United States v. Garcia, No. 14-3006 (10th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Defendants Pedro Garcia and Gonzalo Ramirez were convicted of conspiring with other members of their criminal gang to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). They were also convicted of committing various violent crimes in aid of racketeering (VICAR), and
multiple firearm counts. They challenged their convictions, arguing that: (1) the government violated "Brady v. Maryland" (373 U.S. 83 (1963)) by failing to disclose promises made to a key cooperating witness; (2) the government put on false evidence at trial in violation of "Napue v. Illinois" (360 U.S. 264 (1959)); (3) the jury was incorrectly instructed that the jurisdictional element of RICO required showing only a minimal effect on interstate commerce; (4) VICAR was unconstitutionally applied because their violent crimes did not affect interstate commerce; and (5) the court erroneously admitted testimonial hearsay under the guise of a gang expert’s opinion, in violation of the Confrontation Clause. The Tenth Circuit affirmed: (1) the government did not violate Brady because the undisclosed evidence was not material; (2) the government did not violate Napue; (3) the challenge to the interstate-commerce jury instruction on the RICO charge failed because it was based on a false premise that there was no evidence that the RICO enterprise engaged in economic activity; (4) the challenge to the VICAR convictions failed because it was based on the same false premise; and (5) testimonial hearsay was erroneously admitted but harmless because it was cumulative of other testimony.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.