United States v. Montes
4:17-cr-00651
S.D. Tex.May 3, 2018Background
- Defendant Melisa Dominguez is indicted on multiple counts including conspiracy, sex trafficking, alien smuggling, and related substantive offenses; she filed numerous pretrial motions challenging discovery, duplicity/multiplicity of counts, and admissibility issues.
- The Government responded it will comply with Rule 16, Brady/Giglio obligations, and produce recordings, translations, witness criminal records for witnesses it will call, and 404(b) notice; it opposed requests that impose additional burdens or premature dismissal.
- Key discovery disputes: quality and indexing of audio/video recordings, bilingual transcripts, witness criminal records and plea/immunity agreements, identity/location of an informant, and extent of written statements the Government must produce.
- Defense sought pretrial dismissal of several counts as multiplicitous or duplicitous and asked the Court to require election or dismissal now.
- Defense moved to preclude Rule 403 and Rule 404(b) evidence and to adopt co-defendants’ motions; Government largely unopposed to compliance with evidentiary rules and pretrial 404(b) notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dominguez) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Production/quality of audio/video recordings and bilingual transcripts (Dkt.176) | Requires "top quality" true copies, index of defendant appearances, and bilingual (Spanish & English) transcripts for non-English portions | Will provide true copies and translations but opposes court-imposed "top quality" standard and an indexing requirement | Granted in part / Denied in part: Government must produce true/correct copies and translations; court sustained objection to requiring "top quality" copies and to ordering an index |
| Disclosure of witnesses' criminal records (Dkt.177) | Requests all criminal records of Government witnesses | Govt: will disclose criminal records of witnesses it intends to call at trial | Granted as unopposed: Government to provide criminal records of testifying witnesses |
| Disclosure of agreements/leniency/immunity affecting witness credibility (Brady/Giglio) (Dkt.178) | Requests disclosure of any agreement or concession that could "conceivably" influence witness testimony | Govt: will comply with Brady/Giglio and produce agreements/promises for witnesses it will call; opposes vague "conceivably" standard | Granted in part/Denied in part: Government must produce materially favorable impeachment/pledge information per Brady/Giglio; request for disclosure of all "conceivable" deals denied as legally overbroad |
| Motions to dismiss multiplicitous/duplicitous counts; require election (Dkts.179,180) | Counts are multiplicious/duplicitous; asks dismissal or Government election to avoid double punishment and jury unanimity problems | Govt: premature because convictions have not occurred; multiplicity/double jeopardy concerns arise only on conviction/punishment; remedy post-verdict (jury instructions or vacatur) | Denied as premature: Court rejected dismissal/election now; duplicity cured by proper jury instructions and resolved if multiplicitous convictions occur post-verdict |
| Broad discovery (names/addresses/phone numbers, written statements of non-testifying witnesses, informant identity) (Dkt.182) | Requests extensive witness contact info, written statements of persons not to be called, and more than informant name/location | Govt: will comply with Rule 16/Brady/Jencks but resists disclosure of addresses/phones, full statements of non-testifying persons, and additional informant details absent particularized need or risk to safety | Granted in part/Denied in part: Government to provide discovery required by Rule 16/Brady/Giglio/Jencks; denies broad request for addresses/phones and unconditional written statements; court deferred ruling on informant disclosure and ordered parties to confer |
| Exclusion under Rule 403 (Dkt.183) | Pretrial exclusion of evidence substantially outweighed by prejudice/confusion | Govt: will comply with Rule 403 rulings but reserves right to seek admissible evidence | Denied as premature: Court will rule on specific 403 issues at pretrial/trial when evidence is identified |
| Exclusion/notice under Rule 404(b) (Dkts.184,186) | Seeks pretrial bar/notice of 404(b) evidence | Govt: will comply and will notify when it intends to use admissible 404(b) evidence | Granted as unopposed: Court ordered compliance and pretrial notice for 404(b) evidence |
| Production of recordings/tapes and bilingual transcripts (Dkt.185) | Requests copies of consensually recorded/wiretapped conversations and bilingual transcripts | Govt: agrees to produce recordings and translate non-English recordings | Granted as unopposed: Government to produce recordings and translations |
| Adoption of co-defendants’ non-Rule 16 motions (Dkt.187) | Seeks to join/adopt co-defendants’ motions to the extent applicable | Govt: unopposed except that 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (detention appeals) require individualized rulings | Granted as unopposed except § 3145 motions which Dominguez must assert separately |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of materially favorable evidence violates due process)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (Brady extends to witness credibility/impeachment evidence)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (right to effective confrontation and impeachment may outweigh confidentiality of juvenile records)
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977) (Blockburger test and limits on dividing a single crime into successive prosecutions)
- Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (1985) (conviction on multiplicitous counts may require vacatur of one conviction; prosecution may charge multiple counts)
- Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996) (concurrent sentences for overlapping offenses may require vacatur when one offense is lesser included)
- United States v. Bazan, 807 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1987) (single agreement cannot support convictions for multiple conspiracies)