United States v. Vizcarrondo-Casanova, 763 F.3d 89

Background

Three defendants (Vizcarrondo-Casanova, Aponte-Sobrado, Díaz-Colón) were convicted after a joint trial for a scheme in which purported law-enforcement officers and associates carjacked, robbed, abducted, and caused the death of Elis Manuel Andrades-Tellería; several cooperators were government witnesses.
Charges included conspiracy to commit carjacking (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2119), conspiracy against rights (18 U.S.C. § 241), and deprivation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242); Aponte and Vizcarrondo were also tried for substantive carjacking.
The district court admitted extensive testimony about prior crimes and impersonations by defendants and co-conspirators; Vizcarrondo challenged admission under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 403.
Aponte challenged portions of the prosecutor’s closing as improper vouching and raised a pro se claim that federal prosecutors lacked authority because no sworn FBI complaint was filed; he also asserted other procedural defects.
Díaz-Colón raised multiple claims on appeal: constructive amendment of the indictment (court instructed/queried jury on death-resulting forms of §§ 241/242 not charged in the indictment), constructive amendment on the § 371 (conspiracy) count as drafted, improper withdrawal of a plea offer, and logically inconsistent jury findings.
The First Circuit affirmed all convictions, reasoning that (1) prior-act evidence was admissible to show conspiratorial trust and was within the trial court’s wide Rule 403 discretion; (2) alleged vouching did not clearly and obviously prejudice Aponte; (3) no requirement that a sworn complaint precede an indictment; and (4) Díaz-Colón’s constructive-amendment and other claims failed on plain-error review or lacked prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior bad-act evidence (404(b)/403) — Vizcarrondo	Govt: prior shared crimes show plan, knowledge, identity, and basis for mutual trust among conspirators.	Vizcarrondo: evidence was impermissible 404(b) propensity evidence and, even if relevant, unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.	Admission upheld: 404(b) purpose (showing origin of trust) valid; Rule 403 balancing within trial court discretion despite cumulative nature.
Prosecutorial vouching in closing — Aponte	Govt: rebuttal argued inconsistencies supported credibility because government witnesses were not coached.	Aponte: remarks vouched for witnesses and placed prestige of office behind their truthfulness.	No reversible error: objection not preserved; plain-error review found remarks at most borderline and did not clearly prejudice defendant.
Authority to prosecute without sworn complaint — Aponte (pro se)	Aponte: lack of sworn FBI complaint meant prosecutors lacked authority under 28 U.S.C. § 547 and Rules 3–4; Take Care Clause violated.	Govt: indictment suffices; no prerequisite complaint required when indictment establishes probable cause.	Rejected: no complaint prerequisite to indictment-based prosecution; challenge fails.
Constructive amendment / indictment defects — Díaz-Colón	Díaz-Colón: jury was instructed and asked about death-resulting forms of §§ 241/242 and conviction exposed him to greater penalties than indicted; indictment on §371 alleged carjacking resulting in death but jury instructions allowed conviction on base form.	Govt: death-resulting elements are properly treated as elements but here any error was plain and nonprejudicial; §371 punishment unaffected by enhanced vs base underlying felony.	Affirmed: constructive amendment occurred but defendant failed to show prejudice (plain-error review); §371 drafting error immaterial to penalty; plea-withdrawal not enforceable absent detrimental reliance; inconsistent verdicts not reversible under Powell.

Key Cases Cited

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (elements that increase maximum penalty must be charged to jury) (establishes rule on elements vs. sentencing facts)
Recuenco v. Washington, 548 U.S. 212 (aggravating sentencing factors are elements for jury when they increase maximum penalty)
Varoudakis v. United States, 233 F.3d 113 (inadmissible 404(b) evidence may improperly bolster witness credibility; Rule 403 reversal appropriate in some circumstances)
Watson v. United States, 695 F.3d 159 (deference to district court’s Rule 403 balancing; rare reversal)
Pérez-Ruiz v. United States, 353 F.3d 1 (limits on permissible prosecutorial argument vs. improper vouching in summation)
Papaleo v. United States, 853 F.2d 16 (plea offers unenforceable absent court acceptance or defendant’s detrimental reliance; plea governed by contract principles)
Brandao v. United States, 539 F.3d 44 (constructive amendment doctrine forbids altering charging terms after grand jury indictment)
Powell v. United States, 469 U.S. 57 (inconsistent jury verdicts do not permit reversal; courts will not probe jury deliberations)
Houle v. United States, 237 F.3d 71 (standard for overturning district court evidentiary rulings under Rule 403)