06-1462-cr

United States v. Pepin

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

3 August Term, 2007

4 (Argued: September 6, 2007 Decided: February 5, 2008

5 Errata Filed: March 11, 2008)

6 Docket No. 06-1462-cr(L), 06-2566-cr(con), 06-3284-cr(con)

7 -------------------------------------

8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

9 Appellant,

10 - v -

11 HUMBERTO PEPIN, ALSO KNOWN AS HOMBERTO PEPIN TAVERAS, ALSO KNOWN

12 AS TONY, HUMBERTO PEPIN TAVERAS,

13 Defendant-Appellee.

14 -------------------------------------

15

16 Before: WALKER, CALABRESI, and SACK, Circuit Judges.

17 Appeal from orders of the United States District Court

18 for the Eastern District of New York (Jack B. Weinstein, Judge)

19 excluding (1) from the penalty phase of a capital trial, evidence

20 of child abuse by the defendant and evidence relating to the

21 defendant's previous conviction for child endangerment, and (2)

22 from both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial, evidence of

23 post-mortem dismemberment of the victims. We affirm as to the

24 orders related to the admission of evidence of child abuse and

25 the child endangerment conviction, but vacate as to the order

26 barring all evidence related to post-mortem dismemberment.

27 Affirmed in part; vacated in part.
 The defendant has been referred to in and by the district 1

court as Humberto Pepin Taveras. See, e.g., United States v.

Taveras, 436 F. Supp. 2d 493 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). On appeal, though,

he is referred to as Humberto Pepin. We therefore use the latter

name.

-2-

1 DAVID L. LEWIS (Louis M. Freeman,

2 Freeman Nooter & Ginsberg, of counsel),

3 New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

4 LEE J. FREEDMAN, Assistant United States

5 Attorney for the Eastern District of New

6 York (Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States

7 Attorney, Peter A. Norling, Assistant

8 United States Attorney, of counsel),

9 Brooklyn, NY, for Appellant.

10 SACK, Circuit Judge:

11 The defendant, Humberto Pepin, awaits trial on (1) one 1

12 count of obstruction of justice, and (2) two counts of murder

13 committed while engaged in drug trafficking. The government

14 seeks the death penalty as to the latter. 

15 The government proffered as evidence supporting a "non16 statutory aggravating factor" of "future dangerousness," Pepin's

17 "engage[ment] in a continuing pattern of violence," including

18 "child abuse," for the jury to consider at the penalty phase. 

19 Notice of Intent to Seek a Sentence of Death dated October 20,

20 2005, United States v. Taveras, No. 04-cr-156 (E.D.N.Y.) 

21 ("Notice"), at 4, 12. The district court (Jack B. Weinstein,

22 Judge) granted a motion by Pepin to preclude such evidence at the

23 penalty phase on grounds that such matters were unrelated to

24 "future dangerousness" or the crimes charged in the indictment. 

25 The government then sought to amend its Notice to

26 include, as a separate non-statutory aggravating factor, "moral
 Pepin was first indicted in the Eastern District on 2

February 20, 2004. 

-3-

1 condemnation," to be supported by the defendant's prior

2 conviction for child endangerment and related behavior. The

3 court concluded that "[s]ubstantively, the amendment cannot

4 stand." United States v. Taveras, 436 F. Supp. 2d 493, 502

5 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). All evidence the government might adduce to

6 support the proposed factor would therefore be excluded for

7 essentially the reasons that the same evidence had been excluded

8 as support for a "future dangerousness" factor.

9 Finally, after Pepin raised the issue of the

10 admissibility of photographs of the victims' dismembered bodies,

11 the district court, sua sponte, issued an order precluding all

12 evidence as to dismemberment at either the guilt phase or the

13 penalty phase of the trial.

14 We affirm as to the orders related to the admission of

15 evidence of Pepin's alleged child abuse and of his child16 endangerment conviction at the penalty phase, but vacate the

17 order barring all evidence related to dismemberment.

18 BACKGROUND

19 In a superseding indictment dated October 20, 2005,

20 filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern

21 District of New York, Pepin was charged with, inter alia, (1) 2

22 one count of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

23 § 1512(b)(3), and (2) two counts of murder committed while Pepin

24 was engaged in drug trafficking, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
 The superseding indictment also charged Pepin with a 3

firearm-related murder under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1), but the

district court granted Pepin's motion to dismiss that charge. 

The dismissal is not before us.

 That statute provides in part: 4

any person engaging in . . . an offense

punishable under section 841(b)(1)(A) of this

title . . . who intentionally kills or

counsels, commands, induces, procures, or

causes the intentional killing of an 

individual and such killing results, shall be

sentenced to any term of imprisonment, which

shall not be less than 20 years, and which

may be up to life imprisonment, or may be

sentenced to death.

21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A).

-4-

1 § 848(e)(1)(A). If convicted on either or both of the latter 3

2 two charges, Pepin is subject to a minimum sentence, under 21

3 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A), of 20 years' imprisonment and a maximum

4 penalty of death. The government seeks the death penalty. 4

5 Because this is a capital case, the Federal Death

6 Penalty Act ("FDPA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3591 et seq., provides the

7 procedures to be employed at sentencing. The district court is

8 required by the FDPA, among other things, to "conduct a separate

9 sentencing hearing to determine the punishment to be imposed." 

10 18 U.S.C. § 3593(b). The hearing will ordinarily be held "before

11 the jury that determined the defendant's guilt." 18 U.S.C.

12 § 3593(b)(1).

13 [T]he jury . . . shall consider whether all

14 the aggravating factor or factors found to

15 exist sufficiently outweigh all the

16 mitigating factor or factors found to exist

17 to justify a sentence of death, or, in the
 In the statement, Pepin says that Yonkers Detective 5

Wilson Gonsalez was also present. 

-5-

1 absence of a mitigating factor, whether the

2 aggravating factor or factors alone are

3 sufficient to justify a sentence of death.

4 Based upon this consideration, the jury by

5 unanimous vote . . . shall recommend whether

6 the defendant should be sentenced to death,

7 to life imprisonment without possibility of

8 release or some other lesser sentence.

9 18 U.S.C. § 3593(e).

10 Charged Murders and Post-Homicide Conduct

11 In support of the charges contained in the October 20,

12 2005 superseding indictment, the government states that it

13 intends to prove "through witness testimony, Pepin's statements

14 to law enforcement officers, photographs of his victims after

15 they were recovered, and autopsy reports and photographs," Gov't

16 Br. at 3, the following facts:

17 Pepin was born in the Dominican Republic. In or about 

18 1981, he entered the United States illegally, eventually settling

19 in New York City. At all relevant times, he sold drugs from an

20 apartment in the Bronx which he rented for that purpose. See

21 id.; Written Statement of Humberto Pepin Taver[a]s to Yonkers

22 Police Detective Geiss dated October 15, 2002 (the "Pepin 5

23 Statement") (stating that the apartment was on Sherman Avenue in

24 the Bronx). 

25 The Rosario Killing. José Rosario was one of Pepin's

26 sources for drugs. The two of them had an arrangement under

27 which Rosario robbed dealers of their drugs and then supplied
-6-

1 those drugs to Pepin. Pepin then sold them, sharing the proceeds

2 with Rosario. Gov't Br. at 4. In or about September 1992, a

3 Pepin associate known as "Nelo" told Pepin that Rosario had

4 instructed him, Nelo, to kill Pepin. Id. 

5 On or about September 17, 2002, Rosario visited Pepin's

6 Bronx apartment where Pepin, in the presence of George Loyola,

7 one of Pepin's drug sellers, shot Rosario several times. Pepin

8 then ordered Loyola at gunpoint to help Pepin carry Rosario's

9 body into the bathroom. They placed the body in the bathtub and

10 left the bathroom. Pepin returned shortly thereafter when he

11 heard noises suggesting that Rosario might still be alive. Pepin

12 cut Rosario's neck so that he would bleed to death and the blood

13 would drain from the tub. Id.

14 Loyola and Pepin left the Bronx apartment. Pepin went

15 home where his girlfriend, Julia Mendez, was waiting. Pepin told

16 Mendez that he had killed Rosario. He then ordered her to make

17 dinner for him. Afterward, Pepin forced Mendez to come with him

18 to the Bronx apartment, stopping en route to purchase a knife. 

19 Id.

20 Pepin's cousin, Apolinar Taveras, and Loyola joined

21 Pepin at the Bronx apartment. Unable to coerce Loyola to assist

22 him, Pepin dismembered Rosario's body by himself, using the knife

23 he had just purchased. He placed the body parts into garbage

24 bags. Pepin then forced Loyola to accompany Pepin to Yonkers,
 On October 15, 1992, Pepin, incarcerated in the Otisville 6

[N.Y.] Federal Correctional Facility, gave this version of the

events to at least one Yonkers, New York, detective:

I walked into the bedroom, when I came out of

the bedroom I had a 22 cal pistol. . . . 

[Rosario] was still seating [sic] on the

couch . . . . I told him I was going to kill

him. [Rosario] started to rise up off of the

couch, I then pointed the gun at him and I

shot him, I think 4 times, one was in the

right eye I think, one was in the neck, one

in the chest, and I am not sure where the

other shot went. . . . [M]yself and George

[Loyola] dragged [Rosario] into the bathroom

and put him in the tub. I put a cut into his

neck so the blood would drain out. I then

left to go to my house . . . . When I got

home I ate and I told . . . Julia [Mendez]

that I killed [Rosario] and that I had to go

back and cut up his body. . . . Julia asked

me if I needed any help. I told her that I

did. I then left with [her]. . . . I bought

a large knife in the hardware store which is

on Sherman Ave. . . . When I got to the

apartment George [Loyola] asked me if my

cousin Apolinar Taver[a]s could help us. I

told him yes and for him to get him. . . . A

short time later we all cut up [Rosario] who

was in the tub. I know how to cut up a body

because in my country I worked as a butcher. 

I cut [Rosario] up by the joints, I cut off

his head at the neck, I cut off his arm at

the shoulder, his torso, his legs, his knees. 

I cut him up at the joints. We then placed

him into separate garbage bags, I believe it

was around 4 P.M. . . . [M]yself and George

[Loyola] and Apolinar . . . came back when it

was dark[,] . . . drove to Yonkers and I

dumped the garbage bags in a park.

Pepin Statement at 1-2.

-7-

1 where Pepin dumped the bags. Rosario's remains were discovered

2 soon thereafter. Id. at 4-5. 6

3 The Madrid Killing. More than two years later, on

4 October 4, 1994, Pepin was arrested by Federal Drug Enforcement

5 Administration agents following a search of another apartment
-8-

1 that Pepin was renting. The search resulted in the seizure of

2 drugs and Pepin's indictment in the United States District Court

3 for the Southern District of New York on federal drug charges. 

4 Pepin was released pending trial on a bond signed by Carlos

5 Madrid, another Pepin associate, as a surety. Id. at 6.

6 Sometime thereafter, Pepin and Mendez went to Madrid's

7 home in Queens, where Pepin asked Madrid for money. Madrid gave

8 Pepin twenty dollars, far less than Pepin had sought. On the way

9 home, Pepin's BMW struck a guardrail. Upset, Pepin told Mendez

10 that Madrid was "going to have to pay." Id.

11 By October 1995, Mendez, by then separated from Pepin,

12 had moved into her sister's residence. Pepin and Mendez were

13 nonetheless attempting to reconcile. On or about October 9,

14 1995, Pepin picked Mendez up at her sister's home, saying that he

15 wanted to take Mendez to dinner. Instead, he drove her to his

16 house. Id. 

17 When they arrived, Pepin ordered Mendez into the

18 bedroom. He told her that he was waiting for Madrid because that

19 day Madrid was "going to pay for what he did." Id. He told her

20 to play video games with the television sound turned up. He then

21 left the bedroom, locking Mendez inside. Id.

22 Pepin had asked Madrid to the house on the pretext that

23 he, Pepin, wanted to buy drugs from Madrid. When Madrid arrived

24 with the drugs, Pepin brought Madrid into the bedroom to say

25 hello to Mendez. The two men then left the room. Id. at 7. 

26 Shortly thereafter, Mendez heard several loud noises. They were,
-9-

1 it turned out, the sounds of Pepin hitting Madrid over the head

2 with a blunt instrument. Pepin also stabbed Madrid with a knife. 

3 The injuries Pepin inflicted on Madrid were fatal.

4 About fifteen minutes later, Pepin entered the bedroom

5 and told Mendez to buy garbage bags and cleaning supplies and to

6 avert her eyes from the kitchen area as she left. Mendez

7 nonetheless looked into the kitchen as she passed and saw a pair

8 of legs in a puddle of blood. On her return, the door leading to

9 the kitchen was closed. Mendez returned to the bedroom. Id. at

10 7-8.

11 Pepin dismembered Madrid's body and placed the body

12 parts in trash bags. Mendez later saw Pepin placing a bag in the

13 trunk of Madrid's automobile. Id. at 8.

14 Pepin and Mendez left together -- Pepin driving

15 Madrid's car; Mendez driving Pepin's. Pepin dumped most of the

16 bags containing the body parts, but at least one -- with Madrid's

17 severed head inside it -- was left in the automobile, which Pepin

18 unsuccessfully attempted to burn. Soon thereafter, authorities

19 recovered the remains. Id.

20 Child Abuse Allegations

21 The government seeks to present evidence during the

22 penalty phase of Pepin's trial -- if there is one -- regarding

23 Pepin's treatment of Mendez's children.

24 According to the government, Mendez moved in with Pepin

25 in 1989, along with her son and daughter from a prior

26 relationship. At the time, the girl was eight years old. Pepin
 The letter is in Spanish. The record contains copies of 7

the original and an English translation. 

-10-

1 confined the children to a single room of their apartment, made

2 them use a bucket as a latrine, and frequently prevented Mendez

3 from providing food to them. The government also contends that

4 Pepin vaginally and anally raped Mendez's daughter on many

5 occasions, beat her when she informed Pepin, truthfully, that she

6 was pregnant, and carved his name into her chest using a needle. 

7 Id. at 9-10.

8 On January 2, 1997, the Bronx County District

9 Attorney's office charged Pepin with rape, sodomy, assault,

10 possession of a weapon, and endangering the welfare of a child. 

11 Pepin later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of endangering

12 the welfare of a child, in satisfaction of all charges against

13 him. He served nine months in prison and was then deported to

14 the Dominican Republic. Id. at 10. 

15 Less than six months later, Pepin was arrested

16 attempting to re-enter the United States. He was subsequently

17 convicted on federal charges of illegal re-entry, bail jumping,

18 and drug trafficking. Id. While in prison on those charges, he

19 wrote a letter to a Yonkers police officer admitting that he had

20 had sexual relations with Mendez's daughter but denying that he

21 did so against her will. Id. (citing letter, date obscure, from 7

22 Pepin, in Otisville, to "Señor John Geiss."). 

23 District Court Ruling as to Evidence of Child Abuse
 Prior versions of the Notice contained the same text. 8

-11-

1 On October 20, 2005, the government filed a superseding

2 Notice of Intent to Seek a Sentence of Death, pursuant to 18

3 U.S.C. § 3593(a), in which "future dangerousness" was proffered

4 as a "non-statutory aggravating factor" as follows:

5 The defendant HUMBERTO PEPIN TAVERAS is

6 likely to commit criminal acts of violence in

7 the future that would constitute a continuing

8 and serious threat to the lives and safety of

9 others, as evidenced by, at least, one or

10 more of the following:

11 a. Continuing Pattern of Violence

12 The defendant HUMBERTO PEPIN TAVERAS has

13 engaged in a continuing pattern of

14 violence, attempted violence, and

15 threatened violence, including, at

16 least, (a) the crimes charged in the

17 Indictment, (b) the crimes for which the

18 defendant has been previously convicted,

19 (c) child abuse, (d) domestic abuse and

20 (e) threatening and attempting to kill

21 John Doe, a witness against the

22 defendant.

23 Notice at 3-4, 11-12 (emphasis added).8

24 On February 28, 2006, the district court issued a

25 Memorandum and Order that, inter alia, excluded at the penalty

26 phase all evidence related to allegations of acts of violence and

27 abuse against the child and the adult women set forth in the

28 Notice as non-statutory aggravating factors. The court found the

29 evidence to be unduly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence

30 403. United States v. Taveras, 04-cr-156, 2006 WL 473773, at *6,

31 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7408, at *17-*18 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2006)

32 ("Memorandum and Order on Challenges to Death Penalty") ("Taveras

33 I"). The court concluded:
 21 U.S.C. § 848(j) provided, in pertinent part: 9

[I]nformation may be excluded if its

probative value is substantially outweighed

by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion

of the issues, or misleading the jury. 

Id.

-12-

1 [F]or Rule 403 reasons and others

2 [previously] explained orally [by the court],

3 evidence of the aggravating factors of sexual

4 crimes committed on a minor and a sexual

5 assault on an adult will not be permitted. 

6 They do not relate to the homicidal

7 characteristics which form the basis of the

8 prosecution and they might well be overvalued

9 in light of recent publicity on sexual

10 assaults on children in this geographic area.

11 Id., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7408, at *17-*18.

12 On March 16, 2006, the court, relying on 21 U.S.C.

13 § 848(j) (repealed), revisited its decision excluding evidence 9

14 of Pepin's violence against adult women and decided to allow it. 

15 But the court reaffirmed its decision to exclude evidence as to

16 child abuse, which it explained in greater detail. United States

17 v. Taveras, 424 F. Supp. 2d 446 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) ("Taveras II"). 

18 Noting that there was a "great likelihood that defendant, if

19 convicted and spared death, will spend the rest of his life in

20 prison," id. at 463, the court viewed evidence of sexual and

21 physical abuse against minors as irrelevant to future

22 dangerousness because of the unlikelihood of his release into the

23 community, id. The court also concluded that admission of such

24 evidence would confuse the jury, id., and, "[s]ince the

25 government bears the burden of proving these charges beyond a

26 reasonable doubt, proof would require a diversionary trial within
-13-

1 a trial that would have minimal relevance to the future danger

2 posed by defendant to those with whom he is, if convicted, likely

3 to spend the rest of his life -- adult guards and male inmates,"

4 id. at 463-64. The court continued:

5 More importantly, the evidence would be

6 likely to so inflame the passions of the

7 jurors as to inhibit their careful

8 consideration of the future dangerousness

9 factor. Wide attention to a recent spate of

10 sexual assaults against minors would make it

11 almost impossible for a jury to disconnect

12 its anger at the prevalence of the crimes

13 from the issue of future dangerousness of

14 this defendant. Defendant's contentions that

15 the relationship was consensual would confuse

16 the issues by directing the jury's energies

17 towards divining the nature of the

18 relationship between the two rather than the

19 need to protect society from future crimes of

20 defendant, the basis of the future

21 dangerousness factor. Introduction of this

22 evidence would not produce the heightened

23 reliability required of a capital sentence.

24 Id. at 464.

25 On or about March 23, 2006, the government, undaunted,

26 sought to file another superseding Notice of Intent to Seek a

27 Sentence of Death. Notice of Intent To Seek Sentence of Death

28 dated March 22, 2006, United States v. Taveras, No. 04-CR-156

29 (E.D.N.Y.), accompanying motion for leave to file the amended

30 Notice filed on March 23, 2006. This time, instead of adverting

31 to child abuse as an indication of future dangerousness, the

32 proposed superseding Notice set forth as a separate non-statutory

33 aggravating factor Pepin's previous conviction for child

34 endangerment and related behavior. Id. at 5-6. The proposed

35 superseding Notice added the assertion that "[b]eyond raping the
 By contrast, Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which applies 10

during the guilt phase, provides: "Although relevant, evidence

may be excluded if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the

issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue

delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative

evidence." Id. (emphasis added). The analogous language in 18

U.S.C. § 3593(c) omits the word "substantially."

-14-

1 child, the defendant repeatedly falsely imprisoned the child,

2 deprived her of food and water, and beat her. On one occasion,

3 the defendant carved his nickname, 'Tony,' on the child's chest." 

4 Id. These facts, the proposed superseding Notice said,

5 "demonstrate[] that the defendant merits moral condemnation by

6 the community." Id. at 6.

7 On May 4, 2006, at a status conference, the district

8 court invoked its discretion, not under 21 U.S.C. § 848(j)

9 (repealed) as it had previously done, but under 18 U.S.C.

10 § 3593(c), which governs admissibility of evidence at the penalty

11 phase of capital trials. Section 3593(c) provides, in part, that

12 "[i]nformation is admissible regardless of its admissibility

13 under the rules governing admission of evidence at criminal

14 trials except that information may be excluded if its probative

15 value is outweighed by the danger of creating unfair prejudice,

16 confusing the issues, or misleading the jury." The court 10

17 decided that "[the government's] amendment is permitted but [it

18 will] be allowed no evidence on it." Hearing Transcript, May 4,

19 2006, at 29. 

20 The court further explained its position in an "Omnibus

21 Pretrial Memorandum and Order" dated June 29, 2006. United
 Although not entirely clear to us, it appears that the 11

court was not denying the motion to file the amended notice. It

was adhering to its earlier oral decision to permit the amendment

to the Notice of Intent to Seek a Sentence of Death, but ordering

all evidence as to the child endangerment conviction excluded. 

See Hearing Transcript, May 4, 2006, at 29. The precise

characterization of the order in this regard does not, however,

affect our consideration of this appeal.

-15-

1 States v. Taveras, 436 F. Supp. 2d 493 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) ("Taveras

2 III"). "The new proposed notice would not add new allegations,

3 but merely reorganize them in response to this court's ruling"

4 excluding evidence as to child abuse. Id. at 502. Although the

5 motion to amend was procedurally "unobjectionable" because the

6 government's application was made in good faith and Pepin was not

7 prejudiced by it, id., "[s]ubstantively, the amendment cannot

8 stand. Nothing in the government's motion justifies [the

9 court's] departure from [its] previous ruling excluding this same

10 evidence. See [Taveras II], 424 F. Supp. 2d at 463-64. The more

11 stringent standard of admissibility provided for by title 18's

12 FDPA strengthens the basis for the ruling that this evidence is

13 inadmissible." Taveras III, 436 F. Supp. 2d at 502-03.11

14 District Court Ruling as to Evidence 

15 of Post-Mortem Dismemeberment

16 In Taveras III, the district court also excluded all

17 evidence of post-mortem dismemberment of the victims in both the

18 guilt and penalty phases of trial. The court indicated that if

19 one looked at the guilt phase alone, the dismemberment evidence

20 would be permitted. "These details form part of the res gestae,

21 the narrative that the government rightly seeks to tell at the

22 guilt phase of a trial. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S.
-16-

1 172, 187 (1997). Their probative value would not be

2 'substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair

3 prejudice . . . .' Fed. R. Evid. 403." Id. at 514. 

4 But, the court ruled, any such evidence was inadmissible in the

5 penalty phase because it would "short-circuit" the process

6 "carefully choreographed" by section 3593 for determining the

7 appropriate sentence "by tending to rush the jury into an

8 emotional conclusion." Id. at 515.

9 "It is of vital importance to the defendant

10 and to the community that any decision to

11 impose the death sentence be, and appear to

12 be, based on reason rather than caprice or

13 emotion." Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349,

14 358 (1977). The court has a duty to minimize

15 the "risk [of] a verdict impermissibly based

16 on passion, not deliberation." Payne v.

17 Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 836 (1991) (Souter,

18 J., concurring).

19 Id. (brackets in original).

20 The court then decided that despite its conclusion that

21 the dismemberment evidence would have been allowed under Federal

22 Rule of Evidence 403 if the court's concern was solely whether

23 its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of

24 unfair prejudice at the guilt phase of the trial, the need to

25 exclude the evidence at the penalty phase required its exclusion

26 at the guilt phase, too. "Since one jury will hear both the

27 penalty and guilt phases, such evidence also will not be received

28 at the guilt phase." Id. at 515-16.

29 Instead, the court said, it "expected" the parties to

30 "stipulate that: After killing Rosario, defendant returned home,

31 ate dinner, and then returned to the apartment with Julia Mendez.
 18 U.S.C. § 3731 provides in pertinent part: 12

An appeal by the United States shall lie to a

court of appeals from a decision or order of

a district court suppressing or excluding

-17-

1 Defendant wrapped the body, drove it to Yonkers with Loyola, and

2 dumped it. After killing Madrid, defendant wrapped the body,

3 placed it in Madrid's car, drove the car to Queens, and set it on

4 fire." Id. at 516. "This ruling sacrifices some of the

5 probative force of the government's proposed evidence. Yet it is

6 necessary to preserve defendant's right to capital proceedings

7 that are properly channeled and focused on the issue for which

8 the evidence is offered -- i.e., future dangerousness." Id. 

9 Reference to dismemberment during voir dire was also prohibited. 

10 Id.

11 The government appeals from the orders excluding

12 evidence of child abuse or evidence related to the child

13 endangerment conviction from the penalty phase, and the order

14 excluding post-mortem dismemberment evidence from both the guilt

15 and penalty phases of trial. On September 6, 2007, we granted

16 the government's motion for a stay of the trial pending our

17 resolution of this appeal.

18 DISCUSSION

19 I. Jurisdiction

20 We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal under 18

21 U.S.C. § 3731. See, e.g., United States v. Chevere, 368 F.3d 120

22 (2d Cir. 2004) (hearing government's challenge to pre-trial

23 evidentiary ruling on interlocutory appeal).12
evidence . . . in a criminal proceeding, not

made after the defendant has been put in

jeopardy and before the verdict or finding on

an indictment or information, if the United

States attorney certifies to the district

court that the appeal is not taken for

purpose of delay and that the evidence is a

substantial proof of a fact material in the

proceeding.

This statute permits the government, under certain circumstances,

to mount a pre-trial appellate challenge to a district court's

decision rejecting trial evidence proffered by the government. 

But for the statute, in the event of an acquittal, the government

would have no post-trial remedy for an erroneous evidentiary

ruling, however serious the error, because of the operation of

the Fifth Amendment's double-jeopardy bar. See United States v.

Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 335-40 (1975).

-18-

1 II. Standard of Review

2 "[W]e review evidentiary rulings for abuse of

3 discretion." United States v. Sewell, 252 F.3d 647, 650 (2d

4 Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 968 (2001); see also Awadallah, 436

5 F.3d at 131 ("We review the exclusion of evidence pursuant to

6 Rule[] 403 . . . for abuse of discretion."); United States v.

7 Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 110 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (concluding

8 that Fed. R. Evid. 403 determinations may be overturned "'only if

9 there is a clear showing that the court abused its discretion or

10 acted arbitrarily or irrationally'" (quoting United States v.

11 Valdez, 16 F.3d 1324, 1332 (2d Cir. 1994))), cert. denied sub

12 nom. Abouhalima v. United States, 525 U.S. 1112 (1999). 

13 Although we have not squarely addressed the question

14 before, we see no reason to apply a different standard of review

15 to a district court’s ruling that information proferred by the

16 government as evidence is inadmissible at the penalty phase of a
-19-

1 capital prosecution under section 3593(c). The other circuit

2 courts to reach this issue have taken a similar approach,

3 deciding that, absent constitutional or other legal errors, a

4 district court’s section 3593(c) rulings are reviewed for abuse

5 of discretion. See United States v. Hall, 152 F.3d 381, 397-98

6 (5th Cir. 1998) ("[T]he district court has considerable

7 discretion in controlling the presentation of the 'information'

8 to the jury in both content and form." (internal quotations

9 omitted)); United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1214 (10th

10 Cir. 1998) ("We review a district court's determination that

11 evidence is not relevant to a mitigating factor for abuse of

12 discretion."); United States v. Johnson, 223 F.3d 665, 674 (7th

13 Cir. 2000) ("The [section 3593(c)] balancing is committed to the

14 discretion of the district judge, not here abused." (citing Hall,

15 152 F.3d at 397)).

16 Our review must, however, "be de novo on the question

17 whether, in exercising its discretion to admit evidence, the

18 district court applied the proper legal test." Borawick v. Shay,

19 68 F.3d 597, 601 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing A/S Dampskibsselskabet

20 Torm v. Beaumont Oil Ltd., 927 F.2d 713, 716 (2d Cir. 1991)),

21 cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1229 (1996).

22 The government is understandably wary of our reviewing

23 the district court's rulings under the deferential abuse of

24 discretion standard. It therefore attempts to phrase its

25 arguments as challenges to the legal bases for the district

26 court's rulings, which we would review de novo. The government
 We ordinarily adhere to the rule that "[i]ssues not 13

sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and

normally will not be addressed on appeal." Norton v. Sam's Club,

145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1001 (1998). 

And "[w]e generally do not consider issues raised in a reply

brief for the first time because if an appellant raises a new

argument in a reply brief an appellee may not have an adequate

opportunity to respond to it." In re Harris, 464 F.3d 263, 268-

69 n.3 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). But we think that, in this case, the issues we address

were indeed raised by the government, even though it asserted

what was, in large measure, the wrong standard of review. There

is no doubt, moreover, that the defendant had an opportunity to

respond. His first words to us on this subject are: "The

standard governing appellate review of the [district] court's

evidentiary rulings is 'abuse of discretion.'" Def.-Appellee Br.

at 18. 

-20-

1 does not so much as mention the abuse of discretion standard

2 until the second footnote of its reply brief. We nonetheless

3 review the court's orders both for errors of law and abuse of

4 discretion.13

5 III. The Exclusion of Evidence of Child Abuse 

6 and the Child Endangerment Conviction

7 A. Errors of Law

8 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c) provides, in pertinent part:

9 Proof of mitigating and aggravating

10 factors. . . . At the sentencing hearing,

11 information may be presented as to any matter

12 relevant to the sentence, including any

13 mitigating or aggravating factor permitted or

14 required to be considered under section 3592. 

15 Information presented may include the trial

16 transcript and exhibits if the hearing is

17 held before a jury or judge not present

18 during the trial, or at the trial judge's

19 discretion. The defendant may present any

20 information relevant to a mitigating factor. 

21 The government may present any information

22 relevant to an aggravating factor for which

23 notice has been provided [by a notice to seek

24 the death penalty]. Information is

25 admissible regardless of its admissibility
 In several instances, the district court does not appear 14

to apply § 3593(c) in its analysis, instead discussing evidence

in light of 21 U.S.C. § 848(j), now repealed. However,

§ 848(j)'s language utilized the less stringent "substantially

outweighed" wording similar to that in Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

Because the test in section 3593(c) gives the court greater power

to exclude prejudicial evidence than does the test in section

848(j) or Rule 403, the district court's conclusion would not

likely have been different had it applied section 3593(c) from

the outset, as the court acknowledges. See Taveras III, 436 F.

Supp. 2d at 500-01.

-21-

1 under the rules governing admission of

2 evidence at criminal trials except that

3 information may be excluded if its probative

4 value is outweighed by the danger of creating

5 unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or

6 misleading the jury. . . . The government

7 and the defendant shall be permitted to rebut

8 any information received at the hearing, and

9 shall be given fair opportunity to present

10 argument as to the adequacy of the

11 information to establish the existence of any

12 aggravating or mitigating factor, and as to

13 the appropriateness in the case of imposing a

14 sentence of death. . . . The burden of

15 establishing the existence of any aggravating

16 factor is on the government, and is not

17 satisfied unless the existence of such a

18 factor is established beyond a reasonable

19 doubt. The burden of establishing the

20 existence of any mitigating factor is on the

21 defendant, and is not satisfied unless the

22 existence of such a factor is established by

23 a preponderance of the information.

24 Id. Section 3593(c) therefore provides the legal standard upon

25 which the district court could exclude what it deemed to be

26 unduly prejudicial evidence at the penalty phase of trial. See

27 United States v. Fell, 360 F.3d 135, 140-41 (2d Cir.), cert.

28 denied, 543 U.S. 946 (2004). The gravamen of the government's 14

29 legal argument is that despite the statute's instruction that

30 "information may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed

31 by the danger of creating unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
-22-

1 or misleading the jury," section 3593(c) as a whole mandates the

2 district court's admission, in the penalty phase of this case, of

3 evidence as to child abuse or the child endangerment conviction,

4 or both. We conclude that it does not.

5 It is true, as the government points out, Gov't Br. at

6 31, that in United States v. Fell, we noted, "the Supreme Court

7 has . . . made [it] clear that in order to achieve [the required]

8 'heightened reliability[]' [in the penalty phase of a capital

9 case], more evidence, not less, should be admitted on the

10 presence or absence of aggravating and mitigating factors." 

11 Fell, 360 F.3d at 143 (citing Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153,

12 203-04 (1976)). But it hardly follows from that general

13 observation that relevant evidence is always permitted. 

14 Acceptance of that reasoning would eviscerate the trial court's

15 ability to exclude unduly prejudicial material from the penalty

16 hearing inasmuch as any decision to exclude necessarily means

17 less evidence, not more. 

18 In upholding the constitutionality of section 3593(c)

19 in Fell, we noted that the requirement of a fundamentally fair

20 trial

21 is certainly met [by section 3593(c)], given

22 that the balancing test set forth in the FDPA

23 is, in fact, more stringent than its

24 counterpart in the [Federal Rules of

25 Evidence], which allows the exclusion of

26 relevant evidence "if its probative value is

27 substantially outweighed by the danger of

28 unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or

29 misleading the jury." Fed. R. Evid.

30 403 . . . . Thus, the presumption of

31 admissibility of relevant evidence is
-23-

1 actually narrower under the FDPA than under

2 the FRE.

3 Fell, 360 F.3d at 145 (first emphasis added). We then pointed

4 out that:

5 The FDPA does not eliminate [the] function of

6 the judge as gatekeeper of constitutionally

7 permissible evidence; nor does it alter or

8 eliminate the constitutional baseline for the

9 admissibility of evidence in a criminal

10 trial. To the contrary, under the FDPA

11 [s]tandard, judges continue their role as

12 evidentiary gatekeepers and, pursuant to the

13 balancing test set forth in § 3593(c), retain

14 the discretion to exclude any type of

15 unreliable or prejudicial evidence that might

16 render a trial fundamentally unfair. 

17 Id. (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). 

18 Fell does not support the government's contention.

19 Citing Gregg v. Georgia, supra, and Williams v. New

20 York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949), the government also insists that "to

21 be constitutional, a capital sentencing procedure must be

22 individualized and based on the fullest possible information

23 about the defendant." Gov't Br. at 33. But Gregg did not hold

24 that the government is entitled to present to the jury "the

25 fullest possible information about the defendant" regardless of

26 what that information might be. It concluded that a Georgia

27 capital trial scheme much like the FDPA was constitutional, in

28 part because it "provides for a bifurcated proceeding at which

29 the sentencing authority is apprised of the information relevant

30 to the imposition of sentence and provided with standards to

31 guide its use of the information." Gregg, 428 U.S. at 195. The

32 proceedings before us meet that standard, whatever the district

33 court's ruling was on the admissibility of evidence of child
 The Court stated: 15

A sentencing judge . . . is not confined to

the narrow issue of guilt. His task within

fixed statutory or constitutional limits is

to determine the type and extent of

punishment after the issue of guilt has been

determined. Highly relevant -- if not

essential -- to his selection of an

appropriate sentence is the possession of the

fullest information possible concerning the

defendant's life and characteristics. And

modern concepts individualizing punishment

have made it all the more necessary that a

sentencing judge not be denied an opportunity

to obtain pertinent information by a

requirement of rigid adherence to restrictive

rules of evidence properly applicable to the

trial.

Williams, 337 U.S. at 247.

-24-

1 abuse. Similarly, the Williams Court approved a sentencing

2 judge's ability, in determining that a death sentence was

3 warranted, to consider evidence of other crimes of which the

4 defendant had not been convicted but in which he had been

5 implicated. Williams, 337 U.S. at 244. The ability of the 15

6 court to admit such evidence at the penalty phase is not at issue

7 here. While both Gregg and Williams might be read to suggest

8 that the district court was permitted to admit evidence related

9 to child abuse and the conviction for child endangerment

10 consistent with the requirements of due process, they plainly do

11 not require the district court to do so as a matter of law.

12 The other arguments the government makes on this score

13 are of a similar stripe. For example, the government tells us

14 that the Ninth Circuit "upheld a sentencing jury's consideration

15 of the defendant's lewd and lascivious conduct conviction . . .
-25-

1 and his unadjudicated rape of an adult." Gov't Br. at 36 (citing

2 McDowell v. Calderon, 107 F.3d 1351, 1366, amended and superseded

3 in part by 116 F.3d 364, vacated in part, 130 F.3d 833 (9th Cir.

4 1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1103 (1998)). And, it

5 asserts, "[o]ther courts have admitted information about prior

6 violent acts such as rape, assault and child abuse to inform the

7 jury’s decision regarding future dangerousness." Gov't Br. at 38

8 (citing McDowell, 107 F.3d at 1366; Hogue v. Scott, 874 F. Supp.

9 1486, 1509-11, 1524 (N.D. Tex. 1994), aff'd, 131 F.3d 466 (5th

10 Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1014 (1998)). That may be so. 

11 But it does not follow that the district court in this case and

12 on this record was required by law to rule that the prejudicial

13 effect of the evidence in question did not outweigh its probative

14 value.

15 There was no error of law.

16 B. Abuse of Discretion

17 When reviewing the exercise of a district court's

18 discretion in the context of admissibility of evidence under

19 Federal Rule of Evidence 403, we will not disturb the court's

20 conclusion "so long as [it] has conscientiously balanced the

21 proffered evidence's probative value with the risk for

22 prejudice," and our intervention is limited only to those cases

23 where the court's decision is "arbitrary or irrational." 

24 Awadallah, 436 F.3d at 131 (citing United States v. Han, 230 F.3d

25 560, 564 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also id. (quoting Hester v. BIC

26 Corp., 225 F.3d 178, 181 (2d Cir. 2000) ("A district court's
-26-

1 evidentiary rulings will be disturbed only if they are

2 'manifestly erroneous.'" (quoting Luciano v. Olsten Corp., 110

3 F.3d 210, 217 (2d Cir. 1997)))). We perceive no reason why the

4 same degree of deference does not apply when a district court has

5 excluded government-proffered evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 3593(b)

6 in the penalty phase of a capital trial.

7 In the case before us, the district court explained at

8 different times, and in some detail, its decision to exclude

9 evidence as to child abuse and the prior child endangerment

10 conviction. According to the court: "[This evidence does] not

11 relate to the homicidal characteristics which form the basis of

12 the prosecution," Taveras I, 2006 WL 473773, at *6, 2006 U.S.

13 Dist. LEXIS 7408, at *18; it "might well be overvalued in light

14 of recent publicity on sexual assaults on children in this

15 geographic area," id., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7408, at *18; there

16 is a "great likelihood that defendant, if convicted and spared

17 death, will spend the rest of his life in prison" and therefore

18 his dangerousness to minor children and women is of little

19 relevance, Taveras II, 424 F. Supp. 2d at 463; it is possible

20 that admission of the evidence would necessitate a "diversionary

21 trial within a trial" as to whether Pepin's sexual relationship

22 with Mendez's daughter was consensual and whether he abused her,

23 id. at 463-64; it is likely that the evidence would "so inflame

24 the passions of the jurors as to inhibit their careful

25 consideration of the future dangerousness factor," id. at 464. 

26 When the government amended its Notice of Intent to Seek a
-27-

1 Sentence of Death to add the child endangerment conviction as a

2 means of putting much the same evidence before the jury under the

3 rubric of "moral condemnation," the court further observed that

4 it had earlier failed to have admitted as evidence of "future

5 dangerousness," and that "[n]othing in the government's motion

6 justifies departure from the court's previous ruling excluding

7 this same evidence," Taveras III, 436 F. Supp. 2d at 502-03. The

8 district court thus made "a 'conscientious assessment' of whether

9 unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value." 

10 Salameh, 152 F.3d at 110 (quoting United States v. Birney, 686

11 F.2d 102, 106 (2d Cir. 1982)). We cannot conclude that its

12 analysis bespeaks an "arbitrary or irrational" exercise of

13 discretion, Awadallah, 436 F.3d at 131, or results in an

14 evidentiary ruling that is "manifestly erroneous," Hester, 225

15 F.3d at 181. We therefore affirm as to these orders.

16 We pause to note that this evidentiary challenge is

17 unusual because it is made, properly under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, by

18 way of pre-trial interlocutory appeal rather than being brought

19 post-trial, post-verdict, and post-judgment. Nonetheless, the

20 fair and proper conduct of a trial must be, and is, primarily in

21 the hands of the trial judge. The standard of review, whether

22 before trial or after, is, therefore, abuse of discretion. See,

23 e.g., Awadallah, 436 F.3d at 131 (applying abuse of discretion

24 review in a pre-trial appeal by the government to a district

25 court's evidentiary ruling pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731). Even

26 were we to disagree with its conclusion as to the admissibility
-28-

1 of child abuse evidence, then, we would not simply substitute our

2 judgment for that of the district court.

3 IV. The Exclusion of Evidence 

4 of Post-Mortem Dismemberment

5 The government's challenge to the exclusion from both

6 the guilt and penalty phases of all evidence regarding the

7 victims' post-mortem dismemberment raises somewhat different

8 issues.

9 The parties offer different accounts of the reasoning

10 behind the district court's decision to exclude the dismemberment

11 evidence from the guilt phase of the trial. The government

12 argues, in essence, that the district court found the evidence

13 admissible under Rule 403, but went on to exclude it nonetheless,

14 because the evidence was not independently admissible during the

15 penalty phase. The defense contends that the district court

16 based its ruling on Rule 403 alone, which permits a judge to

17 consider both the defendant's willingness to stipulate and the

18 potential for prejudice in the penalty phase in conducting the

19 requisite balancing. Thus, under the government's view, we would

20 review the decision de novo as a question of law, while under the

21 defendant's view, we would only ask whether the application of

22 Rule 403 constituted an abuse of discretion. While both are

23 reasonable characterizations of the district court's order in

24 Taveras III, we find it unnecessary to choose between them. 

25 Whether the district court applied a novel rule of law or relied

26 on Rule 403, we conclude that its order with respect to the

27 dismemberment evidence at the guilt phase must be vacated. 
-29-

1 A. Errors of Law

2 First, as the district court acknowledged, Federal Rule

3 of Evidence 403, providing that "evidence may be excluded if its

4 probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of

5 unfair prejudice . . . ." (emphasis added), governs admissibility

6 of evidence at the guilt phase. Taveras III, 436 F. Supp. 2d at

7 513. As we have noted, a district court ordinarily has somewhat

8 less latitude to exclude probative evidence based on unfair

9 prejudice at the guilt phase, under Rule 403, than it does where

10 the evidence is offered only at the penalty phase and where the

11 court's exercise of discretion is, therefore, governed by the

12 more stringent evidentiary standard of 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). 

13 Inasmuch as the question before us is the admissibility of

14 dismemberment evidence at the guilt phase, it would appear that

15 Rule 403 applies here. If so, the district court can exclude

16 such evidence only if the danger of unfair prejudice

17 "substantially outweighs" its probative value under Rule 403, not

18 if the one merely "outweighs" the other as section 3593(c)

19 permits.

20 According to the government, the district court

21 excluded the evidence at the guilt phase, even after finding it

22 admissible under Rule 403, because it was not independently

23 admissible during a potential penalty phase. This decision, it

24 argues, is both contrary to section 3593(c) and unsupported by

25 any authority. 
-30-

1 As the district court was keenly aware, a court has two

2 separate sets of responsibilities with respect to evidence that a

3 single jury may consider twice, once when deciding between guilt

4 and acquittal, the other when deciding between life and death. 

5 Insofar as the district court fashioned a novel rule governing

6 evidence at the guilt phase of a capital trial, it was clearly

7 attempting to meet both responsibilities rather than one at the

8 expense of the other. Nevertheless, if and to the extent that

9 the district court excluded evidence from the guilt phase solely

10 because it was excluded at the penalty phase, we conclude that it

11 erred as a matter of law. 

12 We do not think that the district court, in making its

13 Rule 403 determinations, is required to ignore its subsequent

14 obligation to apply the section 3593(c) standard at the penalty

15 phase. To rule that only evidence independently admissible at

16 the penalty phase is admissible during the guilt phase, however,

17 would impermissibly allow the section 3593(c) admissibility

18 standard to govern evidentiary rulings not only at the penalty

19 phase, but throughout the entire proceeding. 

20 B. Abuse of Discretion

21 Although acknowledging once again the degree of

22 deference we pay to a district court's ruling on the

23 admissibility of evidence, we also conclude that the order

24 excluding all evidence as to post-mortem dismemberment, to the

25 extent that it relies on Rule 403, was an abuse of discretion. 
-31-

1 The issue at the guilt phase will be whether the

2 killings of Rosario and Madrid by Pepin were "intentional." See

3 Taveras III, 436 F. Supp. 2d at 514. The importance of

4 dismemberment evidence to the prosecution was cogently stated by

5 the district court: 

6 [A]spects of the photographs and testimony --

7 particularly the precise manner in which the

8 bodies were dismembered –- are . . . highly

9 probative of [the] mental state [in issue].

10 At the guilt phase, such evidence would be

11 pertinent. To secure a conviction on the

12 capital charges, the prosecution must

13 convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt

14 that defendant "intentionally kill[ed] or

15 counsel[led], command[ed], induce[d],

16 procure[d], or cause[d] the intentional

17 killing of an individual and such killing

18 result[ed]." 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A).

19 Defendant has indicated that he does not

20 intend to contest that he killed Madrid and

21 Rosario, lessening the need for witness

22 testimony on the fact of the killing. A

23 stipulation to the victims' deaths at

24 defendant's hands would thus be an

25 alternative source of proof. See Old Chief

26 v. United States, 519 U.S. [172,] 184

27 [(1997)] ("[T]he Rule 403 'probative value'

28 of an item of evidence . . . may be

29 calculated by comparing evidentiary

30 alternatives."). Yet the government must

31 prove not merely the fact of the killing, but

32 defendant's intent.

33 Evidence that defendant calmly dismembered

34 the victims' bodies shortly after killing

35 them would tend to show that the killings

36 were not accidental -– that is, that he was

37 calm, collected, and rational shortly before

38 the killings. The precise manner in which

39 defendant disposed of the bodies -- using a

40 knife and drawing on his skill as a butcher

41 to cut at the joints -- suggests not a

42 panicked reaction to accidental death but a

43 considered effort to hide a criminal act. 

44 These details form part of the res gestae,

45 the narrative that the government rightly

46 seeks to tell at the guilt phase of a trial. 
-32-

1 Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. [at]

2 187 . . . (1997). Their probative value

3 would not be "substantially outweighed by the

4 danger of unfair prejudice . . . ." Fed. R.

5 Evid. 403.

6 Id. (some brackets added).

7 Even after factoring in the potential for unfair

8 prejudice at the penalty phase, we conclude that in light of its

9 importance in the context of the case as a whole -- its "res

10 gestae," as the district court termed it, id. -- the fact that

11 Pepin dismembered the bodies of the deceased is potentially too

12 important a factor in the jury's determination as to Pepin's

13 guilt vel non of the crimes of which he is accused for it to be

14 excluded altogether at the guilt phase. We assume without

15 deciding that the evidence may later be excludable and therefore

16 excluded under section 3593(c) during the penalty phase of the

17 trial conducted before the same jury, and that the jury would

18 thus have had access to information that should not be before it

19 for purpose of evaluating the sentence to be imposed. But it

20 would be odd, indeed, if the very gruesomeness of the killings of

21 which Pepin has been charged were to disjoint and abbreviate the

22 prosecution's presentation of the case against him, thus

23 disadvantaging the government in its ability to establish to the

24 jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Pepin committed an

25 intentional homicide in the first place. The importance of the

26 dismemberment evidence to the proper prosecution of the case,

27 combined with the possibility of curative instructions at the

28 penalty phase, if necessary, convince us that evidence of the
-33-

1 dismemberments and their context must be allowed at the guilt

2 phase.

3 We do not mean to suggest that all evidence of

4 dismemberment must be admitted at the guilt phase. But the

5 blanket ban of dismemberment evidence from the guilt phase was an

6 abuse of discretion, and we therefore vacate the order of the

7 district court effecting such a ban.

8 The government also asks us to decide that evidence of

9 dismemberment must be permitted at the penalty phase. We decline

10 to do so. Much will have happened between now and then,

11 particularly the likely use of evidence of dismemberment at the

12 guilt phase. We cannot know with anything approaching certainty

13 what the precise issue before the court will be if and when it

14 actually is framed. We therefore vacate the order now in force

15 barring dismemberment evidence from the penalty phase. Should

16 these proceedings enter a penalty phase, we leave it to the

17 district court at that time -- in light of the views expressed in

18 this opinion and in the district court's sound discretion -- to

19 enter an order as to the admissibility of such evidence.

20 CONCLUSION

21 For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the district

22 court are affirmed, except its order with respect to evidence of

23 dismemberment at the guilt and penalty phases of trial, which is

24 vacated. The order of this Court staying the trial is vacated

25 effective upon issuance of the mandate. Each party shall bear

26 his or its own costs.