United States v. Peña
978 F. Supp. 2d 254
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Government filed motions in limine to admit other bad acts, non-testifying witness statements, and limit cross-examination (Dkt. No. 190).
- Superseding indictment charges Hector Raymond Peña and Jose Peña in Medina murder and Suarez/Carmona murders (Counts 1-8).
- Court analyzes sixteen categories of other bad act evidence under Rule 404(b) and related principles.
- Court adopts inclusionary approach to 404(b) evidence, requiring proper purpose, relevance, probative value outweighing prejudice, and limiting instructions.
- Court resolves each category, admitting some acts for background/modus operandi or direct relevance, excluding others (e.g., Category 12 prior incarceration) or reserving judgment pending further detail.
- Government’s motion to admit statements of non-testifying witnesses is granted in part, with additional analysis reserved; cross-examination of cooperating witnesses limited in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other bad acts under Rule 404(b) | Carlton framework supports admission to prove motive/intent/identity. | Peña argues acts are irrelevant or prejudicial. | Admissible in part under 404(b); subject to proper purpose, relevance, balancing, and limiting instruction. |
| Whether certain statements of non-testifying witnesses are admissible | Statements against penal interest and co-conspirator statements should be admitted. | Hearsay and conspiratorial connection require strict scrutiny. | Admissible under penal interest; co-conspirator statements admissible where properly in furtherance of conspiracies; some categories require further detailing. |
| Scope of cross-examination of cooperating witnesses | Cross-examination should probe reliability given past violence. | Broad cross-examination allowed to test credibility. | Cross-examination limited; acts of sex/violence excluded as non-probative to credibility; other acts limited. |
| Admissibility of prior incarceration evidence | Video and parking lot evidence link defendants to conspiracy. | Prior incarceration is prejudicial and not necessary. | inadmissible as to prior incarceration without further, compelling justification. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carlton, 534 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2008) (framework for admissibility of 404(b) evidence: proper purpose, relevance, probative value outweighs prejudice, limiting instructions)
- United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2006) (modi operandi admissibility and 404(b) analysis guidance)
- Universe Antiques, Inc. v. Vareika, 2011 WL 5117057 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (MO/Signature-based 404(b) admissibility in MO cases)
- United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989) (background/explanation purpose of uncharged acts)
- United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553 (2d Cir. 1991) (acts may provide background to the charged offense)
- United States v. Desena, 260 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2001) (co-conspirator statements admissible if in furtherance of conspiracy)
- United States v. Rivera, 22 F.3d 430 (2d Cir. 1994) (definition of ‘in furtherance’ of conspiracy)
- United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1990) (Confrontation Clause and cross-examination relevance)