United States v. Rodriguez
651 F. App'x 44
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Raphael Rodriguez, an inmate at MDC Brooklyn, punched fellow inmate Brian Bartels once; Bartels fell, hit his head, and later died. Rodriguez was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) for assault within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
- At trial Rodriguez asserted self-defense; he did not testify. His defense proffered Dr. Sasha Bardey as an expert to testify about Rodriguez’s PTSD and relied in part on Rodriguez’s out-of-court statements about feeling threatened and Bartels clenching his fists.
- The district court excluded two of Rodriguez’s hearsay statements to Dr. Bardey (and similar BOP statements) as unreliable and prejudicial under Rules 702 and 703, while admitting other hearsay conveying that Rodriguez felt threatened and related contextual facts.
- During the oral charge the court misstated a sentence about burden of proof but provided correct written instructions which jurors had and used during deliberations.
- Rodriguez was sentenced to seven years consecutive to an existing 235-month sentence; the district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence after considering Rodriguez’s traumatic childhood, psychiatric problems, harsh confinement, and the facts of the death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of hearsay used by defense expert | Gov: district court properly excluded unreliable, prejudicial hearsay under Rules 702/703 | Rodriguez: Dr. Bardey should have been allowed to rely on Rodriguez’s statements that Bartels clenched fists and that Rodriguez felt threatened; corroborated by BOP statements | Affirmed — exclusion not abuse of discretion; statements unreliable, prejudicial, and would improperly convey hearsay to jury |
| Corroboration by BOP statements | Gov: BOP statements also unreliable because Rodriguez had motive to mislead investigator | Rodriguez: BOP statements corroborate and support admission | Affirmed — court reasonably found BOP statements equally unreliable |
| Jury instruction on self-defense / burden of proof | Gov: written instructions were correct; misreading was harmless | Rodriguez: oral misreading shifted burden / was confusing | Affirmed — plain-error review; no evidence jurors confused; correct written instructions provided to jury |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Gov: sentence reasonable given offense and history | Rodriguez: sentence excessive given childhood trauma, psychiatric issues, harsh confinement, and that Bartels’s death was accidental | Affirmed — district court considered §3553(a) factors and imposed below-Guidelines sentence; not outside permissible range |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 299 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing admissibility of evidence)
- United States v. Dukagjini, 326 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2003) (expert hearsay reliance and limits under Rule 703)
- United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir. 1993) (deference to district court on expert testimony)
- United States v. Tannenbaum, 934 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1991) (plain error review for unpreserved jury-instruction claims)
- United States v. Kopstein, 759 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2014) (reversal where jury confused by instructions)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for substantive reasonableness of sentence)
- United States v. Rigas, 490 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2007) (limits on acceptable sentencing range)
- United States v. Goldstein, 442 F.3d 777 (2d Cir. 2006) (plain-error standard applicability)
- United States v. Carty, 264 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (harsh conditions of confinement as possible basis for sentencing consideration)