United States v. Perez-Vasquez, 18-1687P

Background

In 2016 the government indicted 61 alleged MS-13 members; three defendants from trial group two (Noe Salvador Pérez-Vásquez, Luis Solís-Vásquez, Hector Enamorado) were tried together and convicted after a 19-day jury trial of RICO conspiracy with special findings as to murders of Javier Ortiz (all three) and Jose Aguilar Villanueva (Pérez-Vásquez).
Pérez-Vásquez was charged with additional drug and firearm conspiracies; he was convicted of drug conspiracies but acquitted on the firearms count. Sentences: Pérez-Vásquez and Enamorado received life terms; Solís-Vásquez received 420 months.
Prosecution relied heavily on cooperating witnesses (notably CW‑1 whose recordings/transcripts were admitted though he did not testify), testimony of plea-cooperating gang members, and law‑enforcement expert/overview witnesses about MS‑13 structure and practices.
Key facts: Enamorado shot and killed Ortiz in a Chelsea apartment; Pérez‑Vásquez transported a gun and coordinated; Solís‑Vásquez brought a gun and stood nearby. Villanueva (a separate killing) was planned by Pérez‑Vásquez and executed by others.
Pretrial and trial disputes included suppression of Enamorado’s custodial statements (audio malfunctioned but video preserved), admission of coconspirator/informant statements, scope of expert/overview testimony, jury instructions on RICO and murder degree, and various sentencing challenges. The First Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for RICO convictions	Gov: evidence showed defendants joined MS‑13 conspiracy and murders/drug acts were in furtherance	Enamorado/Solís: insufficient proof of membership, agreement, or required intent for murder findings	Convictions affirmed; a rational jury could find membership, agreement, and intent beyond reasonable doubt
Suppression of Enamorado's statements (Miranda)	Enamorado: was intoxicated / language barrier; recording failure warrants suppression	Gov: Spanish waiver form signed; officers observed no intoxication; waiver knowing/voluntary	Denial of suppression affirmed; waiver valid and recording failure not fatal
Admission of coconspirator and CW‑1 statements / Confrontation Clause	Defendants: many hearsay statements and informant statements inadmissible/testimonial	Gov: statements were in furtherance or admitted for context; non‑testimonial where applicable	Admissions largely permissible; context/interconnected utterances and non‑testimonial rules apply; any errors harmless
Law‑enforcement expert/overview testimony based on hearsay	Defendants: experts relayed inadmissible hearsay and offered improper overview	Gov: experts may synthesize inadmissible materials and testify via their own analysis; much testimony was first‑hand investigative fact or permissible expert synthesis	No plain error; experts’ testimony admissible and not improper overview that prejudiced defendants
Co‑defendant closing argument (Bruton/severance)	Enamorado: Pérez‑Vásquez's counsel implicated him; Bruton violation and irreconcilable defenses warrant mistrial/severance	Gov: remarks were counsel argument (not confession) and not evidence; jurors instructed lawyers are not witnesses	Denial of mistrial/severance affirmed; Bruton inapplicable and argument not evidence
Prosecutor's closing and misc. trial misconduct	Enamorado: misstatements (e.g., murder alone suffices for RICO) and other inaccuracies prejudiced jury	Gov: comments isolated; judge instructed properly; evidence strong	No plain error; any improper comments were minor or cured by instructions
Jury instructions re: RICO and murder degree (Alleyne)	Enamorado: RICO instruction ambiguous; failure to instruct on first‑degree murder and judge‑found facts violate Alleyne	Gov: instruction read as a whole; judge may find degree for sentencing under Gonzalez precedent	No reversible error; instructions adequate and Gonzalez allows judge‑found first‑degree for guidelines
Sentencing manipulation / entrapment (drug sting)	Pérez‑Vásquez: agents used 5 kg to inflate exposure; sentencing factor manipulation warrants relief	Gov: use of larger quantity alone insufficient to show outrageous conduct	Claim rejected; defendant failed to show extreme governmental misconduct
Ineffective assistance (concession at closing)	Pérez‑Vásquez: counsel conceded elements, denying effective assistance	Gov: record insufficient for direct review; remedy is collateral §2255	Claim dismissed without prejudice to §2255 relief

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Leoner-Aguirre, 939 F.3d 310 (1st Cir. 2019) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial warnings and waiver requirements)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (knowing and voluntary Miranda waiver standard)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (limits on admitting a non‑testifying codefendant's confession)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (attorney argument is not evidence for Bruton analysis)
United States v. Ciresi, 697 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2012) (scope of coconspirator statement exception)
United States v. Walter, 434 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2006) (admitting informant utterances for context and reciprocal integrated utterances)
United States v. Gonzalez, 981 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2020) (district court may find murder degree for sentencing by preponderance)
United States v. Rios, 830 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 2016) (expert synthesis of testimonial statements can be admissible when relayed via expert analysis)
United States v. Flores-De-Jesús, 569 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (limits on improper overview testimony by agents)
United States v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2008) (admissibility of co‑enterprise crimes to prove RICO enterprise)