Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowA pair of northern Indiana gang leaders who were sentenced to life in prison for their roles in gang-related murders and drug activity have failed in their challenges to their convictions and sentences at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Robert Nieto and Darrick Vallodolid were among a host of Latin Kings members who were indicted on federal racketeering and narcotics charges from 2003 to 2017. The two men chose to go to trial in May 2018, where evidence was introduced that Nieto and Vallodolid held leadership positions in northwestern Indiana chapters of the gang, including each holding the highest role of “Inca.”
The federal government also presented evidence of a Latin Kings drug business that was “substantial, profitable, and conducted with sophistication and persistence.” Additionally, the jury heard evidence of the gang’s violent activities, including two murders that occurred in 2009 and 2013.
In 2009, 16-year-old Victor Lusinski was shot in the head while riding his bike in an alley in Hammond. According to witnesses, Vallodolid bragged about his role in the death of Lusinski, who was believed to be part of a rival gang.
Then in 2013, the government told jurors that Nieto was part of a drug robbery that ended in the death of Roland Correa. Correa was the neighbor of the actual target of the robbery, Anthony Martinez, who allegedly had ties to a rival gang.
The jury ultimately convicted Nieto and Vallodolid of racketeering and drug conspiracy, specifically finding that both men played a role in the respective murders and that both men were responsible for the requisite amount of drugs to justify an increased sentence. Accordingly, the Northern Indiana District Court sentenced both to life in prison.
The 7th Circuit upheld the convictions and sentences in a Monday opinion, despite a host of appellate challenges.
First, Nieto and Vallodolid — who are both Hispanic — challenged the denial of their Batson motion, raised after the government used its peremptory strikes “to remove nearly all Hispanic members from the venire.”
Of the five prospective jurors who were Hispanic, only one sat on the jury. Three others — Mr. Acosta, Ms. Gonzalez and Mr. Garcia — were cut via the government’s peremptory strikes.
Prosecutors claimed Gonzalez and Garcia, specifically, expressed “disdain” and “distaste and dismay” toward the government. But the defendants argued they were cut because of their ethnicity.
The district court rejected the defense’s Batson challenge, and the 7th Circuit affirmed.
“In all, the district court took great care in handling and resolving the defendants’ Batson challenge,” Judge Michael Scudder wrote Monday in United States of America v. Robert Nieto and Darrick P. Vallodolid, 19-2209, 19-3408. “The court applied the correct legal standards, reasonably accepted the government’s ethnicity-neutral justifications, and adequately supported its finding of no intentional government discrimination.”
Nieto and Vallodolid next challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against them, specifically evidence related to the murders.
As to Vallodolid’s challenge to the evidence of the 2009 murder of Lusinski — including arguments against witness testimony and an alleged lack of physical evidence — the 7th Circuit determined that, “considered altogether, the record provided a sufficient basis for the jury to conclude that Vallodolid murdered Lusinski to help defend Latin King territory.”
Similarly as to Nieto’s challenge to his conviction for the murder of Correa, “a rational jury.”
The appellate court also rejected Nieto’s argument that the district court improperly admitted evidence relating to the 2013 robbery and Correa’s murder.
“We likewise reject Nieto and Vallodolid’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the drug conspiracy conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846,” Scudder wrote. “… Nieto and Vallodolid posit that the government’s circumstantial evidence fell short because ‘it cannot be said that the members acted in concert to further each other’s drug distribution effort.’ The record shows otherwise.
“… Much of the same evidence supports the jury’s determination that, over the lifetime of the decade-long conspiracy, Nieto and Vallodolid were responsible for the requisite amount of drugs to justify an increased sentence,” Scudder added.
Both defendants challenged their life sentences on appeal, arguing the district court did not comply with certain procedural requirements imposed by state law.
In rejecting that argument, the appellate court pointed to the jury’s special findings under 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a) that the defendants distributed a sufficient quantity of drugs to justify life sentences, and that they each played a role in a murder to further gang activities. Those findings allowed the district court to impose life sentences, the 7th Circuit held.
Additionally, “the defendants misinterpret the requirements and operation of § 1963(a),” Scudder wrote. “No doubt Congress incorporated certain state offenses — those ‘for which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment’ — into RICO. … But substantive incorporation and procedural incorporation are not one and the same.
“… Because the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant committed murder (as defined under Indiana law), while also committing criminal organizational activity, the district court properly incorporated the substance of the predicate offense,” the judge concluded. “No bifurcated proceeding was necessary. Consequently, the district court committed no legal error, substantive or procedural, in imposing life sentences on Nieto and Vallodolid.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.