United States v. Martinez-Mercado
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL 18-569 (RAM) |
| Decision Date | 05 August 2022 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. PEDRO A. MARTINEZ-MERCADO Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Pending before the Court is Defendant Pedro A. Martinez-Mercado's (“Defendant”) Memorandum of Law In Support Of Judgment Or Acquittal Or In The Alternative For A New Trial Under Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure 29 And 33 (“Motion”) (Docket No. 107). For reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
On September 6, 2018, Defendant was indicted by the United States of America (the “Government”) with Misappropriation of Postal Funds in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1711 (Count 1) and Theft of Government Property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Count 2). (Docket No. 3). According to the indictment, on or about September 18, 2017 Defendant knowingly and willfully misappropriated postal funds of a value exceeding $1,000 and which had come into his possession in the execution of his employment with the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) or failed to deposit the remittance in the treasury of the United States or in a designated depository. Id. at 1. He was also accused of knowingly and willfully committing theft of government property of a value exceeding $1,000. Id. at 2.
After a six-day jury trial, Defendant was found guilty on all counts. (Docket Nos. 94; 100). He then filed the pending Motion seeking an entry of judgment of acquittal or a new trial. (Docket No. 107). His motion for acquittal alleges the Government failed to submit sufficient evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he had specific intent to deprive the Government of its property. Id. at 6. Alternatively, his motion for a mistrial avers the jury was unable to discern between evidence of a forged signature in the deposits slips in the remittances from evidence as to whether he misappropriated postal funds or stole government property. Id. at 7. He also contends a new trial is warranted because the jury wrongly considered a “knowingly” state of mind during deliberations instead of an “intent to deprive” standard. Id. at 7-8. The Government's opposition (“Opposition”) and Defendant's reply (“Reply”) followed. (Docket Nos. 111 and 118).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 29 (“Rule 29") allows a court to set aside a jury's guilty verdict and enter an acquittal of “any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” United States v. Florentino-Rosario, 459 F.Supp.3d 345, 354 (D.P.R. 2020), aff'd, 19 F.4th 530 (1st Cir. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Crim.
P. 29(c)). The defendant must make the requisite showing on a Rule 29 motion and the proffered evidence is considered “in the light most favorable to the prosecution.” Id. at 349, 354 (quoting United States v. Lara, 181 F.3d 183, 200 (1st Cir. 1999)) . Hence, evidentiary conflicts and credibility disputes are solved in favor of the verdict. See United States v. Valerio, 676 F.3d 237, 244 (1st Cir. 2012). A verdict “must stand unless the evidence is so scant that a rational factfinder could not conclude that the government proved all the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Stewart-Carrasquillo, 997 F.3d 408, 417-18 (1st Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez-Velez, 597 F.3d 32, 39 (1st Cir. 2010)). Finally, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, such as here, is a “tough sell,” an “uphill battle” and “a daunting hurdle[]. ” Florentino-Rosario, 459 F.Supp.3d at 354 (quoting United States v. Perez-Melendez, 599 F.3d 31, 40 (1st Cir. 2010) and United States v. Hatch, 434 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2006)).
Section 1711 prohibits misappropriation of postal funds by a USPS employee. See 18 U.S.C. § 1711. To secure a conviction for this offense, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Defendant was a USPS employee when charged in the Indictment; (2) while a USPS employee, money and/or money orders belonging to the USPS exceeding $1,000 came into his possession; and (3) he knowingly and willfully, used or converted for his own use, or failed to deposit the remittance in the treasury of the United States or in a designated depository, the money and money orders. Id. The jury was instructed that “convert” means “to take something with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently.” (Docket No. 98 at 17).
Section 641 prohibits theft of government property. See 18 U.S.C. § 641. To secure a conviction for this offense, the
Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the money and money orders described in the Indictment belonged to the United States and exceeded $1,000; (2) Defendant knowingly and willfully stole or converted such money and money orders for his own use or the use of another; and (3) he did so with the intent to deprive the United States of the use or benefit of the money and money orders. Id. The jury was instructed that “steal” or “convert” meant “to take something with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently.” (Docket No. 98 at 18).
As an initial matter, seeing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, Defendant failed to properly contest the first two elements of misappropriation of postal funds under § 1711 and the first element of theft of government property under § 641. When analyzing a Rule 29 motion, the Court need not determine that “no verdict other than a guilty verdict could sensibly be reached, but must only [be] satisf[ied] ... that the guilty verdict finds support in a plausible rendition of the record.” United States v. Seary-Colon, 997 F.3d 1, at 12 (1st Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 184 (2021) (quoting United States v. Hatch, 434 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2006)) . Here, the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Defendant was a USPS employee during the relevant time frame and while an USPS employee, money and money orders belonging to the USPS exceeding $1,000 came into his possession. Defendant testified he worked as a Post Master at the Sabana Grande USPS office from June 2012 until moving to New Jersey in November 2021. (Docket No. 94 at 4, 10, 48). He testified to preparing the September 18, 2017 remittance bag of the amount of money orders purchased at the postal office and cash made that day and that its content amounted to $11,435.02. Id. at 12-15. He also recalled sealing the bag that day and placing it in a safety deposit box at the post office. Id. at 15, 23.
At trial, the Government admitted into evidence a copy of the receipt of the bag's contents showing the $11,435.02 total and the deposit slip exhibiting that amount signed by Defendant and former postal clerk Yolanda Chang (“Mrs. Chang”). (Docket No. 102-1; 10210). Defendant acknowledged it was his signature in the deposit slip. (Docket No. 94 at 16, 22-23). The Government also presented testimony of Victor Mendez (“Mr. Mendez”), a window clerk who worked with Defendant on the September 18, 2017 remittance. Id. at 13. Mr. Mendez testified that Defendant prepared the remittance and he saw Defendant in control of the bag at the post office on September 18. (Docket No. 111 at 20). As explored in more detail below, Mr. Mendez also stated he knew Defendant took the remittance bag with him to New Jersey. Id. Likewise, Mrs. Chang testified at trial, and the Government proffered evidence thereto, that in an attempt to return the amount in the remittance bag, Defendant sent her $1,075 in cash and money orders payable to her for $4,867.00 and money cash orders belonging to the September 18, 2017 remittance for a total of $11,435.02. (Docket Nos. 102-3; 102-6). The Government showed she received these items on December 2017. Id.
Therefore, what remains are the mens rea elements of both charges.[1] As seen below, the Government also proved these elements beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
As to a conviction under § 1711, Defendant admitted on direct examination to opening the sealed remittance bag and using money to purchase breakfast and lunch for employees voluntarily working at the post office after the passing of Hurricane Maria. He “deemed that to be correct” thing to do “because those persons did not need to be there with me.” (Docket No. 94 at 36). He also admitted to paying two employees for work performed after the hurricane's passing and for other expenses, such as buying gasoline for the station's trucks and for himself. Id. at 36-41. While the Court is sympathetic to the harsh conditions throughout Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricane Maria, they do not excuse Defendant's actions in taking and using money that, by virtue of his employment, he knew belonged to the USPS.
Notably it is for the jurors to decide “which witness to credit,” and the Court thereby assumes, “in the posture of a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, ... that they credited those witnesses whose testimony lent support to the verdict.” United States v. Cruz-Ramos, 987 F.3d 27, 38 (1st Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Lara, 181 F.3d 183, 204 (1st Cir. 1999)) . Here, the Government presented testimony from Mr. Mendez explaining how Defendant admitted to taking the money from the remittance bag for his own benefit, how Mr. Mendez knew Defendant took the bag with him after transferring to New Jersey and when Defendant tried to send the money back for it to be deposited at the bank. The Government also proffered the testimony of...
To continue reading
Request your trial