United States v. Male
| Decision Date | 06 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-CR-185(JFB) |
| Citation | 610 F.Supp.3d 474 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Juvenile MALE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
The United States is represented by Breon S. Peace, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of New York, 610 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New York 11722, by John J. Durham, Paul G. Scotti, Justina L. Geraci, and Megan E. Farrell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
Defendant Juvenile Male is represented by Marion A. Seltzer, 1725 York Ave., Suite 16B, New York, New York, 10128.
On May 20, 2020, the government filed a Juvenile Information against defendant Juvenile Male ("the defendant"),1 charging him with the following: one count of racketeering, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), 1963, 5032 et seq. ; two counts of murder in aid of racketeering, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1959(a)(1), 5032 et seq. ; and one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 841(b)(1)(D), 846 et seq. These charges relate to the defendant's alleged participation, as a member of La Mara Salvatrucha, a violent street gang also known as MS-13, in the May 21, 2016 murder of Kerin Pineda, the October 10, 2016 murder of Javier Castillo, and the distribution of marijuana and cocaine between January 2016 and October 2017.
Before the Court is the government's motion under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 to transfer the case to district court in order to prosecute the defendant as an adult. This Memorandum and Order contains the Court's findings under Section 5032.
As discussed in great detail below, after carefully analyzing the required statutory factors, the Court concludes in its discretion that, notwithstanding the statutory presumption in favor of juvenile adjudication, the government here has rebutted that presumption and has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's transfer to adult status is warranted.
First, the nature of the alleged offenses overwhelmingly favors, in the interest of justice, transferring the case to district court to try the defendant as an adult. As detailed below, the defendant is charged with actively participating in two murders in aid of the MS-13 gang, as well as with distributing narcotics to finance gang operations. More specifically, the defendant is alleged to have engaged in the following conduct with respect to the charged offenses: (1) instigating the murder of Pineda, a suspected member of the rival 18th Street Gang, by setting up a Facebook page, on which the defendant posed as a female and initiated contact with Pineda; (2) notifying fellow MS-13 gang members of this contact and obtaining permission from clique leaders to proceed with the murder; (3) facilitating the murder by luring Pineda via Facebook communications to a wooded area in Freeport, New York, where other MS-13 members were waiting to kill him, and where Pineda was then murdered; (4) along with fellow MS-13 members, bringing Castillo, another suspected member of the 18th Street Gang, to an isolated area by the water in Freeport in order to murder him; (5) with other gang members, striking Castillo with a machete until he was dead; and (6) actively selling cocaine and marijuana to finance clique operations.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the extremely violent nature of the alleged murders, including the defendant's alleged active participation in both murders, is entitled to special weight in this case.
Second, the defendant's age and social background also favor transfer. The defendant was just over 16 when he allegedly instigated the murder of Pineda, 6 months away from his seventeenth birthday, when he participated in Castillo's murder, and between 16 and 17 when he distributed narcotics. He is now over 22 years old.
As for the defendant's social background, he benefited from a supportive family and at least some community ties, yet still allegedly chose to join the MS-13 and participate in these violent acts. Before moving to the United States, the defendant was raised by his mother and grandparents in El Salvador, with whom he had a close and loving relationship, and was an active member of his church and community. Upon arriving in the United States, the defendant lived for six months with his father in Texas before moving to Freeport to live with his older brother and extended family. In Freeport, the defendant worked steadily as a landscaper and spent time with his family on a near-daily basis, regularly attending church with them. However, despite these supporting and stabilizing influences, the defendant still chose to join the MS-13 (as the defendant concedes) and allegedly chose to commit these brutal murders. Further, the defendant did not disassociate from the gang after these alleged acts. Instead, the defendant was later convicted in state court of a conspiracy to commit another murder in aid of the MS-13, planned one year after the conduct charged here. And, despite his family's continued support, he was adjudicated by the Bureau of Prisons to have been involved in a gang-related physical altercation while incarcerated. In short, despite ongoing family support, the defendant's ties to the MS-13 gang, and his loyalty to that gang, appear to have been very strong. Thus, the Court finds that his age, social background, and history with the MS-13 gang favor transferring him to adult status.
Third, with respect to the nature and extent of the defendant's prior delinquency record, the defendant pled guilty in state court to conspiracy to commit another murder. The conspiracy took place approximately within a year of his alleged participation in the two murders at issue here. Thus, this factor weighs strongly in favor of transfer.
Fourth, as for the defendant's present intellectual development and psychological maturity, the psychological examination of the defendant, conducted by the defense expert Dr. Eric Goldsmith, indicates that the defendant has no intellectual limitations, has no sign of any mental illness, and, aside from delayed walking, had met all of his developmental milestones in a normal timeframe. Moreover, the defendant reported doing well in school in El Salvador and, although he experienced some difficulty with the limited schooling he had in the United States, he had the maturity to obtain and maintain a regular job as a landscaper while taking night classes to learn English. Therefore, the defendant clearly had the intellectual functioning, as a juvenile, to understand both the violent nature of the MS-13 gang and the dire harm to others that would result from his alleged participation in the gang's conduct. Dr. Goldsmith also diagnosed the defendant with Cannabis Use Disorder and described the potential effects of long-term cannabis use on an adolescent's executive functioning. Although the Court credits Dr. Goldsmith's diagnosis, it concludes that the defendant's excessive marijuana use does not adequately explain his alleged violent tendencies (including his alleged pivotal and premeditated role in the murders). Accordingly, the Court concludes that this factor weighs strongly in favor of transfer.
Fifth, the nature of past treatment efforts weighs slightly in favor of transfer. Although the defendant did not receive any treatment or rehabilitative efforts prior to his incarceration, his limited treatment efforts to date do not show a likelihood that he will be successfully rehabilitated within the juvenile system. Moreover, as noted above, the defendant committed a disciplinary infraction during his federal detention that was directly related to ongoing participation in MS-13 activity. Based upon this record, it appears that the defendant's rehabilitation efforts are at their beginning stages, if at all.
Finally, with respect to the sixth factor, the government has failed to demonstrate the absence of available programs designed to treat the defendant's behavioral problems. Therefore, this factor weighs against transfer.
Although this final factor weighs against transfer, it does not outweigh the others that, in combination, overwhelmingly favor transfer. In particular, the violent and brutal nature of the alleged murders, including the defendant's alleged critical role in planning and executing them, the defendant's social background, and prior criminal history, overwhelmingly demonstrates that transfer is warranted. As the Second Circuit has emphasized, "the goal of rehabilitation must be balanced against ‘the threat to society posed by juvenile crime.’ " United States v. Nelson ("Nelson II") , 90 F.3d 636, 640 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. J.D. , 525 F. Supp. 101, 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) ). The Sixth Circuit has similarly reasoned that "a motion to transfer is properly granted where a court determines that the risk of harm to society posed by affording the defendant more lenient treatment within the juvenile justice system outweighs the defendant's chance for rehabilitation." United States v. T.F.F., A Juvenile Male , 55 F.3d 1118, 1121 (6th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. One Juvenile Male , 40 F.3d 841, 844 (6th Cir. 1994) ). Here, after analyzing all the factors with respect to this defendant, the Court concludes that there is no likelihood that the goals of the juvenile system will be achieved while the defendant is in juvenile custody and, under the particular circumstances of this case, "the concerns of public protection and punishment become paramount." Nelson II , 90 F.3d at 640. In light of the entire record and the statutory factors, the Court has no confidence that any juvenile rehabilitation efforts would be successful or would adequately mitigate the degree of danger and high risk of recidivism that the defendant would otherwise pose to society were he kept in the juvenile system. In other words, the Court concludes that the defendant's rehabilitation potential is low and that the juvenile justice system is simply ill-equipped and woefully insufficient,...
To continue reading
Request your trial