USA v. Bernal-Yribe et al
| Arizona District Court | |
| Case #: | 4:24-cr-03560 |
| Case Filed: | Jun 12, 2024 |
| Last checked: Saturday Jun 15, 2024 12:30 AM MST |
|
Defendant
Richard Ernest Bernal-Yribe (1)
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Carlos Morgan-Felix (2)
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
USA
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 06/15/2024 2:02 AM MST |
| Tuesday, May 14, 2024 | ||
| Arrest of Richard Ernest Bernal-Yribe, Carlos Morgan-Felix on 5/14/2024. (ARS) [4:24-mj-04482-N/A-JR] | ||
| Wednesday, May 15, 2024 | ||
| 1 | 1
COMPLAINT as to Richard Ernest Bernal-Yribe, Carlos Morgan-Felix. (ARS) [4:24-mj-04482-N/A-JR]
|
|
| 4 | 4 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Maria S Aguilera: Initial Appearance as to Richard Ernest Bernal-Yribe held on 5/15/2024. FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT TAKEN. Appointing Nancy Janeth Arce for the defendant with Appointment Type: FPD. Defendant(s) state true name to be the same. Detention Hearing as to the defendant held on 5/15/2024. Defendant ordered/continued released on own recognizance. Defendant is advised on the record. Preliminary Hearing as to the defendant waived on 5/15/2024. Finding: Defendant held to answer before District Court. Interpreter N/A 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 Heather Siegele, duty for the Government, AFPD Nancy Arce for defendant. Defendant is present and in custody. Hearing held 2:16 PM to 3:16 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CXE) [4:24-mj-04482-N/A-JR] | |
| 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 Maria S Aguilera.(CXE)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) [4:24-mj-04482-N/A-JR] | |
| 6 | 6
SEALED CJA 23 Financial Affidavit by Richard Ernest Bernal-Yribe. (CXE) [4:24-mj-04482-N/A-JR]
|
|
| 7 | 7
ORDER Setting Conditions of Release as to Richard Ernest Bernal-Yribe. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria S Aguilera on 5/15/2024.(CXE) [4:24-mj-04482-N/A-JR]
|
|
| 8 | 8 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Maria S Aguilera: Initial Appearance as to Carlos Morgan-Felix held on 5/15/2024. FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT TAKEN. Appointing Louis M Spivack for the defendant with Appointment Type: CJA. Defendant(s) state true name to be the same. Detention Hearing as to the defendant held on 5/15/2024. Defendant ordered/continued released on own recognizance. Defendant is advised on the record. Preliminary Hearing as to the defendant waived on 5/15/2024. Finding: Defendant held to answer before District Court. Interpreter required for the defendant (2) 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 Heather Siegele, duty for the Government, CJA Attorney Louis Spivack for defendant. Defendant is present and in custody. Hearing held 2:16 PM to 3:16 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CXE) [4:24-mj-04482-N/A-JR] | |
| 9 | 9 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 Maria S Aguilera.(CXE)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) [4:24-mj-04482-N/A-JR] | |
| 10 | 10
SEALED CJA 23 Financial Affidavit by Carlos Morgan-Felix. (CXE) [4:24-mj-04482-N/A-JR]
|
|
| 11 | 11
ORDER Setting Conditions of Release as to Carlos Morgan-Felix. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria S Aguilera on 5/15/2024.(CXE) [4:24-mj-04482-N/A-JR]
|
|
| Monday, May 20, 2024 | ||
| 12 | 12
NOTICE OF INTENT TO DESTROY CONTRABAND by USA as to Richard Ernest Bernal-Yribe, Carlos Morgan-Felix. (Cavanaugh, Kelly) [4:24-mj-04482-N/A-JR]
|
|
| Tuesday, May 21, 2024 | ||
| 14 | 14
NOTICE re: PASSPORT as to Carlos Morgan-Felix. Defendant is not permitted to apply for the issuance of a passport and/or passport card during the pendency of this action. (JAG) [4:24-mj-04482-N/A-JR]
|
|
| Wednesday, June 12, 2024 | ||
| 15 | 15
INDICTMENT as to Richard Ernest Bernal-Yribe (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, Carlos Morgan-Felix (2) count(s) 1, 2. Arraignment set for 7/5/2024 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Ambri. Counsel to advise defendants wishing to waive their appearance at the Arraignment Hearing of the following proposed dates: Trial: 8/13/2024; Plea Deadline: 7/26/2024.
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)
|
|
| 17 | 17
SEALED UNREDACTED INDICTMENT as to Richard Ernest Bernal-Yribe, Carlos Morgan-Felix. (DLC)
|
|