Case Law United States v. Deleon

United States v. Deleon

Document Cited Authorities (133) Cited in (2) Related

[418 F.Supp.3d 712]

Fred Federici, Attorney for the United States, Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515, Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- 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.

Leon Encinias, Lean Encinias Attorney at Law, Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Pedro Pineda, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorneys 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.

Steven Lorenzo Almanza, Las Cruces, New Mexico --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.

Richard Jewkes, El Paso, Texas --and-- Lauren Noriega, The Noriega Law Firm, Los Angeles, California --and-- Amy E. Jacks, Law Office of Amy E. Jacks, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant Daniel Sanchez.

George A. Harrison, Las Cruces, New Mexico --and-- Kimberly S. Brusuelas-Benavidez, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Gerald Archuleta.

B.J. Crow, Crow Law Firm, Roswell, New Mexico, Attorneys 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.

Donavon A. Roberts, Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Lisa Torraco, 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.

Keith R. Romero, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Paul Rivera.

Angela Arellanes, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Shauna Gutierrez.

Jerry A. Walz, Walz and Associates, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Brandy Rodriguez.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[418 F.Supp.3d 713]

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the United States' Notice of Proposed James Statements for Trial 2, filed

[418 F.Supp.3d 714]

March 8, 2018 (Doc. 1903)("James Notice"); (ii) Defendant Billy Garcia's Targeted Response to United States Notice of Proposed James Statements for Trial 2 (Doc. No. 1903), filed March 9, 2018 (Doc. 1909)("B. Garcia Response"); (iii) General Response to United States Notice of Proposed James Statements for Trial 2 (Doc. 1903), filed March 9, 2018 (Doc. 1910)("General James Response");1 (iv) United States' Sealed Opposed Motion In Limine Regarding Statements Against Penal Interest Under Rule 804(b)(3), filed March 10, 2018 (Doc. 1912)("804(b)(3) MIL"); (v) Response to United States Notice of Proposed James Statements for Trial II (Doc. 1901), filed March 11, 2018 (Doc. 1914)("Gutierrez Response"); (vi) Response to United States Notice of Proposed James Statements for Trial 2 (Doc. 1901), filed March 11, 2018 (Doc. 1916)("C. Chavez Response"); (vii) Andrew Gallegos' Response to United States Notice of Proposed James Statements for Trial 2 (Doc. 1903), filed March 11, 2018 (Doc. 1917)("A. Gallegos Response"); (viii) Defendant Joe Gallegos' Response to the United State's [sic] Notice of Proposed James Statements (Doc. 1903), filed March 12, 2018 (Doc. 1918)("J. Gallegos Response"); (ix) Edward Troup's Specific Response to United States Notice of Proposed James Statements for Trial 2 (Doc. No. 1901), filed March 12, 2018 (Doc. 1920)("Troup Response"); (x) Allen Patterson's Response to the United States Notice of Proposed James Statements (Doc. 1903), filed March 14, 2018 (Doc. 1939)("Patterson Response"); (xi) United States' Notice Regarding James Statements From Trial 1, filed March 15, 2018 (Doc. 1944)("Trial 1 James Notice"); (xii) Supplement to Defendant Billy Garcia's Targeted Response to United States Notice of Proposed James Statements for Trial 2 (Doc. No. 1903), filed March 31, 2018 (Doc. 2009)("B. Garcia Supplement"); and (xiii) Brief in Support of Inapplicability of of [sic] Fed. R. 803(b)(3) [sic] (Doc. Nos. 1909 and 2009), filed April 6, 2018 (Doc. 2085)("B. Garcia Brief"). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on March 12-16, 2018. See Transcript of Motion Proceedings (taken March 12, 2018), filed April 3, 2018 (Doc. 2026)("March 12 Tr."); Transcript of Motions Hearing (taken March 13, 2018), filed April 3, 2018 (Doc. 2027)("March 13 Tr."); Transcript of Motion Proceedings (taken March 14, 2018), filed April 3, 2018 (Doc. 2028)("March 14 Tr."); Transcript of Motion Proceedings (taken March 15, 2018), filed April 3, 2018 (Doc. 2029)("March 15 Tr."); Transcript of Motions Hearing (taken March 16, 2018), filed April 3, 2018 (Doc. 2030)("March 16 Tr."). The primary issues are (i) whether admitting the statements identified in the Proffer Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) and Objections, filed March 8, 2018 (Doc. 1903-1)("James Proffer"), which the Plaintiff United States of America attaches to its James Notice, would offend the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; (ii) whether admitting non-testifying Defendants' statements would violate the Confrontation Clause; (iii) whether the James Proffer statements are admissible for their truth -- and if so, against whom -- under rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence ; (iv) whether the non-testifying Defendants' statements are admissible as statements against interest under rule 804(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence ; and (v) whether the James statements from the first trial in this case are admissible in the second trial under rule 801(d)(2)(E). The Court concludes that

[418 F.Supp.3d 715]

none of the James Proffer statements or the non-testifying Defendants' statements are testimonial, so admitting them raises no Confrontation Clause issues. The Court also concludes that some -- but not all -- of the James Proffer statements are admissible under rule 801(d)(2)(E) for their truth against some -- but not all -- of the Defendants, while other James Proffer statements are admissible for their truth under different rules. Finally, the Court determines that some of the non-testifying Defendants' statements are admissible for their truth against all the Defendants as declarations against interest under rule 804(b)(3), while other statements are admissible for their truth against only the declarant under rule 801(d)(2)(A...

2 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado – 2019
Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. U.S. Olympic Comm.
"...418 F.Supp.3d 673PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,v.UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, Defendant.Civil Action No. 19-cv-01231-CMA-KMTUnited States District ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma – 2021
United States v. Ashford
"...applies only to reports of what the declarant has actually observed through the senses, not to what the declarant merely conjectures.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). In the audio recording of the 911 call, the caller clearly relates the activities observed that prompted the call for help..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado – 2019
Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. U.S. Olympic Comm.
"...418 F.Supp.3d 673PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,v.UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, Defendant.Civil Action No. 19-cv-01231-CMA-KMTUnited States District ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma – 2021
United States v. Ashford
"...applies only to reports of what the declarant has actually observed through the senses, not to what the declarant merely conjectures.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). In the audio recording of the 911 call, the caller clearly relates the activities observed that prompted the call for help..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex