United States v. Martinez

Citation: 83 F. App'x 384Docket: No. 02-1080, 02-1084, 02-1247

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; December 16, 2003; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The judgment of the district court is affirmed regarding the convictions of Shirley Gaicano, Luis Ramirez, and Juan Ramirez on multiple counts, including violent crimes and racketeering. Gaicano was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1959(a)(3) for violent crime in aid of racketeering and narcotics conspiracy. Luis and Juan Ramirez faced convictions under various statutes, including racketeering and conspiracy to commit robbery and murder. The district court denied motions by Gaicano and Luis Ramirez to sever their cases, which did not constitute an abuse of discretion or a miscarriage of justice.

Gaicano challenged the admission of testimony related to 'other acts,' including her post-arrest statement and prior drug sales, but the court did not exceed its discretion in admitting this evidence, which is permissible in conspiracy and racketeering cases. The district court's reasoning reflected a proper exercise of discretion in balancing factors for admissibility. 

Gaicano also argued that the exclusion of certain evidence was an abuse of discretion. However, the court found that the exclusions were justified; the relevance of certain questions was not clear, and any potential error was mitigated by the testimony of Juan Ramirez. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct made by Gaicano were determined not to warrant a reversal of the convictions.

Gaicano failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Rache Williams committed perjury or that the government knowingly used her false testimony. Additionally, Gaicano did not timely file a motion for a new trial based on alleged perjury by a government witness, as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(2). The court found that the prosecution’s closing arguments did not compromise the fairness of the trial or violate Gaicano's due process rights. Luis Ramirez raised claims of prosecutorial misconduct, most of which were not contested at trial, yet even if they had been, they did not deny him a fair trial and did not amount to plain error. 

Juan Ramirez's challenge to a juror for cause based on impartiality was deemed unfounded. He also contested the admission of testimonies related to violent incidents, which the court upheld as admissible, with some evidence qualifying as non-hearsay or statements against interest. His late request to represent himself pro se was within the district court's discretion, which was not abused. The jury instructions regarding accomplice testimony were found not to be prejudicial when considered in totality, affirming the jury’s role as the sole judge of witness credibility. Finally, Luis Ramirez, representing himself, argued that contraband cannot be classified as 'property' under the Hobbs Act; however, robbery of contraband can support a Hobbs Act conviction, aligning with common law principles.

A timely objection was not made regarding the grounds mentioned, per Fed.R.Crim. P. 30(d). Even if the defense's questions to character witness Louis Schlanger were 'guilt-assuming,' they opened the door for the government’s inquiries, making them not grounds for reversal, as supported by United States v. Russo. Claims of improper 'vouching' by the government were deemed permissible, as they were a 'fair response' to the defendants' elicited testimony, referencing United States v. Robinson and United States v. Rivera. Luis Ramirez's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not addressed on the merits, as it is preferred to be raised in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 2255, which remains available to him, citing Massaro v. United States and United States v. Williams. After reviewing the record, no cumulative error warranting reversal was found among the appellants. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.