United States v. DeLeon

• Decision Date: 21 January 2020
• Docket Number: No. CR 15-4268 JB,CR 15-4268 JB
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANGEL DELEON, JOE LAWRENCE GALLEGOS, EDWARD TROUP, a.k.a. "Huero Troup," LEONARD LUJAN, BILLY GARCIA, a.k.a. "Wild Bill," EUGENE MARTINEZ, a.k.a. "Little Guero," ALLEN PATTERSON, CHRISTOPHER CHAVEZ, a.k.a. "Critter," JAVIER ALONSO, a.k.a. "Wineo," ARTURO ARNULFO GARCIA, a.k.a. "Shotgun," BENJAMIN CLARK, a.k.a. "Cyclone," RUBEN HERNANDEZ; JERRY ARMENTA, a.k.a. "Creeper," JERRY MONTOYA, a.k.a. "Boxer," MARIO RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. "Blue," TIMOTHY MARTINEZ, a.k.a. "Red," MAURICIO VARELA, a.k.a. "Archie," a.k.a. "Hog Nuts," DANIEL SANCHEZ, a.k.a. "Dan Dan," GERALD ARCHULETA, a.k.a. "Styx," a.k.a. "Grandma," CONRAD VILLEGAS, a.k.a. "Chitmon," ANTHONY RAY BACA, a.k.a. "Pup," ROBERT MARTINEZ, a.k.a. "Baby Rob," ROY PAUL MARTINEZ, a.k.a. "Shadow," CHRISTOPHER GARCIA, CARLOS HERRERA, a.k.a. "Lazy," RUDY PEREZ, a.k.a. "Ru Dog," ANDREW GALLEGOS, a.k.a. "Smiley," SANTOS GONZALEZ; PAUL RIVERA, SHAUNA GUTIERREZ, and BRANDY RODRIGUEZ, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ANGEL DELEON, JOE LAWRENCE GALLEGOS, EDWARD TROUP, a.k.a.
"Huero Troup," LEONARD LUJAN, BILLY GARCIA, a.k.a. "Wild Bill," EUGENE MARTINEZ, a.k.a.
"Little Guero," ALLEN PATTERSON, CHRISTOPHER CHAVEZ, a.k.a.
"Critter," JAVIER ALONSO, a.k.a. "Wineo," ARTURO ARNULFO GARCIA, a.k.a.
"Shotgun," BENJAMIN CLARK, a.k.a. "Cyclone," RUBEN HERNANDEZ; JERRY ARMENTA, a.k.a.
"Creeper," JERRY MONTOYA, a.k.a. "Boxer," MARIO RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a.
"Blue," TIMOTHY MARTINEZ, a.k.a. "Red," MAURICIO VARELA,
a.k.a. "Archie," a.k.a. "Hog Nuts," DANIEL SANCHEZ, a.k.a. "Dan Dan,"
GERALD ARCHULETA, a.k.a. "Styx," a.k.a. "Grandma," CONRAD VILLEGAS, a.k.a. "Chitmon,"
ANTHONY RAY BACA, a.k.a. "Pup," ROBERT MARTINEZ, a.k.a. "Baby Rob,"
ROY PAUL MARTINEZ, a.k.a. "Shadow," CHRISTOPHER GARCIA, CARLOS HERRERA, a.k.a. "Lazy,"
RUDY PEREZ, a.k.a. "Ru Dog," ANDREW GALLEGOS, a.k.a. "Smiley," SANTOS GONZALEZ;
PAUL RIVERA, SHAUNA GUTIERREZ, and BRANDY RODRIGUEZ, Defendants.

No. CR 15-4268 JB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

January 21, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER¹

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Defendant Billy Garcia's Motion to Produce Post-Conviction Discovery and for In Camera Review, filed October 15, 2018

Page 2

(Doc. 2416)("B. Garcia Motion"); (ii) Defendants Joe Gallegos and Andrew Gallegos' Rule 29 Motion for Judgment of Aquittal [sic] or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial With Regard to Counts Four and Five, filed October 15, 2018 (Doc. 2415)("Gallegos Joint Motion"); (iii) Andrew Gallegos' Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial, filed October 15, 2018 (Doc. 2418)("A. Gallegos Motion"); (iv) Defendant Joe Gallegos' Rule 29 Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial on Count 1, filed October 15, 2018 (Doc. 2419)("J. Gallegos Motion"); (v) Edward Troup's Motion for New Trial, filed October 16, 2018 (Doc. 2420)("Troup NTM"); (vi) Defendant Arturo Arnulfo Garcia's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or in the Alternative, Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), filed October 16, 2018 (Doc. 2422)("A. Garcia Motion"); and (vii) Andrew Gallegos' Supplement to His Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or in the Alternative, Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) (Doc 2422), filed January 15, 2019 (Doc. 2491)("A. Gallegos Supplement"). The Court held evidentiary hearings on December 17, 2018, and December 18, 2018, in which the Court heard the motions for judgment of acquittal or new trial. The primary issues are: (i) whether no reasonable factfinder could believe the United States' story and find J. Gallegos, Troup, and A. Gallegos guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring a judgment of acquittal or new trial for J. Gallegos and A. Gallegos, and a new trial for Troup; (ii) whether combining Counts 1-5 and 13-16 into one trial prejudiced J. Gallegos, Troup, B. Garcia, and A. Gallegos, such that J. Gallegos and A. Gallegos are entitled to a judgment of acquittal or new trial, and Troup and B. Garcia are entitled to a new trial; (iii) whether the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act, 18 U.S.C.

Page 3

§ 1959 ("VICAR") violates the Commerce Clause to the Constitution of the United States of America on its face and as applied to A. Garcia, because Freddie Sanchez' murder did not affect interstate commerce; (iv) whether the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, because there is little evidence that F. Sanchez' murder affected interstate commerce; (v) whether the Court's admission of witness Michael Jaramillo's testimony prejudiced J. Gallegos, Troup, and B. Garcia, such that J. Gallegos is entitled to a judgment of acquittal or new trial, and Troup and B. Garcia are entitled to a new trial; (vi) whether the Court's admission of Amber Sutton's and Morgan Ramirez' testimonies violated J. Gallegos' and A. Gallegos' rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; (vii) whether the jury instructions contain plain errors that affected J. Gallegos', Troup's, and B. Garcia's substantial rights, such that these three Defendants are entitled to a new trial; and (viii) whether the destruction of records of Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") Agent Bryan Acee's and witness Leroy Lucero's telephone calls and text messages entitles B. Garcia to a judgment of acquittal or a new trial, because the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, required the United States to produce the records at trial. The Court concludes that: (i) a rational factfinder could find J. Gallegos, Troup, and A. Gallegos guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, because the three Defendants had a fair trial and no miscarriage of justice occurred; (ii) combining Counts 1-5 and 13-16 did not unfairly prejudice J. Gallegos, Troup, B. Garcia, and A. Gallegos, because the Court took measures to minimize spillover prejudice, and the Court properly severed the case into two trials under rules 8 and 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; (iii) VICAR does not violate the Commerce Clause on its face or as applied to A. Garcia, because the statute explicitly punishes crimes committed to further the purposes of an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce, and the United States proved this VICAR element; (iv) the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, because VICAR contains a

Page 4

jurisdictional element, and the United States satisfied this element by offering evidence of the enterprise's effect on interstate commerce; (v) the admission of Jaramillo's testimony did not prejudice J. Gallegos, Troup, and B. Garcia, because the three Defendants do not show how they would have prepared differently had Jaramillo been included on the United States' Pretrial Witness List, and the United States did not act in bad faith; (vi) the Court's admission of A. Sutton's and Ramirez' testimonies did not violate J. Gallegos' and A. Gallegos' rights under the Confrontation Clause, because A. Sutton's testimony did not contain hearsay, and J. Gallegos' statements in Ramirez' testimony were not testimonial, and Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), does not apply to non-testimonial statements; (vii) the jury instructions do not contain plain errors, because the Court had justification for each challenged jury instruction, nearly all of which mirror the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit's pattern jury instructions; and (viii) the destruction of records of Acee's and Lucero's telephone calls and text messages does not entitle B. Garcia to a judgment of acquittal or a new trial, because Acee destroyed the records according to the FBI's policies, and the United States did not suppress the records in bad faith. The Court therefore denies the B. Garcia Motion, the Gallegos Joint Motion, the A. Gallegos Motion, the J. Gallegos Motion, the Troup NTM, the A. Garcia Motion, and the requests in the A. Gallegos Supplement.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court takes its background facts from the Second Superseding Indictment, filed March 9, 2017 (Doc. 947)("Indictment"). The background facts are largely unchanged from those that the Court provided in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, 323 F.R.D. 672, filed December 18, 2017 (Doc. 1585). The Court does not set forth these facts as findings or the truth. The Court recognizes that the factual background largely reflects the United States' version of

Page 5

events and that the Defendants are all presumed innocent.

This case deals with crimes that Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico ("SNM") allegedly committed through its members. Indictment at 2. SNM, through its members, operated in the District of New Mexico at all relevant times, and its members engaged in acts of violence and other criminal activities, "including murder, kidnapping, attempted murder, conspiracy to manufacture/distribute narcotics, and firearms trafficking." Indictment at 2. SNM constitutes an enterprise "as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1959(b)(2), that is, a group of individuals associated in fact that engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce." Indictment at 2-3.

SNM is a violent prison gang formed in the early 1980s at the Penitentiary of New Mexico ("PNM") after a violent prison riot at PNM during which inmates seriously assaulted and raped twelve correctional officers after taking them hostage. Indictment at 3. During the riot, thirty-three inmates were killed, and over 200 were injured. See Indictment at 3. After the PNM riot, SNM expanded throughout the state's prison system and has had as many as 500 members. See Indictment at 3. SNM now has approximately 250 members, and "a 'panel' or 'mesa' (Spanish for table) of leaders who issue orders to subordinate gang members." Indictment at 3. SNM controls drug distribution and other illegal activities within the New Mexico penal system, but it also conveys orders outside the prison system. See Indictment at 3. Members who rejoin their communities after completing their sentences are expected to further the gang's goals, the main one being the control of and profit from narcotics trafficking. See Indictment at 3-4. Members who fail "to show continued loyalty to the gang [are] disciplined in various ways, [] includ[ing] murder and assaults." Indictment at 4. SNM also intimidates and influences smaller New Mexico Hispanic gangs to expand its illegal activities. See Indictment at 4. If another gang does not abide

Page 6

by SNM's demands, SNM will assault or kill one of the other gang's members to show its power. See Indictment at 4. SNM's rivalry with other gangs also manifests itself in beatings and stabbings within the prison system. See Indictment at 4. SNM further engages in violence "to assert its gang identity, to claim or protect its territory, to challenge or respond to challenges, to retaliate against a rival gang or member, [and] to gain notoriety and show its superiority over others." Indictment at 4. To show its...