United States v. Gonzalez
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16098
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Gonzalez was convicted by a jury on four counts of intentional murder while engaged in a narcotics trafficking crime involving at least five kilograms of cocaine, and sentenced to concurrent life terms.
- The murders occurred in early 1990 in the Bronx, part of a drug war between rival gangs; victims included Carmelo Gonzalez, his wife, Clement Bedword, and Carlos Polanco, with a later attempted murder of Henry Perez.
- Gonzalez was a Dominican Republic native and gang member who operated out of a neighborhood apartment complex and participated in robberies to obtained cocaine and money.
- Alejandro Rodriguez, a cooperating witness, testified for the government, and police reports and physical evidence from the investigations were introduced at trial.
- Gonzalez was indicted on July 24, 2008 for the Polanco murder while he was in federal custody for unrelated immigration charges; he was interviewed while detained in Georgia under a writ ad prossequendum.
- Gonzalez challenged the admissibility of pre-arraignment inculpatory statements and a police report about Carmelo’s young son; the district court admitted the confessions and excluded the child’s testimony, and Gonzalez was convicted on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of confessions under Miranda and § 3501 | Gonzalez argues rights violated; invocations tainted statements. | Gonzalez contends statements should be excluded if Miranda invoked or safety harbor not satisfied. | Confessions admitted within six-hour safe harbor; waivers and reinitiation proper; no reversible error. |
| Exclusion of Carmelo’s son testimony | Carmelo’s son statements were exculpatory and admissible. | Police interrogation of the child was improperly suggestive and the statements unreliable. | District court’s exclusion was not error; any error was harmless. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to locate Perry witness | Counsel's delay in locating Perry prejudiced Gonzalez. | Delay was not unreasonable and Perry’s testimony would not have altered outcome. | Strickland not satisfied; no prejudice; no ineffective assistance. |
| Pro se challenges on identification and destruction of evidence | Geiss identification procedures and destroyed Rhode Island gun evidence were improperly handled. | Allegations merit reversal; evidence destroyed; identification procedures were improper. | Arguments merit no reversal; identification not unduly suggestive; destruction of evidence does not prejudice the result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (U.S. 2000) (Miranda rights are enforceable as constitutional baseline)
- United States v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975) (invocation of rights must be scrupulously honored)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (reinitiation of contact permits later waiver)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (unambiguous invocation required to trigger exclusion)
- Plugh, 648 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2011) (comparative invocation/waiver framework for Miranda rights)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (U.S. 2009) (six-hour safe harbor under § 3501(c))
- Alvarez-Sanchez v. United States, 511 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1994) (definition of when the obligation to present occurs for § 3501)
- United States v. Nguyen, 313 F. Supp. 2d 579 (E.D. Va. 2004) (§ 3501 timing not triggered by indictment)
- United States v. Perez, 733 F.2d 1026 (2d Cir. 1984) (concerns about pre-arraignment interrogation)
- United States v. Bragg Heras, 609 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2010) (precedent for evaluating evidence and suppression)