United States v. Arambula
Decision Date | 29 December 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 13–CR–3890–MV–2.,13–CR–3890–MV–2. |
Citation | 82 F.Supp.3d 1316 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Erik Samuel Parra ARAMBULA, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Jack Burkhead, U.S. Attorney's Office, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.
Monnica Lynn Garcia, Law Office of Monnica L. Garcia, LLC, Albuquerque, NM, Kenneth Gleria, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Erik Samuel Parra Arambula's (“Parra”) Motion to Compel Specific Discovery [Doc. 64]. The Court, having considered the Motion, briefs, relevant law, and being otherwise fully informed, finds that the Motion is not well-taken and therefore will be denied.
On November 5, 2013, Task Force Officer (“TFO”) “Travis Chavez obtained a New Mexico Order” which permitted him “to acquire cellular GPS tracking data regarding” the T–Mobile cellphone number belonging to Parra. Doc. 64 at 1–2. This request formed part of a “year-long investigation of co-defendant Greg Cotinola by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).” Doc. 66 at 2. “Two days later, on November 7, 2013” the DEA “initiated surveillance” of Parra “based on the GPS Coordinates [sic]” obtained from his mobile phone. Doc. 64 at 2. Later that day, after observing the itinerant Defendant for several hours, the DEA “detained, arrested, and questioned” Parra. Id. During this encounter, “agents observed inside the car a large bag that contained approximately 600 grams” of a substance that tested positive for methamphetamine. Doc. 66 at 2. Parra then consented to a search of his residence that yielded more methamphetamine and a bag that contained “$41,305.00 in U.S. currency.” Id.
Parra and his two co-defendants were later charged in a five-count Indictment; each of the three drug trafficking and conspiracy counts with which Defendant is charged arises out of his conduct on the day of his arrest. See Doc. 13. In the course of this litigation, the government has produced evidence to defense counsel, who responded “with an itemized list of 38 specific items of discovery” that it wanted in addition to the material that the government had already provided. Doc. 64 at 2. The government “subsequently produced additional discovery in this case,” but the defense maintains that there is yet more material to which it is entitled. Id. These nine items form the basis of the instant dispute. Id. at 3. See also Doc. 66 at 7. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant is entitled to none of the requested materials, such that his motion will be denied in its entirety.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 provides in pertinent part that “[u]pon defendant's request, the government must permit the defendant to inspect and to copy” documents “within the government's possession, custody, or control” if “(i) the item is material to preparing the defense; (ii) the government intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial; or (iii) the item was obtained from or belongs to the defendant.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(E). However, a defendant is presumptively not entitled to “the discovery or inspection of reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents made by an attorney for the government or other government agent in connection with investigating or prosecuting the case” or material covered by the Jencks Act. Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(2). See also 18 U.S.C. § 3500. The Supreme Court has explained that, in the context of Rule 16, evidence “material to preparing the defense” refers specifically to arguments that respond “to the Government's case in chief” rather than simply any argument that might ultimately prevent a conviction. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 462, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996). See also United States v. Lujan, 530 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1234 (D.N.M.2008) (). Given this definition of materiality, nothing in Rule 16 or Armstrong conflicts with the government's obligation under Brady and its progeny. See, e.g., Smith v. Cain, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 627, 630, 181 L.Ed.2d 571 (2012) () (emphasis added).
Where a defendant requests undisclosed evidence from the government, a “defendant must make a prima facie showing of materiality.” Lujan, 530 F.Supp.2d at 1234. However, “[n]either a general description of the information sought nor conclusory allegations of materiality suffice; a defendant must present facts which would tend to show that the Government is in possession of information helpful to the defense.” United States v. Mandel, 914 F.2d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir.1990). While this burden is not a heavy one, “the defendant must make a specific request for the item together with an explanation of how it will be helpful to the defense.” United States v. Jordan, 316 F.3d 1215, 1250 (11th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In the interest of consistency, the Court will address the items enumerated by the Defendant in the same sets as presented in his Motion. See generally Doc. 64.
Request 1: Initial Debriefing Report of CS in October 2013 by TFO Travis Chavez regarding Erik Parra and Greg Cotinola
Request 2: Copy of Handwritten and/or Audio Notes Regarding Debriefing of the CS in October 2013 by TFO Travis Chavez regarding Erik Parra and Greg Cotinola
The Defendant has failed to show why he is entitled to either of these items.
To begin, the “Debriefing Report” and the “Handwritten and/or Audio Notes” fall within the exceptions articulated in Rule 16(a)(2). These “handwritten notes regarding the CS debriefing” and any report produced therefrom [Doc. 64 at 4] plainly are encompassed within the ambit of “reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents made by a government attorney or agent in connection with investigating or prosecuting the case.” Lujan, 530 F.Supp.2d at 1265 ( ). See also United States v. Weaver, 992 F.Supp.2d 152, 160 (E.D.N.Y.2014) ( ). To the extent that these notes contain Jencks material, this motion is not ripe; such material need only be disclosed after a government witness has testified. See 18 U.S.C. § 3500 ; Fed.R.Crim.P. 26.2.
Even if this material did not qualify for exclusion pursuant to Rule 16(a)(2), the Court would still deny the request because the Defendant has failed to show why it must be produced under Rule 16, Brady, or any other provision of law. The Debriefing Report and the notes do not belong to Parra and the government has indicated that it will not use either the report or the notes in its case-in-chief [Doc. 66 at 8], so any argument under Rule 16 must be grounded on the premise that these items are “material to preparing the defense.” See Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(E)(i). However, the Defendant's sole argument in this vein is that “the information provided by the CS relates to Erik Parra and provides the basis for the subsequent State of New Mexico Court Order to obtain GPS location data.” Doc. 64 at 4. This contention patently misapprehends the applicable law. As elucidated above, “preparing the defense” in this context deals exclusively with rebuttal of the government's case-in-chief, not the preparation of affirmative defenses, much less challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that supported a warrant.See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 462, 116 S.Ct. 1480. See also United States v. Rashed, 234 F.3d 1280, 1285 (D.C.Cir.2000) ( ).
Similarly, although Parra raises concerns with the manner in which TFO Chavez conducted the investigation [Doc. 64 at 5 n. 1], he has not proffered any “allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth” nor any supporting evidence that would counsel this Court to hold a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware. United States v. Williams, 576 F.3d 1149, 1160 (10th Cir.2009). See also Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155–56, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) ( ). Indeed, it is telling that that Parra has not cited any authority specifically to support his contention that items 1 & 2 must be disclosed. See Doc. 64 at 4–5.
Request 3: DEA Form–6 by S/A Patricia Whelan Regarding Acquisition of Exhibit 45 and N–146 from 1112 Kentucky Street, SE in Albuquerque on 10–29–13
Parra states that items 3–7 are “reports and audio recordings” that comprise the “monitored and recorded conversations between the Confidential Source and the unidentified person at the stash house” and that “review of the audio recordings is necessary in order to determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Popa, Case No. 5:18-CR-448
...to the Government's case in chief," not pretrial motions. Armstrong , 517 U.S. at 463, 116 S.Ct. 1480 ; see United States v. Arambula , 82 F.Supp.3d 1316, 1319 (D.N.M. 2014) (" ‘[P]reparing the defense’ in this context deals exclusively with rebuttal of the government's case-in-chief, not t......