Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cr-00047/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cr-00047-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martha Santiago
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTHA SANTIAGO,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cr-0047-SI-1 

FINAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER

On May 21, 2019, the Court held a final pretrial conference in the above captioned matter, 

which is set for jury trial beginning June 3, 2019. All parties were represented by counsel. The 

following matters were resolved:

1. Trial schedule: The parties expect that the case will take two days to complete. The 

Court does not hear trials on Fridays (although deliberating juries may continue their deliberations 

on Fridays). The trial day runs from 8:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., with a 15 minute break at 10:00 a.m., 

a 30 minute break at noon and a 15 minute break at 1:45 p.m., all times approximate.

2. Number of jurors and challenges: There will be a jury of twelve members, plus

one alternate juror. The government shall have six peremptory challenges, the defendant shall have 

ten peremptory challenges.

3. Voir dire: The Court will conduct general voir dire, including various of the 

questions requested by counsel in their proposed additional voir dire filings. Counsel for each side 

shall have up to 20 minutes total to question the panel. The parties are directed to meet and confer 

Case 3:19-cr-00047-SI Document 46 Filed 05/21/19 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

concerning a neutral, non-argumentative statement of the case which can be read to the jury panel 

at the beginning of the voir dire process; this statement shall be provided to the Court by Friday, 

May 31, 2019.

4. Jury instructions: The Court received proposed jury instructions from the 

government and from defendant. The parties are directed to meet and confer to resolve any disputes 

as to the requested instructions, and to provide the Court by Friday, May 31, 2019 with any agreedupon revisions to the standard Ninth Circuit instructions. 

5. Trial exhibits: No later than Friday, May 31, 2019, the plaintiff shall submit its trial 

exhibits, in binders with numbered tabs separating and identifying each exhibit. The Court shall be 

provided with three sets (the originals for the file, one set for the Court and one set for the witnesses) 

and the defendant with one set.

6. Motions in limine: Each side filed six motions in limine, some overlapping. The 

Court rules as follows:

Government No. 1, re: Ms. Santiago’s “spontaneous statements” when leaving her 

vehicle: Government counsel indicated that they will not elicit these statements in their case in 

chief. Hence the motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

Government No. 2, re: Mr. Haga’s presence in Ms. Santiago’s vehicle and his status as 

a fugitive: The government seeks to admit facts regarding Mr. Haga’s status as a fugitive and 

his presence in Ms. Santiago’s car to demonstrate that the federal officers were engaged in their 

official duties and as facts relevant to motive. Defendant argues this evidence is irrelevant and 

unduly prejudicial. The Court finds it relevant to explain the officers’ actions and not unduly 

prejudicial, provided that no mention is made of Mr. Haga’s underlying offenses. The motion is 

GRANTED.

Government No. 3, re: Ms. Santiago’s supervision status: The government seeks to 

Case 3:19-cr-00047-SI Document 46 Filed 05/21/19 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

admit Ms. Santiago’s supervised release status at the time of the incident, as evidence of motive –

i.e. that she fled so as not to get caught violating her supervised release conditions. Defendant 

argues this evidence is irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The Court finds this evidence relevant to 

motive not unduly prejudicial, provided that no mention is made of the offenses underlying Ms. 

Santiago’s supervision. The motion is GRANTED.

Government No. 4, re: admission of items found in Ms. Santiago’s car: The government 

argues that evidence from Ms. Santiago’s car – credit cards and forms of identification, blank credit 

cards, and a magnetic stripe card reader – are admissible as to motive. Multiple drivers’ licenses 

and identification cards found in the vehicle belonged to women who bear considerable resemblance 

to Ms. Santiago, including women of similar age, skin tone, and hair color. The government argues 

these items are evidence of additional criminal activity and provide a separate motive for defendant 

to flee. Defendant argues (1) the evidence is not relevant; (2) the government is unlikely to 

prove Ms. Santiago knowingly possessed the credit card evidence; and (3) the evidence is 

prejudicial. The Court finds that any relevance of this evidence is substantially outweighed by its 

prejudicial effect. The motion is DENIED. 

Government No. 5, re: admissibility of Ms. Santiago’s prior felony convictions for 

impeachment purposes: Defendant has sustained numerous prior felony convictions, including 

2012 federal convictions for federal wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and possession with intent 

to distribute methamphetamine. The government requests that, if the defendant testifies, it be 

allowed under Federal Rule of Evidence 609 to impeach her with her 2012 convictions for wire 

fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

1028A. Ms. Santiago concedes that the wire fraud and identity fraud convictions belong to the 

category of crimes involving “dishonest or false statement” contemplated by Rule 609(a)(2), but 

argues that as a co-defendant in those cases, her specific involvement should be examined. The 

Court disagrees, and finds that these prior convictions are admissible both under Rule 609(a)(2) and 

Case 3:19-cr-00047-SI Document 46 Filed 05/21/19 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

609(a)(1), as explicated in United States v. Jiminez, 214 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2000). The motion 

is GRANTED as to the wire fraud and aggravated identity theft convictions only.

Government’s No. 6, re: admissibility of voluntary statements for impeachment 

purposes: Should Ms. Santiago testify, the government seeks to use her “spontaneous statements”

to Agent Perez and her un-Mirandized responses to questions from two other law enforcement 

officers, for impeachment purposes only. The motion is GRANTED.

Defendant’s No. 1, re: exclusion of evidence re Mr. Haga’s presence at the time of the 

incident, Ms. Santiago’s supervised release status and material found in Ms. Santiago’s car:

See rulings above re: government motions 2, 3 and 4.

Defendant’s No. 2, re: exclusion of evidence of prior convictions per Rule 609: See 

rulings above re: government motion 5.

Defendant’s No. 3, re: “untimely produced” text messages: On Friday, May 10, 2019, 

the Government produced additional discovery to defendant — text messages that were allegedly 

sent between Ms. Santiago and Mr. Haga. Defendant argues that because the discovery was 

produced a few days before motions in limine were due, and trial is scheduled for June 3, 2019, this 

Court should exclude those text messages based on timeliness. That request is DENIED, but 

defendant may file further motions to exclude the text messages on the merits, should she find it 

necessary.

Defendant’s No. 4, re: grand jury testimony: The Court ORDERS the government to 

make the grand jury testimony of any witness it expects to testify available to defendant today, May 

21, 2019. 

Defendant’s No. 5, re: un-noticed expert testimony: The government has not noticed 

any experts, and defendant’s motion to exclude any government expert testimony is therefore 

GRANTED.

Defendant’s No. 6, re: compliance with Henthorn and Brady: The government is 

ORDERED to produce any Henthorn or Brady material to which Ms. Santiago is entitled.

Case 3:19-cr-00047-SI Document 46 Filed 05/21/19 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

6. Dismissals: The government DISMISSED Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment at the 

pretrial conference. Only Count 3 will go to trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2019

______________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cr-00047-SI Document 46 Filed 05/21/19 Page 5 of 5