USA v. Alcaraz Luna
| California Southern District Court | |
| Case #: | 3:24-mj-04694 |
| Case Filed: | Dec 16, 2024 |
| Last checked: Tuesday Dec 17, 2024 11:36 PM PST |
|
Defendant
Ricardo Alcaraz Luna (1)
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
USA
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 12/18/2024 12:37 AM PST |
| Saturday, December 14, 2024 | ||
| Arrest of Ricardo Alcaraz Luna (no document attached) (fjp) | ||
| Monday, December 16, 2024 | ||
| 1 | 1
3
pgs
COMPLAINT as to Ricardo Alcaraz Luna.(fjp)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Info Sheet
|
||
| 2 | 2 Set/Reset Duty Hearings as to Ricardo Alcaraz Luna: Initial Appearance set for 12/16/2024 before Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu. (no document attached) (gac) | |
| 3 | 3
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Kristin Mihelic appearing for USA. (Mihelic, Kristin); Attorney Kristin Mihelic added to party USA (pty:pla)(jrd)
|
|
| 6 | 6 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu: Initial Appearance as to Ricardo Alcaraz Luna held on 12/16/2024. Oral proffer confirmed. Appointed Attorney Federal Defenders for Ricardo Alcaraz Luna. Detention Hearing as to Ricardo Alcaraz Luna held on 12/16/2024. USA oral motion for detention(Flight); motion granted as to Ricardo Alcaraz Luna. Defendant ordered detained without prejudice. Order of detention to be filed by Government. Bond set as to Ricardo Alcaraz Luna (1) No Bail. Rule 5 advisement provided. ( Preliminary Hearing set for 12/30/24 at 11:00am before Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu. Arraignment set for 1/9/25 at 1:30pm before Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu.) Defendants objection noted for the record.(Interpreter Salvador Castellanos, Dan DeCoursey). (CD# 12/16/2024 SBC 24-1:4:23-4:56). (Plaintiff Attorney Daniel Casillas AUSA). (Defendant Attorney N. Papachristou, M. Nettles, J. Dang FD-S/A). (aje) | |
| 7 | 7 ***Spanish Interpreter needed as to Ricardo Alcaraz Luna (no document attached) (aje) | |
| 9 | 9
ORDER as to Ricardo Alcaraz Luna: The Court orders the United States to comply with the continuing duty to disclose evidence which is favorable to the defendant as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny. Upon finding that the government has failed to comply with this order, the Court may, as appropriate, order the production of such information, grant a continuance, impose evidentiary sanctions, or, in extreme cases, dismiss charges.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu on 12/16/24. (aje)
|
|