POTTSVILLE - Derrick M. Donchak and Brandon J. Piekarsky must stay in federal prison for their hate-crime convictions stemming from the fatal beating of an illegal Mexican immigrant in July 2008 in Shenandoah, a three-judge panel decided Monday.
In a 34-page opinion, the panel ruled there was no basis to overturn the convictions of either Donchak, 22, of Shenandoah, or Piekarsky, 20, of Shenandoah Heights, for their roles in the death of Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala.
"We therefore affirm the final conviction, judgment and sentence," U.S. Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes wrote in the court's opinion, which was joined by the other panel members, U.S. Chief Circuit Judge Theodore A. McKee and U.S. Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan.
As a result, Donchak and Piekarsky each must serve nine years in a federal correctional institution, the sentence imposed on each Feb. 23, 2011, by Senior U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo, the judge who presided over their trial. Donchak is serving his sentence at FCI/Otisville in New York, while Piekarsky is serving his at FCI/Beckley in West Virginia.
Federal prosecutors charged Donchak and Piekarsky with participating in the beating of Ramirez, 25, of Shenandoah, about 11:30 p.m. July 12, 2008, on West Lloyd Street near the Vine Street Park in Shenandoah.
Ramirez died of head injuries two days after the beating at Geisinger Medical Center, Danville. His case attracted national and international attention due to issues of race, ethnicity and illegal immigration.
After an eight-day trial, a jury in Scranton convicted each man Oct. 14, 2010, of violating Ramirez's rights under the federal Fair Housing Act, and also convicted Donchak of obstruction of justice.
Fuentes wrote that Caputo properly instructed the jury that race needed to be one of the motivations behind the assault on Ramirez, but that it did not need to be the only one. While the 3rd Circuit had not considered that issue, Fuentes adopted the reasoning of other circuits that upheld that jury instruction.
"A conviction based on 'mixed motives' falls well within the reach of" the relevant section of the Fair Housing Act, Fuentes wrote.
Furthermore, the use of the word "because" in the act does not mean that race must be the sole motivation of a defendant charged with violating the act, since that would impermissibly limit the law's reach, Fuentes wrote.
"Something can be done 'because of' multiple reasons," he wrote. "Our holding here - which merely limits the word 'because' to what we take to be its plain, ordinary, congressionally intended meaning - has not so 'diluted' the language of that statute so as to render that evaluation meaningless."
Fuentes also wrote that the act does not apply only to citizens, since the word "citizen" is not used in the part under which Donchak and Piekarsky were charged but is in another section. Also, prosecutors did not have to prove that they knew Ramirez lived in Shenandoah, because a general attempt to intimidate Hispanics was enough under the law, he wrote.
"A reasonable juror could rationally conclude that the nature of the beating of Luis Ramirez, the extent of the violence involved in this case, and the gratuitous nature of the racial epithets flung about during the beating ... were, taken together, indicative that Donchak and Piekarsky intended to injure Ramirez with the purpose of intimidating him, or other Hispanic or Latino individuals, from residing in Shenandoah," Fuentes wrote. "We see no basis to upset that finding."
The panel also rejected the defendants' claim that their trial violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, ruling that the doctrine of dual sovereignty is an exception to that protection. There was no evidence that the state prosecution, which resulted in Donchak and Piekarsky being convicted May 1, 2009, in Schuylkill County Court of simple assault and alcohol-related offenses, but acquitted of more serious crimes, was not merely a sham and a cover for the federal one, according to Fuentes.
"A state prosecution does not bar a subsequent federal prosecution for the same conduct," Fuentes wrote. "The states and the federal government are separate sovereigns, with distinct interests in criminalizing and prosecuting certain conduct."