11th Cir.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALBERICO AHIAS CRESPO

June 10, 2026 ·1:21-cr-20005-DPG-1 ·Published ·LAGOA · By James Taylor

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence of a former federal agent convicted of witness tampering and obstruction of justice. The court rejected arguments regarding untimely suppression motions, trial errors, and sentencing calculations.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:39

Background

Alberico Ahias Crespo, a special agent with the Department of Health and Human Services, was convicted of conspiracy to commit witness tampering, witness tampering, and conspiracy to obstruct justice. The charges stemmed from his involvement in an oxycodone distribution scheme where he used his position to alert a co-conspirator about ongoing investigations and to disrupt interviews with patient recruits. Crespo appealed his convictions and sentence, arguing errors in the denial of a suppression motion, denial of a mistrial, refusal to allow recross-examination, and improper admission of character evidence.

The court’s reasoning

The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress as untimely, finding that neither attorney neglect nor government delay in producing an FBI report constituted good cause under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure twelve. Regarding the merits, the court found no false statements in the wiretap application necessary to establish probable cause. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial after providing curative instructions for false testimony and bad-faith questions. The court further ruled that the defendant had no constitutional right to recross-examination as no new matters were raised on redirect. Finally, the court found that evidence of past bad acts regarding personal protective equipment was admissible to prove intent and that cumulative errors did not warrant reversal.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces the strict enforcement of pretrial motion deadlines in the Eleventh Circuit and clarifies that curative instructions are generally sufficient to cure trial errors involving witness testimony or prosecutorial questions.