United States v. Deleon

• Decision Date: 08 March 2017
• Docket Number: No. CR 15-4268 JB,CR 15-4268 JB
• Citation: United States v. Deleon, No. CR 15-4268 JB (D. N.M. Mar 08, 2017)
• 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

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.

No. CR 15-4268 JB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

March 8, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i)the Defendants' Joint Motion to VacateMarch 2017 Trial Setting, Impose a Discovery Scheduling Order and Request for a Hearing, filed September 7, 2016(Doc. 676)("Motion to Vacate");(ii) the Joint Motion for Disclosure and Production of Confidential Informant, filed September 22, 2016(Doc. 698)("Motion to Disclose"); and (iii) the Joint Motion to Excludethe Prosecution Team from December 2, 2016 Evidence Viewing, filed November 8, 2016(Doc. 763)("Motion to Exclude").The Court held a hearing on November 29, 2016.The primary issues are: (i) whether good cause exists to continue the March, 2017, trial date because of the amount of discovery and requisite pretrial preparations; (ii) whether the Defendants' counsel may view certain physical evidence -- at Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility ("Southern New Mexico") and the police station in Las Cruces, New Mexico -- without Plaintiff United States of America's presence; and (iii) whether the United States must disclose a confidential informant ("CI") whose report has implicated various Defendants, but whom the United States intends to call to testify at trial.Because the Court concludes that good cause exists to continue the trial, in light of the lengthy preparations and discovery needed to adequately facilitate this case, the Court will allow a continuance of the trial date.Further, because the Court concludes that it is appropriate under the law for the Defendants to view the evidence at the upcoming evidence viewing without the United States' presence, it will allow the sequestered viewing, and will further require that the United States not attempt to determine what occurred while the defense teams attended the viewing.Last, because the Court is not wholly convinced that all of the Defendants joining the Motion to Disclose have made the proper showing to disclose the CI's identity, the Court will at this time require the United States to disclose the CI's identity only to Baca, but not to others, under a protective order limiting disclosure to attorneys and investigator's eyes only, and will require the other Defendants joining that Motion to Disclose to make a more substantial showing at a future date should they still seek disclosure of the CI.Accordingly, the Court will grant the Motion to Vacate, grant the Motion to Exclude, and grant in part and deny in part the Motion to Disclose.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court takes its facts from the Superseding Indictment.The facts are largely unchanged from those that the Court provided in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed October 28, 2016(Doc. 753).SeeUnited States v. DeLeon, 2016 WL 7242579(D.N.M.2016)(Browning, J.).See alsoUnited States of America v. Angel DeLeon, 2016 WL 3124632(D.N.M.2016)(Browning, J.).The Court does not set forth these facts as findings or the truth.The Court recognizes that the factual background is largely the United States' version of events and that the Defendants are all presumed innocent.

This case deals with crimes that the Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico (Spanish for Syndicate of New Mexico)("SNM") allegedly committed through its members.SeeSuperseding Indictmentat 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 Indictmentat 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 Indictmentat 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.SeeSuperseding Indictmentat 3.During the riot, thirty-three inmates were killed, and over 200 were injured.SeeSuperseding Indictmentat 3.After the PNM riot, SNM expanded throughout the state's prison system and has had as many as 500 members.SeeSuperseding Indictmentat 3.SNM has approximately 250 members, comprised of "a 'panel' or 'mesa'(Spanish for table) of leaders who issued orders to subordinate gang members."Superseding Indictmentat 3.SNM controls drug distribution and other illegal activities within the New Mexico penal system, but it also conveys orders outside the prison system.SeeSuperseding Indictmentat 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.SeeSuperseding Indictmentat 4.Members who fail "to show continued loyalty to the gang [are] disciplined in various ways, [] includ[ing] murder and assaults."Superseding Indictmentat 4.SNM also intimidates and influences smaller New Mexico Hispanic gangs to expand its illegal activities.SeeSuperseding Indictmentat 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.SeeSuperseding Indictmentat 4.SNM's rivalry with other gangs also manifests itself in beatings and stabbings within the prison system.SeeSuperseding Indictmentat 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 Indictmentat 4-5.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.SeeSuperseding Indictmentat 5.To achieve its purpose of preserving its power, SNM uses intimidation, violence, threats of violence, assaults, and murder.SeeSuperseding Indictmentat 7.SNM as an enterprise generates income by having its members and associates traffic controlled substances and extort narcotic traffickers.SeeSuperseding Indictmentat 7.SNM's recent activities in a conspiracy to murder high-ranking New Mexico Corrections Department Officials inspired the present investigation.SeeUnited States v. Garcia, No. 15-4275 JB, Memorandum Opinion and Orderat 2, filedNovember 16, 2016(Doc. 133)(citingUnited States' Response to Defendant's Motion to Designate Complex (Doc. 56)at 1, filedMay 3, 2016(Doc. 70)("United States' Garcia Response")).The other relevant facts giving rise to this case are as follows.

In March of 2014, a Doña Ana County, New Mexico, grand jury indicted DefendantsJerry Montoya and Jerry Armenta on charges of first-degree murder and four other felonies related to the death of Javier Enrique Molina, Montoya and Armenta's fellow inmate during their incarceration at the Southern New Mexico state prison.SeeUnited States v. DeLeon, 2016 WL 7242579, at *3.The New Mexico Third Judicial District Attorney's Office accused Montoya and Armenta of fatally stabbing Molina with a shank in a gang-related attack.SeeUnited States v. DeLeon, 2016 WL 7242579, at *3.That grand-jury indictment charged Montoya and Armenta with: (i) Molina's murder; (ii) possessing a deadly weapon; (iii) tampering with evidence; and (iv) two counts of conspiracy.SeeUnited States v. DeLeon, 2016 WL 7242579, at *3.The Doña Ana County District Attorney then dismissed the charges against Montoya and Armenta -- as well as separate charges against alleged accomplice and DefendantMario Rodriguez, who had been charged with possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner, tampering, and conspiracy -- in November of 2015.SeeUnited States v. DeLeon, 2016 WL 7242579, at *3."A spokesperson for the District Attorney's Office indicated the charges were dismissed because the cases were going to be prosecuted at the federal court level."SeeUnited States v. DeLeon, 2016 WL 7242579, at *3.

The United States now brings this case against thirty Defendants, charging them with a total of fifteen counts.SeeSuperseding Indictmentat 1.All Defendants are accused of participating in the operation and management of the enterprise and committing unlawful activities "as a consideration for the receipt of, and as consideration for a promise and an agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value from SNM and for the purpose of gaining entrance to and maintaining and increasing position in SNM, an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity."Superseding Indictmentat 6-31.DefendantsArturo Arnulfo Garcia, Gerald Archuleta, Benjamin Clark, Mario Rodriguez, Anthony Ray Baca, Robert Martinez, Roy Paul Martinez, and Daniel Sanchez are the alleged...