United States v. Candelario-Santana
Decision Date | 17 August 2016 |
Docket Number | Nos. 13–2139,13–2427,s. 13–2139 |
Citation | 834 F.3d 8 |
Parties | United States of America, Appellee, v. Alexis Candelario-Santana, and David Oquendo-Rivas, Defendants, Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Alan J. Black , Springfield, MA, for appellant Candelario–Santana.
Linda Backiel , for appellant Oquendo–Rivas.
Jenny C. Ellickson , U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Appellate Section, with whom Leslie R. Caldwell , Assistant Attorney General, and Sung–Hee Suh , Deputy Assistant Attorney General, were on brief, for appellee.
Before Howard, Chief Judge, Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
These consolidated appeals stem from a drug-related mass shooting carried out in furtherance of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) enterprise. Following the shooting, a federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico returned a fifty-two count superseding indictment charging Alexis Candelario–Santana (“Candelario”) and David Oquendo–Rivas (“Oquendo”) (collectively, “Defendants–Appellants”) with violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity (“VICAR”). Candelario was further charged with a number of drug trafficking offenses and thirteen RICO conspiracy-related murders. The Government sought the death penalty for Candelario. Defendants–Appellants were tried jointly before, and found guilty on all counts by, a death-qualified jury. As the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision on whether Candelario should receive a death sentence, both defendants received life sentences. Defendants–Appellants timely filed notices of appeal, deploying a veritable flotilla of challenges. We affirm Oquendo's convictions but vacate and remand as to Candelario.
We include the foundational facts in this section and delve into facts essential to each issue raised on appeal in our analysis.
In 1993, Candelario became the head of a drug-trafficking organization, known as the Palo de Goma drug point, operating in the Sabana Seca ward of Toa Baja, Puerto Rico. Throughout the 1990s, Candelario retained exclusive control over drug sales in the surrounding areas, often through violent means. Aided by Braulio Rodríguez (“Menor”), Candelario murdered or arranged the murder of at least a dozen individuals. In the late 1990s, Candelario fled to Michigan in an attempt to avoid arrest, leaving his cousin, Wilfredo Semprit–Santana (“Rufo”), and Carmelo Rondón–Feliciano (“Omi”) to oversee day-to-day operations at Palo de Goma.1 In return, Rufo and Omi agreed to “pay rent” to, that is, share the drug proceeds with, Candelario. In 2003, Candelario pleaded guilty to a dozen murder charges in Puerto Rico court. Rufo and Omi continued making payments to Candelario for use of the drug point. At some point, Candelario's relationship with Rufo and Omi began to deteriorate; the duo stopped making payments to Candelario, who threatened them. In 2006, following Omi's arrest by federal authorities, Rufo's brother, Pedro Semprit–Santana (“Semprit”), joined Palo de Goma, also declining to make payments to Candelario.
In February 2009, Candelario was released from prison. That same year, Rufo rented and renovated La Tómbola, a mini-market and bar located in Sabana Seca. During La Tómbola's opening night party on October 17, 2009, several shooters attacked attendees, killing nine and injuring more than a dozen people. Following the events at La Tómbola, three eyewitnesses identified Oquendo as a gunman. Two others identified Candelario. Another witness identified the voice of a shooter as that of Candelario.
A federal grand jury returned a fifty-two count superseding indictment against Candelario and Oquendo. Counts two to forty-nine charged Defendants–Appellants with VICAR activity and with carrying firearms during and in relation to crimes of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959 and 2 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 924 and 2, respectively. The indictment also charged Candelario with conspiracy to engage in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) ; conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 ; and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
We take each relevant issue on appeal in turn, beginning with Oquendo's challenge to the district court's refusal to suppress statements he made on the day of his arrest, proceeding to Oquendo and Candelario's claim of unconstitutional closure, Oquendo's potpourri allegations of trial error, and Oquendo's challenge to the jury instructions, and finally concluding by dispensing of Oquendo's insufficiency of the evidence claim.
Several days after the shooting, Puerto Rico Police Department (“PRPD”) Officer Carlos Rodríguez–Negrón (“Rodríguez”) received information that the individuals who perpetrated the La Tómbola shooting were hiding in a small neighborhood in Sabana Seca. As we recounted in an earlier, related case:
United States v. Oquendo–Rivas, 750 F.3d 12, 14–15 (1st Cir. 2014).
In this case, Oquendo filed a motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement. At the suppression hearing, Rodríguez described “put[ting] [Oquendo] down on the floor” “real fast” and said he “put [him] under arrest for [his] safety.” Rodríguez stated that he twice Mirandized both men. According to Rodríguez, both men replied Rodríguez later amended his statement, adding that, as noted above, prior to Mirandizing Oquendo and Ortiz, he asked them whether they had a firearms license, and both men responded in the negative. At that point, Rodríguez claims he administered Miranda warnings.
Oquendo's motion was denied following the hearing. The district court reasoned that, because Rodríguez asked Oquendo whether he had a valid gun license during a Terry-type intervention, Oquendo was not in formal custody, making Miranda warnings unnecessary. Even if the gun-licensing question were impermissible, the district court continued, Rodríguez had probable cause for arresting Oquendo, as he brandished a firearm. The district court additionally found that Oquendo spontaneously made his initial statements (“we're clear ... both weapons are [ours], but ... they are not involved whatsoever with the events that occurred at La Tómbola”) pursuant to a valid Miranda waiver. With regard to the statements made to Agent Torres, the district court concluded that Oquendo did not assert that he wished to consult with counsel, and that Oquendo voluntarily waived his right to remain silent.
This court reviews factual determinations and credibility assessments underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and reviews...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Cruz-Mercedes
...error review, we "view the facts in the light most favorable to the district court's ruling on the motion." United States v. Candelario-Santana, 834 F.3d 8, 18 (1st Cir. 2016). Accordingly, "[s]o long as ‘any reasonable view of the evidence supports it,’ [this court] will uphold the denial ......
-
United States v. Candelario-Santana
...courtroom during the testimony of a single witness violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. See United States v. Candelario-Santana, 834 F.3d 8, 23 (1st Cir. 2016). We concluded that this courtroom closing constituted structural error and vacated his conviction. Id. at 24. On r......
-
United States v. Valdés-Ayala, 16-1002
...confusing or misleading the jury." United States v. Bauzó-Santiago, 867 F.3d 13, 23 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Candelario-Santana, 834 F.3d 8, 27 (1st Cir. 2016) ) (alterations in original) (emphasis omitted).1. Bankruptcy Fraud During trial, the district judge instructed the......
-
Rosales v. State
...U.S.C. § 1959. Crimes committed under 18 U.S.C. § 1959 are commonly classified as "VICAR" crimes. See, e.g. , United States v. Candelario-Santana , 834 F.3d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 2016) ; United States v. Kamahele , 748 F.3d 984, 993 (10th Cir. 2014).Neither party contends Mr. Hernandez-Melendez's......
-
Trials
...arguments because courtroom nearly full and several defendants’ friends and families present). But see, e.g. , U.S. v. Candelario-Santana, 834 F.3d 8, 23 (1st Cir. 2016) (6th Amendment violated when judge closed courtroom after working hours to facilitate reluctant witness’s testimony becau......
-
Review Proceedings
...was structural error subject to automatic reversal because effect of error impossible to quantify); see, e.g. , U.S. v. Candelario-Santana, 834 F.3d 8, 21-22 (1st Cir. 2016) (excluding public from courtroom by announcing court closure to encourage testimony from reluctant witness was struct......
-
CLOSED COURTROOMS: SIXTH AMENDMENT AND PUBLIC TRIAL RIGHT IMPLICATIONS.
...Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993). (74.) Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938). (75.) See, e.g., United States v. Candelario-Santana, 834 F.3d 8, 21 n.3 (1st Cir. 2016); United States v. Christi, 682 F.3d 138, 142 (1st Cir. 2012); Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 619-20 (1960) ("D......