United States v. Rivera-Carrasquillo, 933 F.3d 33

Background

Three members of the Puerto Rico gang La ONU (Astacio-Espino, Lanza-Vázquez, Rivera-Carasquillo) were indicted on RICO conspiracy, VICAR (violent crimes in aid of racketeering), firearms, and drug-conspiracy counts after extensive violence and murders. Juries convicted them and the district court imposed lengthy (including life) sentences.
Astacio-Espino moved pretrial to suppress firearms and drugs seized from a house/SUV tied to codefendant Cruz-Ramos; Judge Fusté "respected" a split ruling by another judge (Judge Smith) suppressing rifles but not handguns/drugs; Astacio-Espino claimed overnight-guest standing supported by an untranslated Spanish declaration.
Appellants raised multiple post-trial challenges: anonymous jury, partial courtroom closure during voir dire, judicial intervention in witness examination, admission of gruesome autopsy/crime-scene photos and gun evidence, erroneous jury instructions on RICO predicates (including firearms as racketeering activity), a Brady/new-trial claim based on inconsistent cooperator accounts about one murder ("Pekeke"), and whether Puerto Rico first-degree murder is a "crime of violence" for §924(c).
The district court held evidentiary hearings (on the partial-closure allegation and on post-trial motions), credited court security testimony that the courtroom was open, denied mistrial requests based on judicial questioning, and denied the new-trial/Brady motion after finding the purportedly "new" evidence unreliable and not likely to produce acquittal.
On appeal the First Circuit reviewed suppression de novo, credibility/factual findings for clear error, and unpreserved arguments for plain error; it assumed without deciding appellants joined certain adopted arguments but affirmed all contested convictions and rulings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression (standing as overnight guest)	Astacio-Espino: he had standing; Judge Fusté merely followed Judge Smith — reversal required after Ramírez‑Rivera undermined Judge Smith's ruling	Gov't: appellant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy; relied on untranslated declaration; error (if any) harmless	Held: Affirmed. Untranslated evidence cannot be considered; appellant failed to show reasonable expectation of privacy, so suppression claim fails.
Partial courtroom closure / public-trial right	Appellants: Government personnel restricted family/friends from entering voir dire, delegating closure to a non-judge and violating Article III and the Sixth Amendment	Gov't: district judge credited court security officer and deputy clerk; no closure occurred; factual finding entitled to clear-error deference	Held: Affirmed. Judge's credibility finding not clearly erroneous; no partial closure established.
Judicial intervention with witnesses / mistrial	Appellants: judge's questions/comments emphasized brutality and helped gov't, warranting mistrial	Gov't: judge's interventions clarified the record and managed trial; jurors were instructed to disregard judge's questions as indicating opinion; any error harmless	Held: Affirmed. No abuse of discretion in denying mistrial; judge acted within bounds of trial management and clarifying record.
Admission of gruesome photos and seized guns	Appellants: photos and gun evidence were unduly prejudicial and character evidence under Rules 403/404(b)	Gov't: evidence was probative (corroborated cooperator testimony, showed supply/storage); any error harmless given the strong case	Held: Assumed error but found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — convictions stand.
RICO-predicate jury instruction (firearms as racketeering activity)	Astacio-Espino & Rivera‑Carasquillo: instructions incorrectly included firearms as predicate; plain error warrants reversal	Gov't: instructions emphasized drug trafficking and murder; evidence on proper predicates was strong	Held: Plain error exists as to instruction, but appellants failed to show prejudice or miscarriage of justice given convictions on drug‑ and VICAR-related predicates; no relief.
New-trial / Brady re: Pekeke murder (after-discovered cooperator statements)	Appellants: later disclosures show conflicting cooperator accounts that could undermine VICAR motive element and warrant new trial or Brady relief	Gov't: materials were not in gov't control at trial or were immaterial/hearsay; district court properly applied standards	Held: Denied. Appellants waived the Wright new‑trial standard by arguing only Brady below; even on the merits the after‑discovered accounts were inconsistent and not likely to produce acquittal.
Crime-of-violence for §924(c) (Puerto Rico murder)	Appellants: Puerto Rico first-degree murder does not necessarily include violent physical-force element required by the force clause; residual clause invalid after Davis	Gov't: murder inherently involves violent force	Held: Claim waived under plain‑error review because appellants failed to develop the force‑clause argument; no relief.

Key Cases Cited

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Sup. Ct.) (Fourth Amendment standing requires legitimate expectation of privacy)
United States v. Orth, 873 F.3d 349 (1st Cir. 2017) (standard of review for suppression issues)
United States v. Arnott, 758 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2014) (appellate affirmance may rest on any record-supported basis)
United States v. Samboy, 433 F.3d 154 (1st Cir. 2005) (failure to present privacy evidence defeats suppression claim)
United States v. Negrón‑Sostre, 790 F.3d 295 (1st Cir. 2015) (clear‑error review for closure findings; plain‑error for unpreserved claims)
In re O'Donnell (Toye v. O'Donnell), 728 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2013) (standard and description of clear‑error review)
Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455 (Sup. Ct.) (plausible factual findings govern on review)
United States v. Munyenyezi, 781 F.3d 532 (1st Cir. 2015) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for mistrial denials)
Logue v. Dore, 103 F.3d 1040 (1st Cir. 1997) (limits on judicial intervention in witness examination)
United States v. Paz Uribe, 891 F.2d 396 (1st Cir. 1989) (trial judge may question witnesses to clarify record)
United States v. Puckett, 556 U.S. 129 (Sup. Ct.) (four‑part plain‑error test)
United States v. Latorre‑Cacho, 874 F.3d 299 (1st Cir. 2017) (firearms are not per se RICO predicate racketeering activity)
United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (Sup. Ct.) (residual clause of "crime of violence" statute invalidated)