United States v. Morales
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17146
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Aurora Deuces gang investigation (2002) centered on Insane Deuces; Rivera cooperated as confidential informant, providing recordings, controlled buys, and evidence of the gang’s violent activity.
- Seven defendants (Morales, Barbosa, Rodriguez, Hernandez, Lechuga, Crowder, Handley) were among sixteen indicted in 2006 on racketeering and related charges; the district court bifurcated trials and tried these seven in the second trial.
- The Insane Deuces organization had a tiered structure (Seniors, Juniors, Shorties) with governance (First Seat/Governor, Second Seat, Enforcer) and a caja system financing narcotics, weapons, and protection.
- Missions, narcotics sales, and violence funded and sustained the Nation; participation in missions and payments to the caja were prerequisites for advancement within the gang.
- Rivera’s cooperation led to testimony and recordings about the defendants’ roles, conspiratorial conduct, and the gang’s enforcement mechanisms; the government presented extensive law enforcement and victim testimony at trial.
- Defendants were convicted of racketeering conspiracy; some were also convicted of narcotics distribution, illegal firearms, and related offenses; sentencing followed with substantial prison terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anonymous jury empanelment validity | Morales argues anonymity was improper without on-record reasons | Defendants contend lack of reasons invalidates empanelment | Harmless error: lack of record reasons but no prejudice shown |
| Severance denial for joint trial | Government contended joint trial beneficial for efficiency | Defendants claim spillover prejudice; need for severance | No abuse of discretion; instructions mitigated prejudice |
| Juror misconduct hearing post-verdict | Premature deliberations could bias verdicts | Hearing required to assess impartiality | No abuse; Rule 606(b) barred post-verdict inquiry; no external influence shown |
| Admission of Morales's prior-criminal-history evidence | Evidence admissible to show gang activities and caja relevance | Plain error if Rule 609(a)(1) violated | Harmless error; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Crockett, 979 F.2d 1204 (7th Cir. 1992) (anonymous jury permissible with safeguards; need reasoning on record)
- United States v. Mansoori, 304 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2002) (harmless-error analysis for anonymous juries; mitigating instructions)
- United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507 (11th Cir. 1994) (limits on anonymous juries; caution in use)