1:23-cr-00407
S.D.N.Y.Aug 15, 2025Background
- Defendants were indicted for racketeering conspiracy involving the "2860" gang, alleged drug trafficking, violent crimes, and firearms offenses in the Bronx, NY.
- The superseding indictment details specific acts, including a stabbing for Altorei and a shooting involving Bautista, along with conspiracy and firearms charges against all three defendants.
- Bautista moved for various forms of pretrial relief, including compelled disclosures (Rule 404(b), Brady, Giglio, Jencks Act), a bill of particulars, striking surplusage from the indictment, severance, and exclusion of certain identification testimony.
- Altorei joined Bautista’s motion in full, without offering independent arguments.
- The court reviewed all parties’ arguments and denied Bautista’s motion in its entirety but directed parties to meet regarding limited report disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Bautista's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early Rule 404(b) Disclosure | Compel pretrial disclosure of prior bad acts and exclude 2013 conviction evidence | Will timely comply with Rule 404(b); 2013 conviction is direct evidence, not 404(b) | Denied as premature; government’s obligations recognized |
| Bill of Particulars | Needed due to overlapping timeframe and double jeopardy concerns | Sufficient detail provided in indictment and discovery; no double jeopardy | Denied; indictment and discovery sufficient; no double jeopardy issue |
| Compelled Disclosure (Brady/Giglio/Jencks/Rule 16) | Immediate/pretrial access required; specific request for certain reports | Has complied and will comply; Jencks Act does not require pretrial disclosure | Denied; government’s representation of compliance sufficient for now |
| Striking Surplusage from Indictment | Strike means/methods, conspiracy, and special sentencing factor paragraphs as prejudicial and irrelevant | Allegations are directly relevant, not just prejudicial | Denied; material is relevant and admissible |
| Severance of Counts & Defendants | Needed to prevent prejudice, Confrontation Clause issues, and spillover from other counts | Joinder proper; no ripe confrontation or prejudice shown | Denied, as speculative and premature |
| Limit Lay Opinion Identification Testimony | Preclude lay IDs of surveillance footage, especially by law enforcement | Will use fact witnesses with personal knowledge, as allowed by Circuit precedent | Denied as premature; best decided closer to trial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1987) (addresses the purpose and standard for a bill of particulars)
- United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) (discusses standard for striking surplusage and use of prior convictions as RICO predicates)
- United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) (strong presumption in favor of joint trials for co-defendants in conspiracy cases)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (standard for severance of defendants/co-defendants in federal criminal cases)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (jury findings required for special sentencing factors that increase penalty)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality of Brady evidence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (government’s obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (disclosure of impeachment evidence is part of Brady obligations)