United States v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 05 August 2016
• Docket Number: No.13-CR-01874 MV,13-CR-01874 MV
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERTO THOMAS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERTO THOMAS, Defendant.

No.13-CR-01874 MV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

August 5, 2016

Appearances:

For the United States:

DAMON P. MARTINEZ

United States Attorney

201 3rd Street NW

Suite 900

Albuquerque, NM 87114

By: JOEL MEYERS

Assistant United States Attorney

SHAHEEN P. TORGOLEY

Assistant United States Attorney

For the Defendant:

TODD BRUCE HOTCHKISS

TODD B. HOTCHKISS, LLC

610 Gold Avenue SW

Suite 228

Albuquerque, NM 87102

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Roberto Thomas's Motion for New Trial, timely filed on May 6, 2016 [Doc. 222]. The United States filed an untimely response on May 23, 2016 [Doc. 224], and Mr. Thomas timely replied [Doc. 226]. In his Reply, Mr. Thomas moved to strike the untimely United States Response [Doc. 226, at 1].

The Court, having considered the Motion, briefs, relevant law, and being otherwise fully informed, finds that the Motion for a New Trial is well taken and will be GRANTED. The Motion to Strike the United States' Response is therefore moot, and will be DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This case involves the takedown of a network of methamphetamine distributors and dealers centering on Jesus Amaya. By the time of trial, essentially all of the principals to Mr. Amaya's drug conspiracy had pled guilty. See, e.g., Doc. 104, J.C. Plea Hearing; Doc. 113, C.T. Plea Hearing; Doc. 148, J.A. Plea Hearing. The United States decided to proceed with the prosecution of the sole remaining defendant, Roberto Thomas, an alleged accomplice and occasional lookout for Juan Caballero, who was one of Mr. Amaya's couriers. The United States charged Mr. Thomas with knowingly possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it. Doc. 201, Superseding Indictment. The United States also indicted Mr. Thomas as a participant in the mehtamphetamine conspiracy, but was forced to drop this charge based on a lack of evidence. See Doc. 214, Clerk's Minutes.

I. DEA Investigation and Pre-Trial Rulings

Prior to the prosecution and conviction of Mr. Amaya and his co-conspirators, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") had conducted an extensive investigation of Mr. Amaya's illegal business activities which included the use of a confidential informant. See generally Doc. 92, Opp. to Suppression Motion, at 1-2 (describing background investigation). Before the day of his arrest, Mr. Thomas had apparently never been implicated by the DEA investigation of Mr. Amaya and his illicit business. Trial of Roberto Thomas, April 20, 2016, at 2:56. Furthermore, one of Mr. Thomas's alleged co-conspirators explained under oath at a closed pre-trial proceeding that Mr. Thomas was not involved in the alleged conspiracy and had no knowledge of the drug transaction that occurred on the day of Mr. Thomas's arrest. See Doc. 206, Clerk's Minutes (documenting conference re potential Brady issue). Perhaps for this reason, counsel for the United States made the tactical decision not to present at trial any of the evidence it had obtained regarding events prior to the date of Mr. Thomas's arrest, including co-conspirator testimony and the results of the DEA investigation, and decided instead only to present evidence obtained from the events that occurred on the day of Mr. Thomas's arrest. Doc. 207, Order Re Hearsay, at 1-2 (summarizing the evidence the government represented to the Court that it did not intend to introduce).

Given the concern that the United States would perhaps inadvertently attempt to solicit testimony regarding the larger DEA investigation, Mr. Thomas moved in limine to limit the hearsay and speculative testimony of witnesses for the United States - essentially forcing the prosecution to commit to its apparent strategy. Doc. 190, MIL Re Hearsay; Doc. 191, MIL Re Speculation. Before trial, the United States presented its witness list, which indicated that the United States did not intend to present any co-conspirator testimony, confidential informant testimony, or other witnesses that could tie Mr. Thomas to the conspiracy. See Doc. 181, United States Witness List (listing only arresting and interrogating officers as witnesses). The United States' proposed exhibit list contained a mere four exhibits, all of which pertained to the events on the day of Mr. Thomas's arrest and none of which appeared to link Mr. Thomas to the alleged conspiracy. See Doc. 179, United States Exhibit List. Responding to Mr. Thomas's motions in limine, the United States fully admitted that it did not intend to introduce any evidence tying Mr. Thomas to the alleged conspiracy other than the fact that he was arrested on the same day at the same location as the co-conspirators. Doc. 192, Opp. to MIL Re Hearsay, at 3-7; see Doc. 207, Order Re Hearsay, at 1-2. Instead, the United States argued that any testimony regarding the investigation into the larger drug conspiracy, which did not appear to produce any evidence implicating Mr. Thomas, would not be offered "for the truth of the matter asserted" and would instead only be offered to contextualize "the progression of the investigation and surveillance[.]" Doc. 192, Opp. to MIL Re Hearsay, at 3-7.

The Court granted in part Mr. Thomas's motions and expressed concern regarding the prosecution's decision not to present any evidence that directly tied Mr. Thomas to Mr. Amaya's illegal methamphetamine business, including any evidence that Mr. Amaya or the other co-conspirators were even aware of Mr. Thomas's existence. See Doc. 207, Order Re Hearsay, at 1-7; Doc. 208, Order Re Speculation. The Court specifically cautioned the United States that "[b]ased on the government's representations, the Court will not address the admissibility of [testimony regarding Mr. Amaya's illegal methamphetamine business prior to the distribution of methamphetamine scheduled for the day of the arrest], but does caution the government that, should it decide at any point to introduce such testimony, it must first seek permission from the Court to do so." Doc. 207, Order Re Hearsay, at 1-2. The Court further excluded as testimonial hearsay in violation of the Confrontation Clause and the Federal Rules of Evidence any testimony that was not based on first-hand knowledge of the drug investigation and was instead premised on confidential informant testimony that would not be presented in Court. Doc. 207, Order Re Hearsay, at 1-9 (relying on extensive Tenth Circuit precedent).

Furthermore, relying on representations by the United States that arguments inferring guilt from Mr. Thomas's flight would not be elicited, the Court specifically declined to rule on whether the United States could rely on evidence of Mr. Thomas's flight from a vehicle on the day of his arrest to prove Mr. Thomas's mental state regarding the offenses charged. Doc. 208, Order Re Speculation, at 1-2 (declining to rule on the issue based on representations that the government would not attempt to argue that "'people typically don't flee' after vehicle accidents."). Again, the Court specifically declined to rule on the issue, stating that "[b]ased on the government's representations, the Court will not address the admissibility of [evidence inferring guilt from Mr. Thomas's flight], but does caution the government that, should it decide at any point to introduce such testimony, it must first seek permission from the Court to do so." Id.

The Court also ordered a telephonic status conference prior to trial to further understand the unusual decisions made by counsel for both parties regarding the decision not to present substantive evidence in support of the conspiracy charge, including co-conspirator testimony from the alleged co-conspirators that had pled guilty and were awaiting sentencing. See Doc. 206, Clerk's Minutes re Status Conference.

II. Evidence Presented at Trial

The evidence presented at trial was as follows:

1. In 2013, Mr. Thomas worked for a man named Juan Caballero at an auto shop. Trial of Roberto Thomas, April 21, 2016, at 3:08-09 pm.

2. On May 8, 2013, Juan Caballero's GMC El Caballero contained 1.334 kg of methamphetamine. The methamphetamine was found wrapped in cellophane near the center console of the El Caballero inside a rumpled, nondescript brown paper bag. Trial of Roberto Thomas, April 21, 2016, at 10:11-12 am. 3. Mr. Thomas was a passenger of Juan Caballero on May 8, 2013 when Juan Caballero was arrested. Trial of Roberto Thomas, April 21, 2016, at 11:05 am.

4. The arrest was conducted by force. An unmarked police vehicle rammed Mr. Caballero's El Caballero, whereupon Mr. Thomas and Mr. Caballero fled the El Caballero and the police gave chase. Many of the United States' witnesses were suspiciously unable to recall the details regarding police ramming of the El Caballero, but recalled with remarkable clarity the details of the foot chase and actual arrest. Trial of Roberto Thomas, April 20, 2016, at 2:34-2:55 pm; 3:18-3:40 pm; 4:20-25 pm; Trial of Roberto Thomas, April 21, 2016, at 10:00-10:29 am. Both parties spent an inordinate amount of time litigating this series of events, although the Court did not find either of the events particularly useful in assessing whether Mr. Thomas was guilty of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it.

5. Mr. Thomas was arrested and, eventually, Mirandized and interrogated by Officer Davis. Trial of Roberto Thomas, April 21, 2016, at 2:42-43 pm. Officer Davis was not involved in the arrest of Mr. Thomas and appears to have been otherwise uninvolved in the investigation. See id. at 2:55 pm (stating that Officer Davis did not know why Mr. Thomas was arrested but that he "knew it was drug related" and that he "just conducted the interview.").

6. Mr. Thomas allegedly confessed to Officer Davis during police interrogation that he had previously received money "off the books" from Mr. Caballero by acting as a lookout and that he believed that Mr. Caballero was a dealer of narcotics,

...