USA v. Perez-Morales (4:24-cr-02031), Arizona District Court (2024)


USA v. Perez-Morales

Arizona District Court
Case #: 4:24-cr-02031
Case Filed:Apr 19, 2024
Terminated:Apr 29, 2024
  • Docket
  • Parties (2)
Last checked: Sunday May 19, 2024 12:23 AM MST

Plaintiff

USA

Represented By

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

TERMINATED PARTIES

Defendant

Jorge Perez-Morales (1)

Terminated: 04/29/2024

Represented By

Alan Macias
Federal Public Defenders Office - Tucson
contact info



Docket last updated: 05/19/2024 1:01 AM MST

Wednesday, April 10, 2024
Arrest of Jorge Perez-Morales on 4/10/2024. (REC) [4:24-mj-03127-N/A-JR]

Related: [-]

Friday, April 12, 2024
1 1 COMPLAINT as to Jorge Perez-Morales. (REC) [4:24-mj-03127-N/A-JR]

Related: [-]

Monday, April 15, 2024
3 3 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael A Ambri: Initial Appearance as to Jorge Perez-Morales held on 4/15/2024. 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 Carson Gilbert (duty) for the Government, CJA Attorney Hortencia Delgadillo specially appears for defendant. Defendant is present and in custody. Spanish Interpreter Hortensia Studer assists defendant. Detention Hearing set for 4/29/2024 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M Rateau. Preliminary Hearing set for 4/29/2024 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M Rateau. Related [+] Hearing held 2:31 PM to 3:37 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SGG) [4:24-mj-03127-N/A-JR]

Related: [-] corded by COURTSMART.

4 4 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.) [4:24-mj-03127-N/A-JR]

Related: [-]

5 5 MINUTE ORDER: Added appointed attorney Alan Macias (FPD) for Jorge Perez-Morales. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SCA) [4:24-mj-03127-N/A-JR]

Related: [-]

Friday, April 19, 2024
6 6 INFORMATION - Felony as to Jorge Perez-Morales (1) count(s) 1, 2. (ARC)

Related: [-]

7 7 WAIVER OF INDICTMENT by Jorge Perez-Morales. (ARC)

Related: [-]

Continue to Create Account

USA v. Perez-Morales (4:24-cr-02031), Arizona District Court (2024)

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Kerri Lueilwitz

Last Updated:

Views: 6175

Rating: 4.7 / 5 (47 voted)

Reviews: 86% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Kerri Lueilwitz

Birthday: 1992-10-31

Address: Suite 878 3699 Chantelle Roads, Colebury, NC 68599

Phone: +6111989609516

Job: Chief Farming Manager

Hobby: Mycology, Stone skipping, Dowsing, Whittling, Taxidermy, Sand art, Roller skating

Introduction: My name is Kerri Lueilwitz, I am a courageous, gentle, quaint, thankful, outstanding, brave, vast person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.