USA v. Ortega
Arizona District Court | |
Case #: | 4:24-cr-05534 |
Case Filed: | Aug 26, 2024 |
Last checked: Wednesday Aug 28, 2024 12:32 AM MST |
Defendant
Francisco Ortega (1)
|
Represented By
|
Material Witness
Material Witnesses
|
Represented By
|
Plaintiff
USA
|
Represented By
|
Docket last updated: 08/28/2024 1:20 AM MST |
Tuesday, August 06, 2024 | ||
Arrest of Francisco Ortega on 8/6/2024. (CMB) [4:24-mj-02393-N/A-JR] | ||
Wednesday, August 07, 2024 | ||
1 | 1
![]() |
|
2 | 2
![]() |
|
Thursday, August 08, 2024 | ||
3 | 3 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald: Initial Appearance for Material Witness in case as to Francisco Ortega held on 8/8/2024. Material Witness(es) are present and in custody. Enrique Gonzales, Sr. appointed as counsel for the material witnesses with appointment type CJA. The Court orders the Material Witnesses temporarily detained in the custody of the United States Marshal pursuant to 18§3144. IT IS ORDERED the United States Attorney shall schedule a date and time for the video deposition of the material witness(es) within 30 days of appearance. (a juvenile material witness within 24 hours) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall preserve video deposition testimony pending resolution of this matter. Material Witness(es) present and state true name to be the following: Roselia Conde-Galiz and Delia Lopez-Mendoza. Appearances : AUSA Matthew Eltringham, duty for the Government, CJA Attorney Enrique Gonzales, Sr. for material witness(es). Material Witness(es) are present and in custody. Spanish Interpreter Sandra Bravo, appears telephonically, and assists material witness(es). Hearing held 1:15 pm to 1:25 pm. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BHA) [4:24-mj-02393-N/A-JR] | |
5 | 5
![]() |
|
6 | 6 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald: Initial Appearance as to Francisco Ortega held on 8/8/2024. FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT TAKEN. Appointing Frederick Michael Carrillo for the defendant with Appointment Type: CJA. Defendant(s) state true name to be the same. Detention Hearing as to the defendant held on 8/8/2024. Defendant ordered/continued detained pending trial. Preliminary Hearing as to the defendant waived on 8/8/2024. Finding: Defendant held to answer before District Court. Interpreter N/A English. PTS recommends detention. Defendant submits as to detention - warrants pending. VTD date stated on the record. In the presence of government and defense counsel, the Court orally advises the government of their Brady obligation. Written order to follow. Appearances : AUSA Matthew Eltringham, duty for the Government, CJA Attorney F Michael Carrillo for defendant. Defendant is present and in custody. Hearing held 2:15 pm to 2:55 pm. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BHA) [4:24-mj-02393-N/A-JR] | |
7 | 7 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 Bruce G Macdonald.(BHA)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) [4:24-mj-02393-N/A-JR] | |
8 | 8
![]() |
|
Friday, August 09, 2024 | ||
9 | 9
![]() |
|
10 | 10
![]() |
|
Tuesday, August 13, 2024 | ||
11 | 11
![]() |
|
Monday, August 26, 2024 | ||
12 | 12
![]() |
|
14 | 14
![]() |
|
15 | 15
![]() |