United States v. Martinez
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12146
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Multi-defendant prosecution arising from a decade-long conspiracy in New York in which conspirators impersonated NYPD officers to rob drug traffickers and steal narcotics; more than 200 robberies and two dozen participants alleged.
- Fiorentino and Rodriguez were charged with Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy, narcotics conspiracy, and a § 924(c) firearm count; Fiorentino tried (convicted on conspiracies; firearm count dismissed for pre-limitations conduct), Rodriguez tried and convicted on all counts including brandishing.
- Tejada, an actual NYPD officer, was tried twice: convicted at first trial of obstruction (§ 1512/§1512(k)), acquitted of some counts, retried and convicted on the robbery and narcotics conspiracies but acquitted of the firearm count.
- Martinez pleaded guilty in the Eastern District to robbery and narcotics conspiracies and an aiding-and-abetting § 924(c) charge; he separately pleaded guilty in the Southern District to attempted Hobbs Act robbery causing death; later sought new counsel and challenged the plea allocution.
- Appeals raised: statute-of-limitations/withdrawal defenses (Fiorentino, Rodriguez), evidentiary and jury-instruction issues (Tejada, Fiorentino), prosecutorial summation (Tejada), adequacy of plea colloquy and denial of new counsel (Martinez), and sentencing challenges (Tejada, Fiorentino). The Second Circuit affirmed all judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fiorentino withdrew from the conspiracy before the 5-year limitations period | Gov: Conspiracy continued into limitations period; evidence showed continued membership | Fiorentino: He ceased involvement before Nov. 18, 2004 and thus indictment is time-barred | Court: Ample evidence (post-2004 contacts, equipment purchases, seizures) permitted jury to find no withdrawal; conviction stands |
| Whether Rodriguez can assert a limitations defense after trial | Gov: Defendant waived limitations defense by not raising it at or before trial | Rodriguez: Post-verdict moved for acquittal arguing no post-2004 firearms conduct | Court: Defense waived by failing to raise at/before trial (Musacchio rule); motion denied |
| Whether Tejada's database searches and reports to coconspirators satisfy § 1512(c)(2) (obstruction) and related evidentiary rulings | Gov: Searches were corrupt efforts foreseeably to impede grand jury proceedings; out-of-court ID and rebuttal summation were admissible/harmless | Tejada: Evidence insufficient to show nexus/foreseeability; hearsay/801(d)(1)(C) misapplied; prosecutor impermissibly vouched and inflamed jury | Court: Evidence sufficient to show foreseeable grand jury and nexus; any hearsay error regarding 911-descriptions was harmless; rebuttal argument acceptable as response to defense attack |
| Whether Martinez's guilty plea to § 924(c) was knowingly made and whether his request for new counsel was improperly denied | Gov: Colloquy explained aiding-and-abetting liability and Martinez repeatedly affirmed understanding; no basis to replace counsel | Martinez: Plea allocution unclear on basis of liability (aiding/abetting vs. Pinkerton); courthouse counsel ineffective and requests for new counsel improperly denied | Court: Colloquy adequately explained aiding-and-abetting liability; Martinez waived timely Rule 11 objection and cannot show plain error; post-plea, conclusory complaints and sworn plea answers justified denial of new counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Eppolito, 543 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2008) (withdrawal from conspiracy requires affirmative evidence such as disavowal or notifying co-conspirators)
- Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (2016) (statute-of-limitations defense must be raised at or before trial or is waived)
- Smith v. United States, 568 U.S. 106 (2013) (limitations is an affirmative defense the defendant must press)
- United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558 (2d Cir. 2015) (foreseeability and nexus required for obstruction statutes)
- United States v. Reich, 479 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2007) (nexus test for obstruction: relationship in time, causation, or logic to proceeding)
- Watts v. United States, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (acquittal does not bar consideration of same conduct at sentencing by preponderance of the evidence)
- United States v. Torrellas, 455 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006) (Rule 11 plea colloquy must ensure defendant understands nature of charge)