United States v. Vasquez

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE LUIS BARATA VASQUEZ, Defendant.

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 6:22-CR-017-CHB-1

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London

May 9, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

CLARIA HORN BOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on four motions filed by Defendant Jose Luis Barata Vasquez. First, Vasquez filed a Motion to Sever, [R. 264]. The United States promptly filed a response in opposition, [R. 267]. The Court then entered an order expediting Defendant Vasquez's reply, [R. 269]. No reply has been filed and the time to do so has expired. Vasquez next filed a Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Speedy Trial (“Motion to Dismiss”), [R. 290], and a Motion to Exclude Untimely Disclosed Evidence, [R. 293]. The United States filed a response to both motions, [R. 300], and Vasquez replied, [R. 304]. The Court ordered supplemental briefing. [R. 305]. The United States has since filed its Supplemental Response, [R. 308], and Vasquez failed to timely file a Supplemental Reply. However, he has now filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply out of Time, [R. 310] which the Court will grant. As for the remaining motions each of which is ripe for review, the Court will deny the Motion to Sever, [R. 264]; deny the Motion to Dismiss, [R 290], and deny the Motion to Exclude Untimely Disclosed Evidence, [R. 293].

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from a single-count multi-defendant Indictment. [R. 1 (Indictment)]; see also [R. 54 (Superseding Indictment)]. On March 24, 2022, Defendant Vasquez and three other co-defendants were charged with a single count of conspiring to knowingly and intentionally distribute a quantity of pills containing oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. [R. 1]. On April 28, 2022, the Grand Jury returned a Superseding Indictment adding seven other co-defendants and a forfeiture allegation. [R. 54]. Like the initial Indictment, the Superseding Indictment joined these defendants on a single count: conspiring to knowingly and intentionally distribute a quantity of pills containing oxycodone. Id. Defendant Vasquez's initial appearance and arraignment on the Superseding Indictment took place on May 10, 2022. [R. 70]. The matter remained set for trial on May 31, 2022. [R. 70].

On May 13, 2022, the United States filed its first Motion to Continue, noting that one defendant (Christopher King) had not yet been arrested or arraigned, no defendant had requested severance nor was severance appropriate, and voluminous discovery was involved. [R. 91]. In that same motion, the United States asked the Court to declare the matter complex pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B). Id. at 2. At the Court's direction, the United States also filed a supplement to explain why the case should be considered complex. [R. 128; R. 129]. With the exception of Vasquez, all Defendants either responded without objection or failed to respond, which was construed as a lack of objection. See [R. 130, p. 1-2]. Vasquez, however, objected to the continuance due to the delay caused by the Superseding Indictment. [R. 123]. He did not, however, object to the United States' request to declare the case complex. See [R. 130, p. 3 n.4].^[1] The Court ultimately granted the motion, finding the case complex after citing to the following facts: the case involved eleven defendants; the underlying conspiracy involved a Louisville-based drug trafficking organization that allegedly distributed upwards of 100,000 oxycodone pills to persons in multiple Eastern Kentucky counties; the investigation into this conspiracy had lasted over a year and involved multiple law enforcement agencies, based both in and outside of Kentucky; there was voluminous discovery stemming from this investigation; and said discovery was still growing and included pole camera video surveillance, search warrants, bank records, ping data, recorded interviews, and at least two Title III wiretaps. Id. at 2-3. The Court also overruled Vasquez's objection to the continuance, noting that continued incarceration alone was insufficient to deny the continuance and the complexity of the case required additional time for trial preparations. Id. at 3-4. The Court therefore granted a continuance, noting the complexity of the case under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B) and the fact that one co-defendant was still unavailable. Id. at 4. The trial was rescheduled for August 30, 2022. Id. at 5.

On August 3, 2022, Defendants Christopher King and Allison Renee Rogers filed Motions to Continue. [R. 173; R. 176]. Defendant Vasquez objected; no other defendant objected. See [R. 189]. The Court granted a continuance, citing to its prior order declaring the case complex and explaining that “this case is so unusual or so complex that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by 18 U.S.C. § 3161.” [R. 190, p. 4]. In doing so, the Court overruled Vasquez's objection, explaining that he had failed to state any basis for denying the motion and continued incarceration, without more, was insufficient, especially in a complex case. Id. at 2. The Court also noted that co-defendant King had only recently been detained and able to meet with his hired counsel. Id. The trial was rescheduled for November 1, 2022. Id. at 3.

On October 10, 2022, Defendant Kaid Rogers filed a Motion to Continue. [R. 209]. Defendant Vasquez objected; no other defendant objected. See [R. 225]. The Court granted the continuance, citing to the Court's prior order declaring the case complex and finding that “this case is so unusual or so complex that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by 18 U.S.C. § 3161.” [R. 226, p. 3]. In doing so, the Court overruled Vasquez's objection, explaining that he had failed to state any basis for denying the motion and continued incarceration, without more, was insufficient, especially in a complex case. Id. at 2. The trial was rescheduled for January 31, 2023. Id.

On December 22, 2022, Defendant Samuel Barger filed a Motion to Continue, [R. 227]. Defendant Vasquez objected; no other defendant objected. See [R. 236]. The Court granted the continuance, again citing to its prior order declaring the case complex and finding that “this case is so unusual or so complex that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by 18 U.S.C. § 3161.” [R. 241, p. 3]. In doing so, the Court overruled Vasquez's objection, explaining that he had failed to state any basis for denying the motion and continued incarceration, without more, was insufficient, especially in a complex case. Id. at 2. The trial was rescheduled for April 11, 2023. Id. at 2.

On March 10, 2023, Defendant Alexey Barata Hernandez filed a Motion to Continue, [R. 261]. Defendant Vasquez objected; no other defendant objected. See [R. 263]. Defendant Vasquez also filed the present Motion to Sever, [R. 264]. The Court granted the continuance, again citing to its prior order declaring the case complex and finding that “this case is so unusual or so complex that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by 18 U.S.C. § 3161.” [R. 284 pp. 2-3]. In doing so, the Court again overruled Vasquez's objection, explaining that he had failed to state any explanation or support for his arguments that the Court's prior orders were “in error” and certain discovery should be excluded. Id. at 2. Further, the Court again explained that continued incarceration, without more, was an insufficient basis for denying a continuance. Id. The trial has now been rescheduled for July 24, 2023. Id.

In its order granting Defendant Hernandez's Motion to Continue, the Court explained that it would rule on Vasquez's Motion to Sever by separate order. Id. The Court was prepared to enter an order disposing of that motion on April 10, 2023. See [R. 292]. However, Vasquez filed his Motion to Dismiss that same day. [R. 290]. Given the overlapping issues in the Motion to Sever and the Motion to Dismiss, the Court refrained from ruling on the Motion to Sever until the Motion to Dismiss ripened. Id. Shortly thereafter, Vasquez filed his Motion to Exclude Untimely Disclosed Evidence, [R. 293]. The three pending motions are now ripe. [R. 267; R. 300; R. 304; R. 308; R. 310-1].

Meanwhile, on March 29, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram conducted a telephonic status conference “regarding progress of discovery and potential scheduling issues.” [R. 288 (Status Conference Minutes)]. During that call, the United States explained that they “just got a load of materials” the week prior, including “phone dumps” that had recently been translated from Spanish, a phone dump from Defendant Christopher King, and some redacted proffers. Id. The United States advised that it would provide these materials to defense counsel within two weeks and would also “separate the relevant portions of the pole-camera videos for the defense.” Id. Given the amount of discovery forthcoming at that time, Vasquez's counsel requested that new defensive-motions deadlines be set. Id. The Court granted that request and allowed any defensive motions to be filed on or before May 19, 2023. Id.

The Court has since entered several orders directing the United States to provide status updates on the progress of discovery. See [R. 291 (Order for Status Report); R 292 (Order for Status Report); R. 296 (Order for Status Report); R. 301 ...