United States v. Ramírez-Rivera

Decision Date26 August 2015
Docket Number13–2291,13–2320.,13–2289,Nos. 13–2285,s. 13–2285
Citation800 F.3d 1
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Pedro Luis RAMÍREZ–RIVERA, a/k/a Peter Pai; José Laureano–Salgado, a/k/a Geo; and Ismael E. Cruz–Ramos, a/k/a Chapu, Defendants, Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Henry E. Marines, with whom Law Offices of Henry E. Marines, Claudia Ima, and Law Offices of Claudia Ima were on brief, for Pedro Luis Ramírez–Rivera and José Laureano–Salgado.

Ruth M. Liebesman, with whom Law Office of Ruth M. Liebesman was on brief, for Ismael E. Cruz–Ramos.

Victor O. Acevedo–Hernandez, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Rosa Emilia Rodríguez–Vélez, United States Attorney, Nelson Pérez–Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, and Francisco A. Besosa–Martínez, Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief for the United States.

Before THOMPSON, LIPEZ, and BARRON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

After a jury convicted DefendantsAppellants José Laureano–Salgado, Pedro Ramírez–Rivera, and Ismael Cruz–Ramos (collectively, the Defendants)1 of numerous drug and gun crimes, a district court judge sentenced them all to life in prison. The Defendants now ask us to overturn their convictions and sentences, or, at the least, send their case back for a new trial.

For the reasons discussed below, we reverse Cruz–Ramos's conviction and sentence and remand his case for a new trial. We affirm Laureano–Salgado's and Ramírez–Rivera's convictions and sentences.

BACKGROUND

To give a lay of the land, we start with only a brief overview of this case. We fill out relevant portions of the story—in, as we invariably explain, whatever light our law demands, and relying on whatever record support is appropriate—as they are needed throughout our analysis of the various issues the Defendants have raised.

How It Began2

Until 2004, the majority of street-level drug sales in the San Juan-metropolitan area of Puerto Rico were controlled by gangs operating out of public housing projects. Sales in each housing project were generally controlled by each project's own drug gang.

The name of the game back then was control of the drug points, and the gangs fought for decades to maintain and grow their territories. The violence that accompanied their disputes naturally drew the attention of both local and federal authorities. As a result, drug sales took a hit, and large conspiracy indictments were handed down.

Around 2004, nearly all the drug gang leaders from the area reached an agreement that to reduce the inter-project conflicts and keep the cops away, they would form an alliance. They named it “La Organización de Narcotraficantes Unidos (Spanish for “The Organization of United Drug Traffickers”), or “La ONU” for short. The leaders agreed that if a conflict arose among La ONU members, they would meet to discuss it (as opposed to immediately resorting to shootouts). Under the new regime, La ONU members would be permitted to visit other La ONU-affiliated housing projects (and to also sell drugs there), so long as they got permission from that project's leader. The La ONU leaders also met regularly to discuss drug-related issues and to resolve conflicts.

While the alliance operated “for a time,” for reasons unknown it “weakened” as certain gangs grew “disgruntled” with La ONU and “sought to break off.” Sometime around 2008, La ONU ended up breaking into two groups—La ONU and “La Rompe ONU (known as “La Rompe” for short, which translates to “the break”). Each project-gang went all-in with either La ONU or La Rompe. La ONU-controlled projects included Las Dalias, Las Gladiolas, El Prado, and Los Jardines de Selles, while La Rompe-controlled projects included Trujillo, Cupey, and Alturas de Cupey. The two factions soon became equally sized and eventually, they became bitter rivals.

With the rising of La Rompe, La ONU's direction changed. Its mission became to “maintain control over the drug points in their housing projects by force and to kill La Rompe members and leaders in order to expand.” The organization's “unwritten” rules required that La ONU members remain loyal to each other, while relentless to the enemy. La ONU members could not kill other La ONU members without go-ahead from the leadership; nor could they overtake La ONU-owned drug points. Not only were La ONU members forbidden from associating with La Rompe members, they were also required to kill them on-sight. La ONU members were not permitted to cooperate with law enforcement. And breaking any of these rules meant death to the traitor (and/or his family members).

La ONU leaders continued to meet with each other to resolve internal conflicts and discuss strategy for overtaking drug points at other (La Rompe-controlled) housing projects. They regularly pooled resources to buy weapons and cars. When attacks on La Rompe members would go down, each La ONU project contributed an enforcer (i.e., hit man).

La ONU also continued to traffic drugs (crack, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana) and committed various violent acts (including murders) to enforce its rules and grow its territory. For instance, La ONU put hits out on La Rompe leaders. La ONU launched machine-gun shootouts in La Rompe projects. During one such shootout near Trujillo Alto Bridge, two women—a police officer and librarian—were killed. La ONU was also connected to the May 2010 shooting take-down of a police helicopter, allegedly committed by Edwin Bernard Astacio Espino (“Bernard”), a La ONU member.

Betraying La ONU called for an equally devastating fate. For instance, when a La ONU member stole a gun and gave it to a La Rompe member, he too, was killed. So was a La ONU leader who got caught stealing drugs from the organization, and a member who cooperated with police.

After the helicopter shooting, an arrest warrant was issued for Bernard (whom the police apparently could not find). The police caught a lucky break in August 2010, when an informant tipped them off that Bernard was hiding out at Cruz–Ramos's house, stashing weapons and drugs. Afraid they would miss the chance to arrest Bernard if they waited any longer, the police searched Cruz–Ramos's house (without a warrant), found Bernard, arrested him (and the several other people in the house, including Cruz–Ramos), and seized the drugs and guns they found at the home. Police also arrested other La ONU members for various crimes around 2010 to 2011.

The Crackdown

With that, in March 2012, a grand jury indicted 33 people for their alleged involvement in La ONU from 2004 through March 2012.3 The charges included drug trafficking, firearms crimes, murder, and attempted murder. The indictment accused all the Defendants of being members of La ONU.

Amongst the indictment's 33 counts, the Defendants here were charged with five:

• Count 1: racketeering conspiracy from 2004 through March 2012, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) ;
• Count 2: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 860 ;
• Count 3: conspiracy to possess firearms during and in relation to narcotics trafficking offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o ) ;
• Count 29: violent crime in aid of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) (specifically, for the August 2010 murder of Christian Toledo–Sánchez, known as “Pequeque”); and
• Count 30: use and carry of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (i.e., Pequeque's murder), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 924(j)(1).4
Pre–Trial Motions

Puerto Rico District Court Judge José A. Fusté was assigned to preside over the 33–person case, but at some point the indicted defendants were split up into two groups for purposes of trial (one group being the defendants who were facing the death penalty, and the other group being the defendants who were not). Judge Fusté presided over the trial of the death-eligible defendants, and Judge William E. Smith, a Rhode Island district judge, sat in designation to preside over the trial of the non-capital defendants (including Cruz–Ramos, Laureano–Salgado, and Ramírez–Rivera).5 Judge Smith also addressed many of the numerous pre- and post-trial issues that arose for the non-capital group.

As motion practice took way, and as jury selection in the Defendants' case lingered imminent, the government asked the district court to empanel an anonymous jury because the Defendants were “part of an organized crime ring that is both willing and able to intimidate and harm jurors.”6 Over the Defendants' constitutional objections, Judge Fusté (who was in charge of jury selection, even though he did not preside over the non-capital Defendants' trial) allowed the motion in-part, and resolved to place the seated jurors' names, addresses, and places of employment under seal because the Defendants in fact had “shown that they are part of an organized crime ring that is both willing and able to intimidate and harm jurors.” The judge also ordered the jurors not to divulge information during voir dire that would disclose their identities.

Shortly after that motion was resolved, the government notified the Defendants and the court that it intended to offer as evidence at trial the firearms and drugs that police seized from Cruz–Ramos's home in August 2010. Cruz–Ramos moved to suppress all that evidence, arguing that the warrantless search of his home was illegal. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, Judge Smith denied in-part the motion to suppress.7

Jury Empanelment

Judge Fusté empaneled the jury for the non-capital trial on January 23, 2013, several days before the trial was scheduled to start.8 The instant Defendants and their attorneys were present for jury selection.

During voir dire (i.e., the process during which the court questions the potential jurors to determine whether they are fit to sit on the jury), Judge Fusté informed the potential jurors that their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
66 cases
  • State v. Bush
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 18 Abril 2017
    ... ... 1961 et seq., including United States v. Cianci , 378 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2004), and contends that the "evidence relating to the ... ...
  • United States v. Hernandez-Mieses
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • 30 Junio 2017
  • State v. Bracy
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 18 Marzo 2022
    ... ... See, e.g. , United States v. Meja Romero , 822 F. App'x 1, 23 (1st Cir. 2020) (stating that "the warrant application ... ...
  • United States v. Velazquez-Fontanez
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 27 Julio 2021
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...or places of employment, to counsel or the press during voir dire or any other portion of the trial. See, e.g. , U.S. v. Ramirez-Rivera, 800 F.3d 1, 35-36 (1st Cir. 2015) (no abuse of discretion to impanel anonymous jury because defendants part of drug ring that used violence “to get its wa......

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