United States v. Francisco Feliciano
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10902
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Francisco Feliciano was tried and convicted for two bank-robbery incidents (April 1 and April 11, 2011), related § 924(c) gun counts, and a § 922(g) felon-in-possession count; jury convicted on all counts.
- Prosecution relied heavily on testimony of co-participants Steven Trubey and Christopher Quinn; no physical forensic evidence tied Feliciano to the robberies and the robber was masked.
- Defense asserted Feliciano’s long-term back injury made it impossible for him to vault over a teller counter (central to alibi/denial of participation on April 11). Defense sought funding for an MRI and expert under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e); the request was denied.
- Government introduced a recorded phone call of Feliciano’s brother Elias in rebuttal to impeach Elias’ testimony; defense objected to timing and substantive use but did not request Elias be recalled or a limiting instruction.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed most convictions but vacated Count Four (§ 924(c) for the April 11 robbery) because the evidence was insufficient that Feliciano used or brandished a firearm that day.
Issues
| Issue | Feliciano’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for robbery-related convictions | Trubey and Quinn were not credible; eyewitness size descriptions inconsistent; no physical evidence | Jury could credit witness testimony; draw reasonable inferences supporting verdicts | Affirms convictions on counts other than the April 11 § 924(c); evidence sufficient for most counts under de novo review favoring the verdict |
| Denial of expert/MRI under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e) | MRI and expert were necessary to prove physical inability to vault; prejudice from denial | Court had other less costly means; defendant received a medical exam and a testifying doctor | No abuse of discretion; defendant received expert/medical testimony and failed to show prejudice |
| Admission and use of recorded phone call (Fed. R. Evid. 613(b)) | Recording was improper impeachment and improperly used substantively without limiting instruction | Recording was prior inconsistent statement admissible for impeachment; timing acceptable; no limiting instruction requested | No abuse of discretion; introduction after testimony permissible and failure to give limiting instruction not plain error |
| Cumulative error / Brady / prosecutorial misconduct | Combined errors and alleged withheld evidence deprived him of a fair trial | Errors were insubstantial; disclosed materials did not create reasonable probability of different outcome | Cumulative-error claim fails; no Brady violation shown; prosecutorial arguments not prejudicial |
| Sufficiency of § 924(c) Count Four (April 11 gun) | Government lacked proof a gun was used/brandished on April 11 | Argued co-defendant testimony supported Count | Vacated Count Four for insufficiency; no evidence any witness saw a gun on April 11 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, 665 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review favoring the jury verdict)
- United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir.) (appellate deference to witness credibility)
- United States v. Rivera, 775 F.2d 1559 (11th Cir.) (definition of "incredible" testimony)
- United States v. Rinchack, 820 F.2d 1557 (11th Cir.) (standard for district court discretion on § 3006A expert services)
- United States v. Gilmore, 282 F.3d 398 (6th Cir.) (framework for when investigatory/expert services are necessary under § 3006A)
- Wilmington Trust Co. v. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., 749 F.2d 694 (11th Cir.) (timing requirement for establishing prior inconsistent statements under Rule 613)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (Sup. Ct.) (insufficiency of evidence standard)
- Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (Sup. Ct.) (standards governing accomplice gun-use liability)
- United States v. Billue, 994 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir.) (plain-error standard for failure to give limiting instruction)
- United States v. Lopez, 590 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir.) (test for prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument)
- United States v. Newton, 44 F.3d 913 (11th Cir.) (Brady materiality standard)
- United States v. Blasco, 702 F.2d 1315 (11th Cir.) (analysis of cumulative error)