United States v. Vidal-Maldonado
736 F.3d 573
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- In July 2003 José Antonio Rivera-Robles, under the influence of cocaine, stole a patrol car, was later captured and restrained by San Juan officers, and was then repeatedly kicked and beaten by multiple officers; he died of blunt-force trauma.
- Four SJMPD officers (Vidal, Pagán, Morales, Pacheco) were later federally indicted; two other officers cooperated and testified for the government. After a lengthy trial, the jury convicted Vidal, Morales, Pagán and Pacheco on various counts including § 242 (civil-rights violations), false statements, perjury, and obstruction; sentences ranged from 57 to 360 months.
- Defendants raised eight principal appellate issues, including Rule 10(e) supplementation of the record (jury-room voir dire), denial of mistrial for a witness’s reference to a prior civil suit, suppression of an in-court ID, sufficiency of the evidence, a jury instruction about consciousness of guilt, an alleged variance, the Sentencing Guidelines “one‑book” rule/Ex Post Facto challenge, and denial of a minor‑participant downward departure.
- The district court denied the Rule 10(e) motion (record reflected juror interviews in jury room and counsel acquiesced), denied mistrials and instead gave curative instructions, admitted a witness’s in‑court identification, and rejected defendants’ sufficiency and other challenges after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
- At sentencing the court applied the Guidelines grouping/one‑book rule (using a post‑offense manual because a later obstructive offense occurred in 2008), producing a higher Guidelines range for Vidal; Vidal argued this violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 10(e) supplementation of record (jury‑room voir dire) | Pagán/Vidal: record unclear; proceedings were closed and record should be supplemented or hearing held | District court: transcript shows jury‑room notation and counsel acquiesced; motion untimely/new evidence | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Rule 10(e) not a vehicle to add belated material the parties knew and didn’t raise at trial |
| Motion for mistrial after witness referenced prior civil suit | Defendants: reference was highly prejudicial and warranted mistrial | Government: single passing reference; curative instruction sufficed | Affirmed — court gave appropriate, timely curative instruction and no manifest abuse of discretion in denying mistrial |
| Suppression of in‑court identification | Pagán: identification was impermissibly suggestive (no lineup) | Government: witness had multiple viewings, familiarity, certainty — identification reliable | Affirmed — even assuming suggestiveness, identification reliable under totality of Biggers factors |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 242 and related counts | Morales/Pacheco/Vidal: evidence insufficient to prove willful participation, intent, or presence | Government: multiple witnesses, cooperating testimony, contradictions in defendants’ statements support convictions | Affirmed — reasonable juror could credit government witnesses; convictions supported beyond reasonable doubt |
| Jury instruction on consciousness of guilt | Morales: instruction relieved government of proving intent; plain error | Government: instruction conditional and did not lessen beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt burden | Affirmed — no plain error; instruction proper and did not shift burden |
| Alleged variance re: grand jury false‑statement count | Morales: trial proof differed from indictment (participation in arrest) causing prejudice | Government: evidence established presence and acts; any variance not material | Affirmed — no material variance or prejudice; indictment and proof aligned |
| One‑book rule / Ex Post Facto challenge to Guidelines | Vidal: applying a later Guidelines manual (because of later obstruction counts) increased punishment unfairly and violated Ex Post Facto Clause | Government: one‑book and grouping rules put defendant on notice; later related offense triggers later manual; Peugh is distinguishable | Affirmed — one‑book rule applied to grouped offenses does not violate Ex Post Facto as applied here; defendant had notice and later obstructive conduct triggered application of later manual |
| Denial of minor‑participant downward departure | Morales: was a minor participant and merited §3B1.2(b) reduction | Government: evidence showed active kicking; not substantially less culpable than average participant | Affirmed — district court did not clearly err; defendant failed to prove entitlement to departure |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sepúlveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir.) (curative instructions vs. mistrial analysis)
- United States v. Brika, 416 F.3d 514 (6th Cir.) (Rule 10(e) standard/deference)
- United States v. Rivera-Rivera, 555 F.3d 277 (1st Cir.) (identification admissibility analysis)
- United States v. Cruzado-Laureano, 404 F.3d 470 (1st Cir.) (one‑book rule/grouping applied to multiple‑offense sentencing)
- United States v. Silva, 554 F.3d 13 (1st Cir.) (applying revised Guidelines when later related conduct occurred)
- United States v. Gilman, 478 F.3d 440 (1st Cir.) (same principle on grouping and timing)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (limitations on applying newer Guidelines to earlier offenses; discussed and distinguished)
- United States v. Kumar, 617 F.3d 612 (2d Cir.) (one‑book rule does not violate Ex Post Facto when applied to grouped offenses)