United States v. Alcantara, 674 F. App'x 27

Defendant Digna Alcantara was convicted after a five-day jury trial in S.D.N.Y. of theft of government property (18 U.S.C. § 641) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A).
At trial the government proved a scheme using stolen identities to obtain fraudulent tax refunds; Alcantara previously had a conviction for conspiracy to commit tax fraud involving similar conduct.
During defense summation counsel argued Alcantara was a "patsy/dupe," suggesting mental illness and lack of specific intent, despite earlier indications such defenses would not be pursued.
After defense summation, the district court allowed the government to reopen its case to rebut arguments bearing on Alcantara’s knowledge and intent.
The district court admitted Alcantara’s prior tax-fraud conspiracy conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); the parties had stipulated to the conviction and the court gave a limiting instruction.
Alcantara appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion by permitting the government to reopen its case and (2) the prior conviction was improperly admitted; the Second Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by permitting the government to reopen its case after defense summation	Gov’t: Reopening proper to rebut new arguments about knowledge/intent raised in summation	Alcantara: Reopening was improper and prejudicial after defense rested and summed	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; reopening allowed to respond to issues defense unexpectedly placed at issue
Whether admission of Alcantara’s prior conspiracy-to-commit-tax-fraud conviction was improper under Rule 404(b)	Gov’t: Prior conviction probative of knowledge and intent given similarity of schemes	Alcantara: Prior conviction unduly prejudicial and should be excluded	Affirmed — prior conviction admissible under inclusionary 404(b) analysis; limiting instruction given; no plain error

United States v. Parkes, 497 F.3d 220 (2d Cir.) (district court has wide discretion to reopen case)
United States v. Bennett, 709 F.2d 803 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for reopening decision)
Zervos v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 252 F.3d 163 (2d Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion framework)
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (Sup. Ct.) (test for admitting other-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
United States v. Scott, 677 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.) (inclusionary approach to Rule 404(b) evidence)
United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.) (Huddleston inquiry applied in this Circuit)
United States v. Pierce, 785 F.3d 832 (2d Cir.) (plain-error review when 404(b) objection not timely raised)
United States v. Caputo, 808 F.2d 963 (2d Cir.) (prior similar schemes probative of intent)
United States v. Araujo, 79 F.3d 7 (2d Cir.) (limiting instruction reduces prejudice from other-act evidence)