Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Dominguez

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

February 9, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ALVARO DOMINGUEZ, JAVIER R. LOZOYA MENCHACA, JORGE ALBERTO SAINZ NAVARRETE A.K.A. “HORACIO SAINZ NAVARRETE” and JUAN CARLOS RUIZ-GARCIA, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM ON HEARING OF RULE 17.1 CONFERENCE

          MICHAEL D. NELSON United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter came before the Court on January 24, 2017, for a hearing on the Government's motion (Filing No. 286) for a pretrial conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.1. The Government was represented by John E. Higgins and Matt E. Lierman, Assistant United States Attorneys. Alvaro Dominguez was represented by James M. Davis. Jorge Alberto Sainz Navarrete a.k.a. “Horacio Sainz Navarrete” was represented by Chad D. Primmer. Juan Carlos Ruiz-Garcia was represented by Joshua W. Weir. James R. Kozel, counsel for Javier R. Lozoya Menchaca, was excused as a plea hearing had been requested and scheduled.

         The parties discussed the evidentiary issues described below pertaining to trial. As to each, the parties reached the agreement described below or otherwise reserved the issue for decision at trial.

         1. GPS Vehicle Tracker. Mr. Primmer objected on foundation and hearsay grounds. Mr. Weir joined this objection. Mr. Davis had no objection.

         2. Cell Phone Location Information (“Ping” Warrant). Mr. Primmer objected on foundation and hearsay grounds. Mr. Weir joined this objection. Mr. Davis had no objection.

         3. Search Warrants & Seized Evidence, to include: (1) evidence seized during traffic stops and (2) searches of residences. No. counsel objected to foundation or to offering the seized items thru a single agent with respect to each event.

         4. Juan Carlos Ruiz-Garcia Business Records. No. counsel objected on foundation or to offering the seized items thru a single agent.

         5. Cell Phones Seized. No. counsel objected on foundation or to offering the seized items thru a single agent.

         6. Cell Phone Contents. No. counsel objected on foundation or to offering the contents of the cell phones thru a single agent. Counsel reserved their right to object to opinion testimony of witnesses regarding the interpretation of content.

         7. Cell Phone Exhibit and Summary Chart. This issue was tabled pending discussion between the parties.

         8. Call Detail Records for Identified Cell Phones. No. counsel objected on foundation or to offering the records thru a single agent.

         9. Lab Results for Seized Narcotics. No. counsel objected on foundation or to offering reports thru stipulation. Mr. Primmer reserved the right to object on relevance grounds at trial. The parties further agreed that any stipulation would be in written form. The Government is therefore ordered to provide a written stipulation to the parties no later than two weeks from the date this order is filed.

         10. Translations of Recorded Conversations. Mr. Primmer and Mr. Weir objected to the Government's produced translations. Mr. Davis did not object.

         11. Surveillance Reports by Multiple Officers. Mr. Primmer and Mr. Weir objected on the basis of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.