Opinion ID: 795401
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Post-Trial Motions for Change of Venue and for New Trial

Text: 36 In July and August of 2001, the defendants reasserted their claims of improper venue in post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal and for new trial. 150 They argued a new trial was merited in the interest of justice because of the prejudice inured to them from the venue and the prosecution's misconduct. 151 Guerrero argued that, although he did not seek to criticize the Court's voir dire procedure nor could he, the jurors' responses in voir dire were `politically correct,' in that they all agreed that they would be fair and impartial. 152 Medina similarly argued that, [d]espite the extraordinary care this Court exercised in the jury selection process, a fair and impartial jury could not be seated in Miami-Dade County. 153 Campa and Gonzalez argued that witness Jose Basulto's remarks were highly prejudicial because they implied that Defendant Hernandez's counsel was a spy for the Cuban government. 154 Campa also asserted that the jury's quick verdicts without asking a single question in the complex, almost seven-month trial indicated that the jury was subject to community pressure and prejudice. 155 He further argued that the government prejudiced the defendants by stating in closing argument that they were `people bent on destroying the United States' whose defense had been `paid for by the American taxpayer.' 156 37 On November 28, 2001, the district court denied the motions for new trial in a detailed written order. 157 It referenced its prior orders denying a change of venue and denying reconsideration of the denial of the change of venue, and stated that because it was [a]ware of the impassioned Cuban exile-community residing within this venue, the Court implemented a series of measures to guarantee the Defendants' right to a fair trial. 158 These efforts included a searching, seven-day voir dire process, daily instructions to the jury not to speak with the media about the case or to read or listen to any reports about the case, and gag orders on all trial participants. 159 The court also struck witness Jose Basulto's statement and instructed the jury to disregard it. 160 The court found that the jury's prompt, inquiry-free verdict at most was speculative, circumstantial evidence of the venue's impact on the jury. 161 The court concluded that any potential for prejudice . . . was cured through the Court's methodical, active pursuit of a fair trial from voir dire, to the presentation of evidence, to argument, and concluding with deliberations and the return of verdict. 162 As to the defendants' claims of prosecutorial misconduct, the court found that it upheld each of defense counsel's objections and specially instructed the jury that it was to disregard the improper statements. 163 In light of the entire record, the interests of justice did not merit a new trial. 164 38 On November 12, 2002, the defendants renewed their motion for a new trial on two grounds: newly discovered evidence and the interests of justice. 165 They argued that they were entitled to a new trial based on the government's motion for change of venue filed June 25, 2002, in the case of Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 166 a Title VII action brought by a Hispanic employee of the INS. 167 Ramirez alleged he was subjected to a hostile work environment, unlawful retaliation, and intimidation by his employer as a result of the INS's removal of Elian Gonzalez from the United States and his return to his father in Cuba on April 22, 2000. 168 According to the defendants, the government's decision to seek a change of venue in Ramirez, based upon the alleged prejudicial effect of the pervasive community sentiment following the custody battle over Elian Gonzalez, constituted newly discovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct because the same United States Attorney opposed the defendants' repeated motions for change of venue in the instant case and misrepresented the pervasive community prejudice in the Miami community. 169 In support of this argument, the defendants filed the government's Ramirez motion for change of venue, in which it argued that the Miami-Dade community has developed and maintains strong emotional feelings and opinions regarding the handling of the Elian Gonzalez affair by INS and the Attorney General's office. 170 The government asserted, it is extremely unlikely that a venire from Miami-Dade County would be able to put aside such deeply held opinions and feelings and afford the [government] a fair trial . . . . 171 39 The defendants further argued that a new trial should be granted in the interests of justice. 172 They argued that surveys of the Miami-Dade community, the responses given by prospective jurors during voir dire, and the atmosphere surrounding the voir dire demonstrated that a fair and impartial jury could not be selected in this case. 173 In support, they filed an affidavit by legal psychologist Dr. Kendra Brennan and a study by Florida International University's Professor of Sociology and Anthropology Dr. Lisandro Perez. 174 Dr. Brennan evaluated Professor Moran's survey and concluded that it accurately reflect[ed] profound existing bias against those associated with the Cuban government in Miami-Dade County. 175 Dr. Perez concluded that the possibility of selecting twelve citizens of Miami-Dade County who can be impartial in a case involving acknowledged agents of the Cuban government is virtually zero. 176 The defendants also supported their interests of justice argument with news articles and reports by Human Rights Watch, which addressed the harassment, intimidation, and violence that Miami Cuban exiles suffered for expressing moderate political views toward Castro or Cuban relations. 177 40 The district court denied the renewed motion for new trial holding that the government's decision to move for a change of venue in Ramirez did not constitute newly discovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct with respect to the government's opposition to the defendants' motions for change of venue in this case. 178 The court reasoned that Ramirez differed from this case in that it related directly to the INS's handling of the removal of Elian Gonzalez from his uncle's home, an event which, it is arguable, garnered much more attention here in Miami and worldwide than this case. 179 The government's position in Ramirez was premised specifically upon the facts of that case, including the fact that Ramirez had stirred up extensive publicity in the local media focusing directly on the facts he alleged in the lawsuit . . . . 180 The court also ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial based on the defendants' interests of justice argument because such a motion must be filed within seven days after the guilty verdict, or within an extension of time granted by the trial judge. 181 This time period had expired more than 19 months before the motion was filed, and therefore, the court declined to consider that argument, or any of its supporting exhibits. 182 41 In a published opinion addressing only the motions for change of venue and motions for a new trial, a panel of this court concluded that the defendants were entitled to a pretrial change of venue and were denied a fair trial because of the perfect storm created by the pretrial publicity surrounding this case, the pervasive community sentiment, and the government's closing arguments. 183 We vacated the panel opinion and granted the government's petition for rehearing en banc to consider whether the defendants were denied a fair and impartial trial. 184