Case 13-2456, Document 235, 04/08/2015, 1479564, Page1 of 2

The Honorable Catherine OHagan Wolfe

Clerk of the Court
United States Court Of Appeals for the Second circuit
The Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse

APRIL 8th, 2015

40 Foley Square

Re: U.S. v. Pedro Espada, Jr.

New York, NY 10007

Docket # 13-2456

Dear Honorable Clerk:

I wish to thank the Court for its patience and indulgence. Due to the policies and operations of
The Federal Bureau of Prisons. Appellant, a low security inmate, is housed in a maximum security
detention center in Brooklyn N.Y. with very limited access to the Law Library. As such, conducting legal
research has proven to be extremely difficult. However, with this supplemental letter, Appellant has
addressed all of the relevant issues in the Rule 33 motion and the issue of forfeiture. United States ex
rel. Owen v McMann, 435 F.2d 813,815(2d circuit 1970); United States v Camporeale, 515 F2d
184,188(2d Cir.1975) provide support for the propriety of an evidentiary hearing in cases like the instant
matter before this court. In Camporeale this Court directly ordered a new trial as a proper remedy for
the district court's error in not holding an evidentiary hearing; see Moten,582 F2d at 666-67( collecting
cases).In OWEN this Court went further in affirming the district courts decision to set aside petitioners
convictions and ordering his discharge. The court held that the touchstone of decision was not the mere
fact of infiltration of some molecules of extra-record matter, with the supposed consequences that the
infiltrator became a" witness" and the confrontation clause automatically applied. Rather, the
touchstone of decision was the nature of what had been infiltrated and the probability of prejudice. A
showing of actual prejudice was not a prerequisite to reversal. The transcripts of juror's # 4 and #11in
appellants Response Brief make it very clear that extraneous information improperly reached the jury
and prejudiced Appellants right to a fair trial.Therefore,we respectfully request that the proper ends of
justice may be reached by applying the relief that this Court granted in OWEN v McMann.IN OWEN this
Court held that the consequence of the jurors statements included allegations of two specific incidents
which had not been and probably could not have been received in evidence, and which appellant had no
opportunity to refute. Appellants due diligence and evidence have provided several incidents of serious
impediments to due process and basic fairness; we ask this honorable court to heed the words of Dr
Martin Luther King, "justice deferred is justice denied "; we pray for reversal and discharge from this
maximum security prison. Thank You.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
PEDRO ESPADA, JR.
APPELLANT, PRO SE

Case 13-2456, Document 235, 04/08/2015, 1479564, Page2 of 2