govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_11-cr-00001-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES : 
: 
v. : No. 11cr1 (MRK) 
: 
JOSEPH REYES, RICHARD DANIELS, : 
and ALEXIS RAMOS : 
 
 
RULING AND ORDER
 
 
During the March 27, 2012 pretrial confer ence, Defendants Joseph Reyes, Richard 
Daniels, and Alexis Ramos objected to the intr oduction of evidence tendi ng to show that they 
were members of a gang—specifically, members of the Bloods—as irrelevant and unduly 
prejudicial. Defendants Richard Daniels and Alexis Ramos have since filed Motions in Limine to 
Preclude Testimony of Gang Affiliation [docs. # 423, 424], and Defendant Joseph Reyes filed a 
motion adopting and incorporating by re ference Mr. Daniels's arguments, see Mot. in Limine 
[doc. # 432]. After weighing the arguments, the Court denies all three motions. 
First, the Court concludes that the disputed evidence is relevant under Rule 401 of the 
Federal Rules of Evidence. The Government intends to use evidence of gang membership to both 
demonstrate the existence of a joint venture or conspiracy and explain the relationship between 
Defendants and several cooperating witnesses. See United States v. Diaz , 176 F.3d 52, 79 (2d 
Cir. 1999) (finding that the admission of evidence regarding gang membership could be relevant 
for the purpose of establishing a conspiracy be cause such evidence may "help explain how the 
illegal relationship between partic ipants in the crime developed, or to explain the mutual trust 
that existed between coconspira tors" (quotation marks omitted)); see also id. at 95 (finding that 
admission of evidence regarding contested gang me mbership relevant to establishing defendant's 

motive). Evidence of Defendants' possession of guns, the coded language used by gang 
members, and other acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracy—i ncluding the alle ged fact that 
only gang members or their close associates were allowed to sell drugs at the Johnson property—
are also all relevant in establishi ng the existence of a conspiracy. See, e.g. , id. at 79; United 
States v. Muniz, 60 F.3d 65, 71 (2d Cir. 1995) ("[T]here are innumerable precedents of this court 
approving the admission of guns in narcot ics cases as tools of the trade."); United States v. 
Wilson, 481 F.3d 475, 482 (7th Cir. 2007) (finding that evidence of an ordered beating was not a 
prior bad act, but rather part of a conspiracy, as it demonstrated the defendant's leadership role 
and the gang's enforcement policy). Having found the contested evidence relevant, the Court 
turns to evaluating whether its relevance is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 
As courts regularly recognize, demonstrating the existence of prejudice alone is not 
sufficient to exclude relevant and otherwise admissible evidence, as all evidence that weakens a 
party's claim results in some prejudice. See Black's Law Dictionary 1299 (Bryan A. Garner et al. 
eds., 9th ed. 2004) (defining "pre judice" as "[d]amage or detriment to one's legal rights or 
claims."). The question under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is whether the prejudice 
would be unfair —that is, whether the evidence, if introduced, would have an "adverse effect 
beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission into evidence." United States 
v. Gelzer, 50 F.3d 1133, 1139 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotat ion marks and alteration omitted); see also 
Old Chief v. United States , 519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997) (explaining that evidence would cause 
"unfair prejudice" if it would have "an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper 
basis." (citation omitted)). 
"Evidence that a defendant is a member of a gang can be highly prejudicial . . . ." United 
States v. Nelson, 103 F. Supp. 2d 512, 513 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). "[ T]he Seventh Circuit has set forth 

a clear explanation of the princi ples at issue in judging admissi bility, stating that evidence of 
gang affiliation should tend to prove an element of the charged offense, if it is to have general 
probative value that ou tweighs its prejudice." Id. at 514. Alleged membership in the Bloods, "a 
notorious nationwide street gang," is potentially even more prejudicial than general gang 
membership. United States v. Price , 2009 WL 973370, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2009) as 
clarified, 2009 WL 1010483 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2009). "This evidence weighs heavily hwere, as 
here, Defendant's purported membership in the Bloods is not an element of the charges against 
him." Id. 
After weighing the evidence, the Court finds that the relevance of evidence 
demonstrating that the defendants were members of a gang to demonstrating the existence of a 
joint venture or conspiracy and explaining the relationship between the defendants and 
cooperating witnesses outweighs that evidence's potential for unfair prejudice, primarily because 
it tends to prove an element of the charged offense. See Nelson, 103 F. Supp. 2d at 513. 
However, whether that the gang was th e Bloods—a well-known st reet gang with 
numerous negative associations in popular culture— is not strongly relevant to the Government's 
case and is therefore unfairly prejudicial. See Price , 2009 WL 973370, at *2. Accordingly, the 
Government may introduce evidence of Defendants' gang membership, but the Government may 
not introduce evidence that the gang was the Bloods. The Court will reconsider this decision if 
the Government wishes to introduce specific pieces of evidence, such as photographs or recorded 
conversations, which are inextricably linked to the Bloods. 
After careful consideration, the Court concludes that wh ile the evidence of gang 
membership may be prejudicial to Defendants' arguments, the pr ejudice is not unfair given its 
relevance. Accordingly, the Court finds that gang-related evidence is admissible under Rules 401 

and 403. Mr. Ramos's Motion in Limine [doc. # 423], Mr. Daniels's Motion in Limine [doc. 
# 424], and Mr. Reyes's Motion in Limine [doc. # 432] are therefore DENIED. However, absent 
further evidence that the gang was the Bloods rather than a non-specifi c gang is vital to the 
Government's introduction of specific pieces of evidence, the Government is ordered not to 
introduce evidence regarding the name of the gang and to instruct witnesses not to do so in their 
testimony. The Court also requests that Defendants submit a draft cautionary instruction 
regarding gang membership to be included in the Court's jury instructions. 
 
 
 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
 /s/ Mark R. Kravitz 
 
United States District Judge 
 
 
 
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: May 1, 2012. 

Passage view · GavelSight