosure of the “Drug Wars” video deprived Jeri of effective assistance of counsel or otherwise constituted reversible error.
2. Whether excluding the “Drug Wars” video and excluding transcripts of controlled calls and text messages was an abuse of discretion or violated trial fairness.
3. Whether limits placed on cross-examination of government witnesses violated the Confrontation Clause or amounted to reversible error.
4. Whether admitting law-enforcement opinion testimony about Jeri’s truthfulness and expert testimony on drug-courier practices improperly invaded the jury’s role or violated evidentiary rules.
5. Whether giving a deliberate-ignorance instruction was improper on the trial evidence.
6. Whether cumulative error required a new trial.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and the denial of the motion for a new trial.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance because Jeri failed to show “specific and substantial prejudice,” and the video was not exculpatory.
- The court upheld the challenged evidentiary rulings, concluding the exclusions did not constitute reversible error.
- The court found no Confrontation Clause violation in the trial court’s management of cross-examination.
- The court concluded the challenged law-enforcement and expert testimony did not warrant reversal in the context of the entire record.
- The court held the deliberate-ignorance instruction was supported by the evidence and did not reduce the government’s burden of proving knowledge.
- With no reversible individual errors, the cumulative-error claim failed.

## Legal Principles

- Denial of a continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal generally requires a showing of specific and substantial prejudice.
- Exclusion or admission of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and an evidentiary error warrants relief only if it affected substantial rights in light of the record as a whole.
- Trial courts may impose reasonable limits on cross-examination; the Sixth Amendment requires an adequate opportunity for effective cross-examination, not unrestricted questioning.
- Testimony by law-enforcement witnesses about drug-trafficking methods may be admissible to explain context and practices, so long as it does not function as conviction-by-profile and complies with evidentiary limits.
- A deliberate-ignorance instruction is permissible when evidence supports that the defendant consciously avoided confirming an obvious fact, alongside or in addition to evidence of actual knowledge.
- Cumulative-error relief requires multiple actual errors whose combined effect substantially influenced the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld Jeri’s cocaine importation and possession-with-intent convictions, concluding that the denial of a continuance after late video disclosure caused no specific and substantial prejudice, the challenged evidentiary and cross-examination rulings did not warrant reversal, the deliberate-ignorance instruction was supported by the evidence, and there was no cumulative error.


United States v. Jeri, 869 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2017)