Free Response to Motion - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cr-00722-JM

Document 7

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 1 of 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

KAREN P. HEWITT United States Attorney AARON B. CLARK Assistant U.S. Attorney California State Bar No. 239764 United States Attorney's Office 880 Front Street, Room 6293 San Diego, California 92101-8893 Telephone: (619) 557-6787/(619) 235-2757 (Fax) Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 CHRISTOPHER ISAAC REBOLLEDO, 13 Defendant(s). 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 s/ Aaron B. Clark AARON B. CLARK Assistant United States Attorney ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Criminal Case No. 08CR0722JM DATE: April 18, 2008 TIME: 11:00 a.m. Before Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO: (1) (2) COMPEL DISCOVERY; AND GRANT LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER MOTIONS

TOGETHER WITH STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

COMES NOW the plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through its counsel, Karen P. Hewitt, United States Attorney, and Aaron B. Clark, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and hereby files its Response to Defendant's Motions in the above-referenced case. Said Response is based upon the files and records of this case together with the attached statement of facts and memorandum of points and authorities. DATED: March 28, 2008. Respectfully submitted, KAREN P. HEWITT United States Attorney

Case 3:08-cr-00722-JM

Document 7

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 2 of 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

KAREN P. HEWITT United States Attorney AARON B. CLARK Assistant U.S. Attorney California State Bar No. 239764 United States Attorney's Office 880 Front Street, Room 6293 San Diego, California 92101-8893 Telephone: (619) 557-6787/(619) 235-2757 (Fax) Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Criminal Case No. 08CR0722JM DATE: April 18, 2008 TIME: 11:00 a.m. Before Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller UNITED STATES' STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 CHRISTOPHER ISAAC REBOLLEDO, 14 Defendant(s). 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Defendant, Christopher Isaac Rebolledo (hereinafter "Defendant"), was charged by a grand jury on March 12, 2008 with violating Title 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b), Attempted Entry after Deportation. Defendant was arraigned on the Indictment on March 21, 2008, and entered a plea of not guilty. // // //

2

Case 3:08-cr-00722-JM

Document 7

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 3 of 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1/15/02 4/26/01 CASC Long Beach CASC Southgate 7/29/02 CASC Compton 11/7/02 CASC Norwalk

II STATEMENT OF FACTS A. IMMIGRATION HISTORY Defendant is a Mexican citizen who was ordered deported by an immigration judge on July 12, 2007. Defendant's was subsequently removed from the United States on July 16, 2007 through the Calexico, California Port of Entry. B. RAP SHEET SUMMARY CHART
COURT OF CONVICTION CASC Downey CASC Long Beach PC 211 ­ Robbery VC 14601.1(A) - Drive with a Suspended License HS 11550(A) ­ Use/Under Influence Controlled Substance (M) PC 12025(A)(2) ­ Carry Concealed Weapon w/Prior Probation Revoked (5/29/03) Probation Revoked (7/25/03) PC 594(B)(2)(A) ­ Vandalism (M) HS 11550(A) ­ Use/Under Influence of Controlled Substance (M) 120 days 2 years 5 days 90 days 90 days 120 days 3 years 5 days CHARGE TERM

CONVICT DATE 8/30/04 6/19/04

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

7/14/00 10/12/99 9/30/99

CASC Compton CASC Compton CASC Compton

PC 242 ­ Battery (M) PC 12020(A) ­ Possess/Man/Sell Weapon (M) VC 10851(A) ­ Take Veh. Without Consent (M) VC 14601.1(A) ­ Drive W/ Suspended License

35 days 30 days 5 days

6/16/99

CASC Compton

PC 594(A) ­ Vandalism (M)

5 days

3

Case 3:08-cr-00722-JM

Document 7

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 4 of 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

C.

INSTANT OFFENSE On December 12, 2007, at approximately 9:45 p.m., Border Patrol agents Luis Barragan

and Noe Banuelos were performing line watch duties in the area approximately a half mile east of the Tecate, CA Port of Entry and 1 mile north of the United States/Mexico Border. At the time, an infrared night scope operators notified the agents that they had seen ten people enter the United States illegally. The scope operators dritect agents to the location where the group was last seen. Agents Barragan and Banuelos shortly thereafter found and approached a group of ten people, Defendant being one of the group. Agents then asked the group questions in reference to their citizenship. Defendant and the others admitted they were Mexican citizens without documents to be in the United States legally. Defendant was subsequently arrested and transported to the Tecate station for processing. III MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES A. DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE 1. The Government Has or Will Disclose Information Subject To Disclosure Under Rule 16(a)(1)(A) and (B) Of The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The government has disclosed, or will disclose well in advance of trial, any statements subject to discovery under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A) (substance of Defendant's oral statements in response to government interrogation) and 16(a)(1)(B) (Defendant's relevant written or recorded statements, written records containing substance of Defendant's oral statements in response to government interrogation, and Defendant's grand jury testimony). a. The Government Will Comply With Rule 16(a)(1)(D)

Defendant has already been provided with his or her own "rap" sheet and the government will produce any additional information it uncovers regarding Defendant's criminal record. Any subsequent or prior similar acts of Defendant that the government intends to introduce under Rule

4

Case 3:08-cr-00722-JM

Document 7

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 5 of 12

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

404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence will be provided, along with any accompanying reports, at a reasonable time in advance of trial. b. The Government Will Comply With Rule 16(a)(1)(E)

The government will permit Defendant to inspect and copy or photograph all books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or portions thereof, that are material to the preparation of Defendant's defense or are intended for use by the government as evidence-in-chief at trial or were obtained from or belong to Defendant. Reasonable efforts will be made to preserve relevant physical evidence which is in the custody and control of the investigating agency and the prosecution, with the following exceptions: drug evidence, with the exception of a representative sample, is routinely destroyed after 60 days, and vehicles are routinely and periodically sold at auction. Records of radio transmissions, if they existed, are frequently kept for only a short period of time and may no longer be available. Counsel should contact the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case two weeks before the scheduled trial date and the Assistant will make arrangements with the case agent for counsel to view all evidence within the government's possession. c. The Government Will Comply With Rule 16(a)(1)(F)

The government will permit Defendant to inspect and copy or photograph any results or reports of physical or mental examinations, and of scientific tests or experiments, or copies thereof, that are within the possession of the government, and by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the attorney for the government and are material to the preparation of the defense or are intended for use by the government as evidence-in-chief at the trial. Counsel for Defendant should contact the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case and the Assistant will make arrangements with the case agent for counsel to view all evidence within the government's possession. // //

5

Case 3:08-cr-00722-JM

Document 7

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 6 of 12

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

The Government Will Comply With Its Obligations Under Brady v. Maryland

The government is well aware of and will fully 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 that is, or may be, favorable to the accused, or that pertains to the credibility of the government's case. As stated in United States v. Gardner, 611 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1980), it must be noted that: [T]he prosecution does not have a 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. 611 F.2d at 774-775 (citations omitted). See also United States v. Sukumolachan, 610 F.2d 685, 687 (9th Cir. 1980) (the government is not required to create exculpatory material that does not exist); United States v. Flores, 540 F.2d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1976) (Brady does not create any pretrial privileges not contained in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure). e. Discovery Regarding Government Witnesses (1) Agreements. The government has disclosed or will disclose the

terms of any agreements by Government agents, employees, or attorneys with witnesses that testify at trial. Such information will be provided at or before the time of the filing of the Government's trial memorandum.1/ The government will comply with its obligations to disclose impeachment evidence under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). (2) Bias or Prejudice. The government has provided or will provide

information related to the bias, prejudice or other motivation to lie of government trial witnesses as required in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). As with all other offers by the government to produce discovery earlier than it is required to do, the offer is made without prejudice. If, as trial approaches, the government is not prepared to make early discovery production, or if there is a strategic reason not to do so as to certain discovery, the government reserves the right to withhold the requested material until the time it is required to be produced pursuant to discovery laws and rules. 6

25 26 27 28

Case 3:08-cr-00722-JM

Document 7

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 7 of 12

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

(3)

Criminal Convictions. The government has produced or will

produce any criminal convictions of government witnesses plus any material criminal acts which did not result in conviction. The government is not aware that any prospective witness is under criminal investigation. (4) Ability to Perceive. The government has produced or will produce

any evidence that the ability of a government trial witness to perceive, communicate or tell the truth is impaired or that such witnesses have ever used narcotics or other controlled substances, or are alcoholics. (5) Witness List. The government will endeavor to provide Defendant

with a list of all witnesses which it intends to call in its case-in-chief at the time the government's trial memorandum is filed, although delivery of such a list is not required. See United States v. Dischner, 960 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Culter, 806 F.2d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Mills, 810 F.2d 907, 910 (9th Cir. 1987). Defendant, however, is not entitled to the production of addresses or phone numbers of possible government witnesses. See United States v. Thompson, 493 F.2d 305, 309 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 834 (1974). Defendant has already received access to the names of potential witnesses in this case in the investigative reports previously provided to him or her. (6) Witnesses Not to Be Called. The government is not required to

disclose all evidence it has or to make an accounting to Defendant of the investigative work it has performed. Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 795 (1972); see United States v. Gardner, 611 F.2d 770, 774-775 (9th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, the government objects to any request by Defendant for discovery concerning any individuals whom the government does not intend to call as witnesses. (7) Favorable Statements. The government has disclosed or will

disclose the names of witnesses, if any, who have made favorable statements concerning Defendant which meet the requirements of Brady.

7

Case 3:08-cr-00722-JM

Document 7

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 8 of 12

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

(8)

Review of Personnel Files. The government has requested or will

request a review of the personnel files of all federal law enforcement individuals who will be called as witnesses in this case for Brady material. The government will request that counsel for the appropriate federal law enforcement agency conduct such review. United States v. Herring, 83 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 1996); see, also, United States v. Jennings, 960 F.2d 1488, 1492 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Dominguez-Villa, 954 F.2d 562 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1991) and United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1452 (9th Cir. 1984), the United States agrees to "disclose information favorable to the defense that meets the appropriate standard of materiality . . ." United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d at 1467, 1468. Further, if counsel for the United States is uncertain about the materiality of the information within its possession in such personnel files, the information will be submitted to the Court for in camera inspection and review. (9) Government Witness Statements. Production of witness statements

is governed by the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, and need occur only after the witness testifies on direct examination. United States v. Taylor , 802 F.2d 1108, 1118 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Mills, 641 F.2d 785, 790 (9th Cir. 1981)). Indeed, even material believed to be exculpatory and therefore subject to disclosure under the Brady doctrine, if contained in a witness statement subject to the Jencks Act, need not be revealed until such time as the witness statement is disclosed under the Act. See United States v. Bernard, 623 F.2d 551, 556-57 (9th Cir. 1979). The government reserves the right to withhold the statements of any particular witnesses it deems necessary until after the witness testifies. Otherwise, the government will disclose the statements of witnesses at the time of the filing of the government's trial memorandum, provided that defense counsel has complied with Defendant's obligations under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12.1, 12.2, and 16 and 26.2 and provided that defense counsel turn over all "reverse Jencks" statements at that time.

8

Case 3:08-cr-00722-JM

Document 7

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 9 of 12

1 2

f.

The Government Objects To The Full Production Of Agents' Handwritten Notes At This Time

Although the government has no objection to the preservation of agents' handwritten notes, 3 it objects to requests for full production for immediate examination and inspection. If certain 4 rough notes become relevant during any evidentiary proceeding, those notes will be made 5 available. 6 Prior production of these notes is not necessary because they are not "statements" within 7 the meaning of the Jencks Act unless they comprise both a substantially verbatim narrative of a 8 witness' assertions and they have been approved or adopted by the witness. United States v. 9 Spencer, 618 F.2d 605, 606-607 (9th Cir. 1980); see also United States v. Griffin, 659 F.2d 932, 10 936-938 (9th Cir. 1981). 11 g. 12 The government objects to any request for production of all arrest reports, investigator's 13 notes, memos from arresting officers, and prosecution reports pertaining to Defendant. Such 14 reports, except to the extent that they include Brady material or the statements of Defendant, are 15 protected from discovery by Rule 16(a)(2) as "reports . . . made by . . . Government agents in 16 connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case." 17 Although agents' reports may have already been produced to the defense, the government 18 is not required to produce such reports, except to the extent they contain Brady or other such 19 material. Furthermore, the government is not required to disclose all evidence it has or to render 20 an accounting to Defendant of the investigative work it has performed. Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 21 786, 795 (1972); see United States v. Gardner, 611 F.2d 770, 774-775 (9th Cir. 1980). 22 h. 23 Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G), at or about the time of filing its trial 24 memorandum, the government will provide the defense with notice of any expert witnesses the 25 testimony of whom the government intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Fed. R. of 26 Evidence in its case-in-chief. Such notice will describe the witnesses' opinions, the bases and the 27 28 9 Expert Witnesses. All Investigatory Notes and Arrest Reports

Case 3:08-cr-00722-JM

Document 7

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 10 of 12

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

reasons therefor, and the witnesses' qualifications. Reciprocally, the government requests that the defense provide notice of its expert witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C). i. Information Which May Result in Lower Sentence.

Defendant has claimed or may claim that the government must disclose information about any cooperation or any attempted cooperation with the government as well as any other information affecting Defendant's sentencing guidelines because such information is discoverable under Brady v. Maryland. The government respectfully contends that it has no such disclosure obligations under Brady. The government is not obliged 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), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1094 (1987); United States v. Prior, 546 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1977). Brady is a rule of disclosure. There can be no violation of Brady if the evidence is already known to Defendant. Assuming that Defendant did not already possess the information about factors which might affect their respective guideline range, the government 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. "No [Brady] violation occurs if the evidence is disclosed to the defendant at a time when the disclosure remains of value." United States v. Juvenile Male, 864 F.2d 641 (9th Cir. 1988). D. NO OPPOSITION TO LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER MOTIONS The United States does not object to the granting of leave to allow Defendant 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. //

IV

10

Case 3:08-cr-00722-JM

Document 7

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 11 of 12

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 DATED: March 28, 2008.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests that Defendant's motions, except where not opposed, be denied.

Respectfully submitted, KAREN P. HEWITT United States Attorney s/ Aaron B. Clark AARON B. CLARK Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:08-cr-00722-JM

Document 7

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 12 of 12

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, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CHRISTOPHER ISAAC REBOLLEDO, Defendant. Case No. 08CR0722-JM

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT: I, AARON B. CLARK, 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 UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS 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. Christian De Olivas, Esq. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 28, 2008. s/ Aaron B. Clark AARON B. CLARK