Background
Melvin Canales Saldana was the second-in-command of the Sitios Locos Salvatrucha clique of MS-13. He and two fellow members were tried on charges arising from the murders of Antonio Smith and Eric Tate. A jury convicted Saldana of offenses including racketeering conspiracy, VICAR conspiracy to murder Tate, and VICAR murder of Tate. It also found that he aided and abetted Tate’s murder as part of the racketeering conspiracy.
During trial, the district court determined that the government had failed to timely disclose identifying information for a tipster whose account could have impeached cooperating witness Abner Jose Molina Rodriguez. The court responded by striking Molina’s testimony and instructing the jury to disregard it. Saldana also unsuccessfully sought suppression of evidence obtained from three cellphones and two cloud-storage accounts, then challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his murder-related conviction and sentencing finding.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion. It held that striking Molina’s testimony cured any prejudice from the Brady violation because the undisclosed information was useful to impeach Molina, and removing his testimony eliminated the need for that impeachment. Presuming that the jury followed the curative instruction, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial or new trial.
The court also upheld the digital-search warrants. Although officers could search broadly through the devices and cloud accounts to identify responsive material, the warrants limited seizure to evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of specified federal crimes and contained adequate time-based restrictions. Finally, sufficient evidence supported Saldana’s VICAR convictions and sentencing finding: he supplied the gun knowing other gang members intended to search for someone to kill, and his intent could remain sufficiently specific even if conditioned on MS-13 procedures. His aiding-and-abetting conviction did not require another defendant’s conviction as principal because the evidence permitted the jury to find that another participant committed Tate’s murder.
Key Takeaways
- Striking a witness’s testimony and giving a curative instruction may adequately remedy a Brady violation involving impeachment evidence.
- Digital warrants may employ a two-step process that permits examination of extensive data while limiting seizure to evidence connected to enumerated crimes.
- A conditional intent to kill can satisfy Virginia’s specific-intent requirement, and an accomplice may be convicted without a principal’s conviction if the evidence establishes that someone committed the underlying offense.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Fourth Circuit’s digital-warrant framework to cellphone and cloud-storage searches, emphasizing both offense-based seizure limits and meaningful temporal restrictions. It also illustrates the substantial discretion district courts retain to cure midtrial disclosure violations without ordering a new trial.
For VICAR prosecutions based on Virginia crimes, the opinion confirms that a defendant need not select the eventual victim personally or be present at the killing when his conduct and conditional instructions permit the jury to infer an agreement, specific intent, and assistance in the murder.