Opinion ID: 1195793
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Acts and Threats of Murder

Text: As for proof that the enterprise engaged in acts and threats of murder, however, the Government's case was weaker and Alicea's testimony was more material. Though the Government did introduce evidence other than Alicea's testimony tending to prove that MS-13 engaged in acts and threats of murder, the evidence tending to prove that element was less extensive. Vasquez stated in his confession that we are at war with the SWP gang. He further stated that he was threatened with murder during the Hempstead shooting: They told me to do it, and if I didn't do that, they would rub me out, meaning kill me. . . . Castro made similar statements in his oral confession, as recounted by a police detective: Q. Did [Castro] say who the targets of that shooting were? A. Yes, he said SWP was the target. Q. Did he say why they were shooting at SWP? A. He said that they were the enemy, and MS was at war with them. Q. What if anything did he say about the relationship between MS-13 and the Bloods? A. He also said MS was at war with the Bloods, and that they, meaning MS, had to protect themselves. When asked to explain what it means to make a quota, Castro stated that it meant [t]o stab, shoot, beat, kill the enemy, which he described as SWP, the Bloods and 18 Street gangs. In addition, Admettre testified that MS-13 had a policy to shoot and kill rival gang members and to attack and defend. He also testified about a separate February 2003 shooting involving both Appellants: David Vasquez identified [an] SWP member and opened fire. And Castro jumped out along with Vasquez to chase the SWP member down the block and both of them fired. Menjivar testified that MS-13 engaged in violent acts such as `fights, shootings, beating someone up.' Despite the volume of evidence that the Government introduced on this element, the question of whether it was harmless to admit Alicea's testimonyincluding his statement that MS-13 had committed between eighteen and twenty-three murders on Long Island and his statement that the purpose of MS-13 was to commit murdersremains. On first impression, it is difficult to imagine how a law enforcement officer's testimony that the gang had killed eighteen to twenty-three people would fail to affect the jury's finding that the gang engaged in acts and threats of murder. Alicea was alone in testifying that MS-13 had actually committed eighteen to twenty-two or twenty-three murders in the preceding five years. Not considering Alicea's testimony, much of the remaining evidence consists of what is essentially tough talk, and none of the remaining evidence shows that MS-13 had committed any murders. Even more so than the evidence of the drive-by shootings and the February 2003 incident, Alicea's testimony provided proof that this tough talk reflected the gang's actual practices rather than mere posturing. And while the Government did not spend a great deal of time in its closing argument emphasizing Alicea's testimony on that point, his testimony is virtually the first thing that the Government mentioned when directing the jury's attention to the proof that MS-13 engaged in acts and threats of murder: You heard from Investigator Alicea, our first witness, that in the five years that he's been on the task force, the last five years, there have been at least 18 murders here on Long Island, committed by MS 13 members in furtherance of their gang wars. After carefully considering the evidence introduced at trial, we conclude that the introduction of Alicea's inadmissible testimony was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government was required to prove acts and threats of murder as an element of every offense with which Appellants were charged. Apart from Alicea's testimony, the Government introduced only circumstantial evidence tending to prove that element; evidence that, though capable of supporting a jury's finding of guilt, does not compel such a determination. The Government appears to have recognized this possible weakness in its case, as it invoked Alicea's testimony at the start of its summation discussion, expecting, we assume, that Alicea's testimonial assertion of eighteen murders would color the jury's interpretation of the other evidence on this issue. Only in the rarest of cases will we find harmless the admission of the only direct evidence of murder, all other evidence of murderous conduct being partial and inexact. Where, as here, the Government must demonstrate acts and threats of murder, yet the Government introduces no admissible evidence of murder and only circumstantial evidence of threats, we cannot find the admission of direct evidence of multiple murders to have been harmless. Because proof of the racketeering element, which was based on acts and threats of murder, was essential to securing Appellants' convictions for conspiracy and assault, and because the assault counts were the predicate offenses for the firearm offenses, our finding of non-harmless error is fatal to the Appellants' convictions on all counts.