623 F. App'x 35
2d Cir.2015Background
- Pagan and Sanchez, former Latin Kings leaders in Newburgh, NY, were convicted on multiple racketeering, violent, firearms, and narcotics counts; Pagan received life plus 85 years, Sanchez life plus 110 years.
- A juror was dismissed after trial began for claimed financial hardship; district court found a factual basis to excuse the juror.
- The district court gave a Pinkerton instruction allowing liability for foreseeable acts of coconspirators under §1959(a).
- The court admitted Melendez’s statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) finding a conspiracy and in‑furtherance purpose.
- Sanchez challenged Rule 605 involvement and recusal; the court rejected these challenges as meritless.
- The panel affirms the district court’s judgments against both defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror dismissal was an abuse of discretion | Pagan | Pagan | No abuse; lawful hardship basis supported |
| Whether Pinkerton instruction was error | Pagan | Pagan | Not plain error; Diaz controls |
| Whether Melendez statements were admissible under 801(d)(2)(E) | Pagan | Pagan | Admissible; testimony supported conspiracy finding |
| Whether Sanchez’s Rule 605 and recusal contentions were preserved/merited | Sanchez | Sanchez | Rule 605 not violated; no plain error; no required recusal |
| Whether the narcotics, murder, and assault convictions were supported by sufficient evidence | Pagan and Sanchez | Pagan and Sanchez | Sufficient evidence supports convictions for the challenged counts |
Key Cases Cited
- Diaz, 176 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1999) (Pinkerton liability and state-law reference concerns)
- Carrillo, 229 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2000) (discusses state-law elements in §1959 predicates)
- Desena, 287 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2002) (whether state-law elements imported by §1959(a); conspiracy liability)
- Payne, 591 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2010) (conspiracy/overall narcotics conspiracy framework)
- Gigante, 166 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1999) (conspiracy requirements and purpose in gang contexts)
- James, 712 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2013) (standards for admitting statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
- Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984) (limits on judge-witness interactions in trials)
- Millar, 79 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 1996) (abuse of discretion in juror dismissal standards)
- Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2010) (review of jury instructions for plain error)