U.S. v. Quinones

Decision Date28 December 2007
Docket NumberDocket No. 04-5554-cr(L).,Docket No. 04-5650-cr(CON).
Citation511 F.3d 289
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alan QUINONES, Diego B. Rodriguez, Defendants-Appellants, Hector Vega, Defendant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

David L. Lewis, Lewis & Fiore, LLP, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant Alan Quinones.

Jean D. Barrett, Ruhnke & Barrett, Montclair, New Jersey, for Defendant-Appellant Diego B. Rodriguez.

David M. Rody, Assistant United States Attorney (David B. Anders, Karl Metzner, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, New York, for Appellee.

Before: WINTER, CABRANES, and RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judge:

Defendants Alan Quinones and Diego B. Rodriguez appeal from judgments of conviction entered on October 15, 2004, after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jed S. Rakoff, Judge) at which they were found guilty on substantive and conspiratorial counts of racketeering ("RICO"), see 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d); substantive and conspiratorial counts of drug trafficking, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) & 846; and the murder of confidential informant Eddie Santiago in relation to a continuing drug enterprise, see id. at § 848(e)(1)(A). Although the guilty verdict on the § 848(e)(1)(A) count exposed the defendants to the death penalty,1 the jury ultimately decided against this punishment.2 Defendants are presently incarcerated serving terms of life imprisonment.

On this appeal, defendants seek reversal of their convictions or a remand for resentencing on the grounds that the district court erred in (1) empaneling an anonymous jury; (2) removing certain prospective jurors for cause based on their opposition to the death penalty as expressed in a written questionnaire, without any follow-up oral voir dire; (3) making various evidentiary rulings; (4) charging RICO by reference to only three elements; and (5) imposing life sentences. For the reasons discussed in this opinion, we reject these arguments and affirm the judgment of conviction.

I. Background

A. The Crimes of Conviction

In the course of a seven-week trial involving seventeen witnesses, including some of the defendants' former accomplices, and more than 200 physical exhibits, the prosecution convincingly established defendants' participation in a racketeering enterprise primarily focused on the distribution of cocaine and heroin. Quinones led the illicit enterprise while Rodriguez served as his chief lieutenant. After Quinones's March 1999 arrest for selling heroin to an undercover police officer, defendants retaliated against Eddie Santiago, the confidential informant whom they blamed for Quinones's arrest, by murdering Santiago and burning his body. We detail the trial evidence only as necessary to our discussion of the issues on appeal. Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the evidence showed the following facts.

1. Narcotics Trafficking
a. Defendants' Cocaine Operation

Through the testimony of drug confederates Glen Weissman and Johnnie Hedgepeth, the prosecution established that, in the late 1990s, defendants regularly procured wholesale quantities of cocaine from suppliers in Florida and New York for distribution primarily in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Hedgepeth reported meeting Quinones at various locations in New York where Quinones purchased kilogram quantities of cocaine from Hedgepeth's partner, Joseph Sapia. Weissman testified that he accompanied Quinones to Florida to purchase cocaine from another source. Weissman further stated that, between January and March 1999, he transported cocaine on approximately five to seven occasions from Quinones's Bronx residence to various locations in Allentown.

b. Defendants' Heroin Operation

Defendants also distributed heroin, operating this side of their business, in part, out of the Bronx apartment of Quinones's girlfriend, Janet Soto. Milton Rivera and Hector Vega, two Bronx drug dealers who procured heroin from the defendants, testified against them at trial.

Rivera stated that, by May 1999, defendants were steadily supplying him with multi-kilogram quantities of heroin. While Rivera originally bought heroin directly from Quinones, Quinones eventually introduced Rivera to Rodriguez who, thereafter, delivered the drugs and collected payment. Quinones maintained contact with Rivera to ensure that customers were satisfied with the quality of the heroin supplied.

Vega, who distributed heroin from three different Bronx locations, testified that Quinones first offered to supply him with heroin in late 1998 or early 1999 and identified Janet Soto as a point of contact. In April 1999, after Vega had a falling out with his established supplier, he contacted Soto who promptly supplied him with ten to twenty bundles of heroin. That same day, Quinones visited Vega to check that the drugs were satisfactory. From May through August 1999, Quinones — acting through Rodriguez and Soto — regularly supplied Vega with approximately seventy-five bundles of heroin a week.

2. The Murder of Eddie Santiago
a. Santiago's Cooperation Leads to Quinones's Arrest

In March 1999, Eddie Santiago, a paid informant of the New York City Police Department, introduced Quinones to an undercover officer who, on March 18, 1999, and again on March 26, 1999, purchased small quantities of heroin directly from the defendant. At the conclusion of the latter transaction, police placed Quinones under arrest. Santiago, who was present at the time of the arrest, promptly voiced concern about his safety to the undercover officer because Quinones would now know Santiago was an informant.

b. Quinones's Search for Santiago

Santiago's fears were not unwarranted. Immediately after Quinones secured release on bail, he began hunting for Santiago. Hector Vega testified to a conversation in March 1999 during which Quinones stated that he was looking for a man named "Eddie," who Quinones believed had set him up for arrest. Over the next several months, Quinones regularly asked Vega whether he had encountered anyone named "Eddie" in his neighborhood. In April 1999, Quinones also tried to locate Santiago through Milton Rivera. Quinones told Rivera, "I am going to put his [i.e., Santiago's] head in a box." Trial Tr. at 529.

By June 1999, Quinones had obtained a photograph of Santiago. When Quinones showed the picture to Vega, the latter identified Santiago as someone who had tried to sell him heroin in another undercover transaction. Vega reported that his cousin Louis Malave knew Santiago, prompting Quinones to ask if Malave could arrange a meeting with Santiago because Quinones "wanted to get him." Id. at 1411. Quinones further asked whether Malave could be trusted to "keep his mouth shut." Id. Vega assured Quinones that Malave, who had done "time in the state," would not "open his mouth." Id.

On Friday, June 25, 1999, Quinones offered Malave $1,000 to "set up" Santiago. Id. at 870. Malave agreed and attempted to arrange a meeting for that night on Tremont Avenue in the Bronx. When Santiago failed to keep the appointment, Quinones and Malave proceeded to formulate an alternative plan.

c. The Abduction and Murder of Santiago

(1) Santiago Is Lured to Gutierrez's Apartment

Pursuant to that plan, on Saturday, June 26, Malave solicited Santiago's assistance in helping some drug dealers cook crack cocaine. Meanwhile, Quinones arranged with Nilsa Gutierrez, a friend of Janet Soto's, to use her Bronx apartment on Sunday, June 27. On Sunday afternoon, Quinones directed Malave and Rodriguez to pick up Santiago and bring him to the apartment. Quinones instructed the men to use a small two-door car registered to his wife, Carmen Quinones, and to make sure Santiago sat in the rear "because he didn't want [Santiago] to get away." Id. at 899.

In executing these instructions, Malave introduced Rodriguez to Santiago as "the guy that had the crack" that needed to be cooked. Id. at 900. When the three men arrived at Gutierrez's apartment for this purported purpose, Rodriguez led Santiago inside, while Malave lingered in the hallway. Almost immediately, Malave heard "a tussle," as if people were "wrestling" inside the apartment. Id. at 903. He soon left the scene to report to Vega what was happening.

About thirty minutes later, Malave and Vega returned to Gutierrez's apartment. Vega testified that, as soon as he entered the apartment, Quinones hugged him, whereupon Vega saw a groggy Santiago lying on the living room floor, handcuffed and hogtied, with blood running from his mouth. Vega also saw Rodriguez in the room and a gun lying on a sofa. Vega soon left the apartment but, on a return trip later that afternoon, he saw Janet Soto screaming at Santiago that he was getting what he deserved for being a "rat." Id. at 1443. Rodriguez also taunted Santiago by spitting in his face. Meanwhile, Quinones threatened Santiago, yelling, "I beat one body before and I'll beat your body." Id.

While her apartment was thus being used, Nilsa Gutierrez spent the day at Soto's residence. When, in the afternoon, Gutierrez indicated that she wished to return to her home, Soto told her she could not do so because "the guy that snitched on Alan" was in Gutierrez's apartment. Id. at 1910.

(2) The Removal of Santiago's Body and Quinones's Admissions to Murder

Later on Sunday night, Vega saw Rodriguez and Soto carrying what appeared to be a weed trimmer and a can of gasoline into Gutierrez's apartment building. Gutierrez testified that, earlier that day, she had seen Soto and Rodriguez with these same items.

Still later that night, Gutierrez observed Carmen Quinones's car and a minivan parked outside Gutierrez's apartment building....

To continue reading

Request your trial
272 cases
  • State Of Conn. v. Kitchens
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 5, 2011
    ... ... Hamilton, 499 F.3d 734, 736 (7th Cir. 2007) (''The government asks us to pick through the record with a fine-tooth comb and infer that the defendant's lawyer must have thought the instruction okay, in which event his ... 13 See United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 321-22 (2d Cir. 2007) (''We have no doubt that it was a tactical decision for [the] defendants ... to agree that a life sentence was ... ...
  • State v. Santiago, No. 17413.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 12, 2012
    ... ... of the rifle atop the chest indicate that it is too small a space in which a person could hide, 75 accepting this argument would require us to discredit McCarthy's testimony to the contrary, and thus to engage in fact-finding on appeal, which we do not do even in the context of Golding ... It does not, however, mandate reversal of the underlying conviction. United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 305 (2d Cir.2007), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 910, 129 S.Ct. 252, 172 L.Ed.2d 190 (2008); see also, e.g., Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 ... ...
  • Runyon v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • January 19, 2017
    ... ... As the court in Enmund v. Florida stated: The question before us is not the disproportionality of death as a penalty for murder, but rather the validity of capital punishment for [the defendant's] own conduct. The ... Further, in United States v. Quinones , 511 F.3d 289, 30104 (2d Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit permitted the use of for-cause exclusions in a capital case based only on pre-voir dire ... ...
  • U.S. v. Jordan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 29, 2008
    ... ... to review discovery material, and defense counsel represented that they spoke with Jordan after receiving a copy of his letter, "and he informed us that he is satisfied with the number of opportunities he's had to meet representatives from our office, specifically in the last couple of weeks." ... Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 309 (2d Cir.2007) (citation omitted). "In such circumstances, the uncharged crime evidence is necessary to complete the story of the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2018 Contents
    • July 31, 2018
    ...counselor to testify children stated they were hungry because they had no food at home was harmless error. United States v. Quinones , 511 F.3d 289 (2d. Cir. 2007). Police o൶cer’s testimony that informant, present at defendant’s arrest, declared he was now in serious trouble because defenda......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2014 Contents
    • July 31, 2014
    ...counselor to testify children stated they were hungry because they had no food at home was harmless error. United States v. Quinones , 511 F.3d 289 (2d. Cir. 2007). Police officer’s testimony that informant, present at defendant’s arrest, declared he was now in serious trouble because defen......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2015 Contents
    • July 31, 2015
    ...counselor to testify children stated they were hungry because they had no food at home was harmless error. United States v. Quinones , 511 F.3d 289 (2d. Cir. 2007). Police officer’s testimony that informant, present at defendant’s arrest, declared he was now in serious trouble because defen......
  • Declarations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Evidence Foundations Hearsay
    • May 5, 2019
    ...counselor to testify children stated they were hungry because they had no food at home was harmless error. United States v. Quinones , 511 F.3d 289 (2d. Cir. 2007). Police officer’s testimony that informant, present at defendant’s arrest, declared he was now in serious trouble because defen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT