United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
Nos. 17-1052
17-1053
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
JOSÉ LAUREANO-SALGADO, a/k/a Geo;
PEDRO L. RAMÍREZ-RIVERA, a/k/a Peter Pai,
Defendants, Appellants.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. William E. Smith, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Thompson and Barron, Circuit Judges.
Carlos M. Sánchez La Costa for appellant José Laureano-
Salgado.
Irma R. Valldejuli for appellant Pedro L. Ramírez-Rivera.
Victor O. Acevedo-Hernández, Assistant United States
Attorney, with whom Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States
Attorney, Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States
Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, and Francisco A. Besosa-
Martínez, Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief, for
appellee.
August 2, 2019
THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.
Overview
The government charged "La ONU" gangbangers José
Laureano-Salgado and Pedro Ramírez-Rivera (sometimes collectively
called "appellants") with helping murder a "La Rompe ONU"
gangbanger nicknamed "Pekeke" (real name Christian Toledo-
Sánchez), among other crimes1 — thus violating the Violent Crimes
in Aid of Racketeering ("VICAR") statute, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 1959(a)(1), as well as a statute banning the use or carry of a
firearm in relation to a crime of violence, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A).2 Killing La Rompe members, the government alleged
and proved, was central to La ONU's mission. And vice versa.
A jury ultimately convicted Laureano-Salgado and
Ramírez-Rivera of these and other gang-related crimes. And we
affirmed. See Ramírez-Rivera, 800 F.3d at 12. Laureano-Salgado
and Ramírez-Rivera later moved the district judge for a new trial
1 A gangbanger (at the risk of appearing pedantic) is "a
member of a violent group of young men, especially ones who use
guns and commit crimes." See Cambridge Dictionary,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gangbanger (last
visited August 1, 2019).
2 We mention these convictions because those are the ones
germane to today's case. Readers seeking more details about their
other convictions can find them in United States v. Ramírez-Rivera,
800 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015), which also provides some background on
the two rival gangs. And like we did there, going forward we will
refer to La Rompe ONU as "La Rompe."
- 3 -
premised on allegations of newly-discovered evidence that
supposedly showed Pekeke died at the hands of La Rompe, not La
ONU.3 The judge denied the motion, however. Unhappy with this
ruling, Laureano-Salgado and Ramírez-Rivera ask us to reverse.4
Unpersuaded by their arguments (discussed in a bit), we affirm.
Testimony at Appellants' Trial
About Pekeke's Murder
Among the witnesses called at appellants' trial were
three cooperating coconspirators: ex-La ONU members Wesley
Figueroa-Cancel, José Gutiérrez-Santana, and Christian Figueroa-
Viera. Pieced together, their testimony presented the following
picture of the events leading to Pekeke's death.5
Figueroa-Cancel, Gutiérrez-Santana, and Laureano-
Salgado attended a meeting in August 2010 where La ONU bosses
planned Pekeke's murder. Their plot contemplated that a man named
"Joshua" would do the deed (Joshua was a non-La ONU member whose
grandmother lived right next door to Pekeke). La ONU members —
including Ramírez-Rivera (who participated by speakerphone during
3
Laureano-Salgado filed for a new trial first. Ramírez-
Rivera then filed a motion joining and adopting Laureano-Salgado's
motion and arguments — a motion the judge granted. But because
they raised the same basic claims, we follow the government's lead
and treat the two filings as a single new-trial motion.
4
They filed separate appeals. But we consolidated them for
purposes of oral argument only (they submitted separate briefs).
5
The record reflects various spellings of Pekeke. For
simplicity's sake, we use the one used in the parties' briefs.
- 4 -
the meeting) — promised to pay Joshua for his service. Following
the orders of their La ONU superiors to a T, Gutiérrez-Santana
gave Joshua a gun and Laureano-Salgado gave Joshua a car. La ONU
leaders also promised to send a rescue team to get Joshua out of
the housing project after he offed Pekeke, just in case Pekeke's
La Rompe allies fought back.
Joshua killed Pekeke the next day (Joshua called
Figueroa-Cancel on a cellphone during the killing so Figueroa-
Cancel could hear Pekeke die) — with Laureano-Salgado, Ramírez-
Rivera, Gutiérrez-Santana, and at least two other La ONU members
serving on the rescue squad. At a meeting held right after the
shooting, La ONU associates — including Laureano-Salgado and
Ramírez-Rivera — told Figueroa-Viera what had happened.
Appellants' Motion for New Trial
And the Judge's Ruling
Fast-forward to after we affirmed Laureano-Salgado's and
Ramírez-Rivera's convictions and sentences. Defense counsel wrote
the government, saying that he had heard that ex-La Rompe members
Luis Yanyoré-Pizarro and Oscar Calviño-Acevedo testified in
proceedings against La Rompe associates that La Rompe had killed
Pekeke as part of a power struggle within La Rompe. Convinced
that this testimony undercut the theory pushed by prosecutors in
Laureano-Salgado and Ramírez-Rivera's case — i.e., that La ONU had
murdered La Rompe-leader Pekeke as part of the La ONU racketeering
- 5 -
conspiracy — counsel asked the government to turn over materials
"regarding" Yanyoré-Pizarro's and Calviño-Acevedo's allegations.
Despite disputing any notion that these allegations exculpated the
defendants, the government gave counsel a package containing the
documents in its possession.
Laureano-Salgado and Ramírez-Rivera then asked the judge
for a new trial, claiming that the produced materials constituted
newly-discovered evidence showing La Rompe had murdered Pekeke,
not La ONU. And their court filings walked the judge through the
relevant statements: Yanyoré-Pizarro's grand-jury testimony in
May 2015, his interviews with agents from the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (usually referred to as "ATF")
in January 2016, and his trial testimony in October 2016; plus
Calviño-Acevedo's trial testimony in December 2015 — all given in
a case against La Rompe members.6
We just hit the highlights, offering only what is needed
to help put some of the arguments (discussed later) into
perspective.
6"Trials," of course, "are about charges in the indictment."
United States v. Miller, 91 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir. 1996)
(Richard S. Arnold, C.J.). And the indictment in the La Rompe
case did not charge any La Rompe members with the VICAR murder of
Pekeke.
- 6 -
During questioning about La Rompe's inner workings
before the grand jury, Yanyoré-Pizarro recounted his relationship
with La Rompe members "Trenza" and "Papito Mojica." "They were my
leaders when they killed [Pekeke]," Yanyoré-Pizarro said. Pekeke
"was our leader, so they kept the — so they took over." Yanyoré-
Pizarro added that, although they remained with La Rompe, Pekeke's
death triggered an internal war for power. "What happened," he
said, "was when my leader, [Pekeke], was killed, there were people
involved from . . . La Rompe . . . itself because of this very
same — for power," and "they ended up dividing up" Pekeke's drug
points. After Pekeke's death, Trenza, according to Yanyoré-
Pizarro, became "in charge of around fourteen drug points, which
is what [Pekeke] left."
In the interview with the ATF, Yanyoré-Pizarro mentioned
some tension between La Rompe leaders in the months before Pekeke's
death. For example, Yanyoré-Pizarro discussed how some La Rompe
bosses at the La Rompe-controlled housing project in Alturas de
Cupey had asked Pekeke "for help" with their drug business (because
he had ties to marijuana traffickers on the mainland, apparently).
But Pekeke had refused their request. Yanyoré-Pizarro also
mentioned a conversation he had had with a La Rompe member named
"Endrick." Endrick said that he told a La Rompe member named
"Frank" that Pekeke was the "boss" — a statement that caused Frank
- 7 -
to slap Endrick's face. Pekeke later told Yanyoré-Pizarro that he
told Frank to apologize to Endrick because Endrick was right about
who the "boss" was. But Frank just looked at him and left.
More, Yanyoré-Pizarro disclosed to ATF agents that
Joshua was from the Luis Llorén Torres housing project and that
Pekeke had supplied "the vehicles and the firearms" used to kill
"Shaka," a drug-point leader there. Joshua "used to hang out with
Endrick," though Endrick swore Joshua "was not part of the rival
gang."
More still, Yanyoré-Pizarro admitted that although he
was not there when Pekeke died, he later spoke to someone named
"Pipen" who was. And Pipen fingered Joshua — who lived with his
[Joshua's] grandmother in the same housing project as Pekeke — as
the killer. Pipen also said that when Pekeke's cousin wanted a
piece of the profits from Pekeke's old drug points, Pipen warned
him "to stop talking in a threatening manner" or else "something
could happen to him like what happened to [Pekeke]."
Called by the government at a La Rompe trial, Yanyoré-
Pizarro testified (in response to questions from the prosecution
about how he got involved with La Rompe) that when Pekeke moved to
the Los Lirios housing project and became "the head honcho," he
(Yanyoré-Pizarro) started running Pekeke's drug points, committing
- 8 -
robberies, and killing people.7 But when Pekeke "was killed,"
Yanyoré-Pizarro fled from Los Lirios because Pekeke's men thought
Yanyoré-Pizarro had flipped and had helped kill Pekeke. Asked to
discuss his killing people for La Rompe, Yanyoré-Pizarro said "that
we were at war with an opposing group, and we also had internal
wars."
Testifying as a government witness at a different La
Rompe trial, Calviño-Acevedo noted (in response to questions from
the prosecution about why he stopped going to a particular drug
point) that "there was internal friction between us" La Rompe
members.8 Questioned about "what that internal war consisted of,"
Calviño-Acevedo explained that "the internal war was that there
were rumors" that La Rompe members had murdered Pekeke.
Laureano-Salgado and Ramírez-Rivera's new-trial filings
argued that these pieces of "recently disclosed evidence" show
that La Rompe — and not La ONU — had murdered Pekeke to further
the personal interests of La Rompe members, which they said
"undermines confidence in the [j]ury VICAR verdict in this case."
7 This La Rompe trial involved these defendants: Rubén Cotto-
Andio, José D. Resto-Figueroa, and Carlos Velázquez-Fontánez.
8 This La Rompe trial involved these defendants: Pedro Vigió
Aponte, Reinaldo Rodríguez Martínez, Víctor M. Rodríguez Torres,
Tarsis Guillermo Sánchez Mora, and Carlos M. Guerrero Castro.
- 9 -
Opposing the motion, the government protested that
Laureano-Salgado and Ramírez-Rivera could not show that these
statements would probably lead to an acquittal at a retrial because
the evidence did not come from witnesses with firsthand knowledge
of "the planning and execution" of Pekeke's murder.
Applying an actual-probability-of-acquittal standard,9
the judge denied the motion for three alternative reasons: first
that the statements "would likely not outweigh the eye-witness
testimony" given at Laureano-Salgado and Ramírez-Rivera's
"original trial by three of [their] fellow La ONU members"; second
that the statements had very "limited probative" worth because
they were "too unclear (and seemingly inconsistent)," which
undercut Yanyoré-Pizarro's "credibility" as well; and third that
even if the statements "could be construed as providing a
convincing and consistent narrative . . . of Pekeke's murder,"
they would probably not be admissible at a retrial because they
were not made on personal knowledge and violated the rule against
hearsay. The judge did specifically note that Yanyoré-Pizarro
"would be permitted to testify regarding certain internal
conflicts within La Rompe . . . of which he has personal knowledge,
9
Which is the standard applied to "most" new-trial motions
bottomed on newly-discovered evidence (more on this later). United
States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 489 F.3d 60, 66 (1st Cir. 2007).
- 10 -
including some that involved Pekeke." But according to the judge,
"this, without more, is insufficient to justify" granting the new-
trial motion.
Principal Appellate Arguments
That brings us to today, with Laureano-Salgado and
Ramírez-Rivera mounting a multifaceted challenge to the judge's
new-trial ruling. Their lead claim is that the government's
nondisclosure of these statements, which it had in its hands while
their case was on appeal here, violated the guarantees set out in
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its offspring —
guarantees that require prosecutors to reveal material,
exculpatory and impeaching evidence, see Maldonado-Rivera, 489
F.3d at 66-67 (discussing the Brady line of cases). Consistent
with this Brady-based theory, they then argue that they need only
show that the statements undermine confidence in the original
verdict, not that the statements would probably lead to a different
outcome at retrial. And they insist that they can meet the
undermine-confidence standard because the statements counter the
government's theory that La ONU iced Pekeke, at least as they see
it.10
10 We can make quick work of two of their other arguments:
One argument blasts the judge for denying their new-trial
motion without an evidentiary hearing. "[E]videntiary hearings on
new trial motions in criminal cases are the exception rather than
- 11 -
As a fallback, Laureano-Salgado alone argues that he can
satisfy "the more onerous" actual-probability-of-acquittal
standard because of the statement's exculpatory value.11 And by
the rule." United States v. Peake, 874 F.3d 65, 72 (1st Cir. 2017)
(quoting United States v. Connolly, 504 F.3d 206, 220 (1st Cir.
2007)). Yet — as the government notes, without correction —
Laureano-Salgado and Ramírez-Rivera never asked the judge for an
evidentiary hearing, which "ordinarily spells defeat for a
contention that one should have been held." See United States v.
Cyr, 337 F.3d 96, 101 n.5 (1st Cir. 2003) (quoting United States
v. Tardiff, 969 F.2d 1283, 1286 (1st Cir. 1992)). And they make
no developed argument for why the ordinary rule should not apply
here.
The other argument accuses prosecutors of misconduct by
presenting perjured testimony at their trial — the theory being
that Yanyoré-Pizarro's and Calviño-Acevedo's statements show that
Figueroa-Cancel, Gutiérrez-Santana, and Figueroa-Viera lied when
they blamed La ONU — and La ONU members Laureano-Salgado and
Ramírez-Rivera — for Pekeke's murder. But this argument is twice
waived: first because Laureano-Salgado and Ramírez-Rivera did not
present it below, see McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13,
22 (1st Cir. 1991) (explaining the baseline rule "that theories
not raised squarely in the district court cannot be surfaced for
the first time on appeal"); and second because, while they toss
around words like "perjury" and "misconduct" here, they "provide[]
neither the necessary caselaw nor reasoned analysis to show that
[they are] right about any of this," see Rodríguez v. Municipality
of San Juan, 659 F.3d 168, 175 (1st Cir. 2011) (adding that
"[j]udges are not mind-readers, so parties must spell out their
issues clearly, highlighting the relevant facts and analyzing on-
point authority"); United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st
Cir. 1990) (stressing that "[i]t is not enough merely to mention
a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to
do counsel's work").
11 Ramírez-Rivera's brief mentions the "more stringent test"
too, but only in passing: not only does he fail to list the test's
elements, he — as the government notes, without contradiction —
makes zero attempt to apply that standard to his situation. True,
he did move below to adopt Laureano-Salgado's arguments. But he
did nothing here to adopt Laureano-Salgado's opening-brief
- 12 -
Laureano-Salgado's reckoning, Yanyoré-Pizarro's statements are
"very favorable to [his] defense," given how they detail
"confrontations and problems Pekeke had with other La Rompe . . .
leaders" — thus indicating "a motive for his killing." Taking aim
at the judge's credibility finding, Laureano-Salgado also claims
that no law-enforcement personnel testified that Yanyoré-Pizarro's
statements were "false" or "contradicted by other evidence." He
then says that the judge stumbled by deeming Yanyoré-Pizarro's
statements inadmissible — in his telling these "statement[s] are
fully admissible" under the following theories: "as rebuttal
evidence"; "as a constitutional matter," since "an accused has a
arguments. See, e.g., Ramírez-Rivera, 800 F.3d at 11 n.1
(discussing how appellants prosecuting consolidated appeals may
adopt each other's arguments).
True too, Ramírez-Rivera moved here for leave to adopt the
arguments presented in Laureano-Salgado's reply brief (in lieu of
filing his own reply brief). And Laureano-Salgado's reply rehashed
arguments he made in his initial brief — i.e., that he can satisfy
both the Brady-new-trial standard and the ordinary-new-trial
standard. Taking up Ramírez-Rivera's motion, we wrote that "leave
of court is not required for adoption" but warned that he ran the
risk that we might find Laureano-Salgado's reply-brief arguments
"not transferable or waived." Regrettably for Ramírez-Rivera, he
gets no help from Laureano-Salgado's reply brief, and for a simple
reason: Ramírez-Rivera did not adequately develop in his opening
brief any argument tied to the ordinary-new-trial standard, and he
cannot use a reply brief to cure that deficiency. See generally
Sandstrom v. ChemLawn Corp., 904 F.2d 83, 86 (1st Cir. 1990)
(holding that arguments not made in an opening brief but only in
a reply brief are waived).
- 13 -
constitutional right to present a complete defense to all charges"
laid "against him or her"; and "as statements against interest,"
since the "statements implicated" Yanyoré-Pizarro in Pekeke's
murder. Leaving no stone unturned, Laureano-Salgado adds that the
judge's inadmissibility ruling conflicts with the judge's later
decision to let Yanyoré-Pizarro testify at the retrial of a La ONU
codefendant named Ismael Cruz-Ramos — a decision that provides
"the best argument" for why the "statements are fully admissible,"
at least in Laureano-Salgado's mind.12 Ever-persistent, Laureano-
Salgado argues as well that Calviño-Acevedo's testimony
12 The retrial occurred a few months after denying Laureano-
Salgado and Ramírez-Rivera's new-trial motion. Here is what we
know about what went down (unfortunately, we do not have the
compete transcripts). After a few days of trial, Cruz-Ramos's
lawyer told the government that he had one defense witness,
Yanyoré-Pizarro. On the next trial day (with the judge's
permission), Cruz-Ramos's lawyer later made an extended offer of
proof — via a voir-dire examination of Yanyoré-Pizarro (outside
the jury's presence) — concerning the admissibility of Yanyoré-
Pizarro's testimony. During that process, Yanyoré-Pizarro
admitted that he was not present when Pekeke got killed. But he
claimed that he heard from a fellow La Rompe member that Joshua
had "pulled the trigger." He then explained that La Rompe must
have had something to do with the murder, given the beef between
Pekeke and Frank. But he also stressed that Frank worked with La
ONU to kill Pekeke, saying (italics ours) that "it was La ONU who
went in and did the job." Ultimately, the judge thought Yanyoré-
Pizarro's testimony might fit within the coconspirator exception
to the hearsay rule. "So," the judge said, "I'm not sure the
opinion is actually impermissible, if he lays a foundation for it"
(notice how the ruling is stated in the conditional) — though,
Cruz-Ramos chose not to call Yanyoré-Pizarro as a witness (there's
no suggestion that the government called Yanyoré-Pizarro to the
stand).
- 14 -
"corroborate[s]" Yanyoré-Pizarro's narrative (that's the extent of
what he has to say about Calviño-Acevedo, however). Putting it
all together, he contends that the newly-discovered evidence would
probably lead to an acquittal on the VICAR-related counts if there
were a new trial.
Defending the judge's ruling to the hilt, the government
argues that the actual-probability-of-acquittal standard governs
because the "new evidence" arose post-conviction. And in its view,
the judge hardly erred in finding that standard not met here,
because Yanyoré-Pizarro and Calviño-Acevedo had no personal
knowledge of who killed Pekeke, but channeled hearsay instead;
also because the statements were too speculative since Yanyoré-
Pizarro accused many persons of possibly being behind Pekeke's
murder; and finally because the statements corroborated key facts
presented by prosecutors at trial (e.g., that Joshua shot Pekeke).
Our Take13
Dueling Legal Standards
To get a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence,
a defendant ordinarily must show that the evidence (1) was either
13 A defendant must file a new-trial motion based on newly-
discovered evidence within three years of the verdict or finding
of guilt. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1). Laureano-Salgado and
Ramírez-Rivera filed their motion outside that time restriction.
But the government did not raise a timeliness objection below.
And it expressly chose not to press one in its appellate briefing.
So we say no more about that subject. See United States v. Del-
- 15 -
unknown or unavailable to him during the trial; (2) could not have
been uncovered sooner with diligence; (3) is material, not just
cumulative or impeaching; and (4) is sufficiently compelling that
it would probably produce an acquittal at a retrial — a hefty
burden, to be sure. See, e.g., Peake, 874 F.3d at 69; United
States v. Flores-Rivera, 787 F.3d 1, 15 (1st Cir. 2015); Del-
Valle, 566 F.3d at 38; Maldonado-Rivera, 489 F.3d at 65-66. We
hedge with "ordinarily" because if the defendant bases his new-
trial motion on an alleged Brady violation, a more defendant-
friendly standard takes center stage: he must still satisfy the
first and second elements (unavailability and due diligence), but
caselaw replaces the third and fourth elements (materiality and
prejudice) with a
unitary requirement that the defendant need demonstrate
only a reasonable probability that, had the evidence
been disclosed to the defense in a timely manner, the
result of the proceeding would have been different.
Peake, 874 F.3d at 69 (emphasis added and quotation marks omitted).
So rather than having to show "'actual probability that the result
Valle, 566 F.3d 31, 38 (1st Cir. 2009) (suggesting that the Rule
33(b)(1) time-bar "is non-jurisdictional and may be forfeited"
(citing Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 19 (2005) (per
curiam))); see generally United States v. Alverio-Meléndez, 640
F.3d 412, 423 n.6 (1st Cir. 2011) (noting that because we could
resolve the defendant's new-trial argument "on the merits and in
favor of the government," we had no need to decide whether his
new-trial "motion was untimely").
- 16 -
would have differed,'" a defendant need show only "something
sufficient to 'undermine[] confidence'" in the jury's verdict.
See United States v. Mathur, 624 F.3d 498, 504 (1st Cir. 2010)
(emphasis and alteration in original) (quoting Kyles v. Whitley,
514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995)); accord Flores-Rivera, 787 F.3d at 15-
16; see also United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1216, 1220 (1st
Cir. 1993) (explaining that the "'undermine confidence' formula
suggests that reversal might be warranted in some cases even if
there is less than an even chance that the evidence would produce
an acquittal").
Under either scenario, we will reverse a judge's new-
trial denial only for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Connolly,
504 F.3d at 211-12. And we will find an abuse of discretion only
when no reasonable person could agree with the judge's decision.
See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 748 F.3d 64, 69 (1st Cir. 2014).
This is as it should be. After all, the judge had a box-seat view
of the trial, making him intimately familiar with the case's
nuances — which justifies our giving his opinion on "the likely
impact of newly disclosed evidence . . . considerable deference."
See Mathur, 624 F.3d at 504 (emphasis added). We also keep in
mind that the new-trial remedy "must be used sparingly, and only
where a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result." United
States v. Conley, 249 F.3d 38, 45 (1st Cir. 2001).
- 17 -
We shift now from the general to the specific.
Governing Legal Standard
Laureano-Salgado and Ramírez-Rivera contend that a Brady
violation occurred because the government acquired the "new
evidence" while their case was here on appeal yet failed to
disclose that evidence at that time.14 Ergo, they say, the judge
should have applied the more lenient Brady-based standard in
analyzing their new-trial motion. But they cite no controlling
case holding that Brady obligations apply to evidence the
government acquired post-verdict. That is probably because
binding precedent holds that where, as here, the record contains
no indication that the government knew about these statements "at
any time prior to or during [their] trial," Brady does not operate
and so the more arduous ordinary new-trial standard controls. See
Maldonado-Rivera, 489 F.3d at 67; see generally Dist. Attorney's
Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 67-
69 (2009) ["Osborne"] (noting that Brady requires disclosure only
14
No one disputes that the government learned about the
statements spotlighted in appellants' new-trial motion after the
verdict in their case: Laureano-Salgado and Ramírez-Rivera's
trial ended in February 2013; Yanyoré-Pizarro's grand-jury
testimony occurred in May 2015, his ATF interviews went down in
January 2016, and his trial testimony happened in October 2016;
and Calviño-Acevedo's trial testimony happened in December 2015.
And because the Ramírez-Rivera decision came down in August 2015,
only Yanyoré-Pizarro's May 2015 grand-jury testimony fits into
their discovered-while-the-case-is-on-direct-appeal category.
- 18 -
of exculpatory and impeaching info that existed at the time of the
original trial, emphasizing that "Brady is the wrong framework"
for evaluating the government's post-trial disclosure
obligations); accord Tevlin v. Spencer, 621 F.3d 59, 69-70 (1st
Cir. 2010); see generally Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 536
(2011) (commenting that "Brady announced a constitutional
requirement addressed first and foremost to the prosecution's
conduct pretrial").
Tellingly, neither Laureano-Salgado nor Ramírez-Rivera
attempts to distinguish Maldonado-Rivera. Ramírez-Rivera tries to
distinguish Osborne and Tevlin as situations involving habeas
proceedings, while his involves a direct appeal — to quote his
brief: "A direct appeal is not a postconviction proceeding," the
implication being that neither Osborne nor Tevlin controls his
case. And Laureano-Salgado tries to distinguish Tevlin on that
basis too (his brief says nothing about Osborne). But they offer
no persuasive reasoning or authority to support their habeas-is-
not-a-postconviction contention. Maybe a good argument exists
that might help them. But because their suggestion is not
sufficiently developed to permit us to pass on it intelligently,
we consider it waived and leave its resolution for another day.
See, e.g., Patton v. Johnson, 915 F.3d 827, 838 (1st Cir. 2019).
- 19 -
Perhaps hoping to scare us into action, Laureano-Salgado
contends that the government believes that prosecutors do not have
"even an ethical" duty "to reveal material information known to
[them] after a guilty verdict, but before the appeal is concluded,
because the evidence was not in existence at the time of trial."
The government says no such thing, however. Actually, the
government candidly acknowledges that "after a conviction the
prosecutor . . . is bound by the ethics of his office to inform
the appropriate authority of after-acquired or other information
that casts doubt upon the correctness of the conviction." Imbler
v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 n.25 (1976) (going on to hold that
prosecutorial immunity applies even where a prosecutor commits a
Brady infraction because, among other reasons, "[t]he possibility
of personal liability" might make prosecutors unwilling to comply
with this ethical duty). And Laureano-Salgado makes no Imbler-
based argument, even after the government pointed out that
"[b]ecause none of the information relevant here casts doubt on
[their] convictions, the prosecutors . . . had no occasion to
disclose it" before their "request" (though we imply no view about
whether any such argument would be tenable).
No Abused Discretion
Laureano-Salgado's fallback argument — that he deserves
a new trial even under the ordinary standard and that the judge
- 20 -
slipped in concluding otherwise — fails because he did not meet
his heavy burden of showing that the impact of the statements he
champions is so strong that a fresh jury (apprised of their
content) would probably vote to acquit him on the VICAR-related
charges. See United States v. Vigneau, 337 F.3d 62, 69 (1st Cir.
2003) (noting that satisfying this part of the ordinary test is no
easy feat because, among other things, we must give the district
judge's views "considerable deference" (quoting United States v.
Falú-González, 205 F.3d 436, 443 (1st Cir. 2000)); see also United
States v. Hernández-Rodríguez, 443 F.3d 138, 143 (1st Cir. 2006)
(declaring that "we have no discretion to grant a motion for new
trial if any one of the four factors [in the ordinary test] is
lacking").15 We explain.
Both sides spend a lot of time sparring over whether the
at-issue evidence presents admissibility or credibility problems.
But let's assume — without deciding, of course — that Laureano-
Salgado is right that neither problem lurks here. Even so, he is
not entirely out of the woods.
The actual-probability-of-acquittal standard requires
"an evaluation of the new evidence in juxtaposition to the evidence
15We focus on Laureano-Salgado's contentions because (as we
noted earlier) Ramírez-Rivera waived any arguments based on the
ordinary standard that he might have had.
- 21 -
actually admitted at trial." United States v. Josleyn, 206 F.3d
144, 157 (1st Cir. 2000). Here, the new statements corroborate
many of the key facts established at trial — like how Joshua lived
with his grandmother in the same housing project as Pekeke and how
Joshua shot Pekeke. The statements also show that Yanyoré-Pizarro
basically suggested that different persons had different motives
for killing Pekeke: (a) La Rompe's Trenza and Papito Mojica,
apparently to take over Pekeke's drug points; (b) La Rompe bosses
at the Alturas de Cupey housing project, supposedly because Pekeke
had refused their help request; (c) La Rompe's Frank, apparently
because Frank and Pekeke could not agree on who was "the boss" —
in his last version of this narrative, Yanyoré-Pizarro had Frank
working with La ONU to gun down Pekeke; and (d) gangbangers from
the Luis Llorén Torres housing project, supposedly because Pekeke
had orchestrated their leader's murder. At any new trial the jury
would weigh Yanyoré-Pizarro's shifting stories against Figueroa-
Cancel's, Gutiérrez-Santana's, and Figueroa-Viera's consistent
testimony implicating Laureano-Salgado and Ramírez-Rivera in
Pekeke's slaying. And the jury would also weigh (on the one hand)
the absence of evidence indicating that Yanyoré-Pizarro was
present when La Rompe (allegedly) planned Pekeke's murder, and (on
the other hand) the existence of evidence showing that Figueroa-
Cancel, Gutiérrez-Santana, and Figueroa-Viera were present when La
- 22 -
ONU plotted Pekeke's demise and that they — along with Laureano-
Salgado and Ramírez-Rivera — helped La ONU take Pekeke out.
Having performed the requisite evidentiary comparison,
we agree with the district judge that the statements are not
"sufficiently compelling" as to generate a realistic probability
of an acquittal on the VICAR-related counts. See United States v.
Alicea, 205 F.3d 480, 487 (1st Cir. 2000). And because this
evidence does not "preponderate[]" so "heavily" against the jury's
verdict that it would be a miscarriage of justice to let the
convictions on the VICAR-related counts stand, we cannot fault the
judge for denying the new-trial motion. See United States v.
George, 448 F.3d 96, 102 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v.
Villarman-Oviedo, 325 F.3d 1, 15 (1st Cir. 2003)).
As a parting shot, Laureano-Salgado contends that United
States v. Hernández-Rodríguez, 443 F.3d 138 (1st Cir. 2006) — where
we reversed a district court's new-trial denial — should compel us
to reverse here. But Hernández-Rodríguez does not aid his cause.
Here is why.
A jury convicted José Ramón Hernández-Rodriguez
("Hernández") and Douglas Gorbea Del-Valle ("Gorbea") of various
drug crimes. Id. at 140. Gorbea ran a trading company that
imported a cocaine shipment from Venezuela to Puerto Rico. Del-
Valle, 566 F.3d at 33. He also handled many of the operation's
- 23 -
details. Id. Hernández owned the trucking company that Gorbea
used to move the shipment from the docks to a nearby truck yard.
Hernández-Rodríguez, 443 F.3d at 141. To prove that Hernández
knowingly participated in the scheme, the government relied on a
fax found in Gorbea's briefcase — a fax that had the name "José
Hernández" written on it. Id.
Sometime after his conviction, Hernández sought a new
trial based on newly-discovered evidence contained in an affidavit
by Gorbea saying that he (Gorbea) did not know Hernández
personally. Id. A magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing,
at which Gorbea testified that the "José Hernández" on the fax
referred not to his codefendant but to another person with the
same name. Id. at 142. Finding Gorbea credible, the magistrate
judge recommended that the district judge grant Hernández a new
trial. See id. at 140, 146. Without holding a further evidentiary
hearing, the district judge rejected the magistrate judge's
recommendation. Id. After assuming without deciding that the
supposed new evidence was credible, the district judge ruled that
a reasonable jury could still infer Hernández's knowing
participation from other circumstantial evidence, like his tailing
the van with the cocaine as it left the docks. Id. at 146. Over
a dissent, a panel of this court reversed, holding in relevant
part that the evidence, "if deemed credible by a jury, . . . would
- 24 -
greatly undermine the conspiracy charges against Hernández" (given
the government's theory of prosecution) and thus "the district
court abused its discretion by failing to consider the full import
of [Hernández's] new evidence" after "assum[ing], arguendo,
Gorbea's credibility." Id. at 146, 148.
Unfortunately for Laureano-Salgado, the difference
between Hernández-Rodríguez and his case is one of night and day.
As we just said, the evidence there (if believed) "would greatly
undermine" the charges against the defendant. But as we also just
explained, the evidence here (even if believed) would not have
that same effect — given the equivocal nature of Yanyoré-Pizarro's
testimony, and how his testimony rested solely on rumors and did
(at times) implicate La ONU in Pekeke's death. So Hernández-
Rodríguez is no help to Laureano-Salgado.
Undaunted, Laureano-Salgado argues that his "new
evidence . . . is stronger than the [new evidence] in Hernández-
Rodríguez as the government [here] relied upon it in not one, but
two subsequent [La Rompe] trials" — the first involving Yanyoré-
Pizarro's testimony (see footnote 7 and the text to which it is
appended); the second involving Calviño-Acevedo's testimony (see
footnote 8 and the text to which it is appended). But this argument
is not a game-changer either because, again, here — unlike in
Hernández-Rodríguez — the alleged new evidence cannot be
- 25 -
reasonably viewed as "greatly undermin[ing]" the pertinent
verdicts. And to the extent he believes Calviño-Acevedo's
testimony saves the day by (supposedly) corroborating Yanyoré-
Pizarro's testimony, he is mistaken. That is because Calviño-
Acevedo's testimony highlights how Yanyoré-Pizarro's testimony
rested on rumors that cannot (for reasons already detailed) help
Laureano-Salgado satisfy the actual-probability-of-acquittal
component of the ordinary new-trial standard.
Long and Short of It
Experience shows that a supposedly new "piece of
evidence often looms larger in the eyes of a hopeful defendant
than its actual dimensions warrant." Peake, 874 F.3d at 72. So
it is here. Ultimately, having considered the parties' arguments
with care, we conclude that the judge applied the correct legal
standard and abused no discretion in denying the new-trial
motion.16
Final Words
All that is left to say then is: Affirmed.
16 For what it may be worth, we note that even if we were
willing to overlook Ramírez-Rivera's waiver of arguments keyed to
the actual-probability-of-acquittal standard — and we most
certainly are not — he too would lose for the reasons just given.
- 26 -