USA v. Sabino-Lorenzo et al
| Arizona District Court | |
| Case #: | 4:25-mj-08431 |
| Case Filed: | Feb 03, 2025 |
| Last checked: Wednesday Feb 05, 2025 12:20 AM MST |
|
Defendant
Miguel Angel Garcia-Gayosso (2)
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Omar Martinez-Lopez (3)
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Sergio Sabino-Lorenzo (1)
|
Represented By
|
|
Material Witness
Material Witnesses
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
USA
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 02/05/2025 1:44 AM MST |
| Friday, January 31, 2025 | ||
| Arrest of Sergio Sabino-Lorenzo, Miguel Angel Garcia-Gayosso, Omar Martinez-Lopez on 1/31/2025. (CMB) | ||
| Monday, February 03, 2025 | ||
| 1 | 1
COMPLAINT as to Sergio Sabino-Lorenzo, Miguel Angel Garcia-Gayosso, Omar Martinez-Lopez. (CMB)
|
|
| 2 | 2
AFFIDAVIT FOR DETENTION OF MATERIAL WITNESS by USA as to Sergio Sabino-Lorenzo, Miguel Angel Garcia-Gayosso, Omar Martinez-Lopez signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A Ambri. (CMB)
|
|
| 5 | 5 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael A Ambri: Initial Appearance for Material Witness in case as to Sergio Sabino-Lorenzo, Miguel Angel Garcia-Gayosso, Omar Martinez-Lopez held on 2/3/2025. Material Witness(es) are present and in custody. Ricardo Bours 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. The Court notes the Video Deposition is currently scheduled for Thursday, February 27, 2025, at 8:30 AM. Material Witness(es) present and state true name to be the following: Esmeralda Santiago Del La Cruz, Henry Eliseo Chumil-Acetun, Manuel Chavez-Lopez, Maydali Solis-Villareal, and Luis Fredy Bernal-Espinosa. Appearances : AUSA Rui Wang (duty) for the Government, CJA Attorney Ricardo Bours for material witness(es). Material Witness(es) are present and in custody. Spanish Interpreter Arturo Garcia, appears telephonically, and assists material witness(es). Hearing held 1:39 PM to 1:56 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SGG) | |
| 6 | 6
Notice of Video Deposition Hearing as to Sergio Sabino-Lorenzo, Miguel Angel Garcia-Gayosso, Omar Martinez-Lopez. (SGG)
|
|
| 7 | 7 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael A Ambri: Initial Appearance as to Sergio Sabino-Lorenzo held on 2/3/2025. 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. Spanish Interpreter required. Material Witness Video Depositions are set for 2/27/2025 at 8:30 AM. An attorney is appointed to represent the defendant. In the presence of government and defense counsel, the Court orally advises the government of their Brady obligation. Written order to follow. Appearances : AUSA Rui Wang (duty) for the Government, CJA Attorney Tony Payson specially appears for defendant. Defendant is present and in custody. Spanish Interpreter Tania Sadler assists defendant. Detention Hearing set for 2/5/2025 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Lynnette C Kimmins. Preliminary Hearing set for 2/5/2025 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Lynnette C Kimmins. Hearing held 3:07 PM to 5:24 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SGG) | |
| 8 | 8 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 Michael A Ambri.(SGG)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) | |
| 9 | 9 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael A Ambri: Initial Appearance as to Miguel Angel Garcia-Gayosso held on 2/3/2025. 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 Miguel Angel Garcia-Gayosso (2) Spanish. Material Witness Video Depositions are set for 2/27/2025 at 8:30 AM. An attorney is appointed to represent the defendant. In the presence of government and defense counsel, the Court orally advises the government of their Brady obligation. Written order to follow. Appearances : AUSA Rui Wang (duty) for the Government, CJA Attorney Tony Payson specially appears for defendant. Defendant is present and in custody. Spanish Interpreter Tania Sadler assists defendant. Detention Hearing set for 2/5/2025 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Lynnette C Kimmins. Preliminary Hearing set for 2/5/2025 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Lynnette C Kimmins. Hearing held 3:07 PM to 5:24 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SGG) | |
| 10 | 10 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 Michael A Ambri.(SGG)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) | |
| 11 | 11 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael A Ambri: Initial Appearance as to Omar Martinez-Lopez held on 2/3/2025. 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 Omar Martinez-Lopez (3) Spanish. Material Witness Video Depositions are set for 2/27/2025 at 8:30 AM. An attorney is appointed to represent the defendant. In the presence of government and defense counsel, the Court orally advises the government of their Brady obligation. Written order to follow. Appearances : AUSA Rui Wang (duty) for the Government, CJA Attorney Tony Payson specially appears for defendant. Defendant is present and in custody. Spanish Interpreter Tania Sadler assists defendant. Detention Hearing set for 2/5/2025 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Lynnette C Kimmins. Preliminary Hearing set for 2/5/2025 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Lynnette C Kimmins. Hearing held 3:07 PM to 5:24 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SGG) | |
| 12 | 12 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 Michael A Ambri.(SGG)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) | |
| 13 | 13 MINUTE ORDER: Added appointed attorney Charles Anslem Thomas, CJA for Sergio Sabino-Lorenzo. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MCO) | |
| 14 | 14 MINUTE ORDER: Added appointed attorney Roger H Sigal, CJA for Omar Martinez-Lopez. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MCO) | |
| 15 | 15 MINUTE ORDER: Added appointed attorney Alejandro Esteban Munoz- CJA for Miguel Angel Garcia-Gayosso. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MCO) | |