Second Circuit panel finds unreasonable 10-year prison sentence for federal prison guard who repeatedly raped inmate

I missed while on the road the notable Second Circuit panel ruling last week in US v. Martinez, No. 22-902-cr (2d Cir. July 30, 3034) (available here).  Though I do not keep up with all reasonableness rulings in circuit courts, I still believe it remains rare for federal circuits to find sentences unreasonable on appeal.  But Martinez is a case that lead to finding of both prosecural and substantive unreasonableness, and here is how the lengthy panel opinion starts:

Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee Carlos Martinez, a former federal prison guard, was convicted after two jury trials in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Edward R. Korman, District Judge) of a number of charges stemming from his repeated rape of an inmate, whom the parties refer to as “Maria,” at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn, New York.  At both trials, Maria testified that Martinez raped her on five occasions while she was assigned to clean his office on weekends when that area was largely deserted. She testified that Martinez repeatedly sexually assaulted her by force (by physically holding her down) and threats and fear (by, for example, threatening to send her to a special housing unit (“SHU”) and warning her that fighting back would result in charges for assaulting an officer).

The jury at Martinez’s first trial found him guilty of five counts of sexual abuse of a ward, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(b) — one count for each rape. It also found him guilty of a number of other counts which were later vacated for reasons that are not at issue in the present appeal. At a second trial, Martinez was retried on fifteen counts arising out of the five rapes.  As to each rape, Martinez was charged with sexual abuse by threats or fear in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2242(1); depriving Maria of her civil rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242; and aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1).  The jury convicted Martinez of five counts of sexual abuse by threats or fear, 18 U.S.C. § 2242(1).  The jury also convicted Martinez of depriving Maria of her civil rights, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and of aggravated sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1), but only as to the second of the five charged rapes; it acquitted him on those counts as to the other four incidents.

At sentencing, the district court expressed doubts about Maria’s testimony and later explained in its written statement of reasons that it disagreed with the second jury’s guilty verdicts on the five counts of sexual abuse through threats or fear — despite having previously denied Martinez’s motions for acquittal. The court also made several remarks suggesting that the second jury had not credited Maria’s testimony, even though the jury had returned guilty verdicts on at least one count relating to each of the five charged rapes.  It additionally described Martinez as “not a violent criminal,” Gov’t App’x 226, even though the jury had found beyond a reasonable doubt that, on one occasion, he had forcibly raped Maria.  At bottom, the court appeared to believe Martinez’s defense that he and Maria had engaged in consensual sex, a version of events necessarily foreclosed by the guilty verdicts.  The district court ultimately imposed a prison sentence of ten years, a dramatic variance below the advisory Guidelines range of life imprisonment.

Martinez now challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his two convictions premised on using force to commit the second charged rape. We reject the insufficiency claim, because the jury was entitled to credit Maria’s testimony that Martinez physically restrained her to carry out that particular instance of sexual abuse. Martinez argues that his acquittals on some counts reveal that the jury must have completely rejected the victim’s testimony, but it is well established that a defendant cannot rely on inconsistent verdicts to impugn a conviction, and, in any event, the jury’s guilty verdicts decisively refute any contention that the jury entirely rejected that testimony.

The government cross-appeals Martinez’s ten-year sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We agree. The district court committed a number of procedural errors: It relied on certain 6 clearly erroneous factual findings that were foreclosed by the jury’s guilty verdicts, or that it mistakenly believed were dictated by the jury’s acquittals on other counts. It mistakenly treated Martinez’s convictions for committing sexual abuse through threats or fear as legally equivalent to committing sexual abuse of a ward, despite the fact that the former offense, unlike the latter, requires the sexual contact to have been without the victim’s consent. And it failed to effectively sentence him based on all of his convictions. The sentence was also substantively unreasonable because the district court gave dramatically insufficient weight to the seriousness of the full range of Martinez’s offenses, and impermissibly gave weight to its residual doubts about the jury’s guilty verdicts as a mitigating factor. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of conviction and REMAND for resentencing consistent with this opinion.