648 F. App'x 56
2d Cir.2016Background
- Defendants Joe Fernandez, Alberto Reyes, and Patrick Darge were convicted for roles in the murders of Arturo Cuellar and Ildefonso Vivero Flores tied to a murder-for-hire and drug-trafficking conspiracy. Fernandez was tried and convicted; Reyes and Darge pleaded guilty to various counts. District court judgments were affirmed on appeal.
- At trial, co-defendant Darge testified he was hired to kill the victims, recruited Fernandez to "watch his back," and that Fernandez participated in the February 22, 2000 shootings; Darge received and distributed payment afterward.
- Corroborating evidence included testimony from Reyes and Minaya about the plan, Reyes’s observation of Darge and another man in the lobby, post-arrest statements by Fernandez to others, and a prison cellmate’s testimony about Fernandez’s admission.
- Fernandez moved for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, alleging (1) a Brady violation (undisclosed proffer notes from Luis Rivera denying involvement) and (2) newly discovered cellphone records; the district court denied relief. Fernandez also challenged sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence.
- Reyes and Darge challenged the reasonableness of their below-Guidelines sentences (Reyes: 25 years; Darge: 30 years). The district court granted departures from statutory mandatory minimums based on substantial assistance and other factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Fernandez’s conspiracy conviction | Gov: Darge’s testimony and corroboration suffice to show knowing participation and intent to commit murder-for-hire | Fernandez: Darge’s testimony was uncorroborated and incredible | Court: Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, testimony (with corroboration) permits a rational jury to convict (Jackson standard) |
| Brady violation (failure to disclose Rivera proffer notes) | Fernandez: Notes showed Rivera denied being getaway driver and could impeach Darge | Gov: Notes did not show unequivocal denial; Rivera wasn’t a testifying witness and notes would not materially impeach Darge | Court: No Brady violation — notes not clearly favorable/impeaching to a significant witness and defendant not prejudiced |
| Newly discovered evidence (Verizon records) | Fernandez: Own October 13, 2011 Verizon records contradict trial evidence about an October meeting and admissions | Gov: Records were Fernandez’s to obtain pretrial; not newly discovered with reasonable diligence | Court: Denied — records not "newly discovered" because defendant could have obtained them before/during trial |
| Sentencing reasonableness (Reyes & Darge) | Reyes/Darge: Sentences are disparate/unreasonable given confederates’ lighter terms and, for Darge, procedural errors in sentencing explanation | Gov: District court considered disparities and §3553(a) factors; departures based on substantial assistance; sentencing within discretion | Court: Affirmed — sentences are procedurally and substantively reasonable; district court permissibly weighed assistance, culpability, and disparities |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady/Giglio framework for suppression and prejudice)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (reasonableness review of sentence)
- United States v. Florez, 447 F.3d 145 (disparity among co-defendants is discretionary for district court)
- United States v. Perez–Frias, 636 F.3d 39 (below-Guidelines sentence rarely unreasonable)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (Guidelines advisory)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing claims)
- United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558 (deference to jury on credibility in sufficiency review)
- United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (materiality standard for impeachment evidence under Brady)