Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cr-02199/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cr-02199-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oscar Barreras-Felix
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Oscar Barreras-Felix,

Defendant.

No. CR-19-02199-TUC-JGZ (BGM)

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Oscar Barreras-Felix’s Motion to 

Compel Disclosure of Relevant Documents (Doc. 16). The Government has filed its 

response and Defendant replied. Govt.’s Response to Mot. to Compel Discl. of Relevant 

Docs. (Doc. 22); Def.’s Reply (Doc. 26). Defendant Oscar Barreras-Felix is charged with 

one (1) count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine; one (1) 

count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; one (1) count of 

conspiracy to import methamphetamine; and one (1) count of importation of 

methamphetamine. Indictment (Doc. 7). 

On January 8, 2020, oral argument was held before Magistrate Judge Macdonald

regarding the motion. Minute Entry 1/8/2020 (Doc. 32). The Court took the matter 

under advisement. The motion is ripe for adjudication.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 21, 2019, Defendant Berreras-Felix was indicted in this cause of 

Case 4:19-cr-02199-JGZ-BGM Document 48 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 8
- 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

action. Indictment (Doc. 7). The indictment was based on a methamphetamine seizure 

that occurred on July 28, 2019. The Complaint (Doc. 1) sets forth the factual background 

as follows:

On July 28, 2019, at approximately 12:40 p.m., Oscar BARRERASFelix entered the United States from the Republic of Mexico through the 

DeConcini Port of Entry in Nogales, Arizona. BARRERAS was the driver, 

sole occupant, and registered owner of a white Dodge Nitro bearing a 

Mexican license plate. The primary Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

officer conducted routine system queries and noticed this was only the 

second crossing of the vehicle and the previous crossing went north of the 

I-19 Border Patrol checkpoint. The officer asked BARRERAS when the 

last time he crossed was and BARRERAS stated, “Eight days ago.” The 

officer then asked BARRERAS what he did when he last crossed. 

BARRERAS said he went shopping at Wal-Mart and then returned to 

Mexico. The officer thought this information was inaccurate due to the 

previous system queries and referred BARRERAS to the secondary 

inspection area.

The vehicle was x-rayed and officers observed anomalies in the gas 

tank area. A CBP canine alerted to an odor it had been trained to detect 

emanating from the gas tank area of the vehicle. In the secondary 

inspection area, an officer asked BARRERAS to turn off the vehicle and 

hand over the keys. When the secondary officer asked BARRERAS 

questions, BARRERAS spoke quickly and gave the officer the impression 

that he had been practicing what to say. BARRERAS told the officer he 

was the owner of the vehicle and the only person who drove it. The officer 

asked BARRERAS to exit the vehicle. When BARRERAS got out, he put 

his hands behind his back. After doing this and then noticing that he was 

not being placed in handcuffs, BARRERAS asked the officer if he would 

be escorted to the waiting area. Officers inspected the vehicle and observed 

smeared mud on the back-tire walls, inconsistent mud splatters under the 

vehicle, and tampering with the bolts of the gas tank. When the gas tank 

was removed, officers found 58 packages wrapped in saran wrap and then 

wrapped again in a kitchen seal style wrap. A representative sample of the 

contents of the packages was field tested and yielded positive results for the 

characteristics of methamphetamine. The packages of methamphetamine 

weighed 27.08 kilograms.

Upon arrest, Defendant Berreras-Felix exercised his right to remain silent. Def.’s 

Mot. to Compel (Doc. 16) at 7. Subsequently, Defendant has “consistently denied having 

Case 4:19-cr-02199-JGZ-BGM Document 48 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 8
- 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

any involvement with a cartel or knowingly transporting drugs.” Id.

II. ANALYSIS

Defendant’s motion observes that the Government has historically provided 

testimony by a federal law enforcement agent as a “drug trafficking organization 

(“DTO”) expert” in port of entry importation/possession with intent to distribute cases. 

Def.’s Mot. to Compel (Doc. 16) at 1. In general, the agents testify that it is extremely 

uncommon for cartels to use blind mules to transport drugs across the border and that in 

their experience they do not know of any instances in Arizona. Id. at 1–2. Defendant 

points to the case of United States v. Estheban Rodriguez (properly styled United States 

v. Martinez-Figueroa, et al.), Case No. CR-18-0266-TUC-RCC (LAB), which involved 

the use of blind mules by a drug trafficking organization in Arizona. Def.’s Mot. to 

Compel (Doc. 16) at 3. The Estheban Rodriguez matter was filed on February 13, 2018.

Defendant seeks five (5) areas of disclosure:

1) All federal reports, narratives, memoranda, and statements regarding the 

blind mule conspiracy in or related to or associated with the case of Estheban Rodriguez;

2) Names and case numbers relating to persons prosecuted for using 

unknowing couriers;

3) All police reports, narratives, or memoranda in the possession of the 

Nogales City Police Department or the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office regarding the 

usage of blind mules in Nogales and Santa Cruz County;

4) Names of investigators involved in prosecuting people charged with using 

unknowing couriers and reports related to those investigations; and

5) All information in the Government’s possession regarding the State and/or 

Federal investigation of unknowing courier cases or individuals using unknowing 

couriers within the last 10 years in Arizona, regardless of whether the investigation led to 

an indictment or conviction including information as to whether Federal Law 

Enforcement in the Nogales, Arizona area has reviewed port of entry drug cases that 

Case 4:19-cr-02199-JGZ-BGM Document 48 Filed 03/06/20 Page 3 of 8
- 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

occurred during the Rodriguez timeframe to determine if any individuals were actually 

victims of blind mules who ended up pleading guilty or being convicted at trial of 

knowingly importing drugs into the United States.

Def.’s Mot. to Compel (Doc. 16).

A. Legal Standards

1. Brady Material

“[T]he Constitution requires a fair trial, and one essential element of fairness is the 

prosecution’s obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence.” Milke v. Ryan, 711 F.3d 998, 

1002–03 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 674–75, 105 S. Ct. 

3375, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153–55, 92 S. Ct. 

763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. 

Ed. 2d 215 (1963)). Brady material is evidence favorable to an accused and material to 

either guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. 

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); United States v. Collins, 551 F.3d 914, 923 

(9th Cir. 2009). “Any evidence that would tend to call the government’s case into doubt 

is favorable for Brady purposes.” Milke v. Ryan, 711 F.3d 998, 1012 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281–82, 119 S. Ct. 1936, 144 L. Ed. 2d 286

(1999)). It “includes both exculpatory and impeachment material that is relevant to either 

guilt or punishment.” Id. “To be material under Brady/Giglio undisclosed information or 

evidence acquired through that information must be admissible, . . . or capable of being

used to impeach a government witness[.]” United States v. Kohring, 637 F.3d 895, 903 

(9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and citations omitted)

2. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16

Rule 16, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, “[u]pon a defendant’s 

request, the government must permit the defendant to inspect and to copy or photograph 

books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or 

copies or portions of any of these items, if the item is within the government’s 

possession, custody, or control and . . . the item is material to preparing the defense.” 

Case 4:19-cr-02199-JGZ-BGM Document 48 Filed 03/06/20 Page 4 of 8
- 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

Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E)(i). “Materiality is a necessary prerequisite to discovery.” 

United States v. USDC, Central Dist. of Cal., Los Angeles, Cal., 717 F.2d 478, 480 (9th 

Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). “Materiality is a ‘low threshold; it is satisfied so long as 

the information . . . would have helped’ to prepare a defense. United States v. SotoZuniga, 837 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Hernandez–Meza, 

720 F.3d 760, 768 (9th Cir. 2013)). However, “[m]ateriality means more than that the 

evidence in question bears some abstract logical relationship to the issues in the case. 

There must be some indication that the pretrial disclosure of the disputed evidence would 

. . enable[] the defendant significantly to alter the quantum of proof in his favor.” United 

States v. Maniktala, 934 F.2d 25, 28 (2d Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). “An abstract 

logical relationship to the issues in the case is not, however, sufficient to force the 

production of discovery under rule 16.” United States v. George, 786 F.Supp. 56, 58 

(D.D.C. 1992) (quotations and citations omitted). “The documents at issue must play an 

important role in uncovering admissible evidence, aiding witness preparation, 

corroborating testimony or assisting impeachment or rebuttal.” Id. (quotations and 

citations omitted).

Additionally, “a written summary of [expert] testimony that the government 

intends to use . . . during its case-in-chief at trial [must be disclosed upon request.] . . . 

[This] summary . . . must describe the witness’s opinions, the bases and the reasons for 

those opinions, and the witness’s qualifications.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G) (2018). 

Such disclosures are intended to provide Defendant “with a fair opportunity to test the 

merit of the expert’s testimony through focused cross-examination[.]”) United States v. 

Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted).

B. Category 1—Estheban-Rodriguez Material

Defense counsel is seeking Estheban-Rodriguez disclosure from the case United 

States v. Eva Verenize Martinez-Figueroa, et al., Case No. CR-18-0266-TUC-RCC

(LAB). “Judge Ferraro is currently reviewing more than 16,000 pages of disclosure from 

Case 4:19-cr-02199-JGZ-BGM Document 48 Filed 03/06/20 Page 5 of 8
- 6 -

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

the Estheban-Rodriguez case but has not yet ruled on the motion to compel.” Govt.’s 

Response (Doc. 22) at 3 n.1. The Government highlights several ways in which the 

modus operandi of the Flores-Enriquez drug trafficking operation differ from what 

occurred with Mr. Berreras-Felix. At this juncture, however, the Government has not 

identified a particular individual or agent whom it will call as an expert in drug 

trafficking operations. Govt.’s Response (Doc. 22) at 10 n.3. At oral argument the 

Government suggested that an expert witness may not be necessary; however, at the time 

of its response the Government expressed a clear intent to call an expert in drug 

trafficking operations. Id.

The Court agrees that Rule 16, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, “does not 

authorize the discovery or inspection of reports, memoranda, or other internal 

government documents made by an attorney for the government or other government 

agent in connection with investigating or prosecuting the case.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 

16(a)(2). There may be, however, Brady material or other discoverable documents in the 

Estheban-Rodriguez/Martinez-Figueroa disclosure that would assist Defendant in 

developing his blind mule defense in this case or impeaching the yet-to-be-named 

Government expert contained. As such, the Government should confer with the 

Estheban-Rodriguez/Martinez-Figueroa prosecutors and review the contents of the

Estheban-Rodriguez/Martinez-Figueroa disclosure related to the use of blind mules. If 

Brady material is found, the Government is directed to disclose such material consistent 

with its ongoing obligations. Government counsel shall also disclose any documents 

consistent with the disclosure requirements under Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

C. Category 2—Names and Case Numbers Relating to Persons Prosecuted 

for Using Unknowing Couriers.

Defendant’s argument consists of the following:

Federal Rule 16(a)(1)(E) provides that, upon the defendant’s request, the 

government must permit the defendant to inspect and copy documents and 

data if the item is within the government’s possession, custody, or control, 

Case 4:19-cr-02199-JGZ-BGM Document 48 Filed 03/06/20 Page 6 of 8
- 7 -

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

and the item is material to preparing the defense. As explained above, Mr. 

Barreras intends to present the case that he was an unknowing courier, or 

blind mule. As such, names and case numbers relating to persons 

prosecuted for using blind mules—which is what Mr. Barreras plans to 

testify that he was—is material to the preparation of his defense and trial. 

This information is therefore material and the Court should order that it be 

disclosed.

Def.’s Mot. to Compel (Doc. 16) at 11. The names and case numbers are part of the 

public record and therefore not in the exclusive control of the Government. As such, 

disclosure is not required.

D. Category 3—Information from Local Authorities

The local authorities were not involved with the arrest or prosecution in this case. 

Any logical relationship such information could have with this case is abstract and as 

such is not material. The Court finds disclosure would be inappropriate.

E. Category 4—Names of Investigators Involved in Prosecuting People 

Charged with Using Unknowing Couriers and Reports Related to those 

Investigations

Defendant seeks information regarding “the disclosure of the names of federal 

agents in Arizona that have investigated blind mule cases.” Def.’s Mot. to Compel (Doc. 

16) at 12. Any logical relationship such information could have with this case is abstract

and therefore not material. The Court finds disclosure would be inappropriate.

F. Category 5—All information regarding State or Federal Investigations of 

Unknowing Courier Cases

This request is extremely overbroad and disclosure would not be appropriate.

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Case 4:19-cr-02199-JGZ-BGM Document 48 Filed 03/06/20 Page 7 of 8
- 8 -

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

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Oscar Barreras-Felix’s 

Motion to Compel Disclosure of Relevant Documents (Doc. 16) is GRANTED in part 

and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government shall review

and disclose the Estheban-Rodriguez/Martinez-Figueroa disclosure consistent with this 

opinion.

Dated this 6th day of March, 2020.

Case 4:19-cr-02199-JGZ-BGM Document 48 Filed 03/06/20 Page 8 of 8