u.s. v. casellas-toro, app. no. 14-1933 (1st cir., dec. 7. 2015)

7/23/2019 U.S. v. Casellas-Toro, App. No. 14-1933 (1st Cir., Dec. 7. 2015)

1/24

United States Court of Appealsfor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1933

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

PABLO CASELLAS- TORO,

Def endant - Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. J oseph R. Goodwi n, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Benton, * Sent el l e, ** and J ordan, ***Ci r cui t J udges.

Mar t i n G. Wei nberg, wi t h whom Ki mber l y Homan and Fr anci scoRebol l o- Casal duc wer e on br i ef f or appel l ant .

Ki r by A. Hel l er , At t or ney, Appel l at e Sect i on, Cr i mi nalDi vi si on, U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce, wi t h whom Wi f r edo A. Fer r er ,Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Mi chael E. Gi l f ar b, Assi st ant Uni t edSt ates At t orney, Andy R. Camacho, Assi st ant Uni t ed St ates

At t or ney, Lesl i e R. Cal dwel l , Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , and

* Of t he Ei ght h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.

** Of t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.

*** Of t he Thi r d Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on


2/24

- 2 -

Sung- Hee Suh, Deput y Assi st ant At t orney Gener al , wer e on br i ef f orappel l ee.

December 7, 2015


3/24

- 3 -

BENTON, Circuit Judge. Pabl o Casel l as- Tor o appeal s f r om

a f i nal j udgment of convi ct i on, assi gni ng as er r or t he di st r i ct

cour t s deni al s of hi s mot i ons t o change venue and t o suppr ess

evi dence. Havi ng j ur i sdi ct i on under 28 U. S. C. 1291, t hi s cour t

r everses and remands.

I.

On J une 17, 2012, Casel l as r epor t ed he was a vi ct i m of an

armed car j acki ng. The next day, he spoke wi t h an FBI agent . He

cl ai med he was dr i vi ng t o the shoot i ng r ange when he heard gunshot s

br eak hi s back wi ndow. He saw t wo peopl e r unni ng f r om t he car .

A t hi r d per son f or ced hi m t o st op hi s car and or der ed hi m t o move

t o t he passenger s seat . Casel l as sai d he escaped, cl i mbi ng out

t he car wi ndow af t er bei ng shot i n t he ar m. Pol i ce f ound t he car

near by. Casel l as repor t ed t wo guns mi ssi ng f r om t he car .

On J une 25, Casel l as gave t he FBI wr i t t en consent t o sear ch

hi s car f or evi dence about t he car j acki ng. The FBI t ook cust ody

of t he car . On J ul y 9, t he FBI schedul ed t he sear ch f or J ul y 16.

Casel l as cal l ed t he FBI f our t i mes, aski ng, Have you done t he

sear ch, can I have my car back? Af t er t he sear ch on J ul y 16, t he

FBI obt ai ned a war r ant f or a mor e det ai l ed sear ch of t he car , whi ch

t ook pl ace August 13.

On J ul y 14, Casel l as s wi f e was mur dered. He was t he pr i me

suspect . Hi s mur der t r i al began December 10, 2013. The


4/24

- 4 -

Commonweal t h al l eged he st aged t he car j acki ng t o make the murder

weapon st ol en. A j ur y convi ct ed hi m on J anuar y 22, 2014.

Ei ght days l at er , a f eder al gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed hi m on t hr ee

count s of maki ng f al se st at ement s t o a f eder al of f i cer , based on

hi s account of t he car j acki ng. A week l at er , t he Commonweal t h

cour t sent enced Casel l as t o 109 years i mpr i sonment f or t he mur der .

The next day, he made hi s f i r st appearance i n f eder al cour t .

I mmedi at el y af t er Casel l as s wi f e was mur der ed i n J ul y 2012,

t he medi a began ext ensi vel y cover i ng t he case. Casel l as moved t o

t r ansf er t he f eder al t r i al t o anot her venue, ar gui ng t he pr et r i al

publ i ci t y about hi s mur der convi ct i on pr event ed a f ai r and

i mpar t i al j ur y i n Puer t o Ri co. He submi t t ed t o t he di st r i ct cour t

an anal ysi s of t he publ i ci t y as wel l as a sampl i ng of newspaper

ar t i cl es, vi deos, and onl i ne bl ogs. The di st r i ct cour t descri bed

t he publ i ci t y:

Hour s af t er t he di scover y of [ Casel l as s wi f e s]body, j ust about ever y news medi a out l et i n Puer t oRi co descended upon Mr . Casel l as s home and r emai nedt here f or t he day. Sever al t abl oi d news pr ogr amsi mmedi at el y made t he mur der i nvest i gat i on t he mai n f ocusof t hei r pr ogr ammi ng. Tel evi si on, r adi o, i nt er net , andpr i nt medi a out l et s i n Puer t o Ri co have cont i nuousl y,i nt ensel y and uni nt er r upt edl y cover ed t he Casel l as casevi r t ual l y on a dai l y basi s.

Many f act s about t he mur der i nvest i gat i on wer el eaked t o the medi a, i ncl udi ng t he subst ance of Mr .Casel l as s i nt er vi ew wi t h pol i ce and t he condi t i on oft he vi ct i m s body at t he cr i me scene. The medi apubl i shed and br oadcast a number of al l egedl y f al ser umors about Mr . Casel l as, i ncl udi ng t hat he was a dr uguser , t hat he t hr eat ened peopl e wi t h f i r ear ms, t hat he


5/24

- 5 -

was i nvol ved i n a hi t - and- r un vehi cl e acci dent , and t hathe dr unkenl y br agged about assassi nat i ng t he t hen-gover nor of Puer t o Ri co.

Al t hough l ocal aut hor i t i es summoned Mr . Casel l ast o t he Bayamon cour t house f or t he f i l i ng of char ges, hewas i nt er cept ed out si de t he cour t house, ar r est ed, andMi r andi zed i n publ i c i n vi ew of medi a per sonnel whobr oadcast t he event l i ve. Members of t he medi a cover edevery mi nut e of every day of t he commonweal t h t r i alwhi ch r an f r om December 10, 2013, t o J anuar y 22, 2014.Many repor t er s t weet ed t he t r i al t est i mony ver bat i m.Camer as f ol l owed t he def endant , hi s f ami l y, and hi sl awyer s dur i ng br eaks.

Ci t i zens cel ebr at ed out si de the cour t house and anent i r e st adi um of peopl e at t endi ng a basebal l gameer upt ed i nt o cheer s upon news of t he gui l t y ver di ct i nt he commonweal t h case. Tel evi si on coverage of t he

Casel l as ver di ct r ecei ved t he t op Ni el son r at i ng f ort hat mont h. The Supr eme Cour t of Puert o Ri co permi t t edt he medi a t o br oadcast Mr . Casel l as s sent enci ng l i ve ont el evi si on, i nt er net , and r adi o.

Addi ng t o t he sensat i onal nat ur e of t he Casel l asmur der case i s t he f act t hat t he def endant s f at her i sa Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge. The medi a scr ut i ni zedJ udge Casel l as f or appear i ng at t he scene of t he cr i meon t he morni ng of t he mur der , and some l ocal at t orneyscal l ed f or J udge Casel l as s r esi gnat i on.

( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

The Uni t ed St at es At t or ney di d not oppose t he t r ansf er ,

agr eei ng Casel l as made a pr i ma f aci e showi ng about t he pervasi ve

nat ur e of t he coverage of t he mur der case. The government di d

ur ge t he cour t t o begi n voi r di r e and see what happens. The

di st r i ct cour t not ed, I can t t hi nk t hat you coul d get any f ur t her

on t he pr ej udi ci al publ i ci t y cont i nuum t han we ar e. The cour t

added t hat t he r ul es . . . pr ovi de speci f i cal l y f or change of

venue i n ci r cumst ances, i f not l i ke t hi s, so near t hi s t hat I m

havi ng consi der abl e di f f i cul t y i n maki ng t he cal l . Si nce t he


6/24

- 6 -

cour t coul d not conf i dent l y pr esume t hi s f ar i n advance of

t r i al t hat i t woul d be vi r t ual l y i mpossi bl e f or Mr . Casel l as t o

obt ai n a f ai r t r i al , i t reserved rul i ng.

Voi r di r e began Apr i l 7, 2014 t wo mont hs af t er t he

sent enci ng f or mur der . The cour t asked t he veni r e, t ot al i ng about

160, i f anyone had hear d of Casel l as. Ther e was, accor di ng t o t he

cour t , al most an unani mous show of hands. Those who had hear d

of Casel l as wer e i ndi vi dual l y quest i oned i n a separ at e r oom.

These i nt er vi ews f ol l owed a si mi l ar f or mat : The cour t asked t he

pot ent i al j ur or t o t el l i t what he or she knew about Casel l as; t he

sour ces of t he i nf ormat i on, i ncl udi ng whet her he or she watched

Casel l as s Commonweal t h sent enci ng and di scussed i t wi t h anyone;

whether he or she had any opi ni ons about Casel l as; and whether he

or she coul d put asi de any knowl edge and be f ai r . The cour t

per mi t t ed counsel t o r ecommend f ol l ow- up quest i ons.

Af t er i nt er vi ewi ng 20 pot ent i al j ur or s, t he cour t hear d

argument s on t he change- of - venue mot i on. I t asked t he government :

Why st r ai n t o f i nd a j ur y her e whi ch si mpl y on papersays i t can be f ai r but has such ext ensi ve knowl edge ofwr ongdoi ng by t he def endant t hat no one can say wi t hcer t ai nt y t hat t hey won t be heavi l y i nf l uenced by t hatbi as when they make t he evi dent i ary connect i on bet ween

t he t wo cases, and why not go somewhere el se where nobodyever hear d of [ Casel l as] ?

The gover nment r esponded, The case agai nst hi m f or murder was

per vasi ve her e on t he i sl and. That s not an ar guabl e f act and

[ Y] ou r e not goi ng to f i nd many peopl e who don t know somethi ng


7/24

- 7 -

about t he case. I t al so not ed t hat a number of t he i nt er vi ewed

pot ent i al j ur or s i ndi cat ed t hey coul d put asi de any opi ni on and be

f ai r . The cour t agai n asked, Why not t ake i t somewher e el se?

The gover nment r epl i ed, Wel l , t hat cer t ai nl y woul d be easi er .

The cour t never t hel ess over r ul ed t he mot i on t o change venue,

st at i ng I cer t ai nl y agr ee t hat we don t know yet i f we can get a

j ury but t here i s a suf f i ci ent possi bi l i t y we can get a j ury.

I t not ed Casel l as coul d r enew t he mot i on i f necessar y. The cour t

cont i nued t o i ndi vi dual l y i nt er vi ew pot ent i al j ur or s, f ol l owi ng

t he same f or mat . Af t er t wo days of i nt er vi ewi ng 114 pot ent i al

j uror s1, t he cour t qual i f i ed 35 and ended voi r di r e.

On Apr i l 28, af t er per empt ory chal l enges, t he cour t empanel ed

12 j ur or s and 2 al t er nat es. The j ur y convi ct ed Casel l as of al l

t hr ee f al se- st atement count s, but t he cour t gr ant ed a mot i on of

acqui t t al on t wo count s. He was sent enced t o 21 mont hs

i mpr i sonment on t he f i nal count , t o run concur r ent l y wi t h hi s

Commonweal t h sent ence. Casel l as appeal s.

II.

Casel l as cl ai ms t hat , by not changi ng t he venue, t he di st r i ct

cour t vi ol ated t he Si xt h Amendment and Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal

Procedur e 21. He argues he coul d not and di d not r ecei ve a

1 Of t he 114 i nt er vi ewed, onl y 93 pot ent i al j ur or s compl et ed t hei nt er vi ew. The r est wer e excused bef or e addr essi ng subst ant i vei ssues due t o har dshi p, l anguage, or ot her gr ounds.


8/24

- 8 -

f ai r t r i al i n Puert o Ri co due t o prej udi ci al pret r i al publ i ci t y.

Thi s cour t r evi ews t he deni al of a mot i on f or change of venue f or

an abuse of di scret i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Qui l es- Ol i vo, 684 F. 3d

177, 181 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . A t r i al cour t s f i ndi ngs of j ur or

i mpar t i al i t y may be over t ur ned onl y f or mani f est er r or . Mu Mi n

v. Vi r gi ni a, 500 U. S. 415, 428 ( 1991) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . [ T] he def er ence due t o di st r i ct cour t s i s at i t s

pi nnacl e. Ski l l i ng v. Uni t ed St at es, 561 U. S. 358, 396 ( 2010) .

The Si xt h Amendment guar ant ees cr i mi nal def endant s t he r i ght

t o t r i al by an i mpar t i al j ur y. Qui l es- Ol i vo, 684 F. 3d at 181,

ci t i ng U. S. Const . amend. VI , and Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S. at 377. I f

ext r aor di nar y l ocal pr ej udi ce wi l l pr event a f ai r t r i al , t he

t r i al must be t r ansf er r ed t o anot her di st r i ct. Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S.

at 378 ( The t heor y of our [ t r i al ] syst em i s t hat t he concl usi ons

t o be r eached i n a case wi l l be i nduced onl y by evi dence and

argument i n open cour t , and not by any out si de i nf l uence, whet her

of pr i vat e t al k or publ i c pr i nt . (al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng

Pat t er son v. Col or ado ex rel . At t y Gen. of Col o. , 205 U. S. 454,

462 ( 1907) ( opi ni on f or t he Cour t by Hol mes, J . ) ) .

Rul e 21 aut hor i zes a change of venue i f t he cour t i s

sat i sf i ed t hat so gr eat a pr ej udi ce agai nst t he def endant exi st s

i n t he t r ansf er r i ng di st r i ct t hat t he def endant cannot obt ai n a


9/24

- 9 -

f ai r and i mpar t i al t r i al t her e. Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 21( a) . 2 See

al so Qui l es- Ol i vo, 684 F. 3d at 182 ( Venue change on gr ounds of

pr ej udi ce wi l l be deemed appr opr i ate wher e ther e i s an ever -

pr eval ent r i sk t hat t he l evel of pr ej udi ce per meat i ng t he t r i al

set t i ng i s so dense that a def endant cannot possi bl y r ecei ve an

i mpar t i al t r i al . ) .

A f ai r - t r i al cl ai m based on venue encompasses t wo quest i ons:

f i r st , whet her t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by f ai l i ng t o move t he

t r i al t o a di f f er ent venue based on a pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce

and, second, whet her actual pr ej udi ce cont ami nated t he j ur y whi ch

convi ct ed hi m. I n r e Tsarnaev, 780 F. 3d 14, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ,

di scussi ng Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S. at 358. Casel l as cl ai ms bot h

pr esumed and act ual pr ej udi ce.

2 The anal yses f or change of venue under t he Const i t ut i on and Rul e21 may not be t he same. See Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S. at 378 n. 11( Ski l l i ng does not ar gue, di st i nct f r omhi s due pr ocess chal l enge,t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t abused i t s di scr et i on under Rul e 21 bydecl i ni ng t o move hi s t r i al . We t her ef or e r evi ew t he Di st r i ctCour t s venue- t r ansf er deci si on onl y f or compl i ance wi t h t heConst i t ut i on. ) ; i d. at 427 ( Al i t o, J . , concur r i ng) ( I al so donot under st and t he opi ni on of t he Cour t as r eachi ng any quest i onr egardi ng a change of venue under Federal Rul e of Cr i mi nalPr ocedur e 21. ) ; i d. at 446 n. 9 ( Sot omayor , J . , concur r i ng i n par tand di ssent i ng i n part ) ( not i ng cour t s may change venue under t heRul e even when not const i t ut i onal l y r equi r ed) . The par t i es her edo not di st i ngui sh bet ween a const i t ut i onal l y- r equi r ed, and a Rul e21- r equi r ed, change of venue. Thi s cour t assumes, wi t houtdeci di ng, t hat t he anal ysi s i s t he same.


10/24

- 10-

A.

A pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce i s gener al l y r eser ved f or t hose

ext r eme cases wher e publ i ci t y i s bot h extensi ve and sensat i onal i n

nat ur e. Qui l es- Ol i vo, 684 F. 3d at 182 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Prej udi ce i s presumed when a degr ee of i nf l ammat ory

publ i ci t y had so sat ur ated t he communi t y such as t o make i t

vi r t ual l y i mpossi bl e t o obt ai n an i mpar t i al j ur y. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Mi sl a- Al dar ondo, 478 F. 3d 52, 58 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . 3

The f oundat i on pr ecedent f or presumed- prej udi ce anal ysi s i s

Ri deau v. Loui si ana, 373 U. S. 723 ( 1963) . 4 See Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S.

3 Thi s cour t has descr i bed an al t er nate appr oach t o pr esumi ngpr ej udi ce. I n addi t i on t o i nf l ammat or y publ i ci t y [ t hat ] has sosat ur at ed a communi t y as t o render i t di f f i cul t t o dr aw ani mpar t i al j ur y, t he second appr oach pr esumes prej udi ce wher e

enough j ur ors admi t t o pr ej udi ce t o cause concer n as t o anyavowal s of i mpar t i al i t y by t he ot her j ur or s. Uni t ed St at es v.Or l ando- Fi guer oa, 229 F. 3d 33, 43 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( ci t i ng Uni t edSt at es v. Rodr i guez- Car dona, 924 F. 2d 1148, 1158 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ) .Ski l l i ng appl i es t he f i r st appr oach t o anal yze pr esumed pr ej udi ce,and af t er f i ndi ng no pr esumpt i on, di scusses admi ssi ons ofpot ent i al j ur or s when anal yzi ng act ual pr ej udi ce. See Ski l l i ng,561 U. S. at 381- 84, 389- 95. Thi s cour t f i nds Casel l asdemonst r ates a pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce under t he f i r st appr oach.Thi s opi ni on di scusses pot ent i al j uror s admi ssi ons whenaddressi ng whet her t he gover nment can rebut t he presumpt i on bycl ai mi ng t hat j ur or s wer e i mpar t i al .

4The Supreme Cour t presumed prej udi ce i n t wo ot her cases, Est es v.Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 538 ( 1965) ; and Sheppar d v. Maxwel l , 384 U. S.333, 363 ( 1966) . Those cases i nvol ved medi a i nt er f er ence wi t hcour t r oom pr oceedi ngs during t r i al . Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S. at 382n. 14. Casel l as does not cl ai m any medi a i nt er f er ence dur i ngt r i al .


11/24

- 11-

at 379. The def endant s conf essi on i n t hat case obt ai ned wi t hout

counsel pr esent and f i l med wi t hout hi s knowl edge was br oadcast

t o t he communi t y t hr ee t i mes shor t l y bef or e t r i al . See Ri deau,

373 U. S. at 724. The communi t y wher e t he cr i me occur r ed had about

150, 000 peopl e; about 24, 000, 53, 000, and 20, 000 saw and hear d

each br oadcast , r espect i vel y. I d. Thr ee j ur or s had seen and

hear d t he t el evi sed conf essi on. I d. at 725. The Supr eme Cour t

noted t hat t he peopl e of Cal casi eu Par i sh had been exposed

r epeat edl y and i n dept h t o t he spect acl e of Ri deau per sonal l y

conf essi ng i n det ai l t o t he cr i mes wi t h whi ch he was l at er t o be

char ged. I d. at 726. Fur t her , t o t he t ens of t housands of peopl e

who saw and heard i t , i n a ver y real sense [ t he conf essi on] was

Ri deau s t r i al at whi ch he pl eaded gui l t y t o mur der . I d. The

f ai l ur e t o change venue vi ol at ed t he Const i t ut i on s guar ant ee of

due pr ocess. I d. at 726- 27.

I n i t s most r ecent case on t hi s subj ect , t he Supr eme Cour t

i dent i f i es f our f act or s r el evant t o pr esumi ng pr ej udi ce: t he si ze

and char act er i st i cs of t he communi t y, t he nat ur e of t he publ i ci t y,

t he t i me bet ween the medi a at t ent i on and t he t r i al , and whet her

t he j ur y s deci si on i ndi cat ed bi as. See Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S. at

379, 382- 84.

By t he Ski l l i ng f act or s, pr ej udi ce shoul d be pr esumed i n t hi s

case. Exami ni ng t he si ze and char act er i st i cs of t he communi t y,

t he di st r i ct cour t not ed mor e t han 3 mi l l i on peopl e l i ve i n Puer t o


12/24

- 12-

Ri co, mi t i gat i ng t he pot ent i al f or pr ej udi ce among t he j ur or s

ul t i mat el y sel ect ed. The di st r i ct cour t di d acknowl edge t hat

Puer t o Ri co i s a compact , i nsul ar communi t y t hat i s hi ghl y

suscept i bl e t o t he i mpact of l ocal medi a. Uni t ed St at es v. Mor eno

Moral es, 815 F. 2d 725, 734 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) . Compare Tsarnaev, 780

F. 3d at 21 ( not i ng Bost on i s a l ar ge, di ver se met r opol i t an ar ea

wi t h r esi dent s t hat obt ai n t hei r news f r om a vast ar r ay of

sour ces) ; Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S. at 382 ( not i ng Houst on i s t he f our t h

l ar gest ci t y i n t he Uni t ed St at es, wi t h 4. 5 mi l l i on el i gi bl e f or

j ury dut y at t he t i me of t r i al ) . And dur i ng voi r di r e t he di st r i ct

cour t agr eed wi t h def ense counsel t hat Puert o Ri co seemed t o be a

smal l i sl and.

The gover nment agreed t he medi a cover age was massi ve and

sensat i onal . See Qui l es- Ol i vo, 684 F. 3d at 182. Cf . Uni t ed

St at es v. Angi ul o, 897 F. 2d 1169, 1181 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( I f t he

medi a cover age i s f actual as opposed t o i nf l ammatory or

sensat i onal , t hi s under mi nes any cl ai m f or a pr esumpt i on of

pr ej udi ce. ) . Nor di d i t oppose Casel l as s change of venue

mot i on, expl ai ni ng, The case agai nst [ Casel l as] f or mur der was

per vasi ve her e on t he i sl and. That s not an ar guabl e f act . The

di st r i ct cour t , denyi ng t he mot i on, quest i oned: Why st r ai n t o

f i nd a j ur y her e whi ch si mpl y on paper says i t can be f ai r but has

such ext ensi ve knowl edge of wr ongdoi ng by t he def endant t hat no

one can say wi t h cer t ai nt y t hat t hey won t be heavi l y i nf l uenced


13/24

- 13-

by t hat bi as when t hey make t he evi dent i ary connect i on between t he

t wo cases, and why not go somewhere el se where nobody ever hear d

of [ Casel l as] ?

Li ke t he br oadcast s of Ri deau s conf essi on, t he medi a her e

publ i ci zed bl at ant l y pr ej udi ci al i nf or mat i on of t he t ype r eader s

or vi ewer s coul d not r easonabl y be expect ed t o shut f r om si ght .

See Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S. at 382. The medi a r eport ed r umors about

Casel l as s char act er t hat he was a dr ug user , t hr eat ened peopl e

wi t h f i r ear ms, was i nvol ved i n a hi t - and- r un vehi cl e acci dent , and

br agged about assassi nat i ng t he t hen- gover nor of Puer t o Ri co. The

publ i c t ook t o Facebook and Twi t t er t o publ i cl y di scuss Casel l as s

case. Most i mpor t ant l y, t he medi a extensi vel y and sensat i onal l y

cover ed Casel l as s Commonweal t h t r i al , convi ct i on, and sent enci ng

i n a j ust - concl uded case i nt er t wi ned wi t h t hi s one. The

Commonweal t h cl ai med Casel l as l i ed about t he car j acki ng t he cr i me

i n t hi s case. The Commonweal t h used t he f ake car j acki ng t o show

pr emedi t at i on f or t he mur der . I n t hi s case, i n a not i ce of i nt ent

t o use evi dence, t he gover nment st ated t hat t he mot i ve f or

Casel l as s f al se st atement s was t o set up a def ense to mur der i ng

hi s wi f e. The gover nment announced i t s i nt ent t o i nt r oduce t he

st ol en guns and pr oj ect i l es l at er f ound i n Casel l as s home on

t he day of t he mur der . The di st r i ct cour t excl uded evi dence t hat

t he def endant mur dered hi s wi f e, but al l owed t he government t o

i nt r oduce evi dence t hat t he st ol en guns, as wel l as di schar ged


14/24

- 14-

bul l et s and casi ngs mat chi ng t he pi st ol , wer e f ound at Casel l as s

house on J ul y 14. Si nce vi r t ual l y t he ent i r e veni r e knew of t he

mur der , t he gover nment t ol d t he cour t dur i ng voi r di r e, So we r e

sayi ng, you know, t hey r e r el at ed, and t hen aski ng [ t he j ur or s]

l at er t o pr et end t hat i t s not .

A j ur y may be abl e t o di sbel i eve unf ounded opi ni ons of t he

medi a or ot her peopl e. However , i t may have di f f i cul t y di sbel i evi ng

or f or get t i ng t he opi ni on of anot her jury, t wel ve f el l ow ci t i zens,

t hat a def endant i s gui l t y i n an i nt er t wi ned, j ust - concl uded case.

See Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S. at 383 ( A j ur y may have di f f i cul t y i n

di sbel i evi ng or f or get t i ng a def endant s opi ni on of hi s own gui l t

but have no di f f i cul t y i n r ej ect i ng t he opi ni ons of ot her s because

t hey may not be wel l - f ounded. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St ates v. Chagr a,

669 F. 2d 241, 251- 52, n. 11 ( 5t h Ci r . 1982) , over r ul ed on ot her

gr ounds by Gar r et t v. Uni t ed St at es, 471 U. S. 773, 794 ( 1985) ) ) .

When some j ur ors knew of t he def endant s past cr i mes but no j ur or

bet r ayed any bel i ef i n t he r el evance of [ def endant s] past t o t he

pr esent case, ther e i s no pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce. Mur phy v.

Fl or i da, 421 U. S. 794, 800 ( 1975) . See al so Angi ul o, 897 F. 2d at

1182 ( Mere knowl edge or awareness of a def endant s past . . . i s

not suf f i ci ent t o pr esume pr ej udi ce. More must be shown, such as

t he act ual exi st ence of a pr esent pr edi sposi t i on agai nst

def endant s f or t he cr i mes cur r ent l y char ged. ) . Her e, because t he

j ust - concl uded mur der case and t hi s case ar e i nt er t wi ned, t he


15/24

- 15-

mur der convi ct i on i nvi t ed pr ej udgment of hi s cul pabi l i t y. See

Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S. at 383.

Voi r di r e i n t hi s case occur r ed t wo mont hs af t er Casel l as s

t el evi sed sent enci ng i n t he mur der case. See Tsar naev, 780 F. 3d

at 22 ( The near l y t wo year s t hat have passed si nce t he Marat hon

bombi ngs has al l owed t he deci bel l evel of publ i ci t y about t he

cr i mes t hemsel ves t o dr op and communi t y passi ons t o di mi ni sh. ) .

The government does not di sput e t hat sensat i onal publ i ci t y

cont i nued t hr ough t he st ar t of f eder al voi r di r e. Compar e I r vi n

v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 725 ( 1961) ( f i ndi ng pr ej udi ce when publ i ci t y

was ext ensi ve i n si x mont hs bef or e t r i al ) , wi t h Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S.

at 383 ( no prej udi ce when f our years passed bet ween peak of

publ i ci t y and t r i al ) , Pat t on v. Yount , 467 U. S. 1025, 1032 ( 1984)

( same) , and Mur phy, 421 U. S. at 803 ( f i ndi ng no pr ej udi ce when

news about t he def endant l argel y ended seven mont hs bef ore t r i al ) .

Fi nal l y, i n Ski l l i ng i t was of pr i me si gni f i cance t hat t he

j ury acqui t t ed t he def endant on ni ne count s. See Ski l l i ng, 561

U. S. at 383. Her e, t he j ur y s ver di ct suppor t s a pr esumpt i on of

j uror bi as. The j ury convi ct ed Casel l as of al l t hr ee count s and

t he cour t t hen acqui t t ed hi m of t wo, f i ndi ng t he gover nment di d

not prove each el ement of Count s One and Two beyond a r easonabl e

doubt .

The Ski l l i ng f act or s r eveal t hi s t o be an ext r eme case. See

Qui l es- Ol i vo, 684 F. 3d at 182. The gover nment ci t es no case


16/24

- 16-

denyi ng a pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce i n a case l i ke t hi s: Massi ve

and sensat i onal publ i ci t y bl anket i ng t he communi t y f or t wo year s

bef or e t r i al ; ext ensi ve r epor t i ng on t he def endant s convi ct i on by

a j ur y, of an i nt er t wi ned, hei nous cr i me; t el evi sed sent enci ng

onl y t wo mont hs bef ore voi r di r e. And t he government di d not

oppose a t r ansf er .

Casel l as woul d be r el at i vel y unknown out si de Puer t o Ri co.

Cf . Tsarnaev, 780 F. 3d at 22 ( not i ng nat i onal cover age of t he

case) . I nst ead, he was t r i ed i n Puer t o Ri co, i n an at mospher e

t hat pr ej udi ced t he t r i al s f undament al f ai r ness. Thi s cour t

pr esumes t hat t he pr et r i al publ i ci t y pr ej udi ced Casel l as s abi l i t y

t o be j udged by a f ai r and i mpar t i al j ur y.

B.

Fi ndi ng a pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce does not r esol ve t he case

because t he par t i es di sput e whet her i t i s rebut t abl e. Fi ndi ng no

pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce, t he Supr eme Cour t di d not r each t hi s

quest i on i n Ski l l i ng. Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S. at 385 n. 18. Compar e

Pat t on, 467 U. S. at 1035 ( not i ng passage of t i me bef ore second

t r i al cl ear l y r ebut s any pr esumpt i on or par t i al i t y t hat exi st ed

at t he t i me of t he i ni t i al t r i al ) , wi t h Ri deau, 373 U. S. at 727

( f i ndi ng pr ej udi ce wi t hout pausi ng t o exami ne a par t i cul ar i zed

t r anscr i pt of t he voi r di r e) . The onl y ci r cui t di r ect l y

addr essi ng t hi s i ssue f ound t he pr esumpt i on r ebut t abl e. See,

e. g. , Chagr a, 669 F. 2d 241. See al so Col eman v. Kemp, 778 F. 2d


17/24

- 17-

1487, 1541 n. 25 ( 11t h Ci r . 1985) ( assumi ng wi t hout deci di ng t hat

pr esumpt i on i s r ebut t abl e) , ci t ed f avor abl y by Mor eno Mor al es, 815

F. 2d at 739 n. 18.

Assumi ng t he pr esumpt i on i s r ebut t abl e, t he government argues

t hat voi r di r e was suf f i ci ent t o seat an i mpar t i al j ur y, poi nt i ng

t o t he cour t s i ndi vi dual quest i oni ng and excusi ng pot ent i al

j uror s whose st at ement s of i mpar t i al i t y i t f ound unbel i evabl e. 5

However , r at her t han r educi ng concer ns of bi as, voi r di r e r eveal ed

t he dept h of communi t y knowl edge of , and host i l i t y t o, Casel l as.

See Mi sl a- Al darondo, 478 F. 3d at 58 ( A cour t may j udge t he

par t i al i t y of t he communi t y by l ooki ng t o t he l engt h t o whi ch t he

t r i al cour t must go i n or der t o sel ect j ur or s who appear t o be

i mpar t i al . ( quot i ng Mur phy, 421 U. S. at 802- 03) ) . Of t he

pr ospect i ve j ur or s, 96. 6 percent knew about Casel l as s mur der of

hi s wi f e. Of t he 93 pot ent i al j ur or s i ndi vi dual l y i nt er vi ewed,

5 Casel l as al l eges numer ous err or s i n voi r di r e, i ncl udi ngt he cour t s f ai l ur e t o use a quest i onnai r e, l engt h ofi nt er vi ews, and r ef usal t o per mi t addi t i onal per empt or ychal l enges. Casel l as of f er s no aut hor i t y t hat t hese ar econst i t ut i onal l y r equi r ed. Thi s cour t f i nds no f aul t wi t ht he di st r i ct cour t s met hod of conduct i ng voi r di r e. See

Mu Mi n, 500 U. S. at 425- 26, 431 ( di scussi ng const i t ut i onalr equi r ement s f or cont ent of voi r di r e) ; Uni t ed St at es v.Del gado- Mar r er o, 744 F. 3d 167, 201 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( Tr i alcour t s have br oad di scr et i on subj ect onl y t o t he essent i aldemands of f ai r ness i n det er mi ni ng how t o conduct voi rdi r e. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .


18/24

- 18-

48 knew of t he car j acki ng. The cour t excused 60 pot ent i al j ur or s

( 65 per cent ) f or cause, whi ch i s much hi gher t han al most al l t he

cases t hat r ej ect pr esumed pr ej udi ce. See Mur phy, 421 U. S. at 803

( 20 of 78 pot ent i al j ur or s 26% excused f or cause) ; Mi sl a-

Al dar ondo, 478 F. 3d at 59 ( 13 of 84 pot ent i al j ur or s 15%

excused f or cause) . Cf . Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S. at 382 n. 15 ( 12. 3% of

Houst oni ans bel i eved Ski l l i ng gui l t y of cr i mes) ; Mor eno Mor al es,

815 F. 2d at 735 ( f i ndi ng t hat about 25% of pot ent i al j ur or s

admi t t i ng t o di squal i f yi ng pr ej udi ce i s bel ow t hr eshol d t o pr esume

bi as of r est of veni r e) . Al t hough t he Supr eme Cour t i n Pat t on

r ej ect ed a pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce when 77 per cent of t he veni r e

had f or med opi ni on on gui l t , t he Cour t emphasi zed t hat t he t r i al

di d not occur unt i l f our year s l at er , at a t i me when pr ej udi ci al

publ i ci t y was gr eat l y di mi ni shed and communi t y sent i ment had

sof t ened. Pat t on, 467 U. S. at 1029, 1032, 1034- 35 ( not i ng t i me

soot hes and er ases and r educes t he f i xedness of j ur or s

opi ni ons) .

Casel l as s case i s l i ke I r vi n, wher e af t er ext ensi ve

publ i ci t y i n t he mont hs bef or e t he t r i al , 62 per cent of t he veni r e

was di smi ssed f or cause. See I r vi n, 366 U. S. at 727. ( [ T] he

pat t er n of deep and bi t t er pr ej udi ce shown t o be pr esent

t hr oughout t he communi t y was cl ear l y r ef l ect ed i n t he sum t ot al

of t he voi r di r e exami nat i on of a maj or i t y of t he j ur or s f i nal l y

pl aced i n t he j ur y box. ) . The Supr eme Cour t di d not doubt t hat


19/24

- 19-

each j ur or was si ncer e when he sai d t hat he woul d be f ai r and

i mpar t i al t o pet i t i oner . I d. at 728. However , wher e so many,

so many t i mes, admi t t ed pr ej udi ce, such a st at ement of i mpar t i al i t y

can be gi ven l i t t l e wei ght . I d.

Of t he 14 empanel ed j ur or s, Casel l as chal l enged 11 f or cause.

Two of t he t hree not chal l enged wer e never i ndi vi dual l y

i nt er vi ewed. Compar e Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S. at 376 ( pr ej udi ce r ej ect ed

when 1 j ur or chal l enged f or cause) , Pat t on, 467 U. S. at 1036 ( 1

j uror and 2 al t er nat es chal l enged f or cause) , and Mi sl a- Al darondo,

478 F. 3d at 58 ( 1 j ur or chal l enged f or cause) . Al l of t he

chal l enged j ur or s knew about t he mur der convi ct i on, and at l east

t wo knew of t he car j acki ng. Compare Uni t ed St at es v. Dr ougas, 748

F. 2d 8, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 1984) ( [ O] nl y one j ur or who r ecal l ed hear i ng

anything about t he case or i t s par t i ci pant s was seat ed and no

def endant speci f i cal l y chal l enge[ d] hi s i mpanel ment . ) .

The gover nment emphasi zes t he empanel ed j uror s avowal s of

i mpar t i al i t y. Tr ue, j ur or impartiality . . . does not r equi r e

ignorance. Tsar naev, 780 F. 3d at 28, quot i ng Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S.

at 381. But , [ w] her e a hi gh per cent age of t he veni r e admi t s t o

a di squal i f yi ng pr ej udi ce, a cour t may pr oper l y quest i on t he

r emai ni ng j ur or s avowal s of i mpar t i al i t y, and choose t o pr esume

pr ej udi ce. See Angi ul o, 897 F. 2d at 1181- 82. The mur der

convi ct i on combi ned wi t h knowl edge of t he car j acki ng i s

bl at ant l y pr ej udi ci al i nf or mat i on of t he t ype r eader s or vi ewer s


20/24

- 20-

coul d not r easonabl y be expect ed t o shut f r om si ght . See

Ski l l i ng, 561 U. S. at 383. Due t o t he di squal i f yi ng opi ni ons of

t wo- t hi r ds of t he veni r e and t he speci f i c knowl edge of t he mur der

convi ct i on by near l y al l j ur or s and t he car j acki ng by at l east t wo

j uror s, t he gover nment has not met i t s bur den t o r ebut t he

pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce.

The gover nment has not met i t s bur den t o show Casel l as was

t r i ed by an i mpar t i al j ur y. The voi r di r e her e conf i r ms an ever-

prevalent risk t hat t he l evel of pr ej udi ce per meat i ng t he t r i al

set t i ng [was] so dense t hat a def endant [ coul d not ] possi bl y

r ecei ve an i mpar t i al t r i al . Qui l es- Ol i vo, 684 F. 3d at 182

( emphasi s added) . The di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scr et i on by

denyi ng Casel l as s mot i on t o change venue. 6

6 Si nce t hi s cour t f i nds an unr ebut t ed pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce,t hi s opi ni on need not addr ess Casel l as s second argument act ualpr ej udi ce of t he seat ed j ur or s. See Qui l es- Ol i vo, 684 F. 3d at182 (not i ng i f pr ej udi ce shoul d not be pr esumed t he cour t mayest abl i sh pr ej udi ce i f t he j ur y was actually pr ej udi ced agai nstt he def endant ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; Rodr i guez-Car dona 924 F. 2d at 1158 ( As appel l ant does not cl ai m t hat t he

j ury was act ual l y pr ej udi ced agai nst hi m, nor do we see anyevi dence of actual pr ej udi ce, our i nqui r y wi l l f ocus on whet hert he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have pr esumed pr ej udi ce. ) ; Angi ul o, 897F. 2d at 1181 ( I n det er mi ni ng whet her suf f i ci ent pr ej udi ce exi st edt o requi r e a change of venue, we must conduct t wo i nqui r i es: 1)whet her j ur y pr ej udi ce shoul d be pr esumed gi ven t he f act s bef oreus; or 2) if prejudice should not be presumed, whet her t he j ur ywas act ual l y pr ej udi ced. ( emphasi s added and omi t t ed) ) .


21/24

- 21-

III.

Casel l as ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n denyi ng hi s

mot i on t o suppr ess evi dence f r om t he t wo sear ches of hi s car . He

cl ai ms t hat hi s phone cal l s t o the agent s bef or e the f i r st sear ch

i mpl i ci t l y r evoked hi s wr i t t en consent . Because t hi s i ssue i s

l i kel y t o recur at re- t r i al , i f t here i s one, 7 t hi s cour t addr esses

i t . See Acost a- Rami r ez v. Banco Popul ar de Puer t o Ri co, 712 F. 3d

14, 15- 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

Thi s cour t r evi ews de novo any l egal concl usi ons i n t he deni al

of a mot i on t o suppr ess. Uni t ed St at es v. Fer mi n, 771 F. 3d 71,

77 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Thi s cour t r evi ews f i ndi ngs of f act f or cl ear

er r or , i n l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he r ul i ng. I d. at 76. The

di st r i ct cour t s det er mi nat i on on consent i s f act ual , and t hi s

cour t r evi ews t he deci si on f or cl ear err or . See Uni t ed St at es v.

$304, 980. 00 i n U. S. Cur r ency, 732 F. 3d 812, 820 ( 7t h Ci r . 2013)

( Li ke t he quest i on whet her consent was gi ven at al l , t he quest i on

whet her t he suspect subsequent l y wi t hdr ew or l i mi t ed t he scope of

hi s consent i s a quest i on of f act t hat we r evi ew f or cl ear

er r or . ) . Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. For bes, 181 F. 3d 1, 5- 6 ( 1st Ci r .

7 Gi ven t he 109- year sent ence t hat Casel l as i s ser vi ng f or hi smur der convi ct i on, i t may f ai r l y be wonder ed whet her r e- t r i al ona f al se- st at ement char ge i s a sound use of pr osecut or i al andj udi ci al r esour ces, but t hat quest i on i s not bef or e t hi s cour t .


22/24

- 22-

1999) ( r evi ewi ng vol unt ar i ness of t he f ai l ur e t o wi t hdr aw consent

f or c l ear err or ) .

Consent i s an est abl i shed except i on[ ] t o the Four t h

Amendment war r ant r equi r ement . Schneckl ot h v. Bust amont e, 412

U. S. 218, 219 ( 1973) . Warr ant l ess sear ches may not exceed t he

scope of t he consent gi ven. The scope of consent i s measur ed by

a t est of obj ect i ve r easonabl eness: what woul d t he t ypi cal

r easonabl e per son have under st ood by t he exchange bet ween t he

of f i cer and subj ect ? Uni t ed St at es v. Mar shal l , 348 F. 3d 281,

286 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( quot i ng Fl or i da v. J i meno, 500 U. S. 248, 251

( 1991) ) . Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Br own, 345 F. 3d 574, 580 ( 8t h Ci r .

2003) ( An expr essi on of i mpat i ence does not est abl i sh an i nt ent

t o revoke consent . ) .

Casel l as gave wr i t t en consent t o sear ch hi s car on J une 25,

wi t hout any t i me l i mi t or ot her rest r i ct i on. The FBI f i r st

sear ched t he car on J ul y 16. I n t he i nt er veni ng t hr ee weeks,

Casel l as cal l ed t he FBI f our t i mes. Hi s f i r st cal l , Casel l as

asked i f t he FBI coul d r et ur n t he car because i nsurance adj ust er s

needed t o i nspect i t . The next t hr ee cal l s, Casel l as asked, Have

you done t he sear ch, can I have my car back?

Af t er t he f i r st sear ch, t he FBI bel i eved t hat any bul l et s

f i r ed at Casel l as may be l odged behi nd t he dashboar d or i n hard-

t o- r each pl aces. On August 6, i t obt ai ned a sear ch war r ant f or

t he car st i l l i n pol i ce cust ody and execut ed a second sear ch.


23/24

- 23-

At t r i al , Casel l as moved t o suppr ess evi dence f r om bot h sear ches.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed hi s mot i on, f i ndi ng t hat t he FBI

conduct ed t he sear ch wi t hi n a r easonabl e t i me, t hat Casel l as s

cal l s r eaf f i r med hi s consent , and t hat t her e was pr obabl e cause

f or t he war r ant - aut hor i zed sear ch.

Fi r st , t her e i s no pr eci se t i mef r ame to compl et e a war r ant l ess

sear ch. Cf . Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 41( e) ( 2) ( A) ( i ) ( st at i ng sear ch

warr ant must command t he of f i cer execut e t he war r ant wi t hi n a

speci f i ed t i me no l onger t han 14 days) . The car r emai ned i n

cust ody, unsear ched, f or 21 days. The gover nment cl ai med i t

coul d not search t he vehi cl e any sooner because ot her mat t ers had

pr ecedence. The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat a r easonabl e per son

woul d have known such an endeavor woul d not be conduct ed

moment ar i l y, but woul d t ake some t i me, especi al l y when t he al l eged

assai l ant s of t he car and t he def endant wer e at l ar ge. Whi l e 21

days appr oaches t he out er l i mi t of a reasonabl e t i me t o compl et e

a consent sear ch, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not cl ear l y er r i n f i ndi ng

t he of f i cer s sear ched t he car wi t hi n a reasonabl e t i me f or a

car j acki ng.

Next , a t ypi cal per son woul d under st and Casel l as s cal l s as

i nqui r i es about when t he search woul d be compl ete. Al t hough

Casel l as asked f or hi s car back, he never t ol d t he agent s not t o

sear ch i t . He never sai d hi s pr evi ous consent was no l onger val i d.

Ther e i s no evi dence t hat Casel l as s consent was i nvol unt ar y or


24/24

- 24-

t hat he si mpl y acqui esced t o l egal aut hor i t y. See Bumper v. Nor t h

Car ol i na, 391 U. S. 543, 548- 49 ( 1968) ( f i ndi ng consent was not

vol unt ary when per son acqui esced i n a sear ch af t er an of f i cer

asser t ed havi ng a sear ch war r ant ) .

Casel l as argues t hat t he agent s coul d not r easonabl y bel i eve

hi s consent was st i l l val i d when t hey conduct ed t he sear ch t wo

days af t er he was a suspect i n hi s wi f e s mur der . Casel l as,

however , does not di sput e t hat t he government schedul ed t he sear ch

bef or e t he mur der and execut ed i t as pl anned. The di st r i ct cour t

di d not cl ear l y er r i n f i ndi ng t hat Casel l as di d not wi t hdr aw or

r evoke hi s consent .

Casel l as argues t hat absent i nf or mat i on gl eaned dur i ng t he

J ul y 16, 2012, search t he af f i davi t and war r ant f or t he second

sear ch l ack pr obabl e cause. Si nce t he f i r st sear ch was val i d,

Casel l as has wai ved any ot her chal l enge t o t he second search

warr ant . See Sl eeper Far ms v. Agway, I nc. , 506 F. 3d 98, 104 ( 1st

Ci r . 2007) ( [ T] hi s cour t wi l l onl y consi der ar gument s made bef or e

t hi s cour t ; ever yt hi ng el se i s deemed f or f ei t ed. ) .

IV.

The j udgment i s r eversed. The case i s r emanded f or

pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on, i ncl udi ng any r et r i al .

See I r vi n, 366 U. S. at 728 ( vacat i ng convi ct i on due t o pr et r i al

publ i ci t y and not i ng def endant i s st i l l subj ect t o cust ody . . .

and may be t r i ed on t hi s or another i ndi ct ment ) .

u.s. v. casellas-toro, app. no. 14-1933 (1st cir., dec. 7. 2015)

Documents