United States v. Ramirez-Rivera
800 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2015Background
- Federal RICO indictment of La ONU, an alliance of Puerto Rico housing-project gangs, charging drug- and violence-related racketeering from 2004–2012; defendants José Laureano‑Salgado, Pedro Ramírez‑Rivera, and Ismael Cruz‑Ramos were tried with counts including RICO conspiracy, drug conspiracy, firearms conspiracy, VICAR (murder in aid of racketeering), and §924(c) firearm use.
- Government case relied heavily on cooperating La ONU members who described organization structure, meetings, pooled resources, sanctioned murders (including the August 2010 murder of Christian "Pequeque" Toledo‑Sánchez), and each defendant’s role (drug‑point ownership, supplying/weapons, attending planning meetings).
- Police executed a warrantless early‑morning entry into Cruz‑Ramos’s home (August 2010) based on an unknown informant’s tip; officers found Bernard (a fugitive), multiple firearms and large quantities of drugs; Cruz‑Ramos moved to suppress that evidence.
- District court convicted all three defendants; Judge Smith sentenced them (life on VICAR count); Cruz‑Ramos’s suppression motion was denied in part by the district court but the flower‑box evidence was excluded.
- On appeal the First Circuit affirmed Laureano‑Salgado’s and Ramírez‑Rivera’s convictions/sentences but reversed Cruz‑Ramos’s conviction and remanded for a new trial based on the illegal warrantless search and non‑harmless admission of seized physical evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Government/Prosecution Argument | Defendant Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support RICO, VICAR, §924 convictions | Cooperators’ testimony + physical evidence showed an ongoing La ONU enterprise, defendants’ leadership/participation, predicate racketeering acts, and nexus between firearms and drug/violent activity | Defendants argued insufficient proof of enterprise, participation/management, related predicate acts, and nexus for §924 | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for Laureano‑Salgado and Ramírez‑Rivera; RICO, VICAR, and §924 convictions upheld |
| Legality of warrantless entry/search of Cruz‑Ramos’s home and car (Fourth Amendment) | Police relied on an arrested unknown informant whose tip they deemed reliable and corroborated by a drive‑by identification; exigent circumstances (fugitive, danger) justified entry; automobile exception applied to car | Informant’s basis of knowledge uninvestigated; corroboration was only of innocuous exterior details; no probable cause for home or car search; evidence and statements should be suppressed | Reversed as to Cruz‑Ramos: no probable cause shown, entry/search unlawful; physical evidence suppressed; error not harmless; new trial ordered for Cruz‑Ramos |
| Good‑faith/harmless‑error exceptions to exclusionary rule for Cruz‑Ramos | Government did not press good‑faith on appeal; argued suppression should not require new trial given other evidence | Defendants argued deliberate police disregard of warrant requirement; seized items were central to linking Cruz‑Ramos to crimes | Held: good‑faith exception inapplicable (government did not demonstrate it and officers acted deliberately); error not harmless beyond reasonable doubt; suppression required |
| Jury selection: anonymous empanelment and voir dire adequacy | Government sought anonymity because defendants linked to violent organized crime and juror intimidation risk; court took safeguards and re‑asked helicopter question when requested | Defendants argued anonymous panel violated public‑trial/impartial jury rights, voir dire was insufficient, and handling of Juror 30 (in‑camera interview) violated right to be present and contaminated jury | Held: anonymous jury appropriate given record and precautions; voir dire and follow‑up questions were adequate; exclusion of defendants from in‑camera juror interview was permissible with counsel present and no prejudice shown |
| Evidentiary rulings and other trial charge issues (uncharged murders, impeachment, multiple‑conspiracies instruction) | District court admitted testimony about other murders as relevant to enterprise, limited impeachment probing of cooperators per Rule 608(b), declined multiple‑conspiracies instruction because evidence supported a single unified La ONU conspiracy | Defendants argued unfair prejudice from uncharged violent acts, restricted impeachment of star witness, and that multiple conspiracies existed so jury could convict based on spillover evidence | Held: no abuse of discretion—uncharged murders were relevant to enterprise and not unfairly prejudicial; impeachment limitations proper; failure to give multiple‑conspiracies instruction caused no shown prejudice |
| Sentencing: mandatory life under VICAR | Government treated VICAR murder conviction as triggering life exposure under §1959(a)(1) because jury found murder under Puerto Rico law | Defendants argued statute requires jury finding of a particular statutory element (e.g., murder punishable by life) and challenged application of mandatory life | Held: argument not developed and thus waived; district court’s sentence left intact for affirmed defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Negrón‑Sostre, 790 F.3d 295 (1st Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Brandao, 539 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2008) (verdict reversal only if irrational)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (broad definition of "association‑in‑fact" enterprise)
- United States v. Nascimento, 491 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007) (enterprise must be an ongoing organization)
- United States v. Marino, 277 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2002) (commerce element de minimis for jurisdictional purposes)
- United States v. Shifman, 124 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 1997) (elements of RICO conspiracy; participation/management standard)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances informant reliability test)
- United States v. Tiem Trinh, 665 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (informant‑reliability factors for probable cause)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruits of poisonous tree doctrine)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good‑faith exception and exclusionary‑rule deterrence analysis)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (RICO pattern requirement)