2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-11-2007 

# Govt of VI v

. G arc i a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4422

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Govt of VI v

. G ar c i a" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1110. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1110NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 06- 4422 GOVE RN M E NT OF T HE VI RG I N I S L ANDS

v. JU L IO O R T IZ G A R C IA A ppel l ant O n A ppeal Fr om the D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands , D i vi s i on of St . C r oi x, A ppel l at e D i vi s i on

( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N o. 05- cr - 00018) H on. R aym ond L . Fi nch, C hi ef D i s t r i ctJ udge H on. C ur t i s V . G om ez, D i s t r i ctJ udge R hy s S. H odge, T err i t or i al J udge Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay8, 2007 B E FO R E : SL O V I T E R , ST A PL E T O N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed M ay11, 2007)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: I. A ppel l antJ ul i o O r t i z G ar ci a w as convi ct ed of a t t empt ed r ape i n t he fi r s tdegr ee ( C ount1) , t w o count s of r ape i n t he fi r s tdegr ee ( C ount s 2 and 3) , unl aw ful s exual conducti n t he fi r s tdegr ee ( C ount4) , ki dnappi ng forr ape ( C ount5) , and tw o count s of chi l d abus e ( C ount s 6 and 7) . T hes e convi ct i ons ar os e fr om a s er i es of eve nt s on t he s ame dayi nvol vi ng a 15- y ear - ol d femal e vi ct i m . G ar ci a al s o had a pr i orconvi ct i on for r ape of a thr ee- y ear - ol d vi ct i m . T he Super i orC our ti m pos ed a 25- y ears ent ence on C ount 1, a 99- y ears ent ence on C ount s 2 and 3, a 25- y ears ent ence on C ount4, a 99- y ear se n ten c e o n C o u n t 5 , an d a 2 0 -y e a r se n ten c e o n C o u n ts 6 a n d 7 . T h e se n ten c e s o n C o u n ts 1 th ro u g h 4 a re to ru n c o n c u rre n tly , as a re th e se n ten c e s o n C o u n ts 5 th ro u g h 7 . G a rc ia can thus be r equi r ed t o s erve tw o cons ecut i ve s ent ence s of 99 y ear s eac h forr ape i n t he fi r s tdegr ee a nd ki dnappi ng w i t h t he i nt entt o r ape. G ar ci a ar gues befor e us t hatthe A ppel l at e D i vi s i on err ed i n aff i r m i ng the Super i or C o u rt ’s (1) d en ial o f h is m o ti o n to su p p ress the v ict im ’s ou t- o f-c o u rtan d in-co u rt i dent i fi cat i ons of hi m , and ( 2) r ej ect i on of hi s cont ent i ons thatthe s ent ence s i m pos ed vi ol at ed both t he Ei ght h A m endment ’ s pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tcruel and unus ual puni s hm ent a n d th e F if

th A m e n d m e n t’ s p ro te c tio n a g a in s t m u ltip le p u n is h m e n ts f o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e . In h is in f o rm a l pro se b rie f

, G a rc ia a lso in sis ts th a t th e re w a s in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to s uppor tt he r ape c onvi ct i ons . W e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the A ppel l at e D i vi s i onW e do notagr ee, how ever , w i t h the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on’ s appar ents ugges t i on that 1 c o n c u rr e n t s e n te n c e s f

o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e d o n o t v io la te th e D o u b le J e o p a rd yC la u s e , s ee B al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 7 0 U .S . 8 5 6 (1 9 8 5 ). B u t th a t su g g e stio n is n o t es se n tial to its hol di ng t hatG ar ci a’ s r i ght s undert he D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e have notbeen vi ol at ed. 3 es s ent i al l yfort he r eas ons gi ven i n i t s thor ough opi ni on. 1 II. A s th e A p p e lla te D iv is io n n o te d , w h ile th e “ s h o w u p ” o f G a rc ia w a s “ s u g g e s tiv e ,” i ti s notatal l cl eart hati tw as “unnec es s ar i l ys ugges t i ve” a s thos e t erm s ar e us ed i n N e il v. B igg ers , 409 U . S. 188 ( 1972) . C our t s have c ons i s t ent l yacknow l edged the nec es s i t yof u tiliz in g “ s h o w u p s ” u n d e r c e rt a in c ir c u m s ta n c e s , d e s p ite th e irin h e re n t s u g g e s tib ility. See G ov’ tof

V i r gi n I s l ands v. C al lw ood , 440 F. 2d 1206, 1209 ( 3d C i r . 1971) . W e agr ee w ith th e A p p e llate D iv isio n , h o w e v e r, th a t o n e n e e d n o t re so lv e th a t issu e in o rd e r to s us t ai n t he Super i orC our t ’ s deni al of G ar ci a’ s s uppr es s i on m ot i on. A pr e- t r i al i den t i fi cat i on i s suppressi ble onl yi f i ti s b o th p ro d u c e d th ro u g h a n u n n e c e ss a rily s ugges t i ve pr ocedur e and u n re lia b le . See B igg ers , 409 U . S. at196- 99. T h e “ s h o w u p ” id e n tif

ic a tio n o f

G a rc ia b o re m a n ya n d s tr o n g in d ic ia o f re lia b ility. G ar ci a l i ved nextdoort o t he vi ct i m and s he had s een hi m on num er ous occa s i ons . She had an a m pl e oppor tuni t yt o obs erve hi m dur i ng the perpetr at i on of the cr i m es and p ro v id e d p o lice w ith a d e taile d a n d a c c u ra te d e sc rip tio n o f h im a n d h is c lo th in g p rio r to t he “s how up. ” The “s how up” i dent i fi cat i on occurr ed j us tm i nut es aft erthe cr i m es and w a s in sta n tan e o u s a n d u n e q u iv o c a l.4

U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , the Super i orC our tdi d noterri n deny i ng s uppr es s i on o f b o th in - a n d o u t- o f

-c o u rt id e n tif

ic a tio n s . S e e , e.g ., U

n itedS ta tes ex re l. G o m e s v . S ta te of N ew Jer s ey , 4 6 4 F . 2 d 6 8 6 , 6 8 7 -88 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 2 ). III . A s w e r ece nt l yobs erved i n U ni t ed Stat es v. MacEw an , 4 4 5 F . 3 d 2 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ): W h e n e v a lu a tin g p ro p o rtio n a lityc h a llen g e s to se n ten c e s u n d e r th e E ig h th A m endment , cour t s m us texami ne thr ee f act or s : ( 1) “the gr avi t yof the offe ns e and the har s hnes s of the pena l t y ”; ( 2) “the s ent ence s i m pos ed on ot hercr i m i nal s i n t he s ame j ur i s di ct i on”; and ( 3) “the s ent ence s i m pos ed for comm i s s i on of the s ame cr i m e i n otherj ur i s di ct i ons . ” Sol em , 463 U . S. at 290- 292, 103 S. C t . 3001. W hen conduc t i ng thi s anal y s i s , thi s C our thas r ecogni zed thatw e “‘ s houl d gr ants ubs t ant i al defe r ence t o t he br oad author i t yt hatl egi s l atur es nece s s ar i l ypos s es s i n det erm i ni ng the types and l i m i t s of puni s hm ent s forcr i m es . ’ ” R osenb erg , 806 F. 2d at1175 ( quot i ng Sol em , 4 6 3 U . S . at 29 0 , 1 0 3 S . C t. 3 0 0 1 ). T hi s pr i nci pl e of s ubs t ant i al defe r ence ther efor e “r es t r ai ns us fr om an ext ended a nal y s i s of pr opor t i onal i t ys ave i n r ar e ca s es . ” I d. ( quot i ng Sol em , 463 U . S. at290 n. 16, 103 S. C t . 3001) . C ons equent l y , i n as s es s i ng s uch a c hal l enge, t he fi r s tpr opor t i onal i tyfac t oract s as a gat ew ayor t hr es hol d. I f the def

endantfai l s t o s how a gr os s i m bal ance betw een the cr i m e and the s ent ence , ouranal y s i s i s atan end. W e, ther efor e, m us tfocus upon w hetherM acEw an’ s i s “the r ar e ca s e i n w hi ch a thr es hol d compar i s on of the cr i m e comm i t t ed and the s ent ence i m pos ed l eads t o an i nfer ence of gr os s di s pr opor t i onal i t y . ” E w i ng , 538 U . S. at30, 123 S. C t . 1179 ( quot i ng H a m e lin , 5 0 1 U . S . at 10 0 5 , 1 1 1 S . C t. 2 6 8 0 (K en n ed y , J. )) I d. at247- 48. A l l of the s ent ence s i m pos ed on G ar ci a w er e w i t hi n t he r ange a uthor i zed bythe V i r gi n I s l ands l egi s l atur e. V i r gi n I s l ands l aw , forexampl e, author i zes a s ent ence of l i fe5

i m pri sonm ent ori m pri sonm ent for anyt erm of y ears for the cri m e of rape in the fir st d e g re e w h e n th e d e f

e n d a n t, lik e G a rc ia , h a s a n e a rl ie r r a p e c o n v ic tio n . 1 4 V .I.C . § 1 7 0 1 . M oreove r, given t he ch aract er of t he o ffen se, the ag e of the vict i m , and the fa ctthat these cr i m es occurr ed l es s t han s even mont hs aft erhi s r el eas e fr om the pr i s on s ent ence i m p o s e d f

o rh i s p r i o rr a p e , w e , t o o , c o n c l u d e th a tth e r e i s n o “ g r o s s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a l t y” b e t w e e n t h e g r a v i t y o f

G a r c i a ’ s o f

f e n s e s a n d th e h a r s h n e s s o f th e p e n a l t y. I V. W h e th e r tw o sta tu tes c o n stitu te th e sa m e o f f e n se f o r d o u b le je o p a rd yp u rp o se s is bas ed noton w hethert he cha r ges r es ul tfr om the s ame conductbut , r ather , w hethereac h r equi r es pr oof of the s ame el ement s underthe t es tar t i cul at ed i n B l ockbur gerv. U ni t ed Stat es , 284 U . S. 299 ( 1932) . A s t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on per s uas i vel yexpl ai ns , eac h of the cr i m es al l eged he r e r equi r es pr oof of a tl eas tone el ementnotr equi r ed t o pr ove anotherof t he all eged cri m es. V. C or r obor at i on of the vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m onyi s no l ongerr equi r ed i n r ape c as es under V i r gi n I s l ands l aw , and the evi dence attr i al pr ovi des ampl e s uppor tforthe r ape con vict i on s. V I. W e w i l l aff

i r m t he j udgm entof the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on and w i l l gr antthe mot i on of a p p e lla n t’ s c o u n s e l to w ith d ra w . S e e A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ).