United States v. Martin
| Decision Date | 02 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 18-CR-2835-GPC |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHNNY MARTIN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
On October 4, 2019, following a three-day trial, a jury found Defendant Johnny Martin guilty of one count of False Statement to a Federal Agency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). (ECF No. 66.) Mr. Martin immediately filed a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment of acquittal, which were then fully briefed, (ECF Nos. 72, 73, 80, 83, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94), and heard on January 24, 2020 and March 12, 2020. (ECF Nos. 92, 95, 102.)
At the March 12, 2020 hearing, the motion for judgment of acquittal was DENIED and the motion for new trial was continued for further briefing. (ECF Nos. 99, 100.) Upon consideration of the moving papers, the evidence presented at trial, the jury's deliberations, questions, and verdict, as well as the post-trial briefing and applicable law, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for new trial for the reasons set out below.
The Indictment in this case was returned by a federal grand jury on June 7, 2018, (ECF No. 1), and the matter proceeded to trial on September 30, 2019. (ECF No. 61.) A three-day trial was held from September 30, 2019 to October 2, 2019, (ECF No. 61-63), after which the jury deliberated on October 3 and 4, 2019. (ECF Nos. 64-65.)
After the jury returned its guilty verdict, Defendant filed a motion for new trial. (ECF Nos. 72, 83.) On January 17, 2020, the Government filed a response, (ECF No. 88), and, on January 21, 2020, Defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 89.)
The Court held an initial hearing as to Defendant's motions on January 24, 2020. (ECF No. 92.) At the hearing, the Court sua sponte raised the lack of juror unanimity as a potential issue and permitted the Parties to file supplemental briefs on the issue. (Id.) The Government filed a supplemental brief on February 14, 2020, (ECF No. 93), and then Defendant filed a supplemental response brief on February 28, 2020. (ECF No. 94.)
On March 12, 2020, the Court held a second hearing on Defendant's post-trial motions. (ECF Nos. 95, 102.) At the hearing, the Government requested permission to file additional briefing on the unanimity issue, which the Court granted. The Government filed a second supplemental brief on March 16, 2020, (ECF No. 99), and then Defendant filed a second supplemental response brief on April 9, 2020. (ECF No. 100.)
The Indictment charges Defendant with one count of False Statement to Federal Agency, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). (ECF No. 1 (hereinafter, "Ind.")) The introductory allegations state that Mr. Martin was a Group Supervisor with Homeland Security Investigations ("HSI") until his retirement in February 2016. (Ind. at ¶ 1.) In that capacity, Mr. Martin routinely conducted records checks in the TECS database andsupervised HSI Special Agents. (Ind. at ¶ 2.) From 2010-2012, Mr. Martin supervised an HSI Special Agent who was in contact with R.H., a cooperating individual. (Ind. at ¶ 3.)
The Indictment further alleges that, on June 30, 2015, R.H. directly emailed Mr. Martin the name and date of birth of a person referred to as Individual 1. (Ind. at ¶ 4.) On the following day, Mr. Martin searched the TECS database for Individual 1's name and then sent an email on July 2, 2015 from his personal account to R.H. with an attachment entitled "Records checks-[Individual 1's last name]." (ECF No. 74, Tr. 218-20; ECF No. 75, Tr. 447-49.) That attachment contained Individual 1's personal identifiable information, immigration history, and criminal history (referred to as the "Records Check Document"). (ECF No. 75, Tr. 448.)
On June 7, 2017, while investigating R.H. and others for an immigration-related fraud scheme, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents interviewed Mr. Martin at his home about the Records Check Document that had been emailed by Mr. Martin to R.H. (ECF No. 75, Tr. 340-413; ECF No. 76, Tr. 680-717.) After being shown various documents, including the Records Check Document for Individual 1, Mr. Martin "denied sending the Records Check Document to R.H.," in four statements: (a) "I don't have an explanation why [R.H.] has it."; (b) "[F]or me to send [the Records Check Document] to him, I don't see myself ever doing that . . ."; (c) "I didn't send stuff like that to him . . ."; and (d) "If I sent him emails, but I wouldn't attach something like [the Records Check Document] to it." (Ind. at ¶ 7.)
Count One of the Indictment charges that Defendant "did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States by stating and representing to FBI agents that he did not send the Records Check Document to R.H." (Ind. at ¶ 9.) Count One "reallege[d] and incorporate[d] by reference" the four statements referenced in the Introductory Allegations. (Ind. at ¶ 8.) The Indictment addsthat Defendants' "statements and representations were false because, as [Defendant] then and there knew, he sent the Records Check Document to R.H." (Ind. at ¶ 9.)
As background relating to the investigation which led to the alleged false statements, FBI Special Agent Angela Pennington testified as to an extensive immigration fraud scheme run by Mr. Hardev Panesar and Mr. Rafael Hastie, the individual referred to in the Indictment as R.H. (ECF No. 74, Tr. 200-40.) Special Agent Pennington described how the Government learned that Panesar and Hastie posed as employees of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and conned immigrants to pay exorbitant fees for the promise of green cards. Part of the scheme involved Panesar and Hastie utilizing information that appeared to come from a Government source. (ECF No. 74, Tr. 215.)1 Government investigators learned that both Mr. Panesar and Mr. Hastie had worked as confidential informants for the FBI and HSI, with Mr. Hastie having worked with Mr. Martin and his HSI agents over the course of several years. (ECF No. 75, Tr. 279-98, 330-36, 504-535, 561-95.)
The Government then called Special Agent Jennifer Wolf to testify as to the interview of Mr. Martin. Much of Agent Wolf's testimony was interlaced with an audio recording of that interview. The transcript for the audio, however, contained many notations denoting "overlapping" questions and answers, as well as "unintelligible" audio segments. (ECF No. 75, Tr. 384-85.)
The Parties offered contradicting testimony as to what was and was not captured by the recording. Of critical importance, Agent Wolf testified that she showed Mr. Martin three documents consisting of the Constantino Rivas-Pedrisco Record Check (i.e., the"Records Check Document"), the Corona Record Check, and a third document overlaid with a screenshot of its Microsoft properties. (ECF No. 75, Tr. 355-57.) Agent Wolf, however, was impeached with two of her own e-mails before trial. The e-mails indicated that she only "showed [Mr. Martin] the record checks on Word document on Corona," (ECF No. 75, Tr. 379), and not the Records Check Document (the Rivas-Pedrisco Record Check). Mr. Martin, moreover, claimed that he was only shown two papers - not three. (ECF No. 76, Tr. 619-20.) Agent Wolf also testified that Mr. Martin reviewed all three documents for some time in a calm manner. (ECF No. 75, Tr. 359-60.) Upon reviewing the documents, he became quiet and pushed the table away, as his breathing got a little heavy. (ECF No. 75, Tr. 362-63.) Mr. Martin, in contrast, claimed he looked at the documents for seconds, without his glasses, and while in an anxious state. (ECF No. 76, Tr. 620-22.)
A review of the interview transcript reveals that Agent Wolf never explicitly asked Defendant about a Records Check pertaining to Constantino Rivas-Pedrisco. (ECF No. 76, Tr. 631, 682-83.) Instead, Agent Wolf mentioned "Corona" twice, and misspoke in naming another person, "Tomas Rivas." (ECF No. 75, Tr. 374, 361, 387.) As to the names on the documents, Mr. Martin can be heard on the audio trying to briefly sound out a name by stating "GRU . . .", though no name beginning with those letters exists on the Constantino Rivas-Pedrisco Record Check. (ECF No. 75, Tr. 386-87.)
The Government, in its case-in-chief, offered testimony relating to cellphone records and e-mails belonging to Mr. Panesar, Mr. Hastie, and Mr. Martin, as well as Mr. Martin's TECS searches. The Government also explained how the TECS database and other databases related to border enforcement function. (ECF No. 74, Tr. 168-94.) As the linchpin of its case, the Government introduced an e-mail from Mr. Martin to Mr. Hastie on July 2, 2015 attaching a document pertaining to Constantino Rivas-Pedrisco. (ECFNo. 69, Exs. 9C, 9D; ECF No. 75, Tr. 448-49.) The Rivas-Pedrisco document attached to the July 2, 2015 email is the Records Check Document referenced in the Indictment.2
The Court instructed the jury prior to its deliberations. (ECF No. 76, Tr. 798.) Among other things, the Court informed the jury that it "must follow all the[] instructions and not single out some and ignore others." (ECF No. 76, Tr. 737.) The Court stated that the instructions were "all important," and that the jury had a "duty to apply the law as [the Court] g[a]ve it . . . and the facts as [the jury] f[ou]nd them." (ECF No. 76, Tr. 737.) The Court explained that the Defendant was charged in a single count and detailed the elements of the offense. (ECF No. 76, Tr. 744.) The Court also affirmed that the "Government has the burden of proving every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt." (ECF No. 76, Tr. 738.)
As to unanimity, the Court offered a general instruction, stating "Your verdict, whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial