United States v. Ramos-Gonzalez
787 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2015Background
- Four defendants (Ramos, Omar, Sonia Flores‑Rivera, Sandra Flores‑Rivera) were tried jointly on a multi-count indictment for a large drug‑trafficking conspiracy centered at Victor Berríos public housing in Puerto Rico; convictions and sentences ranged from 151 months to life.
- Prosecution relied heavily on three cooperating witnesses (Delgado, Xiomara, Andy); little independent corroborating evidence directly tied Ramos or Omar to leadership acts beyond those witnesses' testimony.
- Post‑trial, the government belatedly produced (1) a handwritten letter from Delgado to the prosecutor, (2) Delgado's notes of prison "toilet" conversations, and (3) FBI interviewer "rough notes" of Medina—materials defense counsel did not have at trial.
- Ramos and Omar moved for a new trial under Brady based on the withheld materials; the district court held the evidence cumulative and non‑material and denied relief after evidentiary hearings.
- On appeal the First Circuit found the cooperating witnesses' testimony essential and largely uncorroborated, held the suppressed materials cumulatively undermined confidence in Ramos' and Omar's convictions, and ordered new trials for Ramos and Omar; Sonia's and Sandra's convictions and sentences were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady/new trial based on withheld Delgado letter, prison notes, FBI rough notes | Ramos/Omar: withheld impeachment/exculpatory materials were material; cumulative disclosure creates reasonable probability of different result | Government/District Ct.: materials were cumulative/collateral, defense already had impeachment tools, no reasonable probability of different verdict | Reversed for Ramos and Omar: cumulative suppressed evidence undermined confidence; remanded for new trials |
| Sufficiency of aiding/abetting evidence (Ramos) | Ramos: evidence insufficient to show he aided/abetted possession with intent to distribute | Gov't: cooperating witnesses established Ramos' leadership, chain of command, hiring/arming subordinates; uncorroborated accomplice testimony can suffice | Affirmed as to sufficiency: viewed in light most favorable to jury, testimony supported convictions |
| Admission of other‑acts evidence (Sandra) under Rule 404(b) | Sandra: testimony about knife incident and a family shooting were improper prior‑bad‑acts evidence | Gov't: evidence explained organizational discipline and context; knife story not tied to Sandra | Affirmed: Andy's testimony admissible for non‑propensity purpose; knife reference harmless |
| Multiple challenges by Sonia: sufficiency, prejudicial variance, Rule 403/602 evidentiary claims, read‑backs, sentencing (firearm enhancement & FSA) | Sonia: insufficient evidence of broader conspiracy; prejudicial variance; unfairly admitted prejudicial/speculative testimony; read‑backs violated presence/public trial; sentencing errors | Gov't: testimony placed Sonia as runner/accountant at Victor Berríos; evidence supported single broader conspiracy; objections forfeited or non‑prejudicial; firearm enhancement foreseeable; FSA not retroactive | Affirmed: sufficiency and variance rejected; evidentiary and read‑back issues not reversible; firearm enhancement proper; FSA not retroactive |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor's duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (materiality standard: "reasonable probability" that result would have been different)
- United States v. González‑González, 258 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) (standards for Rule 33 and Kyles application)
- Avilés‑Colón v. United States, 536 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (evaluate strength of impeachment evidence in context)
- United States v. Ramos‑González, 775 F.3d 483 (1st Cir.) (prior related appeal noting nondisclosure concerns)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (prosecutor may not knowingly use false testimony)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (remedy when conviction lacks sufficient evidence)
- United States v. Laurent, 607 F.3d 895 (1st Cir.) (spoliation inference)
- United States v. Paladin, 748 F.3d 438 (1st Cir.) (materiality/corroboration context)
- Conley v. United States, 415 F.3d 183 (1st Cir.) ("undermine confidence" articulation)