United States v. Ernesto Godinez
7 F.4th 628
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Late-night ATF operation in Chicago’s Back of the Yards; undercover agents replacing GPS trackers when Special Agent Kevin Crump was shot and seriously injured.
- Ernesto Godinez, a Latin Saints gang member, was indicted for assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon (18 U.S.C. § 111) and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); a jury convicted after a six-day trial.
- Trial evidence included synchronized surveillance videos showing Godinez in the neighborhood and entering/exiting a gangway near 4332–4336 S. Hermitage, five fresh casings recovered in that gangway, two bullets found along a trajectory toward the agent, ATF ballistics testimony linking casings and bullets to the same likely 9mm gun, eyewitness testimony of muzzle flashes, Snapchat messages/location data, and ShotSpotter audio/location analysis with testimony by ShotSpotter employee Paul Greene.
- Godinez moved to exclude the ballistics and ShotSpotter evidence (seeking a Daubert hearing); the district court admitted ballistics and qualified Greene under Rule 702 without a formal Daubert hearing (allowing pre-cross examination of Greene as a compromise).
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions: it upheld the ballistics evidence, concluded the district court abused its discretion in admitting ShotSpotter/Greene without a sufficient Daubert inquiry, but found that error harmless given the strong remaining evidence of location, motive, and post-shooting conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Gov't Argument | Godinez Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of ballistics and scene evidence | Ballistics (casings, bullets, examiner testimony, scene handling) are relevant and preserved by routine police procedures; gaps go to weight, not admissibility | Chain-of-custody gaps and lack of direct match between casings and bullet that hit Crump render the evidence unreliable and prejudicial | Admitted; district court did not abuse discretion—presumption of regularity and testimony about handling satisfied admissibility; gaps go to weight |
| Admissibility of ShotSpotter data and Greene’s expert testimony (Daubert/Rule 702) | ShotSpotter is reliable technology; Greene experienced and has testified in many cases; cross-examination can test accuracy | ShotSpotter methodology not peer-reviewed; identification process (initial auto-detect then manual search) implicates methodology; requested Daubert hearing | Abuse of discretion: district court’s Daubert analysis was insufficient regarding ShotSpotter’s methodology (especially the post-hoc search that produced five shots); Greene’s testimony and reports should have been more thoroughly vetted |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict Godinez of shooting Crump | Video, Snapchat location, ballistics, eyewitness testimony about direction/muzzle flashes, motive (gang duties), and post-shooting conduct collectively permit a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Evidence does not place Godinez at the exact shooter location; many inferences (retrieved gun, changing shirt to avoid ID, motive) are speculative; the record lacks direct proof he fired the shots | Affirmed: even excluding ShotSpotter, the circumstantial and testimonial evidence (casings/bullets linked to same gun, eyewitness direction, location/timing, motive and post-shooting conduct) sufficed under Jackson v. Virginia standard |
| Harmlessness of ShotSpotter error | Any error was harmless because other untainted evidence independently established the shooting location and identity | ShotSpotter filled critical gaps; its admission was prejudicial and may have tipped the scales | Harmless: government met Olano burden—ShotSpotter was cumulative of other location evidence and other untainted evidence was overwhelming |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wallace, 991 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 2021) (standard for viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the government on sufficiency review)
- United States v. Johnson, 916 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2019) (abuse-of-discretion review for admission of ballistics evidence)
- United States v. Lee, 502 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2007) (chain-of-custody requires reasonable precautions)
- United States v. Vitrano, 747 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2014) (gaps in chain go to weight, not admissibility)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (district court gatekeeping for expert testimony under Rule 702)
- United States v. Jett, 908 F.3d 252 (7th Cir. 2018) (review standards for a district court’s Daubert analysis)
- Kirk v. Clark Equip. Co., 991 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2021) (distinguishing cursory Daubert rulings from sufficient analyses)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for insufficiency-of-evidence review)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (harmless-error burden on the government)
- United States v. Chaparro, 956 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2020) (error is harmless if other untainted incriminating evidence is overwhelming)