United States v. Vidal-Maldonado, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Vidal-Maldonado, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/55

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 10- 1518,10- 1534,10- 1701,10- 1708

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

CARLOS PAGN- FERRER,J UAN MORALES- ROSADO,J OS PACHECO- CRUZ,

AARON VI DAL- MALDONADO,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Dani el R. Dom nguez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Li pez and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Paul M. Gl i ckman, wi t h whomGl i ckman Tur l ey LLP, was on br i eff or appel l ant Pagn- Fer r er .

Lydi a Li zar r bar - Masi ni , f or appel l ant Mor al es- Rosado.J uan A. Pedr osa- Tr paga, wi t h whomJ uan A. Pedrosa Law Of f i ce,

PSC, was on br i ef f or appel l ant Pacheco- Cr uz.J ames L. Sul t an, wi t h whom J onat han P. Har wel l and Ranki n &

Sul t an, was on br i ef f or appel l ant Vi dal - Mal donado.Sharon M. McGowan, At t orney, U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce, Ci vi l

Ri ght s Di vi si on, Appel l at e Sect i on, wi t h whom J essi ca DunsaySi l ver , At t or ney, and Thomas E. Pr ez, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al ,was on br i ef f or appel l ee.


2/55

November 22, 2013

-2-


3/55

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. A j ur y convi ct ed f our f or mer

San J uan Muni ci pal Pol i ce Depar t ment of f i cer s of charges st emmi ng

f r omt he excessi ve use of f or ce agai nst a ci t i zen who was vi ol ent l y

beat en t o deat h whi l e i n pol i ce cust ody. Appel l ant s, now seeki ng

t o chal l enge thei r r espect i ve convi ct i ons and sent ences, r ai se a

number of i ssues on appeal , i ncl udi ng one whi ch r equi r es us t o

exami ne the r el at i onshi p bet ween t he Ex Post Fact o Cl ause of t he

Const i t ut i on and t he "one book" r ul e of t he U. S. Sent enci ng

Gui del i nes. We ul t i mat el y f i nd none of t he Appel l ant s' ar gument s

mer i t or i ous and t hus af f i r m. We begi n wi t h t he f act s.

I. Background

I n t he ear l y mor ni ng hour s of J ul y 20, 2003, J os Ant oni o

Ri ver a- Robl es ( "Ri ver a" ) was r unni ng down t he st r eet , yel l i ng t hat

he was bei ng f ol l owed and t hat " t hey" wer e t r yi ng t o ki l l hi m. I t

was l at er di scover ed t hat he was under t he i nf l uence of cocai ne.

Two San J uan Muni ci pal Pol i ce Depar t ment ( "SJ MPD") of f i cer s who

wer e pat r ol l i ng t he ar ea spot t ed Ri ver a and got out of t hei r pat r ol

car t o i nvest i gat e. Ri ver a pushed past t hemand st ol e t hei r pat r ol

car , i nj ur i ng t he ar mof t he of f i cer who t r i ed t o hol d ont o t he car

door as Ri ver a sped away. The of f i cer s r adi oed f or hel p and a

sear ch f or bot h Ri ver a and the pat r ol car began.

Ri ver a, meanwhi l e, had abandoned t he car and ent ered a

Ci t go gas st at i on' s conveni ence st or e, appear i ng f r i ght ened but

uni nj ur ed t o t hose i n t he st or e. Ri ver a hi d behi nd t he st or e

-3-


4/55

count er , scar i ng away t he st or e cl er k, who ran out si de t o l ook f or

hel p. Sever al of f i cer s who wer e sear chi ng f or Ri ver a dr ove by t he

gas st at i on at t hat t i me, and t he st or e cl er k was abl e t o f l ag t hem

down. When Ri ver a r an out si de, he was conf r ont ed by Of f i cer s ngel

Gonzl ez- Al mei da ( "Gonzl ez") , Mar i el i Tor r es- Ri ver a ( "Tor r es") ,

and Wi l ber t Sal as- Lpez ( "Sal as" ) , al l wi t h guns dr awn. As t he

of f i cer s appr oached, Ri ver a r an t o and began pul l i ng on a gas pump,

st opped, and t hen wal ked back t owards t he of f i cers. Gonzl ez

pushed Ri ver a t o t he gr ound, f ace down, and Sal as st r addl ed hi m.

At t hi s poi nt , Ser geant Aar n Vi dal - Mal donado ( "Vi dal ") , t he

hi ghest r anki ng of f i cer pr esent and one of t he f our Appel l ant s i n

t hi s case, ar r i ved at t he gas st at i on. Vi dal hel ped Sal as handcuf f

Ri ver a. At t hi s poi nt , however , i nst ead of t r anspor t i ng t he now-

r est r ai ned suspect t o t he st at i on house, sever al of f i cer s began

assaul t i ng Ri ver a.

Of f i cer El as Per oci er - Mor al es ( "Per oci er ") ki cked Ri ver a

i n t he head and l ef t shoul der ar ea wi t h such f or ce t hat i t near l y

knocked Sal as, who was st i l l on t op of Ri ver a, over . Next ,

Of f i cer s Car l os Pagn- Fer r er ( "Pagn") , J uan Mor al es- Rosado

( "Mor al es" ) , and J os Pacheco- Cr uz ( "Pacheco") , t he t hr ee r emai ni ng

Appel l ant s i n t hi s case, ar r i ved i n t he SJ MPD' s I mpact Uni t van.

The I mpact Uni t of f i cer s f or med a ci r cl e ar ound Ri ver a and began

ki cki ng hi mwi t h boot ed f eet i n t he head and upper body whi l e Vi dal

-4-


5/55

and Sal as r est r ai ned hi m. Some of t he of f i cer s, i ncl udi ng Pagn,

punched Ri ver a i n the f ace.

Vi dal event ual l y or der ed t hat Ri ver a be taken t o t he

I mpact Uni t st at i on house, announci ng " [ t ] hi s one' s mi ne, t hi s

one' s mi ne. " When he ar r i ved and exi t ed t he pol i ce car , Ri ver a was

bar el y consci ous and f el l t o t he gr ound. Of f i cer J uan Monser r at e

( "Monser r at e") ki cked t he st i l l - handcuf f ed Ri ver a i n t he f ace whi l e

Vi dal l ooked on si l ent l y. Ri ver a was t hen car r i ed i nt o t he

st at i on, dr opped on t he f l oor , and had hi s handcuf f s r emoved. By

t hi s t i me, hi s br eat hi ng was l abor ed and hi s f ace was "pract i cal l y

di sf i gur ed. " Someone cal l ed emer gency medi cal ser vi ces.

When t he emergency r esponders ar r i ved, t hey were t ol d

t hat Ri ver a had been l yi ng on t he f l oor , unconsci ous, f or t en

mi nut es. They were unabl e t o r evi ve Ri ver a, and he was decl ared

dead at t he scene. An aut opsy l ater i ndi cat ed t hat Ri ver a had

suf f er ed t r auma i nj ur i es t o appr oxi mat el y t hi r t y pl aces on hi s body

and had di ed f r om br ai n hemor r hagi ng. The r epor t al so st at ed t hat

cocai ne was f ound i n hi s syst em and may have cont r i but ed t o t he

cause of deat h, but t he cor oner l at er r evi sed her r epor t t o

i ndi cat e t hat bl unt f or ce t r auma was t he cause of deat h. A

f or ensi c exper t agr eed. A second f or ensi c pat hol ogi st cor r obor at ed

t hat t he vi ct i m' s i nj ur i es wer e consi st ent wi t h ki cks, punches, and

bl unt f or ce t r auma. I n t hi s second pat hol ogi st ' s opi ni on, t he

cause of deat h was not cocai ne. He al so t est i f i ed t hat Ri ver a' s

-5-


6/55

f aci al i nj ur i es wer e not f r om a f al l . A t hi r d pat hol ogi st ,

however , t est i f i ed f or t he def ense t hat i t was " a medi cal l y

r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y" t hat t he vi ct i mdi ed because of cocai ne use

and t hat he di d not f i nd any f at al i nj ur i es on Ri ver a' s body.

Puer t o Ri co Pol i ce Depar t ment of f i ci al s began an

i nvest i gat i on, and Vi dal admi t t ed t o bei ng at t he Ci t go st at i on

t hat ni ght , but he sai d t hat no one had assaul t ed Ri ver a. Pagn,

Moral es, and Pacheco al l cl ai med t hat t hey had not been at t he

Ci t go st at i on at al l t hat ni ght . They al so deni ed knowi ng how

Ri ver a sust ai ned hi s i nj ur i es. Sever al year s l at er , i n 2008, t he

FBI began i nvest i gat i ng t he i nci dent . Vi dal cont i nued t o cl ai m

t hat no one had assaul t ed Ri ver a, and Pagn, Moral es, and Pacheco

cont i nued t o cl ai m t hat t hey wer e not pr esent at t he Ci t go st at i on

t hat ni ght . They al so deni ed havi ng punched, ki cked, or ot her wi se

assaul t ed Ri ver a. Mor al es deni ed hear i ng t hat any of f i cer s had

gone t o t he Ci t go t hat ni ght . He l ater r epeated t hat st at ement t o

a f eder al gr and j ur y.

On J ul y 8, 2008, a f eder al gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed Vi dal ,

Mor al es, Pacheco and Pagn ( col l ect i vel y, t he "def endant s" ) al ong

wi t h t wo ot her SJ MPD of f i cer s, Per oci er and Of f i cer El i ezer Ri ver a-

Gonzl ez, i n a 17- count i ndi ct ment . The l at t er t wo pl ed gui l t y and

became cooper at i ng wi t nesses. Vi dal , Moral es, Pacheco, and Pagn

wer e i ndi ct ed f or depr i vi ng Ri ver a of hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght s by

usi ng excessi ve f or ce r esul t i ng i n bodi l y i nj ur y or deat h whi l e

-6-


7/55

act i ng under col or of st at e l aw, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 242.

They wer e al so i ndi ct ed f or maki ng f al se st at ement s, i n vi ol at i on

of 18 U. S. C. 1001, and f or obst r uct i ng j ust i ce, i n vi ol at i on of

18 U. S. C. 1512( b) ( 3) .

On August 13, 2009, af t er t went y- si x days of t r i al , a

j ur y f ound al l f our def endant s gui l t y of maki ng f al se st at ements

and obst r uct i ng j ust i ce. Mor al es was convi ct ed of per j ur y bef or e

t he gr and j ur y, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1503( a) . As t o t he

ci vi l r i ght s char ges, t he j ur y f ound Mor al es and Pagn gui l t y of

depr i vi ng Ri ver a of hi s r i ght s and causi ng bodi l y i nj ur y. Vi dal

was f ound gui l t y of causi ng Ri ver a' s deat h by f ai l i ng t o i nt er vene

and f ai l i ng t o keep Ri ver a f r om har m by of f i cer s under hi s

super vi si on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 242. Vi dal was al so

char ged wi t h ki cki ng Ri ver a at t he I mpact Uni t st at i on house, i n

vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 242, but he was f ound not gui l t y as t o

t hat count . Pacheco was f ound not gui l t y of usi ng excessi ve f or ce

r esul t i ng i n i nj ur y or deat h.

Vi dal was sent enced to 360 mont hs of i mpr i sonment ,

Mor al es and Pagn t o 120 mont hs of i mpr i sonment , and Pacheco to 57

mont hs of i mpr i sonment .

On appeal , def endant s col l ect i vel y have pr esent ed a tot al

of ei ght i ssues whi ch t hey bel i eve war r ant vacat i ng t hei r

r espect i ve convi ct i ons or sent ences: 1) t he deni al of a mot i on t o

suppl ement t he r ecor d; 2) t he deni al of a mot i on t o decl ar e a

-7-


8/55

mi st r i al ; 3) t he deni al of a mot i on t o suppr ess an i dent i f i cat i on;

4) t he i nsuf f i ci ency of t he evi dence; 5) t he i mpr oper wor di ng of a

j ur y i nst r uct i on; 6) t he exi st ence of a mat er i al var i ance; 7) t he

wr ongf ul appl i cat i on of a r evi sed Sent enci ng Gui del i nes manual ; and

8) t he deni al of a downward depar t ur e at sent enci ng. Not ever y

def endant asser t s ever y cl ai m. For t he sake of cl ar i t y, we

el abor at e on t he f act s r el at i ng t o each i ssue on appeal separ at el y,

and we t ake each i ssue i n t ur n.

II. Discussion

A. Denial of Rule 10(e) motion to supplement the record

Def endant s Pagn and Vi dal argue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed i n denyi ng t hei r j oi nt mot i on t o suppl ement t he r ecor d on

appeal pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 10( e) ( "Rul e

10( e) " ) . We begi n wi t h a r evi ew of t he f act ual and pr ocedur al

backgr ound rel at ed to t hi s cl ai m.

1. Background

On August 2, 2011, whi l e thi s appeal was pendi ng, Pagn

and Vi dal f i l ed wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t a j oi nt mot i on seeki ng t o

suppl ement t he r ecor d on appeal pur suant t o Rul e 10( e) . Pagn and

Vi dal ar gued t hat at l east some por t i on of t he j ur y sel ect i on

pr oceedi ngs wer e cl osed t o t he publ i c and t hat t he r ecord di d not

cl ear l y r ef l ect t hat f act . Accor di ngl y, t hey sought t o conf or mt he

r ecor d t o r ef l ect what t r ul y occur r ed bel ow or , al t er nat i vel y, t o

suppl ement t he r ecor d t o cor r ect a mat er i al omi ssi on r egar di ng t he

-8-


9/55

cl osur e. They al so cl ai med t hat an evi dent i ar y hear i ng was

r equi r ed.

As r ecor d evi dence of possi bl e cl osur e, Pagn and Vi dal

ci t ed st at ement s by t he di st r i ct cour t j udge dur i ng a por t i on of

t he j ur y sel ect i on pr oceedi ngs:

The Cour t i s cel ebrat i ng t hi s hear i ng here i nt he j ur y room, si nce t he Cour t i s awar e t hatwe cannot ask t he quest i ons i n t he cour t r oombecause an answer by a per son, a pet i t j ur or ,a pot ent i al pet i t j ur or , coul d pot ent i al l ycont ami nate t he ent i r e panel and consequent l yt he par t i es have al l agr eed t o hol d t hi s phaseof t he j ur y sel ect i on her e i n t he j ur y r oom.. . . .

They al so pr ovi ded af f i davi t s f r om Pagn, Pagn' s t r i al at t or ney,

Vi dal , and f ami l y member s of bot h men st at i ng that t he publ i c had

been excl uded f r omj ur y sel ect i on pr oceedi ngs and t hat , at var i ous

t i mes, of f i cer s of t he cour t or t he def ense at t or neys i nst r uct ed

f ami l y member s t hat t hey coul d not at t end por t i ons of t he j ur y

sel ecti on pr oceedi ngs. Cr i t i cal l y, t he af f i davi t s al so r eveal t hat

counsel f or both Pagn and Vi dal wer e aware of t he al l eged cl osur e

at t he t i me i t occur r ed, di scussed t he cl osur e i ssue wi t h t hei r

cl i ent s, and el ect ed not t o obj ect t o t he cl osur e. 1 Pagn and

Vi dal concl uded by r equest i ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t hol d a

hear i ng on t he quest i on of whet her t he j ur y sel ect i on pr oceedi ngs

1 The af f i davi t s al so asser t t hat nei t her Pagn nor Vi dal wer ei nf or med by counsel of t hei r const i t ut i onal r i ght t o a publ i ct r i al , but no i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai ms have beenbr ought f or t h by ei t her def endant i n t hi s di r ect appeal .

-9-


10/55

wer e open or cl osed, and t hat i t cor r ect t he r ecor d t o accur at el y

r ef l ect t he nat ur e of t he pr oceedi ngs.

The di st r i ct cour t , i n an or der by t he same j udge who had

pr esi ded over t he j ur y sel ect i on pr oceedi ngs i n quest i on, deni ed

t he j oi nt mot i on wi t hout hol di ng a hear i ng. Af t er not i ng t hat Rul e

10( e) al l ows a t r i al cour t t o consi der a di sput e as t o t he r ecor d

even whi l e an appeal i s pendi ng, i t expl ai ned t hat t he r equest i n

t hi s case was "unt i mel y. " 2 Speci f i cal l y, t he di str i ct cour t vi ewed

t he def endant s' r equest as an i mper mi ssi bl e at t empt t o add new

i nf or mat i on t o the r ecor d, and i t expr essed concer n t hat gr ant i ng

t he mot i on woul d al l ow def endant s t o sandbag t he cour t s wi t h i ssues

t hat shoul d have been r ai sed dur i ng t r i al whi l e t he t r i al j udge had

an "oppor t uni t y t o rect i f y t he al l eged wr ong. "

2. Applicable Law and Analysis

Feder al Rul e of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 10( e) ( 1) st at es, i n

per t i nent par t , "[ i ] f any di f f er ence ar i ses about whet her t he

r ecor d t r ul y di scl oses what occur r ed i n t he di st r i ct cour t , t he

di f f er ence must be submi t t ed t o and set t l ed by t hat cour t and t he

2 Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t char act er i zed t he Appel l ant s' Rul e10( e) r equest as "unt i mel y, " t he cour t cl ear l y expl ai ned t hat"Appel l at e Rul e 10( e) aut hor i zes t he t r i al cour t t o cor r ect ormodi f y t he record on appeal when a di sput e ar i ses r egardi ng t hat

r ecor d. The t r i al cour t may consi der t he di sput e even af t er t her ecor d has been t r ansmi t t ed t o t he appel l at e cour t . " Or der at 2,Aug. 26, 2011, ECF No. 557 ( i nt er nal quotat i on marks omi t t ed)( quot i ng I n Re Food Fai r , I nc. , 15 B. R. 569, 571 ( Bankr . S. D. N. Y.1981) ) . I n ot her wor ds, t he cour t cl ear l y r ecogni zed t hat i f t heRul e 10( e) mot i on had been pr oper , i t woul d have been t i mel y f i l edeven t hough Appel l ant s had al r eady f i l ed a not i ce of appeal .

-10-


11/55

r ecor d conf or med accor di ngl y. " Fed. R. App. P. 10( e) ( 1) .

Si gni f i cant l y, t he r ul e r equi r es t hat t he di str i ct cour t set t l e t he

mat t er , not t hat i t hol d an evi dent i ar y hear i ng. Uni t ed St at es v.

Br i ka, 416 F. 3d 514, 530 ( 6t h Ci r . 2005) . Feder al Rul e of

Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 10( e) ( 2) adds t hat "[ i ] f anyt hi ng mat er i al t o

ei t her par t y i s omi t t ed f r omor mi sst at ed i n t he r ecor d by er r or or

acci dent , t he omi ss i on or mi sst at ement may be cor r ect ed and a

suppl ement al r ecor d may be cer t i f i ed and f orwarded. " Fed. R. App.

P. 10( e) ( 2) .

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a Rul e 10( e)

mot i on f or abuse of di scr et i on. Br i ka, 416 F. 3d at 529; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Kel l y, 535 F. 3d 1229, 1242 ( 10t h Ci r . 2008) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Fr ankl i n, 250 F. 3d 653, 663 ( 8t h Ci r . 2001) .

"When a di sput e concer ni ng whet her t he r ecord t r ul y di scl oses what

occur r ed i n t he di st r i ct cour t has been submi t t ed t o t he di st r i ct

cour t , t he cour t ' s det er mi nat i on i s concl usi ve absent a showi ng of

i nt ent i onal f al si f i cat i on or pl ai n unr easonabl eness. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Ser r ano, 870 F. 2d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ( i nt er nal

ci t at i ons and quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Br i ka, 416 F. 3d at

529.

Accor di ng t o Pagn and Vi dal , t he di st r i ct cour t abused

i t s di scr et i on when i t deni ed t hei r Rul e 10( e) mot i on wi t hout an

evi dent i ary hear i ng because t he r ecord suggest s, but does not

unequi vocal l y show, t hat t he j ur y sel ect i on was at l east par t i al l y

-11-


12/55

cl osed t o t he publ i c. They ar gue f ur t her t hat t he deni al of t hei r

10( e) mot i on pr event s t hemf r omhavi ng a compl et e r ecord t o be abl e

t o br i ef t hi s cour t on t he cl osur e i ssue. We di sagr ee.

As t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y obser ved, Rul e 10( e) i s

a mechani sm by whi ch t he cour t can "cor r ect omi ssi ons f r om or

mi sst atement s i n t he r ecor d f or appeal . " Or der at 2, Aug. 26,

2011, ECF No. 557 ( ci t i ng S & E Shi ppi ng Cor p. v. Chesapeake & O.

Ry. Co. , 678 F. 2d 636, 641 ( 6t h Ci r . 1982) ) . The Rul e does not ,

however , "al l ow t he cour t t o add t o the r ecord on appeal mat t er s

t hat mi ght have been but wer e not pl aced bef ore i t i n t he cour se of

t he pr oceedi ngs . . . . " Uni t ed St at es v. Hi l l sber g, 812 F. 2d 328,

336 ( 7t h Ci r . 1986) ; see al so Ant hony v. Uni t ed St at es, 667 F. 2d

870, 875 ( 10t h Ci r . 1980) ( hol di ng t hat 10( e) mot i on t o suppl ement

t he record must be deni ed wher e appel l ant knew of but f ai l ed t o

i nt r oduce t he r el evant evi dence at t r i al because Rul e 10( e) "does

not gr ant a l i cense t o bui l d a new r ecor d" ) . I n t hi s case, t he

di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he Rul e 10( e) mot i on because i t "saw no

need" t o suppl ement t he r ecord wi t h what i t character i zed as

unt i mel y or new i nf or mat i on not wi t hi n the pur vi ew of Rul e 10( e) .

A r evi ew of t he recor d suppor t s t he reasonabl eness of t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat nei t her a hear i ng nor suppl ement at i on

t o cl ar i f y t he r ecor d was necessary i n t hi s case. Despi t e Pagn

and Vi dal ' s asser t i ons t hat t he r ecor d i s uncl ear on t he st at us of

t he j ur y sel ect i on pr oceedi ngs, t he t r anscri pt s cl ear l y del i neat e

-12-


13/55

t he event s bel ow. On J une 10, 2009, af t er pol l i ng pot ent i al

j ur or s, t he di st r i ct cour t was al er t ed t o t he f act t hat mul t i pl e

j ur or s had pr i or knowl edge of t he case at hand. The cour t t hen

el ect ed t o quest i on each j ur or i ndi vi dual l y on t he i ssue, and i t

di scover ed t hat some j ur ors had r ead or di scussed a recent

newspaper ar t i cl e descr i bi ng t he gui l t y pl ea of a codef endant i n

t he case. Concer ned about possi bl e cont ami nat i on, t he j udge - -

wi t h t he assi st ance of def ense counsel - - sought t o di scover what

each j ur or had hear d and f r om whom t he j ur or had hear d i t .

The cour t hel d t hese i ndi vi dual j ur or i nt er vi ews i n t he

j ur y r oom, not t he cour t r oom, i n t he pr esence of def ense counsel

and t hei r cl i ent s. The t r anscr i pt s expl i ci t l y mar k when t he

pr oceedi ngs shi f t ed t o t he j ur y r oom wi t h an "Exami nat i on i n t he

j ur y r oom" not at i on, Tr . of Tr i al Voi r Di r e 51, J une 10, 2009, and

t hey al so mark when t he pr oceedi ngs r etur ned t o open cour t , wi t h a

par ent het i cal not at i on t hat " [ t ] he f ol l owi ng pr oceedi ngs wer e had

i n open cour t , " i d. at 145. Counsel f or Pagn di d r equest a

si debar wi t h t he j udge i mmedi at el y pr i or t o t he j ur y r oom voi r

di r e, but i t was not t o obj ect t o t he cl osur e of j ur y sel ect i on

pr oceedi ngs; r ather , he r equest ed onl y t hat t he cour t ask mor e

expl i ci t quest i ons r egar di ng cont ami nat i on of t he ent i r e pool

bef or e movi ng t o t he j ur y r oom f or i ndi vi dual exami nat i ons. The

cour t r eadi l y obl i ged. I n f act , t he j udge comment ed t hat t r i al

counsel f or Pagn had " t aken the l ead on t hi s" and t hat i t had no

-13-


14/55

obj ect i on i f def ense counsel wi shed t o "cont i nue suggest i ng t o the

Cour t quest i ons r el at i ng t o t he pot ent i al cont ami nat i on of t hese

t hr ee j ur or s by out si de i nf or mat i on, " dur i ng t he j ur y r oom

pr oceedi ngs. I d. at 51. The j udge al so pr ovi ded t i me f or counsel

t o speak wi t h hi m about t he j ur y sel ect i on pr ocedur es bef or e t he

i ndi vi dual j ur or s wer e sent t o t he j ur y r oom f or quest i oni ng.

Agai n, no one obj ect ed t o conduct i ng t he quest i oni ng i n t he j ur y

r oom.

The f ol l owi ng day, on J une 11, t he t r anscr i pt al so

cl ear l y st at es t hat i ndi vi dual j ur or s wer e bei ng quest i oned about

possi bl e cont ami nat i on wi t hi n t he conf i nes of t he j ur y r oom. The

di st r i ct cour t j udge, i mmedi at el y af t er aski ng t he cl er k t o cal l

t he case, st at ed t he f ol l owi ng:

The Def endant s ar e pr esent here i n t he j ur yr oom si nce t hi s pr ocedur e, i t i s best t o hol di t .And t he Def endant s ar e assi st ed by theof f i ci al t r ansl at or of t he Cour t . The Cour ti s cel ebr at i ng t hi s hear i ng her e i n t he j ur yr oom, si nce t he Cour t i s aware that we cannotask t he quest i ons i n t he cour t r oom because ananswer by a per son, a pet i t j ur or , a pot ent i alpet i t j ur or , coul d pot ent i al l y cont ami nat e t heent i r e panel and consequent l y t he par t i es haveal l agr eed t o hol d t hi s phase of t he j ur ysel ect i on her e i n t he j ur y r oom, t hedef endant s bei ng pr esent .

Tr . of Tr i al Voi r Di r e 2, J une 11, 2009 ( emphasi s added) . Onceagai n, t he r ecor d shows t hat t he def endant s di d not obj ect t o

hol di ng t he cont ami nat i on- r el at ed j ur y sel ect i on pr oceedi ngs i n t he

j ur y r oom; i n f act , t hey "al l agreed" t o i t .

-14-


15/55

The af f i davi t s of f er ed i n suppor t of t he Rul e 10( e)

mot i on al so r ef l ect t he par t i es' cont emporaneous knowl edge of

cl osur e and t hei r deci si on t o agr ee t o i t . Pagn' s t r i al counsel

st at ed t hat Pagn' s f ami l y members, who he al l eges were kept out of

j ur y sel ect i on pr oceedi ngs, r epeat edl y asked hi m i f t hey coul d

ent er dur i ng j ur y sel ect i on, and t hat Pagn t ol d hi m sever al t i mes

t hat he want ed hi s f ami l y member s i n t he cour t r oom dur i ng j ur y

sel ect i on. Pagn' s counsel , however , t ol d t hemt hat f ami l y member s

coul d not obser ve t he pr oceedi ngs and deci ded not t o r ai se t he

i ssue wi t h t he cour t because he bel i eved such an obj ect i on t o t he

cl osur e woul d be "count er pr oduct i ve and f ut i l e. " Vi dal ' s af f i davi t

si mi l ar l y reveal s t hat he di scussed wi t h hi s l awyer - - on t he f i r st

day of j ur y sel ect i on - - hi s concer n about t he cl osur e of j ur y

pr oceedi ngs, but hi s l awyer el ect ed not t o obj ect t o t he cl osur e.

I n other words, Pagn and Vi dal admi t t hat both t hey and t hei r

t r i al counsel wer e f ul l y awar e of cl osur e concer ns, but counsel

consci ousl y and pur posef ul l y chose t o r emai n si l ent on t he i ssue of

cl osur e and t o acqui esce to t he pr oceedi ngs.

Now, Pagn and Vi dal seek t o capi t al i ze on that same

si l ence, suggest i ng t hat t he r esul t i ng r ecor d l acks cl ar i t y on t he

i ssue of cl osur e and t hat an evi dent i ar y hear i ng i s r equi r ed. Rul e

10( e) , however , aut hor i zes t he modi f i cat i on of t he r ecor d onl y t o

t he ext ent i t i s necessar y to "t r ul y di scl ose[ ] what occur r ed i n

t he di st r i ct cour t . " Uni t ed St at es v. Kennedy, 225 F. 3d 1187, 1191

-15-


16/55

( 10t h Ci r . 2000) . Rul e 10( e) i s not a vehi cl e f or par t i es t o r ai se

a bel ated chal l enge t o t he cour se of proceedi ngs bel ow. See

O' Connor v. Pi er son, 426 F. 3d 187, 195 n. 1 ( 2d Ci r . 2005) ( "What

t he [ par t y] sought was i n f act a r emand f or t he oppor t uni t y t o

r ai se t he cl ai m- pr ecl usi on def ense f or t he f i r st t i me i n t he

di str i ct cour t . Thi s [par t y' s] f ai l ur e t o r ai se t he def ense i s not

t he sor t of ' er r or or acci dent ' cont empl at ed by Feder al Rul e of

Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 10( e) ( 2) . . . . ") . Nor i s Rul e 10( e) an

appr opr i at e means f or a par t y to "put [ ] addi t i onal evi dence, no

mat t er how r el evant , bef ore t he cour t of appeal s t hat was not

bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t . " Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Rosar i o, 300

F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) .

Her e, l i ke t he appel l ant i n Ri ver a- Rosar i o, Pagn and

Vi dal seek t o push Rul e 10( e) beyond i t s bounds. Despi t e t hei r

cl ai mof conf usi on, t he r ecor d cl ear l y document s t he j ur y sel ect i on

proceedi ngs bel ow, bot h when they were moved t o t he j ury r oom and

when t hey r et ur ned t o open cour t . Addi t i onal l y, t he pr of f er ed

compl ai nt s t hat f ami l y member s wer e bei ng kept f r om pr oceedi ngs

wer e not "omi t t ed f r om . . . t he r ecor d by er r or or acci dent , " see

Fed. R. App. P. 10( e) ( 2) , but r at her wer e kept f r omt he t r i al cour t

by choi ce of counsel . Accordi ngl y, t hough we woul d have pr ef er r ed

a more compr ehensi ve di scussi on of t he Rul e 10( e) mot i on' s

shor t comi ngs f r om t he di st r i ct cour t i n t hi s case, we cannot f i nd

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scr et i on when i t deni ed t he

-16-


17/55

mot i on on t he grounds t hat t her e was " no need t o suppl ement t he

r ecord" wi t h such new mater i al not per mi t t ed by Rul e 10( e) .

We t her ef or e af f i r m t he di str i ct cour t ' s deni al of t he

j oi nt Rul e 10( e) mot i on. Thi s hol di ng, of cour se, does not pr event

Pagn or Vi dal f r om seeki ng post- convi ct i on r el i ef f r om t he

di st r i ct cour t as t o any pot ent i al const i t ut i onal cl ai ms under l yi ng

t hei r Rul e 10( e) mot i on. 3

B. Denial of motions for a mistrial

Mor al es, Pagn, and Vi dal each ar gue t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed i n denyi ng t hei r mot i on f or a mi st r i al . We begi n once

agai n wi t h a r evi ew of t he r el evant f act s.

1. Background

At t r i al on J ul y 1, 2009, Tor r es t est i f i ed as a wi t ness

f or t he gover nment . She spoke i n Spani sh and her t est i mony was

si mul t aneousl y t r ansl at ed i nt o Engl i sh. When asked on di r ect

exami nat i on why, af t er pr evi ousl y wi t hhol di ng i nf or mat i on about her

col l eagues' conduct at t he gas st at i on, she was now t est i f yi ng

agai nst her f el l ow of f i cer s, Tor r es r epl i ed: "Because t hi s t i me I

al r eady knew t hat t he t r ut h woul d come out because t he ci vi l t r i al

3 Pagn and Vi dal have not r equest ed t hat we r ul e on t he mer i t s of

t hei r under l yi ng Si xt h Amendment cl ai m of i mpr oper cl osur e. I nf act , t hey have asser t ed t hat t hey wer e not abl e to f ul l y pr esentt he const i t ut i onal cl ai m on appeal due t o uncer t ai nt y i n t her ecor d. Whi l e we are unpersuaded by Appel l ant s' argument s as t ot he cl ar i t y of t he r ecor d, we decl i ne t o pr ess on t o an anal ysi s oft he mer i t s of a const i t ut i onal cl ai m t hat i s not squar el y bef or eus.

-17-


18/55

was over . . . . " Counsel f or Pagn i mmedi at el y obj ect ed,

i nt er r upt i ng t he t r ansl at i on of t he r emai nder of Tor r es' s sent ence,

whi ch i n Spani sh had concl uded "and t hat t hey had won t he sui t

agai nst t he Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan. " Counsel f or Pagn moved f or

a mi st r i al , and the cour t excused t he j ur y t o hear ar gument on the

i ssue. Af t er some di scussi on, t he di st r i ct cour t request ed

br i ef i ng on t he subj ect . The cour t r ecessed f or t he day f i f t y

mi nut es ear l y, and i t r emi nded t he j ur y that t hey woul d r econvene

on J ul y 13 af t er a pr evi ousl y schedul ed and pr evi ousl y announced

recess.

When t r i al r esumed on J ul y 14, 4 t he di str i ct cour t

announced i n cour t and i n a subsequent l y i ssued wr i t t en order t hat

i t was denyi ng t he def endant s' r equest f or a mi st r i al and gr ant i ng

t he gover nment ' s mot i on f or a cur at i ve i nst r uct i on. The cour t

st at ed t hat i t was oper at i ng under t he assumpt i on t hat t he j ur y had

under st ood t he ent i r et y, i ncl udi ng t he unt r ansl at ed por t i on, of

Tor r es' s t est i mony. I t never t hel ess deter mi ned t hat t hi s was not

a case of "ext r eme pr ej udi ce, " and t hat t he j ur y coul d be count ed

on t o f ol l ow t he cour t ' s i nstr uct i ons. Af t er sol i ci t i ng and

i ncor por at i ng f eedback f r omdef ense counsel on t he cour t ' s pr oposed

cur at i ve i nstr uct i on, i t i nstr uct ed t he j ur y, i n r el evant par t , as

f ol l ows:

4 The r esumpt i on of t r i al was del ayed an addi t i onal day, unt i lJ ul y 14, t o al l ow f or j ur y sel ect i on i n an unr el at ed case.

-18-


19/55

[ Y] ou may have hear d t he cur r ent wi t ness ont he st and, Ser geant Mar i el i Tor r es Ri ver a,r ef er ence a pr i or ci vi l t r i al and t he r esul tt her eof .You shoul d not , however , concer n yoursel f wi t hanyt hi ng rel at i ng t o t hat c i vi l t r i al . . . .

The pr i or ci vi l t r i al ment i oned by SergeantTor r es Ri ver a . . . i nvol ved di f f er entDef endant s and di f f er ent par t i es, di f f er entl egal i ssues and a di f f er ent bur den of pr ooff or the Pl ai nt i f f s.. . . . The st andar d of pr oof i n a ci vi l casei s merel y t he pr eponderance of t he evi dence asopposed t o t he Government r equi r i ng to pr oveal l t he el ement s of t he count s of t hei ndi ct ment beyond a r easonabl e doubt .Fur t her , Def endant s wer e not r epr esent ed bycounsel , as t hey were not a par t y and, hence,di d not cr oss- exami ne or have t he oppor t uni t yt o pr esent any evi dence, i f t hey so chose, i nt he ci vi l case.Fi nal l y, t he Cour t r emi nds you t hat at t hebegi nni ng of t he case you were ordered t hat ,and I quot e, ' t est i mony t hat t he Cour t hasexcl uded and t ol d you t o di sr egar d i s notevi dence and must not be consi dered, ' end ofquot e.The Cour t st r i kes t est i mony of Sergeant Tor r esRi ver a' s r eason f or changi ng her t est i mony,and t he exi st ence and r esul t of a ci vi l case,and you ar e st r i ct l y or der ed not t o consi derunder any ci r cumst ances sai d t est i mony aboutt he case.. . . .[ I ] t woul d be ent i r el y i mpr oper and i nvi ol at i on of your oat h f or you t o consi der t heexi st ence and t he out come of t he ci vi l t r i alwherei n Def endant s were not par t i es i n yourdel i ber at i ons.

Thi s i nst r uct i on was del i ver ed t o t he j ur or s i mmedi at el y upon t hei r

r et ur n on t he f i r st day of t r i al af t er t he r ecess.

-19-


20/55

2. Applicable Law and Analysis

I n t he event t hat t he j ur y has been exposed t o i mpr oper

evi dence, t he t r i al cour t must st r i ke t he evi dence and pr ovi de an

appr opr i at e cur at i ve i nst r uct i on unl ess t he evi dence was so

"ser i ousl y pr ej udi ci al " t hat "a cur at i ve i nst r ucti on wi l l be an

i nsuf f i ci ent ant i dot e. " Uni t ed St at es v. Sepl veda, 15 F. 3d 1161,

1184 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . "Decl ar i ng a mi st r i al i s a l ast r esor t , onl y

t o be i mpl ement ed i f t he t ai nt i s i ner adi cabl e . . . . " I d. When

r evi ewi ng t he deni al of a mot i on f or a mi st r i al , "we consi der t he

t otal i t y of t he ci r cumst ances t o det er mi ne whet her t he def endant

has demonst r at ed t he ki nd of ' cl ear ' pr ej udi ce t hat woul d r ender

t he cour t ' s deni al of hi s mot i on f or a mi st r i al a ' mani f est abuse

of

di scr et i on. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Dunbar , 553 F. 3d 48, 58 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St ates v. Fr eeman, 208 F. 3d 332, 339

( 1st Ci r . 2000) ) . Essent i al t o t hi s det er mi nat i on ar e t he

f ol l owi ng t hr ee f act or s: 1) whet her an appr opr i at e cur at i ve

i nst r uct i on was i ssued, 2) whet her t he j udi ci al r esponse was

t i mel y, and 3) whet her appel l ant s successf ul l y rebut t ed t he

pr esumpt i on t hat t he j ur y f ol l owed t he j udge' s i nst r uct i ons. See

Sepl veda, 15 F. 3d at 1185.

We begi n by consi der i ng whether t he cour t i ssued an

appr opr i at e cur at i ve i nst r uct i on. Appel l ant s cont end t hat t he

cour t ' s i nst r uct i on magni f i ed r at her t han r emedi ed t he r i sk of

pr ej udi ce because i t r ei nf or ced or vouched f or Tor r es' s t est i mony,

-20-


21/55

at l east i n so f ar as i t conf i r med t he exi st ence of a r el at ed ci vi l

case. Appel l ant s reason t hat as a r esul t , t he j ur or s coul d have

i nf er r ed t hat t he successf ul "sui t agai nst t he Muni ci pal i t y of San

J uan" was i n f act a j ur y ver di ct agai nst t he pol i ce f or ce pr emi sed

on t he same f act s as t he cr i mi nal case at hand.

Al t hough we r ecogni ze t he pot ent i al f or a pr ej udi ci al

i nf er ence, even i f a j ur or made the i nf er ences Appel l ant s suggest ,

however , t he cour t ' s f or cef ul cur at i ve i nst r uct i on expr essl y deal t

wi t h pr eci sel y t hese concer ns. I n t he i nst r uct i on, whi ch nei t her

r epeat ed the i mpr oper t est i mony nor r emi nded the j ur y of t he ci vi l

t r i al ' s out come, t he cour t r epeat edl y st at ed t hat t he def endant s

wer e not i nvol ved i n t he ci vi l t r i al t hat Tor r es had ment i oned.

Addi t i onal l y, t he cour t emphasi zed t hat "[ t ] he [ ci vi l ] case

i nvol ved . . . di f f er ent l egal i ssues and a di f f er ent bur den of

pr oof f or t he Pl ai nt i f f s, " and i t r epeat ed t hr ee t i mes t hat t he

j ur or s must not consi der any t est i mony about t he ci vi l t r i al i n

t hei r del i ber at i ons. We t her ef or e f i nd t hat t he cur at i ve

i nst r uct i on t hat t he cour t gave was worded appr opr i at el y t o r emedy

any pr ej udi ci al ef f ect of Tor r es' s t est i mony.

Turni ng next t o t he i ssue of t i mel i ness, Appel l ant s ar gue

t hat even i f t he i nst r uct i on was appr opr i at e, i t s i ssuance was t oo

del ayed t o r emedy t he pr ej udi ci al ef f ect of Tor r es' s st at ement .

Appel l ant s not e that t hi r t een days passed bet ween Tor r es' s

t est i mony on J ul y 1 and t he cour t ' s cur at i ve i nst r uct i on on

-21-


22/55

J ul y 14. Cer t ai nl y, " [ s] wi f t ness i n j udi ci al r esponse i s an

i mpor t ant el ement i n al l evi at i ng pr ej udi ce once t he j ur y has been

exposed t o i mpr oper t est i mony, " i d. , and "cour t [ s] shoul d pr oceed

wi t h t he t r i al af t er i nst r ucti ng t he j ur y t o di sr egar d t he

evi dence, " i d. at 1184 ( emphasi s added) . However , we have not

hel d t hat an i nst ant aneous i nst r uct i on i s necessar y i n al l

i nst ances. See Uni t ed St at es v. Gent el es, 619 F. 3d 74, 82 ( 1st

Ci r . 2010) ( af f i r mi ng deni al of mot i on f or mi st r i al wher e cour t

"di d not gi ve a cur at i ve i nst r uct i on i mmedi at el y f ol l owi ng t he

[ i mpr oper ] r emar k" but di d so dur i ng i t s f i nal i nst r uct i on t o t he

j ur y) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Macci ni , 721 F. 2d 840, 847 ( 1st Ci r . 1983)

( "Wai t i ng unt i l t he next day to gi ve t hese i nst r uct i ons di d not

pr ej udi ce t he def endant . I f anyt hi ng, t he l apse of t i me ai ded i n

al l owi ng t he j ur y t o f or get what , i n t he cont ext of a si x- day

t r i al , i s a de mi ni mi s i nci dent . ") .

I n t hi s case, t he cour t el ect ed t o r ecess f i f t y mi nut es

ear l y on J ul y 1 so t hat t he par t i es coul d pr ovi de br i ef i ng on t he

mi st r i al i ssue bef or e t he cour t proceeded wi t h t r i al . The cour t

t hen revi ewed t he br i ef s, det er mi ned a cur at i ve i nst r uct i on was

appr opr i at e, and del i ver ed t hat i nst r uct i on i mmedi at el y upon t he

r esumpt i on of t r i al , whi ch happened t o f ol l ow a pr e- schedul ed

r ecess of t hi r t een days. The cour t had pr evi ousl y i nf or med t he

j ur y of t he r ecess, and i t r emi nded t he j ur y of t he r eason f or t he

del ay i n t r i al i mmedi at el y af t er del i ver i ng t he cur at i ve

-22-


23/55

i nst r uct i on. I n t hese par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances, we f i nd t hat t he

j udi ci al r esponse t o t he i mpr oper t est i mony was suf f i ci ent l y

t i mel y.

Fi nal l y, Appel l ant s ar gue t hat t he pr esumpt i on t hat t he

j ur y f ol l ows t he j udge' s i nst r uct i ons cannot appl y here, and t hat

no cur at i ve i nst r uct i on coul d have r emedi ed the ext r eme pr ej udi ce

caused by Tor r es' s t est i mony. Appel l ant s asser t t hat Tor r es' s

t est i mony was l i kel y consi der ed aut hor i t at i ve because she was a l aw

enf or cement of f i cer and i t went t o t he cent r al i ssue at t r i al by

suggest i ng t hat t he pol i ce depar t ment had been f ound r esponsi bl e

f or Ri ver a' s deat h. As such, t hey cont end, no j ur or coul d have

i gnor ed t he t est i mony as i nst r uct ed.

Al t hough Appel l ant s' ar gument on t hi s poi nt i s not whol l y

wi t hout mer i t , on t hese f act s, i t f ai l s f or a number of r easons.

Fi r st , Tor r es' s passi ng r ef er ence t o a ci vi l case di d not i dent i f y

t he cl ai ms at i ssue i n t he ci vi l t r i al . Nor di d Tor r es st at e t hat

any of t he Appel l ant s had been f ound l i abl e f or any i nj ur y to

Ri ver a. I n f act , Tor r es di d not i dent i f y any of t he Appel l ant s as

par t i es t o t he ci vi l sui t . Appel l ant s' asser t i on t hat t he j ur y

l i kel y i nf er r ed t hat t he Appel l ant s wer e gui l t y because a ci vi l

t r i al had been deci ded agai nst di f f er ent def endant s on di f f er ent

i ssues i s t hus not per suasi ve. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Rul l n- Ri ver a,

60 F. 3d 16, 19- 20 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( af f i r mi ng deni al of mot i on f or

mi st r i al t hat "r est s excl usi vel y on t he concl usor y asser t i on t hat

-23-


24/55

t he j ur y coul d have i nf er r ed t hat [ appel l ant ] was gui l t y because

hi s codef endant absconded" dur i ng t r i al , wher e cour t gave

appr opr i at e i nst r uct i on) ( emphasi s omi t t ed) . Second, Appel l ant s

i gnor e t he f act t hat "wi t hi n wi de mar gi ns, t he pot ent i al f or

pr ej udi ce st emmi ng f r om i mpr oper t est i mony or comment s can be

sat i sf actori l y di spel l ed by appr opr i at e cur at i ve i nst r ucti ons. "

Sepl veda, 15 F. 3d at 1184.

Thi r d, t o over come t he pr esumpt i on t hat j ur or s f ol l ow t he

cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons, Appel l ant s wer e r equi r ed t o show a

pr obabi l i t y t hat "r esponsi bl e j ur or s wi l l be unabl e t o di sr egar d

t he t est i mony, " and "t he t est i mony l i kel y wi l l have a ser i ousl y

pr ej udi ci al ef f ect . " Uni t ed St at es v. Br adshaw, 281 F. 3d 278, 285

( 1st Ci r . 2002) . "Whet her or not a j ur y can be expect ed, under

pr oper i nst r uct i ons, t o di sr egar d par t i cul ar evi dence i s a j udgment

cal l , and one as t o whi ch appel l at e cour t s t ypi cal l y cede a hi gh

degr ee of def er ence t o t he t r i al cour t . " I d. at 284. Her e, t he

di st r i ct cour t f ound no reason t o depar t f r om t he pr esumpt i on t hat

t he j ur or s woul d f ol l ow i t s st r ong cur at i ve i nst r uct i on, and

nei t her do we. As t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y not ed, Appel l ant s

wer e unabl e t o show t hat t he t est i mony was l i kel y t o have a

ser i ousl y pr ej udi ci al ef f ect . Tor r es was t he el event h wi t ness f or

t he gover nment and t he f i f t h t o descr i be t he event s at t he gas

st at i on. Her passi ng r ef er ence t o a ci vi l t r i al agai nst di f f er ent

def endant s const i t ut ed a si ngl e sent ence of t est i mony del i ver ed

-24-


25/55

near t he mi d- poi nt of a t went y- si x- day t r i al spanni ng r oughl y two

mont hs. Consi der i ng t he suf f i ci ent r ecor d evi dence t o suppor t

Appel l ant s' convi ct i ons, di scussed at f ur t her l engt h bel ow, i t i s

di f f i cul t t o at t r i but e any pr ej udi ci al ef f ect t o Tor r es ' s

t est i mony. I n f act , t he j ur y acqui t t ed Pacheco on t he char ge of

usi ng excessi ve f or ce r esul t i ng i n i nj ur y or deat h, and i t

acqui t t ed Vi dal on t he count of assaul t i ng Ri ver a at t he pol i ce

st at i on.

We t her ef or e f i nd t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse

i t s di scr et i on when i t deni ed t he mot i on f or a mi st r i al and i nst ead

i ssued an appr opr i at e cur at i ve i nst r uct i on.

C. Denial of motion to suppress identification

Pagn cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n denyi ng

hi s mot i on t o suppr ess an i n- cour t i dent i f i cat i on. A br i ef sket ch

of t he r el evant f act s f ol l ows.

1. Background

On J une 23, 2009, t he government i nf or med t he cour t t hat

i t had met r ecent l y wi t h Sal as t o revi ew hi s t est i mony i n

pr epar at i on f or t r i al . At t hat meet i ng, Sal as vol unt eer ed t hat he

coul d i dent i f y t he man whom he had obser ved hi t t i ng Ri ver a at t he

gas st at i on on J ul y 20. Sal as expl ai ned t hat he had seen Pagn

ent er i ng t he cour t house a f ew days ear l i er , and he r ecogni zed hi m

as t he same man who had beat en Ri vera. Def ense counsel obj ect ed t o

any i n- cour t i dent i f i cat i on by Sal as, ar gui ng pr i mar i l y t hat i t was

-25-


26/55

i mpermi ss i bl y suggest i ve because no l i neup had been conduct ed pr i or

t o t r i al .

On J une 25, f i r st dur i ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng and t hen

agai n i n f r ont of t he j ur y, Sal as t est i f i ed t hat he was 100 per cent

cer t ai n t hat Pagn was t he man he saw punchi ng a handcuf f ed Ri ver a

i n t he f ace whi l e at t he gas st at i on on J ul y 20, 2003. He

expl ai ned t hat al t hough he di d not know hi s name, he had seen Pagn

at wor k f our or f i ve t i mes pr i or t o t hat ni ght , he had seen hi m

f i ve or si x t i mes subsequent l y, and he r ecogni zed hi m yet agai n

when he was ent er i ng t he cour t house. Sal as al so st ated t hat i n

t hei r pr i or encount er s, t he t wo men had, on occasi on, gr eet ed each

ot her br i ef l y, exchangi ng "hel l os" and handshakes.

Sal as admi t t ed t hat t he swor n st at ement he composed

shor t l y af t er t he i nci dent di d not i ncl ude a descr i pt i on of Pagn

or hi s act i ons t hat ni ght . He di d not ment i on Pagn t o

i nvest i gat or s unt i l hi s second i nt er vi ew wi t h t he FBI i n Mar ch

2008, at whi ch poi nt he descr i bed hi m as a man around si x f eet one

i nch t al l , whi t e, husky, wi t h a mi l i t ar y- st yl e hai r cut and wear i ng

an I mpact Uni t uni f or m. Sal as st at ed t hat he saw t hi s t al l , husky

man at t he gas st at i on t wi ce t hat ni ght : f i r st f or a f ew seconds

af t er Sal as f i ni shed handcuf f i ng Ri ver a, and agai n f or a f ew

seconds whi l e t he man was punchi ng Ri ver a i n t he f ace. When

t est i f yi ng bef or e a gr and j ur y, Sal as not ed t hat he bel i eved he

coul d pi ck t he man he had seen out of a phot o l i neup. However , t he

-26-


27/55

government never asked Sal as t o at t empt such a pr e- t r i al

i dent i f i cat i on.

The di st r i ct cour t eval uat ed Sal as' s t est i mony and

concl uded t hat even i f t he i dent i f i cat i on was i mper mi ssi bl y

suggest i ve, i t was suf f i ci ent l y r el i abl e as a mat t er of l aw so t hat

i t coul d be pr esent ed t o t he j ur y f or eval uat i on of i t s wei ght and

cr edi bi l i t y. Pagn' s mot i on t o suppr ess was deni ed.

2. Applicable law and analysis

Our r evi ew of t he deni al of a mot i on t o suppr ess an

i dent i f i cat i on i s pl enar y, but we r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

f act ual f i ndi ngs f or cl ear er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Ri ver a,

555 F. 3d 277, 283 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Br enni ck, 405

F. 3d 96, 99 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . We not e at t he out set t hat

i dent i f yi ng evi dence may onl y be suppr essed " i n ext r aor di nar y

ci r cumst ances, " and we "wi l l af f i r ma di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a

suppr essi on mot i on i f any reasonabl e vi ew of t he evi dence suppor t s

i t . " Ri ver a- Ri ver a, 555 F. 3d at 282.

To deter mi ne i f ext r aor di nary ci r cumst ances r equi r e

suppr essi on of an i dent i f i cat i on, we f ol l ow a t wo- st ep appr oach.

Fi r st , we must consi der whet her t he met hod of i dent i f i cat i on was

i mper mi ssi bl y suggest i ve, and i f so, we must det er mi ne i f t he

i dent i f i cat i on was never t hel ess suf f i ci ent l y r el i abl e. I d. Her e,

t he di st r i ct cour t assumed f or t he sake of argument t hat t he

-27-


28/55

i dent i f i cat i on was i mper mi ssi bl y suggest i ve, and i t pr oceeded t o

t he r el i abi l i t y anal ysi s. We shal l do t he same.

Fi ve f act or s bear on t he r el i abi l i t y of an i dent i f i cat i on

f or pur poses of admi ssi bi l i t y: 1) t he wi t ness' s oppor t uni t y t o

vi ew t he suspect ; ( 2) t he wi t ness' s degr ee of at t ent i on; ( 3) t he

accur acy of t he wi t ness' s descri pt i on pr i or t o t he i dent i f i cat i on;

( 4) t he wi t ness' s l evel of cer t ai nt y; and ( 5) t he l engt h of t i me

bet ween t he si ght i ng and t he i dent i f i cat i on. Ri ver a- Ri ver a, 555

F. 3d at 284. As t he di st r i ct cour t not ed, Sal as observed Pagn on

t wo occasi ons at t he gas st at i on on J ul y 20, 2003. Whi l e each

vi ewi ng was br i ef , l ast i ng onl y sever al seconds, t he t wo men wer e

i n cl ose pr oxi mi t y. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. De Len- Qui ones, 588

F. 3d 748, 754- 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( f i ndi ng suf f i ci ent r el i abi l i t y

wher e wi t ness " l ooked at [ t he def endant ] f or t hr ee seconds bef or e

he t ol d her t o l ook away") . Mor eover , t hi s was nei t her t he f i r st

nor t he l ast t i me t hat Sal as saw Pagn. The men had seen each

ot her f our or f i ve t i mes pr i or t o t he i nci dent whi l e at wor k, and

Sal as encount er ed hi m af t er war ds anot her f i ve or si x t i mes, each

t i me r ecogni zi ng hi m as the t al l , husky of f i cer f r om J ul y 20. Cf .

Uni t ed St ates v. Recendi z, 557 F. 3d 511, 526 ( 7t h Ci r . 2009)

( f i ndi ng i n- cour t i dent i f i cat i on suf f i ci ent l y r el i abl e i n par t due

t o wi t ness' s f ami l i ar i t y and r epeat ed encount er s wi t h def endant

pr i or t o t r i al ) . I n t hese ci r cumst ances, Sal as had suf f i ci ent

oppor t uni t y t o vi ew Pagn.

-28-


29/55

Sal as di d not t est i f y speci f i cal l y as t o hi s degr ee of

at t ent i on on J ul y 20, but hi s descr i pt i on of Pagn was accur at e. 5

Mor eover , Sal as t est i f i ed t hat he was " 100 per cent cer t ai n" t hat

Pagn was t he man he saw at t he gas st at i on on J ul y 20, despi t e the

f act t hat Pagn had got t en "somewhat f at t er " and was now wear i ng

gl asses. Fi nal l y, we not e t hat over f i ve year s passed bet ween t he

event s on J ul y 20 and Sal as' s i n- cour t i dent i f i cat i on of Pagn.

However , we have pr evi ousl y uphel d t he admi ss i on of an

i dent i f i cat i on wi t h an even l onger , near l y seven- year span bet ween

si ght i ng and i dent i f i cat i on wher e ot her r el i abi l i t y cri t er i a wer e

suf f i ci ent l y per suasi ve. Uni t ed St at es v. Fl or es- Ri ver a, 56 F. 3d

319, 331 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) . Here, where Sal as had a number of

oppor t uni t i es t o vi ew Pagn bef or e, dur i ng, and af t er t he i nci dent ,

pr ovi ded an accur at e descr i pt i on, and t est i f i ed t hat he was 100

per cent cer t ai n about hi s i dent i f i cat i on, we cannot f i nd t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n admi t t i ng t he i dent i f i cat i on.

5 Pagn cont est s t he accur acy of Sal as' s descr i pt i on i n a si ngl esent ence, ar gui ng t hat i t was t oo gener al t o be accur at e as

compar ed t o a descr i pt i on i n Nei l v. Bi gger s, 409 U. S. 188, 200( 1972) . Bi gger s does not hel p Pagn, however , as t he Cour t t her enot ed t hat t he wi t ness' s descr i pt i on i n t hat case was " mor e t hanor di nar i l y thor ough, " not t he benchmar k by whi ch al l ot herdescr i pt i ons must be measur ed. I d. I n Manson v. Br ai t hwai t e, 432U. S. 98, 115 ( 1977) , t he Cour t deemed r el i abl e a descr i pt i on wi t ha si mi l ar degr ee of gener al i t y as t he one Sal as pr ovi ded.

-29-


30/55

D. Sufficiency of the evidence

Mor al es, Pacheco, and Vi dal each chal l enge t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deni al of t hei r mot i ons f or j udgment of acqui t t al due t o

i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence. We r evi ew t he deni al of a Feder al Rul e of

Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 29 ( "Rul e 29" ) mot i on f or j udgment of acqui t t al

de novo. Uni t ed St ates v. Cr uzado- Laur eano, 404 F. 3d 470, 480 ( 1st

Ci r . 2005) . I n so doi ng, we exami ne t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o t he gover nment , t aki ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n

i t s f avor , and we ask whet her a r at i onal f act f i nder coul d have

f ound t he def endant gui l t y beyond a r easonabl e doubt . Uni t ed

St at es v. Angul o- Her nndez, 565 F. 3d 2, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

Accor di ngl y, "[ d] ef endant s chal l engi ng convi ct i ons f or

i nsuf f i ci ency of evi dence f ace an uphi l l bat t l e on appeal . " Uni t ed

St at es v. Li pscomb, 539 F. 3d 32, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( i nt er nal

quot at i ons and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

We addr ess each Appel l ant ' s ar gument s i n t ur n.

1. Morales

Moral es ar gues on appeal t hat t he evi dence was

i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a gui l t y ver di ct as t o Count One, t he ci vi l

r i ght s charge. Count One of t he i ndi ct ment charged Moral es and

ot her of f i cer s wi t h, whi l e act i ng under col or of l aw, ki cki ng,

punchi ng, and ot her wi se assaul t i ng Ri ver a, t her eby wi l l f ul l y

depr i vi ng hi m of t he r i ght t o be f r ee f r om t he use of unr easonabl e

-30-


31/55

f or ce i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 242 and 2. 6 Sect i on 242

pr ovi des f or an enhanced sent ence i f t he ci vi l r i ght s vi ol at i on

r esul t s i n bodi l y i nj ur y or deat h. I n Mor al es' s case, t he j ur y

f ound hi mgui l t y of causi ng bodi l y i nj ur y but not gui l t y of causi ng

Ri ver a' s deat h.

Moral es cont ends t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove

beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat he depr i ved Ri ver a of t he r i ght t o

be f r ee f r om t he unr easonabl e use of f or ce or t hat he ai ded and

abet t ed other s i n doi ng so. He suggest s t hat t he onl y evi dence of

hi s gui l t came f r om t he t est i mony of a si ngl e cooper at i ng

def endant , Gonzl ez. He cor r ect l y not es t hat nei t her Sal as nor

Tor r es t est i f i ed t hat t hey saw Mor al es at t he gas st at i on. Mor al es

f ur t her ar gues t hat Gonzl ez' s uncor r obor at ed t est i mony t hat he saw

Mor al es ki ck Ri ver a two or t hr ee t i mes at t he gas st at i on coul d not

be cr edi t ed because he f ai l ed t o ment i on Mor al es i n hi s f i r st

i nt er vi ew wi t h t he FBI .

Mor al es' s ar gument l acks mer i t . I n shor t , he asks us t o

f i nd t hat no reasonabl e j ur or coul d have cr edi t ed Gonzl ez' s

t est i mony t hat he saw Moral es ki cki ng Ri ver a. We have l ong hel d,

however , t hat " [ i ] n passi ng upon chal l enges t o t he suf f i ci ency of

t he evi dence, we are bound t o ref r ai n f r om maki ng i ndependent

j udgments as t o t he cr edi bi l i t y of wi t nesses. " Uni t ed St at es v.

6 18 U. S. C. 2 pr ovi des l i abi l i t y as a pr i nci pal f or one who ai dsand abet s t he commi ssi on of an of f ense agai nst t he Uni t ed St ates.

-31-


32/55

Or t i z de J ess, 230 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( unpubl i shed) . We

have no basi s f or di st ur bi ng t he j ur y' s cr edi bi l i t y j udgment s i n

t hi s case. A r easonabl e j ur or coul d wel l have cr edi t ed Gonzl ez' s

t est i mony over t hat of a f r i end of Moral es who cl ai med he di d not

see hi m, and much of Gonzl ez' s t est i mony was consi st ent wi t h t hat

of Sal as and Tor r es who si mi l ar l y obser ved I mpact Uni t of f i cer s

ki cki ng Ri ver a. Accor di ngl y, t he evi dence at t r i al , vi ewed i n t he

l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he gover nment , suf f i ced t o suppor t

Moral es' s convi ct i on on Count One.

2. Pacheco

Pacheco chal l enges hi s convi ct i ons under Count s Seven and

Twel ve, whi ch char ged hi mwi t h maki ng a mat er i al f al se st at ement t o

a f eder al agent , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1001, and obst r uct i ng

j ust i ce, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1512( b) ( 3) , r espect i vel y. The

j ur y acqui t t ed Pacheco of Count One, t he ci vi l r i ght s char ge, whi ch

Pacheco suggest s i s evi dence t hat t he j ur y bel i eved hi s cl ai m t hat

he was not at t he gas st at i on dur i ng t he i nci dent on J ul y 20. I f

t he j ur y bel i eved Pacheco' s al i bi , he ar gues, i t coul d not have

convi ct ed hi m on Count s Seven and Twel ve, si nce hi s al l eged f al se

st at ement s were that he was not at t he gas st at i on and t hat he had

no knowl edge about t he i nci dent . 7

7 Puzzl i ngl y, Pacheco dedi cat es a subst ant i al por t i on of hi s br i eft o ar gue t hat t he evi dence at t r i al was i nsuf f i ci ent t o convi ct hi mof a 242 ci vi l r i ght s vi ol at i on, an of f ense f or whi ch Pacheco wasnot , i n f act , convi ct ed. To t he ext ent t hat Pacheco may besuggest i ng t hat a convi ct i on on t he ci vi l r i ght s count was a

-32-


33/55

A r evi ew of t he evi dence qui ckl y reveal s t hat Pacheco' s

ar gument does not hol d wat er . At t r i al , t he gover nment of f er ed

evi dence t hat Pacheco, hi msel f a pol i ce of f i cer , t ol d Puer t o Ri co

pol i ce i nvest i gat or Ruf i no Dvi l a Pr ez and FBI Agent Lui s Ri ver o

t hat he had been wi t h Mor al es and Pagn i n t he I mpact Uni t van,

sear chi ng f or t he st ol en pol i ce vehi cl e, on J ul y 20. He cl ai med

t hat he never went t o or st opped by the gas st at i on dur i ng t he

i nci dent , t hat he r emai ned at t he si t e of t he r ecover ed pat r ol car ,

and t hat he had no i dea how Ri ver a came t o be i nj ur ed. Sal as,

however , t est i f i ed t hat he was " 100 per cent sur e" t hat he saw

Pacheco - - wi t h whom Sal as was per sonal l y f ami l i ar - - at t he gas

st at i on dur i ng t he i nci dent on J ul y 20, i n di r ect cont r adi ct i on of

Pacheco' s st at ement s. Addi t i onal l y, mul t i pl e wi t nesses pl aced t he

I mpact Uni t van - - i n whi ch Pacheco cl ai med t o be r i di ng - - at t he

gas st at i on al ong wi t h Pagn and Moral es, whomPacheco had cl ai med

wer e wi t h hi msear chi ng f or a pol i ce vehi cl e el sewher e at t he t i me.

Fr om t hi s evi dence, a r easonabl e j ur or coul d easi l y

concl ude t hat Pacheco l i ed t o i nvest i gat or s about hi s al i bi ,

act i ons, and knowl edge of t he event s of J ul y 20. I n sum, t he

evi dence was cl ear l y suf f i ci ent t o suppor t Pacheco' s convi ct i ons on

t he obst r uct i on of j ust i ce and hi nder i ng a f eder al i nvest i gat i on

char ges.

pr er equi si t e t o convi ct i ng hi m on t he obst r uct i on and f al sest at ement of f enses, t hi s l i ne of ar gument f i nds no suppor t i n t hel aw and i s swi f t l y r ej ect ed.

-33-


34/55

Pacheco pr ot est s, ar gui ng t hat t he convi ct i ons ar e

i nconsi st ent wi t h hi s acqui t t al on Count One and t hus must be

r ever sed. Al t hough "[ c] onsi st ency i n t he ver di ct i s not

necessar y, " Dunn v. Uni t ed St ates, 284 U. S. 390, 393 ( 1932) , t her e

i s no i nconsi st ency her e. The el ement s of t he 242 vi ol at i on, of

whi ch Pacheco was acqui t t ed, ar e di st i nct f r om t hose of Count s

Seven and Twel ve. 8 Accor di ngl y, t he j ur y coul d wel l have f ound

i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o convi ct Pacheco on t he ci vi l r i ght s char ge

whi l e st i l l f i ndi ng beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat Pacheco l i ed t o

i nvest i gat or s about wher e he was and what he knew r egar di ng t he

assaul t on Ri ver a.

Pacheco' s f i nal ar gument i s t hat even i f t he j ur y had

evi dence t hat he l i ed about hi s l ocat i on or knowl edge, t he

gover nment st i l l f ai l ed t o show t hat he had t he r equi si t e i nt ent t o

8 Count Seven r equi r ed t hat t he gover nment prove Pacheco knowi ngl yand wi l l f ul l y made a st at ement t hat was f al se, mater i al , and madei n a mat t er wi t hi n t he j ur i sdi ct i on of a f eder al agency. Uni t edSt at es v. Not ar ant oni o, 758 F. 2d 777, 785 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) . CountTwel ve r equi r ed pr oof t hat Pacheco knowi ngl y engaged i n "mi sl eadi ngconduct t owar d anot her per son, wi t h i nt ent t o . . . hi nder , del ay,or pr event t he communi cat i on t o a l aw enf or cement of f i cer . . . ofi nf or mat i on r el at i ng t o the commi ssi on or possi bl e commi ssi on of aFeder al of f ense. " 18 U. S. C. 1512( b) . I n cont r ast , Count Oner equi r ed t hat t he government pr ove t hat Pacheco: 1) act ed undercol or of l aw, 2) depr i ved Ri ver a of a const i t ut i onal r i ght , 3)

acted wi l l f ul l y, and as a r esul t , 4) Ri ver a suf f er ed bodi l y i nj ur y.See 18 U. S. C. 242. Thus, t he j ur y coul d have det er mi ned t hatt her e was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o pr ove beyond a reasonabl e doubtt hat Pacheco ki cked Ri ver a and t hus vi ol ated or ai ded and abet t edt he vi ol at i on of Ri ver a' s ci vi l r i ght s whi l e st i l l f i ndi ng beyonda r easonabl e doubt t hat he obst r uct ed j ust i ce and made f al sest at ement s.

-34-


35/55

obst r uct j ust i ce or hi nder a f eder al i nvest i gat i on. The r ecor d,

however , cl ear l y cont r adi ct s Pacheco' s cl ai m. Ther e was ampl e

evi dence, as descr i bed above, f or a r easonabl e j ur or t o concl ude

t hat Pacheco pr ovi ded mat er i al f al se st at ement s t o f eder al agent s

i nvest i gat i ng Ri ver a' s deat h, and t hat he di d so knowi ngl y,

wi l l f ul l y, and wi t h t he i nt ent t o pr event i nvest i gat or s f r om

di scover i ng t hat he and hi s f el l ow of f i cer s wer e pr esent at t he

cr i me scene and wer e ei t her wi t nesses t o or par t i ci pant s i n t he

assaul t of Ri ver a. We t her ef or e f i nd t hat t he evi dence was

suf f i ci ent t o suppor t Pacheco' s convi ct i ons on Count s Seven and

Twel ve.

3. Vidal

Li ke Mor al es, Vi dal ar gues t hat t he evi dence was

i nsuf f i ci ent t o pr ove hi s gui l t beyond a r easonabl e doubt as t o

Count One, t he ci vi l r i ght s char ge. Addi t i onal l y, Vi dal cont ends

t hat t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o est abl i sh hi s gui l t as t o

Count Four , whi ch char ged Vi dal wi t h vi ol at i ng Ri ver a' s

const i t ut i onal r i ght s by i nt ent i onal l y f ai l i ng t o i nt er vene t o

pr ot ect Ri ver a f r om har m at t he hands of t he of f i cer s i n Vi dal ' s

pr esence and under hi s super vi si on, al l i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

242.

Begi nni ng wi t h Count One, Vi dal ar gues t he evi dence at

t r i al showed onl y t hat he was present dur i ng Ri ver a' s ar r est and

t hat he f ai l ed t o t ake act i on. Mi ssi ng, he cl ai ms, i s any evi dence

-35-


36/55

t hat he wi l l f ul l y par t i ci pat ed i n t he assaul t as somet hi ng he

wi shed t o br i ng about , such t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove he

had t he r equi si t e i nt ent t o ai d and abet t he commi ssi on of a ci vi l

r i ght s vi ol at i on. The evi dence at t r i al , however , was not l i mi t ed

t o est abl i shi ng Vi dal ' s pr esence at t he scene on J ul y 20. Mul t i pl e

wi t nesses t est i f i ed t hat Vi dal hel ped hol d Ri ver a down on t he

gr ound whi l e t he of f i cer s under hi s super vi si on enci r cl ed and

r epeat edl y ki cked Ri ver a. I n addi t i on, Tor r es t est i f i ed t hat he

hear d Vi dal say " [ t ] hi s one' s mi ne, t hi s one' s mi ne, " as Vi dal

t r anspor t ed t he badl y i nj ur ed Ri ver a t o t he st at i on house. Once at

t he st at i on house, Vi dal st ood by and watched as Ri ver a was

assaul t ed f ur t her . Fromt hese f act s, a r easonabl e j ur or coul d have

concl uded t hat Vi dal wi l l f ul l y associ at ed hi msel f wi t h t he

vi ol at i on of Ri ver a' s ci vi l r i ght s and par t i ci pat ed i n t hi s

vi ol at i on as somet hi ng he wi shed t o br i ng about , i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 242 and 2.

Turni ng t o Count Four , Vi dal r epeat s t hat t he evi dence

showed onl y that he f ai l ed t o i nt er vene whi l e ot her of f i cer s beat

Ri ver a. He suggest s that mer e i nact i on i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o mer i t

super vi sor y l i abi l i t y f or a vi ol at i on of 242, and t hat i t was not

appar ent t hat he was act i ng unl awf ul l y by f ai l i ng t o i nt er vene.

See Uni t ed St at es v. Lani er , 520 U. S. 259, 265 ( 1997) ( hol di ng t hat

cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y f or depr i vat i on of a const i t ut i onal r i ght under

242 r equi r es t hat t he unl awf ul ness be appar ent under pr e- exi st i ng

-36-


37/55

l aw) . He f ur t her ar gues t hat hi s f ai l ur e t o i nt er vene as a

super vi sor i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a convi cti on, par t i cul ar l y

because i t occur r ed at t he gas st at i on, wher e event s unf ol ded

qui ckl y and the scene was chaot i c.

Vi dal ' s ar gument as t o Count Four al so f ai l s. The j ur y

hear d evi dence t hat Vi dal was a t r ai ned SJ MPD of f i cer , and t hat as

a resul t , he woul d have known t hat ki cki ng and punchi ng a

r est r ai ned suspect who posed no t hr eat t o ot her s went wel l beyond

t he accept abl e use of f or ce. I n ot her wor ds, Vi dal cannot

pl ausi bl y suggest t hat al l owi ng hi s subor di nat es t o r epeat edl y and

vi ol ent l y assaul t a handcuf f ed suspect const i t ut ed anyt hi ng ot her

t han an act of appar ent unl awf ul ness and a cl ear vi ol at i on of

Ri ver a' s ci vi l r i ght s. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ser r at a, 425 F. 3d 886,

896 ( 10t h Ci r . 2005) ( f i ndi ng suf f i ci ent evi dence t o uphol d a 242

convi ct i on wher e a pr i son guard st ood by and wat ched an unj ust i f i ed

assaul t on a per son i n hi s cust ody despi t e bei ng i n a posi t i on t o

i nt er vene) ; see al so DeShaney v. Wi nnebago Cnt y. Dep' t of Soc.

Ser vs. , 489 U. S. 189, 199200 ( 1989) ( " [ W] hen t he St ate t akes a

per son i nt o i t s cust ody and hol ds hi m t her e agai nst hi s wi l l , t he

Const i t ut i on i mposes upon i t a cor r espondi ng dut y t o assume some

r esponsi bi l i t y f or hi s saf et y. . . . [ An] af f i r mat i ve dut y t o

protect ar i ses . . . . " ) .

As we st at ed i n Wi l son v. Town of Mendon, 294 F. 3d 1 ( 1st

Ci r . 2002) , a super vi sor can be hel d l i abl e f or hi s f ai l ur e t o

-37-


38/55

i nt er vene t o pr ot ect an ar r est ee f r om hi s subor di nat es' excessi ve

use of f or ce when hi s "act i on or i nact i on [ i s] af f i r mat i ve[ l y]

l i nk[ ed] . . . t o t hat behavi or i n t he sense t hat i t coul d be

character i zed as super vi sor y encour agement , condonat i on or

acqui escence or gr oss negl i gence amount i ng t o del i ber ate

i ndi f f er ence. " I d. at 6 ( i nt er nal quot at i ons and ci t at i on

omi t t ed) . I n t hi s case, t he j ur y hear d t hat Vi dal hel d Ri ver a on

t he gr ound whi l e of f i cer s ki cked hi m, per mi t t ed an of f i cer t o punch

t he handcuf f ed Ri ver a i n t he f ace wi t hout comment , t ol d hi s

of f i cer s " t hi s one' s mi ne" as he t r anspor t ed a sever el y i nj ur ed

Ri ver a t o t he st at i on house r at her t han a hospi t al , and agai n

wat ched wi t hout i nt er veni ng as Ri ver a was f ur t her assaul t ed at t he

st at i on house. Vi dal ' s super vi sor y "acqui escence or gr oss

negl i gence amount i ng t o del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence" as t o t he r epeat ed

assaul t i ng of Ri ver a by hi s subor di nat es was t hus wel l - document ed.

I n t hese ci r cumst ances, we have no doubt t hat t he "evi dence,

i ncl udi ng al l pl ausi bl e i nf er ences dr awn t her ef r om, woul d al l ow a

r at i onal f act f i nder t o concl ude beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat t he

def endant commi t t ed t he charged cr i me. " Uni t ed St ates v. Troy, 583

F. 3d 20, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) .

E. Jury Instruction

For t he f i r st t i me on appeal , Mor al es ar gues t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed when i t i nst r ucted t he j ur y t hat i t coul d

-38-


39/55

i nf er consci ousness of gui l t f r om t he def endant s' st at ement s and

act i ons. Mor al es concedes t hat he f ai l ed t o pr eser ve t hi s cl ai mas

he di d not obj ect t o t he i nst r uct i on bel ow, and accor di ngl y, we

r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or onl y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Combs, 555 F. 3d

60, 63 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Mor al es t hus bear s t he bur den of showi ng

t hat : "an er r or occur r ed, whi ch was cl ear or obvi ous, and whi ch not

onl y af f ect ed t he def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s, but al so

ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c r eput at i on of

j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) .

Mor al es t akes i ssue wi t h t he f ol l owi ng l anguage f r omt he

cour t ' s i nstr uct i on:

When a def endant vol unt ar i l y . . . makes ast at ement t endi ng t o est abl i sh hi s i nnocence,and such . . . st at ement i s l at er shown t o beproven beyond a r easonabl e doubt knowi ngl yf al se i n whol e or i n par t , t he j ur y mayconsi der whet her t hi s ci r cumst ant i al evi dencepoi nt s t o a consci ousness of gui l t as t o t heci vi l r i ght s vi ol at i on. No one can beconvi ct ed of a cr i me on t he basi s ofconsci ousness of gui l t al one.

I n shor t , Mor al es ar gues t hat t hi s l anguage i mpr oper l y r el i eved t he

gover nment of i t s bur den of pr oof as t o the el ement of i nt ent f or

Count One. He t heor i zes t hat t he i nst r uct i on t ol d t he j ur y t hat

Mor al es' s st at ement s had al r eady been pr oven f al se, t hus i mpr oper l yest abl i shi ng consci ousness of gui l t , a pr ej udi ci al mi sst ep

necessi t at i ng a new t r i al .

-39-


40/55

Mor al es' s ar gument i s, at best , i l l concei ved. We have

l ong r ecogni zed t hat t r i al cour t s have "broad di scr et i on i n

deci di ng how best t o communi cat e compl i cated l egal r ul es t o a l ay

j ur y, " Uni t ed St at es v. Newel l , 658 F. 3d 1, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ,

and her e t he r ecor d shows t hat t he di st r i ct cour t act ed wel l wi t hi n

i t s di scr et i on. Mor al es' s ar gument t o t he cont r ar y i gnor es t he

condi t i onal l anguage t hat t he cour t used t o pr ef ace i t s i nst r uct i on

and t r ansf or ms l anguage about pot ent i al f i ndi ngs i nt o an asser t i on

of pr oven f act . I n shor t , Mor al es' s r eadi ng of t he i nst r uct i on i s

si mpl y not suppor t ed by t he record.

I n r eal i t y, t he cour t pr oper l y i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat

t he government bore t he bur den of pr ovi ng "each of t he el ement s of

t he cr i mes char ged beyond a r easonabl e doubt , " and t he

consci ousness of gui l t i nst r uct i on di d not cont r adi ct t hi s

r equi r ement . Mor al es has thus f ai l ed t o demonst r at e any er r or i n

t he cour t ' s consci ousness of gui l t i nst r ucti on, l et al one pl ai n

error . 9

9 Mor al es al so not es, wi t hout devel oped ar gument at i on, t hat t he

cour t l at er i nst r uct ed t hat " i nt ent i s a st at ement of mi nd and canbe pr oven by ci r cumst ant i al evi dence. I ndeed, i t can r ar el y beest abl i shed by any ot her means. " Al t hough i t i s not cl ear whet herMor al es seeks t o chal l enge t hi s i nst r uct i on, we not e t hat t hi sl anguage i s cl ear l y not er r oneous and does not l ower t hegover nment ' s bur den of pr oof , but r at her i nst r uct s t he j ur y as t ot he t ypes of evi dence i t may consi der .

-40-


41/55

F. Variance

Mor al es al so ar gues t hat t her e was a mat er i al var i ance

r egar di ng Count Si xteen of t he i ndi ct ment , whi ch char ged hi m wi t h

maki ng f al se st at ement s t o a f eder al gr and j ur y, i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 1623. "A var i ance occur s when t he cr i me char ged r emai ns

unal t er ed, but t he evi dence adduced at t r i al pr oves di f f er ent f act s

t han t hose al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment . " Uni t ed St at es v.

Del l osant os, 649 F. 3d 109, 116 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Mangual - Sant i ago, 562 F. 3d 411, 421 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) )

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Mor al es f ai l ed t o r ai se t hi s

obj ect i on bel ow, and t hus we r evi ew onl y f or pl ai n er r or . Combs,

555 F. 3d at 63.

The i ndi ct ment al l eged t hat Mor al es made si x f al se

st at ement s t o t he gr and j ur y. These st at ement s i ncl uded asser t i ons

t hat Mor al es di d not go t o t he gas st at i on, t hat he di d not see

Ri ver a at t he gas st at i on, t hat he di d not know how Ri ver a was

i nj ur ed, and t hat he di d not par t i ci pat e i n any way i n t he ar r est

of Ri ver a. Moral es now argues t hat no evi dence was of f er ed t o show

t hat he par t i ci pat ed i n Ri ver a' s ar r est . Thi s, he cl ai ms,

demonst r ates a mat er i al var i ance as t o Count Si xteen t hat af f ect ed

hi s subst ant i al r i ght s. He suggest s t hat he was unf ai r l y

pr ej udi ced by spi l l over evi dence regar di ng hi s codef endant s'

par t i ci pat i on i n t he ar r est , and t hat r ever sal i s t hus r equi r ed.

-41-


42/55

Si gni f i cant l y, however , Mor al es concedes t hat t he

gover nment ' s evi dence pl aced hi m at t he gas st at i on and ki cki ng

Ri ver a at t he t i me of t he ar r est , al t hough he cl ai ms i t was not

speci f i ed whet her t he ki cks happened bef ore or af t er Ri ver a was

handcuf f ed. I n ei t her case, a r easonabl e j ur or coul d have easi l y

concl uded t hat ki cki ng Ri ver a at t he gas st at i on as of f i cer s wer e

br i ngi ng hi mi nt o cust ody const i t ut ed some f or mof par t i ci pat i on i n

t he ar r est . I n sum, t he evi dence at t r i al pr oved pr eci sel y t he

f act s al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment .

Mor eover , even i f t her e was a var i ance as t o Mor al es' s

par t i ci pat i on i n Ri ver a' s ar r est , Mor al es has made no showi ng of

mat er i al i t y or pr ej udi ce. See Uni t ed St at es v. Twi t t y, 72 F. 3d

228, 231 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( "[ T] he j ur y can convi ct even i f t he f act s

f ound ar e somewhat di f f er ent t hat t hose char ged - - so l ong as t he

di f f er ence does not cause unf ai r pr ej udi ce. " ) . As we have

pr evi ousl y expl ai ned, " [ a] j ur y need not bel i eve t hat t he def endant

di d ever yt hi ng t hat t he i ndi ct ment char ges; i t may convi ct i f i t

bel i eves he di d some of t he t hi ngs t he i ndi ct ment char ges, " so l ong

as " t hose t hi ngs, by t hemsel ves, amount t o a vi ol at i on of t he

st atut e, [ and] t he i ndi ct ment enabl es t he accused t o know t he

nat ur e and cause of t he accusat i on agai nst hi m. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Muef f el man, 470 F. 3d 33, 38- 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks and br acket s omi t t ed) . Her e, Mor al es' s st at ement t hat he di d

not par t i ci pat e i n Ri ver a' s ar r est was but one of si x f al se

-42-


43/55

st at ement s set out i n t he i ndi ct ment t o suppor t a convi ct i on under

18 U. S. C. 1623. Moral es does not and cannot r ef ut e t he f act t hat

t he j ur y hear d evi dence di r ect l y cont r adi ct i ng each of hi s ot her

st at ement s t o the gr and j ur y as descr i bed i n Count Si xteen of t he

i ndi ct ment . Thus, Mor al es has f ai l ed t o show a mat er i al var i ance

bet ween t he al l egat i ons i n Count Si xteen and t he evi dence at t r i al

t hat af f ected hi s subst ant i al r i ght s.

G. Vidal's Sentence

Vi dal ' s f i nal cl ai mon appeal i s t hat t he di str i ct cour t

er r ed i n sent enci ng hi m on Count s One and Four when i t used t he

wr ong Sent enci ng Gui del i nes manual t o cal cul at e hi s base of f ense

l evel . By appl yi ng t he l ess f avor abl e Gui del i nes i n ef f ect on t he

dat e of sent enci ng r at her t han t he Gui del i nes manual i n ef f ect at

t i me of t he of f ense, Vi dal ar gues, t he cour t vi ol at ed t he Ex Post

Fact o Cl ause of t he Const i t ut i on. See U. S. Const . ar t . I , 9, cl .

3.

1. Background

On August 13, 2009, Vi dal was convi ct ed on Counts One and

Four of vi ol at i ng Ri ver a' s ci vi l r i ght s and causi ng hi s deat h, i n

vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 242. Vi dal was al so convi ct ed on Count s

Ni ne and Fi f t een, f or maki ng f al se st at ement s i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 1001 and obst r uct i ng j ust i ce i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

1512( b) ( 3) , r espect i vel y. The of f ense conduct per t ai ni ng t o

Count s One and Four t ook pl ace i n J ul y 2003, whi l e t he of f ense

-43-


44/55

conduct per t ai ni ng to Count s Ni ne and Fi f t een occur r ed i n Mar ch

2008.

At sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct cour t adopt ed t he Gui del i nes

cal cul at i ons set f or t h i n t he Pr esent ence Repor t ( "PSR") . Usi ng

t he November 2009 edi t i on of t he Gui del i nes manual , t o whi ch Vi dal

di d not obj ect , t he cour t gr ouped Vi dal ' s f our of f enses of

convi ct i on pur suant t o U. S. S. G. 3D1. 2( b) and ( c) . 10 The cour t

t hen cal cul at ed Vi dal ' s t ot al of f ense l evel t o be 39, whi ch

pr oduced a Gui del i nes sent ence r ange of 262 t o 327 mont hs. Af t er

consi der i ng t he r el evant sent enci ng f act or s, t he di st r i ct cour t

announced a bel ow- Gui del i nes sent ence of 200 mont hs of i mpr i sonment

as t o Counts One and Four , and 57 mont hs of i mpr i sonment as t o

Count s Ni ne and Fi f t een, al l t o be ser ved concur r ent l y.

10 U. S. S. G. 3D1. 2 i nst r ucts t hat "[ a] l l count s i nvol vi ngsubst ant i al l y the same har mshal l be gr ouped t oget her i nt o a si ngl eGr oup. " Thi s pr ovi si on appl i es " [ w] hen count s i nvol ve t he samevi ct i m and t wo or more act s . . . connect ed by a common cr i mi nalobj ect i ve or const i t ut i ng par t of a common scheme or pl an, " 3D1. 2( b) , and "[ w] hen one of t he count s embodi es conduct t hat i st r eat ed as a speci f i c of f ense char act er i st i c i n, or ot heradj ust ment t o, t he gui del i ne appl i cabl e t o anot her of t he count s, "

3D1. 2( c) . The appl i cat i on not es t o t hese i nst r uct i on add t hat"when conduct t hat r epr esent s a separ at e count , e. g. , . . .obstr uct i on of j ust i ce, i s al so a speci f i c of f ense char act er i st i ci n or ot her adj ust ment t o another count , t he count r epr esent ed byt hat conduct i s t o be gr ouped wi t h the count t o whi ch i tconst i t ut es an aggr avat i ng f act or . " U. S. S. G. 3D1. 2( c)appl i cat i on n. 5.

-44-


45/55

2. Applicable law and analysis

Vi dal now argues t hat because hi s of f enses under Count s

One and Four were compl et ed on J ul y 20, 2003, t he cour t shoul d have

used t he Gui del i nes manual i n ef f ect on t hat date - - t he November

2002 manual - - t o cal cul at e hi s of f ense l evel . He not es t hat t he

November 2002 manual provi ded a base of f ense l evel of 25 as t o

Count s One and Four , but t hat t he subsequent amendment of t he

Gui del i nes i n 2004 r esul t ed i n a f our - l evel i ncr ease i n t he

appl i cabl e base of f ense l evel . As a r esul t , hi s t ot al of f ense

l evel was i ncr eased f r om 34, wi t h a Gui del i nes r ange of 168 t o 210

mont hs, t o 39, wi t h a cor r espondi ng r ange of 262 t o 327 mont hs.

Thi s si gni f i cant i ncr ease i n t he appl i cabl e Gui del i nes r ange, Vi dal

ar gues, evi dences an ex post f act o vi ol at i on t hat necessi t at es

r esent enci ng. Because Vi dal f ai l ed t o r ai se hi s ex post f act o

ar gument s bel ow, we r evi ew hi s cl ai m onl y f or pl ai n er r or . Uni t ed

St at es v. Rodr guez, 630 F. 3d 39, 41 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

The Ex Post Fact o Cl ause " f or bi ds t he appl i cat i on of any

l aw or r ul e t hat i ncr eases puni shment f or pr e- exi st i ng conduct . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Regan, 989 F. 2d 44, 48 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) .

Accor di ngl y, t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes have l ong i nst r uct ed

di st r i ct cour t s t o appl y t he Gui del i nes i n f or ce at t he t i me of

sent enci ng unl ess doi ng so woul d r ai se ex post f act o concer ns, i n

whi ch case t he sent enci ng cour t shoul d appl y t he Gui del i nes i n

ef f ect at t he t i me of t he of f ense of convi ct i on. U. S. S. G. 1B1. 11

-45-


46/55

( b) ( 1) ( pol i cy st at ement ) . We have commended t hi s pr act i ce, not i ng

t hat "avoi di ng even t he sl i ght est suggest i on of an ex post f act o

pr obl em . . . makes emi nent l y good sense regardl ess of whet her t he

pr act i ce st ems f r om a const i t ut i onal i mper at i ve. " Rodr guez, 630

F. 3d at 42.

The i ssue i s of t en compl i cat ed, however , when def endant s

l i ke Vi dal ar e sent enced f or mul t i pl e convi ct i ons ar i si ng f r om

of f enses commi t t ed over a per i od of t i me that spans mul t i pl e

ver si ons of t he f r equent l y- r evi sed Gui del i nes. I n t hi s si t uat i on,

t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes pr ovi de addi t i onal i nst r uct i on. The

Gui del i nes' one book r ul e speci f i es t hat a si ngl e ver si on of t he

Gui del i nes shoul d be appl i ed f or al l convi ct i ons at sent enci ng.

See i d. 1B1. 11( b) ( 2) . The Gui del i nes al so pr ovi de i nst r uct i on as

t o t he mul t i pl e- of f ense scenar i o, so t hat "[ i ] f t he def endant i s

convi ct ed of t wo of f enses, t he f i r st commi t t ed bef or e, and t he

second af t er , a revi sed edi t i on of t he Gui del i nes Manual became

ef f ect

United States v. Vidal-Maldonado, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Vidal-Maldonado, 1st Cir. (2013)