United States v. Aponte-Sobrado, 847 F. Supp. 2d 316

On September 19, 2011, a jury found Aponte-Sobrado, Vizcarrondo-Casanova, and Diaz-Colon guilty of conspiracy to commit carjacking, conspiracy to deprive the victim of his rights, and actual deprivation of rights; Aponte and Vizcarrondo were also convicted of carjacking.
Diaz moved for judgment of acquittal and/or a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 and 33 on November 14, 2011; the Court granted joinder of co-defendants.
The government responded to the motions on December 14, 2011.
The standard for a judgment of acquittal requires assessing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if it could sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal on Count 5, finding sufficient evidence of a conspiracy with a state actor to violate the Fourth Amendment; it also held jury instructions, witness vouching, and closing-argument conduct did not warrant vacating the convictions.
The court concluded by denying both the motion for judgment of acquittal and the motion for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government proved a § 241 conspiracy against a state actor.	Aponte-Sobrado et al. argued no meaningful state action.	Defendants argued absence of color of law participation.	Count 5 established; conviction sustained.
Whether the jury instruction adequately required state action.	No plain error in omitting color of law language.	Instructions were defective.	Instructions proper; no error.
Whether the government engaged in improper witness vouching in rebuttal.	Prosecutor vouched for witnesses' credibility.	Rebuttal was improper vouching.	No improper vouching; rebuttal proper.
Whether the government disparaged the defense by questioning the wife’s fidelity.	Government comments disparaged defense.	Comments improperly attacked the defense.	No disparagement; comment was responsive to defense.

United States v. Lara, 181 F.3d 183 (1st Cir. 1999) (standard for sufficiency in reviewing Rule 29 arguments)
United States v. Soler, 275 F.3d 146 (1st Cir. 2002) (sufficiency and standard for credibility determinations)
United States v. Diaz, 300 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2002) (sufficiency and standard for reviewing evidence)
Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539 (1967) (conspiracy elements require essential plan and connection without detailing all participants)
United States v. Lebron-Gonzalez, 816 F.2d 823 (1st Cir. 1987) (no plain error where instructions described rights at stake and color-of-law element appears elsewhere)
United States v. Manning, 23 F.3d 570 (1st Cir. 1994) (prosecutor’s statements about witnesses not per se improper vouching)
United States v. Rodriguez, 215 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2000) (proper response to defense arguments when evidence already before jury)
United States v. Perez-Ruiz, 353 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) (witness credibility arguments can be proper if responsive and grounded in evidence)