United States v. Monserrate-Valentin
729 F.3d 31
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Defendants Monserrate and Figueroa were Loomis armored-truck employees who discussed with a coworker (Santiago) and a third party (Bravo) plans to rob their own route; Monserrate provided the truck's identifying number and Figueroa was to act as the messenger.
- Months later, on April 30, 2004, a Loomis truck operated by Figueroa (with substitute driver Núñez) was robbed at a Texaco; evidence showed unusual parking and conduct by Figueroa that the jury could view as facilitating the robbery.
- A multi-defendant indictment charged a broad conspiracy (2003–2007) to rob Loomis and Brink’s armored trucks; several co-defendants pled guilty to involvement in multiple robberies. Monserrate and Figueroa were charged only in Count One (the conspiracy).
- At a 14-day jury trial the government introduced witness testimony, phone records, informant recordings, and out-of-court statements implicating participants and referencing “insiders” who received payments; the jury convicted both defendants of the Hobbs Act conspiracy.
- On appeal the defendants argued: (1) insufficiency of evidence / fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence; (2) erroneous admission of hearsay (statements against interest); (3) constitutional and Rule 43 error from replaying recordings to the jury outside defendants’ presence; (4) defective jury instructions (Monserrate).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / Variance — whether evidence proved membership in the broad multi-robbery conspiracy charged | Government: evidence (meetings, phone calls, informant tapes, conduct on April 30) shows a single conspiracy or at least a related conspiracy covering the April 30 robbery | Defendants: evidence at most shows a narrow conspiracy to rob their own truck; indictment charged a broader enterprise—variance and insufficient proof of knowledge of broader goals | Court: A variance occurred (evidence showed a narrower conspiracy), but evidence was sufficient to convict for the related conspiracy to rob the April 30 truck; variance was harmless (no substantial prejudice) |
| Admission of unavailable co-defendants’ statements under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) | Gov: statements were against penal interest and corroborated, thus admissible | Monserrate: some recorded statements were non-self-inculpatory, narrative blame-shifting, or otherwise unreliable and prejudicial | Court: Majority of challenged statements were admissible as against interest with corroboration; a few snippets were erroneous but harmless to outcome |
| Replay of recorded evidence to jury during deliberations outside defendants’ presence / supplementation with cross-exam | Gov: replay of admitted exhibits for jurors is routine; cautionary procedures suffice | Defs: Confrontation, Due Process, and Rule 43 rights violated; playback should occur in open court and cross-exam supplementation should accompany replay | Court: No constitutional or Rule 43 violation where safeguards were used (instructions, technician limited to admitted portions, certification); failure to supplement with cross-exam was not reversible error under facts |
| Jury instructions (Monserrate) — whether instructions improperly lowered the government’s burden or were confusing | Gov: instructions were proper and jury had copy of indictment; no overt-act requirement under Hobbs Act | Monserrate: judge’s language allowed conviction on a vague agreement ("between at least two people") and failed to require agreement to the overt acts listed | Court: Argument waived; instructions were not materially misleading and omission of overt-act requirement was proper (Hobbs Act does not require overt act) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Morrow, 39 F.3d 1228 (1st Cir.) (agreement/knowledge of broader scope required to convict for multi-object conspiracy)
- Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (1994) (scope of Rule 804(b)(3): statements against penal interest must be self-inculpatory in context)
- United States v. Dellosantos, 649 F.3d 109 (1st Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review in conspiracy cases)
- United States v. Mubayyid, 658 F.3d 35 (1st Cir.) (variance between charged conspiracy and proof may be harmless if no substantial prejudice)
- United States v. Luciano-Mosquera, 63 F.3d 1142 (1st Cir.) (trial-court discretion and safeguards required when rehearing testimony to jurors)