United States v. Benabe
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17145
7th Cir.2011Background
- Insane Deuces gang operated in Aurora, Illinois with long-running RICO conspiracy and violent crimes; six defendants were tried in first trial (Benabe, Salazar, Juarez, Guzman, Susinka, Delatorre) with Delatorre and Benabe eventually removed from courtroom for disruptive sovereignty claims; Rivera’s covert recordings and cooperation linked to multiple murders and guns; jury heard extensive tape-recorded admissions and ballistics evidence; verdicts: all six convicted of RICO conspiracy, with additional counts including murder and firearms offenses; Sentences: several life terms and lengthy terms for others, plus forfeiture findings on firearms.
- The district court ordered an anonymous jury due to safety concerns about jurors and potential intimidation by the Insane Deuces.
- Before jury selection, Delatorre and Benabe repeatedly disrupted proceedings with sovereign-citizen and immunity arguments; the court removed them the day before trial began, allowing a live video feed from the MCC; the absence of these defendants during trial was treated as a waiver of presence.
- On appeal, the defendants challenge (1) anonymous jury, (2) removal for disruptive conduct under Sixth Amendment and Rule 43, (3) identification evidence (out-of-court and in-court identifications of Guzman), and (4) jury instructions and related evidentiary rulings (partial transcripts, Pinkerton instruction, etc.); the Seventh Circuit affirms most convictions but adjusts Susinka’s sentence to three years of supervised release.
- The court applies a three-pronged test for waivers of the right to be present, rejects per se rules for removal, and finds Rule 43 error harmless; it upholds eyewitness identifications as reliable, and finds jury instructions and transcript provisions to be proper given the record and Apprendi constraints.
- The companion opinion in Morales addresses related issues in the second trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anonymous juror impanelment was permissible | Mansoori supports anonymity to protect jurors. | Defendants argue anonymity infringes presumption of innocence and voir dire challenges. | No abuse; there was sufficient 'something more' to justify anonymity. |
| Whether removal of Delatorre and Benabe violated Sixth Amendment Rule 43 | Defendants’ disruptive conduct threatened fair trial; removal justified for disruption. | Removal before trial begins violates presence rights; timing should have been morning. | Waiver found; removal valid; Rule 43 error deemed harmless. |
| Whether eyewitness identifications were properly admitted | Identifications reliable despite time gaps and multiple procedures. | Identifications tainted by suggestive procedures. | Identifications admissible; cross-examination and reliability arguments addressed. |
| Whether jury instructions and transcript provisions were proper | Pinkerton instruction appropriate in penalty phase; aiding-and-abetting instruction proper. | Potential misdirection or improper scope for pattern acts and transcript playbacks. | Instructions held proper; no reversible error; harmless rulings on transcripts. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mansoori, 304 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2002) (juror anonymity only with strong justification and risk of intimidation)
- United States v. Crockett, 979 F.2d 1204 (7th Cir. 1992) (protects anonymity when juror safety and integrity are at risk)
- United States v. DiDomenico, 78 F.3d 294 (7th Cir. 1996) (discusses limitations on juror challenges under anonymity and voir dire)
- United States v. Edmond, 52 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (role of juror challenges and anonymity considerations)
- Allen v. United States, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970) (right to be present at trial and can be waived by conduct after warning)
- Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442 (U.S. 1912) (waiver of right to be present can be voluntary or by consent)
- Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1973) (per curiam on waiver of right to be present)
- Watkins v. United States, 983 F.2d 1413 (7th Cir. 1993) (three-step test for waiver of right to be present)
- Crosby v. United States, 506 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1993) ( Rule 43 and harmless error considerations)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (limits on determining penalties based on facts)