Opinion ID: 2586
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Connection Between the Killings and the Drug Conspiracy

Text: Having determined that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Santos joined the drug conspiracy as charged, we conclude without difficulty that there was sufficient evidence of a connection between the drug conspiracy and the killings. As noted, the government need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one motive for the killing[s] ... was related to the drug conspiracy. Desinor, 525 F.3d at 202. Again, the evidence reflects that Santos asked Medina why he was being hired, and Medina told him that his uncle  Polanco  was a large-scale cocaine dealer who wanted two men killed for stealing $316,000. If the jury found that Santos joined the drug conspiracy, then it unquestionably could have found that one motive for the killings was related to that conspiracy. Santos's argument to the contrary rests primarily on what he contends is the absence of persuasive evidence that Polanco was robbed by the men he wanted killed and that his desire to have them killed was related to his drug dealing. The alleged robbery took place more than two years before the killings, and neither Polanco nor Medina was present when the robbery took place. Santos's argument is misplaced, however, because Santos was told that Polanco had ordered the killings in retaliation for a drug-related robbery. Assuming Santos believed what he was told, that was enough for the jury to find that Santos's motive for committing the murders was, at least in part, related to the drug conspiracy. Santos also argues that the killings were unrelated to the drug conspiracy because he agreed to carry them out before he learned about the drug conspiracy. But the record fails to support this assertion. The first time Santos expressed his intent to kill anyone was when, after Medina explained that his drug-dealer uncle had been robbed of $316,000, Santos exclaimed, These motherfuckers are dead with me today. Trial Tr. 339, United States v. Santos, No. 01-cr-537 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2004). Last, we reject Santos's argument that his motive was not drug related because Medina told him that his uncle had been robbed, thereby suggesting to Santos that the murders were motivated by Medina's desire to exact revenge on behalf of his family rather than in furtherance of the drug conspiracy. This argument is unavailing. As we explained in Desinor, the jury need only find that one motive for the killing was drug related. See Desinor, 525 F.3d at 203 (concluding that the jury easily could have inferred that ... whether or not there was also a personal vendetta ... there was an underlying motive to protect the [defendants'] narcotics business from... interference). Here, too, the jury easily could have inferred that an underlying motive for the murders was related to the drug conspiracy.