United States v. Baca
Citation | 447 F.Supp.3d 1149 |
Decision Date | 20 March 2020 |
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 Arturo Arnulfo Garcia, a.k.a. "Shotgun," Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Fred Federici, Attorney for the United States, Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Maria Ysabel Armijo, Randy M. Castellano, Matthew M. Beck, Assistant United States Attorneys, United States Attorney's Office, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiff
Theresa M. Duncan, Duncan Earnest, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Marc M. Lowry, Rothstein Donatelli, LLP, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Anthony Ray Baca
Christopher W. Adams, The Law Office of Christohper W. Adams, P.C., Charleston, South Carolina and Amy Sirignano, Law Office of Amy Sirignano, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Garcia
Todd Bruce Hotchkiss, Todd B. Hotchkiss, Attorney at Law, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Manuel Jacob Armijo
Louis E. Lopez, Jr., Louis Lopez Law -- Attorney at Law, El Paso, Texas, Attorney for Defendant Frederico Munoz
Donald F. Kochersberger, III, Business Law Southwest, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Sergio Loya Rodriguez
Susan Burgess-Farrell, Barry G. Porter, Burgess & Porter Law, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Manuel Benito
Diego R. Esquibel, The Barnett Law Firm, Albuquerque, New Mexico and R. Scott Reisch, Reisch Law Firm, LLC, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Defendant Vincent Garduño
Marc Grano, Grano Law Offices, Las Vegas, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Mandel Lon Parker
James Baiamonte, Law Office of James P. Baiamonte Esq., Albuquerque, New Mexico and Ahmad Assed, Ahmad Assed & Associates, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Daniel Archuleta
Lauren Noriega, The Noriega Law Firm, Los Angeles, California and Amy E. Jacks, Law Office of Amy E. Jacks, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant Daniel Sanchez
Marcia A. Morrissey, Law Office of Marcia A. Morrissey, Santa Monica, California and Gregory M. Acton, Acton Law Firm P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Anthony Cordova
Scott Moran Davidson, The Law Office of Scott M. Davidson, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Billy R. Blackburn, Billy R. Blackburn Law Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Arturo Arnulfo Garcia
James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendant Anthony Cordova's Ex Parte Motion for New Trial, filed August 14, 2019 (Doc. 1108)("Motion"); (ii) the Ex Parte Supplemental Brief in Support of Ex Parte Rule 33 (B)(1) Motion for New Trial [Doc. 1108], filed September 11, 2019 (Doc. 1120)("Supplemental Brief"); and (iii) the oral motion for a new trial, made at the September 16, 2019 sentencing hearing. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should grant the Defendant Anthony Cordova a new trial, because, after trial, Cordova discovered evidence that Defendant Christopher Garcia, whom the United States presented as having a murder-for-hire arrangement with Cordova, told Agent Joseph Sainato of the Federal Bureau of Investigations ("FBI") that Garcia did not ask Cordova to murder Shane Dix and that Garcia never spoke to Cordova regarding Dix' murder after it happened; (ii) whether Garcia waived his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, because his additional risk of incrimination is neither substantial nor real; and (iii) whether the Court should require the United States to grant Garcia immunity or grant Cordova a new trial and acquit him if the United States does not grant Garcia immunity, because the United States' selective use of immunity violates Cordova's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court denies the Motion, because: (i) Garcia's statements are not newly discovered evidence under United States v. Sinclair, 109 F.3d 1527 (10th Cir. 1997), because they are not material, because they are merely impeaching, and because they probably would not change the outcome of the trial; (ii) Garcia did not waive his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, because his risk of additional incrimination is substantial and real; and (iii) the United States' selective use of immunity does not violate Cordova's due process rights.
The Court recounts the factual background in its Memorandum Opinion and Order at 2-4, 409 F.Supp.3d 1169 (D.N.M. 2019) (Doc. 1051)("MOO"). The Court incorporates that recitation here.
MOO at 2-4 (alterations added).
The FBI's SNM investigation resulted in this case and three other cases before the Court. See United States v. DeLeon, No. CR 15-4268 ("DeLeon"); United States v. Varela, No. CR 15-4269; and United States v. Garcia, No. CR 15-4275. United States v. Varela and United States v. Garcia did not go to trial, but the Court held two trials in DeLeon: one four-defendant trial and one seven-defendant trial. The juries of the two trials found eight of the eleven DeLeon Defendants guilty of violating the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1959 ("VICAR"). See DeLeon, No. CR 15-4268, Jury Verdict at 1-3, filed March 12, 2018 (Doc. 1947); DeLeon, No. CR 15-4268, Jury Verdict at 1-5, filed May 25, 2018 (Doc. 2332). Four DeLeon Defendants are charged in this case -- Baca, C. Garcia, Defendant Daniel Sanchez, and Defendant Arturo Arnulfo Garcia. Compare Indictment at 1, with DeLeon, No. CR 15-4268, Second Superseding Indictment at 1, filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Deleon
...collateral statement's reliability." Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. at 600, 114 S.Ct. 2431. See United States v. Baca, 447 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1206-07 (D.N.M. 2020) (Browning, J.); United States v. DeLeon, 287 F. Supp. 3d 1187, 1240 (D.N.M. 2018) (Browning, J.).LAW REGARDING RULE 403 R......
- Jones v. Azar
-
Hinnant v. United States
...any individual in violation of the laws of any State or the United States, or attempts or conspires so to do.'" United States v. Baca, 447 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1203 (D.N.M. 2020) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1959)(a)). As noted by the Third Circuit though:[T]he statutory language of VICAR is broad, in......
-
United States v. Begay
...Begay testify, his jail calls are proper impeachment materials. See Defense MIL Response at 2 (citing United States v. Baca, 447 F.Supp.3d 1149, 1206 (D.N.M. 2020) (Browning, J.)). The United States requests that the Court deny the Defense MIL. See Defense MIL Response at 2.LAW REGARDING RE......