USA v. Barnett-Munoz
| Arizona District Court | |
| Case #: | 4:24-mj-10736 |
| Case Filed: | Nov 12, 2024 |
| Last checked: Thursday Nov 14, 2024 12:19 AM MST |
|
Defendant
Jarely Barnett-Munoz (1)
|
Represented By
|
|
Material Witness
Material Witnesses
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
USA
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 11/14/2024 1:09 AM MST |
| Friday, November 08, 2024 | ||
| Arrest of Jarely Barnett-Munoz on 11/8/2024. (JAM) | ||
| Tuesday, November 12, 2024 | ||
| 1 | 1
COMPLAINT as to Jarely Barnett-Munoz. (JAM)
|
|
| 2 | 2
AFFIDAVIT FOR DETENTION OF MATERIAL WITNESS by USA as to Jarely Barnett-Munoz signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald. (JAM)
|
|
| 4 | 4 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald: Initial Appearance for Material Witness in case as to Jarely Barnett-Munoz held on 11/12/2024. Material Witness(es) are present and in custody. Sam Washington 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: Ranulfo Leyva-Ruiz and Leonardo Leyva-Perea. Appearances : AUSA Fred Cocio for the Government, CJA Attorney Sam Washington 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 1:20 pm to 1:30 pm. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BHA) | |
| 5 | 5
Notice of Video Deposition Hearing as to Jarely Barnett-Munoz. (BHA)
|
|
| 6 | 6 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald: Initial Appearance as to Jarely Barnett-Munoz held on 11/12/2024. FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT TAKEN. Appointing Saul Martin Huerta, Jr for the defendant with Appointment Type: CJA. Defendant(s) state true name to be the same. Detention Hearing as to the defendant held on 11/12/2024. Defendant ordered/continued detained pending trial. Preliminary Hearing as to the defendant waived on 11/12/2024. Finding: Defendant held to answer before District Court. Interpreter required for the defendant (1) Spanish. VTD date and time stated for 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 Fred Codio, duty for the Government, CJA Attorney Saul Huerta for defendant. Defendant is present and in custody. Spanish Interpreter Christina Romero assists defendant. Hearing held 2:15 pm to 2:45 pm. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BHA) | |
| 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.) | |
| 8 | 8
SEALED CJA 23 Financial Affidavit by Jarely Barnett-Munoz. (BHA)
|
|