Free Response in Opposition - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 1 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

KAREN P. HEWITT United States Attorney STEWART M. YOUNG Assistant U.S. Attorney California State Bar No. 234889 United States Attorney's Office Federal Office Building 880 Front Street, Room 6293 San Diego, California 92101-8893 Telephone: (619) 557-6228 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) ) JOSE LUIS SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CRIMINAL CASE NO . 3:08-CR-2104 L DATE: TIME: July 21, 2007 2:00 P.M.

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS [13-1] TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS; [13-2] TO SEVER COUNT 1 FROM COUNTS 2-7; [13-3] TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND PRESERVE EVIDENCE; AND [13-4] TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER MOTIONS. TOGETHER WITH A STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, AND GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS FOR: (1) RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through its counsel, KAREN P. HEWITT, United States Attorney, and Stewart M. Young, Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files its Response and Opposition to Defendant's Motions to Suppress Statements, to Sever Counts, to Compel Discovery, and its Motion for Reciprocal Discovery. This response and motion is based upon the files and records of the case together with the attached statement of facts and memorandum of points and authorities.

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 2 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I STATEMENT OF THE CASE On June 24, 2008, the Government filed a seven-count indictment charging Jose Luis SaldanaRodriguez ("Defendant") with three counts of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, bringing an alien into the United States for financial gain and aiding and abetting, and three counts of violating 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II), transportation of an alien, as well as another count of transporting an alien. On June 24, 2008, Defendant was arraigned on the Indictment and entered a plea of not guilty. II STATEMENT OF FACTS On June 6, 2008, around 5:00 a.m., Border Patrol Agent Maurilio Vargas received a call from a scope operator of a large group of individuals running north in an area known as "East Smuggler's." The area of "East Smuggler's" is located approximately 3 miles west of the San Ysidro, California, Port of Entry and about 200 yards north of the United States/Mexico international boundary. Agent Vargas responded to the area and encountered twenty-two individuals attempting to conceal themselves in dense brush. Agent Vargas observed that members of the group were wearing what appeared to be socks over their shoes. Agent Vargas identified himself as a Border Patrol agent and performed an immigration inspection. Every person, including defendant, admitted to being a citizen and national of Mexico, and not in possession of documents allowing him or her to enter or remain in the United States. At around 5:42 a.m., all twenty-two individuals were transported to the Imperial Beach Border Patrol Station for processing. At that station, it was discovered that defendant had a prior smuggling arrest for the day before, June 5, 2008. A. Defendant's Statements On June 6, 2008, a little more than an hour after being transported to the Border Patrol Station, agents read defendant his Miranda rights. Defendant elected to answer questions post-Miranda. Defendant admitted that he was a citizen of Mexico and that he did not have legal immigration documents that would allow him to stay in the United States legally. He admitted that on that day he crossed the fence. He admitted that "today my part was only to get there to San Diego . . . [and] I was

2

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 3 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

going to be in charge of . . . if we got there, of getting these people from there, from San Diego, to Los Angeles." He admitted that the day before, on June 5, 2008, he was caught in San Clemente driving a car with 6 undocumented aliens. He stated that for that day, he was hired by a person called Tony to drive the car and that Tony was going to pay him $200. He also admitted he was going to take those people to Los Angeles on June 5, 2008. Regarding the event on June 6, 2008, defendant stated that instead of twenty-two individuals, there were actually "around 35" and that he was one of the ones at the end (of the group). He stated that he was there "as an alien" and that he "wasn't going to be charged, . . . but [] was going to be crossed." He stated that the smugglers "weren't going to charge[] me" and further explained that "Tony is like a person in charge" and "he's the one who . . . pays me." Defendant further explained that there was another boss over Tony, and that Tony was the person who paid defendant. He stated where the group of people were going to be taken once they had been picked up, and then he further stated that he was a smuggler himself. One material witness, Martha Reyna-Giles, explained that she crossed with a large group and that she was paying between $2400 and $2500 to be smuggled to Los Angeles. She further stated that while she did not know defendant's role on the June 6, 2008 event, he was the driver that was taking her to Los Angeles on June 5, 2008. III DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT BE SUPPRESSED Defendant moves to suppress any statements taken in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 396 U.S. 868 (1969) and claims that the Government must prove that Defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights were voluntary, knowing and intelligent. First, the rights given to Defendant were plain and

unambiguous. And the Miranda advisal and the post-arrest statement were video recorded. Attached to this response is a copy of the transcript of the recorded interview taken on June 6, 2008. Given this, an evidentiary hearing in this case is simply unnecessary and a waste of judicial resources. A. The Government Properly Mirandized Defendant. In this case, Miranda warnings preceded custodial interrogation of Defendant. Attachment A, pages 1-3 include the entire rights colloquy for the defendant. Indeed, when a person has been deprived

3

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 4 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of his or her freedom of action in a significant way, Government agents must administer Miranda warnings prior to questioning the person. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Such a requirement, however, has two components: (1) custody, and (2) interrogation. Id. at 477-78. B. Defendant Waived His Miranda Rights and Agreed to Speak with Agents No threats, physical intimidation, or psychological pressure was exerted by the agents to induce Defendant's statements. Hutto v. Ross, 429 U.S. 28, 30 (1976); Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307 (1963). The transcript of the hearing makes this clear. When asked "At any time . . . during this interview were you threatened?" Defendant's response was, "No." Attachment A, at 14:430-432. When asked, "Could you assure me that all your answers were given freely and voluntarily and that nothing was [] promised to you?" Defendant's response was, "Yes." Id. at 433-437. According to Davis v. Washington, 512 U.S. 452, 458 (1994), and United States v. Younger, 398 F.3d 1179, 1187 (9th Cir. 2005), officers are free to question a suspect as long as he or she effectively waives the right to counsel. In this case, defendant was asked whether he wanted to speak with agents after being read his Miranda rights. Defendant waived his Miranda rights and agreed to speak to agents. Defendant's post-arrest statements are admissible because, as demonstrated on the video recorded statement and the transcript, he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. A statement made in response to custodial interrogation is admissible under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 437 (1966) and 18 U.S.C. § 3501 if a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the statement was made after an advisement of rights, and was not elicited by improper coercion. See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167-70 (1986) (preponderance of evidence standard governs voluntariness and Miranda determinations; valid waiver of Miranda rights should be found in the "absence of police overreaching"). Although the totality of circumstances, including characteristics of the defendant and details of the interview, should be considered, improper coercive activity must occur for suppression of any statement. See id. (noting that "coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not `voluntary'"); cf. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226 (1973) ("Some of the factors taken into account have included the youth of the accused; his lack of education, or his low intelligence; the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights; the length of detention; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; and the use of physical punishment such as the

4

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 5 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

deprivation of food or sleep.") (citations omitted). While it is possible for a defendant to be in such a poor mental or physical condition that they cannot rationally waive their rights (and misconduct can be inferred based on police knowledge of such condition, Connelly, 479 U.S. at 167-68), the condition must be so severe that the defendant was rendered utterly incapable of rational choice. See United States v. Kelley, 953 F.2d 562, 564 (9th Cir.1992) (collecting cases rejecting claims of physical/mental impairment as insufficient to prevent exercise of rational choice). Here, Defendant was properly advised of his Miranda rights following arrest. Again, as demonstrated on the DVD recording and the transcript, Defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights and agreed to answer questions without the presence of an attorney. Contrary to Defendant's claim, the totality of the circumstances involved in this case demonstrates that Defendant statements were voluntary, and that he knowingly waived his rights and agreed to speak to agents after being provided the proper warnings. Any allegation to the contrary is inapposite to the plain text of the transcript, and as such, Defendant's motion to suppress his statements should be denied. Furthermore, no declaration is attached in accordance with the Local Court Rules. Given that defense counsel now has a copy of the interview transcript, if defendant chooses to file an addendum to his motion with a declaration, the United States requests the opportunity to further respond when such a declaration is submitted. IV COUNT ONE SHOULD NOT BE SEVERED FROM COUNTS TWO THROUGH SEVEN Defendant argues that count one should be severed from the other counts in the Indictment due to prejudice inherent in the joining of both the June 5, 2008 and June 6, 2008 incidents. According to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 8(a), the "indictment may charge a defendant in separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the offenses charged . . . are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with the or constitute parts of a common plan or scheme." According to defendant's own admissions, he was to drive aliens in the group to Los Angeles once they got to the stash house (incidentally, a stash house where he knew the actual location). Furthermore, defendant explained that he worked for Tony, that Tony paid him, and that he was getting smuggled in without a

5

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 6 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

fee on June 6, 2008 because he would drive aliens up to Los Angeles. In the previous incident, on June 5, 2008, the defendant was actually driving a group of aliens through a checkpoint, presumably towards the ultimate destination of Los Angeles. Clearly, the two events are of the same or similar character, based on the same act or transaction, and are clearly and definitely connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan. Accordingly, despite defendant's reference to Rule 14, the offenses listed in counts 1-7 are clearly linked, constitute part of a common scheme or plan, and should not be severed.

V GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY The United States intends to fully comply with its discovery obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Jenks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus far, the United States has produced 150 pages of discovery and a compact discs of statements. Defendant's specific requests are addressed below. (1) The Defendant's Statements The United States recognizes its obligation under Rule 16(a)(1)(A) and 16(a)(1)(B) to provide to Defendant the substance of Defendant's oral statements and Defendant's written statements. The United States has produced all of Defendant's oral and written statements that are known to the undersigned Assistant U.S. Attorney at this date and all available compact discs. If the United States discovers additional written or oral statements that require disclosure under Rule 16(a)(1)(A) or Rule 16(a)(1)(B), such statements will be provided to Defendant. The United States has no objection to the preservation of the handwritten notes taken by any of the United States' agents and officers. See United States v. Harris, 543 F.2d 1247, 1253 (9th Cir. 1976) (agents must preserve their original notes of interviews of an accused or prospective government witnesses). However, the United States objects to providing Defendant with a copy of any rough notes at this time. Rule 16(a)(1)(A) does not require disclosure of the rough notes where the content of those notes have been accurately reflected in a type-written report. See United States v. Brown, 303 F.3d 582, 590 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Coe, 220 F.3d 573, 583 (7th Cir. 2000) (Rule 16(a)(1)(A) does not require disclosure of an agent's notes even where there are "minor discrepancies" between the notes and

6

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 7 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a report). The United States is not required to produce rough notes pursuant to the Jencks Act, because the notes do not constitute "statements" (as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)) unless the notes (1) comprise both a substantially verbatim narrative of a witness' assertion, and (2) have been approved or adopted by the witness. United States v. Spencer, 618 F.2d 605, 606-07 (9th Cir. 1980). The rough notes in this case do not constitute "statements" in accordance with the Jencks Act. See United States v. Ramirez, 954 F.2d 1035, 1038-39 (5th Cir. 1992) (rough notes were not statements under the Jencks Act where notes were scattered and all the information contained in the notes was available in other forms). The notes are not Brady material because the notes do not present any material exculpatory information, or any evidence favorable to Defendants that is material to guilt or punishment. Brown, 303 F.3d at 595-96 (rough notes not Brady material because the notes were neither favorable to the defense nor material to defendant's guilt or punishment); United States v. Ramos, 27 F.3d 65, 71 (3d Cir. 1994) (mere speculation that agents' rough notes contained Brady evidence was insufficient). If, during a future evidentiary hearing, certain rough notes become discoverable under Rule 16, the Jencks Act, or Brady, the notes in question will be provided to the Defendants. (2) Arrest Reports, Notes and Dispatch Tapes The United States has provided the Defendant with arrest reports, including arrest reports for both the June 5th and June 6th incidents. As noted previously, agent rough notes, if any exist, will be preserved, but they will not be provided as part of Rule 16 discovery. The United States is unaware of any dispatch tapes regarding Defendant's apprehension, but has requested the Border Patrol to preserve these if they do exist. If the United States becomes aware of such dispatch tapes, and those tapes fall under Rule 16 discovery obligations, the United States will provide those tapes. (3) Brady Material Again, the United States is well aware of and will continue to perform its duty under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), to disclose exculpatory evidence within its possession that is material to the issue of guilt or punishment. Defendant, however, is not entitled to all evidence known or believed to exist which is, or may be, favorable to either of the accused, or which pertains to the credibility of the United States' case. As stated in United States v. Gardner, 611 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1980), it must be noted that "the prosecution does not have a

7

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 8 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

constitutional duty to disclose every bit of information that might affect the jury's decision; it need only disclose information favorable to the defense that meets the appropriate standard of materiality." Id. at 774-775 (citation omitted). The United States will turn over evidence within its possession which could be used to properly impeach a witness who has been called to testify. Although the United States will provide conviction records, if any, which could be used to impeach a witness, the United States is under no obligation to turn over the criminal records of all witnesses. United States v. Taylor, 542 F.2d 1023, 1026 (8th Cir. 1976). When disclosing such information, disclosure need only extend to witnesses the United States intends to call in its case-inchief. United States v. Gering, 716 F.2d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Angelini, 607 F.2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1979). Finally, the United States will continue to comply with its obligations pursuant to United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1991). (4) Sentencing Information Defendant claims that the United States must disclose any information affecting Defendant's sentencing guidelines because such information is discoverable under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The United States respectfully contends that it has no such disclosure obligation under Brady. The United States is not obligated under Brady to furnish a defendant with information which he already knows. United States v. Taylor, 802 F.2d 1108, 1118 n.5 (9th Cir. 1986). Brady is a rule of disclosure, and therefore, there can be no violation of Brady if the evidence is already known to the defendant. In such case, the United States has not suppressed the evidence and consequently has no Brady obligation. See United States v. Gaggi, 811 F.2d 47, 59 (2d Cir. 1987). But even assuming Defendant does not already possess the information about factors which might affect defendant's guideline ranges, the United States would not be required to provide information bearing on Defendant's mitigation of punishment until after Defendant's conviction or plea of guilty and prior to his sentencing date. See United States v. Juvenile Male, 864 F.2d 641, 647 (9th Cir. 1988) ("No [Brady] violation occurs if the evidence is disclosed to the defendant at a time when the disclosure remains in value."). Additionally, the United States is unaware of any cooperation, or even

8

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 9 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

attempted cooperation, provided by Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant's demand for this information is premature. (5) Defendant's Prior Record The United States will provide the Defendant with a copy of his criminal record in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(B). (6) Proposed 404(b) and 609 Evidence Should the United States seek to introduce any similar act evidence pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) or 609, the United States will provide Defendant with official notice of its proposed use of such evidence and information about such bad act at the time the United States' trial memorandum is filed. (7) Evidence Seized The United States has complied and will continue to comply with Rule 16(a)(1)(C) in allowing Defendant an opportunity, upon reasonable notice, to examine, copy and inspect physical evidence which is within the possession, custody or control of the United States, and which is material to the preparation of Defendant's defense or are intended for use by the United States as evidence in chief at trial, or were obtained from or belong to Defendant, including photographs. The United States, however, need not produce rebuttal evidence in advance of trial. United States v. Givens, 767 F.2d 574, 584 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 953 (1985). (8) Preservation of Evidence The United States will preserve all evidence to which Defendant is entitled pursuant to the relevant discovery rules. However, the United States objects to any blanket request to preserve all physical evidence. The United States has complied and will continue to comply with Rule 16(a)(1)(C) in allowing Defendant an opportunity, upon reasonable notice, to examine, copy and inspect physical evidence which is within his possession, custody or control of the United States, and which is material to the preparation of Defendant's defense or intended for use by the United States as evidence in chief at trial, or obtained from or belong to Defendant, including photographs. The United States has made the evidence available to Defendant and his investigators and will comply with any request for inspection.

9

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 10 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(9) Tangible Objects The United States has complied and will continue to comply with Rule 16(a)(1)(E) in allowing Defendant an opportunity, upon reasonable notice, to examine, inspect, and copy all tangible objects seized that is within its possession, custody, or control, and that is either material to the preparation of Defendant's defense, or intended for use by the United States as evidence during its case-in-chief at trial, or obtained from or belongs to Defendant. The United States need not, however, produce rebuttal evidence in advance of trial. United States v. Givens, 767 F.2d 574, 584 (9th Cir. 1984). (10) Evidence of Bias or Motive to Lie The United States is unaware of any evidence indicating that a prospective witness is biased or prejudiced against Defendant. The United States is also unaware of any evidence that prospective witnesses have a motive to falsify or distort testimony. (11) Impeachment Evidence As stated previously, the United States will turn over evidence within its possession which could be used to properly impeach a witness who has been called to testify. (12) Criminal Investigation of Government Witness Defendant is not entitled to any evidence that a prospective witness is under criminal investigation by federal, state, or local authorities. "[T]he criminal records of such [Government] witnesses are not discoverable." United States v. Taylor, 542 F.2d 1023, 1026 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Riley, 657 F.2d 1377, 1389 (8th Cir. 1981) (holding that since criminal records of prosecution witnesses are not discoverable under Rule 16, rap sheets are not either); cf. United States v. Rinn, 586 F.2d 113, 118-19 (9th Cir. 1978) (noting in dicta that "[i]t has been said that the Government has no discovery obligation under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(C) to supply a defendant with the criminal records of the Government's intended witnesses.") (citing Taylor, 542 F.2d at 1026). The United States will, however, provide the conviction record, if any, which could be used to impeach witnesses the United States intends to call in its case-in-chief. When disclosing such information, disclosure need only extend to witnesses the United States intends to call in its case-inchief. United States v. Gering, 716 F.2d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Angelini, 607 F.2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1979).

10

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 11 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(13) Evidence Affecting Perception, Recollection, Communication or Truth-Telling The United States is unaware of any evidence indicating that a prospective witness has a problem with perception, recollection, communication, or truth-telling. (14) Witness Addresses The United States has provided Defendant with the reports containing the names of the agents involved in the apprehension and interviews of Defendant for both the June 5, 2008 incident and the June 6, 2008 incident. A defendant in a non-capital case, however, has no right to discover the identity of prospective Government witnesses prior to trial. See Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977); United States v. Dishner, 974 F.2d 1502, 1522 (9th Cir 1992) (citing United States v. Steel, 759 F.2d 706, 709 (9th Cir. 1985)); United States v. Hicks, 103 F.23d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 1996). Nevertheless, in its trial memorandum, the United States will provide Defendants with a list of all witnesses whom it intends to call in its case-in-chief, although delivery of such a witness list is not required. See United States v. Discher, 960 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Mills, 810 F.2d 907, 910 (9th Cir. 1987). The United States objects to any request that it provide a list of every witness to the crimes charged who will not be called as a United States witness. "There is no statutory basis for granting such broad requests," and a request for the names and addresses of witnesses who will not be called at trial "far exceed[s] the parameters of Rule 16(a)(1)(C)." United States v. Hsin-Yung, 97 F. Supp.2d 24, 36 (D. D.C. 2000) (quoting United States v. Boffa, 513 F. Supp. 444, 502 (D. Del. 1980)). The United States is not required to produce all possible information and evidence regarding any speculative defense claimed by Defendants. Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1, 6-8 (1995) (per curiam) (holding that inadmissible materials that are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible exculpatory evidence are not subject to disclosure under Brady). (15) Name of Witnesses Favorable to the Defense The United States objects to any request that it provide a list of every witness to the crimes charged who will not be called as a United States witness. The United States has stated that it will comply with the request for its witness list before trial. "There is no statutory basis for granting such broad requests," and a request for the names and addresses of witnesses who will not be called at trial

11

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 12 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

"far exceed[s] the parameters of Rule 16(a)(1)(C)." United States v. Hsin-Yung, 97 F. Supp.2d 24, 36 (D. D.C. 2000) (quoting United States v. Boffa, 513 F. Supp. 444, 502 (D. Del. 1980)). The United States is not required to produce all possible information and evidence regarding any speculative defense claimed by Defendants. Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1, 6-8 (1995) (per curiam) (holding that inadmissible materials that are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible exculpatory evidence are not subject to disclosure under Brady). The United States will also comply with its discovery obligations regarding any exculpatory evidence that it might become aware of regarding the defendant. But absent these obligations, the United States is unaware of any witness that may be favorable to the defendant. As stated previously, the United States will turn over evidence within its possession which could be used to properly impeach a witness who has been called to testify. (16) Statements Relevant to the Defense The United States will continue to comply with its obligations under Brady, Jencks, Giglio, and Rule 16, as pertains to any statement relevant to the defense. However, the United States objects to the broad nature of this request for "any statement that may be `relevant to any possible defense or contention.'" (17) Jencks Act Material The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, requires that, after a United States witness has testified on direct examination, the United States must give the Defendant any "statement" (as defined by the Jencks Act) in its possession that was made by the witness relating to the subject matter to which the witness testified. 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b). A "statement" under the Jencks Act is (1) a written statement made by the witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him, (2) a substantially verbatim, contemporaneously recorded transcription of the witness's oral statement, or (3) a statement by the witness before a grand jury. 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e). If notes are read back to a witness to see whether or not the government agent correctly understood what the witness was saying, that act constitutes "adoption by the witness" for purposes of the Jencks Act. United States v. Boshell, 952 F.2d 1101, 1105 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94, 98 (1976)). While the United States is only required to produce all Jencks Act material after the witness testifies, the United States plans to provide most (if not all) Jencks Act material well in advance of trial to avoid any needless delays.

12

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 13 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Additionally, no witness who testified before the grand jury will testify at trial, so the United States does not anticipate that it will have to provide any of the Grand Jury transcripts to Defendant. (18) Giglio Information As stated previously, the United States will comply with its obligations pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Jencks Act, United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1991), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). (19) Agreements Between the Government and Witnesses The United States is unaware of any agreement between it and any cooperating witnesses, who have committed crimes, but were not charged, so that they may testify for the Government in this case. The United States will comply with all of its obligations under Brady, Giglio, Jencks Act, and Rule 16, regarding any potential cooperating witness, including any of the material witnesses. Again, at this time, the United States is unaware of any agreement between any of these potential witnesses, but will provide any relevant and pertinent information if such an agreement arises. (20) Informants and Cooperating Witnesses If the Government determines that there is a confidential informant whose identity is "relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause," it will disclose that person's identity to the Court for in-chambers inspection. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-61 (1957); United States v. Ramirez-Rangel, 103 F.3d 1501, 1505 (9th Cir. 1997). The

United States has already stated it will comply with its Brady, Giglio, Jencks Act, and further Rule 16 discovery obligations. The United States will comply with the structure of Roviaro if it determines that any confidential informant information is "relevant and helpful to the defense of [the] accused, or is essential to the fair determination of a cause." Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 60. As the Court is aware, the Supreme Court has declined to adopt an absolute rule requiring disclosure of an informant's identity whenever it is relevant or helpful to a defendant's case. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. at 62. Indeed, as the D.C. Circuit stated in United States v. Skeens, 449 F.2d 1066, 1071 (D.C. Cir.1971), a "heavy burden ... rests on an accused to establish that the identity of an informant is necessary to his defense." Id. at 1070. "Mere speculation" that an informant's testimony may assist the defendant is not sufficient to meet this burden. United States v. Mangum, 100

13

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 14 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

F.3d 164, 172 (D.C. Cir.1996). In determining whether the Defendant has met this burden, the Court must balance "the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare his defense," all the while "taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors." Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62. The United States will comply with its Rovario obligations, but it also requests that any information provided to the Defendants be subject to in camera review by the Court. (21) Bias by Informants or Cooperating Witnesses As stated in Section III(12), the United States is unaware of any evidence indicating that any prospective witness, whether Government agent, Informant, or Cooperating Witness, is biased or prejudiced against Defendant. The United States is also unaware of any evidence that prospective witnesses, whether Government agent, Informant, or Cooperating Witness, have a motive to falsify or distort testimony. It will comply with its Giglio obligations if it becomes aware of any indication of bias on behalf of any of these witnesses. (22) Government Examination of Law Enforcement Personnel Files - Henthorn Evidence Again, as stated previously in this Response, the United States will continue to comply with its obligations pursuant to United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1991). (23) Reports of Scientific Tests or Examination The United States will provide the results of any reports of scientific tests or examinations, should any be conducted. Additionally, United States will provide any expert summaries in a timely fashion prior to trial. At this time, the United States is aware of no tests or examinations which are material to the preparation of the defense or are intended for use by the United States at trial. (24) Residual Request The United States has already complied with Defendant's request for prompt compliance with its discovery obligations prior to Indictment. The United States will continue to comply with all of its discovery obligations, but objects to the broad nature of Defendant's further discovery requests. //

14

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 15 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

VI NO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER MOTIONS The United States does not object to the granting of leave to allow Defendants to file further motions, as long as the order applies equally to both parties and additional motions are based on newly discovered evidence or discovery provided by the United States subsequent to the instant motion at issue. VII MOTION FOR RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY The United States hereby moves for reciprocal discovery from the Defendant. To date Defendant has not provided any. The United States, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, requests that Defendant permit the United States to inspect, copy, and photograph any and all books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, or make copies of portions thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of Defendant and which Defendant intends to introduce as evidence in their case-in-chief at trial. The United States further requests that it be permitted to inspect and copy or photograph any results or reports of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests or experiments made in connection with this case, which are in the possession or control of Defendant, which Defendant intend to introduce as evidence-in-chief at the trial, or which were prepared by a witness whom Defendants intend to call as a witness. Because the United States will comply with Defendant's request for delivery of reports of examinations, the United States is entitled to the items listed above under Rule 16(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The United States also requests that the Court make such order as it deems necessary under Rules 16(d)(1) and (2) to ensure that the United States receives the discovery to which it is entitled. In addition, Rule 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the production of prior statements of all witnesses, except a statement made by Defendant. This rule thus provides for the reciprocal production of Jencks statements. The time frame established by the rule requires the statement to be provided after the witness has testified. To expedite trial proceedings, the United States hereby requests that Defendant be ordered to supply all prior statements of defense witnesses by a

15

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 16 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

reasonable date before trial to be set by the Court. Such an order should include any form in which these statements are memorialized, including but not limited to, tape recordings, handwritten or typed notes and/or reports. VIII CONCLUSION For the above stated reasons, the United States respectfully submits its Response and Opposition to Defendant's Motions for Discovery, and requests that its Motion for Reciprocal Discovery be granted. DATED: July 18, 2008. Respectfully Submitted, KAREN P. HEWITT United States Attorney s/Stewart M. Young STEWART M. YOUNG Assistant U.S. Attorney Email: [email protected]

16

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 17 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

JOSE LUIS SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Criminal Case No. 3:08-CR-2104 L

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT: I, Stewart M. Young, am a citizen of the United States and am at least eighteen years of age. My business address is 880 Front Street, Room 6293, San Diego, California 92101-8893. I am not a party to the above-entitled action. I have caused service of the United States' Response and Opposition to Defendant's Motions and the Government's Motion for Reciprocal Discovery on the following parties by electronically filing the foregoing with the Clerk of the District Court using its ECF System, which electronically notifies them. 1. Robert Henssler, Esq. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 18, 2008. s/ Stewart M. Young Stewart M. Young

17

08-CR-2104 L

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 1 of 18

APPENDIX A - TRANSCRIPT OF DEFENDANT'S JUNE 6, 2008 RECORDED INTERVIEW

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 2 of 18

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

FORENSIC BILINGUAL TRANSCRIPTION AND TRANSLATION

Interview on Digital Video File

US V. SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ 08CR2104

Prepared for Assistant U.S. Attorney Stewart Young

Certified by Carlos M. Izquierdo, USCCI Language Specialist and Chief Interpreter U.S. Attorney's Office

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 3 of 18

SUMMARY Jose Luis Saldana-Rodriguez, a defendant in an alien smuggling case, is interviewed in Spanish. The interview, which is reproduced on a DVD, is transcribed and translated below. The numbers in the middle column reflect the time as played back on Start-Stop Powerplay.

LEGEND SAL: NAV: DEFENDANT JOSE LUIS SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ BORDER PATROL AGENT JESUS NAVA

[IA]: [UI]: [PH]:

INAUDIBLE UNINTELLIGIBLE PHONETIC

/: [ ]: ...:

Two or more words separated by a "/" are options, due to lack of clarity or specificity in the original language. Text within brackets are inserts by the translator to aid in comprehension. After "you", [pl] indicates the plural form used in Spanish. Pause in utterance. Unfinished or interrupted.

Italics: Normal Font:

Source language is English Source language is Spanish

Some words in the English translation may have been purposely distorted and/or grammatical errors created, so as to reflect Spanish language errors or deficiencies. These words are some times followed by the notation "[sic]."

I, Carlos M. Izquierdo, certified by the ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS, under Certificate Number 95-041, as qualified for translating court proceedings in Spanish, declare that, to the best of my ability, on or about July 18th , 2008, in San Diego, CA, I corrected and certified the transcription in Spanish and translation into English of the interview found on the recording, whose full contents appear below. ___________________________________ Carlos M. Izquierdo Chief Interpreter; U.S. Attorney's Office, San Diego, CA

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 4 of 18

TR AN S C R IP TIO N

TR AN S LATIO N 00:00:02

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

The following is a statement under oath before Border Patrol Agent Jesus Nava, witnessed by Border Patrol Agent Enmanuel Blanco, at the Imperial Beach Border Patrol Station, in Imperial Beach, California. The statement is being given by defendant Jose Luis SaldanaRodriguez in the case of United States vs. Jose Luis Saldana-Rodriguez. The date is June 6, 2008, and the current time is 7:03 a.m. Both agents are in plain clothes and no weapons are visible. Señor, ¿quiere hablar conmigo en inglés o en español?

NAV

The following is a statement under oath before Border Patrol Agent Jesus Nava, witnessed by Border Patrol Agent Enmanuel Blanco, at the Imperial Beach Border Patrol Station, in Imperial Beach, California. The statement is being given by defendant Jose Luis Saldana-Rodriguez in the case of United States vs. Jose Luis Saldana-Rodriguez. The date is June 6, 2008, and the current time is 7:03 a.m. Both agents are in plain clothes and no weapons are visible. Sir, do you want to speak with me in English or in Spanish?

13

En español. ¿En Español? [Clears throat] Señor, los siguientes avisos de derechos y sus declaraciones están siendo grabadas en audio y video. ¿Entiendes? ¿Sí?

SAL NAV SAL NAV

In Spanish. In Spanish? [Clears throat] Sir, the following notifications of rights and your statements are being recorded in audio and video. Do you understand? Yes?

14

15

16 17 18

19

Sí. ¿Está usted bajo la influencia de drogas, alcohol o medicinas en este momento? No. ¿No? ¿Cómo -cómo está su salud mental y física? Bien. ¿Está bien? Física, no -no sé. Mental, sí.
00:00:51

SAL NAV

Yes. Are you under the influence of drugs, alcohol or medicine at this time?

20 21

22

SAL NAV

No. No? How -how is your mental and physical health?

23 24

25

SAL NAV SAL

Fine. You're fine? Physically, I don't -I don't know. Mentally, yes.

26

27

28 29

Okey. Le voy a leer sus derechos, ah, del consular [sic]. ¿Okey? Sí.

NAV

Okay. I'm going to read you your rights, uh, of the consular [sic]. Okay?

30

SAL

Yes.

US V. SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ

08CR2104

p. 1 of 15

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 5 of 18

TR AN S C R IP TIO N

TR AN S LATIO N 00:01:24

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

"Como no es ciudadano de los Estados Unidos, al ser arrestado o detenido, tiene el derecho a pedirnos que notifiquemos a los consulares representantes de su país aquí en los Estados Unidos, si lo desea. Entre otras cosas, un funcionario consular de su país puede ayudarle a obtener asesoramiento legal, ponerse en contacto con su familia y visitarlo en la cárcel. Si usted desea que notifiquemos a los funcionarios consulares de su país, puede solicitarlo ahora o en cualquier oportunidad en el futuro. Después de que se haya notificado a los funcionarios consulares de su país, ellos podrán llamarle o visitarlo". ¿Entiende? Sí. ¿Quiere contactar los -los consulados...

NAV

"Since you're not a citizen of the United States, upon being arrested or detained, you have the right to ask us to notify your country's consular representatives here in the United States, if you wish. Among other things, a consular official from your country can help you to obtain legal advice, contact your family and visit you in jail. If you wish for us to notify your country's consular officials, you can request it now or at any opportunity in the future. After your country's consular officials have been notified, they will be able to call you or visit you." Do you understand?

46

SAL NAV

Yes. Do you want to contact the -the consulates...

47

48

Sí. ... con... ¿Sí? [ui]. Ahora no puede contactarlo porque estamos haciendo la entrevista, pero cuando acabemos nos... ah, hacemos el intento a -a llamarle. Okey. ¿Entiende? Subject stated he does want to speak to the consular officer, but it was explained to him that he will be able to contact after the interview is over. Antes de que le hagamos, ah, cualquier pregunta, usted debe de comprender sus derechos. Usted tiene el derecho de guardar silencio. ¿Entiende? Sí. Cualquier cosa que usted diga puede ser usada en su contra en un juzgado de leyes o en cualquier procedimiento administrativo o de Inmigración. ¿Entiende? Sí.
00:02:05

SAL NAV

Yes. ... con... Yes? [ui]. You can't contact it/him now because we're doing the interview, but when we're finished we... uh, we'll make the attempt to -to call it/him.

49 50 51 52

53

SAL NAV

Okay. Do you understand? Subject stated he does want to speak to the consular officer, but it was explained to him that he will be able to contact after the interview is over. Before we ask you, uh, any questions, you must understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent. Do you understand?

54 55 56 57 58 59 60

61

SAL NAV

Yes. Anything you say can be used against you in court of law or in any Immigration or administrative proceedings. Do you understand?

62 63 64 65

66

SAL

Yes.

US V. SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ

08CR2104

p. 2 of 15

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 6 of 18

TR AN S C R IP TIO N

TR AN S LATIO N

67 68 69 70 71

Usted tiene el derecho de hablar con un abogado para que le aconseje antes de que le hagamos alguna pregunta y de tenerlo presente con usted durante las preguntas. ¿Entiende? Sí. Si usted no tiene el dinero para emplear a un abogado, se le puede proporcionar uno antes de que le hagamos alguna pregunta, si usted lo desea. ¿Entiende? Sí. Si usted decide contestar nuestras preguntas ahora sin tener a un abogado presente, siempre trendá [sic] -tendrá usted el derecho de dejar de contestar cuando guste. Usted también tiene el derecho de dejar de contestar cuando guste hasta que pueda hablar con un abogado. ¿Entiende? Sí. ¿Entiende usted cada una de los derechos que le he leído? Sí. Sí. ¿Está usted dispuesto a contestar mis preguntas sin tener a un abogado presente?

00:03:12

NAV

You have the right to speak with an attorney so that he can advise you before we ask you any questions and to have him present with you during the questions. Do you understand?

72

SAL NAV

Yes. If you don't have the money to hire an attorney, one can be supplied to you before we ask you any questions, if you wish. Do you understand?

73 74 75 76

77

SAL NAV

Yes. If you decide to answer our questions now without having an attorney present, you will always hrave [sic] -have the right to stop answering whenever you wish. You also have the right to stop answering whenever you wish until you can speak with an attorney. Do you understand?

78 79 80 81 82 83 84

85

SAL
00:03:47

Yes. Do you understand everyone of the rights that I have read to you?

86 87

NAV

88

SAL NAV

Yes. Yes. Are you willing to answer my questions without having an attorney present?

89 90

91

Sí. Ah, ¿puede poner aquí sus iniciales? Sus iniciales aquí y su firma aquí. Subject stated he wants to speak with e... me without a lawyer being present. Time: 7:08. Anteriormente se le avisó de sus derechos, ah, en los cuales se le preguntó que... [Coughs]

SAL NAV

Yes. Uh, could you put your initials here? Your initials here and your signature here. Subject stated he wants to speak with e... me without a lawyer being present. Time: 7:08. Previously you were informed of your rights, uh, in which you were asked...

92 93 94 95 96 97

98

SAL

[Coughs]

US V. SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ

08CR2104

p. 3 of 15

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 7 of 18

TR AN S C R IP TIO N

TR AN S LATIO N

99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111

... si quería regresar a su país lo más pronto posible. Debe de entender que, eh, esos derechos solamente aplican en procedimientos de Inmigración para sacarlo de los Estados Unidos. Ahora usted debe entender que ha habido un cambio en el cual no se le regresará a su [ui]... a su país en este momento y ahora se le va a procesar para un crimen federal. Usted debe de entender que sus derechos administrativos ya no proceden y ahora solamente considere los derechos criminales que se le acaban de explicar. ¿Entiende lo que se le acaba de explicar?

00:04:48

NAV

... if you wanted to return to your country as soon as possible. You must understand that, uh, those rights only apply in Immigration proceedings to take you out of the United States. Now you must understand that there has been a change in which you won't be returned to your [ui]... to your country at this time and now you're going to be processed for a federal crime. You must understand that your administrative rights no longer apply and now consider only the criminal rights that were just explained to you. Do you understand what was just explained to you?

112

Sí. Yo soy un oficial del Departamento de Aduanas, de Pro... de Protección y... Fronteriza de los Estados Unidos, autorizado por la ley para administrar juramentos y tomar testimonios con la relación a la ejecución de las leyes de Inmigración y Naturalización de los Estados Unidos. ¿Está u... usted dispuesto a contestar mis preguntas bajo juramento ahora? Sí. Sí. Levante la mano derecha. ¿Jura decir la verdad, la verdad entera y nada más que la verdad, que Dios le ayude? Sí. Baje su mano. Yo deseo tomar una declaración bajo juramento tocante a su entrada a los Estados Unidos. ¿Entiende?
00:05:31

SAL NAV

Yes. I'm an officer of the Department of Customs, of Pro... of Protection and... border of the United States, authorized by law to administer oaths and take statements in relation with the execution of United States Immigration and Naturalization laws. Are yo... you willing to answer my questions under oath now?

113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

122

SAL NAV

Yes. Yes. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

123 124 125

126

SAL NAV

Yes.. Lower your hand. I wish to take a statement under oath concerning your entry into the United States? Do you understand?

127 128 129

130

Sí. ¿Cuál... ¿Cómo se llama usted, su nombre verdadero y... José Luis Saldaña Rodríguez.

SAL NAV

Yes. What... What's your name, your true name and...

131 132

133

SAL

Jose Luis Saldana-Rodriguez.

US V. SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ

08CR2104

p. 4 of 15

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 8 of 18

TR AN S C R IP TIO N

TR AN S LATIO N

134

José Luis Saldaña Rodríguez. Sí. ¿Y alguna vez, ah, José, ha usado usted algún otro nombre? No. ¿Nunca? No. ¿Y de qué país es usted ciudadano? De México. ¿En qué fecha nació usted y en dónde nació?

00:06:17

NAV SAL NAV

Jose Luis Saldana-Rodriguez. Yes. And have you ever, uh, Jose, used any other name?

135

136 137

138

SAL NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV

No. Never? No. And what country are you a citizen of? Mexico. On what date were you born and where were you born?

139

140

141

142

143

144

26 de febrero. ¿Qué año? 81. ¿Y en dónde? Veracruz. ¿Veracruz, México? ¿México? Sí. ¿Y tiene usted algún documento legal de Inmigración que permitiría a usted permanecer aquí en los Estados Unidos legalmente? No. ¿No? ¿Ha sido usted alguna vez ordenado deportado o excluido de los Estados Unidos?
00:07:12

SAL NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV

February 26. What year? 81. And where? Veracruz. Veracruz, Mexico? Mexico? Yes. And do you have any legal Immigration documents that would allow you to stay here in the United States legally?

145

146

147

148

149

150

151 152 153

154

SAL NAV

No. No? Have you ever been ordered deported or excluded from the United States?

155 156

157

No. ¿No? ¿Nunca -nunca fue... ah, delan... delante un juez? No. ¿No? Okey. ¿Nomás lo sacaron voluntariamente? Sí. ¿Sí? ¿Y cuándo entró usted a -a los Estados Unidos la última vez?

SAL NAV

No. No? You never -never went... uh, befo... before a judge?

158 159

160

SAL NAV

No. No? Okay. You were just taken out voluntarily?

161 162

163

SAL NAV

Yes. Yes? And when did you enter the -the United States the last time?

164 165

US V. SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ

08CR2104

p. 5 of 15

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 9 of 18

TR AN S C R IP TIO N

TR AN S LATIO N

166

M... m... El 24 de mayo del 2003. [ui]. 24 de mayo del 2003. [Clears throat] ¿Y cómo entró esa vez? Igual, por el -por el cerro. ¿Ilegalmente? Ilegalmente. ¿Brincó una cerca? Sí. Okey. Ah... ¿Y cómo entró usted a los Estados Unidos esta última vez? ¿Esta última vez? Apenas iba a intentar. ¿Hoy? Hoy. ¿Esta mañanita? Sí. ¿Cómo entró? Pues crucé la -la cerca. ¿Igual? Sí. ¿Ilegalmente? Ilegalmente. ¿Y -y qué era su destinación hoy?

00:08:01

SAL NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV

M... m... May 24 of 2003. [ui]. May 24 of 2003. [Clears throat] And how did you enter that time? The same, through the -through the hills. Illegally? Illegally. You jumped a fence? Yes. Okay. Uh... And how did you enter the United States this last time?

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175 176

177

SAL NAV SAL NAV SAL
00:09:15

This last time? I was about to try. Today? Today. Early this morning? Yes. How did you enter? Well, I crossed the -the fence. The same way? Yes. Illegally? Illegally. And -and what was your destination today?

178

179

180

181

182

NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

San Diego. Muy bien. ¿Y tiene usted alguna, mm... algún miedo de persecurac... de presecuración [sic] o tortura si es removido de los Estados Unidos? Pues, mm, sí. ¿Si lo mandamos pa'trás a México tiene -tiene miedo? Sí.

SAL NAV

San Diego. Alright. Do you have any fears, mm... any fears of persecurat... of persecuration [sic] or torture if you're removed from the United States?

190 191 192 193

194

SAL NAV

Well, mm, yes. If we send you back to Mexico you're you're afraid?

195 196

197

SAL

Yes.

US V. SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ

08CR2104

p. 6 of 15

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 10 of 18

TR AN S C R IP TIO N

TR AN S LATIO N

198

¿Sí? ¿De qué? Pues a lo... regresar a lo mismo, a la... pobreza, la miseria. Okey. Muy bien. ¿Sabía usted que es ile... ele... ilegal cruzar la frontera brincando la cerca, la malla? Sí. Okey. Muy bien. Okey. Ahora, José, te voy a te voy a hacer unas preguntas tocante tu entrada hoy y sobre -sobre tu pasado. ¿Me entiendes?

00:09:56

NAV SAL

Yes? Of what? Well, to the... returning to the same thing, to... poverty, the misery.

199 200

201 202 203

NAV

Okay. Alright. Did you know it's ille... elle... illegal to cross the border jumping the fence, the net?

204

SAL NAV

Yes. Okay. Alright. Okay. Now, Jose, I'm going to -I'm going to ask you some questions concerning your entry today and about -about your past. Do you understand me?

205 206 207 208

209

Sí. Hoy en día, ¿qué era tu -tu, ah... tu parte en en este... ¿En eso? ... e... e... en -en... [Coughs] ¿En esa entrada? ... en esta entrada? Hoy pues mi parte era pues nomás llegar ahí a San Diego. Yo me -me iba a encargar a... de que si llegábamos, a subir la gente de ahí, de San Diego, a Los Angeles.
00:11:05

SAL NAV

Yes. Nowadays, what was your -your, uh... your part in -in this...

210 211

212

SAL NAV SAL

In that? ... i... i... in -in... [Coughs] In that entry?

213

214 215

216

NAV SAL

... in this entry? Well, today my part was only to get there to San Diego. I was -I was going to be in charge of... if we got there, of getting these people from there, from San Diego, to Los Angeles.

217 218 219 220

221

Okey. Es lo que iba... Tú fuistes -tú fuistes agarrado con -con, ah, 22 otras personas. ¿Me entiendes? Ajá. Ayer tú fuistes a... agarrado en San Clemente manejando el carro -un -un carro... Un carro. ... con 6, ah... 6 induque... Umjú.

NAV SAL NAV

Okay. That's what I was going... You were -you were caught with -with, uh, 22 other people. Do you understand me?

222

223 224

225

SAL NAV

Ah-hah. Yesterday you were ca... caught in San Clemente driving the car -a -a car...

226 227

228

SAL NAV SAL

A car. ... with 6, uh... 6 unducu... Uh-huh.

229

230

US V. SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ

08CR2104

p. 7 of 15

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 11 of 18

TR AN S C R IP TIO N

TR AN S LATIO N

231

... indocumentados. ¿Me entiendes?

00:11:38

NAV

... undocumented people. Do you understand me?

232

Sí. ¿Me puedes explicar por quién ibas manejando ese -ese... quién te contrató... [Clears throat] ... para que manejaras ese carro? Una persona que le dicen Tony. ¿Tony? Sí. [ui]. Tony. ¿Y -y cuánto dinero te iba a pagar Tony ayer? 200 dólares. 200 dólares. Okey, eso pasó ayer. ¿A dónde ibas a llevar esa gente ayer?

SAL NAV

Yes. Could you explain to me for whom you were driving that -that... who hired you...

233 234

235

SAL NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV

[Clears throat] ... to drive that car? A person called Tony. Tony? Yes. [ui]. Tony. And -and how much money was Tony going to pay you yesterday?

236

237

238

239

240 241

242

SAL NAV

200 dollars. 200 dollars. Okay, that happened yesterday. Where were you going to take those people yesterday?

243 244

245

Ahí a Los Angeles. ¿A Los Angeles? Sí. Hoy... Vamos a hablar de -de lo que pasó ahora. Fuistes agarrado con 22 personas. ¿A dónde ibas a llevar estas 22 personas?
00:12:30

SAL NAV SAL NAV

There to Los Angeles. To Los Angeles? Yes. Today... Let's talk about -about what happened today. You were caught with 22 people. Where were you going to take these 22 people?

246

247

248 249 250

251

No sé dónde nos iba... Yo nunca he cruzado.

SAL

I don't know where we were going to be... I have never crossed.

252

¿Te iban a llam... te iban a llamar?

NAV

Were they going to cal... were they going to call you?

253

[Voices overlap]

[Voices overlap]

US V. SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ

08CR2104

p. 8 of 15

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 12 of 18

TR AN S C R IP TIO N

TR AN S LATIO N

254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261

[ui]... Sí. No, a nosotros nos iba... A no... Yo yo nunca he cruzado gente. A mí, este... también yo iba en el grupo. Yo iba en el grupo, o sea, yo no -no iba a cruzar la gente. Yo los iba siguiendo a los guía, pero los guía... éramos va... éramos como 35 y pues los demás corrieron, y yo pues no... yo iba hasta los... de los atrás. Yo no iba siguiendo a...

00:12:56

SAL

[ui]... Yes. No, we were going to be... We... I -I have never crossed people. I, uh... I was in the group too. I was in the group, I mean, I wasn't -I wasn't going to cross the people. I was following the guides, but the guides... we were se... we were around 35 and, well, the others ran, and I didn't... I was at... the ones at the end. I wasn't following...

262

Pero... ... [ui]. Pero tú eras el contacto para llevar a esta gente para -para -para... Mm, no. El con... Eh, los contactos están allá, no [ui]... bueno, en San Diego. Entiendo eso. Umjú. Pero tú eres el contacto de -de aquí de -de... para el grupo, para que se... ¿Para? ... se asegurara que llegaran a la destinación.
00:13:44

NAV SAL NAV

But... ... [ui]. But you were the contact to take these people to -to -to...

263

264 265

266 267

SAL

Mm, no. The con... Uh, the contacts are there, not [ui]... well, in San Diego.

268

NAV SAL NAV

I understand that. Uh-huh. But you're the contact here -here... for the group, to...

269

270 271

272

SAL NAV

For? ... to make sure they arrived at the destination.

273

274 275 276 277

No. Eran 2 personas más, los que están aquí, los guías. Yo venía ahí pues como -como pollo también. No me iban a cobrar a mí, o sea, pero me iban a pasar. ¿No te iban a cobrar? No, por... pues como trabajaba yo con ellos...

SAL

No. Two other people, the ones who are here, were the guides. I was there as -as an alien too. I wasn't going to be charged, I mean, but I was going to be crossed.

278

NAV SAL

You were not going to be charged? No, bec... well, since I used to work for them...

279

280

Ajá. ... pues no... Trabajabas con ellos. ... pues no me iban a cobrar, na'más me iban a pasar para allá.

NAV SAL NAV SAL

Ah-hah. ... well, I wasn't... You used to work for them. ... well, they weren't going to charged me, I was only going to be crossed over there.

281

282

283 284

US V. SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ

08CR2104

p. 9 of 15

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 13 of 18

TR AN S C R IP TIO N

TR AN S LATIO N

285 286 287 288

Entiendo. Entiendo eso. Pero necesi... Eh, Tony necesitaba contactar a alguien para que se asegurara que su grupo llegara a su -a su destinación. No. Pues... porque Tony es como un encargado. Ajá. O sea, es -es el que a mí me... pues el que me con... paga a mí. ¿Él es el patrón? Mm, pues como un encargado. O sea, no -no hay patrón patrón. Oh. El patrón es otra persona. Sí. No -no sé su nombre de él. ¿El, eh... el patrón? Ajá. No sabes su nombre. No. [ui]... [Voices overlap] Entonces Tony es el que paga el dinero. Sí, eh... Bueno, él es que a mí me paga. Ajá. Él. Y ya a él -a él le pagan también. Oh, okey. Muy bien. ¿Y sabes a dónde iban a llevar a este grupo hoy? Pues nos iban a recoger a... según, ahí por la playa. No sé.

00:14:08

NAV

I understand. I understand that. But he nee... Uh, Tony needed to contact someone to make sure his group arrived at its -at its destination.

289 290

SAL

No. Well... because Tony is like a person in charge.

291

NAV SAL

Ah-hah. I mean, he's -he's the one who... well, the one who con... pays me.

292 293

294

NAV SAL

He's the boss? Mm, well, he's like a person in charge. I mean, there's not -there's not a real boss.

295 296

297

NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV SAL
00:14:39

Oh. The boss is another person. Yes. I don't -I don't know his name. [Of] The, uh... the boss? Ah-hah. You don't know his name. No. [ui]... [Voices overlap]

298

299

300

301

302

303

NAV SAL

304

305

306

NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV

So Tony is the one who pays the money. Yes, uh... Well, he's the one who pays me. Ah-hah. He. And then he -he gets paid too. Oh, okay. Alright. And do you know where this group was going to be taken today?

307

308

309

310 311

312 313

SAL

Well, we were going to be picked up at... supposedly, there by the beach. I don't know.

314

[ui]... ¿A dónde iba a llegar? ¿O a dónde nos iban a recoger? ¿A dónde iban a llevar ahora la gente?

NAV SAL

[ui]... Where was I going to arrive? Or where were we going to be picked up?

315 316

317

NAV

Where were those people going to be taken today?

US V. SALDANA-RODRIGUEZ

08CR2104

p. 10 of 15

Case 3:08-cr-02104-L

Document 15-2

Filed 07/18/2008

Page 14 of 18

TR AN S C R IP TIO N

TR AN S LATIO N

318

Sí, sí sé. ¿Sí sabes? Sí. Muy bien. ¿Y me puedes explicar dónde queda ese lugar? [Clears throat] Sí, está en la -en la Pal [sic] Avenue. ¿Mande? En la Pal, Par, Avenue. ¿Park? Pal, Pal. Algo de como palma. ¿Palma? ¡Palm! Palm Avenue. Sobre la 4ta. ¿Palm Avenue y 4ta.? Ajá. En 4th? Mm... Es como -como 4ta. Es... No, no. ¿Es qué? [ui] y 4ta. Avenue. Algo así. Palm Avenue... Ajá. [ui]... ... y 4th Avenue? Yeah. [ui]. 4th Avenue? ¿Te puedo decir algo, o sea, y... no sé, fuera de lo... den... dentro de la entrevista?

00:15:02

SAL NAV SAL NAV

Yes, I do know. You do know? Yes. Alright. And could you explain to me where that place is?

319

320

321 322

323 324

SAL

[Clears throat] Yes, it's on -on Pal [sic] Avenue.

325

NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV SAL NAV SAL
00:15:32

What? On Pal, Par, Avenue. Park? Pal, Pal. Something like palm. Palm? Palm! Palm Avenue. On 4th. Palm Avenue and 4th? Ah-hah. On 4th ? Mm... It's like -like 4th. It's... No, no. It's what? [ui] and 4th Avenue. Something like that.

326

327

328

329

3