United States v. Curbelo

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2013 · Evidence

726 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2013)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation Clausetranslated transcriptswiretapsauthenticationRule 901hearsaytestimonial statements

Facts

Curbelo worked with Jose Diaz in a marijuana grow-house operation and supervised grow houses on Abdella Lane and Van Camp Street, participating in multiple harvests. DEA agents tracked vehicles used by Diaz and another associate with GPS devices and intercepted Diaz's phone calls, including Spanish-language conversations with Curbelo. At trial, the government played those recordings and gave the jury English translations, but did not call the translator; instead, Diaz testified that he was fluent in Spanish and English, had reviewed the recordings and transcripts, and believed the translations were accurate. The jury convicted Curbelo and found the conspiracy involved 1,000 or more marijuana plants.

Issue

Whether admitting English-language transcripts of Spanish wiretapped conversations violated the Confrontation Clause when the translator did not testify but a participant in the conversations independently reviewed the recordings and testified that the transcripts were accurate. The appeal also raised whether untranslated foundation objections were waived, whether the drug-quantity finding was supported by sufficient evidence, whether suppression arguments based on GPS tracking were waived, and whether Rule 32.2 entitled the defendant to a jury determination on a forfeiture money judgment.

Rule

A translated transcript may be admitted without violating the Confrontation Clause when the government does not introduce the absent translator's testimonial assertion for its own weight, but instead presents live testimony from a witness with independent firsthand knowledge who personally reviewed the recordings and testifies to his own judgment that the translation is accurate. Under Rule 901(a), authentication requires only evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is, and failure to produce an alternative transcript waives a challenge to translation accuracy. Rule 32.2 gives a jury role only in determining the forfeitability of specific property, not the amount of a personal money judgment. A suppression claim not raised before trial is waived under Rule 12(e) absent good cause.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal drug trial in Miami, the prosecution plays recorded Portuguese-language calls and gives the jury English transcripts. The translator does not testify, but Rafael Mota, a participant in every call who is fluent in Portuguese and English, testifies that he personally listened to the recordings, compared them to the transcripts, and in his own judgment they are accurate.

The defendant objects that admitting the transcripts violates the Confrontation Clause because the original translator is absent. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The objection should be overruled. The governing rule is that admission of a translated transcript does not violate the Confrontation Clause when the prosecution proves accuracy through a live witness with independent firsthand knowledge who personally reviewed the recordings and testifies to his own judgment that the translation is accurate. In that situation, the absent translator is not the witness against the defendant on the issue of accuracy.