USA v. Arvizu-Montijo
| Arizona District Court | |
| Case #: | 4:23-cr-01721 |
| Case Filed: | Nov 08, 2023 |
| Last checked: Friday Nov 10, 2023 12:23 AM MST |
|
Defendant
Saul Arvizu-Montijo (1)
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
USA
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 11/10/2023 12:57 AM MST |
| Sunday, October 08, 2023 | ||
| Arrest of Saul Arvizu-Montijo on 10/8/2023. (SIB) [4:23-mj-06233-N/A-MAA] | ||
| Tuesday, October 10, 2023 | ||
| 1 | 1
COMPLAINT as to Saul Arvizu-Montijo. (SIB) [4:23-mj-06233-N/A-MAA]
|
|
| 4 | 4 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Lynnette C Kimmins: Initial Appearance and Detention Hearing held, and Preliminary Hearing waived, as to Saul Arvizu-Montijo on 10/10/2023. FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT TAKEN. Attorney Timothy Rogers is appointed to represent Defendant with appointment type: FPD. Defendant states true name to be the same. Preliminary Hearing waived; Finding: Defendant held to answer before District Court. The Government objects to the recommendation for release of Defendant. Defense counsel argues. The Court adopts the recommendation of Pretrial Services and orders the Defendant released this date with conditions. Defendant advised on the record and release conditions are signed. Interpreter NOT required for Defendant: English. In the presence of Government and defense counsel, the Court orally advises the Government of their Brady obligation. Written order to follow. Appearances : AUSA Carson Gilbert present as AUSA on duty for the Government. AFPD Tim Rogers present for Defendant. Defendant is present and in custody. Hearing held 2:49 PM to 4:29 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (LML) [4:23-mj-06233-N/A-MAA] | |
| 5 | 5 ORDER: Under federal law, including Rule 5(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and all applicable decisions from the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit interpreting Brady , the government has a continuing obligation to produce all information or evidence known to the government relating to guilt or punishment that might reasonably be considered favorable to the defendant's case, even if the evidence is not admissible so long as it is reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence. See United States v. Price , 566 F.3d 900,913 n.14 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the court orders the government to produce to the defendant in a timely manner all such information or evidence. Information or evidence may be favorable to a defendant's case if it either may help bolster the defendant's case or impeach a prosecutor's witness or other government evidence. If doubt exists, it should be resolved in favor of the defendant with full disclosure being made. If the government believes that a required disclosure would compromise witness safety, victim rights, national security, a sensitive law-enforcement technique, or any other substantial government interest, the government may apply to the Court for a modification of the requirements of this Disclosure Order, which may include in camera review and/or withholding or subjecting to a protective order all or part of the information. This Disclosure Order is entered under Rule 5(f) and does not relieve any party in this matter of any other discovery obligation. The consequences for violating either this Disclosure Order or the government's obligations under Brady include, but are not limited to, the following: contempt, sanction, referral to a disciplinary authority, adverse jury instruction, exclusion of evidence, and dismissal of charges. Nothing in this Disclosure Order enlarges or diminishes the government's obligation to disclose information and evidence to a defendant under Brady , as interpreted and applied under Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. As the Supreme Court noted, "the government violates the Constitution's Due Process Clause 'if it withholds evidence that is favorable to the defense and material to the defendant's guilt or punishment." ' Turner v. United States , 137 S. Ct. 1885, 1888 (2017), quoting Smith v. Cain , 565 U.S. 73, 75 (2012). Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lynnette C Kimmins.(LML)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) [4:23-mj-06233-N/A-MAA] | |
| 6 | 6
SEALED CJA 23 Financial Affidavit by Saul Arvizu-Montijo. (LML) [4:23-mj-06233-N/A-MAA]
|
|
| 7 | 7
SEALED CJA 23 Financial Affidavit by Saul Arvizu-Montijo. (LML) [4:23-mj-06233-N/A-MAA]
|
|
| 8 | 8
ORDER Setting Conditions of Release as to Saul Arvizu-Montijo. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lynnette C Kimmins on 10/10/2023.(LML) [4:23-mj-06233-N/A-MAA]
|
|
| Thursday, October 12, 2023 | ||
| 3 | 3
NOTICE re SURRENDER of Passport as to Saul Arvizu-Montijo. Issued by United States. Defendant not permitted to apply for passport/passport card during the pendency of this action. (JAG) [4:23-mj-06233-N/A-MAA]
|
|
| Wednesday, November 08, 2023 | ||
| 9 | 9
INDICTMENT as to Saul Arvizu-Montijo (1) count(s) 1, 2. Arraignment set for 12/1/2023 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Macdonald. Counsel to advise defendants wishing to waive their appearance at the Arraignment Hearing of the following proposed dates: Trial: 1/9/2024; Plea Deadline: 12/22/2023.
NOTE: The process for waiving defendant's appearance at Arraignment has changed. There is no longer a need to file a Notice of Intent to File Waiver of Defendants Appearance. Instead, signed appearance waivers may be electronically filed using the Waiver of Defendants Presence at Arraignment and Acknowledgement of Trial Date event. The event is located under Criminal Event Categories: Other Filings/Waivers. The signed Waiver must be filed no later than 12:00 PM the business day prior to the scheduled arraignment.
Failure of defense counsel to file a timely waiver (or a timely motion to continue) may result in the reappointment of defense counsel. (ARC)
|
|
| 11 | 11
SEALED UNREDACTED INDICTMENT as to Saul Arvizu-Montijo. (KAH)
|
|