USA v. Garcia-Estrada
| Arizona District Court | |
| Case #: | 4:23-mj-00792 |
| Case Filed: | Nov 20, 2023 |
| Last checked: Wednesday Nov 22, 2023 12:21 AM MST |
|
Defendant
Erick Germain Garcia-Estrada (1)
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
USA
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 11/22/2023 12:45 AM MST |
| Saturday, November 18, 2023 | ||
| Arrest of Erick Germain Garcia-Estrada on 11/18/2023. (CMB) | ||
| Monday, November 20, 2023 | ||
| 1 | 1
2
pgs
COMPLAINT as to Erick Germain Garcia-Estrada. (CMB)
|
|
| 3 | 3 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Eric J Markovich: Initial Appearance as to Erick Germain Garcia-Estrada held on 11/20/2023. FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT TAKEN. Appointing Alan Macias for Erick Germain Garcia-Estrada with Appointment Type: FPD. Defendant(s) state true name to be the same. Government's motion for detention and request for continuance of the Detention Hearing is granted. Defendant(s) temporarily detained in the custody of the U.S. Marshal. Interpreter required for Erick Germain Garcia-Estrada (1) Spanish. In the presence of government and defense counsel, the Court orally advises the government of their Brady obligation. Written order to follow. Appearances : AUSA David Zipps (duty) for the Government, AFPD Jorge Leonardo Costales (specially appearing) for defendant. Defendant is present and in custody. Spanish Interpreter Irene Lopez-Obrecht assists defendant. Detention Hearing set for 11/22/2023 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Lynnette C Kimmins. Preliminary Hearing set for 11/22/2023 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Lynnette C Kimmins. Hearing held 2:41 PM to 3:23 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ARS) | |
| 4 | 4 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 Eric J Markovich.(ARS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) | |
| 5 | 5
SEALED CJA 23 Financial Affidavit by Erick Germain Garcia-Estrada. (ARS)
|
|