Opinion ID: 802339
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Other Murder Plots

Text: The government also sought to prove Kemo’s murder using evidence of the Pozo Plot and the Esteves Plot, which the District Court ultimately precluded after considering evidentiary proffers. The government’s first effort to rely on those other murder plots developed pretrial when, after we ruled that the RICO counts had been wrongly dismissed and remanded the case, Bergrin filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 to sever the Kemo Murder Counts from the Indictment. 8 Bergrin argued that a trial on every offense in the Indictment would be unfairly prejudicial. The government disagreed, contending that severing the Kemo Murder Counts “would be a waste of judicial resources, … would present increased danger for witnesses, and that regardless of the severance plan … all or most of the evidence of the related crimes would be admissible at … [any] of the severed trials.” (Id. at 57-58.) It proffered, in that regard, that it would seek to prove the Kemo Murder Counts in part by relying on evidence of the Pozo Plot and the Esteves Plot under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). 9 8 We refer to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure simply as “Criminal Rules.” Criminal Rule 14(a) provides that a “court may order separate trials of counts, sever the defendants’ trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires” when joinder “appears to prejudice a defendant or the government.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a). 9 We refer to the Federal Rules of Evidence simply as “Rules.” Rule 404(b), as we discuss further infra, provides 8
Pozo, the government asserted, was a “large scale drug trafficker who distributed multi-hundred kilogram shipments of cocaine he received in New Jersey via Texas.” (D.N.J. ECF no. 09-369, doc. no. 304-1, at 13.) 10 In February 2004, he was charged in the Western District of Texas for his role in that drug distribution scheme, and he hired Bergrin to represent him. Bergrin determined that Pozo’s co-defendant, Pedro Ramos, was cooperating with the government against Pozo. He told Pozo that Ramos was an informant, asked him if he knew where Ramos lived, and told him that, if “we could get to [Ramos] and take him out, Pozo’s headache (his drug charges) would go away.” (D.N.J. ECF no. 09-369, doc. no. 302, at 1 (internal quotation marks omitted).) Pozo responded, “Are you nuts? I am not involved in murdering people,” and later retained new counsel. (Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).)
that although “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act” is inadmissible to prove a person acted “in accordance with [his or her] character,” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1), it may be admitted for “another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident,” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). 10 Our references to documents on the District Court’s docket cite to the pagination contained in the ECF-generated header on each page. 9 Esteves, too, was a former client of Bergrin’s who “operated a large scale drug trafficking business based in New Jersey.” (D.N.J. ECF no. 09-369, doc. no. 304-1, at 23.) He was prepared to testify that, when he met with Bergrin in May 2008, after being charged in the Superior Court of New Jersey with drug trafficking, Bergrin told him that “the only way to beat the case was if [Esteves] took care of the witnesses” on a list of those Bergrin believed were cooperating with the government. (Id.) During that conversation, Bergrin also told Esteves that he “hate[d] rats and … would kill a rat himself,” that “this was not the first time he ha[d] done this,” and that, “if there are no witnesses, there is no case.” (Id.) An informant named Oscar Cordova, whom Bergrin believed was a hitman, subsequently recorded Bergrin instructing him to kill a witness on that list. (Id.; see Joint App. at 225-28 (describing the plot).) In that conversation, Bergrin stated, “we gotta make it look like a robbery. It cannot under any circumstances look like a hit. … We have to make it look like a home invasion robbery.” (D.N.J. ECF no. 09-369, doc. no. 304-5, at 3.)