united states v. soto, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Soto, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/58

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 13- 2343

13- 234413- 2350

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

CARMEN SOTO; PEDRO SOTO; and STEVEN SOTO,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Mar k L. Wol f , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or eTor r uel l a, Thompson, and Kayat t a,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Mat t hew A. Kamhol t z, wi t h whom Fei nberg & Kamhol t z, was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant Car men Sot o.

St even A. Fel dman, wi t h whom Fel dman and Fel dman, was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant Pedr o Sot o.

Benj ami n L. Fal kner , wi t h whom Kr asnoo*Kl ehm LLP, was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant St even Sot o.

J ohn M. Pel l et t i er i , At t or ney, Appel l at e Sect i on, Cr i mi nalDi vi si on, Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of J ust i ce, wi t h whomLesl i e R.Cal dwel l , Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Sung- Hee Suh, Deput yAssi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, J ohn A. Capi n, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, and

Br i an A. Pr ez- Dapl e, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wer e onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

August 25, 2015


2/58

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. The Sot o f ami l y - - St even and

hi s par ent s Car men and Pedr o1 - - oper at ed a r eal est at e busi ness i n

Lynn, Massachuset t s, whi ch t hey used t o or chest r ate sever al

f r audul ent r eal est at e t r ansact i ons i n l at e 2006 and ear l y 2007.

As a resul t of t hese t r ansact i ons, t he Sot os wer e each convi ct ed of

mul t i pl e count s of mai l f r aud; St even and Pedr o wer e al so convi ct ed

of mul t i pl e count s of aggr avat ed i dent i t y t hef t . Def endant s now

appeal t hei r convi ct i ons, al l egi ng a host of er r or s bef or e t he

di st r i ct cour t . I n addi t i on, Car men chal l enges t he por t i on of her

sent ence r equi r i ng her t o pay al most $800, 000 i n r est i t ut i on. For

t he r easons det ai l ed bel ow, we r ej ect t hese chal l enges and af f i r m.

I. Background

A. The Fraudulent Transactions

The Sot os used Par adi se Real Est at e, t he r eal est at e

br oker age f i r m t hey l egi t i mat el y owned and oper at ed, t o conduct a

number of f r audul ent r eal est at e t r ansact i ons. Four separ at e

t r ansact i ons under l i e t he char ges i n t he i ndi ct ment , but t hey shar e

a common t heme. I n each t r ansact i on, at l east one member of t he

Sot o Fami l y used t he i dent i t y of a t hi r d- par t y i ndi vi dual t o

consummat e t he "sal e" of r eal est at e. To f i nance t he t r ansact i on,

a l oan woul d be obt ai ned based on an appl i cat i on cont ai ni ng

1 Because St even, Car men, and Pedro Sot o al l have t he same l astname, we wi l l r ef er t o t hem i ndi vi dual l y by t hei r f i r st name onl y.When r ef er r i ng t o t hem col l ect i vel y, we wi l l use ei t her "t heSot os, " " t he Sot o Fami l y, " or "Def endant s. "

-2-


3/58

knowi ngl y f al se i nf or mat i on. Not sur pr i si ngl y, t he l oans wer e

of t en not r epai d, r esul t i ng i n t he pr oper t i es ent er i ng f or ecl osur e

soon af t er t he t r ansact i on cl osed.

I n addi t i on t o t he Sot os, t hr ee i ndi vi dual s pl ayed

i mpor t ant r ol es i n t he scheme - - some wi t hout t hei r knowl edge.

Fi r st was Gr egor y Br adl ey. Br adl ey, who was a f r i end of St even' s,

of t en pl ayed t he r ol e of buyer despi t e hi s bei ng i n pr i son f r om

August 2006 t hrough September 2008. To over come t hi s obst acl e,

St even appr oached t he second r epeat pl ayer , Ki mLi t wi n. Li t wi n i s

Br adl ey' s aunt , and, af t er consul t i ng wi t h Br adl ey, she agr eed t o

hel p St even use Br adl ey' s i dent i t y. Fi nal l y, we have Mi l agr os

Espi nal , a not ar y publ i c. Wi t hout Espi nal ' s knowl edge, St even

obt ai ned a dupl i cat e not ar y ki t i n her name and used t he ki t t o

make document s appear not ar i zed, and thus l egi t i mat e.

Wi t h t he key pl ayer s i dent i f i ed, we can now descr i be t he

f our r eal est at e t r ansact i ons at i ssue.

1. 242 Main Street

The f i r st r el evant t r ansact i on t ook pl ace i n Fal l 2006

and i nvol ved 242 Mai n St r eet i n Spr i ngf i el d, Massachuset t s - - a

pr oper t y owned by Pedr o. St even ar r anged f or Br adl ey, t hr ough

Li t wi n, t o pur chase t he pr oper t y f r omPedr o f or $182, 000. Someone

posi ng as Br adl ey - - t he r ecor d i s uncl ear as t o who - - spoke t o a

mor t gage l oan of f i cer by phone and t ol d t he l oan of f i cer t hat

Br adl ey was a st ore manager at Dr est ar s bar bershop - - a barbershop

-3-


4/58

opened by St even i n Lynn, Massachuset t s. Thi s, of cour se, was not

t r ue as Br adl ey was i ncar cer at ed at t he t i me. The l oan of f i cer was

al so t ol d t hat Br adl ey possessed $14, 191 i n l i qui d asset s. Thi s,

t oo, was f al se. The $14, 191 was act ual l y t he amount i n Li t wi n' s

bank account ; on St even' s i nst r uct i ons, she had r ecent l y added

Br adl ey t o t he account t o make i t appear as t hough he had

suf f i ci ent asset s.

I n November 2006, St even and Li t wi n at t ended t he cl osi ng

f or t he pr oper t y. Li t wi n pr oduced a f or ged document dr af t ed by

St even and "not ar i zed" wi t h t he f al se Espi nal not ar y ki t t o cl ai m

power of at t or ney t o conduct t he t r ansact i on on behal f of Br adl ey.

Usi ng t he power of at t orney, Li t wi n si gned document s conf i r mi ng t he

f al se i nf or mat i on about Br adl ey' s empl oyment , asset s, and i nt ent t o

l i ve i n t he pr oper t y as hi s pr i mar y r esi dence.

2. 55 Lawrence Street

The next t r ansact i on i nvol ved 55 Lawr ence St r eet , a

t hr ee- f ami l y home i n Sal em, Massachuset t s. I n t he f al l of 2006,

Beat r i ce J i mma Shea, t he owner of t he pr oper t y, asked Pedr o - - who

had pr evi ousl y been successf ul i n hel pi ng Shea rent a uni t i n t he

home - - t o hel p her ei t her f i nd a t enant f or one of t he uni t s or

sel l t he pr oper t y. Pedr o ar r anged f or Shea t o ent er i nt o an

agr eement wi t h Br adl ey wher eby Br adl ey woul d l ease 55 Lawr ence

St r eet and have t he opt i on of pur chasi ng t he pr oper t y and

conver t i ng i t i nt o condomi ni ums. Shor t l y t her eaf t er , St even,

-4-


5/58

posi ng as Br adl ey, at t empt ed t o convi nce Shea to sel l t he pr oper t y

t o hi m so he coul d tur n ar ound and sel l t he uni t s as condomi ni ums.

When Shea r ef used, Steven f or ged her si gnat ure on numerous

document s, t hus gi vi ng Br adl ey power of at t orney t o conduct t he

t r ansact i ons. To make t he document s appear l egi t i mat e, St even used

t he f ake Espi nal not ar y ki t .

Usi ng t hese f orged document s, t he Sotos " sol d" each of

t he t hr ee uni t s of 55 Lawr ence St r eet t o st r aw buyer s. Pedr o sol d

Uni t 1 t o Pamel a Landess i n J anuary 2007 af t er agr eei ng t o pay her

$8, 000 f or her par t i ci pat i on. At cl osi ng, St even - - st i l l posi ng

as Br adl ey - - used t he f or ged power of at t or ney t o si gn Br adl ey' s

name as at t or ney i n f act f or Shea, t he sel l er .

Car men, meanwhi l e, pai d Medel i n de l a Cr uz $10, 000 f or

her assi st ance i n pur chasi ng Uni t s 2 and 3 f or $225, 000 and

$230, 000, r espect i vel y. I n pr epar at i on f or t he sal es, Car men and

St even submi t t ed de l a Cr uz' s l oan appl i cat i ons whi ch subst ant i al l y

over st at ed de l a Cr uz' s sal ar y, f ai l ed t o di scl ose de l a Cr uz' s

pr i or mor t gages, and f al sel y r epr esent ed t hat de l a Cr uz i nt ended

t o make each uni t her pr i mary resi dence. The l oans were appr oved,

and t he cl osi ngs t ook pl ace i n J anuar y and Febr uar y of 2007. Li ke

wi t h Uni t 1, St even at t ended t he Uni t 2 cl osi ng as Br adl ey and used

t he f or ged power of at t or ney t o si gn Br adl ey' s name as at t or ney i n

f act f or Shea, t he sel l er . As f or Uni t 3, a di f f er ent appr oach was

t aken. Pr i or t o cl osi ng, St even used t he f ake Espi nal not ar y ki t

-5-


6/58

t o t r ansf er t i t l e f r om Shea t o Br adl ey. Thus, Li t wi n was abl e t o

at t end t he cl osi ng f or Uni t 3 as at t or ney i n f act f or Br adl ey, t he

sel l er .

3. 399 Orange Street

I n J anuary 2007, St even and Pedr o ar r anged f or Br adl ey t o

pur chase 399 Or ange St r eet i n Spr i ngf i el d, Massachuset t s. On t he

l oan appl i cat i on, Pedr o pr ovi ded hi s phone number as t he cont act

number f or Br adl ey. When t he l oan of f i cer - - somewhat skept i cal of

t he appl i cat i on - - cal l ed t he number t wo days bef or e t he cl osi ng,

someone purpor t i ng t o be Br adl ey answered t he phone and ver i f i ed

f al se i nf or mat i on. At t he cl osi ng i t sel f , St even si gned Br adl ey' s

name on t he l oan document s cont ai ni ng t he same f al se i nf or mat i on

t hat had been ver i f i ed t wo days ear l i er . Thi s i ncl uded, f or

exampl e, t hat Br adl ey ear ned $11, 500 each mont h f r omhi s empl oyment

at St even' s bar ber shop and f r om hi s owner shi p of Aggr essi ve

Const r uct i on - - a f ake company f ormed by St even i n Br adl ey' s name.

St even al so ver i f i ed t he accur acy of t he l oan appl i cat i on' s

l i abi l i t y sect i on, whi ch omi t t ed any ment i on of Br adl ey' s mor t gage

f or 242 Mai n St r eet .

4. 21 Dudley Street

Fi nal l y, i n December 2006/ J anuary 2007, Karen and

Chr i st opher Fai son, t he owner s of 21 Dudl ey St r eet i n Haver hi l l ,

Massachuset t s, agr eed t o al l ow t he Sot os t o conver t t hei r pr oper t y

i nt o t hr ee condomi ni ums, t o sel l t he uni t s, and t o keep any

-6-


7/58

pr oceeds above t he $365, 000 t hey or i gi nal l y pai d f or t he pr oper t y.

The sal e of t hese uni t s began as l egi t i mat e sal es: Car men' s cousi n

and her husband were to pur chase t he f i r st uni t and ngel

Rodr guez, Car men' s l ongt i me f ami l y f r i end, i nt ended t o pur chase

t he ot her t wo uni t s as i nvest ment s. Pr i or t o t he cl osi ngs i n May

2007, however , Rodr guez changed hi s mi nd when he r eal i zed that t he

mor t gage payment s woul d exceed t he r ent r ol l s.

Rodr guez t hus i nf or med Car men t hat he di d not want t o go

t hrough wi t h t he pur chases, but Car men proceeded anyway. She

enl i st ed Yssi ca Amar o - - Rodr guez' s st epsi st er and St even' s

gi r l f r i end - - t o execut e a f or ged power of at t or ney and t o at t end

t he cl osi ngs on Rodr guez' s behal f . 2 Wi t h t he power of at t or ney i n

hand, Amar o compl et ed t he t r ansact i ons. As a r esul t , absent hi s

knowl edge and despi t e hi s i nt ent i ons t o t he cont r ar y, Rodr guez

pur chased bot h uni t s and obt ai ned t wo l oans t o do so.

B. The Trial Proceedings

I n connect i on wi t h t hese f our f r audul ent r eal est at e

t r ansact i ons, t he Sot os wer e char ged i n a t hi r t een- count i ndi ct ment

on Sept ember 8, 2011. St even was charged wi t h seven count s of mai l

f r aud ( Count s One, Four , Si x, Seven, Ten, Twel ve, and Thi r t een) and

si x count s of aggr avat ed i dent i t y t hef t ( Count s Two, Thr ee, Fi ve,

Ei ght , Ni ne, and El even) ; Pedr o was char ged wi t h f i ve count s of

2 Unl i ke t he ot her t r ansact i ons, t he f ake Espi nal not ar y ki t wasnot used t o notar i ze Amaro' s power of at t orney. I nst ead, Carmenhad her cousi n, Yai met Val l ej o, not ar i ze t he document .

-7-


8/58

mai l f r aud (Count s One, Four , Si x, Seven, Ten) and thr ee count s of

aggr avat ed i dent i t y thef t ( Count s Thr ee, Fi ve, and El even) ; and

Carmen was char ged wi t h f our count s of mai l f r aud ( Count s Si x,

Seven, Twel ve, and Thi r t een) .

Af t er a f our t een- day t r i al - - t he r el evant det ai l s of

whi ch are addr essed bel ow - - Pedro and Car men were convi ct ed on al l

count s, whi l e St even was convi ct ed on every count except t he t wo

mai l f r aud count s r el ated t o 21 Dudl ey St r eet ( Count s Twel ve and

Thi r t een) . The di st r i ct cour t sentenced St even t o si xt y- f i ve

mont hs of i mpr i sonment f ol l owed by f our years of super vi sed r el ease

and or der ed hi m t o pay $1, 055, 474 i n r est i t ut i on. Pedr o,

meanwhi l e, was sent enced t o f or t y- ei ght mont hs of i mpr i sonment ,

t hr ee year s of super vi sed r el ease, and or der ed t o pay $1, 055, 474 i n

r est i t ut i on. Fi nal l y, t he di st r i ct cour t sent enced Car men t o one

year and one day of i mpr i sonment ( si x mont hs of whi ch were ser ved

i n home conf i nement ) , t hr ee years of super vi sed r el ease, and an

or der t o pay $792, 559 i n r est i t ut i on. Al l t hr ee Sot os t i mel y

appeal ed.

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Suppress

1. Relevant Background

Whi l e l aw enf or cement di d not become awar e of t he

f r audul ent r eal est at e t r ansact i ons unt i l 2007, St even was on t hei r

r adar much ear l i er i n r el at i on t o a number of unr el at ed f r audul ent

-8-


9/58

schemes. Fi r st , on March 16, 2006, East er n Bank i ssued a f r aud

al er t af t er St even and hi s br ot her , Pedr o, J r . , negot i at ed

count er f ei t checks.

Then, a coupl e weeks l at er , on Apr i l 3, 2006, Mot or cycl es

of Manchest er r epor t ed t o New Hampshi r e aut hor i t i es t hat t hey had

sol d t wo mot orcycl es t o a mal e and f emal e usi ng a f r audul ent

cashi er ' s check i ssued by St . J ean' s Cr edi t Uni on. An

i nvest i gat i on r eveal ed t hat St even had r ecent l y opened an account

at t he cr edi t uni on and pur chased t hr ee of f i ci al bank checks wi t h

i nf or mat i on si mi l ar t o t he count er f ei t check. When aut hor i t i es

showed a Mot or cycl es of Manchest er empl oyee a phot o ar r ay, she

st ated t hat t wo peopl e " l ooked f ami l i ar " : St even and Amaro.

A si mi l ar i nci dent occur r ed at Nor t h Readi ng Mot or Spor t s

I nc. On Apr i l 12, 2006, t he company al er t ed aut hor i t i es t hat on or

about Apr i l 6, 2006, St . J ean' s Cr edi t Uni on had i ssued a check t o

St even i n t he amount of $5. 00. However , t he check had been al t ered

t o r ead $20, 350. 00 and had been used t o pur chase t wo mot or cycl es

f r om Nor t h Readi ng Mot or Spor t s. I n connect i on wi t h t he pur chase,

St even had submi t t ed a cr edi t appl i cat i on l i st i ng Par adi se Real

Est at e as hi s empl oyer . A t hi r d i nci dent wi t h compar abl e det ai l s

occur r ed at Kel l y Mot or Spor t s i n Danver s, Massachuset t s, as wel l .

On Apr i l 28, 2006, af t er l ear ni ng t hat St even was the

af f i ant on document s submi t t ed to t he Massachuset t s Regi st r y of

Mot or Vehi cl es, Massachuset t s St at e Pol i ce obt ai ned a war r ant t o

-9-


10/58

ar r est St even, who l i ved wi t h hi s par ent s at 56 Lawr ence Road i n

Lynn, Massachuset t s ( "56 Lawr ence Road" or t he "Sot o Fami l y

Resi dence") . When l aw enf orcement went t o ar r est St even, t hey were

unabl e t o l ocat e hi m. However , one of t he of f i cer s execut i ng t he

war r ant ent er ed a f enced- i n ar ea of t he pr oper t y, used a f l ashl i ght

t o l ook i nt o a gar age wi ndow, and obser ved a mot or cycl e wi t h a

l i cense pl ate matchi ng one of t he motorcycl es t hat had been

pur chased f r audul ent l y and r epor t ed st ol en. Based pr i mar i l y on

t hi s di scover y, t he pol i ce obt ai ned a sear ch war r ant f or 56

Lawr ence Road. The search of t he house and a deskt op comput er

f ound i nsi de the house uncover ed thr ee st ol en motorcycl es and a

si gni f i cant number of document s, many r el ated t o t he use of

count er f ei t checks t o pur chase t he mot or cycl es. For r easons

uncl ear f r om t he r ecor d, t he aut hor i t i es never ar r est ed St even,

i nst ead cont i nui ng t hei r i nvest i gat i on.

Al most one year l ater , on Febr uary 2, 2007, St even

r et ur ned t o East er n Bank, t hi s t i me pr et endi ng t o be Br adl ey. He

wi t hdr ew $9, 500 f r om an account he had opened i n December 2006

under Br adl ey' s name wi t hout i nci dent , but due t o hi s odd behavi or ,

t he bank t el l er became suspi ci ous and al er t ed East er n Bank' s f r aud

i nvest i gat or . The i nvest i gat or , r ecogni zi ng St even' s pi ct ur e f r om

t he Mar ch 2006 al er t , i ssued anot her secur i t y al er t . Lat er t hat

same day, St even r et ur ned t o East er n Bank and, usi ng a dr i ver ' s

-10-


11/58

l i cense and cr edi t car d i ssued i n Br adl ey' s name, t r i ed t o cash a

check pai d t o Br adl ey. The bank qui ckl y not i f i ed t he pol i ce.

When t he of f i cer s ar r i ved and quest i oned St even, he t ol d

t hem t hat Br adl ey was hi s f r i end and busi ness par t ner and t hat

because Br adl ey was i n j ai l , Br adl ey had gi ven St even power of

at t or ney. I n suppor t of t hi s cl ai m, St even showed t he of f i cer s

document at i on not ar i zed by Espi nal . The bank t el l er , however ,

i nf ormed the pol i ce that St even never cl ai med power of at t orney but

r at her passed hi msel f of f as Br adl ey. Gi ven t hi s i nf or mat i on, t he

of f i cer s ar r est ed St even.

As t hey escor t ed St even f r om t he bank, t he pol i ce saw

St even gest ur e t o a f emal e si t t i ng i nsi de a gr ey Chr ysl er . A shor t

whi l e l at er , at t he pol i ce st at i on, t he of f i cer s over hear d St even' s

phone cal l wher e he t ol d t he l i st ener " [ d] on' t show up at t he

pol i ce st at i on wi t h t he Chr ysl er " and "[ c] al l J ef f , he' l l know what

t o do wi t h t he car s. " Despi t e t hi s war ni ng, Amar o and Li t wi n soon

ar r i ved at t he pol i ce st at i on i n t he gr ey Chr ysl er . The of f i cer s,

suspi ci ous of bot h t he gest ur e i n t he bank par ki ng l ot and St even' s

subsequent phone cal l , checked t he r egi st r at i on f or t he Chr ysl er .

They di scover ed t hat i t had been pur chased j ust a f ew days ear l i er

- - on J anuar y 29, 2007 - - and was regi st er ed t o Br adl ey. Gi ven

t hat Br adl ey was i ncarcer ated at t he t i me and t hat St even had j ust

at t empt ed t o pass hi msel f of f as Br adl ey at East er n Bank, t he

of f i cer s suspect ed t hat t hi s r egi st r at i on was al so f r audul ent , so

-11-


12/58

when Amaro and Li t wi n conf i r med t hat t he Chr ysl er bel onged t o

Br adl ey, t he pol i ce sei zed i t .

An i nvent ory sear ch of t he Chr ysl er uncovered document s

r el ated t o t hr ee vehi cl es pur chased i n Br adl ey' s name i n December

2006 and J anuar y 2007, a Gat eway l apt op comput er , and a document

seemi ng t o gi ve St even power of at t orney f or Br adl ey. Subsequent

i nvest i gat i on by the pol i ce di scover ed t hat t he power of at t or ney

was f or ged and t hat Steven had cl ai med t o be Br adl ey when t he

Chr ysl er was pur chased at t he deal er shi p.

On March 30, 2007, Uni t ed St ates Secr et Ser vi ce Speci al

Agent Tr ent Ever et t appl i ed f or a sear ch war r ant f or t he Gat eway

l apt op. The af f i davi t i n suppor t of t he war r ant di scussed t he

i nvest i gat i on of St even pr i or t o t he 2006 sear ch of t he Sot o Fami l y

Resi dence, t he i nf ormat i on obt ai ned i n connect i on wi t h t hat sear ch,

t he event s sur r oundi ng St even' s Febr uar y 2007 ar r est , t he

i nvest i gat i on f ol l owi ng t he ar r est , and t he i nvent or y sear ch of t he

Chr ysl er . As t o t he 2006 sear ch of t he Sot o Fami l y Resi dence, t he

af f i davi t st at ed as f ol l ows:

6. Lat er on Apr i l 28, 2006, I accompani edl ocal and St at e Pol i ce of f i cer s t o execut e t hear r est war r ant s f or St even and Pedr oSot o[ , J r . ] . Upon ar r i val at 56 Lawr enceRoad, an of f i cer saw a motorcycl e bear i ng

Massachuset t s l i cense pl at e number SZ6659t hr ough a garage wi ndow. Of f i cer s i mmedi atel yl earned that t he motorcycl e had been repor t edst ol en on Apr i l 1, 2006 i n Danver s,Massachuset t s. Af t er observi ng t hat nobodyappear ed t o be present at 56 Lawr ence Road,of f i cer s set up a sur vei l l ance of t he

-12-


13/58

r esi dence. Of f i cer s al so obt ai ned, f r om t heLynn Di st r i ct Cour t , a war r ant t o sear ch 56Lawr ence Road.

7. Al so on Apr i l 28, 2006, I par t i ci pat ed,al ong wi t h of f i cer s of t he Lyn[ n] Pol i ce

Depar t ment , Nor t h Readi ng Pol i ce Depar t ment ,and Massachuset t s St at e Pol i ce, i n execut i ngt he sear ch war r ant at 56 Lawr ence Road i nLynn, Massachuset t s. Among t he i t ems sei zeddur i ng the sear ch war r ant wer e t hr ee st ol enmotorcycl es, a Del l desk t op comput er ,of f i ci al bank checks, Massachuset t s dr i ver ' sl i censes i n var i ous names, f r audul entdocument s pur por t i ng t o have been i ssued byt he Massachuset t s Regi st r y of Mot or Vehi cl es( "RMV") , and count er f ei t bank document s. Al sosei zed was [ a] handwr i t t en document , whi chappear ed t o [ be] St even Sot o' s f i r st - per sonaccount of hi s par t i ci pat i on i n var i ouscr i mi nal act i vi t i es.

8. On May 24, 2006, t he Lynn Di st r i ct Cour ti ssued a war r ant t o sear ch t he desk t opcomput er sei zed dur i ng the search of 56Lawr ence Road. A f orensi cs exami nat i on oft hat comput er r eveal ed i mages of checks,dr i ver ' s l i censes, a t yped ver si on of t hef i r st - per son account of St even Sot o' spar t i ci pat i on i n var i ous cr i mi nal act i vi t i es. . . , Massachuset t s RMV document s, andf r audul ent l i en r el eases f or vehi cl es. . . .

9. The names on t he dr i ver ' s l i censes f oundscanned i nt o t he comput er sei zed at 56Lawr ence Road wer e Chr i st i ne Escr i bano . . . ,Pedr o Sot o . . . , Pedr o M. Sot o . . . andGeovany Ant hony J i mnez . . . .

10. I t i s appar ent t hat t he comput er sei zedat 56 Lawr ence Road was used to gener at e

document s used i n f r audul ent t r ansact i ons suchas t he one descr i bed above. I mages of bankchecks l ocat ed on that comput er mat ch bankchecks f ound dur i ng t he sear ch [ of ] 56Lawr ence Road. They al so mat ch count er f ei tchecks t hat have been used t o purchase car sand motorcycl es. Ot her document [ s] apparent l y

-13-


14/58

gener ated by usi ng t hat comput er i ncl udef i ct i t i ous empl oyment pay st ubs, f r audul entl i en r el eases, f r audul ent dr i ver ' s l i censes,and f r audul ent t i t l es of owner shi p.

Based on t hi s i nf ormat i on and t he evi dence gather ed af t er St even' s

Febr uary 2007 ar r est , t he war r ant was i ssued, and t he sear ch of t he

l apt op uncover ed W- 2 f or ms f or Car men and Br adl ey, pay st ubs

showi ng payment s f r omParadi se Real Est ate t o Br adl ey, and a cabl e

bi l l i n Br adl ey' s name.

On May 16, 2007, Agent Ever et t appl i ed f or a war r ant t o

sear ch t he Sot o Fami l y Resi dence at 56 Lawr ence Road. The

af f i davi t i n suppor t of t hi s war r ant i ncl uded t he same i nf or mat i on

as t he war r ant f or t he Gateway l apt op but al so cont ai ned

i nf ormat i on t hat l aw enf orcement had subsequent l y di scover ed. Thi s

consi st ed of : ( 1) t he cont ent s of t he Gat eway l apt op; ( 2) a websi t e

adver t i si ng an unaut hor i zed r af f l e f or 56 Lawr ence Road "mor t gage

f r ee" ; ( 3) t hat St even and Pedr o had used Br adl ey' s i dent i t y t o buy

r eal est at e such as 55 Lawr ence St r eet and 399 Or ange St r eet ; and

( 4) r ecorded phone conversat i ons i n Febr uar y and Mar ch 2007 bet ween

St even ( whi l e i ncarcer ated) and hi s par ent s at 56 Lawr ence Road

whi ch di scussed cr i mi nal act i vi t y. The magi st r at e j udge aut hor i zed

t he sear ch war r ant f or t he Soto Fami l y Resi dence, and t he

subsequent sear ch uncover ed addi t i onal i ncr i mi nat i ng pi eces ofevi dence f or al l t hr ee member s of t he Soto Fami l y. 3

3 The par t i es do not det ai l what exact l y was di scover ed, butSt even al l eges t hat f or t y- ni ne of t he exhi bi t s i nt r oduced at t r i al

-14-


15/58

Pr i or t o t r i al , Def endant s f i l ed a mot i on t o suppr ess t he

evi dence sei zed f r omt he Gat eway l apt op and f r omt he 2007 search of

56 Lawr ence Road. They ar gued t hat i n a separ at e proceedi ng

char gi ng St even wi t h f r aud and i dent i t y thef t i n connect i on wi t h

t he above- descr i bed mot or cycl es and aut omobi l es, t he di st r i ct cour t

had suppr essed t he evi dence obt ai ned dur i ng t he Apr i l 2006 search

of t he Sot o Fami l y Resi dence because i t concl uded t hat t he of f i cer

vi ol at ed St even' s Four t h Amendment r i ght s when he ent ered t he

cur t i l age and obser ved t he motorcycl e i n t he garage, and wi t hout

t hat knowl edge, t here was no pr obabl e cause t o search t he

r esi dence. Accor di ng t o t he Sot os, t hi s suppr essi on r ul i ng was

ent i t l ed t o col l at er al est oppel i n t he pr esent case as wel l .

Ther ef or e, t he i ncl usi on of t he f r ui t s of t hat sear ch i n t he

af f i davi t s suppor t i ng t he war r ant s f or t he subsequent sear ches of

t he l apt op and Sot o Fami l y Resi dence unconst i t ut i onal l y t ai nt ed

t hem, r equi r i ng suppr essi on of t hat evi dence as wel l .

The di st r i ct cour t hel d an evi dent i ar y hear i ng on t he

mot i on on J anuary 11, 2013, dur i ng whi ch Agent Ever et t , t he

af f i ant , t est i f i ed. Agent Ever et t conceded t hat t he Apr i l 2006

sear ch "g[ a] ve us a l ot of i nf or mat i on t hat we went f or war d on, "

but al so t est i f i ed t hat even wi t hout t hat i nf or mat i on, gi ven t he

weal t h of ot her evi dence and i nf or mat i on t he of f i cer s had, t hey

wer e sei zed dur i ng t he search.

-15-


16/58

st i l l woul d have obt ai ned sear ch war r ant s f or t he l apt op and

r esi dence.

On J anuar y 14, 2013, t he cour t or al l y announced i t s

r ul i ng. Though i t agr eed t hat t he Sot os wer e ent i t l ed t o

col l at er al est oppel as t o t he suppr essi on of t he Apr i l 2006 sear ch,

t he cour t deni ed t he mot i on t o suppr ess, f i ndi ng i t "not

mer i t or i ous" due t o t he i ndependent sour ce doct r i ne. As t o t he

l apt op, t he cour t expl ai ned t hat

[ t ] he l aw enf or cement of f i cer s wer e notprompted t o seek a war r ant because of t hei nf or mat i on der i ved f r om t he unl awf ul sear chof Lawr ence St r eet i n 2006[ ; ] r at her t heywoul d have sei zed t he Chr ysl er and obt ai ned awarr ant f or t he search of t he comput er wi t houtt hat i nf or mat i on.

Law enf or cement had subst ant i al r easont o bel i eve t hat St even Sot o was i nvol ved i nf r aud bef or e Apr i l 28, 2006. Much of t hati nf or mat i on i s i n t he Apr i l 28, 2006 sear chwar r ant . . . . Amar o was descr i bed i n t heaf f i davi t i n suppor t of t hat war r ant as aper son i n whose name f r audul ent l y- obt ai nedvehi cl es wer e put . . . .

I n addi t i on, wi t hout Par agr aphs 6 t o10, whi ch i ncl ude suppr essed i nf or mat i onder i ved f r om t he 2006 sear ch, um, t heaf f i davi t f or t he l apt op, vi ewed obj ect i vel y,cont ai ns ampl e i nf or mat i on t o est abl i shpr obabl e cause t o search t he comput er . Ar easonabl e magi st r ate woul d have i ssued t hewar r ant even i f i t di d not cont ai n any of t he

unl awf ul l y- obt ai ned i nf or mat i on t hat wasi ncl uded i n t he af f i davi t .

I t s expl anat i on as t o t he 2007 search of 56 Lawr ence Road was

si mi l ar :

-16-


17/58

Once agai n I f i nd t he government has pr ovent hat l aw enf or cement was not prompted t o gett he 2007 war r ant f or Lawr ence Road by t hef r ui t s of t he unl awf ul 2006 sear ch. I t woul dhave sought t hat war r ant wi t hout i nf or mat i onder i ved f r om t he 2006 sear ch. Among other

t hi ngs, l aw enf orcement knew t hat t he thr eedef endant s l i ved at t hat r esi dence. The Fi r stCi r cui t has r ecogni zed t hat cr i mi nal s of t enkeep i ncr i mi nat i ng i t ems i n t hei rr esi dences. . . . However , t her e was f ar mor et han t hat exper t knowl edge on t he par t ofEver et t i n t hi s case.

For exampl e, as r eci t ed i n hi saf f i davi t , 56 Lawr ence Road had been of f er edas a pr i ze i n an unl awf ul r af f l e . . . . I naddi t i on, St even Sot o' s t ape- r ecor dedt el ephone cal l s f r om t he Essex Count y j ai lr ef l ect ed t hat he was di scussi ng cr i mi nalact i vi t y wi t h hi s par ent s whi l e t hey wer e atLawr ence Road, i ndi cat i ng t hat t hey knew ofhi s cr i mi nal act i vi t y and t hat t hat woul d be asaf e haven or a saf er haven f or keepi ngevi dence of i t . I n addi t i on, wi t hout t hei nf or mat i on der i ved f r om t he unl awf ul sear chi n 2006, t her e was ampl e evi dence est abl i shi ngpr obabl e cause t o search Lawr ence St r eet .

2. The Motion Was Properly Denied

St even ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t mi sappl i ed t he

i ndependent sour ce doct r i ne and t hus er r oneousl y deni ed t he Sotos'

j oi nt mot i on t o suppr ess t he evi dence sei zed f r omt he 2007 sear ches

of t he gr ey Chr ysl er and Soto Fami l y r esi dence. We di sagr ee.

I n Mur r ay v. Uni t ed St ates, t he Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned

t hat t he Four t h Amendment ' s "excl usi onar y r ul e . . . pr ohi bi t s t hei nt r oduct i on of der i vat i ve evi dence . . . t hat i s t he pr oduct of

t he pr i mar y evi dence, or t hat i s ot her wi se acqui r ed as an i ndi r ect

r esul t of t he unl awf ul sear ch, up t o t he poi nt at whi ch t he

-17-


18/58

connect i on wi t h t he unl awf ul sear ch becomes so at t ent uated [ si c] as

t o di ssi pat e t he t ai nt . " 487 U. S. 533, 536- 37 ( 1988) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . However , t he poi nt of t he r ul e i s "i n

det er r i ng unl awf ul pol i ce conduct " and "put t i ng t he pol i ce i n t he

same, not a worse, posi t i on t hat t hey woul d have been i n i f no

pol i ce er r or or mi sconduct had occur r ed. " I d. at 537 ( emphasi s i n

or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Ni x v. Wi l l i ams, 467 U. S. 431, 443 ( 1984) ) . The

excl usi onar y rul e i s not meant t o be a wi ndf al l f or a def endant .

Accor di ngl y, "i nf or mat i on whi ch i s r ecei ved thr ough an i l l egal

sour ce i s consi der ed t o be cl eanl y obt ai ned when i t ar r i ves t hr ough

an i ndependent sour ce. " I d. at 538- 39 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Si l vest r i , 787 F. 2d 736, 739 ( 1st Ci r . 1986) ) ; see al so

Si l ver t horne Lumber Co. v. Uni t ed St ates, 251 U. S. 385, 392 ( 1920)

( "Of cour se t hi s does not mean t hat t he f act s t hus [ i l l egal l y]

obt ai ned become sacred and i naccessi bl e. I f knowl edge of t hem i s

gai ned f r om an i ndependent sour ce t hey may be pr oved l i ke any

o t he r s . . . . " ) .

Thi s i ndependent source doct r i ne appl i es t o bot h t he

"r edi scover y of i nt angi bl e evi dence al r eady di scover ed" and t he

"r esei zur e of t angi bl e evi dence al r eady sei zed. " Mur r ay, 487 U. S.

at 542; see al so i d. ( "So l ong as a l at er , l awf ul sei zur e i s

genui nel y i ndependent of an ear l i er , t ai nt ed one . . . t her e i s no

r eason why t he i ndependent sour ce doct r i ne shoul d not appl y. " ) . I n

t he case of a sear ch war r ant pr emi sed on an appl i cat i on cont ai ni ng

-18-


19/58

i l l egal l y obt ai ned evi dence - - t he i ssue bef or e t he Mur r ay Cour t

and bef or e us t oday - - t he f r ui t s of t hat sear ch woul d be

admi ssi bl e t hr ough t he i ndependent sour ce doct r i ne unl ess ( 1) " t he

agent s' deci si on t o seek t he war r ant was pr ompt ed by what t hey had

seen dur i ng" t he i ni t i al i l l egal sear ch or ( 2) "i nf or mat i on

obt ai ned dur i ng t hat [ i l l egal sear ch] was pr esent ed t o t he

Magi st r at e and af f ect ed hi s deci si on t o i ssue t he war r ant . " I d.

We had t he oppor t uni t y t o i nt er pr et Mur r ay i n Uni t ed

St at es v. Dessesaur e, 429 F. 3d 359, 365 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . Af t er

det ai l i ng Mur r ay and exami ni ng i t s pl ace i n Supr eme Cour t Four t h

Amendment j ur i sprudence, we l ooked at t he two si t uat i ons l ai d out

i n Mur r ay as not j ust i f yi ng t he use of t he i ndependent sour ce

doct r i ne and concl uded t hat t hey f ormed a t wo- pr ong t est . As t o

t he f i r st pr ong - - t hat "t he agent s' deci si on t o seek t he war r ant

was [ not ] pr ompt ed by what t hey had seen dur i ng t hei r i ni t i al

ent r y" - - we expl ai ned t hat t hi s was a subj ect i ve anal ysi s: "woul d

t hese par t i cul ar pol i ce of f i cer s have sought t he war r ant even i f

t hey had not known, as a r esul t of t he i l l egal sear ch, " t hat

r el evant evi dence was pr esent i n t he apar t ment . Dessesaur e, 429

F. 3d at 369. We caut i oned, however , t hat " i t shoul d not be pr oven

by pur el y subj ect i ve means. " I d. To t he cont r ar y, " [ i ] n maki ng

t he f act ual det er mi nat i on as t o t he pol i ce of f i cer s' i nt ent , t he

di st r i ct cour t i s not bound by af t er - t he- f act assur ances of t hei r

i nt ent , but i nst ead must assess t he t ot al i t y of t he at t endant

-19-


20/58

ci r cumst ances t o ascer t ai n whether t hose assur ances appear

' i mpl ausi bl e. ' " I d.

As t o the second pr ong - - whet her such i nf ormat i on

"af f ect ed [ t he Magi st r at e' s] deci si on t o i ssue t he war r ant " - - we

acknowl edged a seemi ng t ensi on wi t h Fr anks v. Del aware, 438 U. S.

154 ( 1978) , but ul t i mat el y hel d t hat

t he Cour t i n Mur r ay di d not i nt end t o addanythi ng t o t he pr e- exi st i ng Fr anks appr oacht o eval uat i ng war r ant appl i cat i ons cont ai ni ngt ai nt ed i nf or mat i on . . . . Thus, when f acedwi t h a war r ant cont ai ni ng i nf or mat i on obt ai nedpur suant t o an i l l egal sear ch, a r evi ewi ngcour t must exci se t he of f endi ng i nf or mat i onand eval uat e whet her what r emai ns i ssuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause.

Dessesaur e, 429 F. 3d at 367.

St even cont ends t hat our det er mi nat i on i n Dessesaur e t hat

t he second Mur r ay f actor i s synonymous wi t h a Franks anal ysi s

di r ect l y cont r adi ct s Mur r ay' s pl ai n l anguage, and t hus cannot

st and. Thi s argument i s easi l y di spensed wi t h. "We have hel d,

t i me and agai n, t hat i n a mul t i - panel ci r cui t , pr i or panel

deci si ons ar e bi ndi ng upon newl y const i t ut ed panel s i n t he absence

of superveni ng aut hor i t y [ such as a new Supr eme Cour t opi ni on or an

en banc deci si on] suf f i ci ent t o war r ant di sr egar d of est abl i shed

pr ecedent . " Muskat v. Uni t ed St at es, 554 F. 3d 183, 189 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Wogan, 938 F. 2d 1446, 1449 ( 1st

-20-


21/58

Ci r . 1991) ) . St even poi nt s t o no r ecent Supr eme Cour t case or en

banc opi ni on quest i oni ng Dessesaur e, and t hus i t i s bi ndi ng. 4

St even al so ar gues t hat , even i f Dessesaur e i s cor r ect ,

t he di st r i ct cour t mi sappl i ed i t . Our r evi ew of t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deci si on i s bi f ur cat ed: i t s det er mi nat i on on pr ong one - -

whether t he agent s' deci si on t o seek t he war r ant was prompt ed by

t he i ni t i al i l l egal sear ch - - i s a f actual f i ndi ng subj ect t o cl ear

er r or r evi ew whi l e i t s prong t wo det er mi nat i on - - whet her t he

i nf or mat i on obt ai ned dur i ng t he i l l egal sear ch af f ect ed t he

magi st r at e' s deci si on - - i s a l egal concl usi on r evi ewed de novo.

Uni t ed St at es v. Si ci l i ano, 578 F. 3d 61, 69 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ;

Dessesaur e, 429 F. 3d at 365; Uni t ed St ates v. Wei dul , 325 F. 3d 50,

51 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

Turni ng t o pr ong one, we f i nd no cl ear er r or wi t h t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi ons. Bef or e t he i l l egal Apr i l 2006

4 We note, however , t hat even i f we wer e abl e t o r evi si tDessesaur e, such a revi si t i ng woul d begi n wi t h t he observat i on t hatt he Second, Thi r d, Four t h, Fi f t h, Si xt h, Sevent h, Ei ght h, andEl event h Ci r cui t s have al l i nt er pr et ed Mur r ay t he same way, and f orwhat i t ' s wor t h, t he Supr eme Cour t has deni ed pet i t i ons f orcer t i or ar i i n many of t hose cases. See Uni t ed St at es v. Swope, 542F. 3d 609, 614 ( 8t h Ci r . 2008) , cer t . deni ed, 555 U. S. 1145 ( 2009) ;Uni t ed St at es v. J enki ns, 396 F. 3d 751, 760 ( 6t h Ci r . 2005) , cer t .deni ed, 546 U. S. 813; Uni t ed St ates v. Davi s, 313 F. 3d 1300, 1304( 11t h Ci r . 2002) , cer t . deni ed, 540 U. S. 827 ( 2003) ; Uni t ed St at es

v. Mar kl i ng, 7 F. 3d 1309, 1316 ( 7t h Ci r . 1993) ; Uni t ed St at es v.J ohnson, 994 F. 2d 980, 987 ( 2d Ci r . 1993) , cer t . deni ed, 510 U. S.959; Uni t ed St at es v. Rest r epo, 966 F. 2d 964, 968- 70 ( 5t h Ci r .1992) , cer t . deni ed sub nom Pul i do v. Uni t ed St at es, 506 U. S. 1049( 1993) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Her r ol d, 962 F. 2d 1131, 1141 ( 3d Ci r .1992) , cer t deni ed, 506 U. S. 958; Uni t ed St at es v. Gi l l enwat er s,890 F. 2d 679, 681- 82 ( 4t h Ci r . 1989) .

-21-


22/58

sear ch, l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s wer e al r eady i nvest i gat i ng St even

f or f r aud and i dent i t y t hef t . Af t er bei ng al er t ed by East er n Bank

i n 2007 t hat St even was once agai n t r yi ng t o pass count er f ei t

checks, t hey ar r est ed St even and escor t ed hi m of f t he pr emi ses.

Whi l e doi ng so, t hey obser ved St even si gnal t o a woman i n a gr ey

Chr ysl er and t hen l at er over hear d St even on t he phone tel l i ng t he

l i st ener not t o br i ng t he Chr ysl er t o t he pol i ce st at i on. Thus, i t

i s not at al l sur pr i si ng t hat when t he Chr ysl er never t hel ess showed

up at t he pol i ce st at i on, t he of f i cer s want ed t o see what was

i nsi de. Af t er val i dl y sei zi ng t he Chr ysl er and conduct i ng an

i nvent or y sear ch, t he of f i cer s f ound a power of at t or ney l at er

det er mi ned t o be f orged, document at i on t hat t he vehi cl es wer e

r egi st er ed i n Br adl ey' s name (al so l at er det er mi ned t o be

f r audul ent ) , and t he Gateway l apt op. Wi t h t hese f orged document s

l ocat ed i n cl ose pr oxi mi t y t o t he l apt op, and cont ai ned i n a

vehi cl e St even di d not want br ought t o t he st at i on, t her e i s l i t t l e

doubt t hat any reasonabl e of f i cer woul d have bel i eved t he l apt op

was i nvol ved i n t he f r aud and woul d have want ed t o search i t . We

t hus agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on t hat Ever et t ' s

deci si on t o obt ai n the search war r ant was not pr ompt ed by t he 2006

sear ch, and t her ef or e t her e i s no cl ear er r or .

We r each t he same concl usi on r egar di ng t he 2007 sear ch of

56 Lawr ence Road. The di st r i ct cour t bel i eved Agent Ever et t ' s

t est i mony t hat he woul d have want ed t o sear ch t he r esi dence even

-22-


23/58

wi t hout t he i nf ormat i on l ear ned i n t he 2006 sear ch: ( 1) because

t her e was ampl e evi dence that Steven was engaged i n f r aud and

i dent i t y thef t ; ( 2) because of hi s bel i ef t hat t hose engagi ng i n

f r aud of t en keep evi dence of t he f r audul ent act i vi t y i n t hei r home;

( 3) because of t he unaut hor i zed "r af f l e" of f er i ng t he Sot o Fami l y

Resi dence as a "mor t gage f r ee" pr i ze; and ( 4) because of t he j ai l -

house cal l bet ween St even and hi s par ent s openl y di scussi ng t he

f r aud and t hus suggest i ng t hat t hey, t oo, wer e ei t her i nvol ved i n

or aware of t he f r aud and woul d t hus l i kel y pr ovi de a saf e haven

f or evi dence. Though t hi s r at i onal e i s not as convi nci ng as t he

r at i onal e f or obt ai ni ng a war r ant f or t he l apt op, i t was not

cl ear l y er r oneous f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o concl ude as i t di d t hat

Agent Ever et t woul d have st i l l sought t he sear ch war r ant f or 56

Lawr ence Road wi t hout t he evi dence sei zed dur i ng t he 2006 sear ch.

St even count er s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o t ake

i nt o account al l of t he new l eads and suspect s uncover ed dur i ng t he

2006 sear ch, whi ch he cl ai ms " cat apul t ed t he i nvest i gat i on . . .

l i ght year s ahead. " But even i gnor i ng ever yt hi ng t hat happened

pr i or t o St even' s at t empt t o pass f ake checks at East er n Bank i n

2007, " t he t ot al i t y of t he at t endant ci r cumst ances" f r om Febr uar y

2007 onward suppor t Agent Ever et t ' s assur ances. See Dessesaur e,

429 F. 3d at 369. Si mi l ar l y, Agent Ever et t ' s candi d acknowl edgment

t hat t he 2006 evi dence was a f act or i n hi s i ni t i al deci si on t o seek

t he war r ant s does not under mi ne our concl usi on. The quest i on i s

-23-


24/58

not whet her t he evi dence di d i nf l uence t he of f i cer ' s deci si on - -

how coul d i t not ?5 - - but whet her t he same deci si on woul d have been

made i f t he evi dence had not been known. The di st r i ct cour t

concl uded t hat i t woul d have, and we ar e not " l ef t wi t h a def i ni t e

and f i r mconvi ct i on" t hat t hi s was a mi st ake. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Br ake, 666 F. 3d 800, 804 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "[ C] l ear er r or exi st s

onl y i f , af t er consi der i ng al l t he evi dence, we ar e l ef t wi t h a

def i ni t e and f i r m convi ct i on t hat a mi st ake has been made. "

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . Accor di ngl y, pr ong one of t he

Mur r ay/ Dessesaur e t est i s sat i sf i ed f or bot h sear ches.

As f or pr ong t wo, t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y concl uded

t hat wi t h t he par agr aphs cont ai ni ng t he i l l egal evi dence exci sed,

t her e was st i l l enough i nf or mat i on t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause that

bot h " ( 1) a cr i me has been commi t t ed ( t he ' commi ssi on' el ement ) ,

and ( 2) enumerated evi dence of t he of f ense wi l l be f ound at t he

pl ace t o be sear ched ( t he ' nexus' el ement ) . " Uni t ed St at es v.

St r ot her , 318 F. 3d 64, 67 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . St even onl y cont est s

t he nexus el ement , however , so t hat i s where we f ocus our

di scussi on. For pr obabl e cause t o exi st , "t he f act s pr esent ed t o

t he magi st r at e need onl y ' war r ant a man of r easonabl e caut i on' t o

bel i eve t hat evi dence of a cr i me wi l l be f ound. " Uni t ed St at es v.

5 I ndeed, gi ven t he evi dence di scover ed dur i ng t he 2006 search andt he f act s pr esent ed at t he hear i ng, we woul d be hi ghl y skept i cal i fAgent Ever et t had t est i f i ed t hat t he 2006 search had had no i mpacton hi s deci si on t o seek t he 2007 war r ant s.

-24-


25/58

Fel i z, 182 F. 3d 82, 86 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( quot i ng Texas v. Br own, 460

U. S. 730, 742 ( 1983) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ) . They do not "demand

showi ng t hat such a bel i ef be cor r ect or mor e l i kel y t r ue t han

f al se. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Regar di ng t he sear ch of t he l apt op, we have l i t t l e doubt

t hat a nexus was est abl i shed. As di scussed above, t he l apt op

accompani ed Steven on hi s t r i p t o commi t f r aud on East er n Bank and

was di scover ed i n a vehi cl e f r audul ent l y regi st er ed t o Br adl ey and

whi ch St even had i nst r uct ed Amaro not t o br i ng t o t he pol i ce

st at i on. Locat ed i nsi de t hi s vehi cl e was not onl y t he l apt op, but

al so a f or ged power of at t or ney and f r audul ent r egi st r at i on

r ecor ds. Gi ven t he l apt op' s pr oxi mi t y t o t he f or ged document s and

i t s l ocat i on i n a f r audul ent l y r egi st er ed vehi cl e, i t was

r easonabl e t o bel i eve t hat t he l apt op mi ght al so be an i nst r ument

of St even' s cr i mi nal act i vi t y and t hus mi ght cont ai n addi t i onal

evi dence. See Uni t ed St at es v. Scot t , 270 F. 3d 30, 59 ( 1st Ci r .

2001) ( adopt i ng t he r at i onal e of Uni t ed St at es v. Scot t , 83 F.

Supp. 2d 187, 197 ( D. Mass. 2000) , t hat " i t i s equal l y r easonabl e

t o suppose t hat someone al l egedl y engaged i n bank f r aud and

pr oduci ng f al se secur i t i es on hi s comput er woul d have r ecor ds of

t he bank f r aud and f al se secur i t i es on t hat comput er " ) . I ndeed,

Agent Ever et t st at ed as much i n hi s af f i davi t . Thi s i s suf f i ci ent

t o est abl i sh t he nexus el ement . See Fel i z, 182 F. 3d at 86.

-25-


26/58

Ther e was al so pr obabl e cause t o bel i eve t hat evi dence of

t he f r audul ent schemes woul d be f ound at 56 Lawr ence Road. Agent

Ever et t ' s af f i davi t st at ed t hat i n hi s "exper i ence and i n t he

exper i ence of ot her [ Secr et Ser vi ce] agent s, i ndi vi dual s engaged i n

f r aud and i dent i t y t hef t keep at t hei r r esi dences r ecor ds r el at ed

t o and used i n t hei r cr i mi nal act i vi t i es. " Not onl y have we t i me

and agai n "endorsed t he concept t hat a l aw enf orcement of f i cer ' s

t r ai ni ng and exper i ence may yi el d i nsi ght s t hat suppor t a pr obabl e

cause det er mi nat i on, " Uni t ed St at es v. Fl oyd, 740 F. 3d 22, 35 ( 1st

Ci r . 2014) ( ci t i ng cases) , but t he addi t i onal unt ai nt ed i nf or mat i on

cont ai ned i n t he af f i davi t suppor t ed t hi s f i ndi ng. The af f i davi t

noted t hat t he sear ch of t he Gateway l apt op f ound i n t he Chr ysl er

uncover ed pay st ubs f r om Par adi se Real t y t o Br adl ey, t hus l i nki ng

Par adi se Real t y - - whi ch was owned and operat ed by St even, Car men,

and Pedr o - - t o t he f r audul ent schemes. Gi ven t hat St even and hi s

par ent s openl y di scussed cri mi nal act i vi t y dur i ng St even' s j ai l -

house phone cal l , i t was unl i kel y that St even was usi ng Par adi se

Real t y f or hi s f r aud wi t hout hi s par ent s knowl edge, and mor e l i kel y

t hat Car men and Pedr o wer e i nvol ved i n t hese schemes. 6 And because

al l t hr ee l i ved at 56 Lawr ence Road, i t i s a "pract i cal ,

commonsense" concl usi on t hat t hey mi ght keep evi dence of t hei r

f r aud and i dent i t y t hef t - - such as addi t i onal comput er s, scanner s,

6 I n f act , t he af f i davi t al so al l eged t hat Pedr o was i nvol ved i na r eal est at e t r ansact i on whi ch f r audul ent l y used Br adl ey' s name.

-26-


27/58

bank r ecor ds, and i dent i f i cat i on document s - - t her e. Fel i z, 182

F. 3d at 86; see al so Fl oyd, 740 F. 3d at 35; Scot t , 270 F. 3d at 59

( adopt i ng t he r at i onal e of Scot t , 83 F. Supp. 2d at 197) .

Ther ef or e, t here i s a suf f i ci ent nexus t o bot h t he Gat eway l apt op

and t he Sot o Fami l y Resi dence, and t hus pr ong t wo of t he

Mur r ay/ Dessesaur e t est i s sat i sf i ed. 7

Fi ndi ng no cl ear er r or wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

concl usi on t hat Agent Ever et t ' s deci si on t o seek t he 2007 war r ant s

was not pr ompt ed by the i l l egal Apr i l 2006 sear ch and concl udi ng

t hat t her e was a suf f i ci ent nexus t o bot h t he l apt op and t he Sot o

Fami l y Resi dence, we hol d t hat t here was an i ndependent sour ce f or

t he 2007 sear ches, and t hus t he evi dence sei zed f r om t he sear ches

was admi ssi bl e. Accor di ngl y, t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y deni ed

t he Sot os' mot i on to suppr ess.

B. Double Jeopardy


Dur i ng t he t hi r d week of t r i al , St even f i l ed a pr o se

mot i on8 t o di smi ss al l of t he char ges agai nst hi m. Accor di ng t o

7 The gover nment and di st r i ct cour t al so r el i ed on t he f act t hat56 Lawr ence Road was f eat ur ed "as f i r st pr i ze f or an unaut hor i zedr af f l e. " However , t he r af f l e i nst r uct ed pur chaser s t o mai l

payment s t o t he addr ess f or Par adi se Real Est ate, and not t he SotoFami l y Resi dence, so i t i s uncl ear t o us how t hi s f act or suppor t sa nexus bet ween t he i l l egal schemes and 56 Lawr ence Road.

8 St even' s counsel decl i ned t o si gn t he mot i on as counsel ofr ecor d but agr eed t o pr esent i t t o t he di st r i ct cour t on St even' sbehal f .

-27-


28/58

St even, t he i ndi ct ment vi ol ated t he Fi f t h Amendment ' s Doubl e

J eopar dy Cl ause because t he cur r ent char ges al l st emmed f r om t he

i l l egal use of t he same i dent i t i es - - Br adl ey and Espi nal - - t hat

f ormed t he basi s of t he pr i or motorcycl e and aut omobi l e charges

( di scussed above) he was ul t i mat el y convi ct ed of . See gener al l y

Uni t ed St at es v. Sot o, 720 F. 3d 51 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( r evi ewi ng hi s

pr i or convi ct i ons) . I n essence, St even ar gued t hat each count of

i dent i t y thef t and f r aud was not an i sol at ed event , but r at her an

ongoi ng conspi r acy, and t hus he was bei ng t wi ce pr osecut ed f or t he

same cr i mes i n vi ol at i on of t he Fi f t h Amendment .

The di st r i ct cour t i n i t s di scr et i on opt ed not t o

of f i ci al l y consi der St even' s pr o se mot i on, 9 not i ng t hat pr o se

pl eadi ngs by r epr esent ed def endant s ar e di sr upt i ve and t hat t he

t i me f or mot i ons t o di smi ss had l ong si nce passed. St i l l , t he

di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned t hat even i f i t wer e t o consi der St even' s

pr o se mot i on, t he mot i on woul d f ai l f or a number of r easons: ( 1)

t here was no good cause t o excuse t he r equi r ement t hat doubl e

j eopar dy mot i ons be f i l ed pr et r i al ; ( 2) t he mot i on l acked mer i t

because t he ear l i er case i nvol ved di f f er ent def endant s, di f f er ent

vi ct i ms, and di f f er ent evi dence ( t hough t her e was some evi dent i ar y

9 I n Uni t ed St at es v. Tr acey, 989 F. 2d 1279, 1285 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ,we expl ai ned t hat because a di st r i ct cour t "enj oys wi de l at i t ude i nmanagi ng i t s docket and can r equi r e r epr esent ed par t i es t o pr esentmot i ons t hr ough counsel , " t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t sdi scr et i on i n r ef usi ng t o consi der t he def endant ' s pr o se mot i ons.

-28-


29/58

over l ap) ; and ( 3) t her e was no pr ej udi ce t o St even by hi s counsel ' s

r ef usal t o f i l e t he mot i on.

2. Steven Was Not Subject to Double Jeopardy

On appeal , St even r ai ses t he same doubl e j eopardy

ar gument - - once agai n t hr ough a pr o se f i l i ng. Thi s cl ai m l acks

mer i t . 10 The Doubl e J eopardy Cl ause of t he Fi f t h Amendment st at es

t hat no per son can "be subj ect f or t he same of f ence t o be t wi ce put

i n j eopar dy of l i f e or l i mb. " U. S. Const . amend. V; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Fel i z, 503 U. S. 378, 385 ( 1992) ( "At i t s r oot , t he

Doubl e J eopar dy Cl ause f or bi ds t he dupl i cat i ve pr osecut i on of a

def endant f or t he ' same of f ence. ' " ) . I n deci di ng whet her mul t i pl e

pr osecut i ons under t he same st at ut e vi ol ate the Due Process Cl ause,

we l ook at whet her t he cr i mes wer e di f f er ent i n pl ace and t i me,

whether t here was common conduct l i nki ng t he al l eged of f enses,

10

The gover nment argues t hat t hi s cl ai m i s wai ved because he di dnot r ai se hi s doubl e j eopar dy ar gument pr i or t o t r i al . However ,t he gover nment r el i es on a ver si on of Rul e 12 of t he Feder al Rul esof Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e ( as wel l as casel aw i nt er pr et i ng t hat Rul e)t hat has si nce been amended. The amended Rul e 12 el i mi nat ed anyr ef er ence t o wai ver , i nst ead expl ai ni ng t hat

[ i ] f a par t y does not meet t he deadl i ne f or maki ng a Rul e12( b) ( 3) mot i on, t he mot i on i s unt i mel y. But a cour t mayconsi der t he def ense, obj ect i on, or r equest i f t he par t yshows good cause.

Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 12( c) ( 3) . I ndeed, t he Advi sory Commi t t ee Not es t ot he 2014 Amendment s speci f i cal l y st at e that " t he Commi t t ee deci dednot t o empl oy the t er m' wai ver ' " because t he i ni t i al r ul e was neveri nt ended t o " r equi r e[ ] any det er mi nat i on t hat a par t y who f ai l ed t omake a t i mel y mot i on i nt ended to rel i nqui sh a def ense, obj ect i on,or r equest t hat was not r ai sed i n a t i mel y f ashi on. " Rul e 12 adv.comm. not es t o 2014 amend.

-29-


30/58

whet her t he i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved i n each of f ense wer e di f f er ent ,

and whet her t he evi dence used t o pr ove t he of f enses di f f er ed. I d. ;

Uni t ed St at es v. DeCol oger o, 530 F. 3d 36, 71 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Chagr a, 653 F. 2d 26, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 1981) .

Her e, t her e i s l i t t l e quest i on t hat St even' s mul t i pl e

f r aud count s do not i mpl i cat e doubl e j eopar dy. Though he was

charged wi t h mul t i pl e count s of f r aud under t he same sect i on, each

count i nvol ved a di f f er ent l ocat i on - - 242 Mai n St r eet , 55 Lawr ence

St r eet , 399 Or ange St r eet , and 21 Dudl ey St r eet i n the cur r ent case

and Motorcycl es of Manchest er , Nor t h Readi ng Motor Spor t s I nc. ,

Kel l y Mot or Spor t s, and ot her car deal er shi ps i n hi s pr i or case.

Mor eover , each event occur r ed dur i ng a di f f er ent t i me - - t he f r auds

at i ssue i n t he pr esent case occur r ed on di f f er ent days bet ween t he

f al l of 2006 and t he spr i ng of 2007 whi l e t he motorcycl e and

aut omobi l e f r aud began i n March 2006. Each f r audul ent scheme al so

i nvol ved di f f er ent par t i ci pant s - - t he pr oper t i es wer e owned by

di f f er ent i ndi vi dual s, t he motor cycl es and aut omobi l es wer e owned

by di f f er ent vendors, and t he mor t gages wer e obt ai ned f r om

di f f er ent l ender s. And whi l e t her e was some over l ap i n evi dence

amongst t he di f f er ent f r audul ent t r ansact i ons, t he evi dence f or

each was f ar f r om i dent i cal . See Fel i x, 503 U. S. at 386 ( "[ O] ur

pr ecedent s hol d t hat a mere over l ap i n pr oof between t wo

pr osecut i ons does not est abl i sh a doubl e j eopar dy vi ol at i on. ") ;

Chagr a, 653 F. 2d at 29 ( f i ndi ng no doubl e j eopar dy vi ol at i on wher e

-30-


31/58

t he char ged of f enses occur r ed dur i ng di f f er ent t i mes, t he

par t i ci pant s wer e di f f er ent , t he pl aces di f f er ed, and t he evi dence

used t o pr ove t he of f enses di f f er ed) .

The same i s t r ue r egar di ng each count of aggr avat ed

i dent i t y t hef t . Though St even was char ged wi t h mul t i pl e count s of

unl awf ul l y usi ng Br adl ey' s and Espi nal ' s i dent i t y, each count was

t i ed t o a di f f er ent and di st i nct under l yi ng f el ony - - t he f r aud

r el at ed t o the mot or cycl es and aut omobi l es i n t he pr i or case and

t he mai l f r aud r el at ed t o each pr oper t y i n t he pr esent case. As

t he Sevent h Ci r cui t expl ai ned i n t he cont ext of an 18 U. S. C.

924( c) gun possessi on case,

[ b] ecause t he st at ut e t i es t he gun possessi onchar ge t o t he under l yi ng dr ug t r ansact i on, t heuni t of pr osecut i on i s each pr edi cat e of f ensei n whi ch a f i r ear m i s car r i ed, used, orpossessed wi t h t he i nt ent t o f ur t her t he dr ugcr i me, as l ong as t here i s some meani ngf uldi f f er ence i n t he conduct t hat l ed t o eachpr edi cat e of f ense. So i n a case i nvol vi ng t wodr ug of f enses based on separat e and di st i nctconduct , a def endant ' s car r yi ng of a gundur i ng each of t hem const i t ut e[ s] t wovi ol at i ons of sect i on 924( c) .

Uni t ed St at es v. Cej as, 761 F. 3d 717, 731 ( 7t h Ci r . 2014)

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . The same l ogi c appl i es her e. The aggr avat ed i dent i t y

t hef t st at ut e makes i t unl awf ul t o "knowi ngl y t r ansf er [ ] ,possess[ ] , or use[ ] , wi t hout l awf ul aut hor i t y, a means of

i dent i f i cat i on of anot her per son" " dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o any

enumer at ed f el ony vi ol at i on enumer ated i n subsect i on ( c) . " 18

-31-


32/58

U. S. C. 1028A( a) ( 1) ( emphasi s added) . Mai l , bank, and wi r e f r aud

ar e al l enumer at ed f el oni es. See i d. 1028A( c) ( 5) . Because each

use of Br adl ey' s and Espi nal ' s i dent i t y was di st i nct and i n

f ur t her ance of a di f f er ent f r audul ent scheme, 11each use const i t ut es

i t s own vi ol at i on of 1028A. St even' s convi ct i ons t her ef or e do

not st em f r om t he same cr i mi nal conduct , and t hus t her e i s no

doubl e j eopardy concern.

C. Shea's Comments

1. Relevant Testimony

One of t he gover nment wi t nesses was Shea, t he owner of 55

Lawr ence St r eet . She t est i f i ed t hat St even, pr et endi ng t o be

Br adl ey, at t empt ed t o obt ai n her si gnat ur e on document s whi ch woul d

have al l owed hi m t o sel l her pr oper t y as t hr ee separ at e

condomi ni ums. Shea r ef used t o si gn t he document s and al so secr et l y

r ecor ded t he conver sat i on. Thi s r ecor di ng was pl ayed at t r i al ,

dur i ng whi ch St even was hear d t el l i ng Shea t hat her r ef usal t o si gn

coul d l i kel y r esul t i n a f eder al i nvest i gat i on. Shea t hen

r esponded t o St even t hat " [ t ] hey wi l l f i nd out t he t r ut h. " When

t he pr osecut or asked Shea to expl ai n her comment , Shea t est i f i ed

11 Steven al so seems t o ar gue t hat t hese were not i ndependentschemes, but r at her one over ar chi ng conspi r acy. Even i f t hi s wer e

t r ue - - somet hi ng we need not deci de - - hi s ar gument woul d st i l lf ai l . "A subst ant i ve cr i me and a conspi r acy t o commi t t hat cr i mear e not t he ' same of f ence' f or doubl e j eopar dy pur poses. " Fel i x,503 U. S. at 389; see al so DeCol oger o, 530 F. 3d at 71- 72 ( f i ndi ng nodoubl e j eopar dy vi ol at i on i n successi ve RI CO pr osecut i ons wher e t heent er pr i se was t he same but t he pat t er n of r acket eer i ng act i vi t ywas not ) ; see al so Cej as, 761 F. 3d at 730- 31.

-32-


33/58

t hat she f el t Pedr o and St even "wer e t r i cki ng" her and t hat she had

put her " t r ust i n Pedr o t o sel l [ her ] house" but t hat " t hey wer e

t r yi ng t o st eal [ her ] house f r om [ her ] and sel l i t and keep t he

money f or t hemsel ves. "

Dur i ng cr oss- exami nat i on, St even' s counsel asked whet her

Shea had spoken wi t h J ohn Br i ggs, an at t orney, about t he l ease-

wi t h- opt i on- t o- pur chase agr eement wi t h "Br adl ey. " She avoi ded

answer i ng t he quest i on, i nst ead t est i f yi ng t hat Br i ggs had t ol d her

t hat Pedr o was "not an honest person" and that i t was because of

t hi s st at ement t hat she " r ef used t o si gn t he paper . " St even' s

counsel asked Shea t o l i st en t o hi s speci f i c quest i on, but Shea

agai n r ef used t o respond, i nst ead st at i ng t hat she "do[ es] n' t t r ust

hi m. " The di st r i ct cour t t hen i nst r uct ed Shea t o "[ l ] i st en t o t he

quest i on. Say what i s necessar y t o answer t hat quest i on. Don' t

say anyt hi ng el se. "

2. Standard of Review

Pedr o ar gues t hat t hi s t est i mony cont ai ned i nadmi ssi bl e

char act er evi dence, hear say, and l ay opi ni ons, i n vi ol at i on of

Rul es 404, 801, 802, and 701 of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence,

r espect i vel y. He al so cont ends t hat i t was undul y pr ej udi ci al

under Rul e 403 of t he Federal Rul es of Evi dence. Because Pedr o

never obj ect ed at t r i al , our r evi ew woul d or di nar i l y be f or pl ai n

er r or . See Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Ador no, 695 F. 3d 32, 38 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) . However , Pedr o cl ai ms t hat t he obj ect i on was

-33-


34/58

never t hel ess pr eser ved - - and thus subj ect t o abuse- of - di scr et i on

r evi ew - - because t he di st r i ct cour t sua spont e i nt er j ect ed,

essent i al l y obj ect i ng f or Pedr o. Thi s ar gument l acks mer i t .

Assumi ng wi t hout deci di ng t hat a par t y need not r epeat an

obj ect i on al r eady noted and acted upon by a t r i al j udge sua spont e,

her e not hi ng t he t r i al j udge sai d obvi at ed t he need t o rai se and

pr eser ve t he di f f er ent poi nt s Pedr o now wi shes t o r ai se f or t he

f i r st t i me on appeal . See Fed. R. Evi d. 103( a) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Wal l ace, 461 F. 3d 15, 35 n. 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( "Because t hat

obj ect i on was on di f f er ent gr ounds, however , we deem t he

def endant ' s pr esent ar gument of er r or , r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me on

appeal , as unpr eser ved. " ) . Pedr o al l eges t hat t he chal l enged

st at ement s were i nadmi ss i bl e because they cont ai ned char act er

evi dence, hearsay t est i mony, l ay opi ni on t est i mony, and wer e undul y

pr ej udi ci al . The di st r i ct cour t ' s i nt er j ecti on, however , had

not hi ng t o do wi t h t hese cl ai ms of er r or . Shea was ref usi ng t o

answer St even' s counsel ' s quest i on and was i nst ead opt i ng t o opi ne

on t opi cs beyond t he quest i on' s scope. By i nst r uct i ng Shea t o

l i st en t o what was bei ng asked and onl y answer t hat quest i on, t he

di st r i ct cour t was si mpl y at t empt i ng t o keep Shea on t opi c; i t was

t aki ng no vi ews on whet her Shea' s beyond- t he- scope comment s woul d

be i nadmi ssi bl e i f r el evant t o t he quest i on asked.

Accor di ngl y, our r evi ew i s f or pl ai n er r or . Rodr guez-

Ador no, 695 F. 3d at 38. Under t hi s r evi ew, we wi l l onl y r ever se i f

-34-


35/58

" ( 1) an er r or occur r ed ( 2) whi ch was cl ear or obvi ous and whi ch not

onl y ( 3) af f ected [ ] subst ant i al r i ght s, but al so ( 4) ser i ousl y

i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on of j udi ci al

pr oceedi ngs. " I d. ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) .

3. There Was No Plain Error

Pedro has f ai l ed t o show t hat Shea' s comment s amount t o

pl ai n er r or . Fi r st , Shea' s comment s wer e not i mpr oper char act er

evi dence pr ohi bi t ed by Rul e 404. Whi l e t he Rul e does pr ohi bi t

"[ e] vi dence of a per son' s char acter or char acter t r ai t . . . t o

pr ove t hat on a par t i cul ar occasi on t he per son act ed i n accor dance

wi t h t he char act er or t r ai t , " evi dence of bad act s may be

admi ssi bl e f or ot her pur poses, such as t o pr ove "mot i ve,

oppor t uni t y, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, [ or ] knowl edge. " Fed. R.

Evi d. 404( a) , ( b) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. J ouber t , 778 F. 3d 247,

254 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( "The r ul e pr ohi bi t s t he pr osecut i on f r om

i nt r oduci ng evi dence t hat i s ext r i nsi c t o t he cr i me char ged sol el y

f or t he pur pose of showi ng vi l l ai nous pr opensi t y. " ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Geor ge, 761 F. 3d 42, 58

( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( f i ndi ng a r ecor di ng di scussi ng ot her bad act s

admi ssi bl e because i t pai nt ed a pi ct ur e of t he wi t ness' s and

def endant ' s r el at i onshi p) . Shea' s comment s wer e not made t o

est abl i sh t hat Pedr o was a di shonest t r i ckst er t r yi ng t o st eal her

house, but r at her wer e made t o expl ai n her r easons f or t el l i ng

-35-


36/58

St even "[ t ] hey wi l l f i nd out t he t r ut h" and f or r ef usi ng t o si gn

t he document s t o conver t her pr oper t y i nt o condomi ni ums. Thus, t he

st atement s ser ved an i mpor t ant non- pr opensi t y pur pose - - namel y

Shea' s expl anat i on and mot i vat i ons f or act i ng t he way she di d - -

and were not i mpr oper char act er evi dence.

For si mi l ar r easons, Shea' s st at ement t hat Br i ggs t ol d

her Pedr o was "not an honest per son, " i s not i mpr oper hearsay

t est i mony. For evi dence t o be hearsay, and t hus i nadmi ssi bl e under

Rul e 802 of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence, t he evi dence must be "a

st atement , other t han one made by t he decl arant whi l e t est i f yi ng at

t he t r i al or hear i ng, of f er ed i n evi dence t o pr ove t he t r ut h of t he

mat t er asser t ed. " Uni t ed St at es v. Cr uz- D az, 550 F. 3d 169, 176

( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Fed.

R. Evi d. 801( c) . Whi l e Br i ggs' s comment was an out - of - cour t

st at ement , i t was of f er ed t o expl ai n Shea' s r at i onal e f or r ef usi ng

t o si gn t he document s pr esent ed by St even - - and not t o pr ove

Pedr o' s di shonest y. Accor di ngl y, i t was not hear say. See Cr uz-

D az, 550 F. 3d at 176 ( "Out - of - cour t st at ement s of f er ed not t o

pr ove t he t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed but mer el y t o show cont ext

- - such as a st at ement of f er ed f or t he l i mi t ed pur pose of showi ng

what ef f ect t he st at ement had on t he l i st ener - - ar e not

hear say. " ) .

We al so di sagr ee wi t h Pedr o' s cont ent i on t hat Shea' s

comment s t hat Pedr o was " t r i cki ng" her and " t r yi ng t o st eal " her

-36-


37/58

house and "keep t he money f or t hemsel ves" was i mproper opi ni on

t est i mony. A l ay wi t ness may t est i f y as t o her opi ni on i f i t i s

"( a) r at i onal l y based on t he wi t ness' s per cept i on; ( b) hel pf ul t o

cl ear l y under st andi ng t he wi t ness' s t est i mony or t o det er mi ni ng a

f act i n i ssue; and ( c) not based on sci ent i f i c, t echni cal , or ot her

speci al i zed knowl edge . . . . " Fed. R. Evi d. 701. Shea' s t est i mony

st emmed f r om her per cept i on of what t he Sotos wer e doi ng, i t was

hel pf ul t o expl ai n why t he Sot os mi ght be t r yi ng t o spl i t and sel l

t he pr oper t y as t hr ee condomi ni ums wi t hout Shea' s i nvol vement or

consent , and i t i nvol ved no speci al or t echni cal knowl edge. We

t her ef or e t hi nk t hat t hi s t est i mony i s on t he accept abl e si de of

what i s admi ssi bl e, but even i f i t di d cross t he l i ne, i t di d so

ever - so- sl i ght l y, and t hus i s i n no way a "cl ear " or "obvi ous"

er r or est abl i shi ng pl ai n er r or . See Rodr guez- Ador no, 695 F. 3d at

38.

Not t o be det er r ed, Pedr o ar gues t hat r egar dl ess of i t s

admi ssi bi l i t y, t he evi dence shoul d st i l l have been excl uded under

Rul e 403, whi ch al l ows a di st r i ct cour t t o excl ude ot her wi se

admi ssi bl e evi dence "i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s subst ant i al l y

out wei ghed by ' t he danger of unf ai r pr ej udi ce. ' " Uni t ed St at es v.

Var oudaki s, 233 F. 3d 113, 121 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng Fed. R.

Evi d. 403) . "Unf ai r prej udi ce, " however , i s reser ved f or " evi dence

t hat i nvi t es t he j ur y t o r ender a ver di ct on an i mpr oper emot i onal

basi s" or f or evi dence t hat i s "shocki ng or hei nous" and "l i kel y t o

-37-


38/58

i nf l ame t he j ur y. " I d. at 122 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and

ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Not hi ng t hat Shea t est i f i ed t o r i ses to t hi s

l evel .

Accordi ngl y, t he admi ssi on of Shea' s t est i mony was not

pl ai n er r or .

D. The GAO Report


Car men and St even pur sued a "condonat i on" - - or good

f ai t h - - def ense, ar gui ng t hat t hey l acked t he i nt ent t o def r aud

because t he mor t gage l enders were aware of and t aci t l y appr oved of

t he Sot os' conduct . 12 Accor di ng t o t he Sot os, because mor t gage

l ender s were so f ocused on maki ng as many l oans as poss i bl e whi ch

t hey coul d t hen t ur n ar ound and r esel l i nt o secur i t i zat i ons,

under wr i t i ng st andar ds wer e l ax and t he l ender s wer e not i nt er est ed

i n what i nf or mat i on t he bor r ower pr ovi ded or even i f t he l oan woul d

def aul t . Car men and Steven made t hi s ar gument most l y t hrough

cr oss- exami nat i on of gover nment wi t nesses, t hough t he Sotos al so

t r i ed t o i nt r oduce a repor t f r om t he Gover nment Account abi l i t y

Of f i ce ( "GAO") whi ch concl uded t hat

[ t ] he rol e of nonbank mor t gage l ender s i n t her ecent f i nanci al col l apse pr ovi des an exampl eof a gap i n our f i nanci al r egul at or y syst em

r esul t i ng f r omact i vi t i es of i nst i t ut i ons thatwer e gener al l y subj ect t o l i t t l e or no di r ectover si ght by f eder al r egul at or s. The

12 Pedr o' s def ense, meanwhi l e, cont ended t hat al l of t he cl osi ngswer e l egi t i mat e.

-38-


39/58

si gni f i cant par t i ci pat i on by t hese nonbankl ender s i n t he subpr i me market - - whi cht ar get ed pr oduct s wi t h r i ski er f eat ur es t obor r ower s wi t h l i mi t ed or poor cr edi t hi st or y- - cont r i but ed t o a dr amat i c l ooseni ng i nunder wr i t i ng st andar ds l eadi ng up t o t he

cr i si s.

( f oot not e omi t t ed) . Accor di ng t o t he Sot os, t he GAO Repor t

"encapsul at e[ d] t he ent i r e def ense" and was probat i ve "on t he i ssue

of what t he cl i mat e was dur i ng t hi s per i od of t i me. " The di st r i ct

cour t di sagr eed, excl udi ng the repor t under Rul e 403 of t he Feder al

Rul es of Evi dence. Accor di ng t o t he di st r i ct cour t ,

The GAO r epor t says not hi ng about t hepar t i cul ar l ender s i n t hi s case, i t onl y, i nt he pr of f er ed excer pt , ment i ons a "dramat i cl ooseni ng of under wr i t i ng st andar ds. " That ' sa gener al obser vat i on. The r epor t , as I sai dyest erday, as a whol e f ocuses on t he need f orbet t er f eder al r egul at i on.

Assumi ng wi t hout f i ndi ng that t he GAOr epor t i s a publ i c r ecor d admi ssi bl e underRul e 803[ 8] , I f i nd t hat Rul e 403 oper at es t oexcl ude i t . I t has l i t t l e, i f any, pr obat i veval ue wi t h r egar d t o t he par t i cul ar l ender si nvol ved i n t hi s case. The def endant s haveevi dence t hat one l ender knew t hat Landess wasnot movi ng i nt o t he pr oper t y at i ssue. Soi t ' s my pr esent i nt ent i on t o gi ve a[ condonat i on] i nst r uct i on. And t he excer ptwoul dn' t be suf f i ci ent t o get t he i nst r uct i oni f t he evi dence wer e ot her wi se i nsuf f i ci ent .

I f i nd t hat any pr obat i ve val ue of t heGAO r epor t i s subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by t he

r i sk of conf usi on of t he i ssues and t he r i skt hat i t s admi ssi on woul d cause the j ur y not t ounder st and or f ol l ow t he pr oper [ condonat i on]i nst r uct i on I i nt end t o gi ve and woul dt her ef or e be unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al . I al sof i nd t hat i t has no pr obat i ve val ue wi t hr egar d t o mat er i al i t y, whi ch i s an obj ect i ve

-39-


40/58

t est , and t he anal ysi s i s essent i al l y t hesame.

2. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion

The Sot os al l cl ai m t hat t hi s r epor t was i mpr oper l y

excl uded under Rul e 403. We di sagree. As di scussed above, Rul e

403 of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence al l ows a cour t t o "excl ude

r el evant evi dence i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s subst ant i al l y

out wei ghed by a danger of one or more of t he f ol l owi ng: unf ai r

pr ej udi ce, conf usi ng t he i ssues, mi sl eadi ng t he j ur y, undue del ay,

wast i ng t i me, or needl essl y pr esent i ng cumul at i ve evi dence. " Fed.

R. Evi d. 403. Thi s "bal anci ng act . . . i s a qui nt essent i al l y

f act- sensi t i ve ent er pr i se" whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t i s i n t he best

posi t i on t o make. J ouber t , 778 F. 3d at 255. Accor di ngl y, we

r evi ew f or abuse of di scr et i on, 13 keepi ng i n mi nd t hat " [ o] nl y

r ar el y and i n ext r aor di nar y compel l i ng ci r cumst ances wi l l we, f r om

t he vi st a of a col d appel l at e r ecor d, r ever se a di st r i ct cour t ' son- t he- spot j udgment concer ni ng t he r el at i ve wei ghi ng of pr obat i ve

val ue and unf ai r ef f ect . " Uni t ed St at es v. Vi zcar r ondo- Casanova,

763 F. 3d 89, 94 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Cr uz- Fel i ci ano,

786 F. 3d 78, 88 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) .

13 Whi l e Carmen obj ect ed t o t he excl usi on of t he GAO r epor t att r i al - - t hus ent i t l i ng her t o abuse- of - di scr et i on r evi ew - - Pedr oand St even f ai l ed t o j oi n Carmen' s obj ect i on. We need not deci dewhet her Carmen' s obj ect i on pr eser ved t he i ssue f or Pedr o andSt even, however , because t he ar gument f ai l s r egar dl ess of t hest andar d of r evi ew.

-40-


41/58

Her e, t he Sotos want ed t o i nt r oduce a ni ne- page excer pt

f r om a GAO r epor t t hat di scussed, ver y br oadl y, t he need f or

t i ght er f eder al r egul at i on of mor t gage l ender s. As par t of t hi s

anal ysi s, t he repor t not ed t he t r end of l ooseni ng under wr i t i ng

st andar ds i n an at t empt f or l ender s t o i ssue, and i n t ur n sel l and

secur i t i ze, mor e mor t gages. But as t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y

not ed, t he f act t hat l ender s wer e l ooseni ng t hei r st andar ds and

i ssui ng r i ski er mor t gages i s a f ar cr y f r omsayi ng t hat t he l ender s

di d not car e about a bor r ower ' s r i sk pr of i l e or t hat t hey condoned

( and act ual l y encour aged) l oan appl i cant s t o l i e on appl i cat i ons.

The GAO r epor t does not make t hi s l eap, and even i f i t had, t he

r epor t onl y speaks br oadl y about nat i onal t r ends; not hi ng i n t he

r epor t connect s t hese t r ends t o the speci f i c l ender s def r auded

her e. Thus, we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he pr obat i ve

val ue of t he r epor t was mi ni mal . See Uni t ed St at es v. Tet i oukhi ne,

725 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( uphol di ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

excl usi on of exper t t est i mony on Russi an cul t ur e under Rul e 403

because Russi an cul t ur e i s a br oad t opi c and t he i nt ended t est i mony

t hat t he ci t i zens of t he Sovi et Uni on per cei ved Amer i ca as " a f r ee

count r y" woul d be bot h vague and unhel pf ul ) ; Banco Popul ar de P. R.

v. ACEMLA, 678 F. 3d 102, 112 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( af f i r mi ng t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s excl usi on of a ser i es of j udgment s because none of

t he j udgment s concer ned t he f our songs t hat wer e at i ssue i n t he

-41-


42/58

copyr i ght i nf r i ngement case) ; Uni t ed St at es v. J osl eyn, 206 F. 3d

144, 148 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .

On t he f l i p si de, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t he

r i sk of pr ej udi ce was hi gh because t he GAO r epor t coul d conf use t he

j ur y when t he di st r i ct cour t i nst r uct ed i t on condonat i on. Gi ven

t hat t he condonat i on def ense requi r es condonat i on by the speci f i c

par t y aggr i eved and t he GAO r epor t onl y speaks i n br oad, nat i onal

t er ms, i t was ent i r el y r easonabl e f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o wor r y

t hat t he admi ssi on of t he GAO r epor t woul d i mpr oper l y i nf l uence t he

j ur y' s underst andi ng of t he l endi ng pr act i ces of t he act ual l ender s

def r auded by t he Sot os. See Banco Popul ar , 678 F. 3d at 112

( af f i r mi ng t he excl usi on of j udgment s because "ment i oni ng t hese

r ul i ngs by name and i n det ai l coul d gi ve t he j ur y a mi si mpr essi on

of t he evi dence bef or e i t ") .

The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t he GAO r epor t had mi ni mal

pr obat i ve val ue whi l e at t he same t i me cr eat ed a hi gh r i sk t hat t he

j ur y coul d conf use or mi sunderst and t he condonat i on def ense. We

see not hi ng "ext r aor di nar i l y compel l i ng" wi t h t hi s case whi ch woul d

r equi r e us t o second- guess t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi ons and r e-

bal ance each consi der at i on. The di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s

di scr et i on, and t hus we af f i r m t he excl usi on of t he GAO r epor t .

E. The Sufficiency of the Evidence

St even argues t hr ough hi s suppl ement al pr o se br i ef t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n denyi ng t he Sot os' j oi nt Rul e 29 mot i on

-42-


43/58

f or j udgment of acqui t t al . Accor di ng t o St even, t he gover nment

f ai l ed t o pr ovi de suf f i ci ent evi dence pr ovi ng t he "mai l i ng el ement "

of t he mai l f r aud char ges. We r evi ew t hi s cl ai m de novo, Uni t ed

St at es v. Marst on, 694 F. 3d 131, 134 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , and r ej ect

i t .

The cr i me of mai l f r aud i ncl udes t hr ee el ements: " ( 1) a

scheme t o def r aud based on f al se pr et enses; ( 2) t he def endant ' s

knowi ng and wi l l i ng par t i ci pat i on i n t he scheme wi t h t he i nt ent t o

def r aud; and ( 3) t he use of i nt er st at e mai l . . . communi cat i ons i n

f ur t her ance of t hat scheme. " Uni t ed St at es v. Hebshi e, 549 F. 3d

30, 35 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) .

Thi s l ast el ement , known as t he "mai l i ng el ement , " has

t wo par t s. Fi r st , t he def endant must "cause t he use of t he mai l s,

whi ch i ncl udes r easonabl y f or eseeabl e mai l i ngs. " I d. at 36

( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . "I t i s not necessar y t o pr ove t hat t he

def endant per sonal l y execut ed t he mai l i ngs, but mer el y t hat t he

def endant ' caused t he mai l i ng by doi ng some act f r om whi ch i t i s

r easonabl y f or eseeabl e t hat t he mai l s wi l l be used. ' " Uni t ed

St at es v. Pi ment al , 380 F. 3d 575, 584 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Br uckman, 874 F. 2d 57, 60 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ) . Thi s

i ncl udes knowi ng ( or at l east r easonabl y f or eseei ng) t hat t he mai l

i s of t en used i n t he or di nar y cour se of busi ness. I d.

-43-


44/58

Second, t he def endant must "use t he mai l s f or t he

pur pose, or i n f ur t her ance, of execut i ng t he scheme t o def r aud. "

Hebshi e, 549 F. 3d at 36 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . Thi s requi r ement

"i s t o be br oadl y r ead and appl i ed. " I d. ; see al so Uni t ed St at es

v. Pacheco- Or t i z, 889 F. 2d 301, 305 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ( expl ai ni ng

t hat t hi s l anguage "has been gi ven a ' l i ber al const r uct i on' by t hi s

cour t and ot her s" ) . "To f ur t her [ a def endant ' s] f r audul ent scheme,

t he mai l i ngs need not be an essent i al el ement of t he scheme. They

si mpl y must be suf f i ci ent l y cl osel y r el at ed t o t he scheme such t hat

t hey ar e i nci dent t o an essent i al par t of t he scheme or a st ep i n

t he pl ot . " Hebshi e, 549 F. 3d at 36 ( al t er at i on, i nt er nal

ci t at i ons, and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . So l ong as t her e

i s a " connect i on or r el at i onshi p" bet ween t he mai l i ng and the

f r audul ent scheme and t he mai l i ng was "par t of t he execut i on of t he

scheme as concei ved by t he per pet r at or at t he t i me, " t he " i n

f ur t her ance" pr ong i s sat i sf i ed. I d.

I n r evi ewi ng St even' s cl ai m t hat t he evi dence was

i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t he "mai l i ng el ement , " we l ook t o see

"whet her , af t er assayi ng al l t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most ami abl e

t o t he gover nment , and t aki ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n i t s

f avor , a r at i onal f act f i nder coul d f i nd, beyond a r easonabl e doubt ,

t hat t he pr osecut i on successf ul l y pr oved t he essent i al el ement s of

t he cr i me. " I d. at 35 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so

Uni t ed St ates v. Royal , 100 F. 3d 1019, 1028 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) . We

-44-


45/58

have under t aken t hi s pr ocess and concl ude t hat t he gover nment

cl ear l y pr ovi ded suf f i ci ent evi dence t o sat i sf y t he mai l i ng

el ement .

The Sot os' scheme essent i al l y consi st ed of sham r eal

est at e t r ansact i ons conduct ed i n or der t o pr ocur e f r audul ent l oans

whi ch woul d t hen def aul t . For each of t he f our proper t i es at

i ssue, t he gover nment pr esent ed wi t nesses who t est i f i ed t hat t he

cl osi ng document s ( whi ch wer e al so i nt r oduced i nt o evi dence)

i nst r uct ed t he l ender s' at t or ney t o send t he execut ed cl osi ng

document s to t he l ender s' physi cal addr ess. The wi t nesses al so

t est i f i ed t hat , as i nst r uct ed, t hey mai l ed

united states v. soto, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents