## Facts

- The federal government prosecuted multiple members and associates of the Almighty Latin King Queen Nation (“Latin Kings”), a street gang operating drug markets in Newburgh, New York.
- Eva Cardoza lived with her young daughter and her boyfriend, Steven “Scoobz/Scooby” Lewis, a Latin Kings member.
- Trial evidence showed Cardoza helped Lewis and the gang with drug activity, including storing drugs in their apartment and assisting with gang-related drug dealing.
- A Latin Kings member, Jerome “Rudeboy” Scarlett, was killed, and the gang suspected John “Tarzan” Maldonado of responsibility.
- Gang leadership decided Maldonado should be killed in retaliation and directed Latin Kings member William “Tutu” Overton to carry out the shooting.
- There was evidence that Lewis, but not Cardoza, was present when Overton was ordered to kill Maldonado.
- The plan included arranging transportation for Overton after the shooting; Lewis told Overton that Cardoza would be waiting in a nearby car with the engine running as a pickup.
- On the day of the shooting, Cardoza parked her car near the designated location as directed.
- Latin Kings member Luis “Tuch” Tambito testified that he was near Cardoza’s car when he heard three gunshots that mortally wounded Maldonado.
- After the shots, Overton fled and ran past Cardoza; Tambito yelled to Cardoza to “go get” Overton, and Cardoza drove off, picked him up, and later drove him away (eventually taking him home).
- The government did not present direct proof that Cardoza heard the gunshots, saw the shooting or its aftermath, or was told that a murder (as opposed to some other gang “mission”) had occurred at the time she drove Overton away.
- A jury convicted Cardoza on all counts charged against her, including being an accessory after the fact to murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3, and she appealed the § 3 conviction on sufficiency grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Cardoza, knowing Maldonado had been murdered, assisted Overton with the purpose of hindering or preventing his apprehension, as required for accessory-after-the-fact liability under 18 U.S.C. § 3.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed Cardoza’s conviction for being an accessory after the fact to murder under 18 U.S.C. § 3.
- The court held that the proof was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that Cardoza knew the murder had been committed when she assisted Overton and (2) that she acted with the required purpose to hinder or prevent apprehension, trial, or punishment.
- The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the § 3 count and resentence Cardoza on the remaining counts of conviction.
- The court otherwise affirmed the judgments as to the defendants’ other convictions (addressed separately).

## Legal Principles

- To convict a defendant as an accessory after the fact under 18 U.S.C. § 3, the government must prove: (1) a federal offense was committed; (2) the defendant knew that offense had been committed; and (3) the defendant assisted the offender in order to hinder or prevent the offender’s apprehension, trial, or punishment.
- The knowledge element requires proof that the defendant knew the completed offense had occurred; suspicion, association with offenders, or awareness that something dangerous might happen is not enough.
- The intent element requires proof that the defendant’s purpose in providing assistance was to hinder or prevent apprehension (or trial or punishment); providing transportation or other help, without proof of that purpose, does not satisfy § 3.
- In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, but a conviction cannot rest on speculation or a chain of inferences unsupported by record evidence.

## Conclusion

United States v. Calderon holds that § 3 accessory-after-the-fact liability demands proof of both actual knowledge that the murder had occurred and assistance given for the specific purpose of helping the offender avoid apprehension or punishment; because the trial record did not support those findings beyond a reasonable doubt as to Eva Cardoza’s post-shooting conduct, the Second Circuit reversed her § 3 conviction and remanded for dismissal of that count and resentencing.


United States v. Calderon, 785 F.3d 847 (2015)