Melendez v. People
56 V.I. 244
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Melendez was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and related offenses in a shooting at a Virgin Islands public housing community on Dec 25, 2007.
- Evidence challenged: (1) items seized from Jeffrey Browne’s 2007 Hyundai Brio, (2) Marcella Browne’s February 4, 2008 statements, and (3) two victim death certificates.
- Melendez argued juror misconduct, improper venue change, and denial of rebuttal witnesses; he contends several evidentiary and procedural errors violated his rights.
- VIPD seized Browne’s car; later obtained a warrant and found a bulletproof vest and a spent shotgun shell resembling those at the scene.
- Trial court admitted death certificates and Marcella’s statements; Melendez unsuccessfully challenged confrontation and Bruton-related issues.
- Court affirms Superior Court judgment, addressing suppression, confrontation, venue, and juror issues in light of controlling precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge seizure of vehicle | Melendez lacks standing waived; issue preserved. | Standing should be reviewed; Fourth Amendment rights personal. | Waived on appeal; merits addressed. |
| Admissibility of Marcella Browne’s February 4, 2008 statement under Bruton | Statement implicates Melendez and should be excluded. | Statement not on face prejudicial; redacted portions removed. | Admissible; failure to give Bruton instruction deemed harmless error. |
| Admission of Burke and McIntosh death certificates under Confrontation Clause | Certificates are testimonial; author unavailable; Confrontation violated. | Hearsay exception; could be admitted; not testimonial. | Confrontation violation; harmless error given overwhelming other evidence. |
| Pretrial publicity and fair trial; change of venue | Extensive publicity prejudiced jury pool; venue transfer required. | Publicity limited in time; no presumption of prejudice; venue not required. | No reversible error; venue not sua sponte transferred. |
| Juror misconduct by nondisclosure during voir dire | Jurors failed to disclose familial ties to law enforcement. | Jurors answered affirmatively; inquiries were adequate. | Voir dire disclosures not shown to have biased the trial; no new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (established automobile exception and privacy expectations principles)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984) (taint and independent-source doctrine for evidence obtained after illegal seizure)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (independent-source and taint concepts for exclusionary rule)
- Glover, 9 Fed. Appx. 167 (4th Cir. 2001) (taint analysis for seized vehicle later searched)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (prohibits non-testifying codefendant's statements against a defendant)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (redaction can avoid Bruton issue in some co-defendant statements)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require cross-examination)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic affidavits are testimonial; confrontation applies)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (defining testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements)
- United States v. Vega Molina, 407 F.3d 511 (1st Cir. 2005) (linkage and contextual implication not to convert admissible statements into Bruton issues)