U.S. v. Acosta
| Decision Date | 26 August 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-CR-0104.,98-CR-0104. |
| Citation | 111 F.Supp.2d 1082 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Andrew ACOSTA, Mohammed Ayesh, Doug Beyreis, Christopher Colton, Carlos Diaz, Shaun Dougherty, Jorge Espada, Vernon Fields, Felix Guzman, Jerry Guzman, Bernardo Hernandez, Raul Maldonado, Daniel Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Gamaliel Matos, Natanael Matos, Antonio Mendez, Alvaro Mendoza, Daniel Mendoza, Raciel Mendoza, Raymond Mendoza, Maico Navejar, Larry Olson, Thomas Overland, Raymond Rivera, Juan Roman, Michael Rosado, Mark Turner, Michael Turner, Alejandro Vallejo, Wilfredo Vasquez, Herminio Vega, Robert Weinstock, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Karene Moreno-Taxman, Milwaukee, WI, Christian R. Larsen, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff.
Gregory Parr, Parr Law Offices, Milwaukee, WI, for Andrew Acosta.
Michael Holzman, Rosen & Holzman, Waukesha, WI, for Mahammed Ayesh.
William (Chip) Burke, Burke Law Offices, Milwaukee, WI, for Doug Beyreis.
Robert Haney, Podell, Ugent, Haney & Delery, Milwaukee, WI, for Christopher Colton.
David Mandell, Mandell & Ginsberg, Madison, WI, for Carlos Diaz.
John Campion, Campion Law Offices, Racine, WI, for Shaun Dougherty.
Thomas Wilmouth, Wilmouth Law Office, Milwaukee, WI, for Jorge Espada.
Paul Barrett, Barrett & Letteney, Elkhorn, WI, for Vernon Fields.
Joan Boyd, Shawano, WI, for Felix Guzman.
Sheldon Nagelberg, Nagelberg Law Office, Chicago, IL, for Jerry Guzman.
Leonard Kachinsky, Kachinsky Law Office, Neenah, WI, for Bernardo Hernandez.
Michael Backes, Law Offices of Mike Backes, Milwaukee, WI, for Raul Maldonado.
Michael Goode, Goode & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Daniel Martinez.
Dianne Erickson, Wasielewski & Erickson, Milwaukee, WI, for Pedro Martinez.
Glenn C. Reynolds, Reynolds & Associates, Madison, WI, for Gamaliel Matos.
David Lang, Cameron & Penegor, Brookfield, WI, for Natanael Matos.
Dale Nikolay, Nikolay Law Office, Milwaukee, WI, for Antonio Mendez.
Thomas Kasen, Kasen & Patterson S.C., Wauwatosa, WI, for Alvaro Mendoza.
Joe E. Kremkoski, Kremkoski Law Office, Racine, WI, for Daniel Mendoza.
Larry Moon, Moon Law Office, Whitefish Bay, WI, for Raciel Mendoza.
Michael Schnake, Miller & Stansberry, Milwaukee, WI, for Raymond Mendoza.
Robert Baratki, Robert J. Baratki Law Office, Racine, WI, for Maico Navejar.
Matthew Ricci, Ricci Law Office, Milwaukee, WI, for Larry Olson.
John Cabranes, Hartig, Bjelajac, Cabranes & Koenen, Racine, WI, for Thomas Overland.
Douglas Bihler, Bihler & Kuehl, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Raymond Rivera.
Adam Essling, Milwaukee, WI, for Michael Rosado.
Christopher Lowe, Lowe Law Office, Wauwatosa, WI, for Michael Turner.
Scott Phillips, Law Office of Scott P. Phillips, Milwaukee, WI, for Mark Turner.
Winston Brown, Milwaukee, WI, for Alejandro Vallejo.
Patrick W. Blegen, Chicago, IL, for Wilfredo Vasquez.
Allan Krezminski, Milwaukee, WI, for Herminio Vega.
Patrick Cafferty, Weber & Cafferty, S.C., Racine, WI, for Robert Weinstock.
Michael J. Steinle, Milwaukee, WI.
DECISION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS PEDRO MARTINEZ AND ANDREW ACOSTA'S MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS
Defendants Pedro Martinez and Andrew Acosta seek orders suppressing statements they made to FBI Special Agent Daniel Craft and other law enforcement officers. The credibility of Special Agent Craft's testimony in this case, regarding the circumstances in which in the statements were made, has been brought into question by his August 1999 conduct in an unrelated Minnesota case.
Magistrate Judge Patricia J. Gorence conducted evidentiary hearings on Martinez's motion on August 9, 1999; on Acosta's motion on August 26, 1999 and again on September 7, 1999; and a supplementary evidentiary hearing (regarding Special Agent Craft's conduct in the Minnesota case) on November 22, 1999. Magistrate Judge Gorence issued recommendations on November 26, 1999. (Docket # 1103 [hereinafter Acosta Recommendation I]; Docket # 1102 [hereinafter Martinez Recommendation I].1) Following timely objections, responses, a motion to reopen the evidentiary hearing, and recommitment, Judge Gorence held a second supplementary evidentiary hearing regarding Craft's conduct in Minnesota on January 5, 2000, and issued a new recommendation on May 8, 2000. (Docket # 1354 [hereinafter Recommendation II].) Martinez and Acosta again filed timely objections, and the government again filed a response. I review de novo those portions of the recommendations to which objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Martinez and Acosta were both named as defendants in a thirty-three defendant indictment issued in this district June 19, 1998. Martinez seeks to suppress statements that he made at the U.S. Attorney's office during a meting on April 30, 1998, and while Special Agent Craft drove him back to jail from that meeting. Acosta seeks to suppress statements that he made during an interview after he was arrested on July 2, 1998.
In April 1998 Martinez was serving a 157-month sentence imposed by the Northern District of Indiana. He was brought to this district to appear in a lineup around April 27, 1998. Special Agent Craft testified before Judge Gorence that Martinez's sister, Andrea Martinez, called him April 27 to say that Martinez wanted to speak with him; Martinez denies asking anyone to call Special Agent Craft on his behalf. On April 28, 1998, Special Agent Craft brought Martinez to the U.S. Attorney's Office. (Transcript [docket # 990] of Aug. 9, 1999 Evid. Hr'g on Def.'s Mot. to Suppress Statements Made on 4/30/1998 at 13 [hereinafter Tr. 1].) Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Larsen announced that Martinez could not be interviewed because it had not been determined whether Martinez was represented. Special Agent Craft then took Martinez to a conference room and remained with him, because he was in custody, for about an hour. AUSA Larsen, who also testified at the evidentiary hearing before Judge Gorence, recalled that he might have gone in and out of the conference room two or three times during that period. AUSA Larsen and Special Agent Craft both describe the period as uneventful.
However, according to Martinez, Special Agent Craft introduced the topic of Sammy the Bull Gravano, an underboss of the Gambino crime family. Martinez testified that Special Agent Craft described Sammy the Bull as a mobster who confessed to nineteen homicides but served only five years because he cooperated against John Gotti. (Tr. 1 at 59.) Special Agent Craft denied discussing Sammy the Bull with Martinez on April 28, but acknowledged that he did discuss Sammy the Bull with other Latin King members (Tr. 1 at 35), and would tell them that Sammy the Bull cooperated and received leniency (Tr. 1 at 36-37). Martinez testified that he believed Special Agent Craft raised Sammy the Bull in order to obtain his cooperation. (Tr. 1 at 59.)
Martinez further testified that Special Agent Craft stressed that he might be able to get him a ten-year deal; said that he would testify at Martinez's sentencing hearing that he couldn't have completed the investigation without Martinez's cooperation; and predicted that Martinez probably would not serve more than seven years. (Tr. 1 at 59-61.) According to Martinez, Special Agent Craft emphasized that Assistant U.S. Attorney Karine More-no-Taxman believed and trusted him and Detective Klabunde, and that she would be likely to follow any recommendation that he made. (Tr. 1 at 61.) Martinez testified that it was clear to him that Special Agent Craft was offering to work something out and to get a deal. (Tr. 1 at 83.) Special Agent Craft denies making any of these statements.
Between April 28 and 30, 1998, prosecutors learned that Martinez's lawyers were representing him only on the appeal of his conviction in the Northern District of Indiana, but not regarding potential charges in this district. Prosecutors called a meeting with Martinez at the U.S. Attorney's Office to take place on April 30. AUSA Larsen testified that the meeting was designed "to explore his [Martinez's] potential cooperation." (Tr. 1 at 120.) Special Agent Craft testified that prosecutors were present in the hope that Martinez might offer to confess and incriminate others in exchange for a "promise" or "deal" that only a prosecutor could offer. (Tr. 1 at 47.) The government made no attempt to obtain counsel for Martinez at this meeting.
Special Agent Craft picked Martinez up from the Waukesha County Jail at approximately 1:10 p.m. and drove him to the U.S. Attorney's Office. According to Martinez, Special Agent Craft told him several times during this trip, "don't worry about the numbers, you'll be satisfied with the outcome," and Martinez responded that he wasn't going to cooperate if it meant getting a double-digit sentence. Special Agent Craft replied that if Martinez cooperated they might be able to have his new sentence run concurrently with his current sentence. (Tr. 1 at 70.) Special Agent Craft denies any such conversation occurred.
The meeting at the U.S. Attorney's office lasted ten or fifteen minutes. Present were Martinez, Special Agent Craft, and AUSAs Moreno-Taxman and Larsen. Martinez initially thought that he had been summoned for the line-up for which he had been brought to this district. (Tr. 1 at 63.) According to Martinez, he asked Special Agent Craft and AUSA Moreno-Taxman what the line-up was about, and Special Agent Craft answered, "if you cooperate, we can make this disappear." (Id.) Special Agent Craft denies that this exchange occurred.
Prosecutors told Martinez that they had spoken with his Indiana lawyers; that those lawyers were representing him only on charges in Indiana...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Olson
...efforts to cooperate, even if in hope of gaining leniency by a plea, into plea bargaining discussions." United States v. Acosta, 111 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1091 (N.D.Ill.2000). The court noted that Agent Craft's statement about getting Martinez a ten-year deal demonstrated to Martinez that Agent C......
-
Mandacina v. Kallis, Case No. 18-cv-1453-SLD
...also points the Court to misconduct of Agent Craft that occurred after Mandacina's trial. See United States v. Acosta , 111 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1088 (E.D. Wis. 2000) (recounting misconduct of Agent Craft in Minnesota involving failure to heed a request for counsel).C. Procedural History of Ma......
-
United States v. Dekattu
...In the cases cited by the defendant, the "patterns of misconduct" at issue were inherently dishonest. See United States v. Acosta, 111 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1091 (E.D. Wis. 2000) ("Special Agent Craft was thus a party to a deliberate lie."), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Olson, 450 F.3d 655 (......