United States v. Martinez (4th Cir. 2025):
Clarifying the Boundaries of Duress under 18 U.S.C. § 1959, the Admissibility of Gang-Violence Evidence, and the Proper Scope of Knock-and-Talk Searches

Introduction

United States v. Henry Martinez—consolidated appeals of five MS-13 members—required the Fourth Circuit to address a litany of evidentiary, constitutional, and procedural issues that commonly arise in large racketeering prosecutions. The crimes stemmed from the brutal 2016 murders of two teenage affiliates (Victims 1 and 2) by the Park View Locos Salvatrucha (“PVLS”) clique in Northern Virginia. After an eight-week joint trial, a jury convicted all defendants on all eight counts, four of which relied on the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering statute (VICAR), 18 U.S.C. § 1959. The district court imposed life sentences on every defendant except Henry Zelaya, whose sentence contained clerical (Rogers) errors.

On appeal the defendants mounted broad challenges—ranging from the admissibility of graphic videos, to denial of a duress instruction, to the constitutionality of mandatory life sentences for an “emerging adult.” Judge Berner, writing for a unanimous panel, affirmed in virtually every respect, vacating only Henry Zelaya’s written sentence for resentencing.

Summary of the Judgment

• Convictions affirmed for all five appellants on every count;
• Sentence affirmed for four appellants; sentence vacated and remanded for Henry Zelaya because written conditions diverged from oral pronouncement (United States v. Rogers error);
• Key holdings:
  • Generalized fear of gang retribution does not satisfy the first Crittendon factor; therefore a duress instruction is unavailable in VICAR murder conspiracies absent a “real and specific threat.”
  • Expert testimony on MS-13 structure, even if informed by hearsay, is admissible where the expert offers an independent judgment (Crawford / Johnson line).
  • Graphic crime-scene videos and “historical racketeering evidence” are admissible under Rule 403 when probative of the racketeering enterprise and not unduly cumulative.
  • Officers may lawfully conduct a knock-and-talk at a rear entrance when observations reasonably show that the rear door functions as a customary access point.
  • Mandatory life without parole remains constitutional for defendants who are 18 at the time of the offense (Roper/Miller line draws a bright line at 18).

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Crittendon v. United States, 883 F.2d 326 (4th Cir. 1989) – defines four-part test for duress; court found only “generalized fear,” failing factor 1.
• Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) & United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2009) – guide admissibility of expert testimony that relies partly on testimonial hearsay. Applied to Sgt. Guzman’s gang expertise.
• Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989) – elements test for lesser-included offenses; used to deny an aggravated-assault instruction.
• Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) – sufficiency-of-evidence framework; underpins affirmance of VICAR counts.
• Roper, Graham, Miller trilogy – Eighth Amendment juvenile sentencing. Court adhered to their bright-line at age 18, rejecting “emerging adult” argument.
• Covey v. Assessor, 777 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2015) – lawful scope of knock-and-talk. Court extended principle to a rear-door approach.
• United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020) – discrepancy between oral and written conditions of supervised release; basis for partial vacatur.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a. Duress
The opinion treats duress as a “narrow” affirmative defence. Because no defendant identified a particularized, imminent threat at the moment of the stabbings, the first Crittendon element failed. The court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between coercive gang culture (pervasive but general) and a specific threat of death or serious bodily harm. This preserves VICAR’s deterrent function: allowing routine gang threats to excuse murder would “swallow the statute.”

b. Evidentiary Rulings
• Gang-expert testimony – Sgt. Guzman’s cross-regional knowledge and hands-on investigations sufficed under Rule 702. His reliance on interviews and agency reports did not violate the Confrontation Clause because he delivered an “independent judgment,” not a conduit for testimonial hearsay.
• Historical racketeering murders – Highly probative of enterprise and racketeering pattern; limiting instructions cured prejudice.
• Videos/Photos – Graphic but admissible; Rule 403 does not sanitize the record of an offense’s horror.

c. Knock-and-Talk & Consent
Agents observed residents use the rear patio; nothing indicated a private, non-public route. Thus approaching the rear met Covey’s “reasonably indicated” test. Mother’s consent voluntary: Spanish communication, no guns drawn inside, absence of contradictory demeanor. Clear error standard insulated the factual finding.

d. Lesser-Included Offence
Comparing elements, aggravated assault (completion + weapon) is not subsumed within VICAR conspiracy (agreement + motive to advance enterprise). Schmuck’s “elements” test compelled denial.

e. Severance & Bruton
Rule 8(a)/(b) joinder was proper; Rule 14 severance not required absent “specific and compelling” prejudice. No facially incriminatory codefendant statement was introduced; thus Bruton not triggered. The jury could compartmentalize evidence with the court’s instructions.

f. Sentencing Issues
Mandatory life terms were dictated by §§ 1959(a)(1) & 1201(a). The Eighth Amendment does not bar LWOP for an 18-year-old. Nonetheless, the written judgment added conditions (partial payment for drug treatment; marijuana prohibition; reference to non-existent local rules) not pronounced orally, a Rogers violation, requiring limited remand.

3. Impact of the Judgment

• Duress Doctrine – The opinion forecloses reliance on broad gang retaliation fears in future VICAR prosecutions within the Fourth Circuit. Defendants must now produce evidence of an immediate, targeted threat.
• Knock-and-Talk Scope – Law enforcement may approach whichever entry point appears to be in actual use by occupants, expanding practical investigative tools without warrants.
• Expert Gang Testimony – The court reinforces the admissibility of gang experts who synthesize hearsay in forming independent opinions—critical in transnational-gang cases where insider testimony is rare.
• Eighth Amendment – Confirms that “emerging adult” neuroscience arguments, while policy-relevant, carry no constitutional weight for defendants over 18.
• Rogers Compliance – Trial courts are reminded to align oral pronouncements and written judgments scrupulously; discrepancies will trigger resentencing, even when only clerical.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• VICAR (18 U.S.C. § 1959) – Makes violent crimes federal offences when committed to advance one’s position in a racketeering organization.
• Duress Defence – A narrow excuse requiring proof of a present, specific threat, no reasonable alternative, no self-placement in harm’s way, and direct causation.
• Knock-and-Talk – Police may knock on a residence (including customary side/back doors) to request conversation without a warrant; entry still requires consent.
• Present Sense Impression (Rule 803(1)) – A statement made “immediately” after perceiving an event; considered reliable enough to bypass hearsay exclusion.
• Bruton Problem – A non-testifying codefendant’s confession that facially implicates another defendant cannot be introduced at a joint trial.
• Rogers Error – A material difference between orally announced sentencing conditions and those contained in the written judgment violates the defendant’s right to be present.

Conclusion

United States v. Martinez is a tour-de-force on gang-related criminal procedure and evidence. By tightly circumscribing the duress defence, the Fourth Circuit prevents MS-13 (and comparable enterprises) from turning their own climate of intimidation into a legal shield. Concurrently, the court equips prosecutors with clear guidance on expert testimony and historical-violence evidence, while confirming that properly circumscribed graphic media can reach the jury. For law enforcement, the decision ratifies a practical, fact-sensitive approach to knock-and-talks. Finally, the opinion underscores meticulous sentencing practice: a single, unannounced supervised-release condition is enough to send a case back for resentencing. Collectively, these holdings will reverberate through future racketeering, violent-crime, and gang-prosecution litigation in the Fourth Circuit and beyond.