United States v. Deleon
| Decision Date | 31 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 15-4268 JB,CR 15-4268 JB |
| Citation | 326 F.Supp.3d 1257 |
| 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 |
James D. Tierney, Acting United States Attorney, Maria Ysabel Armijo, Randy M. Castellano, Matthew Beck, Assistant United States Attorneys, United States Attorney's Office, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiff
Richard Sindel, Sindel, Sindel & Noble, P.C., Clayton, Missouri and Brock Benjamin, Benjamin Law Firm, El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Joe Lawrence Gallegos
Patrick J. Burke, Patrick J. Burke, P.C., Denver, Colorado and Cori Ann Harbour-Valdez, The Harbour Law Firm, P.C., El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Edward Troup
Russel Dean Clark, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Leonard Lujan
James A. Castle, Castle & Castle, P.C., Denver, Colorado and Robert R. Cooper, Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Billy Garcia
Douglas E. Couleur, Douglas E. Couleur, P.A., Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Eugene Martinez
Phillip A. Linder, The Linder Firm, Dallas, Texas and Jeffrey C. Lahann, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Allen Patterson
John L. Granberg, Granberg Law Office, El Paso, Texas and Orlando Mondragon, El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Chavez
Nathan D. Chambers, Nathan D. Chambers, LLC, Denver Colorado and Noel Orquiz, Deming, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Javier Alonso
Scott Moran Davidson, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Billy R. Blackburn, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Arturo Arnulfo Garcia
Stephen E. Hosford, Stephen E. Hosford, P.C., Arrey, New Mexico and Jerry Daniel Herrera, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Benjamin Clark
Pedro Pineda, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Ruben Hernandez
Gary Mitchell, Mitchell Law Office, Ruidoso, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Jerry Armenta
Larry A. Hammond, Osborn Maledon, P.A., Phoenix, Arizona and Margaret Strickland, McGraw & Strickland, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Jerry Montoya
Steven M. Potolsky, Jacksonville Beach, Florida and Santiago D. Hernandez, Law Office of Santiago D. Hernandez, El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Mario Rodriguez
Jacqueline K. Walsh, Walsh & Larranaga, Seattle, Washington and Ray Velarde, El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Timothy Martinez
Joe Spencer, El Paso, Texas and Mary Stillinger, El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Mauricio Varela
Amy E. Jacks, Law Office of Amy E. Jacks, Los Angeles, California and Richard Jewkes, El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Daniel Sanchez
George A. Harrison, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Gerald Archuleta
B.J. Crow, Crow Law Firm, Roswell, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Conrad Villegas
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
Charles J. McElhinney, McElhinney Law Firm, LLC, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Robert Martinez
Marcia J. Milner, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Roy Paul Martinez
Christopher W. Adams, Charleston, South Carolina and Amy Sirignano, Law Office of Amy Sirignano, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Garcia
William R. Maynard, El Paso, Texas and Carey Corlew Bhalla, Law Office of Carey C. Bhalla, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Carlos Herrera
Justine Fox-Young, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Ryan J. Villa, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Rudy Perez
Lisa Torraco, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Donavon A. Roberts, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Andrew Gallegos
Erlinda O. Johnson, Law Office of Erlinda Ocampo Johnson, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Santos Gonzalez
Angela Arellanes, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Shauna Gutierrez
Jerry A. Walz, Walz and Associates, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Brandy Rodriguez
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant Christopher Garcia's Sealed Motion to Suppress Statements by Defendant Obtained in Violation of Miranda v. Arizona; Motion to Suppress Involuntary Statements by Defendant; Request for Hearing Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3501, filed March 1, 2017 (Doc. 184)("Motion to Suppress").2 The Court held evidentiary hearings on April 13, 2017, and May 4, 2017. The primary issue are: (i) whether the Court should suppress statements that Defendant Chris Garcia made during an interrogation with Nathan Lerner -- a sergeant with the Bernalillo County Sherriff's Department -- and FBI Special Agent Joe Sainato, because Garcia invoked his right to counsel before the interrogation by telling Lerner "My attorney is Robert Gorence"; and (ii) whether the Court must exclude all of Garcia's statements from the interrogation under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (" Miranda") and Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004) (" Seibert"), because Sainato did not give Garcia a Miranda warning until sixteen minutes into the interrogation. The Court concludes that Garcia did not invoke his right to counsel before the interview, because Garcia was not yet subject to custodial interrogation, as required to trigger Miranda protections. The Court will, accordingly, not suppress Garcia's statements on those grounds. The Court will also not suppress the testimony obtained after the late Miranda warning, because Sainato did not deliberately issue the warning late. Rather, the evidence suggests it was a good-faith mistake. The Court will suppress, however, the statements Garcia made before the Miranda warning, because, once questioning began, Garcia had been subjected to custodial interrogation. The Court, accordingly, grants in part and denies in part the requests in the Motion to Suppress.
The Court takes its background facts from the Second Superseding Indictment, No. 15-4268, 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 (D.N.M. 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 events and that the Defendants are all presumed innocent.
This case deals with crimes that the Syndicato3 de Nuevo Mexico ("SNM") allegedly committed through its members. See 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. See Superseding Indictment at 3. During the riot, thirty-three inmates were killed, and over 200 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 500 members at one time. See Indictment at 3. SNM has approximately 250 members now and is led by "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; its main goal is controlling and profiting 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 by SNM's demands, SNM may 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 continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Madrid
...at 228:23-24 (held November 29, 2017)(Castellano), No. 15-4268, filed December 6, 2017 (Doc. 1547).United States v. DeLeon, 326 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1263-64 (D.N.M. 2018)(Browning, J.). The Court takes the facts from the PSR. Apart from Madrid's Objection to the PSR'sdescription of the Suboxon......
-
United States v. Little
...606 F.3d at 1276 (explaining "state of intoxication does not automatically render a statement involuntary"); United States v. DeLeon, 326 F.Supp.3d 1257, 1294 (D.N.M. 2018) (finding knowing and voluntary waiver despite defendant's contention he was intoxicated because "at almost all times [......
-
United States v. Madrid
...Chavez's then-pending criminal trial and caused the disqualification of his attorney. Id. (second quoting United States v. DeLeon, 326 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1264 (D.N.M. 2018)). Given these findings, the district court's order was not "arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonabl......