United States v. Rodriguez
23-7280
2d Cir.May 22, 2025Background
- Joshua Rodriguez was convicted after a jury trial for murder during a drug trafficking crime and related marijuana distribution charges in the Southern District of New York.
- The government presented evidence that Rodriguez and Jaquan Millien competed in selling marijuana at an apartment building in the Bronx, leading to escalating conflict.
- In October 2018, Millien was shot and killed in the stairwell of the building, and his young son was also wounded but survived.
- A witness testified that Rodriguez admitted to shooting someone immediately after the incident and later expressed regret.
- Rodriguez appealed his conviction for murder, challenging two main district court rulings: admission of certain hearsay evidence and restriction on presenting an alternative perpetrator defense in closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Rodriguez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Present Sense Impression Evidence | Millien’s statements to Ramirez were not contemporaneous and were unreliable due to competition with Rodriguez. | Statements were made immediately after, satisfying Rule 803(1); reliability goes to weight, not admissibility. | District court did not abuse discretion; admission was proper or harmless. |
| Admitting Summaries vs. Precise Statements | Ramirez only summarized Millien’s comments, not exact phrases; prejudicial. | Any summarization was harmless error given cumulative nature of evidence. | Any error was harmless and did not affect outcome. |
| Alternative Perpetrator Defense in Summation | Sought to argue that other rival dealers with motive/opportunity could be responsible. | Nexus to any particular alternative perpetrator not established; purely speculative. | District court within discretion to limit argument absent sufficient nexus. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 299 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2002) (explains present sense impression hearsay exception and its rationale)
- United States v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1998) (difference between weight and admissibility for hearsay evidence)
- United States v. Ivezaj, 568 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2009) (cumulative error analysis in context of ample independent evidence)
- Wade v. Mantello, 333 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2003) (speculation insufficient for alternative perpetrator defense)
- United States v. Bautista, 252 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2001) (court may confine arguments to evidence presented)