1
0
The panel affirmed three defendants’ convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder stemming from the stabbing of a prison inmate, Peter Scopazzi.
The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendants’ connections to the Mexican Mafia to demonstrate their motive for murdering Scopazzi.
The panel also held that expert testimony concerning the connections between the Sureños and the Mexican Mafia within the prison gang hierarchy and photographs of the defendants with Mexican Mafia members did not render their trial unfair because the district court properly minimized any prejudice stemming from the evidence and the trial was replete with admissible evidence regarding the defendants’ gang affiliations.
Appellants also argue that the district court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony concerning the relationship between two prison gangs – the Sureños and the Mexican Mafia – because Appellants were not members of the Mexican Mafia.
In its trial memorandum, the government sought to introduce evidence that the motive for Appellants’ murder of Scopazzi was Scopazzi’s disrespect of Sureños gang members.
Special Agent Daniel Evanilla of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation testified as an expert on prison gangs.
Sureños are Hispanic gang members that, when they go to a prison or a county jail, band together as a group…
The Sureños are the recruitment pool for the Mexican Mafia,” and “they are considered the foot soldiers for the Mexican Mafia. The Sureños conduct criminal activities for the Mexican Mafia prison gang. They respond to the edicts and the orders of the Mexican Mafia prison gang in terms of their criminal activities, their rules, their regulations and how they conduct themselves in prison.
Respect from other prisoners was an important element of the Sureños’ credo and disrespect was “not tolerated.” Disrespect from a member of another race, particularly when witnessed by other Sureños, was “a major factor” in the Sureños’ culture.
According to Agent Evanilla, the reprisal for such disrespect would be “some violent assault.”
Agent Evanilla reviewed the kite that was discovered by prison officials in Murillo’s cell and interpreted the kite as meaning that the white inmates had disrespected the Sureños.
The testimony relating to the Mexican Mafia was necessary to explain the reason that Santiago would kill a stranger – to be accepted into the gang – and to show how and why other inmates assisted him in obtaining the weapon.
Appellants’ trial was also permeated with references to their gang affiliations, and Agent Evanilla’s expert testimony addressed the connection between the Sureños and the Mexican Mafia within the prison gang hierarchy.
Given Appellants’ admitted gang connections, the expert testimony concerning the Mexican Mafia and photographs of Appellants with members of the Mexican Mafia was not unduly prejudicial as “the Mexican Mafia was not the entire theme of the trial, so as to infect the trial with the threat of guilt by association. This is particularly true in this case where the trial focused primarily on the events that transpired in Scopazzi’s cell, and the jury was presented with numerous photographs and videos of the events without reference to Appellants’ connections to the Mexican Mafia.
The district court’s exclusion of evidence concerning medical negligence and Scopazzi’s removal of his breathing tube does not warrant reversal of Appellants’ convictions. Appellants failed to demonstrate that any medical negligence related to Scopazzi’s multiple stab wounds, and his removal of his breathing tube were the sole causes of Scopazzi’s death or were so extraordinary and unforeseeable as to absolve Appellants of liability for their vicious assault. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Appellants’ connections to the Mexican Mafia to demonstrate Appellants’ motive for murdering Scopazzi.
Expert testimony concerning the connections between the Sureños and the Mexican Mafia within the prison gang hierarchy and photographs of Appellants with Mexican Mafia members did not render their trial unfair because the district court properly minimized any prejudice stemming from the evidence and Appellants’ trial was replete with admissible evidence regarding Appellants’ gang affiliations.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Rodriguez, aka Lonely, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Murillo, aka Yogi, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro Munca, aka Slow, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Rodriguez, aka Lonely, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Murillo, aka Yogi, Defendant-Appellant. Order and amended opinion. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Argued and submitted August 28, 2013. Pasadena, California. Filed June 19, 2014. Amended September 8, 2014.
Average Rating