675 F.Supp.3d 226
D.P.R.2023Background
- Defendant Alexis Candelario‑Santana was indicted in a 52‑count third‑superseding indictment alleging RICO, VICAR (murder in aid of racketeering), § 924(j) firearm‑death counts, drug‑related murder, conspiracy, and firearms possession; he was convicted at trial, sentence vacated on public‑trial error, and retrial set for June 20, 2023.
- Counts 2–10 and 29–49 are VICAR counts predicated largely on Puerto Rico Penal Code Article 105 (murder); counts 11–18 are § 924(j) counts that use VICAR counts 2–9 as predicate crimes of violence.
- Candelario moved to dismiss counts 2–19 arguing Puerto Rico murder (Article 105) is not categorically a "crime of violence"; the government opposed and the court analyzed VICAR and § 924(c)/§ 924(j) predicate issues separately.
- Victim/witness Amarylis Fonseca‑Matías (shot at the scene) made out‑of‑court voice identifications to relatives and later testified; Candelario sought to exclude these as hearsay.
- Defense sought to (1) preclude gruesome crime‑scene/autopsy photographs, (2) obtain a more specific pretrial notice of the government’s trial exhibits, and (3) present an expert on eyewitness identification; the government moved to exclude that expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Candelario) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts 2–10 (singular VICAR counts) must be analyzed under the categorical approach | VICAR requires proof of a state offense (Article 105) and generic murder; indictment allegations suffice | Article 105 is not categorically a "crime of violence," so VICAR counts should be dismissed | Denied — categorical approach does not apply to singular VICAR counts; indictment sufficiently alleges state offense and generic murder |
| Whether § 924(j) counts (counts 11–18) survive when predicated on Article 105 murder | § 924(j) requires a predicate "crime of violence" under the force clause; apply modified categorical approach to divisive statutes to determine if Article 105 qualifies | Article 105 is indivisible or includes reckless variants and thus not categorically a crime of violence | Denied — Article 105 is divisible (degrees/alternatives); the premeditated/intentional murder modality alleged is categorically a crime of violence, so § 924(j) counts stand |
| Admissibility of Fonseca’s pretrial voice identifications (hearsay) | Pretrial identifications are admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(C) if declarant testifies and is cross‑examinable | The statements are not proper "identifications," were not made after perception, and improperly corroborate in‑court ID | Denied — statements are non‑hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(C); reliability issues go to weight and cross‑examination |
| Exclusion of gruesome crime‑scene/autopsy photographs | Photographs corroborate witness testimony and are probative of who, where, and how murders occurred | Photographs are prejudicial and should be specified/ barred | Denied without prejudice — government may offer photographs within trial limits; not compelled to specify each image now |
| Whether the court should compel a more specific pretrial notice of the government’s evidence | Government’s current designation suffices under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(4); no requirement to pre‑identify every item | Defendant cannot meaningfully prepare without precise list of items government will introduce | Denied — Rule 12 does not force the government to pre‑select every discovery item it will use at trial |
| Admissibility of defense expert on eyewitness identification (Cutler) | Expert testimony on identification pitfalls could assist jury in assessing reliability | Expert would merely repeat commonsense and is unnecessary; risk of usurping jury fact‑finding | Granted for government — court will exclude expert; jurors will instead receive jury instruction on eyewitness ID risks |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Keene, 955 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2020) (VICAR predicate analysis: categorical approach inapplicable to singular VICAR counts)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (divisible vs. indivisible statutes and use of the modified categorical approach)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (Shepard documents and the modified categorical approach)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial judge’s gatekeeping role for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert principles apply to non‑scientific expert testimony)
- Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) (recklessness does not meet elements‑clause violent‑felony standard)
- United States v. Jackson, 32 F.4th 278 (4th Cir. 2022) (first‑degree murder variants analyzed as divisible for § 924(c) purposes)
- United States v. Báez‑Martínez, 950 F.3d 119 (1st Cir. 2020) (applying categorical approach to determine "crime of violence" under § 924(c))
- United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (1988) (pretrial identifications admissible and often preferable to in‑court IDs)
- United States v. Montás, 41 F.3d 775 (1st Cir. 1994) (expert testimony unnecessary where jury can use commonsense)
- United States v. Jones, 689 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2012) (no blanket rule on ID experts; case‑by‑case analysis)
- United States v. Shay, 57 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 1995) (factors for admission of ID expert testimony)
- United States v. Brien, 59 F.3d 274 (1st Cir. 1995) (ID expert may help but judges should examine reliability and helpfulness)