U.S. v. Morales, s. 09–2863

Citation655 F.3d 608
Decision Date18 August 2011
Docket Number09–3347,09–2864,Nos. 09–2863,09–3231,09–3603,09–3653.,09–3232,s. 09–2863
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Mariano MORALES, Arturo Barbosa, Miguel Rodriguez, Brian Hernandez, Lionel Lechuga, Harold Crowder, and Romel Handley, Defendants–Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Stuart D. Fullerton (argued), Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.Paul Camarena (argued), Attorney, North & Sedgwick Law, Chicago, IL, for DefendantAppellant in No. 09–2863.Michael Bernard Nash (argued), Attorney, Chicago, IL, for DefendantAppellant in No. 09–2864.Hannah V. Garst (argued), Attorney, Chicago, IL, for DefendantAppellant in No. 09–3231.

Paul E. Wojcicki (argued), Attorney, Segal, McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney, Chicago, IL, for DefendantAppellant in No. 09–3232.Daniel Rufo (argued), Patrick W. Blegen, Attorney, Blegen & Garvey, Chicago, IL, for DefendantAppellant in No. 09–3347.Haneef L. Omar (argued), Attorney, Rockford, IL, for DefendantAppellant in No. 09–3603.Beau B. Brindley (argued), Attorney, Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley, Chicago, IL, for DefendantAppellant in No. 09–3653.Before KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.KANNE, Circuit Judge.

In 2002, state and federal authorities began an intensive investigation into gang violence in Aurora, Illinois. Their investigation centered on the Insane Deuces street gang, as one member had agreed to serve as a confidential informant for local authorities. Mariano Morales, Arturo Barbosa, Miguel Rodriguez, Brian Hernandez, Lionel Lechuga, Harold Crowder, and Romel Handley (collectively, the Defendants) all participated in the gang's activities. They were among sixteen individuals indicted by a federal grand jury on various racketeering-related charges in 2006. After the trial was bifurcated, the seven Defendants stood trial together and were each convicted of racketeering conspiracy; some were also convicted of related charges, including narcotics distribution and conspiracy, illegal firearm possession, and assault and murder in furtherance of their racketeering activities. Once proud, self-identifying Deuces banging on the street, each now tries to distance himself from the gang and claims to have been only tangentially involved in its activities, if at all. The Defendants present three joint and fourteen individual issues, alleging errors in both the guilt and sentencing phases of their trial. Finding that their arguments lack merit or that the errors alleged were harmless, we affirm their convictions and sentences.

I. Background

The Defendants were members or confederates of the Insane Deuces, a street gang with a heavy presence in northeastern Illinois in the previous decade. With the help of a gang member seeking to avoid prosecution following an arrest, local and federal authorities gathered information on the Insane Deuces and tried to dismantle the gang in Aurora, Illinois, where gang-related violence had soared in the early 2000s. Today we resolve two appeals arising from trials based upon those efforts: this case and its companion case, United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753 (7th Cir.2011). We will briefly describe the background of the gang and its activities before discussing the proceedings leading to the current appeal.

A. About the Gang

The Insane Deuce Nation (“Insane Deuces,” “Deuces,” or the “Nation”) is an organized street gang affiliated with the Folks, a national network of various local gangs. Recently, the gang has been predominantly composed of Latino/Hispanic males and has operated primarily within northern Illinois, though factions exist throughout Illinois and various state and federal prisons. Cities in northeastern Illinois had individual chapters under the umbrella of the Nation and its centralized leadership. This case involves the Aurora Deuces, a chapter with a significant presence in Aurora, Illinois.

A loose association between the Insane Deuces and the Latin Kings, a gang affiliated with the Peoples network, had evaporated before the events in this case occurred. By 2002, the Deuces and Kings were bitter rivals fighting for control of Aurora's streets. The rivalry resulted in frequent and escalating violence, often leading to attacks against victims mistaken for rival gang members. This inter-gang violence precipitated the investigation leading to this case.

The Deuces comprised at least three tiers of membership: Seniors, Juniors, and Shorties. Shorties were the gang's youngest full members. They bore responsibility for executing most of the gang's activities, including carrying out violent acts and selling narcotics to fund the gang. They were often juveniles, recruited in their youth to build the gang's ranks while minimizing criminal liability. By participating in gang activities, young members could become Juniors. Juniors were responsible for daily Deuce operations. They directed the Shorties' activities and planned narrow-scale operations, determining which Shorties would participate, assigning responsibilities and distributing firearms to them, and supervising their activities. The Seniors were longstanding members of the gang whose age and accomplishments made them the leaders, broad-scope planners, and advisors for the gang. They directed the Juniors but were often removed from the Deuces' daily activities. The local chapter in Aurora was organized at the Junior level, likely due to the ongoing incarceration of the local Seniors.

Each tier in the Deuces had its own leadership structure where three members in each tier bore a title and increased responsibilities. The highest rank in each tier was the “First Seat” or “Governor” who was responsible for the overall activities of that group. The “Second Seat” or “Lieutenant Governor” assisted in directing activities within the tier, often assigning missions. The third-ranking member, or “Enforcer,” was responsible for ensuring compliance with the gang's disciplinary codes and for administering “violations” (punishments) to members who broke the gang's “leyas” (laws) or failed to participate in its activities.

The Deuces' daily activities included dealing narcotics to benefit the gang, going on “missions” (planned attacks on rival gang members), protecting and supporting fellow gang members and their families, punishing gang members who violated the gang's codes, and meeting to coordinate these efforts. To facilitate their activities, the Deuces maintained a “caja” system, a loose form of community property and money acquired for the benefit of gang members. For example, if a Deuce was arrested and held pending trial, other members would take money from the caja to post bail for him. The caja also included a quantity of narcotics from which a member could borrow to make sales or trades for the benefit of the Nation. Although the Deuces were allowed to buy and sell drugs in a “free enterprise” system—sales could be conducted from sources outside of the Nation—all sales needed to benefit the Nation in some way, typically by paying a portion of the proceeds into the caja. Alternatively, profits from sales could be used to purchase firearms to donate to the gang. These “Nation guns” would then be used in carrying out missions or protecting members; the guns would be returned to the caja after the mission for later use (unless disposed of to avoid ballistics evidence in the event of a murder).

Participation was compulsory for Juniors and Shorties, including those members who were rolled back from Senior to Junior status in an effort to better train, lead, and supervise the Deuces' swelling Shorty ranks. Every Junior and Shorty had to pay periodic dues into the caja to support the gang's activities. Missions were specifically assigned to gang members and usually consisted of planned attacks directed against specific rival gang members in retaliation for violence or territorial encroachment. Nation guns would be distributed for the mission along with orders to empty the magazine or bear violations for every bullet not fired. In addition to missions, all members were expected to comply with a standing order to attack Latin Kings whenever the opportunity arose. Participation in missions, other acts of violence, and donations of money, contraband, or firearms to the caja through drug sales or theft led to advancement within the organization. In exchange for these efforts, Deuces and their families received financial support and physical protection; these benefits extended to both Deuces on the streets and those who were incarcerated in various facilities throughout Illinois.

B. The Investigation

Following a drug raid on Junior Enforcer Orlando Rivera's home in early 2002, Rivera absconded, and a warrant issued for his arrest. After two months, he was arrested pursuant to the warrant and was looking to avoid prosecution. He therefore began cooperating with local and federal authorities investigating the Deuces. He surreptitiously recorded gang meetings and conversations, he pretended to discard Nation guns only to hide them and later turn them over to authorities, he reported the gang's activities and plans, and he received money to conduct controlled buys of narcotics and firearms from gang members. The intelligence gathered through Rivera produced evidence on four murders, eleven attempted murders, two solicitations to commit murder, other shootings, and narcotics distribution incidents—all of which the Deuces perpetrated in 2002 alone. In exchange for his services, Rivera received full immunity for his activities with the Deuces, and the government relocated and compensated him.

Through Rivera's cooperation and information arising from it, government authorities learned about each of the Defendants' roles and general scope of participation in the Deuces' criminal activities. We briefly relate some of that background information here.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Perez v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • April 8, 2013
    ...occupations, addresses, exact places of employment, and other such facts–ha[d] been withheld from the parties.” United States v. Morales, 655 F.3d 608, 620 (7th Cir.2011). Federal statute allows federal district courts to keep the names of jurors “confidential in any case where the interest......
  • United States v. Schiro
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • May 1, 2012
    ...v. Mannie, 509 F.3d 851, 856-57 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537-39 (1993); United States v. Morales, 655 F.3d 608, 624-25 (7th Cir. 2011). Anthony Doyle's appellate counsel makes a number of convoluted objections to the jury instructions. Doyle's trial c......
  • United States v. Haywood
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
    • October 21, 2019
    ...grounds to require a severance unless the defendant also shows prejudice to some specific trial right."); United States v. Morales , 655 F.3d 608, 625 (7th Cir. 2011) ("In the end, however, Rule 14 does not require severance even if prejudice is shown; rather, it leaves the tailoring of the......
  • United States v. Amaya
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • June 3, 2016
    ...no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Morales , 655 F.3d 608, 634 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted). As to the gun charge, Amaya also raises two evidentiary issues. First, he argue......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The constitutional right to an implicit bias jury instruction
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-2, April 2022
    • April 1, 2022
    ...1, 38 n.186 (2014) (citing GEORGE FISHER, EVIDENCE 2-3 (3d ed. 2013)). 111. FED. R. EVID. 606(b)(1). 112. See United States v. Morales, 655 F.3d 608, 629–32 (7th Cir. 2011). 113. See Bradford v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 90-0128, 1994 WL 118091 at *5 (9th Cir. 1994). 114. FED. R. EVID. 60......
  • Sentencing
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...for solicitation for murder properly considered prior sentence despite occurring chronologically after instant 3 crimes); U.S. v. Morales, 655 F.3d 608, 639 (7th Cir. 2011) (sentences for battery properly considered prior sentences because defendant remained active in racketeering conspirac......

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