United States v. Guzman-Dominguez
| Decision Date | 01 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:16-cr-00580-RB,2:16-cr-00580-RB |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE REMBERTO GUZMAN-DOMINGUEZ and MIGUEL ANGEL RODRIGUEZ-FLORES, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on notices of intent (a) to offer expert testimony of three witnesses for the Government (Docs. 32; 28; 50; 35) and one witness for Defendants (Doc. 64); (b) for the Government to introduce as self-authenticating evidence: a Pilot Travel Receipt (Doc. 40); a Flying J Receipt (Doc. 41); Sprint cell phone records (Doc. 42); Metro PCS cell phone records (Docs. 60; 70); Mirachem internal records (Doc. 43); Mirachem e-mails (Doc. 44); and bank records (Doc. 45); (c) for the Government to introduce evidence, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2), text messages (Doc. 49) and bank statements (Doc. 51); (d) for the Government to have certain telephone calls admitted (Doc. 39); (f) for the Government to have certain photographs admitted (Doc. 48); and (f) for Defendants to have the following evidence excluded: citizenship/residence status/national origin of all witnesses, Defendants' trips to El Salvador and Mexico, Defendants' girlfriends, locked cell phones, previous use of Mr. Guzman-Dominguez's car to smuggle marijuana, and criminal history (Doc. 71).
Having reviewed the parties' submissions and considered their arguments regarding expert witnesses, the Court ORDERS that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Forensic Scientist Dustin James (Doc. 32); Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent Joseph Montoya (Doc. 28); and New Mexico State Police Officer Davin Barela (Doc. 53) are qualified to provide expert testimony to the extent discussed in this order. The Court further ORDERS that the following documents require no additional authentication at trial: The Pilot Center Travel receipt (Doc. 40); The Flying J receipt (Doc. 41); The Sprint cell phone records (Doc. 42), except for the Key to Understanding Document; The internal Mirachem records (Doc. 43), except for training documents described in this order; The Mirachem e-mails written by Mirachem employees (Doc. 44); The Wells Fargo bank records (Doc. 45); and The Metro PCS cell phone records (Doc. 61). The Court GRANTS United States Motion In Limine Regarding Admissibility of Evidence (Doc. 39) and DENIES United States' Motion In Limine Regarding Admissibility of Photographs of Jose Remberto Guzman-Dominguez Wearing a Sidearm Pistol and a Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman T-Shirt (Doc. 48).
The Court DENIES in part Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant and Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence (Doc. 71) as it relates to evidence of Mr. Guzman Dominguez's or any other witness's residency, citizenship status, or national origin (see Doc. 71 at 3-4) as discussed in this order; Defendants' trips to El Salvador and Mexico (see Doc. 71 at 4-5) as discussed in this order; Mr. Guzman's locked Apple iPhone (see Doc. 71 at 5-6) as described in this order; evidence on cell tower data (see Doc. 71 at 6) as described in this order; and reference to Defendants' Honda Accord (see Doc. 71 at 6) as described in this order. The Court GRANTS in part Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant and Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence (Doc. 71) as it relates to evidence of Defendants' girlfriends and alleged womanizing (see Doc. 71 at 5); and other locked phones that have been seized (see Doc. 71 at 5-6).
The Court defers for trial the determination on the remaining issues.
A little past midnight on November 14, 2015, Mr. Guzman-Dominguez pulled his registered commercial tractor-trailer into the Lordsburg, New Mexico, port of entry. (Docs. 37 at 2; 38 at 3.) Mr. Rodriguez-Flores was riding as a passenger. (Doc. 38 at 3.) Inspector Jesus Salcedo, who was working at the port that evening, stopped Mr. Guzman-Dominguez and directed him to pull into an inspection bay. (Docs. 37 at 3; 38 at 3.) At the inspection bay, Mr. Rodriguez-Flores told Inspector Salcedo that he was riding with Mr. Guzman-Dominguez because he wanted to get his own commercial driver's license. (Id.)
Inspector Salcedo took nearly an hour inspecting the outside of the truck and trailer, checking the brakes, checking the tires and wheels, and inspecting the engine compartment. (Docs. 37 at 3 and 38 at 3.) At some point during the inspection, Mr. Guzman-Dominguez used an Apple iPhone to make a call. (See Doc. 74 at 5.) Inspector Salcedo next informed Mr. Guzman-Dominguez that he was going to inspect the cargo area. (Doc. 37 at 3.) The cargo area was loaded with cleaning solution, as declared in the bill of lading. (Id.) At the front of the trailer, Inspector Salcedo discovered four cardboard boxes, which contained bundles wrapped in green cellophane. (Doc. 38 at 4.) The bundles later tested positive for cocaine and heroin. (Docs. 32-2; 32-3.) In all, law enforcement seized 47.9 kilograms of cocaine and 5.24 kilograms of heroin. (See Doc. 50 at 2.)
After arresting Defendants, law enforcement impounded the vehicle and seized several items. They seized an Apple iPhone "in connection with the arrest" of Mr. Guzman-Dominguez and another smart phone "in connection with the arrest" of Mr. Rodriguez-Flores. (Doc. 38 at 6.) Law enforcement also seized several other phones from the tractor cab. (Id.) They obtained search warrants for the phones, and gained access to all but one of the smart phones found in thetruck. (Id.)
On the Apple iPhone, law enforcement found a suspicious text message exchange with an unidentified number. Law enforcement also found numerous pictures of Mr. Guzman-Dominguez on the phone, including several with Mr. Guzman-Dominguez wearing a t-shirt with a photograph of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman on the front. (See Doc. 48-2.) The t-shirt also includes the words "Billionaire" printed on top and other phrases, including "The LAST NARCO[,]" surrounding the photograph. (Id.) Mr. Guzman-Dominguez is wearing what appears to be a sidearm pistol. (Id.) Lastly, law enforcement found a photograph on the phone of a debit card with the name "Jose R. Dominguez" and later subpoenaed the bank for the records associated with the account. (Doc. 51 at 3.)
Inside the tractor cab, law enforcement also found a commercial seal, which corresponded with the bill of lading. (Doc. 73 at 34:6-12.) Typically, the seal locks the cargo inside the trailer throughout the delivery. (See id. at 36:1-12.) Once the seal is broken, it cannot be used again. (Id. at 35:9-11.) This seal had never been locked. (Id. at 36:1-3.)
Law enforcement interrogated Defendants on the night of their arrest. (See Doc. 48-4.) Mr. Rodriguez-Flores told law enforcement that they were delivering the load to Pennsylvania and he did not know about the drugs in the truck. (Id. at 19, 20.) He also told law enforcement that they had just come back from a trip to El Salvador and Mexico. (Id. at 10.) While in Mexico, Mr. Guzman-Dominguez apparently visited "another wife" in Mexico. (Id. at 9.) Mr. Rodriguez-Flores admitted he went to Mexico to "go with the girls" and that he has a girlfriend, a wife, and a lover. (Id. at 10, 26.)
In subsequent investigations, law enforcement discovered that Mr. Guzman-Dominguez was transporting the load of chemicals for Mirachem, which had been arranged by a broker, C.H.Robinson. (See Doc. 44-1 at 6-8.) Based on e-mail communications between Mirachem and C.H. Robinson, Mr. Guzman-Dominguez was late to pick up the load the day before. (See id. at 2-6.)
Lastly, several notable calls were made from the Luna County Detention center six days after Mr. Guzman-Dominguez was arrested. First, Homeland Security Investigation Taskfoce Officer Jose Lopez received two calls from a Luna County Detention Center detainee who identified himself as Jose Guzman-Dominguez. (Doc. 39 at 1.) That same day, Mr. Guzman-Dominguez called his wife multiple times. (Doc. 39-1 at 2.) All of the calls indicated, in Spanish, that the call was "subject to being supervised and recorded." (See, e.g., Doc. 39-4 at 1.) Mr. Guzman-Dominguez discussed his attempt to reach "the dude," asked his wife to call the person, and asked her to call the DEA. (Doc. 39-1 at 2.) Mr. Guzman-Dominguez asked that his wife tell the DEA that it was "urgent" that he speak with someone. (Doc. 39-2 at 2.) He told her, "Tell him . . . I have information . . . in regards to my case . . . ." (Doc. 39-1 at 2.) He also told her to ask if the DEA would speak with him if he renounced his attorney, as his attorney did not want to "cooperate." (Doc. 39-4 at 2.) Then, he also told his wife that it was "in [her] hands that [he] get out." (Doc. 39-3 at 3.) Lastly, Officer Lopez received, but did not accept, a call from a woman identifying herself as Mr. Guzman-Dominguez's wife. (Doc. 39 at 1.)
Evidence is admissible if it is relevant and does not violate the United States Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules promulgated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Fed. R. Evid. 402. "Evidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed R. Evid. 401. Relevance is not inherent to any type of evidence,but rather exists only as the evidence relates to "a matter properly provable in the case." Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 689 (1988) (). Still, the relevancy bar "is 'very low'" and "must only provide a 'fact-finder with a basis for making some inference, or chain of inferences.'" United States v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1190 (10th Cir. 1998) disapproved of on other grounds by Hooks v. Ward, 184 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 1999)).
Relevant evidence must still be excluded "if its probative value is...
To continue reading
Request your trial