United States v. Deleon
| Decision Date | 28 October 2016 |
| 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 and SHAUNA GUTIERREZ, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendants' Brief Regarding "Protective Orders" for Materials Obtained from Sources Other Than the Government, filed March 8, 2016 (Doc. 302)("Protective Order Brief"); (ii) Defendant Daniel Sanchez's Reply Regarding Court's Ability to Subject Materials Obtained Independently of This Court's Process to Court's Protective Order (Doc. 313), filed March 15, 2016 (Doc. 315)("Sanchez' Protective Order Reply"); (iii) the United States' Notice Regarding when the New Mexico United States Attorney's Office First Became Involved in Prosecuting the Defendants in This Case or Any Other Case, filed April 1, 2016 (Doc. 358)("United States' Notice"); (iv) Motion for Order Directing the United States to Comply with Fundamental Due Process, filed March 28, 2016 (Doc. 342)("Due Process Motion"); (v) Motion to Suspend Scheduling Order (Doc. 250), Request for Status Conference and Ex Parte CJA Conference with the District Court, filed May 18, 2016 (Doc. 535)(Motion to Suspend"); and (vi) the Defendants' Opposed Joint Motion for Reconsideration of the Protective Order, filed May 23, 2016 (Doc. 541)("Motion for Reconsideration"). The Court held a hearing on June 2, 2016. As became evident at the hearing, many of the issues raised by the motions and briefing had significant overlap. At their core, the issues are: (i) whether the Court should amend the Protective Order, filed March 14, 2016 (Doc. 313)("Protective Order"), that the Honorable Kenneth Gonzales, United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico, issued before his recusal; (ii) how the Court is going to treat any other motions to reconsider -- based on Judge Gonzales' conflict of interest -- the orders that Judge Gonzales issued before his recusal; (iii) how the Court is going to manage the parties'public, ex parte, and sealed filings; and (iv) what amendments might need to be made to the scheduling order following the case's transition to the Court.
The primary issue is whether the Court should amend the Protective Order that Judge Gonzales issued when he presided over this case. The Court will reconsider and modify the Protective Order, because it too broadly limits the Defendants' access to discovery materials, and because it places too heavy a burden on the Defendants and their counsel. The Court will order most discovery materials to be uploaded onto the Defendants' tablets. The Court will, however, still restrict the Defendants' access to ex parte and sealed pleadings. The Court will thus grant in part and deny in part the Motion for Reconsideration, which disposes of the Motion for Reconsideration, and the requests in the Protective Order Brief and in Sanchez' Protective Order Reply.
The next issue -- how the Court will treat motions to reconsider orders that Judge Gonzalez issued before his recusal -- was resolved at the hearing by a compromise between the Court and the parties. This issue, raised primarily by the United States' Notice and the Defendant's Response to Doc. No. 358 -- the United States' Notice Regarding when the New Mexico United States Attorney's Office First Became Involved in Prosecuting the Defendants in This Case or any Other Case, filed April 4, 2016 (Doc. 360)("Response to United States' Notice") -- relates to orders that Judge Gonzalez issued when he potentially had a conflict. To avoid relitigating the substantive rulings that Judge Gonzalez issued in the case's early stages, and to take reconsideration of the conflict-related matters instead as they might individually arise, the Court proposed that the Defendants' lawyers -- should they raise a Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Gonzales' rulings -- would not need to satisfy the high standards that are generally incumbent on filing a motion to reconsider if the Court would need to decide ifJudge Gonzales had a conflict when he entered the order. The parties agreed, and that compromise -- to the extent that there is a motion in the United States' Notice or the Response to United States' Notice -- disposes of the United States' Notice.
A compromise at the hearing resolved the third issue, related to the public, ex parte, and sealed nature of the various documents filed thus far in this case. Different case management practices in Las Cruces, New Mexico -- where the case originated -- can generally explain the issue that Defendants' Due Process Motion primarily raises. The Court explained the nature of the document filings that the Court uses in Albuquerque, New Mexico, fall into three categories -- public, ex parte, and sealed -- and the Court would thus order strict compliance with those filing categories. Adherence with the filing categories is of further importance given the requirements of the Court's amendments to the Protective Order. This compromise and directive disposes of the Defendants' Due Process Motion.
The last issue, raised primarily by the Defendants' Motion to Suspend, was generally moot by the time of the hearing, because some of the requests made by the Motion to Suspend, regarding a status conference and ex parte CJA2 conference with the Court, were addressed by the Court setting them, and the only item on the scheduling order that the Court foresaw issues surrounding was the trial date. Because the Court recognized that the trial could be continued as was necessary in the future, it chose not to grant the Motion to Suspend. The Court thus denies the Motion to Suspend.
The Court takes its facts from the United States' Redacted Superseding Indictment, filed April 21, 2016 (Doc. 368)("Superseding Indictment"), and from DA Drops Charges AgainstInmates Accused Of Murder, Released November 25, 2015, Sun-News Report, filed March 15, 2016 (Doc. 315-1)("Exhibit 1").3 This case deals with crimes that the Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico (Spanish for Syndicate of New Mexico)("SNM") allegedly committed through its members. See Superseding 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." Superseding 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." Superseding Indictment at 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 taken them hostage. See Superseding Indictment at 3. During the riot, thirty-three inmates were killed, and over two hundred were injured. See Superseding Indictment at 3. After the PNM riot, SNM expanded throughout the state's prison system and has had as many as five hundred members. See Superseding Indictment at 3. SNM has approximately 250 members, comprised of "a 'panel' or 'mesa' (Spanish for table) of leaders who issued orders to subordinate gang members." See Superseding 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 Superseding 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 SupersedingIndictment at 4. Members who fail "to show continued loyalty to the gang [are] disciplined in various ways, [] include[ing] murder and assaults." Superseding Indictment at 4. SNM also intimidates and influences smaller New Mexico Hispanic gangs to expand its illegal activities. See Superseding Indictment at 4. If another gang does not abide by SNM's demands, SNM manages to assault or kill one of the other gang's members to show its power. See Superseding Indictment at 4. SNM's rivalry with other gangs also manifests itself in beatings and stabbings within the prison system. See Superseding 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 it superiority over others." Superseding Indictment at 4-5. In order to show its strength and influence, SNM expects its members to confront and attack any suspected law enforcement informants, cooperating witnesses, homosexuals, or sex offenders. See Superseding Indictment at 5. To achieve its purpose of preserving its power, SNM uses intimidation, violence, threats of violence, assaults, and murder. See Superseding Indictment at 7. SNM as an...
To continue reading
Request your trial