United States v. Monsalvatge
689 F. App'x 680
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendants Monsalvatge, Byam, and Dunkley were tried for a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy and two armed robberies of Pay-O-Matic stores (Feb. 24, 2010 and Feb. 14, 2012), and related 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearm counts.
- A jury convicted all three on all counts; district court judgments were entered April 10, 2014. Appeals followed.
- Key trial evidence included surveillance video from the 2010 robbery, eyewitness testimony (Muhammed Hafeez), and cell‑phone records for the three defendants.
- The government’s theory was that Dunkley was “Robber 1” in the 2010 video; Monsalvatge and Byam were linked more directly by cell‑site data and phone activity near the store.
- Defendants raised multiple evidentiary and sufficiency challenges on appeal; the Second Circuit affirmed most rulings but found insufficiency as to Dunkley for the 2010 robbery counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Counts Four and Five (2012 robbery) | Gov: evidence (video, testimony, phones) proved guilt | Monsalvatge: evidence insufficient; misidentification | Affirmed (sufficient as to all three) |
| Admission of evidence re: uncharged attempted robbery and Byam’s forged‑plate arrest | Gov: evidence admissible for motive/plan | Defs: prejudicial and improper propensity evidence | Admission not reversible error (affirmed) |
| Limitation on cross‑examination of detective | Gov: limits were proper trial management | Monsalvatge/Dunkley: restriction violated confrontation/examination rights | No reversible error (affirmed) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Dunkley as Robber 1 (Counts Two and Three – 2010 robbery and related §924(c)) | Gov: surveillance + eyewitness + phone records establish Dunkley’s participation | Dunkley: identification and phone records are inconclusive; cell‑site data lacking | Reversed for Dunkley on Counts Two and Three (insufficient evidence); remanded for resentencing; other convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kozeny, 667 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard on sufficiency review and drawing inferences for the government)
- United States v. Guadagna, 183 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 1999) (consider totality of government’s case for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2012) (affirming Jackson sufficiency standard application)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (any rational trier of fact standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Cassese, 428 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2005) (if evidence equally supports guilt and innocence, conviction cannot stand)
- United States v. Glenn, 312 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2002) (analysis elaborating Jackson standard)