United States v. Alexsi Lopez
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10768
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2007 two men robbed a Langley Park, MD brothel; one patron (Cordon) was stabbed to death and a worker (Garcia-Calderon) was raped. Police collected physical evidence including a knife sheath.
- Initial DNA triage testing (due to resource limits) delayed full testing; in 2011 the sheath was tested and in April 2012 CODIS matched the sheath DNA to Alexsi Lopez. PGCPD confirmed the match in June 2012.
- Lopez (17 at the time of the crime) was indicted in July 2013 at age 24 on Hobbs Act conspiracy and robbery charges; co-defendant Cerros-Cruz pleaded guilty and received 10 years.
- Lopez moved to dismiss on multiple timing grounds: (1) that he should have been tried as a juvenile under the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA); (2) that the prosecution was time-barred by the Hobbs Act five-year statute of limitations; and (3) that due-process pre-indictment delay violated his rights. The district court denied relief; Lopez was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 20 years.
- Key evidentiary and trial issues included admission of DNA evidence (conditional on lack of contamination), use of a confidential informant’s testimony, and a government rebuttal comment about MS-13 retaliation. Lopez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lopez) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §5031 of the JDA required juvenile treatment because offense occurred before 18 | Lopez: JDA protects those whose culpability at offense was juvenile; excluding those charged after 21 is arbitrary and unconstitutional | Government: §5031 ties juvenile status to age when brought into process; Congress rationally focused on prospects for rehabilitation at charging time | Court: Affirmed §5031; rational basis upheld — JDA protects those under 21 at time of proceedings, not solely at offense time |
| Whether prosecution violated statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. §3282(a) or was timely under §3297 (DNA-triggered restart) | Lopez: He was "implicated" for §3297 when his DNA entered CODIS in 2008, so new 5-year period expired before 2013 indictment | Government: §3297 is triggered only when DNA testing produces a match implicating an identified person; that occurred in 2012 | Court: Adopted government reading (following Hagler); §3297 triggered by a DNA match in 2012 so indictment in 2013 was timely |
| Whether pre-indictment delay violated due process | Lopez: Six-year delay caused prejudice (lost evidence/witness memory) and was unjustified | Government: Delay resulted from investigative triage and legitimate follow-up; no actual substantial prejudice shown | Court: No actual substantial prejudice shown; delay attributable to reasonable investigation; due-process claim fails |
| Whether Hobbs Act conviction lacked interstate-commerce nexus | Lopez: Robbery of a local illegal brothel did not sufficiently affect interstate commerce | Government: Illegal brothel is an inherently economic enterprise; evidence showed interstate facilitation (workers from NY, out-of-state condoms) | Court: Minimal/de minimis effect sufficient; evidence allowed reasonable jury to find commerce nexus; conviction sustained |
| Whether government’s rebuttal vouching for informant required new trial | Lopez: Rebuttal comment about MS-13 retaliation improperly vouched and prejudiced jury | Government: Rebuttal drew sensible inference from trial evidence about MS-13 threats; isolated and not prejudicial | Court: Even if improper, remarks were not prejudicial enough to require new trial; plain-error review fails |
| Whether DNA evidence admission was improper given possible bag contamination | Lopez: Stain on evidence bag could have contaminated sheath DNA; move to strike | Government: Lab testimony supported lack of contamination; court conditionally admitted under Rule 104(b) for jury to resolve | Court: Admission under Rule 104(b) appropriate; sufficient evidence for jury to find no contamination |
| Whether 20-year sentence was substantively unreasonable/ disparate | Lopez: Sentence excessive relative to co-defendant Cerros-Cruz’s 10-year plea deal | Government: Co-defendant pleaded guilty and admitted culpability; sentencing differences reflect plea/charge choices | Court: No abuse of discretion; disparity explained by different procedural choices and lack of invidious discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Blake, 571 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 2009) (interprets JDA age-language and application)
- United States v. Hagler, 700 F.3d 1091 (7th Cir. 2012) (holds §3297 triggered by DNA match to an identified person)
- United States v. Taylor, 754 F.3d 217 (4th Cir. 2014) (robbery of illegal drug enterprise affects interstate commerce under Hobbs Act)
- United States v. Williams, 342 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2003) (illegal commercial enterprises are inherently economic for Hobbs Act purposes)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) (juvenile-transfer hearing protections)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (Rule 104(b) conditional relevance standard)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (Eighth Amendment bar on juvenile death penalty)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (limitations on mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles)
- United States v. Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2013) (sentencing disparity analysis where co-defendant pled guilty)