1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUAN FLORES-CASTRO,

a/k/a Duende

Defendant.

CASE NO. 2:17-CR-164(17)

JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JUAN FLORES-CASTRO’S

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PHOTOGRAHPIC EVIDENCE

The United States, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits this response to 

Defendant Juan Flores-Castro’s motion in limine (ECF No. 999) seeking to exclude photographic 

evidence related to the murder of Wilson Villeda. As explained below, the Court should deny the 

motion because it is both premature and fails on the merits.

MEMORANDUM

In February 2018, the grand jury returned the Second Superseding Indictment, which 

charges the defendant, Juan Flores-Castro, with one count of conspiracy to commit racketeering 

[Count 1]; two counts of murder in aid of racketeering [Counts 3 and 4]; and one count of murder 

through the use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence [Count 5]. As relevant 

here, Count 3 charges Flores-Castro and twelve other members and associates of MS-13 with the 

2015 murder of Wilson Villeda. Flores-Castro now moves to limit or, in the alternative, to prohibit 

the admission of any photos of the crime scene, Mr. Villeda’s body, or his related autopsy. This 

motion is premature, however, and fails on the merits in any event.

Case: 2:17-cr-00164-EAS Doc #: 1006 Filed: 03/16/20 Page: 1 of 12 PAGEID #: 4070
2

Background

The Murder of Wilson Villeda

In November 2015, Flores-Castro and over a dozen members and associates of 

MS-13 murdered Wilson Villeda, a 17 year-old high school student. Mr. Villeda spent time with 

members of the Columbus clique of MS-13 and may have been interested in joining the gang. 

Flores-Castro and his co-conspirators had other ideas, however. They questioned Mr. Villeda’s 

allegiance to MS-13 because of his tattoos, which they believed signaled an affiliation with a rival 

gang. Ultimately, they sought and received authorization from MS-13 leadership in El Salvador 

to kill the victim.

MS-13 members put their plan into action on the evening of November 14, 2015. That 

night, Flores-Castro and more than a dozen other MS-13 members and associates – several of 

whom traveled to Ohio from other states specifically to participate in this homicide – waited at 

and around 3350 Anita Street. One of the co-conspirators brought Mr. Villeda to this residence 

and, like another victim before him, he was taken into the woods of Innis Park and slaughtered. 

During the horrific attack, the gang members took turns stabbing, slashing, and cutting Mr. Villeda 

with a machete and other bladed weapons. One of the gang members took photographs of the 

victim’s mutilated body on his cell phone and sent those pictures to other MS-13 members in 

California with a message that said, “I got a little crazy with the homies.” The co-conspirators 

buried Mr. Villeda’s body in a shallow grave near the burial site of another one of their victims. 

Medical reports described between 70 and 92 chop-like injuries to Mr. Villeda’s head, torso, and 

extremities. The day after this homicide, the MS-13 members gathered to burn Mr. Villeda’s 

clothing. The weapons that the group used during the murder were grounded down, and the 

remaining pieces were disposed of in another state.

Case: 2:17-cr-00164-EAS Doc #: 1006 Filed: 03/16/20 Page: 2 of 12 PAGEID #: 4071
3

The Use of Photos at Trial

The Government intends to use a limited number of photos regarding Mr. Villeda’s murder 

to prove the allegations in Count 3, as well as the overall racketeering conspiracy from Count 1, 

which lists the same homicide as an overt act. That evidence includes photos that an MS-13 

member sent to other gang members in California just after the homicide; photos of the process of 

locating and recovering Mr. Villeda’s remains; photos of Mr. Villeda’s body once it was eventually 

recovered from Innis Park; and select autopsy photos. 

Procedurally, the Government proposes to use these photos in the same manner as in other 

large-scale racketeering / murder trials in this district, including the recent Short North Posse case, 

United States v. Ledbetter, et al. Under that procedure, the Government will seek to admit a 

complete “series” of photos for each homicide, while notifying defense counsel in advance which 

photos the Government seeks to publish to the jury. If defense counsel have objections to a 

particular photo(s) being published, they can raise those objections at sidebar, where they can be 

resolved expeditiously, and without the need for lengthy pretrial hearings or briefing. See United 

States v. Ledbetter, No. 2:14-cr-127, Trial Tr., Vol. VII, ECF No. 1075, PAGEID #6283-85 

(publishing three photos of victim’s body out of fifty-six photos taken from crime-scene series); 

id. at Vol. IX, ECF No. 1077, PAGEID #6651-56 (publishing just two photos of homicide victim). 

The Government does not intend to publish all photos of victims, crime scenes, and 

autopsies that have been produced in discovery. Instead, the Government intends to publish only 

a limited set as to each murder to establish the “who, what, when, where, and how” of each crime. 

Nor does the Government intend to publish cumulative pictures of any victim, crime scene, or 

autopsy. Instead, the Government will limit the photos it seeks to publish to the jury to those that 

have independent evidentiary value.

Case: 2:17-cr-00164-EAS Doc #: 1006 Filed: 03/16/20 Page: 3 of 12 PAGEID #: 4072
4

Legal Standards

Motions in limine are designed to ensure fair and speedy trial management by excluding

evidence that is clearly inadmissible. In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. C-8 Personal Injury 

Litig., 348 F. Supp. 3d 698, 721 (S.D. Ohio 2016) (Sargus, J.). Given the fact-intensive nature of 

most evidentiary objections, “courts are generally reluctant to grant broad exclusions of evidence 

in limine, because a court is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the value 

and utility of evidence.” Id. (quotation omitted). To prevail on such a motion, a party must show 

“that the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Id. Unless the movant meets 

this high bar, “evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, 

relevancy, and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

The decision to grant a motion in limine rests in the discretion of the district court, which can also 

defer ruling on such a motion or even change its ruling “when the evidence is actually offered and 

objected to at trial.” United States v. Luce, 713 F.2d 1236, 1239-40 (6th Cir. 1983).

All relevant evidence is generally admissible; nevertheless, Rule of Evidence 403 grants 

district courts discretion to exclude such evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed

by the risk of unfair prejudice. United States v. Gibbs, 797 F.3d 416, 422 (6th Cir. 2015). The term 

“unfair prejudice” does not, however, encompass “the damage to a defendant’s case that results 

from the legitimate force of the evidence.” United States v. Ford, 761 F.3d 641, 648 

(6th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted). Instead, the term refers only to evidence which tends to lead

jurors to make decisions on an improper basis. Id. As such, Rule 403 “favors admissibility.” 

United States v. Jones, 554 F. App’x 460, 473 (6th Cir. 2014) (White, J., concurring). District 

courts are afforded “great deference” in conducting the balancing test required under Rule 403. 

United States v. Howard, 621 F.3d 433, 457 (6th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).

Case: 2:17-cr-00164-EAS Doc #: 1006 Filed: 03/16/20 Page: 4 of 12 PAGEID #: 4073
5

Argument

As explained below, the Court should deny Flores-Castro’s motion in limine as premature 

while allowing him to raise similar objections at trial when, in all likelihood, the parties may come 

to an agreement over which photos should be published to the jury. Even if the parties cannot 

agree, the Court will be in a far better position at trial to assess the probative value of any photos, 

to compare that probative value to the substantial risk of unfair prejudice, and to render a decision 

under Rule 403. Alternatively, to the extent the Court wishes to reach the merits of Flores-Castro’s 

argument now, it still fails. Courts across the country have deemed similar photos of victims, 

crime scenes, and autopsies admissible under the balancing test required by Rule 403.

I. The Court Should Deny Flores-Castro’s Motion as Premature While Allowing 

Him to Raise any Objections to the Photos at Trial.

The Court should deny Flores-Castro’s motion in limine because it is premature. The trial 

is still roughly a year away. At this early juncture, neither the Government nor the Court can be 

sure of how many of the remaining four defendants will proceed to trial; how many murders will 

still be at issue; or the quantum and quality of evidence as to each of those murders, including the 

murder of Wilson Villeda. Given this uncertainty, it seems far-fetched to suggest that the Court 

can determine which photos (if any) are “clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds” right now,

In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 348 F. Supp. 3d at 721, especially under the fact-intensive 

balancing test that Rule 403 requires. Instead, the Court should reserve that determination for trial, 

when “questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice can be resolved in the proper 

context.” Id. (quotation omitted); see Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 

712 (6th Cir. 1975) (“A better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence 

[under Rule 403] as they arise.”). 

Case: 2:17-cr-00164-EAS Doc #: 1006 Filed: 03/16/20 Page: 5 of 12 PAGEID #: 4074
6

Indeed, that is exactly the proposal the Government puts forth in this case—a fact-bound 

inquiry during the trial itself, when issues of relevancy, probative value, and the substantial risk of 

unfair prejudice can be fairly and efficiently examined. An example from a sidebar conference 

discussing one of the murders in the Short North Posse case may prove helpful:

Mr. Gatterdam: Your Honor, I don’t have any objection on authenticity because I think 

[the detective] testified these are the photos she took. But as I flip 

through [the series] I think my objection is going to be the cumulative 

nature of several of the pictures with the alleged victim’s body being 

shown. . . . All seem to show very similar pictures of the victim’s body. 

They’re very gruesome, they’re very graphic, and I don’t think the jury 

needs to see multiple pictures.

Mr. Martinez: Your Honor, as Detective Taliaferro testified, there are 56 photos. I do 

not intend to show all 56 photos. This is why we approached it this way. 

I understand there are many photos of the dead body. I intend to show 

three of them.

The Court: Okay. And I take it that the three will have different –

Mr. Martinez: Different angles and views, exactly right.

The Court: All right. Do you know right now, Mr. Martinez, which specific body 

shots you intend to show?

Mr. Martinez: Yes. Let me be clear. So the first one is [number] 18[,] which is [the] 

view into the entry into the room. The second one is [number] 50 to 

show the wounds to the body and the last one is [number] 49 which is 

so you can see the person’s face.

The Court: Okay. I’m going to allow those three. If you object to those, you may 

make your objection for the record. But I think that those three show 

different vantage points of the body and it is not cumulative in that 

respect. So I will be inclined to allow him.

Ledbetter, ECF No. 1075, PAGEID #6283-84. Given the number of murders at issue in this case, 

resolving any evidentiary objections to victim/crime scene photos in real time, as proposed, will 

be more efficient and practical than engaging in a never-ending series of pre-trial briefing and 

hearings. For these reasons, the Court should deny the motion in limine as premature.

Case: 2:17-cr-00164-EAS Doc #: 1006 Filed: 03/16/20 Page: 6 of 12 PAGEID #: 4075
7

II. Alternatively, the Court Should Deny the Motion in Limine Under Rule 403.

Alternatively, to the extent the Court wishes to rule on the merits of Flores-Castro’s motion 

now (before trial), the Court should deny the motion under Rule 403. The probative value of a 

limited number of victim, crime scene, and autopsy photos regarding the Wilson Villeda murder 

is not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.

The Sixth Circuit and other courts across the country routinely permit photos of murder 

victims, crime scenes, and related autopsies to be admitted at trial, even against challenges under 

Rule 403. For example, in United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359 (6th Cir. 1979), the Sixth Circuit

affirmed the district court’s decision to admit several photographs of three victims of an armed 

bank robbery “lying on the floor of the bank in pools of their own blood.” Id. at 361. The court 

acknowledged that while the photos were “not pleasant to behold,” they were nevertheless 

probative of the fact that the killings occurred in the courses of a bank robbery. Id. at 361-62. 

There, the defendant even stipulated to the fact that the victims “died by gunshot wounds to the 

head,” but the court still found the probative value of the photos was not outweighed by the 

substantial risk of unfair prejudice under Rule 403. Id. at 362. 

Likewise, in United States v. Hollie, 198 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 1999) (table), the Sixth Circuit 

affirmed the district court’s decision to admit three photos of a shooting victim “lying on a table 

in the morgue.” 1999 WL 1021860, at *7. There again, the defendant had not disputed the cause 

of death or even the bullet path. Id. Nevertheless, the court of appeals still deemed the probative 

value of the photos, which showed “[the victim’s] head at different angles, focusing on the entrance 

and exit wounds,” was not outweighed by the substantial risk of unfair prejudice because the 

Government sought to use the photos for a different purpose—namely, showing that a third party 

could not have fired the fatal shots. Id. Thus, the photos “were properly admitted.” Id.

Case: 2:17-cr-00164-EAS Doc #: 1006 Filed: 03/16/20 Page: 7 of 12 PAGEID #: 4076
8

Finally, in United States v. Brown, 54 F. App’x 201 (6th Cir. 2002), the Sixth Circuit 

affirmed admission of several photos of murder victims lying on the floor of a body shop, despite 

arguments that the photos were “highly prejudicial” and designed to appeal only “to the jurors’ 

prejudices about the nature of the killings.” Id. at 208-09. The court rejected that argument and 

held that the photos were highly probative in showing that the murders were committed in 

furtherance of the charged drug-trafficking conspiracy. Id. at 208. This was so because the photos 

helped prove that the victims (1) had been lured by the co-conspirators to a particular place; 

(2) died of multiple wounds; and (3) died in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Id. at 209. 

Given the probative nature of the photos, and the fact that the Government and the district court 

excluded “those that were duplicative,” the Sixth Circuit found their admission proper. Id.

Other courts have reached the same conclusion in a variety of cases involving gruesome 

photos. In United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998), the court affirmed admission of 

thirteen photos of victims who were killed in the World Trade Center bombing—some of which 

“were facial close-ups of the bombing victims,” and two of which “showed victims’ bodies as they 

lay in stretchers,” including one who “was clearly pregnant.” Id. at 122-23. Despite noting that 

the “graphic depictions of the corpses” was “[u]ndeniably . . . disturbing,” the court upheld their 

admission. Id. The court noted that there was no doubt the “photographs of the victims were 

shocking, and a significant amount of such evidence was admitted.” Id. at 123. Nevertheless, the 

court found the evidence had “substantial probative value” regarding the nature and location of the 

explosion before reiterating that “[p]robative evidence is not inadmissible solely because it has a 

tendency to upset the trier of fact.” Id. Critically, the court held that the defendants’ offer to 

stipulate that the explosion caused injury and death did not limit the Government’s ability to rely 

on the photos. Id. at 122 (citing Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997)).

Case: 2:17-cr-00164-EAS Doc #: 1006 Filed: 03/16/20 Page: 8 of 12 PAGEID #: 4077
9

The Fifth Circuit reached the same conclusion in a case involving a color photograph of a 

murdered child’s lacerated heart. United States v. Bowers, 660 F.2d 527, 529-30 (5th Cir. 1981). 

There, the court acknowledged that “the photograph had the potential to inflame the jury,” but 

affirmed its admission any way since it was “no more inflammatory than photographs that portray 

the sort of death suffered by the victim in this or any case where the circumstances surrounding 

death are at issue.” Id. at 529. Here again, the court took care to note that defendants cannot avoid 

the full force of harmful evidence—including gruesome photos—by stipulating to certain facts. 

Id. at 530 (“We hasten to add that the mere fact that appellant stipulated with the government as 

to the cause of death did not preclude the government from offering proof on that issue.”). 

The list goes on. E.g., United States v. Boise, 916 F.2d 497, 504 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding 

autopsy photo of murdered child admissible under Rule 403); Futch v. Dugger, 874 F.2d 1483, 

1487 (11th Cir. 1989) (finding that gory photos of crime victims are not generally a violation of 

defendant’s right to fair trial). Cf. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 410, 414-15 (5th Cir. 1982) 

(allowing photo of victims covered in blood, semi-conscious, with clothes shredded by assault). 

Here, of course, the photos in question are “extra probative” of the charged offenses. After 

all, the Government must not only prove that Flores-Castro and other MS-13 members and 

associates murdered Wilson Villeda, as alleged in Count 3. The Government must also prove the 

existence of MS-13 as a racketeering enterprise, and the fact that Flores-Castro and others agreed 

to conduct the affairs of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as alleged in 

Count 1.

1

 

 1 As the Sixth Circuit has explained, the introduction of potentially disturbing evidence is par for the course 

in racketeering cases. See United States v. Gallo, 763 F.2d 1504, 1525 n.32 (6th Cir. 1985) (“Given the 

frequently violent nature of crimes committed in furtherance of the illicit activities Congress addressed in 

its enactment of the RICO and CCE statutes, we do not find an abuse of discretion by the trial court in 

refusing to exclude under Rule 403 evidence of those violent crimes committed . . . in furtherance of the 

[enterprise].”). 

Case: 2:17-cr-00164-EAS Doc #: 1006 Filed: 03/16/20 Page: 9 of 12 PAGEID #: 4078
10

A quick review of the Second Superseding Indictment shows that the enterprise was 

described in ways which render the Villeda photos (showing multiple chop-like injuries) even 

more probative to the overall racketeering conspiracy. Count 1 describes the enterprise, in part, as 

follows:

12. Violence is a central tenet of MS-13. The organization’s motto, “mata, 

viola, controla,” means “kill, rape, control.” MS-13 members are expected to 

promote and protect the organization’s reputation and status by any means 

necessary, such as by committing acts of intimidation and violence, up to and 

including murder. Targets of violence include rival gang members . . . [and] 

individuals who show disrespect to the gang or are otherwise perceived as a 

threat . . . . Historically, MS-13 members and associates have committed the 

murders and other violent acts using machetes, knives, and similar bladed 

weapons in order to intimidate and instill fear in others.

(Second Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 179, PAGEID #680-81, ¶ 12 (emphasis added)).

Likewise, when describing the “means and methods of the enterprise,” the Grand Jury 

found that “MS-13 members and associates committed . . . murder” and “armed themselves 

with . . . bladed objects and other weapons in order to increase their ability to commit acts of 

violence . . . .” (Id. at PAGEID #682-83, ¶¶ 23 & 29).

Given these allegations, and the other allegations that the Government must prove 

(including the eerily similar murder of Carlos Serrano-Ramos, who was also stabbed to death and 

buried in Innis Park, as alleged in Count 2), is it any wonder that the Government seeks to introduce 

some photos of Mr. Villeda’s body, which MS-13 members used to brag about the killing? 

Or where he was buried and later found? Or how he was killed, and how long ago it occurred?

Or the number, nature, and location of his many wounds? This evidence is highly probative of the 

charged offenses. See Brown, 54 F. App’x at 208-09.

Case: 2:17-cr-00164-EAS Doc #: 1006 Filed: 03/16/20 Page: 10 of 12 PAGEID #: 4079
11

At the end of the day, this is a murder case. The Government will seek to introduce 

significant and damaging evidence of those murders at trial—some of which will be uncomfortable 

for the defendants, including Flores-Castro, and perhaps for the jury too. But that does not render 

the evidence inadmissible. See United States v. Rathburn, 771 F. App’x 614, 627 (6th Cir. 2019) 

(“[P]robative evidence is not unfairly prejudicial simply because it is gruesome or disturbing.”

(quotation omitted)). This is especially true where, as here, the Government has put forth a goodfaith procedure for reducing the cumulative effect of that evidence when it comes to publishing 

photos of murder victims, crime scenes, and autopsies. See Brown, 54 F. App’x at 209.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Flores-Castro’s motion in limine. 

His evidentiary objections are best raised, if at all, during trial.

Respectfully submitted,

 DAVID M. DEVILLERS

United States Attorney

s/ Noah R. Litton 

BRIAN J. MARTINEZ (CA 224587)

NOAH R. LITTON (0090479)

Assistant United States Attorneys

303 Marconi Boulevard, Suite 200

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Office: (614) 469-5715

E-mails: Brian.Martinez2@usdoj.gov

 Noah.Litton@usdoj.gov

Case: 2:17-cr-00164-EAS Doc #: 1006 Filed: 03/16/20 Page: 11 of 12 PAGEID #: 4080
12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Defendant Juan Flores-Castro’s 

motion in limine was served electronically upon all counsel of record this 16th day of March, 2020.

s/ Noah R. Litton

NOAH R. LITTON (0090479)

Assistant United States Attorney

Case: 2:17-cr-00164-EAS Doc #: 1006 Filed: 03/16/20 Page: 12 of 12 PAGEID #: 4081