United States v. Gomez
705 F.3d 68
2d Cir.2013Background
- Gomez was convicted in the Eastern District of New York on RICO conspiracy, murder in aid of racketeering, and firearm offenses, with life sentence principal on murder.
- Gomez led the Jamaica, NY MS-13 chapter and later cooperated with ICE; he admitted to a 2003 homicide during meetings with ICE and USAO.
- During voir dire, Gomez’s family were excluded from the courtroom as his counsel requested; judge stated seats would be needed for jurors.
- The district court allowed the government to present one additional exhibit after initial resting of its case, with defense agreeing to a limited reopening and two Rule 29 motions.
- Gomez challenged: (i) public-trial right during voir dire, (ii) closing of evidence without defense-rest disclosure, (iii) proffer agreement/Government conduct and Rule 410, and (iv) ineffective assistance of counsel; the court affirmed conviction while reserving a § 2255 path for the testimony-right issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public trial right during voir dire | Gomez (public-trial) | Gomez was deprived of public voir dire | No reversal; exclusion framed as invited and not prejudicial |
| Closing of the evidentiary phase without explicit defense-rest | Prosecution timing violated defense rights | Defense failed to object; no plain error | No reversible error; record shows defense consent to process |
| Proffer Agreement and Rule 410 compliance | Proffered statements violated agreement/Rule 410 | Statements outside meetings not covered; Rule 410 not violated | No abuse; no Rule 410 violation given scope and participants |
| Ineffective assistance due to counsel’s conduct on advising testifying and voir dire | IAC on failure to object and advise | Record incomplete; § 2255 appropriate for some claims | Partial; attorney’s advice claim not decided on direct appeal; others rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (public-trial essentials and closure safeguards)
- Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (U.S. 2010) (needs four-factor closure analysis (Waller) and openness goal)
- Gibbons v. Savage, 555 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2009) (illustrates Waller factors and close-closure analysis)
- Gupta v. United States, 699 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 2012) (public-trial safeguards and plain-error considerations)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (opening of proceedings and necessity of holistic closure analysis)