united states v. jimenez-bencevi, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Jimenez-Bencevi, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/40

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2084

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

XAVI ER J I MNEZ- BENCEVI , a/ k/ a Xavi , a/ k/ a Benj i e Raf aelAl i cea- Col n, a/ k/ a J os Andi no, a/ k/ a Rei nal do J i mnez-

Bencevi , a/ k/ a Benj am n Amsqui t a- Gonzl ez,Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. J os Ant oni o Fust , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Thompson and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

J ohn R. Mar t i n, wi t h whom Laur a Mal donado- Rodr guez, wer e onbr i ef , f or appel l ant .

Luke V. Cass, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whomRosaEmi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Nel son Pr ez- Sosa,Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef , Appel l at e Di vi si on, andJ ohn A. Mat hews I I , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wer e onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

J une 3, 2015


2/40

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Appel l ant Xavi er J i mnez-

Bencevi ( " J i mnez" ) was convi ct ed of t amper i ng wi t h a f eder al

wi t ness, possessi on of a f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of a cr i me of

vi ol ence, use of a f i r ear mdur i ng and i n r el at i on t o cr i mes char ged

i n t he i ndi ct ment , and use of a cel l phone i n at t empt i ng t o commi t

ki dnappi ng. Because t he act s r esul t ed i n t he deat h of t he wi t ness,

Del i a Snchez- Snchez ( "Snchez" ) , J i mnez f aced t he death penal t y,

t hough t he j ur y ul t i mat el y rej ect ed t hat puni shment and i nst ead

r ecommended a sent ence of l i f e i mpr i sonment wi t hout t he possi bi l i t y

of r el ease.

J i mnez now appeal s, compl ai ni ng t hat hi s t r i al was

f at al l y f l awed i n t hr ee r espect s. Fi r st , he ar gues t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t vi ol ated hi s i mmuni t y agr eement wi t h t he gover nment

when i t i nsi st ed t hat a def ense exper t be i nf or med of a pr of f er

made i n an at t empt t o negot i ate a pl ea. Second, he cl ai ms t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y rest r i ct ed hi s r i ght t o cross- exami ne t wo

cooper at i ng wi t nesses by pr event i ng J i mnez f r om i nqui r i ng i nt o

t hei r exposur e t o a deat h- penal t y- el i gi bl e of f ense. Fi nal l y,

J i mnez cont ends t hat , wi t h r espect t o t he wi t ness t amper i ng

char ge, t he evi dence was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t hi s convi ct i on

because t he gover nment di d not prove beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat

J i mnez mur dered Snchez t o pr event her f r ompr ovi di ng evi dence t o

f eder al aut hor i t i es regar di ng a f eder al cr i me. Though we f i nd no

mer i t t o J i mnez' s second and t hi r d cl ai ms of er r or , we agr ee t hat

-2-


3/40

t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y vi ol at ed the i mmuni t y agr eement .

Accor di ngl y, f or t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, we r ever se.

I. Background

On J une 21, 2010, Snchez was shot and ki l l ed i n br oad

dayl i ght i n f r ont of t he Col mado Hernndez mi ni market i n Bayamn,

Puer t o Ri co. The ent i r e i nci dent was capt ur ed on t he mar ket ' s

secur i t y camer a. Accor di ng t o t he f oot age, a car car r yi ng Snchez

and t wo ot her s - - l at er i dent i f i ed as Ronni e Pr ez- Al bi no ( "Pr ez")

and hi s mot her Gl or i a Al bi no- Fi guer oa ( "Al bi no") - - ar r i ved at t he

Col mado Her nndez at approxi mat el y 2: 00 p. m. Bot h Snchez and

Al bi no exi t ed t he vehi cl e, and al most i mmedi at el y t her eaf t er a

whi t e Honda Accor d ar r i ved. Two men, nei t her of whom coul d be

i dent i f i ed f r om t he vi deo, exi t ed t he Honda, gr abbed Snchez, and

at t empt ed t o f or ce her i nsi de t hei r car . Snchez r esi st ed and

scr eamed, and a st r uggl e ensued. 1 She event ual l y f el l t o t he

gr ound, at whi ch poi nt one of t he men - - wear i ng j eans and a bl ack

shi r t wi t h a whi t e desi gn - - r emoved f r om hi s wai st band a pi st ol

whi ch appeared t o have been modi f i ed to f i r e aut omat i cal l y and shot

Snchez seven t i mes. Wi t h Snchez st i l l l yi ng on t he gr ound, t he

t wo men got back i nt o t he whi t e Honda and dr ove away.

Fol l owi ng an i nvest i gat i on, aut hor i t i es came t o bel i eve

t hat t he shooter was J i mnez, t he owner of a dr ug poi nt at t he

1 Whi l e t hi s st r uggl e was occur r i ng, Pr ez pul l ed hi s mot her backi nsi de hi s vehi cl e.

-3-


4/40

Fal n Tor r ech housi ng pr oj ect i n Si er r a Bayamn and a f ugi t i ve who

had post ed bond and f l ed f r oma pendi ng Puer t o Ri co mur der char ge.

Hi s br ot her Al exi s J i mnez ( "Al exi s") was al so Snchez' s boyf r i end.

J i mnez was i ndi ct ed on Mar ch 23, 2012, and ar r est ed t hr ee days

l at er . On J anuar y 10, 2013, t he gr and j ur y r et ur ned t he pr esent

super sedi ng i ndi ct ment . Thi s f our - count i ndi ct ment char ged: ( 1)

t amper i ng wi t h a wi t ness i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1512( a) ( 1) ( C)

by ki l l i ng Snchez t hr ough t he use of a f i r ear m wi t h t he i nt ent t o

pr event her f r omcommuni cat i ng t o a f eder al l aw enf orcement of f i cer

i nf ormat i on r el ated t o t he commi ssi on or t he possi bl e commi ssi on of

a f eder al of f ense; ( 2) possessi on of a f i r ear m modi f i ed t o f i r e

aut omat i cal l y i n f ur t her ance of t he cr i mes char ged i n Count s One

and Four of t he i ndi ct ment , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

924( c) ( 1) ( A) ( i i i ) and ( B) ( i i ) ; ( 3) usi ng a f i r ear mdur i ng and i n

r el at i on t o t he cr i mes char ged i n Count s One and Four of t he

i ndi ct ment , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 924( j ) ; and ( 4) usi ng a

cel l phone i n at t empt i ng t o commi t t he ki dnappi ng of Snchez, i n

vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1201( a) ( 1) . The i ndi ct ment al so i ncl uded

a not i ce of speci al f i ndi ngs necessar y f or t he gover nment t o seek

t he death penal t y.

Appr oxi mat el y one mont h bef ore t he t r i al ' s Apr i l 15,

2013, st ar t dat e, J i mnez approached t he government r egardi ng t he

possi bi l i t y of ent er i ng a gui l t y pl ea i n exchange f or t he r emoval

of t he deat h penal t y. I n addi t i on t o agr eei ng t o a sent ence of

-4-


5/40

l i f e wi t hout t he possi bi l i t y of r el ease, t he gover nment r equi r ed

J i mnez t o pr ovi de a pr of f er cont ai ni ng bot h a det ai l ed admi ssi on

of hi s gui l t t o al l t he cr i mes he was charged wi t h and any known

i nf or mat i on r egar di ng ot her f eder al of f ender s. The par t i es al so

agr eed t hat t he pr of f er woul d be cover ed by di r ect use i mmuni t y.

The agreement pr ovi ded t hat

t he Uni t ed St ates agr ees t hat no st atement scont ai ned i n t he wr i t t en pr of f er wi l l be usedagai nst [ J i mnez] di r ect l y i n any cr i mi nalcase i n t he Di st r i ct of Puer t o Ri co. However ,t he Uni t ed St at es may make der i vat i ve use ofand may pur sue any i nvest i gat i ve l eadssuggest ed by any st atement s or i nf ormat i onpr ovi ded, i ncl udi ng use i n any cr i mi nal caseagai nst [ J i mnez] . That i s, t he Uni t ed St at esr emai ns f r ee t o i nvest i gat e any l eads der i vedf r omi nf or mat i on pr ovi ded by [ J i mnez] , and t ouse any evi dence gai ned as a r esul t of suchi nvest i gat i on i n any subsequent pr osecut i on of[ hi m] . Fur t her , shoul d [ J i mnez] subsequent l yt est i f y i n a manner i nconsi st ent wi t h anyi nf or mat i on pr ovi ded i n t he wr i t t en pr of f er ,he may and wi l l be cr oss- exami ned, conf r ont edand i mpeached by t hese st at ement s.

Af t er r evi ewi ng J i mnez' s pr of f er , t he gover nment ul t i mat el y

r ej ect ed hi s of f er t o pl ead gui l t y, and t he case pr oceeded t o

t r i a l .

The t r i al ' s gui l t phase l ast ed t hr ee days, and t he

gover nment present ed over t en wi t nesses. 2 Car men Fer nndez- Or t ega

( "Tat a") , a r esi dent of t he Fal n Tor r ech housi ng pr oj ect ,t est i f i ed t hat bot h her husband and J i mnez' s br ot her Al exi s sol d

2 Onl y t he wi t nesses rel evant t o t hi s appeal wi l l be di scussed.

-5-


6/40

cr ack cocai ne and mar i j uana f or J i mnez at t he dr ug poi nt . She

expl ai ned t hat she and Snchez were f r i ends and t hat Snchez was

vocal about her di sappr oval of her boyf r i end Al exi s' s i nvol vement

i n t he dr ug oper at i on. I ndeed, accor di ng t o Tat a, whenever Snchez

woul d ar r i ve at t he dr ug poi nt , J i mnez woul d become upset and a

conf r ont at i on woul d ensue.

Tat a f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat , as "a j oke, " she and Snchez

woul d r ecor d each ot her ' s conver sat i ons on t hei r cel l phones and

t hat many of t hose conver sat i ons i nvol ved J i mnez. She el aborated

on one conver sat i on i n par t i cul ar , wher e Snchez st at ed t hat she

woul d "t ur n hi m i n t o J ust i ce. " Tat a' s husband over hear d t hi s

r ecor di ng and i nf or med J i mnez. J i mnez subsequent l y l i st ened t o

t he recor di ng hi msel f , became upset , hi t Tat a i n t he chest wi t h t he

phone, and l ef t , t aki ng t he phone wi t h hi m.

Pr ez and Al bi no al so test i f i ed, expl ai ni ng how and why

t hey br ought Snchez t o t he Col mado Her nndez mi ni mar ket t he day

she was mur der ed. Pr ez test i f i ed t hat J i mnez had heard a cel l

phone recor di ng of Snchez i n whi ch she st at ed t hat she woul d hand

hi mover t o f eder al agent s, and as a r esul t J i mnez had asked Pr ez

t o l ocat e Snchez f or hi m because he want ed t o st op her f r om

t al ki ng t o t he aut hor i t i es. To accompl i sh t hi s, Pr ez enl i st ed t he

hel p of hi s mot her , Al bi no. Accor di ng t o Al bi no, Snchez was her

nei ghbor and t he t wo had a f r i endl y r el at i onshi p whi ch of t en

i nvol ved Al bi no gi vi ng Snchez a r i de to t he Col mado Hernndez mi ni

-6-


7/40

mar ket . Pr ez and Al bi no expl oi t ed t hi s r el at i onshi p and of f er ed

t o dr i ve Snchez t o t he Col mado Hernndez mi ni mar ket on J une 21,

2010, t he day of t he murder , so t hat Snchez coul d wi t hdr aw money

t her e. Pr ez expl ai ned t hat once Snchez accept ed t hei r of f er , he

i nf ormed J i mnez t hat t hey woul d ar r i ve around 2: 00 p. m.

Bot h Pr ez and Al bi no i dent i f i ed t he shoot er i n t he vi deo

as J i mnez. Pr ez st at ed t hat af t er t he mur der , J i mnez cal l ed hi m

and t ol d hi mt hat he "want ed t o shoot her i n t he f or ehead, but t hat

he had t o br i ng t he chi p down. " J i mnez added t hat Pr ez needed

"t o shut [ hi s] mout h or t he same t hi ng woul d happen t o [ hi m] . "

Al bi no cor r obor at ed t hi s, t est i f yi ng t hat "Xavi er t ook out a pi st ol

f r om hi s wai st and shot [ Snchez] . " She added t hat J i mnez ki l l ed

Snchez " [ b] ecause she was goi ng t o hand hi m over t o t he Feds. "

I n addi t i on t o t hese t hr ee wi t nesses, t he gover nment

l i nked J i mnez t o the cr i me t hr ough t he f ol l owi ng evi dence:

t est i mony of numer ous pol i ce, f or ensi c, and cooper at i ng wi t nesses;

t he pr evi ousl y- descr i bed sur vei l l ance f oot age out si de t he Col mado

Hernndez mi ni mar ket ; phone r ecords bet ween J i mnez and Pr ez;

photogr aphs of J i mnez f ound i n a wal l et i n t he whi t e Honda Accord;

and the combi nat i on of vi deo f oot age at a Kent ucky Fr i ed Chi cken

showi ng a man wi t h t he same bl ack shi r t and whi t e desi gn as t he

shooter pur chasi ng f ood, and a KFC f ood r ecei pt ( f ound i n t he Honda

Accor d) showi ng J i mnez cont emporaneousl y pur chasi ng f ood t here.

The gover nment al so pr ovi ded t he t est i mony of Luz Eni d Apont e,

-7-


8/40

Snchez' s pr obat i on of f i cer , who t est i f i ed t hat on J une 8, 2010, an

FBI t ask f or ce of f i cer asked her not t o vi si t Snchez because

Al exi s had been st opped and quest i oned about whet her Snchez was

pr ovi di ng i nf ormat i on t o t he gover nment . 3 When Apont e and Snchez

met appr oxi matel y one week l ater as par t of Snchez' s pr obat i on

r equi r ement s, Snchez conf i r med t o Apont e t hat she was cooperat i ng

wi t h t he FBI , t hat J i mnez owned a dr ug poi nt at Fal n Tor r ech, and

t hat he had t hr eat ened her .

J i mnez' s def ense st r at egy, meanwhi l e, was t o cr eat e

r easonabl e doubt by suggest i ng t hat t he shooter i n t he vi deo was

not J i mnez but r at her Raymond J i mnez ( "Raymond") , J i mnez' s

br ot her and t he t wi n br ot her of Al exi s. To accompl i sh t hi s,

J i mnez i nt ended t o empl oy a t wo- pr ong appr oach. Fi r st , he wor ked

t o di scr edi t Pr ez and Al bi no t hr ough cr oss- exami nat i on ai med at

est abl i shi ng t hat t hey wer e ei t her pr ot ect i ng or i n f ear of t he

r eal shoot er . J i mnez i nt r oduced t el ephone r ecords bet ween Pr ez

and t wo maj or dr ug of f ender s - - J os J i mnez- Echevar r a ( "Lechn")

and Harol d Ayal a- Vsquez ( "Har r y") - - t hr oughout t he day of

Snchez' s mur der , and Pr ez admi t t ed t hat he never t ol d t he agent s

3 Snchez was i ndeed pr ovi di ng i nf ormat i on t o t he government .

Of f i cer s i nspect i ng Snchez' s body f ound a pi ece of papercont ai ni ng t el ephone number s bel ongi ng t o f eder al agent s. One oft hose number s bel onged to FBI Task Force I nvest i gat i ve Agent Pabl oI r i zar r y- Ayal a ( "I r i zar r y") , who t est i f i ed t hat he had met wi t hSnchez and she had pr ovi ded t he FBI wi t h i nf ormat i on r el ated t obot h J i mnez - who she descr i bed as t he l eader of an or gani zat i oni n t he Fal n Tor r ech housi ng pr oj ect i n Bayamn - - and Al exi s.

-8-


9/40

about t hese cal l s. Moreover , Pr ez conceded t hat he gave t he

agent s sever al di f f er ent ver si ons of t he event s sur r oundi ng t he

shoot i ng. J i mnez al so el i ci t ed t est i mony t o t he ef f ect t hat

Snchez had bragged t hat she was goi ng t o t ake ever ybody down and

t hat "ever ybody" i ncl uded bot h Lechn, who was i n a r el at i onshi p

wi t h Al bi no, and Raymond.

J i mnez next ai med t o demonst r at e t hat Pr ez and Al bi no

wer e bi ased as a r esul t of t he pl ea and cooper at i on agr eement s t hey

each had si gned wi t h t he gover nment . Accor di ng t o t he agr eement s,

Pr ez and Al bi no each agr eed t o pl ead gui l t y to t amper i ng wi t h a

wi t ness and t o cooperat e wi t h t he gover nment agai nst J i mnez, and,

i n exchange, t he gover nment woul d r ecommend a sent ence of no mor e

t han sevent y mont hs. When J i mnez' s counsel asked Pr ez i f ,

" [ w] hen you wer e ar r est ed f or your i nvol vement i n t hi s case, a

deat h el i gi bl e I ndi ct ment was f i l ed agai nst you?" t he gover nment

obj ect ed, and a bench conf er ence ensued. Dur i ng t he si debar , t he

gover nment ar gued t hat Pr ez was onl y char ged wi t h t amper i ng wi t h

a wi t ness, whi ch was not a deat h- el i gi bl e of f ense. J i mnez,

meanwhi l e, argued t hat al t hough Pr ez and Al bi no wer e i ndi ct ed on

non- deat h- el i gi bl e of f enses, t he i ni t i al compl ai nt s f i l ed agai nst

t hem wer e cer t i f i ed as pot ent i al deat h- penal t y cases, and he had a

r i ght t o pr obe whet her t he ul t i mat e i ndi ct ment s not chargi ng deat h-

el i gi bl e of f enses wer e t he r esul t of a cover t agr eement wi t h t he

gover nment .

-9-


10/40

The di st r i ct cour t r evi ewed Pr ez' s i ndi ct ment and

r ej ect ed J i mnez' s ar gument , concl udi ng t hat " [ t ] hi s i s not a deat h

penal t y el i gi bl e case, what he pl ed t o. " I t added t hat Pr ez

pl ed under 10- 452 wi t h tamper i ng wi t h awi t ness. That ' s what he was charged wi t h.Ther ef or e, i t was t ot al l y mi sl eadi ng t oi ndi cat e t o t he j ur y or t r y t o make t he j ur yunder st and that at one poi nt i n t i me he was adeat h penal t y el i gi bl e def endant . He wasnever a deat h penal t y el i gi bl e def endant .I t ' s as si mpl e as t hat .

The bench conf er ence t hen ended, and J i mnez cont i nued wi t h hi s

cr oss- exami nat i on, expl or i ng ot her aspect s of Pr ez' s pl ea and

cooper at i on agr eement , as wel l as ot her t opi cs such as Pr ez' s

i nvol vement wi t h dr ugs, hi s dest r uct i on of pr oper t y, and vi ol at i ons

whi l e i n f eder al pr i son.

Fol l owi ng t he cr oss- exami nat i on, t he par t i es r evi si t ed

t he deat h- penal t y i ssue out si de t he pr esence of t he j ur y. Dur i ng

t hi s exchange, t he di st r i ct cour t sought mor e i nf or mat i on so i t

coul d det er mi ne whet her Pr ez' s and Al bi no' s i ndi ct ment s wer e

i ndeed t he r esul t of an agr eement wi t h t he government . The

gover nment r esponded t hat t her e was no cooperat i on agr eement i n

pl ace at t he t i me t he i ndi ct ment was f i l ed and t hat t he r eason t he

gover nment deci ded not t o i ndi ct f or a deat h- el i gi bl e of f ense was

because i t l acked any evi dence t hat ei t her Pr ez or Al bi no knewt hat J i mnez pl anned t o ki l l Snchez at t he Col mado Hernndez mi ni

market . Accor di ng t o t he government , i t want ed t o char ge "what

[ i t ] coul d r easonabl y pr ove beyond a r easonabl e doubt f or sur e. "

-10-


11/40

St i l l not ent i r el y convi nced, t he di str i ct cour t

pr oceeded t o quest i on bot h Pr ez' s and Al bi no' s def ense counsel s.

Bot h at t or neys conf i r med what t he government had pr of f ered,

expl ai ni ng t o t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t her e was never a deal

t r adi ng cooper at i on f or a non- deat h- el i gi bl e "wi shy washy"

i ndi ct ment . They al so emphasi zed t hat even bef ore t he i ndi ct ment s

wer e f i l ed, both at t orneys wer e adamant i n communi cat i ons wi t h t he

government t hat nei t her Pr ez nor Al bi no t ook Snchez t o t he mi ni

mar ket knowi ng t hat she was goi ng t o be ki l l ed. Gi ven al l of t hi s

i nf or mat i on, t he di st r i ct cour t uphel d i t s i ni t i al r ul i ng

pr ohi bi t i ng J i mnez f r om quest i oni ng ei t her Pr ez or Al bi no about

exposur e t o t he death penal t y. I t emphasi zed, however , t hat except

f or t he deat h- penal t y i nqui r y, J i mnez coul d ask any quest i on he

want ed on t he i ssue of t he pl ea agr eement . Though J i mnez di d not

ask Pr ez anyt hi ng f ur t her , he di d quest i on Al bi no about her pl ea

and cooper at i on agr eement and expl ored her potent i al bi as due t o

her desi r e f or a l ower sent ence.

The second pr ong of J i mnez' s def ense st r at egy f ocused on

t he survei l l ance vi deo. As noted above, t he vi deo showed t he

shoot er wear i ng j eans and a bl ack shi r t wi t h a whi t e desi gn but di d

not capt ur e hi s f ace. J i mnez i nt ended t o pr esent t he exper t

t est i mony of Wi l l i am J . St okes, t he f or mer Chi ef of t he Speci al

Phot ogr aphi c Uni t of t he FBI Labor at or y i n Washi ngt on, D. C. , who

woul d have t est i f i ed t hat t he per son i n t he sur vei l l ance vi deo

-11-


12/40

coul d not have been J i mnez. Speci f i cal l y, St okes woul d have

t est i f i ed t hat af t er r evi ewi ng t he sur vei l l ance f oot age and goi ng

t o t he Col mado Her nndez mi ni mar ket t o t ake measur ement s, he

concl uded t hat t he shoot er i n t he vi deo was at l east 5' 10" - -

sever al i nches tal l er t han J i mnez, who st ood at 5' 7" . J i mnez

woul d have al so i nt r oduced evi dence showi ng t hat hi s br other

Raymond was approxi mat el y 5' 10" .

The gover nment obj ect ed bef or e t r i al t o St okes' s

t est i mony, based on t he pr of f er J i mnez had made i n an at t empt t o

negot i at e a pl ea. Accor di ng t o t he gover nment , i t was unet hi cal

f or J i mnez' s counsel t o pr esent an exper t st at i ng t hat t he shoot er

was t oo t al l t o be J i mnez because t he pr of f er agr eement admi t t ed

t hat J i mnez "was t he shoot er of Snchez- Snchez. " The di st r i ct

cour t r ej ect ed t hi s argument , but never t hel ess opi ned t hat J i mnez

di d have an obl i gat i on t o i nf or m St okes of t he i nf or mat i on i n t he

proffer:

I want you t o be cl ear t hat I am not t el l i ngyou on the record i n case t her e i s an appealor somet hi ng t hat I am f or ecl osi ng you [ f r omcal l i ng St okes] . What I am sayi ng i s t hat i ft her e i s a pr of f er , a pr of f er t hat cl ear l yest abl i shes a poi nt , and t hat pr of f er comes t o- - comes bef ore me i n the cont ext of t hepr et r i al pr act i ce of t hi s case, as i thappened, I cannot i n good consci ence al l ow an

exper t who has not been made awar e of t hepr of f er t o gi ve an exper t opi ni on on somet hi ngwher e he' s mi ssi ng evi dence, he' s mi ssi ngf act s, because I woul d t hen be i n a sense par tand par cel t o t he gi vi ng of evi dence t hat i snot r eal i st i c or t r ue.

-12-


13/40

J i mnez obj ect ed, ar gui ng t hat " [ i ] f t hat ' s t he f act , t hen [ St okes]

can be cr oss- exami ned about [ t he pr of f er ] , and t hen i t comes i n, so

we' r e st uck. " The di st r i ct cour t essent i al l y agr eed, st at i ng t hat

"[ i ] f i t comes out good t he way you do i t , f i ne. I f i t bounces i n

your f ace, i t ' s a bi g pr obl em t hat you have. "

Dur i ng t r i al t he f ol l owi ng day, J i mnez r ai sed t he i ssue

agai n i n an at t empt t o make a pr of f er t o t he cour t . The di st r i ct

cour t r eemphasi zed i t s pr i or poi nt , expl ai ni ng t hat "[ w] hat you

cannot do i s hi r e an exper t , once agai n, gi ve hi m sel ect i ve

i nf ormat i on f or hi m t o gi ve you an opi ni on when you know t hat some

of t he f act s t hat he has, t hat he doesn' t have, make hi s opi ni on

t ot al l y wr ong. You cannot do t hat . " The cour t ef f ect i vel y made

cl ear t hat t he exper t coul d not of f er hi s opi ni on as i t st ood t o

t he j ur y. I f J i mnez cal l ed t he exper t t o do so, t he di st r i ct

cour t woul d voi r di r e hi m, r eveal i ng t he subst ance of t he pr of f er .

Then, r easoned t he cour t , t he exper t woul d l i kel y r ecant . And even

i f he di d not , t he cour t woul d not al l ow J i mnez t o "use an exper t

t o gi ve an i mpr i matur of exper t i se on somet hi ng t hat [ J i mnez]

know[ s] i s t ot al l y f al se. " As a r esul t , J i mnez never cal l ed

St okes t o t est i f y.

J i mnez was ul t i mat el y convi ct ed on al l f our count s of

t he super sedi ng i ndi ct ment . Fol l owi ng t he gui l t y ver di ct , t he case

pr oceeded t o t he sent enci ng phase t o determi ne whet her or not t he

deat h penal t y woul d be i mposed. Af t er f i ve days, t he j ur y

-13-


14/40

unani mousl y rej ect ed t he deat h penal t y and r ecommended a sent ence

of l i f e wi t hout t he possi bi l i t y of r el ease. The di str i ct cour t

i mposed t hi s sent ence on August 6, 2013, and t hi s t i mel y appeal

f ol l owed.

II. Discussion

On appeal , J i mnez r ai ses t hr ee i ssues. Fi r st , he ar gues

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t vi ol at ed hi s i mmuni t y agr eement wi t h t he

gover nment when i t i nsi st ed t hat St okes be i nf ormed of admi ssi ons

made i n J i mnez' s pr of f er , despi t e t he pr of f er bei ng pr ot ect ed by

di r ect - use i mmuni t y. Second, J i mnez cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t i mpr oper l y r est r i ct ed hi s cr oss- exami nat i on of Pr ez and

Al bi no by pr event i ng hi mf r omi nqui r i ng i nt o t hei r i ni t i al exposur e

t o a deat h- penal t y- el i gi bl e of f ense as a bi as and mot i vat i on f or

t hei r cooper at i on and t est i mony. Fi nal l y, J i mnez cont ends t hat ,

wi t h r espect t o Count One' s wi t ness t amper i ng charge, t he evi dence

was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t hi s convi ct i on because t he gover nment

di d not prove beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat he murder ed Snchez t o

pr event her f r om pr ovi di ng evi dence t o f eder al aut hor i t i es

r egardi ng a f eder al cr i me. We addr ess each i n t ur n.

A. The Immunity Agreement

We f i r st addr ess J i mnez' s argument t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t vi ol at ed hi s i mmuni t y agr eement wi t h t he government - - made

i n a desper ate at t empt by J i mnez t o negot i ate a pl ea and avoi d t he

deat h penal t y - - when t he di st r i ct cour t r equi r ed J i mnez t o i nf or m

-14-


15/40

St okes, hi s phot ogr aphi c and vi deo exper t , of t he pr of f er ( and t hus

J i mnez' s admi ssi ons) bef or e t he exper t woul d be permi t t ed t o

t est i f y. Bef ore we r each t he mer i t s, however , we must addr ess a

pot ent i al pr ocedur al bar r i er r ai sed by t he gover nment : t hat J i mnez

wai ved t hi s ar gument .

1. Waiver

The gover nment cont ends t hat because J i mnez never cal l ed

St okes t o t est i f y at t r i al , he wai ved any obj ect i on r egar di ng

St okes' s pot ent i al t est i mony. I n suppor t , i t ci t es t o a host of

cases - - f r om t hi s Ci r cui t and ot her s - - t hat uni f or ml y hol d t hat

a def endant cannot chal l enge condi t i onal i n l i mi ne r ul i ngs unl ess

t he wi t ness actual l y t est i f i es at t r i al and t he condi t i onal r ul i ng

i s uphel d. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Vzquez- Bot et , 532 F. 3d 37,

50 n. 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Hol mqui st , 36 F. 3d 154,

164 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ; see al so J ones v. Kassul ke, No. 95- 6459, 127

F. 3d 1102, at *4 ( 6t h Ci r . Oct . 23, 1997) ( unpubl i shed t abl e

deci si on) ; Bedoya v. Coughl i n, 91 F. 3d 349, 352 ( 2d Ci r . 1996) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Cr ee, 778 F. 2d 474, 479 ( 8t h Ci r . 1985) .

Vzquez- Botet and Hol mqui st , however , est abl i sh onl y t he

gener al pr oposi t i on t hat when a di st r i ct cour t has onl y

condi t i onal l y r ul ed on evi dence or t est i mony, and r emai ns wi l l i ng

t o consi der i t , a par t y must of f er i t i f t hat par t y wi shes t o l at er

compl ai n about i t s excl usi on. Wai ver s i mpl y does not appl y t o

f ai l ur es t o r evi si t uncondi t i onal i n l i mi ne r ul i ngs. See Cr owe v.

-15-


16/40

Bol duc, 334 F. 3d 124, 133 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ; Hol mqui st , 36 F. 3d at

166 n. 12.

Whi l e t he cour t st r ongl y t i pped i t s hand t hat i t woul d

i nsi st t hat t he exper t be made awar e of t he pr of f er , and l i kel y be

exposed t o cr oss- exami nat i on on t he i ssue, we agr ee t hat , i ni t i al l y

at l east , some of t hose remarks i n and of t hemsel ves wer e

condi t i onal . However , t hr oughout t he exchange, t he di st r i ct cour t

made i t s vi ews i ncr easi ngl y def i ni t i ve. When J i mnez r evi si t ed t he

i ssue agai n at t r i al , he r ecei ved r eaf f i r mance of t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deci si on t hat t he exper t must be t ol d of t he pr of f er bef or e

t he cour t woul d even consi der al l owi ng hi m t o t est i f y. Al ong wi t h

t hi s r equi r ement came t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ul t i mat e concl usi on t hat

t he exper t woul d l i kel y recant upon l ear ni ng of t he pr of f er ; and i f

he di d not , t he cour t woul d not al l ow hi mt o t est i f y. 4 Thi s r ul i ng

can onl y be char act er i zed as uncondi t i onal , and thus Vzquez- Bot et

and Hol mqui st ar e i nappl i cabl e. We t her ef or e r ej ect t he

4 The di st r i ct cour t st at ed t hat

I of f er ed you t o have t he wi t ness s i t her e and be voi rdi r ed and be asked whet her i n l i ght of t hat i nf or mat i on,he woul d st i l l be wi l l i ng t o gi ve hi s test i mony. And Ibet you t hat he woul d have sai d no, because once he get st o know t he r eal i t y of t he f act s, no ser i ous i ndi vi dual

i s goi ng t o t ake t he st and and gi ve t he t est i mony of t heki nd t hat you want under t hese ci r cumst ances.

I t t hen cl ar i f i ed t hat whi l e J i mnez' s counsel coul d ar gue"whatever [ he] want [ ed] , " he coul d "not use an exper t t o gi ve ani mpr i mat ur of exper t i se on somet hi ng t hat [ counsel ] know[ s] i stotal l y f al se. "

-16-


17/40

gover nment ' s wai ver argument and t ur n t o t he mer i t s of J i mnez' s

obj ect i on.

2. The District Court's Actions

" I nf ormal i mmuni t y agr eement s, such as pr of f er

agr eement s, ' are shaped . . . by t he l anguage of t he cont r act

conf er r i ng t he i mmuni t y. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Mel vi n, 730 F. 3d 29,

37 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es

v. Hogan, 862 F. 2d 386, 388 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ) . Accor di ngl y, t he

meani ng of t he pr of f er agr eement , and whet her i t was vi ol ated, are

r evi ewed de novo. I d. I n conduct i ng t hi s r evi ew, we ar e pr i mar i l y

gui ded by cont r act - l aw pr i nci pl es, i ncl udi ng t he f ami l i ar t enet s

t hat cont r act s shoul d be const r ued t o gi ve ef f ect t o ever y wor d,

cl ause, and phr ase, and t hat when a t er m i s ambi guous, i t i s t o be

const r ued agai nst t he dr af t er - - i n t hi s case t he gover nment . I d.

We say pr i mar i l y gui ded, t hough, because t he agr eement i s made i n

t he cour se of a cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng. To t hat end, "[ p] r of f er

agr eement s are sui gener i s, and t he cont r act - l aw pr i nci pl es t hat

cour t s use i n const r ui ng t hem ar e gl ossed wi t h a concer n t hat t he

def endant ' s consent t o appear at a pr of f er sessi on shoul d not

become a l ever t hat can be used t o upr oot hi s r i ght t o f undament al

f ai r ness under t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause. " I d. at 39; see al so Uni t ed

St at es v. $87, 118. 00 i n U. S. Cur r ency, 95 F. 3d 511, 517 ( 7t h Ci r .

1996) ( " [ S] uch agr eement s ar e uni que cont r act s and t he or di nary

cont r act pr i nci pl es ar e suppl ement ed wi t h a concer n t hat t he

-17-


18/40

bar gai ni ng pr ocess not vi ol at e t he def endant ' s r i ght s t o

f undament al f ai r ness under t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause. " ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . As a r esul t , a vi ol at i on of an i mmuni t y

agr eement i s a due pr ocess vi ol at i on. Mel vi n, 730 F. 3d at 39.

Rul e 410 of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence and Rul e 11( f )

of t he Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e set t he backgr ound r ul e:

subj ect t o cer t ai n non- appl i cabl e except i ons, "st at ement s made i n

t he cour se of pl ea negot i at i ons . . . ar e i nadmi ssi bl e. " Thi s

backgr ound r ul e, t hough, may be wai ved. Uni t ed St at es v.

Mezzanat t o, 513 U. S. 196, 197, 210 ( 1995) . Her e, t he par t i es

agr eed t o a wai ver t hat st at ed as f ol l ows:

So l ong as [ J i mnez] pr ovi des compl et e andt r ut hf ul i nf or mat i on i n t he wr i t t en pr of f er ,he shal l have t he pr ot ect i on af f or ded bydi r ect use i mmuni t y; t hat i s, t he Uni t edSt at es agr ees t hat no st at ement s cont ai ned i nt he wr i t t en pr of f er wi l l be used agai nst hi mdi r ect l y i n any cr i mi nal case i n t he Di st r i ctof Puer t o Ri co. However , t he Uni t ed St at esmay make der i vat i ve use of and may pur sue anyi nvest i gat i ve l eads suggest ed by anyst at ement s or i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded, i ncl udi nguse i n any cr i mi nal case agai nst [ J i mnez] .That i s, t he Uni t ed St at es r emai ns f r ee t oi nvest i gat e any l eads der i ved f r omi nf or mat i onpr ovi ded by [ J i mnez] , and to use any evi dencegai ned as a r esul t of such i nvest i gat i on i nany subsequent pr osecut i on of [ J i mnez] .Fur t her , shoul d [ J i mnez] subsequent l y t est i f yi n a manner i nconsi st ent wi t h any i nf or mat i on

pr ovi ded i n t he wr i t t en pr of f er , he may andwi l l be cr oss- exami ned, conf r ont ed andi mpeached by t hese st at ement s.

Not hi ng i n t hi s l anguage even remot el y gr ant ed t he government t he

r i ght t o use the pr of f er ed admi ssi on i n cr oss- exami ni ng J i mnez' s

-18-


19/40

wi t nesses. The omi ssi on i s especi al l y t el l i ng when t hi s agr eement

i s compar ed t o ot her s used bot h i n t hi s Ci r cui t and t hr oughout t he

count r y whi ch gr ant t he gover nment per mi ssi on t o use t he pr of f er t o

r ebut cont r ar y evi dence el i ci t ed f r om ot her def ense wi t nesses.

Cf . , e. g. , Mel vi n, 730 F. 3d at 36 ( "No st at ement s made or ot her

i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded . . . wi l l be used by t he Uni t ed St at es

At t or ney di r ect l y agai nst hi m, except f or pur poses of cr oss-

exami nat i on and/ or i mpeachment . . . . " ( second al t er at i on i n

or i gi nal ) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Chi u, 109 F. 3d 624, 626 ( 9t h Ci r .

1997) ( " [ T] he government may use . . . st at ement s made by you or

your cl i ent at t he meet i ng and al l evi dence obt ai ned di r ect l y or

i ndi r ect l y f r om t hose st at ement s f or t he pur pose of cross-

exami nat i on shoul d your cl i ent t est i f y, or t o r ebut any evi dence,

ar gument or r epr esent at i on of f er ed by or on behal f of your cl i ent

i n connect i on wi t h t he t r i al . . . . " ) .

I t i s cl ear , t her ef or e, t hat t he gover nment coul d not use

t he pr of f er t o cr oss- exami ne or ot her wi se i mpugn t he exper t . As

t he di st r i ct cour t i t sel f not ed, t he pr of f er l anguage "does not

i ncl ude t he possi bi l i t [ y] of openi ng t he door t hr ough t he

pr esent at i on of evi dence. I t has t o be i f t he def endant

t est i f i es. " Yet t hi s i s mor e or l ess what t he di st r i ct cour t

i t sel f di d, t r eat i ng t he pr oposed exper t t est i mony as a

j ust i f i cat i on f or t he cour t ' s use of t he pr of f er . I ndeed, i t went

f ur t her , f i r st usi ng t he pr of f er t o f i nd as a f act t hat J i mnez was

-19-


20/40

t he shoot er , and t hen announci ng t hat t he exper t woul d ei t her come

t o t hat concl usi on when shown t he pr of f er , or not be al l owed t o

t est i f y. Thi s i s, i n no uncer t ai n t er ms, a vi ol at i on of J i mnez' s

r i ght t o due pr ocess of l aw. See Mel vi n, 730 F. 3d at 39.

The gover nment makes a number of ar guments i n an at t empt

t o over come t hi s obvi ous vi ol at i on. We f i nd none per suasi ve.

Fi r st , i t suggests t hat t he di str i ct cour t ' s or der al l owi ng t he

pr of f er t o be used agai nst J i mnez was a der i vat i ve, not di r ect ,

use of t he pr of f er . However , der i vat i ve means " [ s] omet hi ng

der i ved; a t hi ng f l owi ng, pr oceedi ng, or or i gi nat i ng f r omanot her . "

Uni t ed St ates v. Scot t , 12 F. Supp. 3d 298, 304 ( D. Mass. 2014)

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng The New Shor t er Oxf or d Engl i sh

Di ct i onar y 641 ( 1993) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Her e,

by cont r ast , t he di st r i ct cour t woul d not have used any i nf or mat i on

der i ved or f l owi ng f r omt he pr of f er af t er subsequent i nvest i gat i on;

i t woul d have used t he pr of f er i t sel f . See Mel vi n, 730 F. 3d at 38

( hol di ng t hat an of f i cer ' s voi ce i dent i f i cat i on of t he def endant ,

made af t er hear i ng t he def endant dur i ng a pr of f er sessi on, was a

di r ect use of t he pr of f er ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Pi el ago, 135 F. 3d 703,

710 ( 11t h Ci r . 1998) ( expl ai ni ng di r ect use i mmuni t y t o mean t hat

t he government "may not use [ t he i nf ormat i on or st at ement s] as

evi dence t o obt ai n an i ndi ct ment or gui l t y ver di ct ") .

I n t hi s manner , t he di st r i ct cour t i t sel f t r eat ed t he

pr of f er as i r r ef ut abl y est abl i shi ng a f act ( t hat J i mnez was t he

-20-


21/40

shoot er ) and t hen used t hat f act as a basi s f or pr ecl udi ng t he

exper t f r omgi vi ng exper t t est i mony t hat r ef ut ed i t . As not ed, t he

di str i ct cour t di d not c l ai m t hat t he pr of f er al l owed t he

gover nment t o use i t t o knock out J i mnez' s exper t wi t ness.

Rat her , t he cour t asser t ed i t s own i ndependent aut hor i t y as a

"gatekeeper " of exper t t est i mony under Rul e 702, t o use the pr of f er

i n t hi s manner . I n so pr oceedi ng, t he di st r i ct cour t cl ear l y

erred.

To begi n, we see l i t t l e advant age and much unf ai r ness i n

al l owi ng a di st r i ct cour t t o use a def endant ' s pr of f er agai nst t he

def endant i n a manner not al l owed by t he pr of f er . I f a pr of f er

al l ows onl y uses A and B, but t he government can gi ve t he pr of f er

t o t he cour t , whi ch t hen uses i t t o do C at t r i al , pr of f er s - - a

val uabl e t ool f or both l aw enf orcement and def endant s f aci ng sever e

sent ences - - wi l l be render ed unpr edi ct abl e i n t hei r enf or cement ,

and t hus l ess l i kel y t o be made. The ai m of an agr eement not t o

use a pr of f er at t r i al agai nst a non- t est i f yi ng def endant i s not t o

keep t he gover nment f r om usi ng t he evi dence, i t i s t o keep t he

j udge and j ur y f r om usi ng t he evi dence.

Second, t he di st r i ct cour t was si mpl y wr ong t o t r eat t he

pr of f er as est abl i shi ng a f act , much l ess t he f act of gui l t . Ther e

are many possi bl e reasons why a def endant seeki ng to avoi d the

deat h penal t y mi ght condi t i onal l y admi t t o a f al se f act t o see i f

-21-


22/40

a sentence can be avoi ded. 5 He mi ght so f ear deat h over a l ong

sent ence t hat a t r ade- of f i s seen as r easonabl e; he mi ght be

pr ot ect i ng anot her per son; he mi ght be of i mpai r ed capaci t y; or he

mi ght be del uded. A pr of f er , much l ess an unaccept ed pr of f er , i s

si mpl y not t he same t hi ng as a gui l t y pl ea or convi ct i on. Yet , t he

di st r i ct cour t t r eat ed i t as such i n or der t o el i mi nat e an

i mpor t ant def ense wi t ness.

A si mpl i f i ed exampl e hi ghl i ght s the er r or her e. I magi ne

t he def ense f ound a hi gh- r esol ut i on vi deo of t he shoot i ng, cl ear l y

showi ng t hat t he shooter was someone ot her t han J i mnez, and

J i mnez want ed t o use an exper t t o aut hent i cat e t he vi deo. Under

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r easoni ng, such a pi ece of evi dence woul d have

been aut omat i cal l y excl uded as not " r eal i st i c or t r ue" because i t

cont r adi ct ed t he st at ement i n t he pr of f er . Thi s makes no sense. 6

5 I n no way are we suggest i ng t hat a def endant ' s pr of f er andadmi ssi on of gui l t shoul d be t aken wi t h a gr ai n of sal t . I n t her un- of - t he- mi l l case, i t i s i n a def endant ' s best i nt er est t o t el lt he t r ut h, and he or she of t en has l i t t l e i ncent i ve t o l i e.However , as t he Supr eme Cour t has st ated f or over f or t y years,"deat h i s di f f er ent . " See, e. g. , Ri ng v. Ar i zona, 536 U. S. 584,605- 06 ( 2002) ; Mur r ay v. Car r i er , 477 U. S. 478, 526 ( 1986)( Br ennan, J . , di ssent i ng) ; Gr egg v. Geor gi a, 428 U. S. 153, 188( 1976) . A def endant f aci ng t he death penal t y has a st r ongi ncent i ve t o say what ever i s needed t o el i mi nat e a pot ent i al deat hsent ence and pr eser ve hi s l i f e. I ndeed, when we asked l earnedcounsel at oral argument whet her he bel i eves def endant s somet i mes

admi t gui l t i n a pr of f er i n or der t o avoi d a sever e sent ence event hough t hey ar e not gui l t y, l ear ned counsel unequi vocal l y andsucci nctl y st at ed, "Yes. "

6 To t he extent one t r i es t o di st i ngui sh t hi s exampl e by ar gui ngt hat t he exper t t est i mony her e i s l ess compel l i ng, we not e t hatsuch an ar gument woul d hi nge on a j udgment about t he per suasi veness

-22-


23/40

Fi nal l y, t he gover nment ar gues t hat i t was accept abl e f or

t he di st r i ct cour t t o r equi r e t he pr of f er be di scl osed because

al l owi ng St okes t o t est i f y wi t hout knowl edge of t he pr of f er woul d

have cr eat ed an et hi cal vi ol at i on si nce J i mnez' s counsel woul d be

al l owi ng t he pr esent at i on of f al se t est i mony. We di sagr ee.

At t or neys pr act i ci ng bef or e t he Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of

Puer t o Ri co ar e bound by t he Amer i can Bar Associ at i on' s Model Rul es

of Prof essi onal Conduct . D. P. R. R. 83E( a) . Rul e 3. 3( a) of t hese

Rul es r equi r es a l awyer t o "not knowi ngl y . . . of f er evi dence t hat

t he l awyer knows t o be f al se. " Model Rul es of Pr of ' l Conduct R.

3. 3( a) ( 3) . The comment t o t hi s Rul e el abor at es t hat t he pr ohi bi t i on

"onl y appl i es i f t he l awyer knows t hat t he evi dence i s f al se" and

t hat a " l awyer ' s r easonabl e bel i ef t hat evi dence i s f al se does not

pr ecl ude i t s pr esent at i on t o t he t r i er of f act. " I d. cmt . 8.

Her e, J i mnez' s counsel had r eason t o be skept i cal of t he

admi ssi on and t hus di d not "know" t hat St okes' s exper t opi ni on was

f al se. Fi r st , when J i mnez was i ni t i al l y ar r est ed, he deni ed

i nvol vement , i nst ead st at i ng that t he shoot er was hi s brot her

Raymond. Second, as di scussed above, t he t wo eye- wi t nesses - -

Pr ez and Al bi no - - wer e not t he most cr edi bl e of wi t nesses: t hey

pr ovi ded t he pol i ce wi t h changi ng st or i es, t hey wi t hhel d

i nf ormat i on r egardi ng who t hey wer e i n cont act wi t h t he day of

of t hat t est i mony - - a j udgment whi ch woul d go wel l beyond anygat e- keepi ng r ol e.

-23-


24/40

Snchez' s mur der , t hey had r el at i onshi ps wi t h t wo ot her l i kel y

suspect s, and t hei r t est i mony was par t of a pl ea and cooper at i on

agr eement . Thi r d, St okes - - a f ormer FBI agent wi t h over t went y-

f i ve years exper i ence who was t r ai ned i n exami ni ng phot ogr aphi c and

vi deo evi dence - - opi ned t hat t he shoot er was t oo tal l t o be

J i mnez. Four t h, J i mnez was desper at e t o avoi d t he deat h penal t y

and t he gover nment was adamant t hat i t woul d not consi der any pl ea

agr eement unl ess J i mnez admi t t ed t o al l of t he charges. Gi ven al l

of t hi s, J i mnez' s counsel coul d r easonabl y concl ude t hat J i mnez' s

admi ss i on mi ght have been f al se and t hat he was si mpl y st at i ng

whatever he had t o i n order t o avoi d t he death penal t y.

Mor eover , t her e i s not hi ng t o suggest t hat St okes

bel i eved hi s test i mony was f al se. Thi s i s no di f f er ent t han an

al i bi wi t ness bel i evi ng, t hough possi bl y mi st akenl y, t hat he or she

saw a def endant at one l ocat i on despi t e a def endant ' s pr of f er t o

t he cont r ar y. Under t he di st r i ct cour t ' s and t he gover nment ' s

r at i onal e, t he al i bi wi t ness woul d be unabl e t o t est i f y. Thi s i s

not what our j ust i ce syst em r equi r es. 7 See, e. g. , Mi ch. Op. CI -

7 We al so t ake i ssue wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s comment t hat i t"ha[ s] an obl i gat i on t o make cer t ai n t hat t he f act s t hat come outar e as t r ut hf ul as possi bl e t o t he r eal i t y of t he case. I cannotcl ose my eyes t o t hat r eal i t y. I t woul d be i mpr oper , wr ong f or me

t o do t hat , and I wi l l not al l ow t hat . " Di st r i ct cour t s "cl oset hei r eyes" t o per t i nent evi dence al l t he t i me. For exampl e, t hati s t he whol e poi nt of mot i ons t o suppr ess; i f evi dence orst at ement s ar e suppr essed, cour t s and par t i es pret end t hat t heevi dence does not exi st . Si mi l ar l y, i f evi dence i s excl uded underRul e 403 of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence, per t i nent and r el evantevi dence i s i gnor ed by t he cour t and t he par t i es because of a

-24-


25/40

1164 ( J an. 23, 1987) ( f i ndi ng no et hi cal vi ol at i on i n pr esent i ng an

al i bi wi t ness who t r ut hf ul l y bel i eves t hat t he def endant was

somewher e el se at t he t i me of t he of f ense even though t he cl i ent

had r eveal ed t o counsel t hat he commi t t ed t he cr i me) .

The gover nment poi nt s t o t wo di st r i ct cour t cases whi ch

cont r ar i l y hol d t hat a def ense at t or ney i s et hi cal l y bound f r om

pr esent i ng evi dence whi ch conf l i ct s wi t h st atement s made dur i ng hi s

cl i ent ' s pr of f er , even i f t hat pr of f er i s subj ect t o di r ect - use

i mmuni t y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Bur net t , Cr i mi nal Act i on No. 08-

201- 03, 2009 WL 2180373, at *5 ( E. D. Pa. J ul y 17, 2009) ( "Absent a

good- f ai t h basi s, wi t hi n t he oper at i on of t he Pennsyl vani a Rul es of

Pr of essi onal Conduct , [ def endant ' s] counsel may not pr esent

evi dence or ar gument s on [ def endant ' s] behal f t hat di r ect l y

cont r adi ct t he admi ssi ons made by [ def endant ] dur i ng hi s prof f er

sessi ons. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Lauersen, No. 98CR1134 ( WHP) , 2000 WL

1693538, at *1 ( S. D. N. Y. Nov. 13, 2000) ( "Thi s Cour t f i nds t hat

[ def endant ' s] wai ver of r i ght s i s i nval i d t o t he ext ent t hat t he

Government seeks t o use her st at ement s f or pur poses ot her t han t o

i mpeach [ def endant ] i f she wer e t o t est i f y. However , absent a

good- f ai t h basi s, [ def endant ' s] counsel may not pr esent evi dence or

ar gument s on [ def endant ' s] behal f t hat di r ect l y cont r adi ct speci f i c

bel i ef t hat i t i s undul y pr ej udi ci al . Thi s i s no di f f er ent .J i mnez' s pr of f er , f or al l i nt ents and pur poses, di d not exi stunl ess he t est i f i ed. J ust l i ke excl uded evi dence, t he di st r i ctcour t had an obl i gat i on t o "cl ose [ i t s] eye t o t hat r eal i t y" unl essJ i mnez t ook t he st and.

-25-


26/40

f actual asser t i ons summar i zed i n t he For m FD- 302 pr epared by t he

Gover nment . " ) . Both cases, however , carve out an except i on f or

evi dence pr esent ed wi t h a "good- f ai t h basi s. " Bur net t , 2009 WL

2180373, at *5; Lauersen, 2000 WL 1693538, at *1. We bel i eve t hat

t he si t uat i on pr esent ed her e, f or t he r easons di scussed above,

woul d qual i f y as a "good- f ai t h basi s" f or pr esent i ng St okes' s

exper t opi ni on even t hough i t i s cont r ar y t o t he pr of f er . But t o

t he extent t hat i t woul d not , we si mpl y not e t hat t hese cases ar e

not bi ndi ng on us, and we bel i eve t hem t o be i ncor r ect .

3. Harmless Error

Our concl usi on t hat t he br each of t he i mmuni t y agr eement

vi ol at ed J i mnez' s due pr ocess r i ght s does not end our di scussi on.

I nst ead, we must st i l l det er mi ne whet her t hi s r ul i ng was har ml ess. 8

To t hat end, t he gover nment must show beyond any r easonabl e doubt

t hat t he j ur y' s ver di ct woul d not have been i nf l uenced by t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s er r or . See Mel vi n, 730 F. 3d at 39 ( "Because t he

gover nment ' s adher ence t o t he t er ms of t he pr of f er agr eement i s

8 As we not ed i n Mel vi n, "[ i ] t i s open t o l egi t i mat e quest i onwhet her t he rul e demandi ng ' aut omat i c r ever sal ' based on ' pol i cyi nt er est [ s] ' mi ght appl y" t o t he vi ol at i on of an i mmuni t yagr eement . 730 F. 3d at 38 n. 3 ( second al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )( quot i ng Pucket t v. Uni t ed St at es, 556 U. S. 129, 141 & n. 3 ( 2009) ) .The Second Ci r cui t , f or exampl e, has r ul ed t hat i t does. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Pel l et i er , 898 F. 2d 297, 303 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) ( "Thedel i ber at e di r ect use at t r i al of al l of a def endant ' s i mmuni zedgr and j ur y t est i mony i n vi ol at i on of t he gover nment ' s expr essagr eement t o t he cont r ary vi ol ates due pr ocess and cannot beconsi der ed har ml ess er r or . " ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) . Li ke i nMel vi n, we decl i ne t o answer t hi s quest i on because the er r or wasnot har ml ess. See Mel vi n, 730 F. 3d at 38 n. 3.

-26-


27/40

i nsur ed by t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause, i t s f ai l ur e t o adher e i s

per f or ce of const i t ut i onal di mensi on. I t f ol l ows i nexor abl y t hat

t he st r i ct er har ml ess- er r or st andar d [ of har ml ess beyond a

r easonabl e doubt ] appl i es t o such a f ai l ur e. " ) . Thi s i s somet hi ng

i t cannot do.

As di scussed above, t he gover nment ' s evi dence consi st ed

pr i mar i l y of t he f ol l owi ng: f or ensi c dat a l i nki ng J i mnez t o t he

whi t e Honda Accord i nvol ved i n the shoot i ng; vi deo showi ng J i mnez

wear i ng cl ot hi ng si mi l ar t o t hat of t he shoot er ; Tat a' s t est i mony

( 1) t hat Snchez and J i mnez di d not get al ong due t o Al exi s' s

i nvol vement wi t h J i mnez' s drug t r ade and ( 2) t hat J i mnez heard a

r ecordi ng wher e Snchez sai d she was goi ng t o r epor t J i mnez t o t he

Feds; and t he t est i mony and eye- wi t ness i dent i f i cat i ons by Pr ez

and Al bi no. Wi t h t he except i on of Pr ez' s and Al bi no' s test i mony,

much of t hi s evi dence was ci r cumst ant i al .

Of t hi s evi dence, by f ar t he most damni ng was Pr ez' s and

Al bi no' s t est i mony t hat , at J i mnez' s r equest , t hey t ook Snchez t o

t he Col mado Her nndez mi ni mar ket and t hen wat ched as J i mnez

exi t ed t he whi t e Honda, t r i ed t o abduct Snchez, and t hen mur dered

her i n br oad dayl i ght when t he abduct i on f ai l ed. Thi s t est i mony,

however , was vi gorousl y at t acked on cr oss- exami nat i on. J i mnez

hi ghl i ght ed t hat bot h Pr ez and Al bi no wer e pot ent i al l y bi ased and

pr ovi ded mul t i pl e r easons f or t hi s bi as, i ncl udi ng st r ong per sonal

r el at i onshi ps wi t h ot hers who may have want ed Snchez dead, f ear

-27-


28/40

f or t hei r saf et y shoul d t hey i mpl i cat e t he t r ue shoot er , and t he

cooper at i on agreement s made wi t h t he gover nment t o ensure mor e

l eni ent sent ences.

Though t he j ur y ul t i mat el y f ound Pr ez and Al bi no

cr edi bl e enough to convi ct J i mnez, we cannot say beyond al l

r easonabl e doubt t hat t he j ur y woul d have cont i nued t o cr edi t t hi s

t est i mony and woul d have come t o t he same gui l t y verdi ct had

J i mnez been abl e t o pr ovi de exper t t est i mony - - f r om t he f or mer

Chi ef of t he Speci al Phot ogr aphi c Uni t of t he FBI Labor at or y, no

l ess - - concl udi ng t hat t he shoot er i n t he vi deo was t oo t al l t o be

J i mnez. The j ur y may ver y l i kel y st i l l have convi ct ed J i mnez,

but i t may not have. Accor di ngl y, t he er r or was not har ml ess

beyond a reasonabl e doubt , and we must r everse J i mnez' s

convi ct i on.

B. Restrictions on Cross Examination

Though we ar e al r eady r eversi ng J i mnez' s convi ct i on, we

wi l l st i l l addr ess hi s Conf r ont at i on Cl ause ar gument because i t has

been f ul l y br i ef ed and wi l l al most cer t ai nl y ar i se agai n shoul d

J i mnez be r et r i ed. See Compagni e Nat i onal e Ai r Fr ance v. Cast ano,

358 F. 2d 203, 208 ( 1st Ci r . 1966) ( "Si nce t her e must be a new

t r i al , and t hi s mat t er i s l i kel y t o come up agai n, we wi l l deal

wi t h i t . ") . Accor di ng t o J i mnez, t he di st r i ct cour t vi ol at ed hi s

Si xth Amendment r i ght t o conf r ont at i on by f or bi ddi ng any cr oss-

-28-


29/40

exami nat i on about Pr ez' s or Al bi no' s i ni t i al exposur e t o t he deat h

penal t y. We di sagr ee.

The Si xt h Amendment ' s Conf r ont at i on Cl ause "guar ant ees

cr i mi nal def endant s t he r i ght t o cr oss- exami ne those who t est i f y

agai nst t hem. " Uni t ed St ates v. Vega Mol i na, 407 F. 3d 511, 522

( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( ci t i ng Davi s v. Al aska, 415 U. S. 308, 315 ( 1974) ) .

I t ext ends t o cr oss- exami nat i on " r easonabl y necessary t o del i neat e

and pr esent t he def endant ' s t heor y of def ense, " i d. , and i ncl udes

" t he r i ght t o cr oss- exami ne t he gover nment ' s wi t ness about hi s bi as

agai nst t he def endant and hi s mot i ve f or t est i f yi ng, " Uni t ed St at es

v. Of r ay- Campos, 534 F. 3d 1, 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . I ndeed, we have

consi st ent l y hel d t hat "cr oss- exami nat i on i s t he pr i nci pal means by

whi ch t he bel i evabi l i t y of a wi t ness and t he t r ut h of hi s t est i mony

ar e t est ed. " Br own v. Powel l , 975 F. 2d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r . 1992)

( quot i ng Kent ucky v. St i ncer , 482 U. S. 730, 736 ( 1987) ) ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

Thi s r i ght , however , has l i mi t s, and " [ t ] he Conf r ont at i on

Cl ause does not gi ve a def endant t he r i ght t o cross- exami ne on

ever y concei vabl e t heor y of bi as. " Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t nez-

Vi ves, 475 F. 3d 48, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Cal l i par i , 368 F. 3d 22, 38- 39 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) , vacated on other gr ounds, 543 U. S. 1098 ( 2005) ) ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . As the Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned i n

Del aware v. Van Ar sdal l , 475 U. S. 673, 679 ( 1986) ,

-29-


30/40

[ i ] t does not f ol l ow, of cour se, t hat t heConf r ont at i on Cl ause of t he Si xt h Amendmentpr event s a tr i al j udge f r om i mposi ng anyl i mi t s on def ense counsel ' s i nqui r y i nt o t hepot ent i al bi as of a pr osecut i on wi t ness. Ont he cont r ar y, t r i al j udges r et ai n wi de

l at i t ude i nsof ar as t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ausei s concer ned t o i mpose r easonabl e l i mi t s onsuch cr oss- exami nat i on based on concernsabout , among ot her t hi ngs, har assment ,pr ej udi ce, conf usi on of t he i ssues, t hewi t ness' saf et y, or i nt er r ogat i on t hat i sr epet i t i ve or onl y mar gi nal l y rel evant .

To t hat end, our r evi ew of a di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o

l i mi t cr oss- exami nat i on i nvol ves a t wo- st ep i nqui r y. Fi r st , we

"r evi ew de novo t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on t hat , even t hough

cr oss- exami nat i on was l i mi t ed, t he def endant was af f or ded

suf f i ci ent l eeway t o est abl i sh a r easonabl y compl et e pi ct ur e of t he

wi t ness' ver aci t y, bi as, and mot i vat i on. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Capozzi , 486 F. 3d 711, 723 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es

v. Byr ne, 435 F. 3d 16, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . Then, assumi ng t hi s i ni t i al t hr eshol d i s

sat i sf i ed, we "r evi ew t he par t i cul ar l i mi t at i ons onl y f or abuse of

di scr et i on. " Mar t nez- Vi ves, 475 F. 3d at 53.

Her e we have l i t t l e doubt t hat J i mnez was abl e t o pai nt

f or t he j ur y a compl et e pi ct ur e of bot h Pr ez and Al bi no such t hat

he "was af f orded a r easonabl e oppor t uni t y t o i mpeach" t hem. I d.( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Regar di ng Pr ez, J i mnez

i nt r oduced a number of f act s cal l i ng bot h hi s i dent i f i cat i on of

J i mnez and hi s cr edi bi l i t y i nt o quest i on. Fi r st , J i mnez

-30-


31/40

est abl i shed that begi nni ng the mor ni ng of J une 21, 2010, and

cont i nui ng unt i l af t er Snchez' s mur der t hat af t er noon, Pr ez had

mul t i pl e conver sat i ons wi t h Lechn and Har r y - - both of whom wer e

i nvol ved i n dr ug deal i ng i n Fal n Tor r ech and bot h of whom wer e

i ncl uded i n Snchez' s t hr eat t o t ake ever ybody down - - yet f ai l ed

t o r eveal t hi s i nf or mat i on t o t he aut hor i t i es. Second, J i mnez

el i ci t ed t he f act t hat Pr ez pr ovi ded t he aut hor i t i es wi t h

i nconsi st ent ver si ons of hi s st or y. As t o Al bi no, J i mnez showed

a mot i ve f or i mpl i cat i ng hi m and pr ot ect i ng Lechn, who he al l eged

was pot ent i al l y t he t r ue shoot er : Al bi no was i n a r el at i onshi p wi t h

Lechn.

Mor eover , t hough t he di st r i ct cour t f or bade any

quest i oni ng about deat h- penal t y exposur e, i t never pr ohi bi t ed

J i mnez f r omdi scussi ng t he pl ea and cooper at i on agreement i t sel f .

To t he cont r ar y, J i mnez cr oss- exami ned bot h Pr ez and Al bi no about

t he det ai l s of t he agr eement and t hei r under st andi ng t hat t hey

woul d r ecei ve a mor e- l eni ent sent ence i f t hey cooper at ed. That

J i mnez coul d not emphasi ze j ust how sever e Pr ez' s and Al bi no' s

possi bl e sent ences coul d have been had t hey not cooperat ed di d

not hi ng t o det r act f r omhi s cent r al ar gument : bot h Pr ez and Al bi no

wer e bi ased and mot i vat ed t o pr ovi de i ncr i mi nat i ng t est i mony

agai nst J i mnez i n an at t empt t o l ook out f or t hei r own best

i nt er est s and r ecei ve a l i ght er sent ence. We have pr evi ousl y

uphel d a di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o pr ohi bi t cr oss- exami nat i on

-31-


32/40

i nt o a cooper at i ng wi t ness' s exposur e t o t he deat h penal t y so l ong

as t he def endant coul d st i l l pr obe i nt o ot her aspect s of t he pl ea

agr eement , and we see no r eason t o devi ate f r omt hat posi t i on her e.

See Capozzi , 486 F. 3d at 724 ( " [ T] he di st r i ct cour t di d not commi t

const i t ut i onal er r or when i t decl i ned t o al l ow [ def endant ] t o

i nqui r e i nt o t he subj ect of [ t he cooper at i ng wi t ness' s] avoi dance

of t he pot ent i al deat h penal t y at t ached t o t hi s unchar ged cr i me

whi ch [ t he wi t ness] had supposedl y avoi ded by cooper at i ng wi t h t he

government " because def endant "had consi derabl e ammuni t i on . . .

f r omwhi ch t o demonst r ate t hat [ t he wi t ness] had a power f ul mot i ve

t o t est i f y i n a manner suppor t i ve of t he gover nment . " ) .

Revi ewi ng t he cr oss- exami nat i ons as a whol e, we concl ude

t hat J i mnez provi ded a "r easonabl y compl et e pi ct ur e of t he

wi t ness[ es] ' ver aci t y, bi as, and mot i vat i on" despi t e t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s l i mi t at i on, and t her ef or e t he l i mi t at i on di d not vi ol at e

t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause. See i d. at 723; Br own, 975 F. 2d at 5

( f i ndi ng no vi ol at i on of t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause wher e t he

di st r i ct cour t pr event ed t he j ur y f r om hear i ng t he pot ent i al

penal t y of l i f e i mpr i sonment t hat a cooper at i ng wi t ness avoi ded by

pl eadi ng gui l t y because t he j ur y "was cl ear l y gi ven suf f i ci ent

i nf or mat i on f r omwhi ch i t coul d concl ude t hat t he [ accompl i ce] had

a subst ant i al mot i vat i on t o t est i f y agai nst pet i t i oner , " such as

t he speci f i cs of t he accompl i ce' s pl ea agr eement , t he wi t ness' s

cr i mi nal r ecor d, t hat t he wi t ness had gi ven t he pol i ce a di f f er ent

-32-


33/40

st at ement t han hi s t est i mony, t hat t he wi t ness had st ol en t he

mur der weapon, and t hat t he wi t ness had r evi ewed t he i nvest i gat i ve

f i l e bef or e t est i f yi ng) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Twomey, 806 F. 2d 1136,

1139- 40 ( 1st Ci r . 1986) ( r est r i ct i ng cr oss- exami nat i on i nt o an

unsubst ant i ated charge t hat t he wi t ness was i nvol ved i n t wo mur der s

i n par t because " t he ci r cumst ances f r omwhi ch t he j ur y coul d deci de

whet her [ t he wi t ness] mi ght have been i ncl i ned t o t est i f y f al sel y

i n f avor of t he gover nment was adequatel y pr esent ed") ; cf . Vega

Mol i na, 407 F. 3d at 523- 24 ( f i ndi ng a Si xt h Amendment vi ol at i on

wher e t he di st r i ct cour t pr ecl uded any cr oss- exami nat i on i nt o a

cooper at i ng wi t nesses' s mot i ve f or enl i st i ng i n t he r obber y

scheme) .

Havi ng f ound t hat J i mnez' s oppor t uni t y t o i mpeach Pr ez

and Al bi no sat i sf i ed t hi s i ni t i al t hr eshol d, we t ur n t o whet her t he

di st r i ct cour t never t hel ess abused i t s di scret i on i n pr ecl udi ng

t hi s l i ne of quest i oni ng. "An abuse of di scr et i on has occur r ed

onl y i f t he j ur y i s l ef t wi t hout ' suf f i ci ent i nf or mat i on concer ni ng

f or mat i ve event s t o make a di scr i mi nat i ng appr ai sal of a wi t ness' s

mot i ves and bi as. ' " Twomey, 806 F. 2d at 1140 ( quot i ng Har r i s v.

Uni t ed St at es, 367 F. 2d 633, 636 ( 1st Ci r . 1966) ) ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) ; see al so Of r ay- Campos, 534 F. 3d at 37

( "' To est abl i sh t hat t he di st r i ct cour t has abused i t s di scr et i on,

t he def endant must show t hat t he l i mi t at i ons i mposed wer e cl ear l y

pr ej udi ci al . ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 985 F. 2d 634,

-33-


34/40

639 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ) ) . I n ot her wor ds, t he r est r i ct i ons must be

"mani f est l y unr easonabl e or over br oad. " Of r ay- Campos, 534 F. 3d at

36 ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s l i mi t at i on was nei t her

unr easonabl e nor over broad. We have al r eady expl ai ned how J i mnez

quest i oned Pr ez and Al bi no about t he det ai l s of t hei r pl ea and

cooper at i on agr eement s and about t hei r ot her pot ent i al bi ases and

mot i vat i ons f or test i f yi ng. Mor eover , as t he di st r i ct cour t

cor r ect l y not ed, whi l e a compl ai nt al l egi ng a deat h- el i gi bl e

of f ense was i ni t i al l y f i l ed, Pr ez and Al bi no wer e never i ndi ct ed

on t hi s charge and consequent l y wer e never actual l y exposed to t he

deat h penal t y. St i l l , when J i mnez ar gued t hat t hi s was pr eci sel y

because of an agr eement , t he di st r i ct cour t i nqui r ed f ur t her and

quest i oned t he gover nment and both wi t nesses' at t orneys. Each

par t y pr ovi ded t he same i nf or mat i on: t he non- deat h- el i gi bl e

i ndi ct ment was not a r esul t of an agr eement among t he par t i es but

r at her due t o the l ack of evi dence t hat ei t her Pr ez or Al bi no knew

Snchez woul d be ki l l ed at t he Col mado Hernndez mi ni mar ket . The

di st r i ct cour t accept ed t hi s expl anat i on and, as a r esul t , bel i eved

t hat r ai si ng t he i ssue wi t h t he j ur y woul d be mi sl eadi ng and

conf usi ng.

Gi ven t he di st r i ct cour t ' s "wi de l at i t ude i nsof ar as t he

Conf r ont at i on Cl ause i s concer ned t o i mpose reasonabl e l i mi t s" on

cr oss- exami nat i on, Van Ar sdal l , 475 U. S. at 679, t hi s concl usi on

-34-


35/40

was not "mani f est l y unr easonabl e. " Nor di d i t pr ej udi ce J i mnez.

See Of r ay- Campos, 534 F. 3d at 37. Accor di ngl y, we f i nd no abuse of

di scr et i on by t he di st r i ct cour t i n pr ohi bi t i ng J i mnez f r om

i nqui r i ng i nt o the wi t nesses' pot ent i al exposur e t o t he deat h

penal t y. See Capozzi , 486 F. 3d at 724 ( "Nor di d t he cour t ' s

deci si on t o bar t he quest i oni ng const i t ut e an abuse of i t s gener al

di scr et i on. . . . Any r i sk t hat [ t he wi t ness] woul d have been

char ged wi t h t he deat h penal t y of f ense was at best . . . whol l y

specul at i ve. ") ; Uni t ed St at es v. l var ez, 987 F. 2d 77, 82 ( 1st Ci r .

1993) ( f i ndi ng no abuse of di scr et i on wher e t he di st r i ct cour t

pr event ed t he j ur y f r oml ear ni ng of t he exact penal t i es t he wi t ness

woul d f ace i f f ound gui l t y) ; Twomey, 806 F. 2d at 1139- 40 ( f i ndi ng

no abuse of di scr et i on wher e t he di st r i ct cour t r est r i ct ed cr oss-

exami nat i on i nt o a wi t ness' s supposed i nvol vement i n two mur der s t o

est abl i sh bi as i n par t because " [ t ] her e i s no evi dence t o suppor t

such a char ge, and, i n f act , [ t he wi t ness' s] pl ea agr eement

expl i ci t l y st at es t hat i t does not pr ot ect hi mf r ompr osecut i on f or

cr i mes of vi ol ence") .

C. Sufficiency of the Evidence for Count One

Fi nal l y, we must st i l l addr ess J i mnez' s suf f i ci ency

ar gument f or doubl e j eopar dy pur poses. See Mar shal l v. Br i st ol

Super i or Cour t , 753 F. 3d 10, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( "I t i s bl ack

l et t er l aw t hat ' t he Doubl e J eopar dy Cl ause pr ecl udes a second

t r i al once t he r evi ewi ng cour t has f ound t he evi dence l egal l y

-35-


36/40

i nsuf f i ci ent . ' " ( quot i ng Bur ks v. Uni t ed St at es, 437 U. S. 1, 18

( 1978) ) ) . Accor di ng t o J i mnez, t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o

suppor t hi s convi ct i on on Count One, t he wi t ness t amper i ng charge,

and t hus hi s Rul e 29 mot i on f or j udgment of acqui t t al of Count One

shoul d have been gr ant ed. We r evi ew t hi s al l egat i on de novo.

Uni t ed St at es v. Pr ez- Mel ndez, 599 F. 3d 31, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

I n doi ng so,

we exami ne t he evi dence, bot h di r ect andci r cumst ant i al , i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t ot he j ur y' s ver di ct . We do not assess t hecr edi bi l i t y of a wi t ness, as that i s a r ol er eser ved f or t he j ur y. Nor need we beconvi nced t hat t he gover nment succeeded i nel i mi nat i ng ever y possi bl e t heor y consi st entwi t h t he def endant ' s i nnocence. Rat her , wemust deci de whet her t hat evi dence, i ncl udi ngal l pl ausi bl e i nf er ences dr awn t her ef r om,woul d al l ow a r at i onal f act f i nder t o concl udebeyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat t he def endantcommi t t ed t he char ged cr i me.

I d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Tr oy, 583 F. 3d 20, 24 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and emphasi s omi t t ed) ; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Sepl veda, 15 F. 3d 1161, 1173 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) .

Thi s i s a " f or mi dabl e" st andar d of r evi ew, so "def endant s

chal l engi ng convi ct i ons f or i nsuf f i ci ency of t he evi dence f ace an

uphi l l bat t l e on appeal . " Pr ez- Mel ndez, 599 F. 3d at 40 ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Li pscomb, 539 F. 3d 32, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) )

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

I n or der t o est abl i sh a vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

1512( a) ( 1) ( C) , t he government must pr ove beyond a reasonabl e

-36-


37/40

doubt t hat t her e was "( 1) a ki l l i ng or at t empt ed ki l l i ng,

( 2) commi t t ed wi t h a par t i cul ar i nt ent , namel y an i nt ent ( a) t o

' pr event ' a ' communi cat i on' ( b) about ' t he commi ssi on or possi bl e

commi ssi on of a Feder al of f ense' ( c) t o a f eder al ' l aw enf or cement

of f i cer or j udge. ' " Fowl er v. Uni t ed St at es, 131 S. Ct . 2045, 2049

( 2011) ( quot i ng 18 U. S. C. 1512( a) ( 1) ( C) ) . Her e, J i mnez concedes

t hat t he gover nment sat i sf i ed i t s bur den f or most of t hese el ement s

and onl y chal l enges t he pr oof f or t he el ement t hat Snchez was

ki l l ed i n or der t o pr event her f r om pr ovi di ng i nf or mat i on

concerni ng " t he commi ssi on or t he possi bl e commi ssi on of a Federal

of f ense. " Accor di ng t o J i mnez, t he evi dence showed t hat i f he

ki l l ed Snchez, i t was done t o pr event her f r om communi cat i ng hi s

wher eabout s t o f eder al of f i ci al s so t hat he coul d be ar r est ed on

t he out st andi ng Puer t o Ri co mur der char ge f or whi ch he was a

f ugi t i ve. I n suppor t of t hi s cont ent i on, J i mnez poi nt s t o t he

i nvest i gat i ve not es whi ch r epor t ed t hat Snchez was " wi l l i ng t o

pr ovi de [ J i mnez' s] l ocat i on t o t he f eds t o have hi mar r est ed on an

out st andi ng st at e war r ant . "

Whi l e we agr ee t hat a j ury coul d have come to t hi s

concl usi on, we "need not concl ude t hat onl y a gui l t y ver di ct

appr opr i at el y coul d be r eached" i n or der t o sust ai n t he convi ct i on.

Sepl veda, 15 F. 3d at 1173 ( emphasi s added) . To t he cont r ary, " i t

i s enough t hat t he f i ndi ng of gui l t dr aws i t s essence f r om a

pl ausi bl e r eadi ng of t he r ecor d. " I d. ; see al so Pr ez- Mel ndez,

-37-


38/40

599 F. 3d at 40 ( "Nor need we be convi nced t hat t he gover nment

succeeded i n el i mi nat i ng ever y possi bl e theor y consi st ent wi t h t he

def endant ' s i nnocence. " ( quot i ng Tr oy, 583 F. 3d at 24) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . And a r evi ew of t he r ecor d sat i sf i es us

t hat t he gover nment has met i t s bur den.

At t r i al , Tat a t est i f i ed t hat Snchez was unhappy t hat

Al exi s - - her boyf r i end and J i mnez' s br ot her - - was i nvol ved i n

J i mnez' s dr ug oper at i on. As a r esul t , she and J i mnez di d not get

al ong, and whenever she woul d ar r i ve at t he dr ug poi nt , J i mnez

woul d become upset and a conf r ont at i on woul d ensue. Tat a f ur t her

t est i f i ed t hat she recor ded Snchez sayi ng t hat Snchez woul d " t ur n

[ J i mnez] i n t o J ust i ce. " Gi ven t hat t hei r r ocky r el at i onshi p

st emmed f r om J i mnez' s dr ug act i vi t i es and not hi s st at us as a

f ugi t i ve, t he j ur y coul d have pl ausi bl y i nf er r ed t hat J i mnez

under st ood Snchez t o be r ef er r i ng t o hi s dr ug t r af f i cki ng

acti vi t i es, whi ch i s cl ear l y a f eder al of f ense. See, e. g. , 21

U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) and 846 ( cr i mi nal i zi ng possessi on of cont r ol l ed

subst ances wi t h t he i nt ent t o di st r i but e and conspi r acy t o possess

cont r ol l ed subst ances wi t h t he i nt ent t o di st r i but e, r espect i vel y) .

The gover nment pr esent ed addi t i onal ci r cumst ant i al

evi dence suppor t i ng t hi s i nf er ence. Fi r st , Apont e t est i f i ed t hat

on J une 8, 2010, an FBI t ask f or ce of f i cer had asked her not t o

vi si t Snchez because Al exi s had been st opped and quest i oned about

whether Snchez was pr ovi di ng i nf or mat i on t o the government .

-38-


39/40

Apont e added t hat Snchez l at er conf i r med t hat she was cooperat i ng

wi t h t he FBI , t hat J i mnez owned a dr ug poi nt at Fal n Tor r ech, and

t hat he had t hr eat ened her . Of f i cer I r i zar r y si mi l ar l y t est i f i ed

t hat Snchez had pr ovi ded hi mwi t h i nf or mat i on r egar di ng J i mnez' s

dr ug oper at i ons. 9 Pr ez, meanwhi l e, t est i f i ed t hat Snchez had

br agged t hat she was goi ng t o t ake ever ybody down. I t i s pl ausi bl e

t o i nf er t hat bot h Al exi s and Pr ez woul d have r epor t ed t hese

i nci dent s t o J i mnez, and t hat J i mnez woul d have i nt er pr et ed bot h

t he quest i oni ng of Al exi s and t he use of "ever ybody" t o ref er t o

t he dr ug act i vi t y to whi ch mul t i pl e peopl e wer e i nvol ved, and not

t o J i mnez' s st at us as a f ugi t i ve.

Taki ng al l of t hi s evi dence t oget her and maki ng pl ausi bl e

i nf er ences i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he j ur y' s ver di ct , we

bel i eve a r at i onal f act f i nder coul d have concl uded beyond a

r easonabl e doubt t hat J i mnez i nt ended t o pr event Snchez f r om

pr ovi di ng i nf or mat i on t o f eder al aut hor i t i es r egar di ng J i mnez' s

9 I n hi s r eci t at i on of t he f act s, J i mnez suggest s t hat t hegovernment vi ol at ed bot h 18 U. S. C. 3432 and Rul e 26. 2 of t heFeder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e when i t cal l ed Of f i cer I r i zar r yt o t est i f y i n suppor t of t hi s el ement . J i mnez pr ovi des no l egalar gument s or ci t at i ons t o suppor t t hi s cl ai m, however , so i t i st her ef or e wai ved. See Uni t ed St ates v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17

( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( "[ I t i s a] set t l ed appel l at e r ul e t hat i ssuesadver t ed t o i n a per f unct ory manner , unaccompani ed by some ef f or tat devel oped argument at i on, ar e deemed wai ved. I t i s not enoughmerel y t o ment i on a possi bl e ar gument i n t he most skel etal way,l eavi ng t he cour t t o do counsel ' s wor k, cr eat e t he ossatur e f or t hear gument , and put f l esh on i t s bones. " ( i nt er nal ci t at i onsomi t t ed) ) .

-39-


40/40

nar cot i cs oper at i on - - a f eder al of f ense. Accor di ngl y, hi s Rul e 29

mot i on was pr oper l y deni ed.

III. Conclusion

To summar i ze, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der r equi r i ng

J i mnez' s exper t wi t ness, St okes, t o be i nf or med of admi ssi ons made

by J i mnez i n hi s pr of f er st atement cont r avened t he i mmuni t y

agr eement , and t hus vi ol at ed J i mnez' s due pr ocess r i ght s. Thi s

er r or was not harml ess beyond a r easonabl e doubt , and t her ef ore

J i mnez' s convi ct i on cannot st and. Shoul d J i mnez be r et r i ed, i t

wi l l be wel l wi t hi n t he di str i ct cour t ' s di scr et i on t o l i mi t t he

cr oss- exami nat i ons of Pr ez and Al bi no t o pr ohi bi t any r ef er ences

t o t hei r pot ent i al exposur e t o t he deat h penal t y, so l ong as

J i mnez i s gi ven t he same suf f i ci ent l eeway t o est abl i sh a

r easonabl y compl et e pi ct ur e of bot h Pr ez' s and Al bi no' s ver aci t y

as he was dur i ng t hi s t r i al . Fi nal l y, even t hough t he convi ct i on

i s r ever sed due t o t he vi ol at i on of t he i mmuni t y agr eement , we

concl ude f or doubl e j eopar dy pur poses that t her e was suf f i ci ent

evi dence f or t he j ur y t o have f ound t hat J i mnez ki l l ed Snchez i n

or der t o pr event her f r om pr ovi di ng i nf or mat i on t o f eder al

aut hor i t i es concer ni ng "t he commi ssi on or t he possi bl e commi ssi on

of a Feder al of f ense, " and t hus hi s Rul e 29 mot i on f or j udgment of

acqui t t al as t o Count One - - t he wi t ness t amper i ng char ge - - was

pr oper l y deni ed.

REVERSED.

united states v. jimenez-bencevi, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents