USA v. Becerra-Medina (4:24-cr-02729), Arizona District Court (2024)


USA v. Becerra-Medina

Arizona District Court
Case #: 4:24-cr-02729
Case Filed:May 16, 2024
  • Docket
  • Parties (2)
Last checked: Saturday May 18, 2024 12:19 AM MST

Defendant

Emily Alondra Becerra-Medina (1)

Represented By

Saul Martin Huerta, Jr.
Saul M Huerta Esq.
contact info

Plaintiff

USA

Represented By

Jose Ruben Solis, Jr.
Us Attorneys Office - Tucson, Az
contact info



Docket last updated: 05/18/2024 1:32 AM MST

Tuesday, May 07, 2024
Arrest of Emily Alondra Becerra-Medina on 5/7/2024. (CAB) [4:24-mj-03292-N/A-AMM]

Related: [-]

Wednesday, May 08, 2024
1 1 COMPLAINT as to Emily Alondra Becerra-Medina. (CAB) [4:24-mj-03292-N/A-AMM]

Related: [-]

Thursday, May 09, 2024
2 2 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Angela M Martinez: Initial Appearance as to Emily Alondra Becerra-Medina held on 5/9/2024. Defendant(s) state true name to be the same. 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. 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 Sarah Houston, attorney on duty for the Government, AFPD Alan Macias, specially appearing for defendant. Defendant is present and in custody. Spanish Interpreter Carlos Arvizu assists defendant. Detention Hearing set for 5/23/2024 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald. Preliminary Hearing set for 5/23/2024 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald. Related [+] Hearing held 2:18 PM to 3:10 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SIB) [4:24-mj-03292-N/A-AMM]

Related: [-] corded by COURTSMART.

3 3 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 Angela M Martinez.(SIB)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) [4:24-mj-03292-N/A-AMM]

Related: [-]

4 4 MINUTE ORDER: Added appointed attorney Saul Martin Huerta, Jr, CJA for Emily Alondra Becerra-Medina. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SCA) [4:24-mj-03292-N/A-AMM]

Related: [-]

Thursday, May 16, 2024
6 6 INFORMATION - Felony as to Emily Alondra Becerra-Medina (1) count(s) 1, 2. (MCO)

Related: [-]

7 7 WAIVER OF INDICTMENT by Emily Alondra Becerra-Medina. (MCO)

Related: [-]

Continue to Create Account

USA v. Becerra-Medina (4:24-cr-02729), Arizona District Court (2024)

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Delena Feil

Last Updated:

Views: 6171

Rating: 4.4 / 5 (45 voted)

Reviews: 84% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Delena Feil

Birthday: 1998-08-29

Address: 747 Lubowitz Run, Sidmouth, HI 90646-5543

Phone: +99513241752844

Job: Design Supervisor

Hobby: Digital arts, Lacemaking, Air sports, Running, Scouting, Shooting, Puzzles

Introduction: My name is Delena Feil, I am a clean, splendid, calm, fancy, jolly, bright, faithful person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.