United States v. Daniel Troya
733 F.3d 1125
11th Cir.2013Background
- Defendants Daniel Troya and Ricardo Sanchez Jr. were convicted after a two-month trial for murders and related drug and firearms offenses; juries recommended death for the murders of two children and life sentences for other counts.
- Indictment charged drug conspiracy, firearms offenses, carjacking resulting in death, and use of a firearm causing multiple murders.
- Government introduced evidence of several uncharged violent acts (drive-by shootings, attempted home invasion) and multiple drug transactions to show the scope and violent protection of the drug ring.
- Troya sought to introduce expert testimony (Dr. Mark Cunningham) at penalty phase to show lack of future dangerousness; the court excluded that testimony after the government withdrew a formal future-dangerousness aggravator.
- Sanchez presented mental-health mitigation experts; the court ordered a government psychiatric evaluation and admitted the government expert Dr. Michael Brannon in rebuttal; Sanchez challenged that admission under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2(c)(4) and the Fifth Amendment.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, addressing three principal issues: admissibility of uncharged acts, exclusion of Dr. Cunningham’s testimony (found erroneous but harmless), and admissibility of Dr. Brannon’s rebuttal testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of uncharged firearms and drug acts | Gov: incidents are intrinsic or admissible under Rule 404(b) to prove intent, context, and conspiracy | Troya/Sanchez: acts were prejudicial and not sufficiently tied to charged offenses | Court: Evidence admissible as intrinsic or under Rule 404(b); probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; no abuse of discretion |
| Exclusion of Dr. Cunningham (future dangerousness) | Troya: exclusion violated right to present mitigating evidence and to rebut government’s implication of future dangerousness | Gov: withdrew formal aggravator so nothing to rebut; testimony not proper mitigation | Court: Exclusion was an abuse of discretion (Simmons/Kelly/Hitchcock principles) but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming aggravating evidence |
| Admission of Dr. Brannon (government psychologist) | Sanchez: admission violated Rule 12.2(c)(4), Fifth Amendment, and Sixth Amendment (trial counsel claim) | Gov: Sanchez opened the door by presenting psychiatric evidence; rebuttal testimony is permitted and within scope | Court: Dr. Brannon’s rebuttal testimony was permissible under Rule 12.2(c)(4); no Fifth Amendment violation; testimony limited to issues Sanchez’s experts raised |
| Cumulative/error claim | Appellants: multiple asserted trial errors rendered proceedings unfair | Government: errors were harmless or meritless | Court: Majority of claims lacked merit; remaining errors either proper or harmless; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) (defendant entitled to present evidence rebutting future dangerousness when prosecution relies on such a prediction)
- Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) (defendant entitled to rebut generalized future-dangerousness implications and to inform jury about parole ineligibility when relevant)
- Kelly v. South Carolina, 534 U.S. 246 (2002) (right to rebut future dangerousness put at issue, even if implied by evidence)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional errors subject to harmless-error review beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (standards for intrinsic evidence: same transaction, completes the story, or inextricably intertwined)
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (Rule 404(b) admissibility and proof threshold for extrinsic acts)
- United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2008) (district court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Lopez, 649 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2011) (related factual summary of the conspiracy and pre-conspiracy dealings)