United States v. Apodaca
275 F. Supp. 3d 123
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- FBI investigation (2010–2014) into the Meza Flores DTO identified Agustin and Panfilo Flores Apodaca as members of a transnational drug-trafficking conspiracy; Title III wiretaps of co-conspirator devices (Feb 2013–Dec 2014) captured thousands of intercepts.
- Agustin was indicted (May 2012), arrested in Mexico (July 24, 2012), alleges torture by Mexican authorities and PTSD; interviewed by U.S. agents Sept 26, 2012 (in Mexico) and Oct 20, 2015 (during extradition flight).
- Panfilo was indicted later (Mar 2014) and was a target of the Title III interceptions; both face Count One (drug conspiracy) and Count Two (18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearms).
- Defendants moved to (inter alia) suppress post‑arrest Title III intercepts, obtain a pretrial co‑conspirator‑statement hearing, exclude evidence under the Rule of Specialty, suppress Agustin’s two statements, dismiss Count Two as extraterritorial/defective, and strike aliases.
- The court denied: (1) Agustin’s motion to exclude post‑arrest wiretap evidence for alleged withdrawal; (2) joint motion for pretrial co‑conspirator hearing (permitting conditional admission subject to connection at trial); (3) Rule of Specialty challenge to post‑indictment intercepts; (4) suppression of Agustin’s Sept 2012 and Oct 2015 statements; (5) motion to dismiss Count Two; and (6) motions to strike aliases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of post‑arrest Title III intercepts against Agustin (withdrawal / Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)) | Government: Agustin remained a conspirator absent affirmative withdrawal; intercepts are relevant and admissible; withdrawal not shown. | Agustin: His July 2012 arrest terminated his participation and thus co‑conspirator statements after arrest are inadmissible against him. | Denied — arrest alone is not withdrawal; defendant bore burden to show affirmative withdrawal and failed to do so. |
| Pretrial hearing on admissibility of co‑conspirator statements | Government: Evidence and witnesses will establish conspiracy at trial; conditional admission and connection at trial is appropriate to avoid duplicative testimony and safety risks to witnesses. | Defendants: Seek an advance hearing to determine duration/participation and to exclude unrelated statements. | Denied — court exercises discretion to defer resolution and allow conditional admission subject to connection at trial. |
| Rule of Specialty (use of post‑extradition/intercept evidence) | Government: Evidence relates to the crimes for which extradition occurred; specialty governs prosecutions not evidence. | Agustin: Introducing post‑indictment intercepts would violate specialty and constructively amend the indictment. | Denied — specialty limits prosecutions, not admissible evidence used to prove extradited offenses; no constructive amendment shown. |
| Suppression of Agustin’s statements (Sept 2012 in Mexico; Oct 2015 extradition flight) — voluntariness / Miranda / invocation of counsel / Seibert two‑step | Government: Agents read Advice of Rights in Spanish; defendant waived or voluntarily spoke; no improper two‑step interrogation; statements attenuated from alleged torture. | Agustin: Statements involuntary due to prior torture and PTSD; invoked counsel / refused to sign warnings; agents engaged in question‑first, warn‑second on flight. | Denied — court found credible medical evidence of prior torture but concluded both statements were knowing and voluntary; defendant did not unambiguously invoke counsel; Seibert inapplicable. |
| Dismiss Count Two (§ 924(c)) — extraterritoriality and indictment specificity | Government: § 924(c) is ancillary to predicate offense; because predicate (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 959) applies extraterritorially, § 924(c) does as well; indictment (with supplemental proffer) provides adequate detail. | Defendants: § 924(c) lacks clear extraterritorial language; Count Two is facially defective and insufficiently specific about weapons/locations/timing. | Denied — extraterritorial application follows underlying predicate’s explicit extraterritorial reach; indictment sufficiently alleges essential facts and timeframe; government provided further evidence about weapons/incidents. |
| Motions to strike aliases as surplusage | Government: Aliases are relevant to identity and will be used by witnesses; reflect how defendants were known. | Defendants: Aliases are unnecessary, prejudicial, and should be stricken from indictments/transcripts. | Denied — aliases are relevant to identity; not unduly prejudicial; striking not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moore, 651 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir.) (continuity of conspiracy; withdrawal requires affirmative act)
- Osborn v. Visa Inc., 797 F.3d 1057 (D.C. Cir.) (withdrawal requires affirmative acts communicated to co‑conspirators)
- Smith v. United States, 568 U.S. 106 (2013) (defendant bears burden to prove withdrawal by preponderance)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) (court may consider hearsay in determining admissibility under Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
- Jackson v. United States, 627 F.2d 1198 (D.C. Cir.) (preferred practice to decide co‑conspirator admissibility before admission, but district court discretion to admit subject to connection)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (two‑step interrogation analysis)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (invocation of counsel must be unambiguous)
- RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016) (presumption against extraterritoriality and how Congress can rebut it)
- United States v. Ali, 718 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir.) (extraterritorial reach of ancillary offenses coterminous with underlying statute)