462 F. App'x 58
2d Cir.2012Background
- Defendants Amadeo Rodriguez and Christopher Moore were convicted after a jury trial of multiple RICO-related offenses, including murder, conspiracy, and firearm/explosive counts.
- The charges stemmed from three incidents by the Neta street gang: the Freeport Industrial Area incident (July 18, 2000), the Jay Street incident (January 1, 2001), and the Sunrise Highway incident (April 23, 2003).
- Hector Alicea, a state police investigator, testified as an expert on Neta; Mejia (2008) had previously faulted similar testimony for Rule 702/703 and Confrontation Clause issues.
- The district court denied a Rule 33 new trial motion, concluding Alicea’s testimony was proper and harmless, and sentencing occurred in July 2010.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion (expert testimony), compulsory process, severance, Pinkerton liability, and sentencing procedures and reasonableness, and affirmed the judgments.
- The court ultimately affirmed the district court’s judgments, addressing each claimed error and finding certain evidentiary errors harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Alicea’s testimony under Rule 702/703 and Crawford | Rodriguez argues admissibility complied with Mejia; the testimony violated rules and Confrontation Clause | Rodriguez contends the testimony violated FRE 702/703 and Crawford | Confrontation Clause not violated; 702/703 error harmless beyond reasonable doubt |
| Pre-trial deportation of witnesses and compulsory process | Rodriguez claims deportation violated compulsory process | Rodriguez argues witnesses would be favorable but unavailable | No violation; statements cumulative; failure to call witnesses did not prejudice defense |
| Severance of co-defendants | Rodriguez contends severance necessary due to mutually antagonistic defenses | Moore argues joinder was prejudicial because non-overlapping defenses | No abuse of discretion; joinder proper given shared Racketeer influence and admissible related acts |
| Pinkerton liability instruction | Moore argues Pinkerton instruction improperly allowed conviction without direct proof | Pinkerton liability appropriate where conspiracy existed and evidence supported substantive crimes | Pinkerton charge not improper; proper given evidence and instructions ensuring conspiracy linkage |
| Sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable | Both argue sentencing procedures or factors were deficient | Disagree on procedural sufficiency and sentence reasonableness | Procedural plain error not shown; substantial rights not affected; sentences substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Mejia v. United States, 545 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008) (error in expert testimony under FRE 702/703 and Confrontation Clause; harmless in part)
- United States v. Rubi-Gonzalez, 311 Fed. App’x 483 (2d Cir. 2009) (703 hearsay through expert testimony; harmless where cumulative)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1993) (preference for joint trials; severance standards are discretionary)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1946) (liability for conspirators’ substantive offenses under Pinkerton theory)
- Salameh v. United States, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) (mutual antagonism and severance considerations; evidence linkage)