United States v. Oseguera-Gonzalez

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. RUBEN OSEGUERA-GONZALEZ, Defendant.

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 16-229 (BAH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

August 5, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Beryl A. Howell Judge

Defendant Ruben Oseguera-Gonzalez faces trial on September 9, 2024, on a two-count superseding indictment, arising from his alleged drug trafficking and use and possession of a firearm in furtherance thereof. This is not the first trial date set in this case. The first trial date, scheduled for May 1,2023, at the parties' joint request, see Min. Order (June 1, 2022), was vacated after the parties jointly requested a change of plea hearing, see Joint Mot. to Set Plea Hr'g, ECF No. 44, which change of plea hearing was aborted, when the evening before the hearing, defendant advised he had retained new counsel, who was unprepared to proceed to trial on the scheduled date, see Min Entry (Apr. 12, 2023). Pending before the Court are defendant's Motion to Preclude the Use of Defendant's Statements Made During the Course of Plea Negotiations (“Def.'s Mot.”), ECF No. 137, and the government's corresponding Motion in Limine to Admit Signed Statement of Facts and Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Preclude Use of the Same (“Gov't's MIL”), ECF Nos. 144 (sealed), 146 (public, redacted). For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion is GRANTED, and the government's motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

As part of an extensive and long-term investigation into the drug trafficking activities of the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (“CJNG”), a large and violent drug trafficking organization based in Jalisco, Mexico responsible for trafficking bulk quantities of cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin into the United States, the Drug Enforcement Agency identified defendant as the son of Nemesio Oseguera-Cervantes, also known as “Mencho,” who is the leader of the CJNG, and as a high-ranking participant in CJNG's drug trafficking. See Gov't's Mot. for Pre-Trial Det. (“Gov't's Det. Mot.”) at 2, 6, ECF No. 13. In February 2017, the government filed a two-count superseding indictment against defendant, charging him with conspiring, from around 2007 until February 1, 2017, to distribute five kilograms of more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, as well as 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, for unlawful importation into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 959(a), 960, and 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count One); and using, carrying, brandishing, and possessing a firearm, including a destructive device, in furtherance of the drug trafficking offense charged in Count One, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 924(c)(1)(B)(ii), and 2 (Count Two). See Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 6. Defendant was extradited from Mexico to Washington, D.C. on February 20, 2020, to face prosecution on the Superseding Indictment, see Gov't's Det. Mot. at 2.

For over three years, the parties engaged in extensive discovery. As noted, upon joint motion by the parties, a trial on all charges was scheduled for early May 2023. See Min. Order (June 1, 2022) (scheduling trial for May 1, 2023); Notice of Rescheduled Hr'g (Jan. 11, 2023) (rescheduling trial for May 2, 2023); see also Joint Mot. to Exclude Time & Set Trial Date, ECF No. 39. The day before pretrial motions were due, and approximately two weeks before the pretrial conference, the parties jointly moved for a plea hearing. See Joint Mot. to Set Plea Hr'g. A plea hearing was scheduled for April 12, 2023. See Min. Order (Mar. 21, 2023). In preparation, the government filed a Second Superseding Information, ECF No. 48, and the parties entered into a plea agreement (“Plea Agreement”), with an accompanying statement of facts (“SOF”), see Gov't's MIL, Ex. A (“Plea Agreement”), ECF No. 146-2; Gov't's MIL, Ex. C (“Plea Addendum”), ECF No. 144-1; Gov't's MIL, Ex. B (“SOF”), ECF No. 146-3.^[1] Defendant and his counsel signed both the Plea Agreement and SOF on April 6, 2023, see Plea Agreement at 9; Plea Addendum at 8; SOF at 7, and defense counsel emailed the signed paperwork to the Court on the same day, see Gov't's MIL at 2-3.

On the evening of April 11, 2023, just before the scheduled plea hearing, the government learned that defendant's family had retained new defense counsel, Arturo Hernandez, see Gov't's Mot. for Conflict Inquiry (“Gov't's Conflict Mot.”) at 2, ECF No. 50, and that defendant wanted to confer with Hernandez prior to pleading guilty, see Gov't's MIL at 3. Concerned that a conflict might arise because several of defendant's co-conspirators in the drug conspiracy charged in Count One are members of defendant's family, the government moved for a conflict inquiry and appointment of conflicts counsel. Gov't's Conflict Mot. at 2; see also Gov't's Mot. for Appointment of Conflicts Couns. at 1, ECF No. 60.^[2] To address the parties' concerns, the plea hearing was converted into a status hearing, see Min. Entry (Apr. 12, 2023), the government's motion for a conflict inquiry and appointment of conflicts counsel was granted, and the May 2023 trial date was vacated “to give the conflicts counsel time to evaluate a potential conflict and submit a report to the Court,” Min. Entry (Apr. 21, 2023).

After investigating the matter, the conflicts counsel found no actual conflict and that defendant expressly waived any possible or potential conflict. See Rep. of Indep. Couns. at 7, ECF No. 66; see also Hr'g Tr. (May 12, 2023) at 17-18, ECF No. 108 (the Court finding that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived any conflict). At the conflict hearing on May 12, 2023, the Court reviewed with defendant “all of the various issues that are at issue when there is a potential conflict,” Hr'g Tr. (May 12, 2023) at 11, which included asking the government for its position on how Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 410 would apply to “any statements made by this defendant to the government, either orally or signed in a written statement as part of any plea discussions that occurred,” if defendant chose not to enter a guilty plea, id. at 8. The government stated its position that the SOF is not “a statement that is made in furtherance of plea negotiations,” but a “final statement” that is “the result of the plea negotiations” and “can be used against him” if defendant “withdraw[s] from th[e] plea agreement.” Id. at 9-10. Though “not making any kind of ruling” about the admissibility of “the signed paperwork and other oral statements that may have been made in connection with the plea,” the Court confirmed with defendant and his counsel that they understood the government's position and the consequences thereof. Id. at 10. Hernandez acknowledged that he discussed with defendant the government's position, adding that he had advised defendant that the plea documents would likely be inadmissible, having been allegedly “read to him by a noncertified court interpreter.” Id. at 12. Given that the purpose of the hearing was to ascertain conflict, not evaluate the admissibility of defendant's SOF, no ruling was issued on whether defendant waived his rights under procedural or evidentiary rules. Hernandez was permitted to appear as defense counsel, and prior counsels' motion to withdraw was granted. See id. at 18; Min. Entry (May 12, 2023) (excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act from May 12, 2023, to September 15, 2023, “to give new counsel and his client the time to start reviewing the discovery and decide how to proceed in this matter”).^[3]

At the next status conference four months later, a trial on all charges was scheduled for October 7, 2024, upon joint request of the parties. See Min. Entry (Sept. 15, 2023); Min. Order (Sept. 15, 2023). The parties informed the Court, however, that they were still engaged in plea negotiations, and that the Plea Agreement would be kept open until October 16, 2023. See Hr'g Tr. (Sept. 15, 2023) at 6, ECF No. 106. While noting that the issue was unresolved and the parties “may want to litigate” the issue, the Court again notified defendant of “the potential risk” that the “signed statement of facts may be used against him at trial.” Id. at 7. Defense counsel confirmed that he and defendant “have discussed that at length,” and that defendant “understands the risk and he understands the benefits.” Id.

After the October 16, 2023, deadline passed without a change of plea hearing, the Second Superseding Information was dismissed on the government's motion, see Min. Order (Oct. 17, 2023); Gov't's Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 73, and the trial date was rescheduled, with the parties' consent, to September 9, 2024, see Min. Order (Nov. 27, 2023).

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 11 and FRE 410 limit the admissibility of “a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(f) (providing that “admissibility or inadmissibility” is governed by FRE 410). In relevant part, FRE 410 makes inadmissible against a defendant any statement the defendant “made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea,” FED. R. EVID. 410(a)(4), with two specifically delineated exceptions not at issue here, see FED. R. EVID. 410(b).

Defendant concedes that the statements made by him during plea negotiations are admissible for impeachment or rebuttal purposes. See Def.'s Mot. at 1-2; Gov't's MIL at 1 n.l. Thus, the scope of the instant dispute is narrow: whether the government may admit defendant's signed SOF in its case-in-chief.^[4] Relying on Rule 11(f) and FRE 410 defendant argues that the government...