756 F. Supp. 2d 184
D.P.R.2010Background
- Indictment by grand jury on June 22, 2010 charging Martinez-Maldonado and Bravo-Fernandez with conspiracy, interstate travel in aid of racketeering, and bribery involving programs receiving federal funds, plus obstruction of justice by Martinez.
- Defendants filed eleven motions to dismiss (Sept. 17, 2010), including statute-of-limitations challenges and Kastigar-related challenges.
- All tolling agreements signed in May 2010 toll the limitations period through June 2010, making pre-June 22, 2005 conduct potentially within reach.
- Court considers whether tolling agreements are valid despite lack of government signatories and whether aiding-and-abetting and related theories fall within tolling.
- Court grants Bravo a Kastigar-like hearing; denies other motions to dismiss in part after analysis of grand jury procedures, venue, and section 666 predicates.
- Kastigar hearing held to determine taint from immunized testimony; several counts survive and proceed to trial if not suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the tolling agreements valid and effective? | Government supports tolling validity by signed waivers. | Agreements lack government signature; invalid. | Tolling agreements effective by their terms; valid despite government non-signature. |
| Do tolling agreements cover aiding and abetting counts? | Aiding and abetting charges implicitly covered under tolling. | Not explicitly enumerated; should be dismissed. | Aiding and abetting counts survive; implicitly encompassed. |
| Was the grand jury properly charged and independent, justifying the indictment? | Model Grand Jury Charge is constitutional and independent. | Model charge flawed; grand jury independence compromised. | Model charge rejected by defendants; court finds indictments not tainted; independence preserved. |
| Should Bravo receive a Kastigar hearing based on immunized statements? | No taint if sources are independent. | Notes and statements taint the indictment. | Bravo's Kastigar hearing granted; government must prove independent source of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Spector, 55 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 1995) (enforces tolling agreement terms when signed; government signature not strictly required if written terms signed)
- Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2005) (model grand jury charge constitutional; independence intact)
- Knight, 490 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2007) (grand jury independence upheld under model charge)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1944) (indictment sufficiency and proper informing of charges)
- Barker Steel Co., Inc., 985 F.2d 1123 (1st Cir. 1993) (indictment read as whole to convey elements and charge)
- United States v. Sanchez, 917 F.2d 607 (1st Cir. 1990) (aiding and abetting understood as implicit in indictments)
- United States v. Oreto, 37 F.3d 739 (1st Cir. 1994) (aiding and abetting is implicit in counts)
- United States v. Bradstreet, 135 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1998) (aiding and abetting as alternative charge in counts)
- In re Lindsey, 158 F.3d 1263 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (attorney-client privilege scope in government investigations)