United States v. Romero-Lopez
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19530
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Romero-Lopez was charged in a 41-count indictment in the D.P.R. for money laundering offenses tied to transfers to San Diego from 2000–2005.
- The district court advanced the trial date by one day (from December 15 to December 14, 2009) due to scheduling concerns, with defense counsel later claiming a custody-related conflict.
- Defense sought a continuance; the court denied; trial proceeded with testimony including that Romero and his partner allegedly wired funds to San Diego to conceal illegal proceeds.
- The government introduced Romero’s Puerto Rico tax returns (2001–2004) to show inconsistencies between reported income and wire transfers, arguing funds derived from illegal activity.
- Romero testified he acted at the request of Chino and Alexis; the government cross-examined to rebut claims he lacked knowledge of the funds’ illicit nature, including a 2005 San Diego trip with money and detention by federal authorities.
- Jury convicted Romero on all counts and forfeiture was ordered; Romero appealed asserting (i) trial-date advancement, (ii) admissibility of tax returns under Rule 404(b), and (iii) cross-examination about the 2005 San Diego trip.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial-date advancement violated due process? | Romero | Government | No abuse of discretion; one-day advance not prejudicial. |
| Admission of Romero's tax returns under Rule 404(b)? | Romero | Government | Admissible for lack of character-use; probative value outweighs prejudice. |
| Cross-examination about the 2005 San Diego trip/detention improper under 404(b)? | Romero | Government | Proper to rebut knowledge element; no abuse of discretion. |
| Notice/preclusion issues regarding 404(b) evidence? | Romero | Government | Not error; substantial compliance with notice and purposes of 404(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Mangual-Santiago, 562 F.3d 411 (1st Cir. 2009) (two-part Rule 404(b) test for other acts evidence)
- Shenker, 933 F.2d 61 (1st Cir. 1991) (admissibility of other acts evidence balancing probative value and prejudice)
- Ottens, 74 F.3d 357 (1st Cir. 1996) (district court docket management and time for preparation)
- Williams, 630 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review of continuance denial)
- Gentles, 619 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct and prejudice standard)
- Sanchez-Berrios, 424 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2005) (plain error review)
- Williams, 985 F.2d 634 (1st Cir. 1993) (harmless error assessment for evidentiary missteps)