Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cr-00922/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cr-00922-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Krista Parker
Defendant
Jimmy Piedra
Defendant
United States of America
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) No. CR 05-00922-TUC-CKJ [BPV]

Plaintiff, )

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

vs. ) ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

) DISMISS FOR VIOLATION OF FIFTH

KRISTA PARKER, ) AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS

) CLAUSE

Defendant. )

_________________________________ )

The Defendant Krista Parker was indicted on four drug-related conspiracies and

substantive counts for importation and possession with intent to distribute 261 kilograms

of marijuana at the Lukeville Port of Entry on April 4, 2005. The Defendant filed

Motions to Dismiss for Violation of Fifth Amendment (Docket # 37) and for Multiplicity

of the Indictment (Docket # 36). The Government filed its Responses (Docket # 39 and #

40).

The matters eventually came for Evidentiary Hearing before the Court on January

12, 2006. The Government called Special Agent Rick Perez (ICE), Seized Property

Specialist Maureen Sullivan (ICE), and Fines, Penalties & Forfeiture Officer Carmen

Dominguez (USCBP).

The Court having considered the briefing, arguments, and evidence presented,

recommends that the District Judge, after his independent review and consideration, enter

an order:

1) DENYING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Multiplicity; and

2) DENYING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for (Destruction of Marijuana)

Case 4:05-cr-00922-CKJ-BPV Document 55 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Fifth Amendment Violation.

FACTS

On April 4, 2005, Krista Parker and Jimmy Piedra approached the Lukeville Port

of Entry from Mexico. Customs agents found 261 kilograms of marijuana in the

recreational vehicle Ms. Parker was towing. As a result of this discovery, Ms. Parker was

indicted for Conspiracy to Possess With Intent to Distribute (Count I); Possession With

Intent to Distribute (Count II); Conspiracy to Import (Count III); and Possession With

Intent to Import (Count IV).

After the marijuana was discovered, SA Rick Perez traveled to Lukeville to take

possession of core samples for testing and to identify a bulk package for trial usage. He

also was charged with providing for the storage, but not delivery of the marijuana to the

vault in Nogales. The discovering agency was responsible for delivering it to the vault.

According to the manual and the proper procedures created thereby, SA Perez was

supposed to notify both Maureen Sullivan and Carmen Dominguez of any seizure. 

Specialist Sullivan was supposed to know what had been seized and was being stored by

Officer Dominguez. Officer Dominguez was supposed to store and destroy contraband

that was no longer of any evidentiary value. In this case, Specialist Sullivan was unaware

of the Parker marijuana having been seized and stored by Officer Dominguez. Specialist

Sullivan consequently was unable to notify the U.S. Attorney or SA Perez that destruction

of the marijuana was being contemplated. Officer Dominguez destroyed the marijuana

because she was required to do so by the Department of Justice rules and because the

absence of any communication from Perez, Sullivan, or the U.S. Attorney led her to

believe the destruction was appropriate.

The destruction occurred because case agents did not read the seizure manuals and

they were not being properly trained on storage of contraband. Since the Defendant's

Motion to Dismiss has been filed, Officer Dominguez and Specialist Sullivan

communicate with each other about all seizures (they have taken the testosterone out of

the storage and destruction of evidence function). Future inadvertent destruction of

Case 4:05-cr-00922-CKJ-BPV Document 55 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

evidence should diminish substantially.

DISCUSSION

The Defendant seeks a dismissal of Counts I and II. The Government opposes the

Motion. This Court recommends the Motions be denied because each Count requires the

proof of different facts. Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). See also Albernaz

v. U.S., 450 U.S. 333 (1981), which basically permits all four Counts as returned by the

Grand Jury.

With respect to dismissal based upon destruction of evidence, the Defendant must

show "bad faith". Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57-58 (1988), and California v.

Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488-9 (1984). The evidence, at best, shows inexperience and

improper training due to the high volume of new law enforcement hires and ever-increasing

drug seizures. Furthermore, the experienced government specialists required to store and

destroy contraband have taken steps to limit, if not end, the inadvertent destruction of

contraband before judicial proceedings have no further use of the evidence.

In this case, the Government and the defense have 1) photos of the destroyed

packaged marijuana; 2) a representative bale; 3) and chemical analysis of the core samples.

 From this evidence, the Government can ask the trial jury to infer or find how much

marijuana the Defendant possessed.

The Defendant at trial may ask the Court to instruct the jury, ala Willitsin state court,

to infer that the Defendant did not possess as much marijuana as the Government contends

she possessed, U.S. v. Thomas, 355 F3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2004), what the Government must

prove, and U.S. v. Nordby, 225 F3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2000), what a jury must find.

CONCLUSION

It is the recommendation of this Court that the District Judge, after his independent

review and consideration, enter an Order DENYING both of Defendant's Motions to Dismiss

(Docket # 36 and # 37).

Case 4:05-cr-00922-CKJ-BPV Document 55 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the parties have ten (10) days from the date of

this Report and Recommendation to file written objections to these findings and

recommendations with the District Court. Any objections filed should be filed as CR 05-

00922-TUC-CKJ.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2006.

Case 4:05-cr-00922-CKJ-BPV Document 55 Filed 01/24/06 Page 4 of 4