Lucio R and C.E. Martinez for Borderland Beat
![]()
![]()
Last week the court ruled against Alfredo “El Mochomo” Beltran Leyva, on several motions he filed with the court, including the request for the identification of cooperating witnesses be made available to him.
The case against Mochomo has some peculiarities noticed when reviewing transcripts, motions and other filings. For one, there was only a bare bones indictment filed against him after his extradition was approved. He was not a part of the long standing indictment against his brothers and other BLO membership.
Secondly, the evidence against Mochomo, is mostly based on the expected testimony of cooperating witnesses, who they themselves have been known to engage, in the same criminality that Mochomo has been charged with, and one witness is known to have been the leader of an enforcement group.
The following was included in the motion filed on behalf of Mochomo:
1. A review of the discovery generated to date and representations by the government indicates that the overwhelming majority of evidence to be presented at trial is derived from confidential informants.
2. Witnesses who have provided information to law enforcement did so after they were either charged or told that they would be indicted unless they agreed to cooperate.
3. Mr. Beltrán Leyva seeks to interview each person who gave information to law enforcement who falls within the category of confidential informant regardless of whether they will be called to testify at trial.
4. The confidential informants used by law enforcement may be biased against Mr. Beltrán Leyva.
5. The identities of the informants are necessary to the defense in order to investigate bias motives to fabricate and to cast doubt upon the credibility of certain witnesses.
6. Mr. Beltrán Leyva seeks useful and relevant information that cannot be learned without a disclosure by the government. There is no reason related to security to withhold this essential information. Mr. Beltrán Leyva’s due process rights mandate pretrial disclosure of the identities of each confidential informant who has provided information to law enforcement.
7. Because there is no physical evidence linking defendant to the conspiracy, the United States has had to rely upon individuals actively engaged in criminal activity and individuals seeking compensation as the means of structuring the indictment herein.
Argument:
Without disclosure of the informant’s identity and the ability to interview the informant or call the informant as a witness, Mr. Beltrán Leyva might well be forced to testify in order to try to establish that he had a lack of knowledge or intent. Where the informant is a participant and material witness to the crime charged, as is applicable herein with respect to certain government witnesses, forcing Mr. Beltrán Leyva to testify or depriving him of the right to interview or call such a witness constitutes a denial of fundamental fairness, and violates both his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and his Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation as well as to effective assistance of counsel.
If the defense is not alerted to the identity of these witnesses in sufficient time to conduct a thorough investigation, Mr. Beltrán Leyva’s right to confront his accusers will be severely prejudiced.
Below is the notice that the request was denied (click on image to enlarge)
Three other “relief” motions were filed today;
1. Defendant requests a weekly hair trim and shave, during his trial
2. Defendant requests permission to wear street clothes during the trial
3. Defendant requests sack lunches be varied instead of the 2 pieces of bread and cheese
Apparently, he had concerns of constipation.
Read:
The U.S. Trial against EL Mochomo begins February 16th
The U.S. Case against Alfredo "El Mochomo" Beltran Leyva
Read:
The U.S. Trial against EL Mochomo begins February 16th
The U.S. Case against Alfredo "El Mochomo" Beltran Leyva