Opinion ID: 198294
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Macho Gatillo Alias

Text: 50 Eulalio Candelaria-Silva argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to strike his alias, Macho Gatillo, 3 from the Superseding Indictment. He contends that the use of the alias was inflammatory, demeaning and prejudicial. 51 In denying the motion to strike, the district court stated that Macho Gatillo served the purpose of a proper name for identification purposes. The record reflects that the POPR officer who conducted two undercover drug purchases from Candelaria-Silva in 1990 knew him only as Macho Gatillo. In addition, co-conspirator witness Otero-Coln also identified the defendant only by his street name. Furthermore, another POPR officer corroborated these mutually consistent identifications of the defendant by testifying that the defendant was known as Macho. All of this evidence was probative with respect to identifying Eulalio Candelaria-Silva as the author of the letter seized from Israel Santiago-Lugo's residence--a letter signed Macho that discussed the operations of a punto. 52 It is true that the record reflects the existence of at least one other individual who answered to the name Macho. For this reason, the POPR undercover officer and Otero-Coln's use of the Gatillo portion of the name, which translates as trigger, was probative to distinguish the defendant. 53 Eulalio Candelaria-Silva's argument fails because the evidence of his alias was relevant, and there was no prejudice. See United States v. Delpit, 94 F.3d 1134, 1146 (8th Cir.1996) (noting that the use of the name Monster was necessary to fully identify the defendant); United States v. Persico, 621 F.Supp. 842, 860-61 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (stating that aliases and nicknames are proper in an indictment where they will be part of the government's proof at trial).