United States v. Baca
| Decision Date | 20 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 16-1613 JB,CR 16-1613 JB |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY RAY BACA, a.k.a. "Pup;" CHRISTOPHER GARCIA, MANUEL JACOB ARMIJO, a.k.a. "Big Jake;" FREDERICO MUNOZ, a.k.a. "Playboy;" SERGIO LOYA RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. "Churro;" MANUEL BENITO, a.k.a. "Panther;" VINCENT GARDUÑO a.k.a. "Fatal; MANDEL LON PARKER, a.k.a. "Chuco;" DANIEL ARCHULETA, a.k.a. "Smurf;" DANIEL SANCHEZ, a.k.a. "Dan Dan;" ANTHONY CORDOVA, a.k.a. "Antone;" and RICHARD GALLEGOS, a.k.a. "Dopey," Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Defendant Richard Gallegos' Motion for a Definite Trial Setting, Severance, and for Scheduling Conference, filed May 20, 2016 (Doc. 106)("Motion to Sever"); (ii) the United States' Motion to Declare Case Complex, filed May 23, 2016 (Doc. 107)("Motion to Declare Case Complex"); and (iii) Defendant Richard Gallegos' Motion to Compel Discovery, filed May 26, 2016 (Doc. 114)("Motion to Compel Discovery"). The Court held hearings on June 3, 2016, and July 8, 2016. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should sever the case against Defendant Richard Gallegos from the joint prosecution of his co-Defendants; (ii) whether the Court should thereby set a new date for Gallegos' severed trial; (iii) how the Court should approach a complex-case designation with respect to all of the Defendants; and (iv) how the Court should manage discovery while the Plaintiff United States of America awaits entry of a protective order. The Court first concludes that Gallegos' conditional severance is warranted, and it will thus grant Gallegos' Motion to Sever. Accordingly, the Court will sever the case against Gallegos from the joint prosecution of his co-Defendants and set him a new trial date. At the hearing, the United States moved to withdraw its Motion to Declare the Case Complex, but, upon an objection and subsequent oral motion to declare the case complex by Defendant Anthony Baca -- joined by all Defendants that had not been severed -- the Court concluded that it would nonetheless declare the case complex. Accordingly, the Court grants the United States Motion to Declare Case Complex. Last, the Court denies the Motion to Compel Discovery without prejudice to the Defendants renewing it at an appropriate time, pending all parties' continued compliance with the protective order the Court entered on June 17, 2016. See Protective Order, filed June 17, 2016 (Doc. 146)("Protective Order").
To provide context, the Court takes its recitation of facts from the Grand Jury Indictment, filed Apr. 23, 2016 (Doc. 2)("Indictment"). The Court does not adopt the facts as findings or truth. Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico ("SNM") is a prison gang that controls drug distribution and other illegal activities within the New Mexico prison system, and is similarly involved in narcotics trafficking occurring outside of the prison system. See Indictment ¶ 3, at 2. It is alleged that SNM's leaders, members, prospects, and associates constitute an enterprise as is defined under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(b)(2) and 1961(4), which provide that an enterprise constitutes a group of individuals associated in fact that engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce. See Indictment ¶ 2, at 2. The Indictment thus provides that SNM constitutes "an ongoing organization whose members/prospects/associates function[] as acontinuing unit for the common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise." Indictment ¶ 2, at 2. Accordingly, the Indictment alleges that Defendants Anthony Ray Baca, Christopher Garcia, Manuel Jacob Armijo, Frederico Munoz, Sergio Loya Rodriguez, Manuel Benito, Vincent Garduño, Mandel Lon Parker, Daniel Archuleta, Daniel Sanchez, Anthony Cordova, and Richard Gallegos, committed: (i) Racketeering Conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); (ii) Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (Murder) under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1); (iii) Aiding and Abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2; and (iv) Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (Conspiracy to Murder) under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5). See Indictment at 1.
SNM was formed after the February, 1980 prison riots at the New Mexico Penitentiary in Santa Fe, New Mexico. See Indictment ¶ 3, at 2. During the prison riot, thirty-three inmates were killed; more than 200 inmates were injured; and certain inmates held hostage, assaulted, and raped twelve correctional officers. See Indictment ¶ 3, at 2. Since the prison riot, SNM has expanded throughout the New Mexican prison system and has an estimated 250 members. See Indictment ¶ 4, at 2-3. SNM's main goals include controlling and profiting from narcotics trafficking. See Indictment ¶ 5, at 3. SNM members are often expected to confront and attack suspected informants, cooperating witnesses, homosexuals, and sex offenders. See Indictment ¶ 8, at 4.
Despite prison officials' close scrutiny, SNM leaders communicate orders to members and associates throughout and outside of the prison system by a variety of means, including secret notes, coded letters, and messages that complicit visitors deliver. See Indictment ¶ 5, at 3. SNM members are expected to remain loyal to the gang when they are released from prison. See Indictment ¶ 5, at 3. SNM disciplines members who fail to show continued loyalty in a variety of ways, including assault and murder. See Indictment ¶ 5, at 3. SNM members might displayaffiliation and loyalty with the Zia symbol,1 the letters "SNM", the letter "S," and the numbers "19" and "505"2 in tattoos, graffiti, drawings, and on clothing. Indictment ¶ 9, at 4-5.
SNM also operates outside of the prison system in the streets of New Mexico, influencing and intimidating smaller New Mexico gangs to establish a larger network for its illegal activities. See Indictment 6, at 3. Accordingly, SNM does not always have to use violence to assert its control outside of prison, because the smaller gangs often fear that SNM members will assault or kill their compatriots should they be incarcerated. See Indictment 6, at 3. SNM thus retains a large membership and powerful reputation which subdues rival gangs and prevents victims and witnesses from assisting authorities. See Indictment ¶ 8, at 4.
Indictment ¶ 8, at 4. SNM "members and associates commit, conspire, attempt, and threaten to commit acts of violence, including murders and assaults to protect and expand the enterprise's criminal operations." Indictment ¶ 13(a), at 6. If the gang had a weak reputation, it would lose its membership and dissolve. See Indictment ¶ 8, at 4.
With respect to Gallegos, the plaintiff United States of America alleges that Defendants Christopher Garcia and Manuel Jacob Armijo, SNM members, ordered Gallegos and anotherperson to shoot and kill the SNM member Michael Giron, "for the purpose of gaining entrance to and maintaining and increasing position in [SNM] . . . ." Indictment at ¶¶ 178-79, at 38, 51-52. The United States alleges that Gallegos and another individual picked up SNM member Giron, and drove in another person's vehicle to a dead-end street where Gallegos shot and killed Giron. See Indictment at ¶ 179, at 38. The United States alleges that Gallegos thus committed two overt acts in furtherance of an enterprise, charging him with one count of racketeering conspiracy and two counts of conspiracy to murder and murder. See Indictment at ¶¶ 178-79, at 38, 51-52.
The allegation of Giron's murder, as it pertains to Gallegos, was prosecuted by the State of New Mexico, and ultimately dismissed by state prosecutors, before the federal charges arose. Those circumstances surrounding the state prosecution can be gleaned from the representations made by Gallegos' counsel at the July 8, 2016, hearing.
At the state level prosecution that occurred for this incident prosecutors and investigators had come to the same conclusion that -- I understand Your Honor has heard lots about these two co-defendants from the state prosecution pointing their fingers at each other, and what decisions the state prosecutor made. But prosecutors and investigators all came to the same conclusion at the state prosecution level that this wasn't a gang murder. Instead, it was a murder that had to do with a debt of some kind related to a scooter, and that that was the motive underlying it. The idea that it was some kind of a gang initiation, again, hangs on the testimony of one very, you know, difficult to lend credibility witness.
Transcript of Hearing at 8:3-18 (taken July 8, 2016)("July Tr.")(Ray).3 Gallegos' counsel also provided that:
Mr. Gallegos' case unique is that there was a ramp-up to a prosecution of this incident before we got into federal court. The only difference being the allegations that the United States has to prove to essentially create federal jurisdiction here under the RICO case. So there was a lot of discovery at the state court level, a lot of investigation done. The facts were out there. And the mainwitnesses had essentially been spoken to. And they were prepared to go to trial at the state court. So it's not like Mr. Gallegos is just impetuously charging into the fray, having not thought through the consequences. He was ready to go to trial at the state court, and he's basically being tried for the same thing here. So there has been a ramp-up to this day that makes the August trial date very realistic for Mr. Gallegos, even if it isn't for the other defendants.
July Tr. at 10:6-23 (Ray).
Following the indictment, a variety of different motions were filed. Gallegos, in particular, filed the Motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial