United States v. Martinez, 657 F.3d 811

Seven defendants convicted of RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. §1962(d) and sentenced to life; jury returned verdict January 4, 2008; district court sentenced each to life imprisonment.
Defendants are linked to the Mexican Mafia: Martinez, Durkin, Gonzalez-Gallegos, and Fernandez are high-level associates; Abarca, Cruz, and Valenzuela are soldiers.
Mexican Mafia described as an organized, hierarchical, Hispanic-prioritized prison–based organization that uses violence, including murder, to control drug trafficking and power.
Crimes proven in furtherance of the conspiracy include the murder of Barragan (prison day room stabbing) and the murder of Hernandez (lured and shot); methamphetamine trafficking activities were also evidenced.
Evidence included expert and former-member testimony on organization structure and coded communications, plus intercepted calls and letters.
The court addressed multiple appellate challenges to sufficiency of evidence, admissibility of evidence, Rule 16 disclosures, severance rulings, and security measures; the judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether life sentences were properly justified under §1963(a).	Martinez et al. argue the evidence does not support life sentences.	Defendants contend the specific crimes justifying life terms were not adequately identified or proven.	Yes; sentences justified by evidence of conspiratorial killings and scope of enterprise.
Fernandez’s liability for conspiracy and two overt acts; sufficiency of assent to conspiracy.	Fernandez conspired to facilitate the operation of the conspiracy; two overt acts shown.	Fernandez challenges his role and the sufficiency of overt acts.	Conviction upheld; assent plus acts furthering the conspiracy were proven.
Admissibility and interpretation of coded communications and dual roles of Vitkosky (percipient vs. expert).	Vitkosky’s testimony explained coded terms and provided expert interpretation.	Risk of jury confusion due to dual role; disclosure timing issues.	Admissible; district court properly instructed and limited expert vs. percipient testimony.
Rule 16 disclosures and Gonzalez interview; impact on defense; discovery compliance.	Disclosures were timely enough; relevant statements provided.	Gonzalez’s statements and report access were improperly limited.	No reversible error; defense was not prejudiced; disclosures deemed adequate.

United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2003) (describes Mexican Mafia structure and prison influence (cited for organizational characteristics))
United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that conspiracy conviction may rest on assent to facilitate a broader scheme)
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1997) (requiring only assent and acts furthering the end of the conspiracy for conspiracy liability)
United States v. Bridgeforth, 441 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2006) (Confrontation Clause considerations with certain types of testimonial evidence)
United States v. Larson, 460 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2006) (conspirator-communications exception to Bruton for co-conspirator statements)
United States v. Fort, 472 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2007) (police work-product protection extending to materials provided to federal authorities)
United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (disclosure timing under Rule 16; admissibility considerations)
United States v. Meija, 69 F.3d 309 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court discretion on continuance for expert disclosure)