United States v. Lafontaine
673 F. App'x 81
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- José Ismael Ventura was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit murder for hire (18 U.S.C. § 1958), murder for hire (18 U.S.C. § 1958), and killing in connection with distribution of 1,000+ kilos of marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A)).
- At trial the government introduced evidence of an uncharged arson-murder (the Montanez killing) allegedly committed by Ventura’s son and associates in Ventura’s drug territory; Ventura had moved in limine to exclude that evidence.
- Ventura did not contemporaneously object at trial to the government’s allegedly broader-than-promised presentation of the Montanez evidence; the Second Circuit therefore reviewed that contention for plain error.
- After deliberations began, the jury sent a note expressing concerns about Juror No. 2; the government investigated that juror and uncovered prior arrests and an undisclosed assault-victim history that Juror No. 2 had not revealed during voir dire.
- The district court questioned Juror No. 2, found he had given false answers on voir dire, and dismissed him over defense objection; Ventura moved for dismissal of the indictment based on the government’s investigation but the district court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of evidence about uncharged Montanez arson-murder | Gov: Evidence relevant to Ventura’s drug enterprise and intent; admissible | Ventura: Testimony exceeded pretrial limits and was unfairly prejudicial | Even if government exceeded pretrial bounds, any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt; no plain error established |
| Standard of review for failure to object to Rule 403-type evidence | Gov: Failure to object preserves only plain-error review | Ventura: Contends admission was prejudicial despite lack of contemporaneous objection | Court applied plain-error test and found Ventura did not meet burden |
| Removal of Juror No. 2 during deliberations | Ventura: Government improperly targeted juror because of juror’s views, so removal was abusive | Gov: Investigation prompted by juror statements suggesting undisclosed connections/extrinsic bias; not motivated by views on evidence | District court did not abuse discretion; juror dismissed for untruthfulness on voir dire uncovered by investigation |
| Motion to dismiss indictment based on government’s juror investigation | Ventura: Investigation prejudiced jury and warranted dismissal | Gov: Investigation aimed at potential undisclosed bias, not juror’s views on sufficiency | District court denied motion; appellate court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Birbal, 62 F.3d 456 (2d Cir.) (Rule 403 objections must generally be made at trial to be preserved)
- United States v. Pattee, 820 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 2016) (plain‑error review framework for preserved objections)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (harmless error and plain‑error doctrine)
- United States v. Castano, 999 F.2d 615 (2d Cir.) (strength of the prosecution’s case critical to harmless‑error analysis)
- United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219 (2d Cir.) (overwhelming evidence can render evidentiary error harmless)
- United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir.) (limits on juror investigation when motivated by juror’s views on evidence)
- United States v. Spruill, 808 F.3d 585 (2d Cir.) (distinguishing extrinsic bias permitting inquiry)
- United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.) (district court may dismiss juror for untruthfulness on voir dire)