371 F. Supp. 3d 57
United States District Court2019Background
- Defendant Juan Pedro Vidal was indicted in the District of Puerto Rico for carjacking resulting in death, related firearm and kidnapping offenses, making him eligible for the federal death penalty.
- The Attorney General certified Vidal for the death penalty on June 28, 2018; trial set for 2020.
- Vidal moved to strike the death penalty, arguing that Puerto Rico residents’ lack of representation in federal elections (and thus in selection of federal officials who prosecute/try capital cases) violates due process or otherwise precludes capital punishment.
- The court framed the core constitutional question as whether territorial disenfranchisement (no presidential or congressional voting representation) renders application of the federal death penalty to Puerto Rico residents unconstitutional.
- The court found the death-penalty statute applies to Puerto Rico exactly as it does to the States and does not discriminate against Puerto Rico residents on its face.
- The court concluded the political disenfranchisement of Puerto Rico lies with Congress and the political process, not Article III courts; therefore, lack of federal voting rights does not bar imposition of the federal death penalty. Motion to strike denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Puerto Rico residents’ lack of federal voting representation renders application of the federal death penalty unconstitutional | Disenfranchisement means no consent of the governed; applying the death penalty violates due process or other constitutional protections | Federal laws, including the death-penalty statute, apply equally to Puerto Rico residents; lack of voting representation does not invalidate federal criminal enforcement | Denied — territorial disenfranchisement is not a constitutional bar to applying federal criminal law, including the death penalty |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Acosta-Martinez, 252 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2001) (federal law supremacy over conflicting local provisions in Puerto Rico)
- Igartua-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2005) (territorial voters’ lack of voting representation will not be remedied absent statehood or constitutional amendment)
- Igartúa v. Obama, 842 F.3d 149 (1st Cir. 2016) (reaffirming limits on judicial remedies for Puerto Rico’s federal disenfranchisement)
- Romeu v. Cohen, 265 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2001) (noting congressional choices about territorial voting rights)
- Segovia v. United States, 880 F.3d 384 (7th Cir. 2018) (holding similar challenges to territorial voting and voting-from-last-state arguments unsuccessful)