Miguel Marrero should get 20 years in prison for shooting a mother and her daughter after an argument erupted between them on July 4, 2024, at a housing community on St. Croix, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said in a sentencing memorandum filed Wednesday.
Marrero, 53, who pleaded guilty to four counts in a plea deal in February, is due to be sentenced July 2 in District Court on St. Croix and has asked for a sentence of 10 years and one day, given the mitigating circumstances surrounding his case.
The single father of eight, including four underage children, has admitted to discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence — which carries a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years — first-degree assault and third-degree assault, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. (Marrero was convicted in 2000 in federal court for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.)
According to his sentencing memorandum, filed last week by his attorney Jason Gonzalez-Delgado, Marrero was at his wit’s end on the day of the shooting after four years of bullying and attacks on his son by the girl who was shot along with her mother, and deeply regrets his actions.
In sentencing Marrero, the court should consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, his remorse and admission of guilt, and his role as the primary caregiver of his four underage children who have been separated since his arrest and incarceration last July, the memorandum states.
While it concurs that under U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Marrero deserves credit for taking responsibility for his crimes, his role as a single father should not factor into the court’s decision, according to the government’s memorandum, filed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rhonda Williams-Henry. Nor should he get a departure from the guidelines based on victim conduct, it said.
According to Marrero’s memorandum, on the day of the shooting the girl — referred to as J.O. in court documents — and at least seven of her friends were threatening his son and insinuated they were armed. “Consumed with fear, Mr. Marrero witnessed as J.O. and his son engaged in a physical altercation. As this situation unfolded, J.O.’s mother physically assaulted Mr. Marrero, which caused him to react out of instinct. Mr. Marrero deeply regrets the way he responded and wishes he had handled the situation better; taken a pause to thoroughly consider the consequences of his actions,” it says.
The government, however, contends in its memorandum that while “the history of the parties may be as the defendant states, on the day of the incident, the evidence shows that the defendant and others were standing around while his son beat J.O. The defendant was encouraging and cheering his son during the fight. When the fight was over, J.O.’s mother came running up to the defendant and she did push him and apparently hit him,” it says.
“But the question is whether the defendant’s action was proportional to the victims’ actions. The answer is no. The adult victim was walking away after she hit the defendant. As she was turning away, she was shot. There were children present, and the defendant fired four shots, also injuring J.O. In this instance, the defendant made no effort to avoid the situation. He did not call the police, if as he says, he believed J.O. and her friends were armed. Instead, he went outside and watched his son beat J.O. while he was armed with a gun. His actions were not proportional. There was no actual or perceived danger from the victims,” the government memorandum states in calling for 10 years on Count One, discharging a firearm in a crime of violence, to be served consecutively to the other counts.
As for a downward departure from the guidelines for his family ties and responsibilities, Marrero “is not the only person who is the sole caregiver of young children. A departure for loss of essential caretaking should be denied,” the government said, citing Third Circuit rulings that found single parents are not a rarity today and that only “unusual or extraordinary” impacts support a deviation from the guidelines.
Regarding the assault charges, which are territorial offenses and therefore not subject to the federal guidelines, “[t]he government opposes a sentence of probation. There are two different victims in this case and he should be sentenced to imprisonment on Counts Five and Eight,” according to its memorandum, which proposes four years on each count.
On the felon in possession of a firearm charge, the government recommends a sentence of 24 months, based on a total offense level of 17 (after adjustments for his admission of guilt) and a criminal history category of 1, given Marrero’s past weapons conviction, it said.
“This sentence provides retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence and incapacitation,” the memorandum concludes.
St. Croix Source
Local news, News, Police & Courts
