United States v. Serrano-Delgado
29 F.4th 16
| 1st Cir. | 2022Background
- Serrano drove Valentín and Miró to Herol Café, made three drive-bys, parked up the block, waited at the trunk, and later drove off with Valentín after shots were fired; Valentín killed an off‑duty police officer during the robbery.
- Surveillance, eyewitness accounts, Serrano's post‑arrest statements (including admitting he "looked" in the trunk) and his knowledge of Miró's address supported a theory he knowingly served as getaway driver and participated in the robbery/conspiracy.
- Valentín and Miró pleaded guilty to reduced charges; Serrano went to trial, was convicted of conspiracy and robbery (Hobbs Act) and of discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and causing death (18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and § 924(j)).
- District court gave a Pinkerton instruction permitting vicarious liability for co‑conspirators' substantive offenses if in furtherance of the conspiracy and reasonably foreseeable; jury convicted on all counts.
- Serrano appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of his knowledge/intent, (2) error and confusion in giving the Pinkerton instruction, (3) erroneous exclusion of exculpatory evidence from Valentín/Valentín’s counsel, (4) that the 924(c)/924(j) convictions might lack a valid crime‑of‑violence predicate, and (5) that his 30‑year sentence was substantively unreasonable and disproportionate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Serrano) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for knowledge, aiding & abetting, and conspiracy | Serrano says he was an unwitting driver/dupe with no advance knowledge, so no aiding/abetting or agreement | Evidence (drive‑bys, parking behavior, waiting at trunk, false statement to FBI, knowledge of Miró's address, cleanup) supports knowing participation | Conviction upheld; evidence sufficient for rational juror to find knowledge and agreement beyond reasonable doubt |
| Whether a Pinkerton instruction should have been given at all | Pinkerton should not have been given because it risks conflating disparate acts and inferring conspiracy from them | Pinkerton applies where crimes are in furtherance of a conspiracy and reasonably foreseeable; here classic getaway/lookout facts support it | Giving Pinkerton was not an abuse of discretion; appropriate for these facts |
| Form/clarity of Pinkerton instruction (preservation/plain error) | Instruction compressed/overcomplicated jury's task and was confusing | Defendant failed to preserve specific objection to form; instruction tracked circuit model and any defects do not meet plain‑error standard | Defendant did not preserve form objection; plain‑error not shown; no reversible error |
| Validity of 924(c)/924(j) convictions given "crime of violence" predicate | Jury may have grounded firearm/discharge on conspiracy (no longer a crime of violence), making convictions invalid | Jury necessarily found robbery predicate because conspiracy finding depended on prior knowing participation in robbery; discharge/death tied to robbery | Rejected Serrano's claim; convictions valid because discharge/death occurred during and in relation to the robbery predicate |
| Exclusion of Valentín's testimony and counsel testimony about Valentín's statements | Serrano sought to compel Valentín or, alternatively, call Valentín's attorney to relate Valentín's new exculpatory statements | Valentín invoked Fifth Amendment; attorney‑as‑witness excluded under Rule 804(b)(3) because statements lacked corroborating trustworthiness and contradicted earlier sworn plea allocution | Voir dire procedure waived by Serrano; exclusion of attorney testimony not an abuse of discretion |
| Sentence proportionality and substantive reasonableness | 30‑year sentence disproportionate to co‑defendants and failed to credit Serrano's minor role/mitigation | Co‑defendants pleaded to fewer counts, accepted responsibility, and faced different mandatory minima; court downwardly departed on offense level and considered mitigation | Sentence within district court discretion (low end of adjusted guideline plus mandatory consecutive 10 yrs); not substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (establishes vicarious liability for co‑conspirators when acts are in furtherance and reasonably foreseeable)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Rosemond v. United States, 527 U.S. 65 (aiding‑and‑abetting/924(c) requires actual advance knowledge absent Pinkerton)
- United States v. Martinez, 922 F.2d 914 (First Circuit on sufficiency standard and reviewing in light most favorable to government)
- United States v. Bucci, 525 F.3d 116 (First Circuit discussion of Pinkerton parameters)
- United States v. Sanchez, 917 F.2d 607 (First Circuit caution that Pinkerton not given as matter of course; risk of inferring conspiracy from disparate acts)
- United States v. García‑Ortiz, 657 F.3d 25 (First Circuit on elements of 924(c) and relation to crimes of violence)