## Facts

- Defendants Lorenzo Catalán-Roman and Hernaldo Medina-Villegas were charged for participating in a conspiracy to rob armored vehicles in Puerto Rico.
- The conspiracy involved multiple robberies and attempted robberies of armored cars operated by Ranger American Armored Services.
- During a November 30, 2001 robbery, Ranger employees James Cruz-Matias (messenger) and Eluber Torres-Alejandro (driver) were robbed at gunpoint during a cash delivery.
- The pattern of crimes included an attempted robbery and a carjacking on March 26, 2002.
- On March 27, 2002, an armored-car robbery occurred in which guard Gilberto Rodríguez-Cabrera was shot and killed and Torres was wounded but survived.
- Torres became a key eyewitness; shortly after the shooting, while hospitalized, he gave an initial account that omitted details he later included at trial.
- At trial, Torres testified to additional details that supported a more deliberate, premeditated killing.
- The defense sought to introduce Torres’s hospital interview as extrinsic impeachment evidence based on omissions, arguing the omissions suggested later fabrication.
- The district court excluded the hospital interview as extrinsic impeachment on a collateral matter, denied Catalán’s motion to sever from Medina, imposed limits on cross-examination, and quashed a defense subpoena seeking tax records of the armored-car company and its owner.
- A jury convicted both defendants on multiple counts, including counts tied to the conspiracy, carjacking, and a murder count carrying a life sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding extrinsic evidence of a witness’s hospital interview (offered to impeach by omission) violated the defendants’ right to confront witnesses or present a defense.
2. Whether denying Catalán’s motion to sever (to seek Medina’s allegedly exculpatory testimony) was an abuse of discretion.
3. Whether limits on cross-examination violated the Sixth Amendment.
4. Whether quashing a subpoena for company/owner tax records improperly limited proof or contest of the interstate-commerce element.
5. Whether overlapping convictions (counts 8 and 9) violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
6. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Medina’s carjacking and murder convictions.
7. Whether Medina was denied the right to allocution before sentencing on the murder count, requiring resentencing.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the convictions and rulings in most respects.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion, and did not violate constitutional rights, by excluding the hospital interview as extrinsic impeachment on a collateral matter.
- The court held the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion because Catalán did not make a sufficient, non-speculative showing of the substance and exculpatory value of Medina’s proposed testimony.
- The court upheld the challenged limits on cross-examination as within the trial court’s discretion and consistent with the Confrontation Clause.
- The court affirmed quashing the subpoena for tax records as not relevant to the interstate-commerce element.
- Accepting the government’s concession, the court held counts 8 and 9 were duplicative and violated double jeopardy, requiring corrective relief.
- The court rejected Medina’s insufficiency challenges, holding the evidence permitted a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the carjacking and murder counts.
- Accepting the government’s concession, the court remanded for resentencing on count 8 because Medina was not afforded allocution on that count.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts may exclude extrinsic impeachment evidence offered only to contradict a witness on collateral matters; such exclusions generally do not violate confrontation or the right to present a defense when the defendant retains meaningful avenues to test credibility.
- Severance in joint conspiracy trials is disfavored; a defendant seeking severance to obtain a co-defendant’s testimony must make a concrete showing of the testimony’s substance, exculpatory character, and likelihood of availability.
- The Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination without reasonable limits; courts may restrict inquiry based on marginal relevance, confusion, or prejudice.
- Rule 17(c) subpoenas may be quashed when the requested material lacks relevance to a charged element or amounts to a speculative search.
- The Double Jeopardy Clause bars multiple convictions for the same offense when counts are duplicative under the applicable elements analysis.
- Sufficiency review requires viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and sustaining the conviction if a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A defendant must be given an opportunity to allocute before imposition of sentence; denial of allocution requires resentencing for the affected count.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit largely upheld the defendants’ convictions arising from an armored-car robbery conspiracy and a fatal shooting, sustaining key evidentiary and trial-management rulings while ordering limited relief: correction of duplicative convictions under double jeopardy and a remand to resentence Medina on the murder count after providing allocution.


United States v. Catalan-Roman, 585 F.3d 453 (1st Cir. 2009)