United States v. Monsalvatge
850 F.3d 483
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Three defendants (Monsalvatge, Byam, Dunkley) were tried for two armed Pay-O-Matic robberies (Feb. 24, 2010 and Feb. 14, 2012), related 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and § 924(c) charges; each was convicted by a jury and sentenced principally to 32 years.
- The 2012 robbery differed from the 2010 robbery: use of police-uniform disguises, lifelike masks, and pouring bleach on teller counters to destroy DNA.
- Government sought to admit four short clips (total played: 1 minute, 7 seconds) from the film The Town to show the likely genesis of the defendants’ 2012 modus operandi; evidence also included a custom T‑shirt depicting a movie still, text messages, purchases of masks and police paraphernalia, surveillance video, and post-robbery cash deposits.
- District court admitted the clips over defendants’ Rule 403 objections, gave limiting instructions, and three clips were played at trial; prosecution argued the film explained the change in methods between the two robberies.
- On appeal the Second Circuit majority affirmed the convictions for Monsalvatge and Byam, holding the admission of the clips was within the district court’s discretion; Judge Torres concurred in the judgment but would have held the admission an abuse of discretion (but harmless error) and therefore dissented as to the evidentiary ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Monsalvatge/Dunkley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether short film clips from The Town were admissible to show origin of the 2012 robbery modus operandi and relevance to conspiracy linkage | Clips are relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401/402 because they tended to make it more probable that defendants adopted techniques seen in the film (bleach, police disguises, masks, threats) and probative value outweighed any prejudice | Clips were substantially more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403: emotional, cinematic content risked juror conflation of fiction and fact and the connection to defendants was speculative | Majority: Admission was not an abuse of discretion; clips were brief, narrowly tailored, and probative; limiting instructions reduced prejudice. Concurrence: Admission was an abuse of discretion (clips unfairly prejudicial and marginally probative) but error was harmless. |
| Whether admission of the clips requires reversal (prejudice affecting substantial rights) | Any error would be harmless given the overwhelming independent evidence tying defendants to the 2012 robbery (surveillance, purchases, texts, deposits, ties to vehicle and masks, etc.) | Admission was materially prejudicial and could have affected the jury; if admitted improperly, convictions should be reversed | Court: Even under concurrence’s view that admission was erroneous, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the strength and volume of other evidence; convictions (Monsalvatge, Byam) affirmed. Counts Two and Three as to Dunkley were reversed by summary order and remanded for resentencing (separate reasoning set out in summary order). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cuti, 720 F.3d 453 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Abu‑Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.) (admission of inflammatory media upheld where relevant to operations and defendant’s contacts)
- United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.) (Rule 403 review guidance; maximizing probative value while minimizing prejudice)
- United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194 (2d Cir.) (admission of short demonstrative explosion video upheld where clear nexus to charged conduct)
- United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.) (admission of material closely resembling charged conduct where probative value substantial)
- United States v. Gamory, 635 F.3d 480 (11th Cir.) (admission of a music video held prejudicial where probative value minimal)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (Supreme Court) (availability of less prejudicial alternatives relevant to Rule 403 balancing)