See Also
USA v. Gonzalez-Navarette (4:24-cr-02347), Arizona District CourtUSA v. Ballesteros-Almeraz (4:24-cr-03428), Arizona District CourtUSA v. Rodriguez-Gomez
| Arizona District Court | |
| Case #: | 4:24-cr-03443 |
| Case Filed: | Jun 10, 2024 |
- Docket
- Parties (2)
| Last checked: Wednesday Jun 12, 2024 12:29 AM MST |
Defendant Carlos Rodriguez-Gomez (1) | Represented By Peter Anastasius Matiatos |
Plaintiff USA | Represented By Jose Ruben Solis, Jr. |
Docket last updated: 06/12/2024 1:21 AM MST
| Wednesday, May 29, 2024 | ||
| Arrest of Carlos Rodriguez-Gomez on 5/29/2024. (SGG) [4:24-mj-07609-N/A-AMM] Related: [-] | ||
| Friday, May 31, 2024 | ||
| 1 | 1 COMPLAINT as to Carlos Rodriguez-Gomez. (SGG) [4:24-mj-07609-N/A-AMM] Related: [-] | |
| Monday, June 03, 2024 | ||
| 2 | 2 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Maria S Aguilera: Initial Appearance as to Carlos Rodriguez-Gomez held on 6/3/2024. 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 Sandra Hansen, attorney on duty for the Government, AFPD Matei Tarail, duty for defendant. Defendant is present and in custody. Spanish Interpreter Carlos Avrizu assists defendant. Detention Hearing set for 6/17/2024 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Angela M Martinez. Preliminary Hearing set for 6/17/2024 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Angela M Martinez. Related [+] Hearing held 2:56 PM to 4:00 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CXE) [4:24-mj-07609-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 Maria S Aguilera.(CXE)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) [4:24-mj-07609-N/A-AMM] Related: [-] | |
| 4 | 4 MINUTE ORDER: Added appointed attorney Peter Anastasius Matiatos, FPD for Carlos Rodriguez-Gomez. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MYE) [4:24-mj-07609-N/A-AMM] Related: [-] | |
| Monday, June 10, 2024 | ||
| 6 | 6 INFORMATION - Felony as to Carlos Rodriguez-Gomez (1) count(s) 1, 2. (BAC) Related: [-] | |
| 7 | 7 WAIVER OF INDICTMENT by Carlos Rodriguez-Gomez. (BAC) Related: [-] | |
Continue to Create Account
