United States v. Deleon

• Decision Date: 21 October 2021
• Docket Number: CR 15-4268 JB
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANGEL DELEON; JOE LAWRENCE GALLEGOS, EDWARD TROUP, a.k.a. “Huero Troup”; LEONARD LUJA; 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”; 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 LUJA; 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”; 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, D. New Mexico

October 21, 2021

Fred J. Federici

Acting United States Attorney

United States Attorney's Office

Maria Ysabel Armijo

Randy M. Castellano

Ryan Ellison

Assistant United States Attorneys

United States Attorney's Office

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Sarah M. Gorman

Law Offices of Robert D. Gorman

Heather M. LeBlanc

Bailey, LeBlanc & Lane, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant Angel DeLeon

Richard Sindel

Sindel, Sindel & Noble, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant Joe Lawrence Gallegos

Patrick J. Burke

Patrick J. Burke, P.C.

Cori Ann Harbour-Valdez

The Harbour Law Firm, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant Edward Troup

Russell Dean Clark

Attorney for Defendant Leonard Lujan

James A. Castle

Castle & Castle, P.C.

Robert R. Cooper

Robert R. Cooper Law Firm

Attorneys for Defendant Billy Garcia

Douglas E. Couleur

Douglas E. Couleur, P.A.

Attorney for Defendant Eugene Martinez

Joseph E. Shattuck

Marco & Shattuck Law Firm

Jeffrey C. Lahann

Attorneys for Defendant Allen Patterson

Eduardo Solis

Law offices of Eduardo Solis

John L. Granberg

Granberg Law Office El Paso, Texas

Orlando Mondragon

The Law Office of Orlando Mondragon

Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Chavez

Nathan D. Chambers

Nathan D. Chambers, Attorney at Law

Noel Orquiz Deming

Attorneys for Defendant Javier Alonso

Laura E. Udall

Cooper & Udall Law Offices

Scott Moran Davidson

Law Offices of Scott Moran Davidson

Billy R. Blackburn

Billy Blackburn Law Office

Attorneys for Defendant Arturo Arnulfo Garcia

Stephen E. Hosford

Stephen E. Hosford, P.C.

Jerry Daniel Herrera

Attorneys for Defendant Benjamin Clark

Pedro Pineda

León Encinias

León Felipe Encinias, Attorney at Law

Attorneys for Defendant Ruben Hernandez

Gary Mitchell

Mitchell Law Office

Attorney for Defendant Jerry Armenta

Larry A. Hammond

Osborn Maledon, P.A.

Margaret Strickland

McGraw & Strickland

Attorneys for Defendant Jerry Montoya

Steven M. Potolsky

Santiago D. Hernandez

Law Office of Santiago D. Hernandez

Attorneys for Defendant Mario Rodriguez

Ray Velarde

Steven Lorenzo Almanza

Attorneys for Defendant Timothy Martinez

Joe Spencer

Mary Stillinger

Attorneys for Defendant Mauricio Varela

Richard Jewkes

Lauren Noriega

The Noriega Law Firm

Amy E. Jacks

Law Office of Amy E. Jacks

Attorneys for Defendant Daniel Sanchez

George A. Harrison

Kimberly S. Bruselas-Benavidez

Attorneys for Defendant Gerald Archuleta

B.J. Crow

Crow Law Firm

Attorney for Defendant Conrad Villegas

Theresa M. Duncan

Duncan Earnest LLC

Marc M. Lowry

Rothstein Donatelli LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Anthony Ray Baca

Charles J. McElhinney

CJM Law Firm

Attorney for Defendant Robert Martinez

Marcia J. Milner

Marcia J. Milner Attorney at Law

Attorney for Defendant Roy Paul Martinez

Christopher W. Adams

Adams & Bischoff, L.L.C.

Amy Sirignano

Law Office of Amy Sirignano, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Garcia

William R. Maynard

William R. Maynard, Attorney at Law

Carey Corlew Bhalla

Law Office of Carey C. Bhalla, LLC

Attorneys for Defendant Carlos Herrera

Justine Fox-Young

Justine Fox-Young Attorney at Law

Ryan J. Villa

Law Office of Ryan J. Villa

Attorneys for Defendant Rudy Perez

Donavon A. Roberts

Donavon A. Roberts Attorney at Law

Lisa Torraco

Lisa Torracco Attorney at Law

Attorneys for Defendant Andrew Gallegos

Erlinda O. Johnson

Law Office of Erlinda Ocampo Johnson

Attorney for Defendant Santos Gonzalez

Keith R. Romero

Keith R. Romero, Attorney and Counselor at Law

Attorney for Paul Rivera

Angela Arellanes

Angela Arellanes Attorney at Law

Attorney for Defendant Shauna Gutierrez

Jerry A. Walz

Alfred D. Creecy

Samuel Winder Walz and Associates

Attorneys for Defendant Brandy Rodriguez

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff United States' Motion to Exclude Expert Witness or in the Alternative to Hold a Daubert Hearing, filed June 28, 2021 (Doc. 3297)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on August 23, 2021. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed August 23, 2021 (Doc. 3410). The primary issue is whether Dr. Jeffrey Scott Neuschatz, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, may testify at Defendant Angel DeLeon's trial about the Plaintiff the United States of America's cooperating witnesses, the psychology of cooperating witnesses in general, and the reliability of the cooperating witness' testimony. The Court concludes that Dr. Neuschatz may not testify, because: (i) his proposed expert testimony does not help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; and (ii) he has not applied reliably the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See Fed. R. Evid. 702. The Court, therefore, will grant the Motion.

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 facts that the Court provides in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, 423 F.Supp.3d 1210, filed November 19, 2019 (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 events and that the Defendants are all presumed innocent. The Court takes the particular facts relevant to this matter largely from the Defendant's Notice of Expert Witness Testimony, filed June 7, 2021 (Doc. 3285)(“Notice”), and the attached documents.

1. Background Facts.

This case deals with crimes that the Syndicato Nuevo Mexico (“SNM”) allegedly committed through its members. See Indictment at 2. SNM, through its members, operates in the District of New Mexico, and its members engage in acts of violence and other criminal activities, “including murder, kidnapping, attempted murder, conspiracy to manufacture/distribute narcotics, and firearms trafficking.” Indictment at 2. The 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.

The SNM is a prison gang formed in the early 1980s at the Penitentiary of New Mexico (“PNM”) after a violent prison riot at PNM during which inmates assaulted and raped twelve correctional officers after taking them hostage. Indictment at 3. During the riot, thirty-three inmates were killed, and over 200 inmates 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, including “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 to members 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: primarily the control and profit of 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.

The SNM also intimidates and influences smaller New Mexico Hispanic gangs to expand its power. See Indictment at 4. If another gang does not follow the SNM's demands, SNM will assault or kill one of the other gang's members to show its power. See Indictment at 4. The SNM's rivalry with other gangs also manifests in beatings and stabbings within the prison system. See Indictment at 4. The SNM 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 strength and influence, the SNM expects its members to confront and attack any suspected law enforcement informants, cooperating witnesses, homosexuals, or sex offenders. See Indictment at 5. To achieve its purpose of preserving its power, the SNM uses intimidation, violence, threats of violence, assaults, and murder. See Indictment at 7. The SNM generates income by having its members and associates traffic drugs and extort narcotic traffickers. See Indictment at 8. The SNM members' recent conspiracy to murder high-ranking New Mexico Corrections...