F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Au gust 9, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [ PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 01- 1717 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Dis tri ctCo ur t No . 98 -0 07 21 -CR- JAL UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us
RUBEN CAMP A, a/k /a Jo hn Doe 3 , etc ., RENE GONZA LEZ, a/k/a Iselin, etc. GERARDO HERNANDEZ , a/k/a G iro, e tc. LUIS MEDINA, a/k/a O so, etc. ANTONIO GU ERRERO, a/k /a Ro la nd o Go nz al ez-Di az, et c., Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1108 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Dis tri ctCo ur t No . 98 -0 07 21 -CR- JALThe Honor able James L . Oake s, United States Circuit J udg e for the Second Circuit, sitting * by desig nation. 2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us
GERARDO HERNANDEZ , a/k /a Giro , etc ., LUIS MEDINA, a/k /a Oso , etc ., RENE GONZA LEZ, a/k /a Ise li n, et c., ANTONIO GU ERRERO, a/k /a Ro la nd o Go nz al ez-Di az, et c., RUBEN CAMP A, a/k /a Jo hn Doe 3 , etc ., Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Augus t 9, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , KRA V IT CH , a nd O A K E S , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * PE R CU RIA M: T he de fe ndant- ap pe llants , Ru be n C am pa , Re ne G onz al ez , G er ar do H er nande z, L uis Me din a an d A nto nio G ue rr er o, w er e co nvi ct ed a nd s en te nc ed

f orThe de fenda nts raise numerous other issues unre lated to the cha ng e of ve nue. Campa, 1 Gonzalez, Guerre ro, He rnande z , an d M edina a rgue prose cutorial misconduct r eg ardingthe misconduct of a g overnme nt witness and duringclosi ngargument, improper use of the Classified Information Proce dures Ac t, improper denia l of a motion to s up p re s s fr uits of searc hes under the For eig n Intellige nce Surveillance Act, Batson violations, insufficienc y of the evidenc e re g ardingthe conspirac y

to transmit national de fense information to Cuba , improper denial of a jury instruction reg arding specific intent, a nd sentenc ing err ors. Campa, Gonzalez, a nd Medina contend t h at the evidenc e wa s insufficient on the c ounts relatingto violations of the F oreig n Service s Reg istration Act. Campa a

nd Guer rer o maintain that the district court improper ly denied their

jury instruction on nece ssity

and justification. Her

nandez ra ises the denial of a motion to dismiss Count I I Ibased on For eig n Sovereig n I mmuniti es Ac t jurisdictional gr ounds and insufficie ncy of t he evidence f or c on sp ir a c y

to c omm it mur de r. B e c a us e we re ve rs e the ir

c onvic tio ns ba se d o n th e de nia l of the ir mot ion s r e latin gto c ha

ng e of ve nu e , w e do no t a dd

re ss t he se a dd iti on a l is su e s. 3 various offenses charging each of them with ac ting as un registered Cuban int el lig en ce a ge nts w orkin g w ith in the U nit ed S ta te s. H er

nande z w as a lso convicted of consp iracy

to com m it m urder by suppo rting and im

plem enting a plan to sho ot down United States civilian aircr aft outside of Cuban and United States ai rs pa ce . T he y

appe al the ir

c onvi ct ion s, se nte nc es , a nd the de nia l of the ir m oti on fo r ne wtr ia l arg uin g, int er a lia , that the pe rv as ive c om m uni ty pr ej udi ce a ga ins t Fi de l C as tr o and the Cu

ban go ve rn m en t and i ts a ge nts a nd the pub lic ity
sur ro undi ng the tr ia l and o the r co m m uni ty e ve nts c om

bin ed to cr eate asit

ua tio n
w he re the y

w er e una ble to obt ai n af

ai r an d im

part ia l tri al
. W e ag re e, a nd

1 REVERSE th ei r co nv ic ti on s an d R EMAND fora ret ria l. O ur c onsi de ratio n of

am oti on f

or c hange of

ve nue r equir es ar ev ie wof the totalityof the circ um stances surroundi ng the trial. T herefor e, in Part I , w e consider the Ba ck gr ound : the ind ic tm en ts, the m oti ons fo r ch an ge of ve nue , voi r dir e, theSe c tio n 9 51 state s: 2 (a) Whoever, other than a diplomatic or consular office r or attache , acts in the United States as an a g ent of a fore ign g overnme nt wi t h o u t p rior notification to the Attor n e y G e n e r a l if r e qu ir e d in s u b s e c ti o n ( b ) , s h a ll b e f

in e d un d e r th is ti tl e or imprisoned not more than ten year s, or both. (b) The Attorney Gene ral shall promulg ate rules and regulations establishing require ments for notification. 18 U.S.C. § 951 (a) a

nd (b). 4 court’ s interactions with the m edia, general fa cts regar ding the trial, the evidence pr es en te d a t tri al , j ur

y c ondu ct a nd c onc er

ns d ur ing the tr ia l, a nd the m oti ons fo r
ne wtr ia l. O ur

r ev ie wof

the e vid en ce a t tri al is m or e ex te nsi ve than is ty pic al f or
co ns id erat io n o f an ap pe al in vo lv in g t he de ni al of a m ot io n fo r ch an ge of v en ue . This is so because the trial evidence itself c reate d safety concerns for the j ury
w hic h im pli cate ve nue c onsi de ratio ns. I n P ar t I I, w e dis cu ss the lawa nd o ur ap pli catio n of

the lawto the f

ac ts i n th is c as e. I n P ar

t I II , w e pr es en t our
co nc lu si on . I. BACKG ROUND A. The Indict m ents Cam pa , G onz al ez , G ue rr er o, H er nande z, a nd M ed ina

w er e ar re ste d ona
cr im ina l c om

pla int on 1 2 S ep te m

be r 1998 , a nd w er e subs eque ntl y ind ic te d w ith nin e co de fe ndants f

or c onsp ir ing to ac t a s a ge nts of the Re publ ic of

Cu baw ith out
re gis te ri ng w iththe A tto rn ey G en er al of

the U nit ed

S ta te s and t o de fr au d th e Uni te d S ta te s, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 95 1( a) an d 2 8 C .F.R. §§ 73 .01 et s eq ., 2In 2 8 C. F .R. §§ 73 .1 , the Attor ne y Ge ne ra l se t f

or th d e fi nit ion s f

or the te rm s u se d in the statute: (a) The ter m ag ent means a ll indivi duals ac ting a s re p re s en t atives of, or on behalf of, a f oreig n g overnme nt or officia l, who are subject to the direc tion or control of t hat foreig n g overnme nt or official, and who are not spec ifically excluded by

the terms of the A ct or the r egulations thereunde r. (b) The te r

m f o r e igng o v e r

n me n t i n c lu d e s an y

p e r s o no r

g r o u p o f p e r s o ns exercising sovere ign de fac to or de jure political jur isdiction over any country , other than the United States, or over any part of suc h country , and includes a ny subdivision of any such g roup or a g ency

to which such sovere ign de facto or de jure authority or functions ar e directly or i ndirec tly deleg ated. Such term shall include any fac tion or bo dy of ins ur g e nts wi thi n a

c ountr y a ssumin gto e xer c ise g ov e rn me nta l a uth or ity whet h er s u ch fac tion or body of insurg ents has or ha s not been re g arde d by the U n i t e d S t at e s a s a

g o v e r n i n ga u th o r i ty. (c ) T he te rm

pr io r n o t if ic atio n me ans the no tif

ic atio n le tte r, te le x, or

fa c sim ile must be re ce i ved by

the addr essee named in §§ 73.3 prior to c ommencingthe se rv ic e s c on te mpl ate d b y the pa rt ie s. 18 C.F.R. § 73.1(a) -(c ). F or e ig n a g e nts are to p ro vid e no tif ic atio n to the Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l a s f

oll ow s: (a) Notification shall be made by the ag ent in the form of

a letter , telex, or fac simil e addr essed to the Attorney Gene ral, dire cted to the attention of the Re g istratio n U nit

of the Cr imi na l D ivi sio n, e xce pt f or tho se age nts de sc ri be d in para g raph[] (b) .
. . of t his section. The document shall state that it is a notification under 18 U .S.C. 951, and provide t he name or name s of the ag ent makingthe no tif ic atio n, the fi rm

name , if any , a nd the bu sin e ss a dd

re ss o r a dd

re sse s o f t he a g e nt, the identity

of t he foreig n g overnme nt or off icial for whom the ag ent is acting , and a brie f desc ription of the ac tiviti es to be c onducted f or the for eig n g overnme nt or of fi c ia l and the anti c ipate d d

ur atio n o f t

he a c tiv iti e s. Ea c h n oti fi c atio n s ha ll c on ta in a c e rt if ic atio n, purs ua

nt t o 2 8 U .S. C. 1 74 6, that th e no tif ic atio n is tr

ue and c or re c t. (b) Notific ation by

ag ents eng ag ed in law e nforc ement investigati ons or regulatory

ag ency activity shall be in the form of a

letter, tele x , or fa csimile addre ssed to the Attorney

Gene ral, dire cted to the attention of Interpol-United States N ational Central B urea

u. Notification by

ag ents eng ag ed in intellig ence , counter intelligenc e, espionag e, c o u

nte r e s p io n a g e or c ounterter rorism assig nment or ser

vice sha ll be in the form of a letter, telex, or fac simil e addr essed to the Attorne y Gene ral, dire cted to the atte nti on of the ne are st F B IL e g a l Att a c he . In c a se of e xce pti on a l c ir c ums tanc e s, no tif ic atio n s ha ll be pr ov ide d co nte mpo ra ne ou sly or a s soon a s r e a so na bly po ssi ble by the ag ent or the ag ent' s supervisor. The letter, tele x , or fa csimile shall include the information set for

th in paragraph ( a) of

this section.

. . . (d) Any subsequent cha

ng e in the information requi red by para g raph ( a) of 5this section shall require a notification within 10 day s of the cha ng e. (e) Notification under

18 U.S.C. 951 shall be ef

fec tive only

if it has been done in compliance w ith thi s s ec t i o n , or if the a g ent has filed a reg istration under the For eig n Ag ents Reg istration A ct of 1938, as ame nded, 22 U.S.C. 611, et seq., which provides the infor

mation require d by

para g raphs ( a) a

nd (d) of this section. 28 C.F.R. § 73.3 (a) , (b), ( d), (e ). Under 18 U.S.C. § 371: I f two or more persons co n s p i re either to commit any offe nse ag ainst the United States, or to de fra

ud the United States, or any ag ency there of in a ny manner or for any purpose, a

nd one or more of such pe rsons d o any act to ef fec t the object of the conspiracy , eac h shall be fined under this title or i mprisoned not more than f ive y ear s, or both. R1-224 at 3-4. 3 I d. at 11. 4 6 and num erous overt acts, in vio lation of 18 U.S. C. § 371 (Count 1). T hey we re al le ge d to ha ve “ func tio n[ ed ] a s c ove rt spi es . . . by

ga the ri ng and transm itt ing inf orm at ionto Cu

ba [] c onc er

nin g U nit ed

S ta te s m ili tary

ins ta llatio ns, gov er

nm en t func tio ns, a nd p ri va te pol iti ca l a ct ivi ty ; by inf iltratin g, inf

orm ing on and
m an ipu la tin g anti -C as tr o po lit ic al gr oups in Mi am i- D ad e Co unty [ Fl or ida ] ; by
sow ing dis inf

orm at ion ” w ith in the se gr oups a nd i n de al ing s w ithoth er pr iva te a nd publ ic groups within th e U nited States, “ and by car ry ing ou t other operational dir ec tiv es of

the Cu ban go ve rn m en t. ” G ue rr er o, H er nande z, a nd M ed ina

w er e al so 3 charged w ith consp iring to deliv er to Cuba inform ation “ relating to the nation al de fe nse of

the U nit ed

S ta te s, ” in vio la tio n of

18 U
. S. C. §§ 7 94( a) , ( c) , a nd 2 4I d. . 1 8 U .S. C. § 79 4( a ) p ro vid e s th at: 5 Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advanta g e of a fore ign nation, communicates, de livers, or tra n s m i t s , o r a t t em p t s t o co m m un i ca t e, d el i v er , o r t ra n s m i t , t o an y fo re i gn go v ern m en t , o r t o an y

fa ct i o no r p arty

o r m i l i t ary

o r n av al fo rc e w i th i na f o re i gn country , whether

rec og nized or unrec og niz ed b y t h e United St ates, or to a ny repr esentative, office r, ag ent, employ ee, subje ct, or c itiz en ther eof, e ither direc tly or indirectly , any

document, wr iting, code book, signa l book, sketch, photog raph, photogr aphic neg ative, bluepr int, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance , or information re lating to the national defe nse, shall be punished b y d ea th or by imp ri so nme nt fo r any te rm of y e ars or fo r l if e , e xce pt t hat th e se nte nc e of

de ath s ha ll not be imposed unless the jury or, if ther e is no jury , the court, further finds that the offe nse resulted in the identification by a for eign power

(as de fined in sec tion 101(a) of the F oreig n Intellige nce Surve ill an ce Act of 1978) of an individual ac ting a s an a g e nt o f t he Un ite d State s and

c on se qu e ntl y

in t he de ath o f t

hat in div idu a l, o r d ir e c tly c on c e rn e d n

uc le ar w e a

po nr y , mi lit ary

sp a c e c ra ft

or sate lli te s, e arl y wa

rn ingsy ste ms, or oth e r m e ans of

de fe ns e or

re ta liatio n a g a ins t l arge-sca le atta c k; w ar p lans ; communications intellige nce or cry ptogr aphic information; or any other major w e a p o n s s ys t e mo r

m a j o r e l e m e n to f

d e f e n s e s tr at e g y. 18 U. S.C. § 7 94 (c ) s tate s: I f two or more persons c onspire to violate this section, and one or more of such per so n s do any

act to ef fec t the object of the conspirac y , eac h of the pa rties to such conspirac y

shall be subject to the punishment pr ovided for the offe nse which is the object of s u c hc o n s p i r a c y. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2: (a ) Wh oe ve r c omm its an o ff e ns e a g a ins t th e Un ite d St ate s o r a ids , a be ts, c ouns e ls, c omm and s, ind uc e s o r p ro c ur e s it s c omm iss ion , is punis ha ble a s a pr inc ipa l. (b) Whoever

willfully cause s an ac t to be done which if direc tly perf ormed by him or ano the r w ou ld b e an o ff

e ns e a g a ins t th e Un ite d St ate s, is p un ish a ble a s a pr inc ipa l. I d. at 23. 6 7 (C ount 2)
. G onz al ez w as c harg ed w itha ct ing a s an a ge nt o f the Re publ ic of Cu ba 5 without prior not ification to the Attorney Ge neral, and Her

nandez and “ John Doe 4 a/k/a Albert Manuel Ruiz” w ere charged w ith causing Gonzalez to act as an unregistered agent, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 95 1 and 2 (Count 1 5). G uerrer o 618 U. S.C. § 1 11 1 s tate s: 7 (a ) M ur de r i s th e un lawf ul kil lin g of a human be ing wi th ma lic e a fo re tho ug ht. Ev e ry mur de r p e rp e tr ate d b y

po iso n, lyingin w a it, or any oth e r k ind

of wi llf ul, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated kill ing; or committed in the perpetr ation of, or attempt to perpe trate, a ny arson, e scape , murder, kidna pping, tr eason, e spionag e, s a b o t a g e , a g g r av at e d s e x u a l a b u s e o r s e x u a l a b u s e , c h i l d

a b u s e , b ur g l ar

y, o r r o b b e r y; or per petrated as pa

rt of a pa ttern or pr actice of assa

ult or torture a g ainst a child or c hil dr e n; o r p e rp e tr ate d f

ro m a pr e me dit ate d d e sign unla wf ull y and mali cio us ly

to eff ect the de ath of a

ny human beingother than h i m who i s killed, is murder in the first deg ree . Any other murde r is murder in the se cond degree . (b) Within the special maritime and te rritorial jurisdiction of the United States, Whoever is guilty of murder in the first deg ree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life; Whoever is guilty

of murder

in the second de g ree , shall be imprisoned for any term of year s or for life
. Conspiracy

to murder is addr essed in 18 U.S.C. § 1117: I f two or more persons conspire to violate section 1111, 1114, 1116, or 1119 of this titl e, and one or more of such per sons do any

overt a ct to eff

ect the obje ct of the conspira cy , eac h shall be punished by imprisonment f or any term of year s or for life. 8 w as c harg ed

w itha ct ing a s an a ge nt o f the Re publ ic of Cu baw ith out

not if ic at ionto the A tto rn ey

G en er al , a nd H er

nande z, Me din a, a nd C am paw er e ch ar ge d w ith
ca usi ng G ue rr er o to a ct

a s an un re gis te re d a ge nt, in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. §§ 9 51
an d 2 (Co un t 1 6)
. He rnandez w as charged w ith consp iracy to m urder, in viol ation of 18 U.S .C. §§ 11 11 and 2, and overt acts relate d to that cons piracy , in violation o f 18 U. S. C. §§ 1 117 an d 2 ( Co unt

3) , pos se ssi on o f a co unt er fe it pa ssp ort, in vio la tio n of 18 7Fr aud and misuse of passports and visas is g overne d by 18 U.S.C. § 1546: 8 (a) Who e v e r

kn o w in g ly

f o r g e s , c o un te r f

e it s , a lt e r s , o r

f a ls e ly ma k e s any immigra nt or nonimmigra

nt visa, permit, border

crossingca rd, alien reg istration rec eipt car d, or other document presc ribed by statute or re g ulation for entr y into or a s e vid e nc e of

a uth or ize d s tay

or e mpl oy me nt in th e Un ite d St ate s, or utt e rs , u se s, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, acc epts, or rec eives any such visa, permit, borde r c ro ssi ng c ard , ali e n re g istratio n re c e ipt c ard , o r o the r d oc ume nt p re sc ri be d b y statut e or re g ulation for entr

y into or as evidenc e of a

uthorized stay

or emp l o y

m en t i n the Un ite d St ate s, kn ow ingit to be fo rg e d, c ounte rf e ite d, a lte re d, or fa lse ly ma de , or t o have b ee n p rocured by

means of a

ny false c laim or statement, or to have bee n otherwise pr ocure d by

fra ud or unlawf

ully obtained; or Whoe v e r , e xc e p t un d e r d ir e c ti o n o f th e A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l o r

the Com m i s s i o n er

o f t h e Imm i gra t i o nan d

Na tura l i z at i o nS erv i ce , o r o th er p roper office r, knowing ly

possesses any

blank perm i t , o r engrave s, sells, brings into the United States, or has in his control or possession a ny plate in the likeness of a plate desig ned for the pr inting of pe rmits, or makes any print, photogr aph, orimpression in the likeness of a

ny immigra nt or nonimmigra

nt visa , permit or other

document re quired for e ntry into the United States, or has in his possession a distinctive paper which has been a dopted by

the Attorney

Gene ral or the Commi ssioner of the I mmigration and Natura liz ation Service for the pr inting of suc h visas, permits, or docume nts; or Whoever, whe n applying f or an immig rant or nonimmigra nt visa , permit, or o th e r d o c u me n t r e qu ir e d f o r e n tr y into th e U n it e d St ate s , o r f o r a dmi s s io n to the United States personates another , or fa lsely appea rs in the name of

a dec ease d individual, or evade s or attempts to evade the i mmigration laws by appea ringunder an assumed or

fictitious name without disclosing his true identity , or sells or otherwise disposes of, or offe rs t o sell or otherw ise dispose of, or utter s, such visa, permit, or other

document, to any

person not author ized by l aw to re ceive such document; or Whoever knowing ly

makes unde r oath, or as permitted under penalty of perjury under section 1746 of t itle 28, United S tates Code, knowing ly subscribes a s tr ue , a ny fa lse state me nt w ithre sp e c t to a mate ri a l f

a c t in any a pp lic atio n, a ff

ida vit , or other document require d by the immigration law s or regulations p re s cr i bed there under, or knowing ly prese nts any such application, affidavit, or othe r docume nt wh ic h c on ta ins any su c h fa lse state me nt or wh ic h fa ils to c on ta in any reas on a ble ba sis in l aw o r f

a c t– Shall be fined unde r this titl e or imprisoned not more than 25 y ear s (if the of fe ns e wa s c omm itt e d to fa c ili tate an a c t of int e rn atio na l te rr ori sm (a s d e fi ne d in 9 U
. S. C. §§ 1 546( a) a nd 2 ( Co unt 4) , pos se ssi on o f fi ve or m or e fr au dul en t 8section 2331 of this title)), 20 y ear s (if the offe nse was committed to facilitate a drug traff ickingcrime ( as def

ined in section 929(a ) of this title)), 10 y ear s (in the ca se of the first or se cond such of fense , if the offe nse was not committed to facilitate such an a c t of int e rn atio na l te rr or ism

or a dr ugtr a ff ic kin gc ri me ), or

15 y e ars (i n th e c a se of any other off ense) , or both. 18 U. S.C. § 1 02 8( a )( 3) pr ov ide s: 9 Whoever, in a c ircumstance descr ibed in subsection (c ) of this section–

. . . . (3) knowing ly

possesses wit h intent to use unlawfully or transf er un lawf ull y fi ve or mor e ide nti fi c atio n d oc ume nts (o the r t ha n th os e iss ue d la wf ull y fo r t he us e of the po sse sso r) , a

uth e nti c atio n f

e atur e s, or fa lse ide nti fi c atio n d oc ume nts

. . . . shall be punished as pr ovided in subsection (b) of this section. 10 identification do cum ents, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 10 28(a)(3) and 2 (Count 5), poss es sio n of

af ra udul en t i de nti fi catio n do cum en t, in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. §§ 1546 (a ) an d 2 ( Co unt

6) , a ct ing a s af

or ei gn a ge nt f

or the Re publ ic of

Cu baw ith out not if ic at ionto the A tto rn ey

G en er al ( Co unt

13) , a nd h av ing c au se d Ju anP ab lo Ro que ( Co unt

19) , A le j an dr o A lon so ( Co unt

22) , N ilo H er

nande z (C ount

23) , a nd L ind a H er

nande z (C ount

24) to ha ve a ct ed

a s un re gis te re d f

or ei gn a ge nts , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 95 1 a nd 2. Cam paw as c harg ed

w ithpos se ssi on o f a co unt er fe it pa ssp ort, in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. §§ 1 546( a) a nd 2 ( Co unt 7) , pos se ssi on o f fa lse ide nti fi catio n doc um en ts, in vio la tio n of 18 § § U
. S. C. 102 8( a) (3 ), ( b) (2 )( B) , a nd ( c) (3 ), a nd 2 (C ount 8) , a nd a ct ing a s an a ge nt o f the Re publ ic of Cu baw ith out

pr ior 9 not if ic at ionto the A tto rn ey

G en er al , in vio la tio n of

18 U
. S. C. §§ 9 51 and 2 ( Co untCodefenda nts Albert Manuel Ruiz (Count 18), J uan Pablo Roque (Count 19), John Doe 10 No. 5 a/k/a Rica

rdo Villare al (Count 20), J ohn Doe No. 6 a/k/a R emijio Luna (Count 21), Aleja ndro Alonso (Count 22), Nilo Herna ndez ( Count 23), and L inda Her nandez (Count 24) wer e also cha rg ed wi th havin g a c te d a s unre g ist e re d a g e nts , in vio latio n of 18 U. S.C. §§ 95 1 and 2. Rui z wa s also char g ed with ca

using A lonso (Count 22), Nilo Herna ndez (Count 23), and L inda Her nandez (Count 24) to ac t as unreg istered a g ents, in violation §§ 951 and 2. Roque rema ins unapprehe nded. R7-978 at 3; R21 at 117. 11 11 17). Me din a w as c harg ed w ithpos se ssi on o f a co unt er fe it pa ssp ort ( Co unt 9) a nd poss es sio n of

apa ssp ort ob ta ine d by

use of af al se state m en t ( Co unt

11) , in violatio n of 18 U. S. C. §§ 15 46(a) and 2, m aking a false statem ent on his passport ap pli catio n, in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. §§ 1 542 an d 2 ( Co unt 10) , pos se ssi on o f fraudulent identification d ocum ents, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 10 28(a)(3), (b )( 2) (B ), a nd ( c) (3 ), a nd 2 ( Co unt 12) , a ct ing a s an a ge nt o f the Re publ ic of Cu ba
w ith out not if ic at ionto the A tto rn ey

G en er al , in vio la tio n of

18 U
. S. C. §§ 9 51 and 2 (C ount 14) , a nd h av ing c au se d Jo se ph S an tos ( Co unt 25) a nd A m ar

y lis S ilv er io Santos (Count 26 ) to have acted a s unregistered agents. Agag order w as 10 subs eque ntl y

e nte re d go ve rn ing the part ie s and the ir a tto rn ey s. 11 B. Ch ange of V enue InA ugus t 19 99, Me din a’ s a tto rn ey m ove d to inc ur

e xpe nse s un de r the Cr im ina l Ju sti ce A ct

to pol l the Mi am i- D ad e Co unty c om m uni ty to de te rm ineR1-280 at 2; R18 at 11-12. 12 R1-280 at 3. 13 R2-303. 14 R2-317 (Gue rre ro), 321 ( Medina), 3 2 4 (Gonz alez), 329 (Campa ); R3-397 (Campa)
. 15 Me din a re qu e ste d a c ha

ng e of ve nu e “ in l ig ht o f e vid e nc e of pe rv a siv e c omm

un ity pr e jud ic e a g a ins t the ac cused” as docume nted by Professor G ary

Moran’ s surv ey wh i ch showed “ public sentiment ag ainst persons alleg ed to be ag ents of Fidel Castro’s C ommunistg overnme nt in Cuba.” R2-321 at 1-2. Mora

n conclude d that, while there had been “seve ral bursts of newspa per a rticles . . . and othe r media attention” surr ounding the Cuban spies’ ar rests, the ba sis for the motion was the “ [v] irulent anti-Castro sentiment” in the c ommunity . I d. at 3. Al tho ugh C amp a, G on z ale z , Gu errero , an d M edi na h ad o ri ginal ly arguedth at t he cas e sho uld be moved to anothe r judicial district, duringoral a rgum en t on the motions, they ag ree d that they would be satisfied with a transf er of the ca se within the district from the Miami division to t he F ort L auder dale division. R5-586 at 2 n.1. 12 w he the r it w as af

ai r an d unbia se d ve nue f

or the tr ia l. Me din a ex pla ine d th at the 12 tr ad iti ona l m ethodo log y

f or a ddr es sin g pr etri al pub lic ity w as not appr opr ia te a nd propos ed that Florida International University Psy cholog y

Profe ssor Gar

y Patric k Moran conduct a telephone po ll with a “ sam ple of 300 peop le.” T he district court 13 gr an te d th e m oti on. 14 In January

2000 , C am

pa, G onzalez, Guer

rero, and Medina m oved for a ch an ge of ve nue , a rg uin g th at

the y w er e una ble to obt ai n an im

part ia l tri al in M i ami a s a r es u l to f p er v as i v e p re ju d i ce ag ai n s tan yon e a s s o ci at ed wi t h Ca s t ro ’s Cuban gov ernm ent. T he m otion s for change of venue w ere based on pretrial 15 p ub l i c i t y a n d“v i r

u l e n ta n t i
- C a s t r o s e n t i me n t ” w h i c h h a de x i s t e di n M i a mi a s “aR2-321 at 3; R2-316 at 2; R2-317 at 2; R2-324 at 1; R2-329 at 1; R2-334 (conta ining ne ws 16 article s which deta il the history of anti-Castro se ntiment in Mi ami); R3-397 at 1; R3-453 at 1-2; R 3- 455 at 2; R3-461 at 2-3. R2-329 at 1, 3; R2-334; R3-397; R3-455. 17 Th e fo llo wi ng art ic le s sp e c if ic a lly a dd re ssi ng the c on sp ir a c y and the ind ic te d d e fe nd ants 18 wer e attac hed as e x hibits i n s up p o rt o f t h e motions for cha ng e of ve nue: Geor g e Ge dda, F eder al officia ls say 10 arr ested, accuse d of spy ing for C uba, M IA M I H ER A LD , Sept. 14, 1998, R2-334, Ex .; Manny Gar cia, Cy

nthia Corzo, I vonne Pere z, S pies amongus: Susp ec t s at t empt ed to blend in, Miami, M IA M I H ER A LD , Sept. 15, 1998, at A1, R2-334; David Ly ons, Carol Rosenberg , Spies among us: U.S. c rac ks alleg ed Cuban ring , arr ests 10, M IA M I H ER A LD , Se p t. 1 5 , 1 9 9 8 , at A 1 , R2
- 3 2 9 , E x. A; R2-334, Ex .; Spies among us, M IA M I H ER A LD , Sep t. 15, 19 98 , at 14A , R2- 32 9, Ex. F ; F a bio la Santiag o, Bignews sadde ns, ang ers e x ile community , M IA M I H ER A LD , Sept. 15, 1998, R2-334, Ex .; J uan O. Tamayo, Arre st of spy suspects may

be switch in tac tics, M IA M I H ER A LD , Sept. 15, 1998, R2-334, Ex .; J avier Ly onnet, Olance Nogue ras, Cae red de espionaje de Cuba/FB Iviro ' a l r e vé s c a sa de supuesto ca

becilla a nd Pablo Alfons, Rui Fer reira , Cae re d de espiona

je de Cuba/Ar

restan a 10 en Miami, N UE VO H ERA LD , S ep t . 15, 1998, at A1, R2-329, Ex. B; L a Ha bana Contra

El P en t ago n o (“ Ha v an a v er s u s th e P en t ago n ”) / E s tru cturade la Red deEspionaje, NUE VO H ERA LD , Se pt. 1 5 , 1 998, R2-329, Ex . C; Arrest of a lleg ed Cuban spies de mands vig orous prosec ution, S UN S ENTI NEL , Sept. 16, 1998, at 30A, R2-329, Ex
. G; J uan O. Tamayo, Miscues blamed on military ’s takeove r of Cuban spy

ag ency , M IA M I H ER A LD , Sep t. 17, 19 98 , at 13 A, R2- 33 4, Ex.; Da vid Ki dw e ll, Motion c ould delay

trials of alleg ed 10 Cuban spies, M IA M I H ER A LD , Oct. 6, 1998, at B1, R2-334, Ex .; David Ly ons, Cuban couple plea ds g uilty in spying c ase, M IA M I H ER A LD , Oct. 8, 1998, at A1, R2-334, Ex .; David Kidwell, Thre e more acc used spies ag ree to plead guilty , M IA M I H ER A LD , O c t. 9 , 1 9 9 8 , at4 B, R 2 -3 2 9 , E x . H; R 2 -3 3 4 , E x . ; C ar o l R o s enb urg, C o u p l e adm i t s ro l e in C u

b an s p y ri n g, M IA M I H ER A LD , Oct. 22, 1998, at 5B , R2-329, Ex . H; J uan O. Ta mayo, U.S.-Cuba spy

ag ency contac ts beg an a de cade ag o, M IA M I H ER A LD , Oct. 31, 1998, R2-334, Ex.; David Kidwell, U.S. tries to tie espionag e ca se to planes’ downing , M IA M I H ER A LD , Nov. 13, 1998, at A1, R2-334, Ex.; Carol 13 do m in an t v al ue . . . fo r fo urde cad es .” The m ot io ns were s up po rte d b y ne ws 16
ar tic le s and M or an ’ s po ll to s ubst an tiate “ ana tm osph er e of gr eat ho sti lity

tow ar ds
an y pe rs on a sso ci at ed

w iththe Ca str o r eg im e” a nd “ the e xte nt and f er vor of the lo cal sen ti m en t ag ai ns t t he Cas tro go ve rn m en t an d i ts su sp ect edall ie s.” 17 The e vidence subm itted in su pport of the m otion s for change of venue w as
m assive. In 2000, a prom inent Cuban-Am erican attorney in Miam i explained that 18Rosenberg , I dentities of 3 alleg ed spies still unknown, Nov. 14, 1998, at B1, R2-334, Ex .; J uan O.

Tamayo, Spies Among U s/Castro A g ents Kee p Ey e on Exil es, M IA M I H ER A LD , Apr. 11, 1999, R2- 329, Ex . D; R2-334, Ex .; Carol R osenber g , Shadowing of C ubans a classic spy tale, M IA M I H ER A LD , Apr. 16, 1999, at A1, R2-329, Ex
. E; R2-334, Ex .; Cuban spy indictment/Charg es filed in downing of exile fliers/The B rothers to the Resc ue Shootdown: David Ly ons, Castro ag ent in Miami cited by U.S. gr and jury , J uan O. Ta mayo, Br others to the R escue Shootdown/Top spy planned B rothers ambush, and Elaine de Valle, Relatives: Charg es fa ll short, M IA M I H ER A LD , May 8, 1999, R2-334, Ex .; Confessed Cuban spy rec eives seve n y ear s, M IA M I H ER A LD , Jan . 2 9, 20 00 , at B 1, R2- 35 5 at C2; Contrite Cuban spy

couple se ntence d, M IA M I H ER A LD , F e b. 3, 20 00 , at B 5, R3- 35 5 at D -2 ; Mi ami Spy -Hunting , M IA M I H ER A LD , Fe b. 19, 2000, at 21A, R3-397, Ex. G-1; Carol Rosenberg , Co nfesse d Cuban spies sentenc ed to seve n y ear s, M IA M I H ER A LD , Fe b. 24, 2000, at 1B , R3-397, Ex . I -1; Terr orism must notwin in Brothe rs to the Rescue sho o t -d o wn , M IA M I H ER A LD , Fe b. 24, 2000, at 8B, R3-397, Ex. J -1 (“Mor e than compensation, the families want the mora l sting of a U.S. criminal prosec ution in federa l court. So far there is only one indictment: Ge rar do Her nandez, alleg ed Cuban spy - r in gle a d e r , c h ar g e d

la s t ye ar w it hc o n s p ir a c y

to mu r d e r in c o n n e c ti o nto th e s h o o t d o w n . ”); Br others Pilot s Remembere d (photo), M IA M I H ER A LD , Fe b. 25, 2000, at B 1, R3-397, Ex . K-1; Marika L y nch, Shot-down B rothers r emember ed, M IA M I H ER A LD , F e b
. 2 5 , 2 0 0 0 , at 2 B , R3
- 3 9 7 , E x. L -1. R15-1636, Ex . 9.

19 I d. 20 R2-321, Ex . A at 10. 21 14 Cu ban- re la te d m atte rs w er e “ ‘ hot -b utt on i ssu es ’ ” as the re w er e ove r 700, 000 Cu ban- A m er ic an s li vin g inMi am i. O f tho se Cu ban- A m er ic an s, 500 , 000 19
rem em bered leaving their hom eland, 10,000 had a relative m urdered in Cuba, 50,000 had a relative tortured in Cuba, and tho usands we re f orm er political pr iso ne rs . P ro fe sso r Mor an ’ s surv ey r es ult s sh ow ed

that 69 pe rc en t of

a ll 20
re spon de nts a nd 7 4 pe rc en t of H isp an ic r es pond en ts w er e pr ej udi ce d a ga ins t pe rs ons ch ar ge d w ithe nga gin g inthe a ct ivi tie s nam ed in the ind ic tm en t. A 21 sig nif ic an t nu m be r, 57 p er ce nt o f the H isp an ic r es pond en ts and 3 9. 6 pe rc en t of a llI d. at Ex. A at 12; see id. at Ex. E at 3. 22 I d. at Ex. A at 11-12. 23 I d. at Ex. A at 13; id. at Ex . E at 3. 24 I d. at Ex. A at 13. 25 R3-397, Ex s.; R4-483, Ex s.; R4-498, Ex s. 26 Duringthe same pe riod of time in which the motions for chang e of venue we re pe nding, a nd ultimately

the t ri al wa s conducte d, there was a substantial amount of publicity reg ardingother matters of inter est in the Cuban community including the conditions in Cuba and high pr ofile leg al events oc curr ing in Miami: the Elian G onzalez matter; the arr est of an United States immi g ration a g e nt, Mari ano F a g e t, who wa s a c c us e d o f s pyingfo r C ub a ; and a c ity -c ounty

ba n o n d oin gbu sin e ss with Cuba.
15 re spon de nts , ind ic at ed

that, “ [b ] ec au se of

[ the ir ] f ee lin gs and o pin ion s a

bout Ca str o’ s go ve rn m en t, ” the y “ w oul d f ind it dif fi cu lt to b e a fa ir

a nd i m part ia l j ur or in a tr ia l o f al le ge d C ub an sp ie s.” Overon e-t hi rdof t he res po nd en ts , 35 .6 22 percent, said that they

would be worr ied about criticism by the com m unityif they
se rv ed on a j ur y that r ea ch ed

anot -g uil ty

ve rd ic t i n aCu

ban sp y c as e. T he 23
re spon de nts w ho i ndi cate d an in ab ili ty to be af ai r an d im

part ia l j ur or

w er e al so
as ke d wh et he r th ere wer e an y cir cu m st an ces th atwou ld ch an ge th ei r op in io n. Of 24 tho se r es pond en ts, 91. 4 pe rc en t of the H isp an ic r es pond en ts and 8 4. 1 pe rc en t of a ll
re spon de nts a nsw er ed

“ no. ” Many

of the a rt ic le s su

bm itt ed by the de fe ndants 25 also docum ented the com m unitytensions and protests related to general anti-Ca stro
se nti m en t, the c ondi tio ns i n C uba , a nd o the r ongo ing le ga l c as es , inc lud ing the Elian G onzalez m atter. 26As to the g ener al anti-Castro se n t i m ents and the c onditions i n Cuba: J uan O. Ta mayo, For mer U
. S
. P o ws Detail Tortur e by Cubans in Vietnam/Savag e bea tings be nt captives to will of man dubbed ‘ Fidel’ , M IA M I H ER A LD , Aug . 22, 1999, at A1, R2-329, Ex. I ; J uan O. Ta mayo, Cuba toughe ns cra ckdown/‘B igg est wave of re pression so fa r this y ear ’, M IA M I H ER A LD , Nov. 11, 1999, at A1, R2-329, Ex . K; J uan O. Ta mayo, Wit nesses link Castro, drug s, M IA M I H ER A LD , J an. 4, 2000, at B 3, R2-329, Ex . J ; Marika Ly nch, Castro-c halleng ing pilot is offe red pa rade , honors, J an. 4, 2000, at B 1, R2-329, Ex . M; J im Morin, Cuba: Icannot spe ak my mind (car

toon), M IA M I H ER A LD , J an. 20, 2000, R2-329, Ex . P. As to Elian Gonzalez: J uan O. Tam ay o , Castro Ultimatum/R eturn boy in 72 hours or mi g r ati o n ta lks at risk, M IA M I H ER A LD , D e c . 6 , 1 99 9, at 1A , R2 -3 29 , E x. N; Sara Ol ko n, Ga il Epstein Nieves, Ma

rtin Merzer, The Sag a o f E lian Gonzalez/P rotest and Passion Sprea d to the Streets/Sit-ins bl ock intersec tions a nd disrupt D ade tr aff

ic and Politicians, lawy ers wor k to halt 6- y ear -old’s re turn, M IA M I H ER A LD , J an . 7 , 2 0 0 0 , 1 A , I s e e n o b a s i s f o r r e v e r s i n gd e c i s i o n , R e n o s ays and Sara Olkon, Anabe lle de Ga le, Marika Ly nch, Pained Cuban e x iles disag ree on what’s be st for Elian, M IA M I H ER A LD , J an. 7, 2000, at 17A, U .S. Preparations for boy ’s re turn start slowly , The Miami Hera ld, J an. 7, 2000, at 18A, R2-329, E x . O; Peace ful Rally (photo), M IA M I H ER A LD , J an. 9, 2000, at 1A, R2-329, Ex. N; J ay Weaver , 3 judge g ets hig h profile in E l i an case , M I AMI

rd H ER A LD , Fe b. 2 3 , 2 0 0 0 , at 1 B , R3
- 3 9 7 , E x. A
- 1 ; S an dr a M ar qu e z G ar c ia , M ar

y ‘ a p p e ar s ’ near Elian, M IA M I H ER A LD , Mar. 26, 2000 , at 1 B, R4-483, Ex. E-3; Alfonso Chardy , Authorities keep watch on e x ile g roups, M IA M I H ER A LD , Mar . 29, 20 00 , at 10 A, R4- 48 3, Ex. C- 3; V ig ila nt p ro te sto rs , M IA M I H ER A LD , Mar. 29, 2000, at 10A, R4-483, Ex . I -3; Andre s Vig lucci, Jay Weaver , and F rank Davies, Dad g ets visa, but no gua rante es for

Elian’s transf

er, M IA M I H ER A LD , Apr. 5, 2000, at 1A, R4-483, Ex . D-3; Elaine de Valle, Me dia watc h events c losely –and g et watc hed in re turn/Hot words on radio scrutinized, a

nd Terr y J ackson, Media watch events closely –and g et watche d in return/TV talk, news shows floc king to South Florida , M IA M I H ER A LD , Apr. 5, 2000 at 15A, R4-483, Ex . B- 3; Kar en B ranc h, Crowds targ et Reno’s home, M IA M I H ER A LD , Apr. 6, 2000, at 2B, R4-483, Ex . A-3; The sag a of Elian/Reno w ants Elian today /Boy must be at a irport by 2 P.M./Defiant family

ref using to comply : Andres Vig lucci, Jay Weaver , and Ana

Acle, G reat-uncle c hallen ges U.S. to take boy ‘by forc e’, a nd Carol Rosenber g , The Attorne y g ener al followed ‘ instinct’ as final mediator , M I AMI H ER A LD , Apr .1 3, 20 00 , at 1A , R4- 48 3, Ex. F -3 ; T he sa g a of El ian/F amil y

de fi e s o rd e r/ Cr ow d s we lls at L i t t l e Ha

vana home /J udg e dismisses family ’s custody case /Panel will weig h reque st for a s t ay/U
. S
. t ak e s n o a c t i o nt o r e m o v e E l i an : A n a A c l e , In a s h o wo f s o l i d ar i ty, V IP s f

l o c k t o v i s i tb o y, and Andr es Vig lucci and Jay W eave r, Reno: U.S. will ex plore a ll peace ful solutions, M I AMI H ER A LD , Apr. 14, 2000, at 1A, R4-483, Ex . G-3; Sag a of Elian/Standoff over c ustody

/A show of solidarity (photo), M IA M I H ER A LD , Apr, 14, 2000, at 20A, R4-483, Ex. H-3; Karl Ross, W. Dade ho me of atto rn e y g e ne ra l on a le rt , and Pol ic e sa y an ano ny

mou s c a lle r ph on e d in

bo mb t hr e at Apr il 13, M IA M I H ER A LD , Apr. 16, 2000, R4-498, Ex. A-4; Raid’ s P re l u d e: How talks fa iled/Missed signa ls h e lpe d d oo m de a l and Sara Ol ko n, Di ana

Marr e ro , a

nd El a ine de Va lle , T ho us and s p ro te st seizure/Separate rally backs Reno’s actions, M IA M I H ER A LD , Apr. 30, 2000, at 1A, R4-498, Ex. C -4; Carol R osenber g , I

NS ag ent t arg eted by

death thre ats, M IA M I H ER A LD , M ay 6 , 2 0 0 0 , R4
- 4 9 8 , E x. B- 4; and In memory

of mothers who die d at sea (photo), M IA M I H ER A LD , R4-498, Ex . D-4; 16As to M ari ano F a g e t: Ela ine de Va lle , Fa bio la Santi a g o, and Ma

ri ka Ly nc h, F B I : O ff

ic ia l in I NS spi ed for

Cuba, M IA M I H ER A LD , Fe b. 18, 2000, at A1, R3-397 at C-1; Amy Driscoll, J uan Tam ay o, S py

bai t t aken in st ant ly

/A ll eged C ub an agent ph on ed co nt actaft er recei vi ng fal se FBI inf or matio n, F a

bio la Santi a g o, Al oo f s us pe c t w ithhigh c le ara nc e wa s ide a lly po sit ion e d to do ha rm , and Tra cking Fa g et (photos), M IA M I H ER A LD , Fe b
. 1 9 , 2 0 0 0 , atA1 , R 3 -3 9 7 atB- 1 ; Do nBo h n i n g, Fa g et’s father wa s a brutal B atista offic ial, M IA M I H ER A LD , Fe b. 19, 2000, at 21A, R3-397, Ex. G-1; Fr ank Davies, Cuba, U.S. still fig ht Cold War, M IA M I H ER A LD , F e b
. 1 9 , 2 0 0 0 , at 2 1 A , R3
- 3 9 7 , E x. H-1; Juan O. T amayo, Cuban diplomat ex pelled over spy link, M IA M I H ER A LD , Fe b. 20, 2000, at A1, R3-397, at D-1 ; L iz Balmaseda , Spy case boosts worst suspicions, M IA M I H ER A LD , Fe b. 21, 2000, at B1, R3-397, at F- 1; J uan O. Ta mayo, Cuban diplomat linked to Elian, I NS spy case , M I AMI H ER A LD , Fe b
. 2 2, 2000, at A1, R3-397, at E- 1; J uan O. Ta mayo, More e x iles maneuve ringfor business with Cuba, M IA M I H ER A LD , Mar. 5, 2000, at A-1, R3-455 at A- 2; Ana Rade lat and Jan O. Tamayo, FB Iag ents expel defiant Cuban e nvoy , M IA M I H ER A LD , at A-1, R3-455 at B-2. As to the business ban: Marika Ly nch, F erna

ndo Almanzar, Protest, taping set to f ollow Van Van show, M IA M I H ER A LD , Sept. 28, 1999, at 3B, and Tyler B ridg es, Andre s Vig lucci, Miami may bar Van Van next time/Count y ’s P enela s also opposed, M IA M I H ER A LD , Oct. 13, 1999, at B 1, R2- 329, Ex . L ; Don Finef

rock, B an on business with Cuba tighte ned, M IA M I H ER A LD , Fe b. 25, 2000, at 2A , R3 -3 97 , E x. M- 1; Jord an L e vin , M iami- Da de thr e ate ns to c anc e l f ilmfe st gra

nt/ Cub an mo vie collides with county

law, M IA M I H ER A LD , Fe b. 25, 2000, at 1A, R3-397 , E x . N- 1 ; J ordan L evin, Groups ‘w ar n ed ’ on C uba re solution, M IA M I H ER A LD , May 15, 2000, at 1B , R4-498, Ex . E-4; Dec en as De e x iliados se cong reg aron a nte la Corte F eder al par a re clamar el der echo de Elian Gonzalez a perma

nece r en EU , R3-455, Ex . E-2. 17 O ne of the a rt ic le s, w hic h a ddr es se d abom b th re at a ga ins t the A tto rn ey

G en er al of the U nit ed

S ta te s f oll ow ing ac oll ap se of

ta lks in the E lian G onz al ez c as e, r ec ite d a h i s t o ry o f a n t i
- C a s t r o e x i l e g r o up v i o l e n c e i n t h e M i a mi
- D a d e c o mm u n i t y: Scores of bom

b threats and actual bom

bing s have been attr ibu te d to a nti -C as tr o e xil e gr oups da tin g ba ck to the 197 4 bom bing s of a Spanish-language pub lication, Replica. T wo y ears later, radio j ournalist Em ilio Millan’s legs w ere blown off in a car bom b after he spoke ou t against exile viol ence. In the ear ly

1980 s, the Me xican and Venez uelan consul ar of fi ce s w er e bom

be d inr et al ia tio n f

or the ir gov er nm en t’ s e sta

bli shi ng relations with Cuba. Since then, num erous sm all busin esses–tho se prom oting com m erce ,R4-498, Ex . A-4. 27 R3-443 at 11. 28 United States v. Her

nandez, 106 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. F la. 2000); R5-586. 29 Her nandez, 106 F. Supp. 2d at 1323- 24. 30 R5-656 at 2-3. 31 18 tr av el , or hum an itari ana id t o C uba –have be entarg et ed

by bom be rs . 27 T he gov er

nm en t r es pond ed

that the Mi am i- D ad e H isp an ic pop ula tio n w as a

“ he te ro ge ne ous, ” “ hig hly div er se , e ve n c ont en tio us” “ gr oup” im m une f ro m the inf lue nc es w hic h w oul d pr ec lud e a fa ir tr ia l. F oll ow ing or al a rg um en ts o n 26 28 June 200 0, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e m oti on w ith out pr ej udi ce , f

ind ing that the de fe ndants ha d f

ai le d to de m onstrate that a c hange of

ve nue w as ne ce ssary

to provide them

with a f air trial by

an im partial j ury . T he court “ decline[d] to afford

29 the sur ve y a nd P ro fe sso r Mor an ’ s c onc lus ion s th e w ei ght a ttr ibu te d by

D ef en dants ” fi ndi ng, int er

a lia , that the “ siz e of

the statis tic al sa m

ple
. . . [ w a] s to o sm al l t o be rep res en ta ti ve of t he po pu la ti on of p ot en ti al juro rs in Mi am i-Da de Co un ty.” 30 InS ep te m

be r 2000 , Cam

pam ove d f

or r ec onsi de ratio n of

the de nia l of

the
m oti on f or c hange of

ve nue . I n su

ppor t of the r ec onsi de ratio n m oti on, he subm itt ed ne w s art ic le s c ont ai nin g in fo rm at ionthat he pr ovi de d th e co urt bo th dur ing a n e x part e sid eb ar w ith in the c hange of

ve nue m oti on h eari ng and i n hi s
m ot io n fo r le av e to fil e h is m ot io ns forfor ei gn wit ne ss de po si ti on s ex pa rte . He 31I d. at 2. 32 I d. at 3 (interna l punctuation omitted). 33 I d. The followingarticle s were included as e x hibits: Rui Ferr eira , Cuba helps def ense at 34 spy trial, M IA M I H ER A LD , Aug
. 18, 2000, at 1B, R5-656, Ex. A; Rui Ferr eira , Func ionarios cuba nos irán a l juicio de los espias, N UE VO H ER A LD , Aug . 18, 2000, at 17A, R 5-656, Ex
. B; Cuba colabora rá en juicio por espionaje, N UE VO D IA R IO , Aug . 19, 2000, at 61, R5-656, Ex. C ; Rui Ferr eira , Un misterioso coronel c ubano se suma al caso de los espias, N UE VO H ER A LD , Aug . 21, 2000, at 21A, R5-656, Ex . D; To the point/Mr. President, define “handsha ke”, M IA M I H ER A LD , Sept. 11, 2000, at 6B, R5-656, Ex. F; and Ac cused spy seeks r elea se of U.S. doc u m ents, M IA M I H ER A LD , Sept. 12, 2000, at 33, R5-656, Ex. E. R6-723 at 2. 35 19 ex pla ine d inthe r ec onsi de ratio n m oti on tha t the inf orm at ionha d be enpr ev iou sly pr ovi de d to the c ourt e x part e be ca use it dis cl ose d th e de fe ndants ’ the or y of de fen se an d t ha t h e so ug ht th e fo rei gn wit ne ss es to su pp or t t ha t t he ory . He 32 argued that the news ar

ticles discuss ing “ the defendants’ tacit adm issio n that they
w er e ke ep ing a n e y e on s ev er al e xtr em ist a nti -C as tr o gr oups on b eh al f of the Cuban gov ernm ent, and that Cuban citizens and officials [w e] re pre pared to testify
o n b e h a l f o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s ” h a da g g r a v a t e d

t h e p r e j u d i c e i n t h e M i a mi
com m unity
. H e noted that the articles chara cterize d the defendants as Cuban

33 ag en ts who w oul d c al l C uban of fi ci al s and c iti ze ns t o te sti fy on the ir be ha lf
. T he 34 dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d r ec onsi de ratio n, statin g th at it ha d pr ev iou sly

a ddr es se d th e defendants’ argum ents. It again explained that it could exp lore any potential bi as 35 du rin g a vo ir d ire ex am in at io n a nd care fu ll y in st ru ctth e juro rs du rin g t he tri al
. Moreover, the district court noted th at if it determ ined “ that a fair and im partialI d. at 2-3 (inter nal quotations omitt ed). 36 R6-765. 37 R70 at 7130 -3 6; R81 at 89 47 -4 9. Al tho ug h th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t ov e rt ly

de ny the se 38 motions, t he motion based on c ommunity events an d p u b licity

was a ppare ntly resolved by

“no response ” to an inquiry to the jury as to whethe r they

had “se en, hea

rd, re ad, or [spoken to anyone] about any media ac counts related” to the c ase f ol l o wingthe trial’s last re cess. R70 at 7136. The mot ion ba se d o n th e wi tne ss’ s in sin uatio n w a s r e so lve d b y

an in str uc tio n to the jur

y that th e de fe ns e attorney ’s “job [wa]s to provide a vigor ous defe nse for his client.” R81 at 8955. “[ The witness]’s statement re g arding[t he def ense attorney ] was inappropriate and unfounde d.” I d. at 8949. R70 at 7130. Br others to the Rescue [“B TTR”] is “a Miami-based Cuba n exil e g roup”, 39 Her nandez, 106 F. Supp. 2d at 1318, founded by J ose B asulto in 1991 to rescue raf ters fle eingCuba in the Straits of Florida a

nd to bring them to the United States. R80 at 8836-37.

20 j ur y c an not be e m pane le d, D ef

en dants m ay

r en ewthi s M oti on and the Co urt sh al l
co ns id er a p ot en ti al ch an ge of v en ue at t ha t t im e.” 36 T he tr ia l be gan w ithj ur

y se le ct ionon 2 7 N ove m

be r 2000
. D ur ing the tr ia l,

37 the m otion s for change of venue w ere renew ed through m otion s for a m istrial based
on c om m uni ty e ve nts a nd tri al pub lic ity a nd a gov er nm en t w itn es s’ s in sinua tio n tha t a de fe nse a tto rn ey

w as aspy

or ac om m uni st. I n F eb ru ar

y 200 1, Cam

pa 38
m ove d f or am istri al a nd r en ew ed

his m oti on f

or ac hange of

ve nue ba se d onthe
ac tiv iti es dur ing the w ee ke nd o f 24 F eb ru ar y 200 1, inc lud ing the “ co m m em or at ive fl igh ts m ar

kin g th e fi fth anni ve rs ar

y of the sho ot d ow n of

the Br oth er s to the Re sc ue a ir cr af

t and the num

be r of te le vis ionint er

vie w s and the num

be r of newspaper articles concerning that event.” H e ar gued that th e new spapers 39 included “ an editorial by

the Miam i He rald that flatly condem ns the CubanI d. at 7130-31. 40 I d. at 7131. 41 I d. at 7133. 42 I d. at 7134-36. 43 I d. at 7136. 44 R8-1009 at 2. 45 21 go ve rn m en t fo r th is terro ris t ac t” an d a rti cl es in cl ud in g q uo ta ti on s fr om CANF
me mb e r s d i s c u s s i n g “a tl e n g t h ” t h e f a c t s o f t h e t r i a l
. H e ma i n t a i n e dt h a t“s o me

40
ne w s e ve nts a re so g re at

a nd are so e xpl osi ve . . . that any a m ount of ins tr uc tin g th e j ur y c an not c ur e the ta int
. ” T he c ourt r es er ve d r uli ng p en din g su

ppl em en ta tio n of 41 the r ec or d and the n a ske d w he the r aninquir y of the j ur y w as r eque ste d. C am

pa 42
an sw er ed “ [y ] es ” an d, a ft er

the inquir

y w as dis cu sse d, the j ur

y w as sub se que ntl y questio ned as to their exposu re to the new s articles. When non e of the j urors 43
re spon de d ina ny

w ay , the c as e pr oc ee de d. 44 T w o w ee ks l at er , on 1 Marc h 20 01, Cam pa , G onz al ez , H er

nande z an d Me din a fi le d aj oin t m oti on f or am istri al a nd c hange of

ve nue a rg uin g th at

the
ev en ts d ur ing the w ee ke nd o f 24 F eb ru ar y “ re ce ive d agr eat de al of pub lic ity , a ll of wh i ch wa s b i as ed ag ai n s tt h e d ef en d an t s an dco n s i s t en twi t h t h e g o v ern m en t ’s posi tio n a t tri al
. ” T he y

m ai nta ine d th at

“ [n ] o a m ount

of voi r dir e or

ins tr uc tio ns 45I d. at 5. 46 I d. 47 R120 at 13894-95. 48 1SR1 at 5; 1S R2. 49 R6-766; R22. 50 22 to th e jury c[ou ld ] cu re t he tai nt , who se rip pl e eff ect s ar e d iff

ic ul t t o m eas ur e.” 46 They also requested a m istrial “ so that their trial can be conducted in a venue where
co m m uni ty pr ej udi ce s a ga ins t the de fe ndants a re not so d ee ply

e m be dde d and fanne d by the loc al m ed ia
. ” I n M ay 200 1, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e pe ndi ng 47
m oti ons fo r ch an ge of

ve nue on the ba sis of

it s e ar lie r or de rs de ny ing ac hange of venue and findin g that the F eb ru ar

y 24 iss ue s and e ve nts a s w el l a s th e re portin g of tho se th ev en ts d o no t ne ce ssi ta te a nd d id n ot n ec es sit at e a ch an ge of ve nue in this m atter . . . . T he j urors we re instructed eac h and every day
. . . at each and ever

y break and at the conclusion of the day
. . . not to read or listen or see anything ref lecting on th is m atter in any way and there has been no ind ication that the jurors did not com ply with that dir ec tiv e by

the Co urt. 48 C. V oir Dire T he c ourt he ld tw o st at

us c onf er en ce s to w ork ou t a

tw o- pha se plan f

or voi r dir e. I n ph as e one , 168 j ur or s w er e sc re en ed f or pr obl em s su cha s langua ge a nd 49 hard shi p th ro ugh a w ri tte n qu es tio nna ir e an d or al voi r dir e que sti ons. I n ph as e 50 tw o, the 82 r em ai nin g pr ospe ct ive j ur or s w er e ind ivi dua lly que sti one d r eg ar din gTh e dis tr ic t c ourt dis qu a lif ie d 7 9 of the 16 8 ve nir e pe rs on s fo r c a us e , 32 (1 9% ) i n Ph a se 51 1 a nd 22 (2 7% ) i n Ph a se 2 f

or Cub a -r e late d a

nim us . R22 at 111-16; R62 at 6575-76. 52 R22 at 113. 53 R22 at 111-16. During the t rial, Hernande z moved t o enfor ce the g agorder and alleg ed 54 that two of the g overnme nt witnesses had violated the order by holding a press c onfer ence with the family of one of

the victims. R7 -9 3 8. The district cour t issued a “na

rrowly tailored g agorder ” a pp lic a ble to t he “ a ll [tr ia l] pa

rt ic ipa nts , la wye rs , w itn e sse s, fa

mil y me mbe rs of

the vic tim s” c lari fy ing that the or de r exte nd e d to “st ate me nts or inf or matio n whi c h is in te nd e d to inf lue nc e pu bli c opinion or the jury

reg ardingthe merits of the c ase.” R7-978 at 7; R64 at 6759-60. 23 m ed iae xpos ur e, kno w le dge a nd o pin ion s of the c as e, the Ca str o go ve rn m en t, the U nit ed S ta te s po lic y

tow ar d C uba , the E lian G onz al ez c as e, the Cu ban e xil e
co m m uni ty a nd i ts r ea ct ionto the c as e, inc lud ing apos sib le a cquit ta l. 51 On the fir st day

of voir dire, the district court addressed isolatin g the juror s fo llo w ing the ir

e xpos ur e to a

pr es s c onf

er en ce he ld b y

the vic tim s’ f

am ili es on the
co urtho use ste ps and the ir appr oa chby

m em be rs of the pr es s. T he tr ia l j udge

52 ins tr uc te d th at she w oul d no lon ge r pe rm it the vic tim s’ f am ili es to be pr es en t during v oir dire “ if there are e fforts m ade to pollu te the j ury pool” and instructed

53 the gov er nm en t t o sp eak to the vic tim s’ f am ili es r eg ar din g th ei r co nduc t. T he 54
co urt a lso not ed

that, be ca

use som e of

the pot en tia l j ur or s w er e ap pr oa ch ed by
ne w s m ed iaw ithc am er as , she w oul d qu es tio n th em r eg ar din g th ei r dis cu ssi ons
w iththe m ed iaa nd i nstru ct the m ar sha ls t o a cc om

pany the j ur y , w iththe ir

j ur orR22 at 111-12. 55 R7 at 978 at 2-3; R21 at 117-19; R22 at 119. 56 R21 at 171. 57 R23 at 195, 196-97. This juror wa s later strick en for c ause a s a re sult of his personal 58 knowledg e of B asulto. R24 at 537-40. R23 at 197. 59 I d. at 300, 302-04, 307, 310. 60 24 tags rem oved, as they

left the building
. T he district court then extended th e gag 55
or de r to c ove r the w itn es se s and the j ur or s. 56 L at er that sam e day , ac opy

of the Mi am i H er al d w hic h c ont ai ne d an art ic le about th e case wa s found in the j ury assem bly room . T he next day , a fter

57 He rnandez’ s attorney

com m ented that the previous day ’ s article w as “ distu rbing,” G ue rr er o’ s c ouns el m en tio ne d th at he ha d vi ew ed

one of the pot en tia l j ur or s
re ad ing the a rt ic le w hil e in the c ourtr oom . T he dis tr ic t j udge r es pond ed that “ the 58 iss ue is not

w he the r [v en ir e] pe rs ons ha ve r ea d or be ene xpos ed

to publ ic ity

about the c as e of

the de fe ndants , but

w he the r the y

ha ve f orm ed a n op ini on b as ed

upo n
w ha t the y ha ve r ea d. W e w ill go i nto a ll of thi s a s w e go thr oughind ivi dua l vo ir dires.” A s voir dire continu ed, a potential juror w ho evidenced su bstantial 59 pr ej udi ce w as iso la te d and r em ove d f ro m the ve nir e so a s to e lim ina te c ont ac t w ith oth er pot en tia l j ur or s. 60R25 at 782, 789. 61 R26 at 1068-69. 62 I d. at 1070. 63 25 During voir dire, the venire m em bers we re questioned abou t their political opi nio ns and b el ie fs
. S om e ve nir e m em be rs w er e cl earl y

bia se d a ga ins t C as tr o and the Cu ban go ve rn m en t. P eg gy

Be ltr anw as e xc use d f

or c au se a ft er

statin g th at

she would not b elieve any

witness w ho adm itted that he had been a Cuban spy
. When 61 asked about th e im

pact any verdict in the case m ight h ave, David Cuevas stated th athe “ wou ld feel a li tt le bi t i nt im id at edan d m ay be a li tt le fear fu l fo r m

y own
sa fe ty if I didn’ t c om e ba ck

w ithave rd ic t tha t w as in ag re em en t w ithw ha t the Cu ban c om m uni ty f ee ls, howthe y

thi nk the ve rd ic t sh oul d be , ” an d th at , “ ba se d on
m y ow n c ont ac t w ithoth er

Cu bans and h owthe y

f ee l a bout iss ue s de al ing w ith Cuba–anything dealing with com m unism they are against,” he w ould suspect that

“ the y w oul d have astr ong opi nio n” on the tr ia l. H e ex pla ine d th at he 62 pr oba bly w oul d have agr eat de al of dif fi cu lty de al ing w ithli ste nin g to the te sti m ony . I w oul d pr oba bly be ane rv ous w re ck , if

y ou w an t t o knowthe hon es t tru th. I c oul d tr y to be a s ob

j ec tiv e as pos sib le a nd b e as ope n m ind ed

a s po ssi ble , but

I w oul d have som e tr oubl e de al ing w i t h t h e c a s e . I g u e s s I w o u l db e al i t t l e b i tn e rv o u s a n dh a v e s o me fe ar , a ct ua lly f ear fo r m y ow n sa fe ty

if I didn’ t c om e ba ck

w itha verdict that wa s in agreem ent with the Cuban com m unityat large. 63 Ja m es E
. H ow e, Jr
. e xpr es se d c onc er n th at , “ no m atte r w ha t the de ci sio n inthi sR27 at 1277. 64 I d. at 1278, 1274, 1273. 65 R26 at 1057, 1059, 1073. 66 R27 at 1166, 1168. 67 R28 at 1452-53. 68 26 cas e, it is go in g t o h av e a p ro fo un d e ffec t o n l iv es bo th he re an d i n C ub a.” He 64 be lie ve d th at

the Cu ban go ve rn m en t w as “ a re pr es siv e re gim e tha t ne ed s to be
ove rt ur ne d, ” w as “ ve ry

c om m itt ed to the se curi ty

of the U nit ed

S ta te s, ” an d “ w oul d certa inly have som e doubt abo ut how m uch control [a m em

ber of the Cuban mi l i t a ry] w o u l dh a v e o v e r w h a tt h e y w o u l ds a y [ o n t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d ] w i t h o u ts o me tr em en dous c onc er

n f or the ir ow n w el fare . ” Je ss L awhor n, Jr
. , abanke r an d 65
se nio r vic e pr es ide nt i n c harg e of hou sin g lo an s, w as “ co nc er n[ ed ] how
. . . pub lic opi nio n m igh t a ff

ec t [ his ] a bil ity to do h is j ob” be ca

use he de al t w ithalot

of de ve lop er s inthe H isp an ic c om m uni ty a nd kne wthat the c as e w as “ hig h pr of ile
en oughthat the re m ay

be str ong opi nio ns” w hic h c oul d “ af fe ct his abil ity

to generate loans.” Potential j uror L uis Mazza said that he did not lik e the Cuban 66 governm ent and asked “ how could y ou believe” the testim ony of an individ ual connected with the curre nt Cuban go vernm ent. Jenine Silverm an believed that 67

“ Fi de l C as tr o is adic ta tor ” an d th at the re w er e “ thi ngs goi ng o n inCu bathat the pe opl e ar e not

ha ppy about
. ” Jos e T ei

j ei ro tho ught

that C as tr o ha d “ m es se d up ” 68R26 at 1001-02. 69 R25 at 880. 70 I d. at 829-31, 834-39. 71 I d. at 829, 831, 834. 72 I d. at 743. B uker w as subseque ntly seate d on t h e j u ry and name d as its forepe rson. 73 Although the g overnme nt note s that Campa’s attorney commented that B uker w as “uninvolved or persona lly

disconnec ted from the e x perie nce [of a Cuba n]” and that his “g ener al philosophical probl em wi t h comm unism” was “pe rfe ctly okay ,” Campa’ s attorney ’s comment wa s made in the context of his argument conce rning striking for cause another juror whose response s were “roote d in personal e x perie nce.” I d. at 851. 27 Cu baw hic h w as “ a ve ry

ba d go ve rn m en t . . . pe rh ap s on e of the w or st g ove rn m en ts th atex is t . . . on th e p la ne t.” 69 O the r ve nir e m em

be rs ind ic at ed

ne ga tiv e be lie fs r eg ar din g C as tr o or the Cu ban go ve rn m en t bu t be lie ve d th at the y c oul d se t those be lie fs a sid e to s er ve on the j ur y . B el kis Br ic en o- Si m

m ons sa id s he he ld a

“ [v ] er y str ong” opi nio n and d id not believe in th e Cuban sy stem of governm ent but di d not feel that it would affe ct he r ab ili ty

to re nde r a ve rd ic t. I le an a Br iganti tho ught she c oul d be im

part ia l, but 70 adm itt ed that “ it w oul d be dif

fi cu lt” a nd tha t sh e did

not kno wif she “ co uld

be fa ir
. ” S he sa id tha t the c as e w as dis cu sse d “ ev er y ti m e m y [ Cu ban bo rn ] pare nts 71 ha ve vis ito rs ove r” a nd tha t sh e kne wshe w oul d be “ a little bia se d” in favor of the United States a s she did n ot agree w ith “ com m unism .” D avid Buker stated that

72 he be lie ve d th at

“ Ca str o is ac om

m uni st d ic ta tor

a nd I a m opp ose d to c om

m uni sm so I would like to see him gone and a dem ocracy

established in Cuba.” H ay dee 73The Mar iel boatlift was a “ fre edom flotilla” in 1980 in wh i ch at least 114,900 Cuban 74 political refug ees le ft Cuba throug h the har bor of Ma ri el o n b o at s for re settlement in the United States. See United States v. F rade , 709 F.2d 1387, 1389 ( 11 Cir. 1983). th R27 at 1240-41. 75 I d. at 1242-47. 76 R25 at 790-96. 77 I d. at 795. 78 R27 at 1227-32. 79 28 D uart e, w ho w as bor

n inCu baa nd i m m igr at ed to the U nit ed

S ta te s w ithhe r fam ily in the la te 195 0s- earl y

196 0s, ha d th re e re la tiv es w ho w er e inv olv ed in the Bay

of Pi gs i nva sio n and h er

hus band h ad

part ic ipa te d inthe Mari el boa t l if t to re sc ue 74 his sis te r an d he r fam ily

f ro m Cu ba
. A lth oughshe state d th at she w oul d be 75 im partial, she said that she saw “ Castro as a dictator. ” Mar ia G onzalez, a Cuban 76 im m igrant, said that she did “ not approv e of the re gim e . . . in Cuba” and was

“ against comm

unism ” but believed she could serve im partially
. She r em em

bered 77 the ne w s f

ro m the te le vis iona nd the Mi am i H er al d a bout the plane s be ing sho t dow n. R osa

H er nande z sa id tha t, a lth oughhe r fathe r le ft Cu babe ca use of 78
co m m uni sm a nd s he be lie ve d th at

the Cu ban go ve rn m en t w as “ oppr es siv e, ” she be lie ve d th at

she w oul d no t be pr ej udi ce d. S ist er S usan K uk w as the pr inc ipa l of 79 the pr ed om inantl y

( 90 p er ce nt) Cu

ban hi gh s ch ool a tte nde d by the daught er

of oneR24 at 519-21. 80 I d. at 520-21. 81 I d. at 521-22. The district c ourt denied the defe ndants’ reque st that Sister Kuk be e x cused 82 for c ause. I d. at 534-36. R27 at 1148-50. 83 I d. at 1149, 1151-58. 84 R26 at 1011, 1012. 85 29 of the kil le d B T T R p ilo ts. S he vis ite d th e pil ot’ s ho m e an d a tte nde d hi s f une ra l. 80 81 De spite her relationship with the pil ot’ s daught er, Kuk though t she “ could be fair” al tho ugh “ it w oul d be ali ttl e dif fi cu lt. ” L ill ia m

L ope z, w as bor

n inCu baa nd 82 im m igr at ed to the U nit ed

S ta te s w ithhe r fam ily , state d th at she w as “ al w ay s f

or the U
. S. ” an d “ ag ai nst

the Re publ ic of

Cu ba , ” did not li ke Cu babe ing ac om

m uni st
co untry , a nd h ad

r el at ive s li vin g inCu

ba
. S he ha d apr obl em

w iththe c as e 83 because it involv ed “ espionag e against the U. S. ” but indi cated that she could set aside her fe elings to serve on the j ury . John McGlam ery com m ented that he had 84

“ no p re j udi ce s” but

“ liv e[ d] in a ne ighbor

hood w he re the re [ w e] re alot

of Cu bans”
an d w as “ ac qua int ed

w ithpe opl e tha t c om e fr om Cu ba
. T ha t i s un ive rs al in D ad e Co unty . ” Whe n a ske d w he the r he w oul d be c onc er ne d a bout c om m uni ty 85
s en t i m en ti f h e w er e c h o s en as a ju ro r, h e “an s we r[ ed ] . . . wi t h s o m e c ar e. . . . [ i ]f the c as e w er e to g et

alot of pub lic ity , it

c oul d be co m e qui te vol at ile a nd .
. . pe opl eI d. at 1012 86 I d. at 1018-19. 87 I d. at 1013. 88 I d. at 1021-22. 89 I d. at 1023, 1027-28, 1032. 90 30 in the c om

m uni ty w oul d pr oba

bly ha ve thi ngs to s ay

about it
. ” H e state d th at

“ it 86
w oul d be dif

fi cu lt giv enthe c om

m uni ty in w hic h w e liv e” “ to avoi d he ar ing
som eb ody

e xpr es s an op ini on” on the c as e an d to f oll owac ourt’ s in str

uc tio n to not
re ad , li ste n to , or

oth er w ise e xpos e him se lf

to inf orm at ionabout

the c as e. H is

87 opi nio n a bout the Cu ban go ve rn m en t w as “ not f av or ab le ” as it

w as “ not a de m oc ra cy ” an d w as “ gui lty of a sso rt ed [ hum an r igh ts] c ri m es . ” H an s 88 Mor ge nst er

n in iti al ly sa id tha t he did

not “ thi nk h e w oul d have a ny sor t of pr ej udi ce [] ” ag ai nst

de fe ndants w ho w er e ag en ts o f the Cu ban go ve rn m en t bu t
co uld not say f or c er ta in b ec au se of

“ [t ] he e nvi ro nm en t tha t w e ar e in. T his be ing Miam i. T here is so m

uch talk about Cuba here. So m any strong op inion s either
way .” H e later , how ever, adm itted to havi ng biases agains t the Cuban

89 gove rn m en t, w hic h he be lie ve d w as “ an ti- A m er ic an ” an d “ ty ranni ca l, ” an d to ha vi ng “ an ob vi ou s m is tru st . . . of th os e aff il ia te d wi th th e [Cu ba n] go ve rn m en t.” 90 He also indicated that he would be concerned about returning a not guilt y verdict be ca use “ a lot of the pe opl e [i n M ia m i] a re so r igh t w ing f as ci st, ” be ca

use he w oul dI d. at 1024-27, 1030. 91 I d. at 1026. 92 R27 at 1139-41, 1143-48. 93 I d. at 1142. 94 I d. at 11 40 , 1 14 6- 47 (O re me mbe re d r e a din g a bo ut the c a se but di d n ot r e me mbe r s pe c if ic 95 information). 31 fa ce “ pe rs ona l c ri tic ism ” an d m ed iac ove ra ge , a nd b ec au se he ha d c onc er ns f or
w h a tmi g h th ap p e n a f

t e r av e r d i c tw a s r e tu rn e d
. H e b e l i e v e dt h e c a s e t o b e “a 91 hig h pr of ile c as e” a nd tha t he ha d be envid eo ta pe d by the m ed iaw he n le av ing the courthou se. A ngel De L a O , who was born in Cuba and imm igrated to the United

92 St at es w ithhis pare nts , ini tia lly state d th at

he did not thi nk h e “ co uld

m ak e a fa ir j udgm ent” in the case and w ould be prej udiced because he had “ a lot of fam ily ties in Cuba” includin g uncles, aunts, and cousins bu t later answere d that he could s et
as ide his c onc er

ns i f se le ct ed

f or the j ur y . H e w as tr oubl ed

about r et ur nin g a 93
ve rd ic t i n t he cas e b as edon hi s co nc ern forso m et hi ng happ en in g t o h is “ fam il y . . . in C uba ” an d th e not or ie ty of the c as e in M iam i. H e al so s ai d th at he ha d “ he ar d a 94 lot about the c as e . . . on the ne w s [ an d f ro m ] pe opl e ta lki ng a

bout ” it. C onni e

95 Palm er believed that Castro w as “ a very bad person” and, w hen asked whether her opi nio n r eg ar din g th e Cu ban go ve rn m en t w oul d a ff ec t he r ab ili ty

to fa ir ly w ei gh the e vid en ce , a nsw er ed

“ I don’ t thin k so
. . . . I don ’ t kn ow . I ha ve li ve d inS outhR28 at 1424-25. 96 I d. at 1433. 97 I d. at 1437. The district c ourt denied the defe ndants’ reque st to strike Palmer for c ause. 98 R28 at 1442. R25 at 818-22. 99 I d. at 820. 100 R27 at 1118-19, 1121-23, 1175-76. 101 32 Fl or ida f or 36 y ears a nd I ha ve se enm an y c hange s. ” P al m er

ha d kn ow n S y lvi a 96 Ir ion do, w ho h ad

be enapa sse nge r in B as ult o’ s a ir plane on the day

of the sho otdow n and w ho w as na m ed a s agov er

nm en t w itn es s, f

or about e igh t y ears . S he

97 also knew that Iriondo was “ very invol ved with the Brothers to the Rescue and very str ongl y ke ep ing the Cu

ban c om m uni ty tog ethe r in M ia m i. ” Jos ep h P ao le rc io d id 98 not thi nk tha t i t w oul d a ff

ec t hi s a bil ity to be im part ia l bu t he “ w as not

ha ppy ” w ith U nit ed S ta te s- Cu

ban r el at ion s f

oll ow ing the Mari el boa t l if t. H e did

not li ke the 99 fr ee dom that C ubans h ad

to im m igr at e to the U nit ed

S ta te s be ca

use im m igr an ts fr o m o t h erco u n t ri es we re t re at ed d i ff er en t l y an d“ s o m et i m es [h e f el tl i k e] a str an ge r in [ his ] ow n c ountry ” w he n he ne ed ed to as k so m eo ne to spe ak E ngl ish ins te ad of S panis h. B ar

bara P ar ei ra ha d “ m an y

c los e Cu ban f ri en ds, ” inc lud ing 100 he r husb an d’ s bu sin es s partne r w ho w as am em be r of agr oup tha t r es cu ed

Cu bans fl ee ing the isl an d. S he be lie ve d th at she c oul d be im

part ia l bu t ha d c onc er

ns 101I d. at 1119-28, 1177. 102 R27 at 1120, 1122. 103 I d. at 1120. 104 I d. at 1126, 1176-77. 105 R25 at 861. Portalatin was subseque ntly seate d as a juror
. 106 R27 at 1249-50. 107 I d. at 1296-97. Ya g le was subse quently seate d as a juror
. 108 33 ab out r et ur nin g ave rd ic t i n M ia m i “be ca use of the Cu ban po pul at ionhe re . ” S he 102

“ w as ali ttl e dis tr es se d w iththe w ay that the [ Cu

ban] e xil e co m

m uni ty handl ed ” the E lian G onz al ez m atte r be ca use she did

not “ lik e the c ro w d m en ta lity , the m ob
m en ta lity that i nte rf

er es w ithw ha t I f

ee l i s aw orkin g sy ste m . ” S he str ongl y 103 believed that the Cuban go vernm ent was an opp ressive dictatorship. Par eira 104
rem em bered new s reports regar ding “ the planes being shot do wn” and several m en dy ing , a nd tha t i t w as a“ ve ry ba d si tua tio n” a nd f

ri ght en ing be ca

use of the poss ibi lity

of m ili tary a ct ion
. S oni a Po rt al at in h ad a“ str ong” opi nio n a

bout the 105 Cu ban go ve rn m en t be ca

use she w as “ ag ai nst

c om m uni sm . ” L ei lani T ri an a

106 testified that, although h er par ents wer e fr om Cuba and her grandfather had been pol iti ca lly

inv olv ed in Cu babe fo re Ca str o, she c oul d be im part ia l. E uge ne Y ag le

107 adm itt ed ha vin g “ a str ong opi nio n” about the Cu ban go ve rn m en t a s he c oul d no t

“ reco nc il e [h im ]self

to th atfor m

of Go ve rn m en t.” 108R25 at 841-43. 109 I d. at 846. 110 R27 at 1301-08. 111 I d. at 1134-39. 112 R26 at 990-96. 113 34 Fi na lly , oth er

ve nir e m em

be rs e spou se d in dif

fe re nc e tow ar d C as tr o or

the Cu ban go ve rn m en t. Joh n G om ez ha d tr av el ed to Cu baw ithhis f

am ily “ to t ak e good s” and m edicines to friends and had friends who frequently traveled to Cuba; he knew of no re asons why he should not serve on the jury
. H e re m em bered 109 he ar ing or

r ea din g “ y ears ba ck ” “ som ethin g a bout Br oth er s to the Re sc ue ” an d
som eo ne in the gr oup w ho w as aspy f or the Cu ban go ve rn m en t. L uis 110 H er nande z, w ho h ad

f am ily in Cu ba , tho ught

he c oul d be f

ai r, but w as una ble to
say w he the r he w oul d be able to be lie ve aw itn es s w ho w as am em be r of the
com m unist party

in Cuba. Miguel Her

nandez’ s parents and grandparents had 111 im m igr at ed f ro m Cu baa nd h e ha d di stant r el at ive s w ho r em ai ne d inCu babut he ha d no opi nio ns r eg ar din g th e Cu ban go ve rn m en t, the tr ia l, or the pub lic ity
sur ro undi ng i t. F lor en tin a Mc Ca in f el t sy m pa thy f or the pe opl e liv ing in Cu

ba 112 but be lie ve d th at

she w oul d be im

part ia l a s aj ur or . S he kne wf ro m the m ed ia 113 t h a t“a i r p l a n e s w e r e s h o td o w n i n C ub aac o up l e o f ye a r s a g o ” a n dt h a t“s o me fam ili es . . . ga the re d to r em em be r the a nni ve rs ar

y of the inc ide nt” af

eww ee ksI d. at 995. 114 R26 at 938, 945. 115 R24 at 534. 116 I d. at 535. 117 Th e vic tim s’ fa

mil y me mbe rs atte nd e d the tr ia l, and we re se ate d in a de signate d a

re a in 118 the cour troom. R25 at 717-18. R21 at 139; R23 at 251. 119 R24 at 458, 508-10. 120 35 be fo re voi r dir e. Mi ch el le P et er son al so h ad c onc er ns a bout c om m uni ty r ea ct ion 114 to a verdict because she did not “ want rioting and stuff to happen lik e w hat happ en edwit h t he Eli an cas e. I th ou gh t t ha t g ot ou t o f ha nd .” 115 A ft er one pot en tia l j ur or

w as e xc use d f

or c au se be ca

use he ha d a tte nde d th e funeral f or a victim

of the shoot-do wn, He rnandez m oved to h ave another potential j ur or , S ist er

K uk, e xc use d f

or the sa m e re as on. T he gov er nm en t op pose d th is
re que st t o stri ke , m ai nta ini ng tha t S ist er K uk atte nde d th e se rv ic e as a 116 pr of es sio na l, a nd tha t “ [t ] he re w er e m as se s a ft er the sho ot- dow n a ll ove r tow n and
nu m ero us pe op le att en de d.” 117 Many of the pot en tia l j ur or s w ho h ad pe rs ona l c ont ac t w iththe vic tim s, the ir fam ily m em bers, and BTT R w ere not qu estioned du ring Phase II or we re e xcused fo r ca use . F or

e xa m ple : p ote nti al j ur or

Je ssi ca de A rc os k

ne wRi taa nd J ose 118 Ba sul to; pot en tia l j ur or D an ie l F er

nande z kne wJos e Ba sul to; pot en tia l j ur or 119 120R21 at 139; R23 at 254. 121 R24 at 458. 122 I d. at 373, 385-86. 123 R25 at 655, 690, 709. 124 I d. at 682-84. 125 R27 at 1254, 1382. 126 I d. at 1375-84; R28 at 1513; R29 at 1564; 1SR 1 at 5-6, 11. 127 36 T im H eatly kne wJos e Ba sul to; pot en tia l j ur or S ist er K uk kne wgov er

nm en t 121 witness Marlene Alej andre, the widow of one of the killed BTT R pilots; potential 122 juro r Car ol in e Ro dr ig ue z kne w Marl en e Dia z, th e d au gh te r of on e o f th e BTTR victim s. T he defendants also used a perem ptory challenge to excuse La zaro 123 Barr eiro, a form er national bank exam iner, who had assisted the United States A tto rn ey ’ s of

fi ce in Mi am i f

or thr ee y ears dur ing agr an d j ur y inv es tig at ion
. 124 Po te nti al j ur or

P la ce nc iakne wm an y

of the na m ed

w itn es se s, a nd h ad

he lpe d r ai se
m one y f or BT T R whil e w orkin g f

or one of the loc al Cu

ban r ad io s ta tio ns. T he 125 dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e de fe ndants a ddi tio na l pe re m pto ry c ha lle nge s, f

or atot al of 18, due to the “ num

ber of ver y close decisions m ade by the Court” on challenges fo r ca use on j ur or s w hose c la im s of im part ia lity w er e dif fi cu lt to b el ie ve . T he 126 defendants used 16 of their pere m ptory challenges to excuse juror s whose answe rs reveale d biases against th em . T he governm ent exercised its perem ptory 127R25 at 776-70, 809-12; R26 at 937-41. 128 R28 at 1508-11; see Baston v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. C t. 1712 (1986) (holding 129 that th e E qu a l Pr o te c ti o n Cl a u s e g u ar an te e s th at me mb e r s o f a d e f e n d an t’ s r a c e ar e not excluded from a de fenda

nt’s jury on the basis of ra ce)
. R27 at 1373-76. 130 Th e se le c te d jur or s we re Di ana B arn e s, R24 at 60 1- 02 ; R2 5 at 80 0- 05 ; F or e pe rs on Da vid 131 Buke r, R24 at 555, 561-62, 571, 590; R25 at 741-49; Richard Campbell, R22 at 60; R26 at 1032-39; Migda lia Cento, R22 at 69-70; R27 at 1128-33; R29 at 1556, 1559-62; Omaira Gar cia, R25 at 659- 61, 885-91; Serg io H err an, R22 at 147-52; R27 at 1219-25; Wi lfred L opere na, R22 at 41-43, 88; R26 at 969-75; Juanito M illado, R22 at 15, 66; R27 at 1105-17; R28 at 1517-19; Gil Pag e, R25 at 556, 574, 583-87; R25 at 737-41; Elthea P eeple s, R22 at 38-40; R26 at 956-62; S onia Portalatin, R24 at 619; R25 at 858-65; and Debor ah Ve rnon, R 22 at 125, 142-43, 147, 153; R27 at 1233-39. Alternates wer e Marjorie Hahn, R22 at 131; R23 at 204-05, 250-51; R27 at 1342-50; Beve rly Holland, R23 at 210-14, R27 at 1355; Migue l Torroba , R23 at 204; R27 at 1334-42; a nd Eug ene Y ag le, R22 at 144, 165-67; R27 at 1294-1300; R28 at 1517-20; R29 at 1553-57, 1601-02, 1638. Millado wa s excused due to family

illness before the jurors we re e mpaneled; Ya g le was se ated in his place . R29 at 1550- 57, 1601-02, 1638. 37 ch al le ng es as t o t he th ree p ro sp ect iv e juro rs who fai le d t o e xp res s n eg at iv e v ie ws tow ar d C uba
. E ac h of

the Cu ban- A m er ic anpr ospe ct ive j ur or s w as e lim ina te d, 128 despite the go vernm ent’ s reverse Batson challenge. Following voir dire, 129 al t h o u g h co m

p l i m en t i n g t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt o n t h e c o n du ct o f v o i r d i re , M ed i n a’s attor ne y ind ic at ed his c onc er

n th at the re w er e thr ee w om ense at ed on the j ur

y w ho
exem plified Professor Moran’ s opin ion th at cer tain com m unitym em

bers who w ere subj ec te d to c om

m uni ty pr es sur es w er e una

ble to adm it the ir

und er ly ing pr ej udi ce s. 130 Fr om the be gin nin g of

voi r dir e unt il the c om

ple tio n of the tr ia l, the pr ospe ct ive a nd a ct

ua l j ur or s w er e adm oni she d no t t o di sc uss the c as e w ith

131R21 at 44-45; R22 at 119; R116 at 13492-93. 132 R21 at 26. 133 R18 at 14. 134 I d. 135 I d. at 15. 136 38 an y one a nd t o have no c ont ac t w ithm ed iaa cc ount s or a nythi ng e lse r el at ed

to the
case. T he j urors we re a lso ins tructed about the presum ption of innocence. 132 133 D . T he M ed ia T hr ough out

the tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt w orke d a t c ontro lli ng m ed iaa cc es s. D ur ing adis co ve ry

he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt r em ind ed the part ie s and the ir attorney s that they

we re to re frain f

rom relea sing in form ation or opin ions which
co uld int er fe re w ithaf

ai r tr ia l or pr ej udi ce the a dm ini str at ionof j ust ic e. T he

134 dis tr ic t j udge state d th at

she w as “ inc re as ing ly

c onc er ne d” that vari ous pe rs ons
co nne ct ed

w iththe c as e w er e not

f oll ow ing he r or de r ba se d onthe “ para de of articles appear ing in the m edia about this case. ” In particular , she c omm ented 135 tha t an art ic le about

Me din a’ s pe ndi ng m oti on t o in cur ex pe nse s to pol l the
c o mmu n i t y “w a s t h e l e a ds t o ry i n t h e l o c a l s e c t i o n o n S a tu r d a y i n t h e M i a mi He rald.” She w arned all counsel and agents associated with the case that

136 ap pr opr ia te a ct ionw oul d be take n and tha t the U
. S. A tto rn ey ’ s O ff ic e w oul d beI d. at 14-15. 137 I d. at 17. 138 R21 at 111, 117-19; R22 at 111-16. 139 I d. at 115. 140 R22 at 119. 141 R24 at 625-26. 142 R9-1126. 143 39 held respons ible. She direc ted that “ [t] his case .
. . not . . . get advertised 137
an ywhe re i n t he m ed ia foran y reas on what so ev er.” 138 A s th e ca se pr oc ee de d to tr ia l, m ed iaa tte nti on e xpande d. O n th e fi rs t day of voi r dir e, the dis tr ic t c ourt ob se rv ed that on e of

the vic tim s’ f

am ili es c ondu ct ed

a press conference which w as film ed outsid e of the courthouse during the lunch break and that som e of the j urors we re a pproached by

the m edia. She then

139
ac know le dge d th at

“ [t ] he re is a tr em en dous a m ount of m ed iaa tte nti on f

or thi s
cas e.” 140 T he dis tr ic t c ourt e xte nde d th e se que str at ionor de r to c ove r the j ur y a nd witnesses to ensure that they had no contact with the m edia, sealed voir dire 141 que sti ons dur ing the j ur

y se le ct ion , a nd l im ite d th e ske tc hin g of w itn es se s f

or 142 their protection. It perm itted, however , the m edia “ acce ss to all the evidence 143Her nandez, 124 F. Supp. 2d at 704; R7-808. 144 R25 at 712-13. 145 I d. at 714. 146 I d. at 717-18. 147 R80 at 8822, 8825. 148 40 ad m it te d i nt o t he tri al reco rd .” 144 E. T he Tr ial The c ase procee ded to a j ury trial on 27 Novem

ber 2000. O n 30 Novem

ber, H e rn a n d e z ’s a t t o rn e y ra i s e dt h e i s s u e o f t h e s e a t i n g i n t h e c o u rt r o o m, s p e c i f i c a l l y, the pr ej udi ce r es ult ing f

ro m the a ssi gne d se at ing of

the vic tim s’ f

am ili es a nd the lack of seating available for the def endants’ f am ilies. H e ar gued that, as

145
w itn es se s, the vic tim s’ f

am ili es sho uld

not be se at ed be hin d th e gove rn m en t. 146 The district court then re assigned th e seating, so that the victim s’ fam ilies wer e seated in a rowrem oved from the governm ent and the defendants’ fam ilies wer e giv ena ssi gne d se at s. 147 D ef en se w itn es s Jo se Ba sul to, aCu ban- A m er ic anw ho h ad

w orke d w iththe Ce ntr al I nte lli ge nc e A ge nc y to inf iltrate the Cu

ban go ve rn m en t, te sti fi ed that he
w as “ de dic at ed

to pr om ot[ ing ] de m oc ra cy in Cu ba
. ” Whe n qu es tio ne d a bout his 148 activities during 1995 , he responded byasking Hernandez’ s defense counselR81 at 8945. 149 I d. 150 41 w he the r he w as “ doi ng the w ork” of the Cu ban in te lli ge nc e co m

m uni ty . A t the

149 request of H ernandez’ s attorney , the tr ial j udge struck th e com m ent and the jury
wa s instructed to d isregard the com m ent. Following a rec ess, Cam pa’ s counsel 150 argued that Basulto’s insinuation wa s precisely the kind[] of problem [] that we we re a fraid of when we f iled our m oti ons fo r a ch an ge of

ve nue , a nd .
. . in the a ft er m ath of the ev en ts o f Fe br

uary 24, 200 1, w e re ne w ed

our m oti on f or . . . ac hange of venue based on th e pretria l publ icity , the publicity that has been ge ne rate d duri ng the c our se of the tr ia l and o ur

c onc er n w ithour ab ili ty to obt ai n af

ai r tr ia l i n th is c om

m uni ty giv enthat ba ck gr ound
. T his r ed ba iti ng i s a

bsol ute ly int ole ra ble , to ac cu se [H er nande z’ s a tto rn ey ] be ca

use he is doi ng h is j ob, of be ing a com m unist
. It is unfortunate, it is the ty pe of red baiting we have seen in th is co m

m un it y be fo re an d we a re co nc ern edho w itaffe ct s t he jury. He re w e ar e asking the jury to m ake a dec ision based on the evidence an d on ly ba se d onte sti m ony

a nd w e ar e le ft

a nd the y a re le ft w ith w onde ri ng w ha t w ill the y be a cc use d. T he se j ur or s have to be co nc er ne d un le ss the y

c onvi ct the se m enof

e ve ry c ount lod ge d a ga ins t the m , pe opl e lik e Mr
. Ba sul to who h old pos iti ons of

auth or ity in thi s co m m uni ty , w ho h av e ac ce ss t o th e m ed ia , a re goi ng t o c al l the m of be ing Ca str o sy

m pa thi ze rs , a cc use the m

of be ing Ca str o sy

m pa thi ze rs , accuse them

of being spies and this is no t the kind of burden this jury can sh oul de r w he n it

is as ke d to tr

y a nd d ec ide tho se iss ue s ba se d on the e vid en ce a t tri al
. Whe n so m eo ne c anon the stand g ratui tou sly a nd m al ic iou sly ac cu se [ H er

nande z’ s a tto rn ey ] of

be ing aspy [, it ] se nds a m es sa ge to the se la die s and g en tle m enif the y don ’ t do w ha t i s c or

re ct , the y w ill be a cc use d of

be ing c om

m uni sts too . T he se pe opl e have to go b ac k to the ir hom es , the ir

j obs, the ir

c om m uni ty a nd y ou c an ’ t f

unc tio n inthi s tow n if y ou h av e be enla

be le d ac om

m uni st, spe ci al ly

by som eo ne ofI d. at 8947-49. 151 I d. at 8949. In the alter n ati ve, counse l for Campa a nd Her nandez re quested a

jury 152 instruction addre ssing Ba sulto’s attack on He rnande z’s counsel’s cr edibility . R81 at 8949-53. The court found that the statements co u l d af fe ct “how the jurors view” Her nandez’s counse l and ins tr uc te d the jur

y that He rn and e z’s atto rn e y ’s “ job is to pr ov ide a vig or ou s de fe ns e fo r h is c lie nt. Mr. B asulto’s statement reg arding [Hernande z’s c ounsel] wa s inappropriate and unfounded.” I d. at 8955. Govt. Ex s. DAV 109 at 6-7; DG 101 at 2, 102 at 30, 117, 137 at 2
. T h e C uban

153 g overnme nt maintains the foll owing intelligenc e operations: the Dire ctorate of Military Intellige nce (“D I M”) unde r the Ministry of Revoluti o n ar y Armed F orce s, and the Dire ctorate of Intellige nce (“D I ”) a nd the Dire ctorate of Counterintellig ence (“D CI ”) unde r the Ministry of the Interior. R44 at 3700-05, 3707. The DI collects intellig ence o u t s i d e o f C uba, foc using pr imarily on the United States; the DCIis responsible for intellig ence reg ardingcounter -re volutionary activities inside of Cuba. R44 at 3704, 3707. The DI is org anized into many

operational components, including M-I which handle s non-military United States g overnme nt ag ency intelligenc e, M-I I I which handles the collecting , corr elating , and re porting of g ather ed information, M-V which handles the operation and su pport of “il lega l” int e lli g e nc e of fi c e rs (“ I O” s) wh o e nte r t he Un ite d St ate s il le g a lly wi th a fa lse ident ity and identification, M-XIX which ha ndles counter -re volutionary individuals and org anizations outsi de of Cuba. R44 at 3708-11, 3713; R46 at 3957. 42 Mr. Basulto’ s stature. 151 H e as ke d th at

the c ourt c onsi de r thi s e ve nt and the oth er e ve nts in its c onsi de ratio n of the pending m otion for change of venue. 152 F . T he Ev id en ce at Tr ial Cam pa, G onzalez, Guer

rero, He rnandez, and Medina, a s well a s others, w ere
m em bers of a C uban go vernm ent intellig ence operation identified as “ La Red A vis pa , ” or

the W as p N etw ork, w hic h w as c harg ed w ithinf iltratin g, m oni tor ing , and disrup ting th e w ork of certain m ilitant Cuban exil es in South Florida. 153 Dire ctorate I ntelligence (“ DI ”) O ffice rs H ernandez, Medina, and Cam pa supervisedGo vt. Exs. DG 10 7 at 23; DA V 116 at 6. Th e I Os , as int e lli g e nc e of fi c e rs , we re fu ll- tim e 154 e mpl oye e s o f t

he DI wh o we re tr a ine d in a ll a sp e c ts of int e lli g e nc e wo rk
. R44 at 37 19 -2 0. Ag e nts wer e individuals who worke d as support for th e I Os b y p rovi ding inf ormation. The a g ents wer e p ai d fo r that information, but wer e not employ ees of the DI . R44 at 3720. The ag ents wer e supervised by

other a g ents or leg al or illeg al offic ers. I d. Guer rer o functioned a s both an I O and, in pe netrating the Nava l A ir Station (“NAS”) at Key West, Florida, as a

n ag ent. Govt. Ex
. DAV 122 at 6, 10. While working at the NAS, he tr avele d at le a st twi c e to the DI he a dq ua rt e rs in Cub a fo r tr a ini ng and de br ie fi ng on mil ita ry matte rs . Gov t. E xs. DG 108 at 31- 33; DL101 at 4; DL 103 at 13; DL

104 at 4; HF 136. R45 at 3870-71; Govt. Ex s. DG 107 at 58-67, 129 155 The NAS is the s outhernmost milit ary base in the continental United States a nd is located 156 about 90 miles from C uba. R74 at 7910, 7920-21. I t has an active a irfield and se vera l complexes of buildings use d by

the Air F orce , Army , Coast Guard, Ma ri n es , an d Navy . I d. at 7908-10. The pu bli c ha s a c c e ss t o th e ba se ro a dw ay s, but no t to its bu ild ing s. I d. at 79 12 -1 3, 79 15 -1 7. Th e ba se is the primary

United States milit ary

insta l l at i o n fo r conflicts in the Caribbe an, and is used f or national defense including int erme diate and advanc ed combat air trainingand druginterdiction. I d. at 7910-11, 7920-22.

Go v t . E x s . HF 1 0 3; DG 107 at 12-20; DG108 at 2-3. Southcom is one of the United 157 States Depa

rtment of De fense ’s five c entra liz ed g eog raphic command ce nters for unified military operations withi n an ar ea of responsibility (“A OR”). R46 at 4009- 10. As of 1987, Southcom’s AOR c ov e re d th e Cari bb e an, inc lud ingCub a , a nd L atin Am e ri c a . I d. at 4012 -1 4. Southc om’ s Mi ami he a dq ua rt e rs is a se c ur e , t ightl y -c on tr oll e d f a c ili ty ho us ing“ op e n s tor a g e ” c la ssi fi e d to p s e c re t, secr et, and c onfidential mater ials. R46 at 4018-19. R103 at 11907-08, 11911-13. 158 43 agents, including agents Gonzalez and Guerr ero. T he W asp Netw ork reported 154 inf orm at ionto Cu

baon: ( 1) the a ct ivi tie s of a nti -C as tr o or ganiz at ion s inMi am iD ad e Co unty ; ( 2) the ope ratio n of U nit ed S ta te s m ili tary

ins ta llatio ns i nc lud ing 155 tho se a t B oc a Ch ic a N av al A ir S ta tio n ( “N A S” ), Ma cD ill A ir F or ce Ba se 156 (“ MacD ill”), Barksdale A ir Forc e Base (“ Barksdale”) , and the United States Southern Com

m and (“ SouthCom ”); and (3) U nited States politi cal and law 157
en fo rc em en t a ct ivi tie s. T he gr oup w as a lso c harg ed w ithint im ida tin g C uban- 158R45 at 3793-99; Govt. Ex s. DG 108 at 28-29; DG 127 at 7-8; DC 101 at 11-19; Dho 101 159 at 2-6. Govt. Ex . HF 143.

160 Govt Ex s. DG 141 at 6-7; DA V 118 at 14-19. 161 Govt. Ex s. 384, 865. 162 R61 at 6404-15. 163 R73 at 7821-46; R74 at 7871-78; Govt. Ex . HF- 144. 164 R40-3197; R43 at 3628-29; R44 at 3731- 32, 3764-65; Govt. Ex s. 1A; DAV 101 at 29; 165 DAV 121; DG 118 at 2-3; HF 101- 144. 44 A m er ic anind ivi dua ls and o rg an iz at ion s w iththr eate nin g le tte rs a nd t el ep hone
ca lls ; pe ne tr at ing U nit ed S ta te s C ongr es sio na l e le ct iona ct ivi tie s; sc out ing a nd 159 160
as se ssi ng p ote nti al sourc es of inf orm at iona nd p oss ibl e ne wr ec ru its ; a nd 161
carr y ing comm

unication s, ca sh, and other item s betwee n Miam i and other United States-based D I offic ers and agents. N one of the W asp Netw ork m em bers 162 not if ie d th e U nit ed

S ta te s A tto rn ey

G en er al that the y

w er e ac tin g a s a ge nts of

the Cu ban go ve rn m en t. Me m be rs of the W as p N etw ork and the D I fr eque ntl y 163
co m m uni cate d and d el ive re d it em s th ro ugh the Cu ban de le ga tio ns’ dip lom at ic
cover. 164 T he W as p N etw ork m em be rs e va de d de te ct ionthr oughthe use of f al se ide nti tie s and c ode na m es , c ount er sur ve ill an ce f

or c ont ac ts and c om

m uni catio ns, and DI decry

pted written and broadcast com m unication s. Cam

pa, H ernandez, 165R33 at 2145; Govt. Ex s. 4; 5-1; 5-2; 5-3; 5-4; 8-1; 8-3; 8-4; 11; 12-3; 12-4; 12-5; 12-8; 166 DA V 1 18 at 7- 12 ; D G 105 at 2-1 6; D G 1 25 ; D G 1 35 at 3- 11 ; D G 1 36 . U nd e r t he ir fa lse ide nti tie s, Campa wa s also known as F erna ndo Gonzalez L lort, Osca r, or Vicky , R101 at 11714; Gonzalez was known as Ag ent Castor; Guer rer o was known a s L orient, Govt. Exs. DAV 102 at 1; DAV 129 at 2; Her nandez was known as Gira rdo, Giro, or

Manuel; and Me d i n a wa s k n own as Allan or Ramon L abanino; R101 at 11721-23. R34 at 2321-40; R44 at 3724- 26; R49 at 4677-78; R66 at 6833-35; R69 at 6981-7016; 167 Govt. Ex s. 5-6; 6; 7; 9; DAV 110 at 2; DAV 118 at 12-14; DG 126 at 9-10; S F 14; SF 15; SG 34; SG 53. Orlando Suar ez Pineiro, a Cuban-born pe rmane nt resident of the United States, serve d

168 as a c aptain in Alpha 66 f

or about six y ear s. R90 at 10373-74. On 20 May 1993, he and othe r Alpha 66 members we re a

rre sted while on board a boat with w eapons in the Florida Key s. I d. at 10391-92, 10397-401, 10415-16. The wea pons included pistols with m ag azines and ammunition, 50 caliber machine guns with ammuniti on, rifles with clips, and a n RK. I d. at 10397-400. Pineiro wa s tried and found not guilty

of possessi o n of a N orinko AK 47 rif le and two pipe bombs. I d. at 10424. Pineiro and other A lpha 66 m em b er s were also stopped a nd rele ased while on board a boat on 10 J une 1994, but their we apons and boat were seized. I d. at 10409, 10411-14. The seiz ed we apons included a ma chine gun and AK 47s. I d. at 10411-14. 45 an d M ed ina

f al se ly ide nti fi ed

the m se lve s th ro ugh el ab or at e “ le ge nds, ” or biog raphies, which wer e supported bydocum ents provid ed by the DI , and used the se doc um en ts whe n th ey de al t w ithU nit ed

S ta te s bo rd er

a nd l awe nf

or ce m en t personnel and when they obtained driv ers licenses, passports, and other ide nti fi catio n. T he y

a lso ha d ba ck -u

p, or “ re se rv e, ” fa lse ide nti tie s inw hic h th e 166 agents used th e nam es and other identification of United States citizens w ho had vis ite d C uba
. T he a ge nts use d th es e ba ck -u p id en tit ie s w he n th ey

tr av el ed or if the ir pr im ar y “ le ge nd” w as c om

pr om ise d. 167 T he Cu ban e xil e gr oups of

c onc er n to the Cu

ban go ve rn m en t i nc lud ed A lph a 66, Br iga de 250 6, BT T R, I nde pe nde nt and D em oc ratic Cu ba( “ CI D ”) , Co m an dos 168Un ite d St ate s Cu sto ms A g e nt R ay Cr ump te sti fi e d that, on 20 Ma y 19 93 , he pa

rt ic ipate d in the arres t o f s e v e r a l me n w h o s e b o at w a s mo o r e d at a ma r in a in M ar ath o n , F lo r id a . I d
. at 10429. Th e bo at he ld: se ve ra l ha

nd g un s; a uto matic ri fl e s, inc lud ing on e fu lly a uto matic ri fl e ; f

our gre na de s; two pipe bombs; a 40 milli meter gr enade launche r; a 50 caliber Ba retta semiautomatic rifle; and a bottle printed with “Alpha 66" which contained “Hispanic propag anda . . . , . . . cra y ons, razors, stuff of that natur e .” I d. at 1043 1- 33 , 104 34
. He a lso pa rt ic ipate d in an inv e sti g atio n of a v e sse l so uth of L ittle Torch Ke y , about ten miles south of Marathon, Florida, on 11 J uly 1993. I d. at 10433-34. The ve ssel was c arr

ying f our men, numer ous wea

pons, and “A lpha 66 ty

p e p ro p aganda.” I d. at 10434. The we apons on the ve ssel inclu d ed an AR 1 5, two 7.6 milli meter r ifles and ammuniti on mag azines. I d. at 10438. Followingthis investigation, the men we re not a rre sted, and the w eapons and vesse l were not seized. I d. at 10438-39. Un i t ed States Customs Age nt Rocco Mar co said that he encounte red f our anti-Castro mil ita nts on 27 Oc tob e r 1 99 7, a ft e r t

he ir ve sse l, t he “ Es pe ra

nza ” , wa s sto pp e d in

wate rs of f P ue rt o Rico. R90-10 4 4 9
. He ex plained that U.S. Coast Guar d office rs sea rche d the vessel a

nd found weap o n s and ammunition “hidden in a fa lse compar tment underne ath the stairwe ll leadingto the lower de ck.” T he off

icer s found food, water bott l es, ca mouflag e military

appar el, nig ht vision g og g les, communications equipment, binoculars, two Bire tta 50 caliber semiautomatic rifle with 70 rounds of ammuniti on, ten rounds of 357 ha nd g un ammunition, and mag azines and cl ips for the firea rms. R90 at 10453-59. The le ader of the g roup, Ang el Manue l Alfonso of Alpha 66, confe ssed to Rocco that they

wer e on their w ay

to assassinate Castro at I L A Margu ar i t a, wh er e h e wa s sc he du le d to g ive a

sp e e c h. I d. at 1045 2, 10 46 7. Al fo ns o e xpla ine d to Roc c o th at “ his purp os e in life wa s to kill [C astro]” and that it did not “matter if he went to ja il or not. H e would come back and ac complish the missi on.” I d. at 10468. Debbie Mc Mullen, the chief investigator with the Fe dera l Publi c De fende r’s Of fice , testified that Ru ben Da

rio L opez-Castro was a n individual associated with a numbe r of a nti-Castro org anizations, including PUND and Alpha 66. R97 at 11267. L opez a nd Orlando B osch planne d to ship weapons into Cuba for a n assassination attempt on Castro. I d. at 11254. B osch had a long history of terror ist acts ag ainst Cuba, and prose cutions and convic tions for terr orist-related ac tiviti es in the United States and in other c ountries. Campa Ex. R77 at 18-35. Rodolfo Frome ta testified that, althoug h he wa s born in Cuba, he wa s a citizen of the 169 United States. R91 at 10531. He e x plained that he was a United States repr esentative of a Cuban org anization called Comandos F4, which was or g anized “to b ri n g about pol itical chang e in a peac eful wa

y in Cuba” and inc luded member s both inside of and exiled from Cuban. I d. at 10532. He ide nti fi e d h ims e lf

a s th e Command ate Jef

e , o r c omm and e r- in- c hie f, of F 4 in the Un ite d St ate s. I d. at 10534. He stated that, since 1994, all F4 members m ust sign a pledg e that they will “respe ct the United States laws” and not violate either Florida or fe dera l law. I d. at 10535. Fr ometa stated that, before Comandos F4, he was invol ved with Alpha 66, a nother org anization supporting political cha ng e in Cuba, fr om 1968 to 1994 and serve d as their c ommander “bec ause of

his f irm and staunc h position . . . aga inst Castro.” R91 at 10541-42. As a me mber of Alpha 66, F rometa w as stopped by p o l i ce office rs and que stioned reg ardinghis possession of 46 F4 , Co m

m an dos L , CA

N F, the Cu

ban A m er ic anMi lit ar

y Co unc il 169 170we a

po ns . H e wa s f

ir st s top pe d o n 1 9 O c tob e r 1 99 3, whi le in a bo at w hic h h a d b e e n to we d to Marathon, Florida, a

nd was que stioned reg ardingthe onboar d we ap o n s . I d. at 10564-66. The we a po ns inc lud e d se ve n s e mi- a uto matic Chi ne se AK

a ssa ult ri fl e s a nd on e Rug e r s e mi- a

uto matic mini 14 rifle caliber

223 with a scope
. I d. at 10564-66. On 23 October 1993, he w as ag ain stopped while he and others we re dr iving a truck whic h was pullinga boat towa rd the F lorida Ke y s. I d. at 10542-44. F rometa e x plained that they wer e ca rry ing w eapons to c onduct a military training exercise in orde r to prepa re f or pol i tical cha

ng es in Cuba or in the c ase of a Cuban attack on the United States, and onc e the of fi ce rs d etermined that their ac tiviti es we re le g al, they wer e sent on their wa y . I d. at 10544-48, 10563. The we apons we re se mi-automatic and inc luded an R15, an A K 47, and a 50 caliber machine gun. I d. at 10545-47. Fr ometa and sever al other A lpha 66 member s were on c e mor e sto pp e d a nd re le a se d o n 7 F e br

ua ry 19 94 fo r h avin gwe a

po ns on bo ard his bo at. Be cause a photog raph of

the gr o u p was “ published in the newspape rs” “ [e] very body in Miami” knew that they wer e re lease d
. I d
. at 1 0 5 6 9 . On 2 J une 1994, F rometa, by then a membe r of F 4, was arr e ste d a ft e r atte mpt ingto p ur c ha se C4 e xplos ive s and a “ Stin g e r a nti a ir c ra ft mis sil e ” in o rd e r t o kil l Ca str o and hi s clo se a sso c iate s in Cub a . I d. at 10 57 1- 72 , 1 05 74 -7 6, 10 57 9- 80 . F ro me ta acknow ledg ed that the use of the C4 explosi ve could have injured Cubans who worke d at a military ins ta llatio n, id. at 10 57 9, but th at th e y ha d c a us e d th e “ de ath o f f

ou r U.S
. cit iz e ns , th e 41 pe op le including 20 or

21 children who died; the mother of the child Elian, plus thousands and thousands who have died in the Straits of Florida .” I d. at 91-10581. Percy Fr ancisc o Alvara do Godoy and Juan Fra

ncisco F erna

ndez Gomez t estified by 170 deposition. R95 at 11012; R 99 at 11558-59. Godoy , a Guatamalan c itiz en re siding in Cuba, de sc ri be d atte mpt s b e tween 19 93 and 19 97 by a ff ili ate s o f t

he CA NF to r e c ru it h im t o e ng a g e in violent activities ag ainst sever al Cuban targ ets. 2SR-708, Att. 2 at 10-13, 21-24, 27-28, 33-34, 44- 46, 61, 63-64. He said that, beg inning in September 1994, he wa s asked t o p l ac e a bomb at the Cabere t Tropicana , a popular Hava na nig htclub and tourist attrac tion. I d. at 44-46. In connec tion with the same plot, he fle w to Guatema la in N ovember 1994 to obtain the explos ives and de tonators to be used a

nd met with, amongothers, L uis Posada Carriles, a

Cuban exil e with a long history of violent acts ag ainst Cuba. I d. at 49, 52, 56-58. Unknown to t h e C AN F members, Godoy was cooper atingwith the Cuban authorities, denounc ed their pla ns, and later

testified at the tria l of one of the c onspirators in Cuba. I d. at 22, 24, 26, 31, 58-59, 65, 70, 76, 81-82, 86, 90, 109. Gomez, a citizen and re sident of Cuba, desc ribed numerous attempts betwee n 1993 and 1997 by persons a ssociated with the CANF to rec ruit him to enga g e in violent activities ag ainst sever al Cuban targ ets. Gomez also testified that, beg inning in September 1994, he wa s asked to plac e a bomb at the Caber et Tropica na, a popular Havana nightclub and tourist attrac tion. I n 1996 and 1998, Go me z wa s a

pp ro a c he d b y

B or g e s Pa z of the anti -C a str o o rg anizatio n th e Ex Clu b, 2SR- 70 8, Att. 1 at 9, 12-14, 20, 39; Gomez said that Paz invit ed him to join their orga nization t o build and place bombs at tou ri s t h o t el s and at the Che Gueva ra Me morial in Santa Clara, Cuba. I d. at 16, 19, 22. After returningto Cuba, Gomez informed the Cuban a uthorities of the Ex Club’s plans. I d. at 20, 35-36. As a r esult of his work for the United States g overnme nt, Gomez said that he was e strang ed from his family

in the United States, including a daughter in Florida, and had rec eived thre atening phone ca lls. I d. at 64-66. 47 (“ CA MC O ”) , the E x C lub , P ar tid o de U nid ad

N ac ion al D em oc ratic a (P U N D ) orR83 at 9162, 9165-67; R90 at 10373-74, 10391-92, 10397-10401, 1 0 4 0 9, 10411-14, 171 10415-16, 10429, 10431-34, 10449, 10452-59, 10467-68; R91 at 10541- 42, 10544-48, 10563-66, 10571-72, 10574-76, 10579- 80; R97 at 11267, 11291-97; 2SR-708, Att. 1 at 9, 12-14, 16, 19-20, 22, 35 -3 6, 39 ; A tt. 2 at 10 -1 3, 21 -2 4, 27 -2 8, 33 -3 4, 44 -46 , 61 , 63- 64 ; Campa Exs. R- 29 D, R- 29 F , R29G, R-29H. R97 at 11296-97. 172 48 the N at ion al D em oc ratic U nity P ar ty ( N D U P) , a nd U nit ed

Co m m an d f or L ibe ratio n (C L U ). A lph a- 66 r anaparam ili tary c am p tr ai nin g part ic ipants f

or a n in va sio n of 171 Cu ba , ha d be eninv olv ed

in te rr or ist

a tta ck s onCu

ban ho te ls i n 19 92, 199 4, a nd 1995 , had attem

pted to sm

uggl e hand grenades into Cuba in March 1993 , and had issued th reats against Cuban tourists and installatio ns in Novem ber 1993. A lpha66 m em be rs w er e int er ce pte d onthe ir w ay to as sa ssi na te Ca str o in199 7. B ri ga de 2506 r anay outh param ili tary c am p. B T T R f

le wint o C uban a ir

spa ce f ro m 199 4 172 t o 1 9 9 6 t o dro p m es s ag es an dl ea fl et s p ro m o t i n g t h e o v er t h ro w o f C as t ro ’s gove rn m en t. C ID w as sus pe ct ed of inv olv em en t w itha n a ssa ssi na tio n a tte m pt ag ai nst Ca str o. C om an dos F4 w as inv olv ed in ana ssa ssi na tio n a tte m pt a ga ins t Ca str o. C om

m an dos L c la im ed

r es pons ibi lity

f or ate rr or ist

a tta ck in 1992 a t a hot el in H av an a. C A

N F planne d to bom

b anig htc lub in Cu

ba
. T he E x C lub planne d to bom

b to ur ist hot el s and a

m em or ia l. P U

N D planne d to shi p w ea

pons for an assassination attem pt on Castro. Following each a ttack, C uba had advis ed the United States of its inv estigation s and had asked the United States’ authoritiesCampa Exs. R -29C; R-29F; R-29H; GH Exs. 16C, 24. 173 R83 at 9166-67. 174 R58 at 5919, 5922-23; Govt. Ex s. HF 108 at G-3, 113 at G- 3. 175 GH Ex. 37 at 2-4, 6-8. 176 GH Ex. 18E. 177 49 to t ak e ac tio n a ga ins t the gr oups ope ratin g f ro m ins ide the U nit ed

S ta te s. 173 The B TT R’ s flights o ver Cuba w ere of particular c oncern to the Cuban gove rn m en t. S om et im e af te r 13 July

199 5, the F ed er al A via tio n A dm ini str at ion (“ FA A” ) convey ed the Cuban gov ernm ent’ s threats to the BTT R that unautho rized plane s f ly ing int o C uban a ir spa ce w oul d be f or ce d to land o r shot

dow n. O n 9

174 and 13 Janu ary

1996 , B TT R dropped tho usands of leaf lets into Cub a, which w ere printed with portion s of the United N ations’ U niversal Dec laration of Hum an Ri ght s and w hic h e nc our ag ed Cu bans t o f igh t f or the ir r igh ts. I n January

199 6, 175 BT TR Pre sident and Director Jose Basulto appeared on a U nited States-controlled Ra dio Mart i pr ogr am

br oa dc as t i nto Cu

bac la im ing r es pons ibi lity f or dr oppi ng le af le ts e ar lie r tha t m onth and s ta tin g th at BT T R a dvoc at ed

the use of

c ivi l dis obe die nc e. T he Cu

ban go ve rn m en t pr ote ste d to the U nit ed S ta te s a bout the 176 airspace violations, com

plained that th e m easures used by the FA A to im

pede such flights were insufficient, and noted that un authorized flights would be interrupted by force
. 177GH E x . 1 8F. 178 R76 at 8198-99, 8203-04. 179 I d. at 8204-05. 180 50 O n 22 January

199 6, the F A A ’ s li ai son to the S ta te D ep ar tm en t w ro te the
re gio na l F A A of

fi ce in Mi am i r eg ar din g th es e Cu ban a ir spa ce vio la tio ns. S he state d th at

she ha d be ena dvi se d of

a nothe r unauth or iz ed

f lig ht o n 20 January , a nd that this latest ov erflight can only be seen as f

urther taunting o f the Cuban G ove rn m en t. S ta te is inc re as ing ly c onc er ne d a bout Cu ban r ea ct ionto the se f la gr an t vi ola tio ns. T he y

a re a lso a ski ng f

ro m the F A A w ha t i s thi s a ge nc y

doi ng t o pr ev en t/d et er

the se a ct ion s . . . [ an d] our c as e ag ai nst Ba sul to. W or st c as e sc en ar io i s th at one of the se day s th e Cu bans w ill sho ot d ow n on e of the se plane s and the F A A be tte r ha ve al l i ts du ck s i n a row. 178 In ear ly Februar y 1996 , a m em ber of a delegation reviewing Cuban m ilitary activities was advised by the Cuban m ilitary

that it was f

rustrated by

the lack of a favor ab le r es pons e fr om

the U nit ed

S ta te s c onsi de ri ng i ts r ep eate d pr ote sts
re gard ing the li ght

c ivi lian a ir

plane f lig hts f ro m F lor ida w hic h w er e vio la tin g Cu ban a ir spa ce . T he re af

te r, the de le ga tio n m em

be r m et w ithof fi ci al s f ro m the 179 U nit ed S ta te s D ep ar

tm en ts o f D ef

en se a nd S ta te a nd a dvi se d th em of w ha t he pe rc ei ve d a s aw ar

nin g th at Cu baw as c onsi de ri ng s hoot ing dow n th e fl igh ts. 180 On 23 Februar

y 1996 , the F AAissued a “ Cuba Aler t” to several U nitedDef . Her nandez Ex. GH, composite 18G. 181 R83 at 9161-65, 9167-70. 182 I d. 183 I d. at 9168-70; Govt. Exs. 478, 479. 184 51 States agencies. In the aler t, the F AAadvised they

had
re ce ive d ac al l f

ro m S ta te D ep t. ind ic at ing that si nc e Br oth er s to the Re sc ue [ BT T R] a nd i ts l ea de r Ba sul to s uppo rt a nd e ndor se the Co nc ili o C ubano [ anum

br el ladis se nt o rg an iz at ion ] it w oul d no t be unlik ely that the BT [T ] R attem

pted an unauth orized flight into Cuban ai rs pa ce tom or

ro w , in de fi an ce of

the G O C [ G ove rn m en t of Cu ba ] a nd its pol ic ie s a ga ins t di ssi de nts . S ta te D ep t. c an not c onf irm thi s w ill happen and is in touch with local law enf orcem ent agencies to better de te rm in e wha t’s t he si tu at io n. I’ve r ei te rat edto Sta te th atth e FAA cannot P RE V E N T f

lig hts suc h a s th is p ote nti al one , but that w e’ ll al ertou r fo lk s i n c as e it happ en s an d we’ll do cu m en t i t (a s b es t we can) f or c om pli an ce /e nf

or ce m en t purp ose s. St at e ha s a lso ind ic at ed

that the G O C w oul d be le ss l ike ly to show res tra in t (i n a n u na ut ho riz edfli gh t s cen ari o) th is ti m e aro un d . . . . 181 O n 24 F eb ru ar

y 199 6, Ba sul to s ch ed

ule d af lig ht i nto the F lor ida

S tr ai ts, tow ar d C uba , in se ar chof r ep orte d r af

te rs . T he f

lig ht p lans w er e fi le d w iththe 182 FA A and transm itted to Cuba. A t approxim ately 1:15 P.M. , thre e BT TR

aircr aft 183 de part ed f ro m the O pa -L oc ka , F lor ida , a ir fi el d: N 2506 , c ar ry ing Ba sul to and oth er s; N 2456 , pil ote d by Carl os C ost a an d c ar

ry ing P ab lo M or al es ; and N 5485 , pil ote d by

Mari o de la

P en a an d c ar

ry ing A rm an do A le

j an dr e. A t a

ppr oxi m at el y 184 3:00 P. M., the planes crossed the 24th parallel, which m arks the bound ary betwee n th e Mi am i an d Hav an a Fl ig ht Inf or m at io n R eg io ns an d i s i n i nt ern at io na l ai rs pa ce.R83 at 9181-83; Govt. Ex . 475A at 2-3. 185 Govt. Ex . 483 at 8-9. 186 I d. at 10-11. 187 I d. at 14-16. 188 R53 at 5109-14, 5117-18; Govt. Ex
. 483 at 5-7, 11, 13, 17-18, 20. T he cr uise ship was 189 Roy al Caribbea

n’s “Ma jesty of the S eas” with about 2,600 passeng ers and 800 cre w. R53 at 5084- 86. The first office r on the ship e x plained that they wer e on the last legof a w eekly cruise a bout 24 nautical miles off

the north coa st of Cuba duringthe shoo t d o wn s . I d. at 5087-89, 5109-14. A videotape of

the shootdowns made by a cr uise ship pa sseng er w as appa rently “played on TV ma

ny times.” I d. at 5124. R53 at 5113-21, 5131-33; Govt Exs. 440, 469B, 484. 190 52 A t this poi nt, the y

c om m uni cate d by

r ad io w ithH av an a A ir

T ra ff ic Co ntr ol (“ H av an a A T C” ) ide nti fy ing the m se lve s and the ir f lig hts
. W ith in m inu te s of the 185
cr oss ing , Cu

ban m ili tary

j et f igh te r ai rc ra ft

sig hte d and p ur sue d C ost a’ s pl an e in international airspace. A t 3:20 P. M., Cuban m ilitary ground con trol radioed that 186 the Cuban aircra ft w ere “ authorized to destroy .” Id. A ccordingly , the C uban
m ili tary a ir cr af t f ir ed on and d es tr oy ed

the plane . Af

ewm om en ts l at er , the 187 Cu ban f igh te r j et sig hte d th e plane pil ote d by de la P en a an d sh ot i t do w n. T he 188 shoo t do w ns o f the tw o B T T R p lane s w er e obse rv ed both by oc cu pants of af ish ing boa t and b y

the c re wa nd p as se nge rs onb oard ac ru ise shi p. T he bod ie s of the 189 people in th e airc raft, three of whom we re United States citizens, w ere never
recovere d. Both planes we re in international airspace, fly ing away from Cuba, when they

we re shot down; they

had not entered Cuban airspace. 190R93 at 10750-51, 10754-55, 10783-832. The acts included an explosion on 12 April 1997 191 wh ic h d e str oye d the bathr oo m and da nc e fl oo r at th e dis c oth e qu e Ac he in t he Me dia Coh iba Ho te l, id. at 10755, 10757, 10759; a bombing on 25 April 1997 at the Cubana can of fice s in Mex ico, R97 at 11318-19; the 30 Apr il 1997 explos ive device found on the 15 floor of the C ohiba Hotel, R93 th at 10766-69, 10771; the 12 July 1997 explos ions at the Ho t el Na ci onal and Hote l Capri, both of which cr eate d “cr ater s” in the hotel lobbies and did sig nificant damag e inside the hotels, id. at 10 78 6- 88, 10 79 5- 80 1; t

he 4 Augus t 19 97 e xplos ion at th e Coh iba

Ho te l w hic h c re ate d a

c rate r i n the lobby and d es t roy ed fur

niture; id. at 10802-05; explosi ons on 4 September 1997 at the Triton Ho te l, t he Cop a c a

ba na Ho te l, the Chate a

u Mir amar Ho te l, an d th e B od e qu ita de l Me dio Re sta

ur ant, id. at 10807- 09, 10820; a

nd, the discovery of explos ive device s at the San Jose Marti I nternational Airport in a tourist van in the taxi dispatch are a on 19 October 1997 and under neath a kiosk on 30 October 1997, id. at 10824-30. The ex p l o s ions on 4 September killed an Italian tourist at the Copaca bana H otel, injured people at the Chateau Mira mar Hote l, the Copaca

bana H otel, and at the Bode quita del Medio Restaura nt, a nd cause d proper

ty damag e at all locations. I d. at 10809-13, 10815-20, 10822-23. R97 at 11316-18; Campa Exs. R 57(a) , R57(b) at 2, 59. 192 53 L ie ute nant C olo ne l R obe rt o H er nande z Ca

ba lle ro , of

the Mi nis tr

y of Cu ba D ep ar tm en t of S ta te S ec ur ity , te sti fi ed

that he inv es tig at ed

anum be r of te rr or ist act s i n Hav an a an d i n o th er l oc at io ns at C ub an -o wne d fa ci li ti es du rin g 1 99 7. He 191 advis ed Me din a of

the a tta ck s inApr il an d di re ct ed that he “ [s ] earc h f

or a ct ive inform ation on [the ac ts] that [the Cubans with ties to the Cuban Am erican Military Co unc il (“ CA MC O ”) ] ha ve , or a ny a tte m pt f or f uture sim ilar ac tio ns [ in C uba ] by CAM CO. ” In Se ptem

ber, He rnandez notified the Cuban autho rities that he had 192
re ce ive d in fo rm at ionthat “ one of the tw o br oth er s w ho h ad som ethin g to do w ith the bom b on [an Italian tourist who was killed] ” w as available to m eet for lunch
an d th at “ ne xt w ee k th ey

[ the te rr or ist s] w oul d tr

y to pla ce abom

b inone of

the larg es t bu ild ing s [ as soc ia te d w ithtouri sm ] in Cu baw hic h is vis ite d m ost

byR97 at 11320-21. 193 I d. at 11321; Campa Ex. R 63 at 1. 194 R93 at 10832, 10839, 10842. 195 I d. at 10 83 9- 41 ; Campa Ex. R- 33 -M M. 196 R40 at 3231-32, 3238-40; R46 at 4012-14; Govt. Exs. DG 103 at 3-4, HF 104 at G-3. 197 54 [C as tr o]
. ” H er

nande z’ s c ont ac t w as ins tr uc te d to e la

bor at e on the inf

orm at ion 193 tha t he ha d ob ta ine d. A s ar es ult of the inv es tig at ion s, Ca

ba lle ro sa id tha t the 194 Cuban Departm ent of State S ecurity arr ested som e individ uals, but that he believed
som e of the ind ivi dua ls r es pons ibl e fo r fi nanc ing , planni ng, a nd o rg an iz ing the explosi ons liv ed in the United States and had not been arre sted. Caballer o 195
ex pla ine d th at , in June 199 8, he pr ovi de d F BI a ge nts w ithdoc um en ta tio n and inv es tig at ionm at er ia ls r eg ar din g th e te rr or ist a ct s be tw ee n 19 90 and 1 998, a nd
re ce ive d th e FB I’ s f

ind ing s inMarc h 19 99. 196 H er nande z w orke d inthe U nit ed S ta te s f ro m 199 4 to 199 8, sup er

vis ing
unr eg ist er ed

Cu ban a ge nts Juan R oque a nd R en e G onz al ez w ho b othinf iltrate d th e BT T R o rg an iz at ion , a nd O pe ratio n A er opue rt o w hic h w as G ue rr er o’ s pe ne tr at ion of the N A S. I n late 199 5 and e ar ly 199 6, H er

nande z part ic ipa te d inaplan to ha ve Ro que r et ur n to Cu bato unde rm ine the BT T R. H e al so d ir ec te d an a ge nt t o a ppl y fo r a j ob w ithS outhc om , a nd l at er sup er vis ed O pe ratio n S ur oc w hic h w as the 197Govt. Ex s. DG 107 at 23-24, D G 108 at 2. 198 Govt. Ex . HF 115 at G-3. 199 I d.; G ovt. E x s. 112 at 10; DG 104 at 2; HF 116 at G-3; HF 120 at G-3, 121 at G-3; HF 200 122 at G-3; HF 123 at G-3. Govt. Ex s. HF 128- G03; DG 108 at 6, 8; HF 136- G-3. Ope rations Venic ia and Ge rman 201 inv olv e d Ro qu e ’s e xtra c tio n f ro m th e Un ite d St ate s a

nd re tur n to Cub a to d e no un c e B TT R. R49 at 4611-12; DG 102 at 42. 202 55 ag en ts’ pe ne tr at ionof

S outhc om . I n late January 199 6, he r ec ei ve d ase ri es of 198
m essages from

the Cuban governm ent announ cing “ Oper acion Escorpion,” which invo lved confrontin g the counter-revolution ary eff orts of the BT TR

in late January 1996
. I n th e m es sa ge s, Ro que a nd G onz al ez w er e dir ec te d to pr ovi de Cu baw ith 199 spe ci fi c inf

orm at ionthr oughc ode s r eg ar din g th e BT T R f ly ing m iss ion s; R oque and Gonzalez we re a dvised n ot to fly on these m issio ns. H ernandez w as later 200
re co gni ze d f

or his “ de ci siv e” r ole in O pe ratio ns V en ic iaa nd G er m an , in w hic h “ the Mi am i ri gh t [wa s d eal t] a ha rdbl ow.” 201 He rnandez also participated in the spread of disinform ation. H e w as asked t o mai l DI
- f

u rn i s h e dl e t t e r s , p u r

p o rt i n g t o b e f

r o m a “c o u n t e rr e v o l u t i o n a ry”
or ganiz at ionw hic h th re at en ed m em be rs of Co ngr es s w ho s uppo rt ed li ft ing the
em barg o onCu

bain or de r to p ro voke the de fe at of m em be rs of Cu ban- A m er ic an de sc en t. H er

nande z sugg es te d anum

be r of pr oj ec ts i n so uthF lor ida : m ak ing 202 t h r e a t e n i n g p h o n e c a l l s t o an e w s p ap e r p ub l i s h e r

w h i c h ap p e a r e dt o c o me f r o m aR49 at 4614-16; Govt. Ex s. DG 107 at 52; DG 127 at 5; DG 139 at 10-11. 203 See supra

note 137. 204 Govt Ex . DC 101 at 19-21. 205 R97 at 11291-93, 11295. 206 I d. at 11294. 207 56 CA N F supp orte r; te sti ng B T T R’ s a ir plane se curi ty

f or sa bot ag e fe as ibi lity ; and publ ish ing aboo k su gge sti ng tha t B T T R f ound er Ba sul to k

ne win advanc e tha t hi s BT T R f oll ow er s w oul d be sho t do w n ov er Cu ba
. H e as ke d G onz al ez to pr ovi de 203 inf orm at ionto M- II I about f undi ng f or a nti -C as tr o sa

bot ag e, dis ag re em en ts i n 204 the Mi am i- Cu

ban c om m uni ty about the P ope ’ s vi sit

to Cu ba , a nd d isa gr ee m en ts within CAN F over its internal leader ship s uccession and futu re ter rorist plans. In

205 A ugus t 19 98, H er

nande z re porte d to the Cu ban go ve rn m en t oninf

or m at ionthat he ha d le ar ne d f ro m ane w spa pe r ar tic le that A lph a 66 c am

p part ic ipants , a rm ed

w ith rifles and sem iautom atic m achine guns, sim ulated an attack on a Cuban air base, and that an identified in divid ual had claim ed to have participated in Cuban ho tel bom bing s in 199 2, 1994, and 1995
. H e also shared the new s from the article that 206 Al p h a 6 6 co n t i n u ed t o p re p ar e f o r a t t ac k s ag ai n s tCu b a, t h at s o m e o f t h e g ro up ’s
ar se na l w as loc at ed

on an is land b eh ind

A ndr ew s A ir

F or ce Ba se , a nd tha t the gr oup w as a tte m

pti ng t o ob ta in C -4 e xpl osi ve s to use dur ing it s ne xt atta ck
. 207 Medina worked w ith Guerre ro and assum ed his sup ervision from He rnandezEx . R52 at 4; Govt. Ex s. DAV 123 at 47, 49; DG 109 at 17; DG 110 at 1. 208 R40 at 3231-32, 3238-40; R41 at 3317; R46 at 4012-14; Govt Ex s. DG 108; DS 103 at 209 2, 4, 11; DG 110. Govt. Ex . DAV 113 at 1, 3-4. 210 R49 at 4618-19; R31 at 3; R43 at 3; R51 at 9; R52 at 5-10; R84 at 20-27; R97 at 11242, 211 11252-53, 11277, 11279; Campa Exs. R 22 at 26; R24 at 65, 74; Govt. Ex s. DAV 118 at 1-5; DG 108 at 28-29; DG 127 at 7-8; HF 143. R91 at 10592-93. 212 57 in June 199 7. H e al so s upe rv ise d O pe ratio n S ur oc a nd w orke d w itha ge nts w ho

208 ha d be enr ec ru ite d by

H er nande z to p en etrate S outhc om . I n M ay 199 7, Me din a 209
wa s asked by

the DI to gather inform ation regarding infiltrating various local, state,
an d f ed er al a ge nc ie s lo cate d inF lor ida , inc lud ing m ili tary ba se s, the Co as t G uard , the I m m igr at iona nd N at

ur al iz at ionS er

vic e (“ IN S” ), a nd the F ed er al Bure auof Investigatio n (“ FBI” ). 210 A t so m e poi nt, Cam

patoo k ov er

sup er vis ionof se ve ra l op er at ion s f

ro m He rnandez and Medina, includi ng Operation Ae ropuerto and Operation Suroc. 211 Cam paa dm itt ed

that he a nd s ev er al of

his c ode fe ndants w orke d se cr et ly on b eh al f of the Cuban governm ent to gather and relay inform ation concerning th e activities of num erous local, e xtrem ist anti-Castro groups and indiv iduals who had previousl y

conducted terrorist acts against Cuba. H e w as also directed to work 212
on a num be r of ope ratio ns, inc lud ing O pe ratio n R ai nbow/A rc oir is, O pe ratio n Br ow n/M or en a, O pe ratio n F og/ N eb lin a, O pe ratio n P ar ad ise /P ar ai so, O pe ratio nR97 at 11253-55; Campa Ex. R 24 at 8-9. 213 R97 at 11268-69; Campa Exs. R 22 at 26, R24 at 15-16, 19. 214 I d. at 11263, 11270-71, 11273. 215 I d. at 11274-77; Campa Ex. R24 at 21. 216 R97 at 11277; Campa Ex s. R19 at 11-13, 20-23, R20 at 2-4, R35 at 16, 20. 217 58 Giro n, an d o th ers . Opera ti on Rai nb ow i nv ol ve d fi lm in g a m eet in g b et ween CANF le ad er O rl an do B osc h, A lph a 66 and P U N D le ad er

Ru be n D ar io L ope z an d a Cuban agent to plan a shipm ent of we apons in to Cuba for the proposed
as sa ss in at io n o f Cas tro ; o th er p art ic ip an ts in cl ud edCam pa , Hern an de z, an d t wo other Cuban agents. O peration Brown r equired Cam pa to keep an ey e on Bosch 213 in o rd er to le ar n hi s r el at ion shi ps and m ove m en ts, a nd the pla ce s he f re que nte d. 214 O pe ratio n F og i nvol ve d C am paa nd M ed ina

m oni tor ing the a ct ivi tie s of Ro be rt o Martin Per ez, a m em

ber of the board of direc tions for the CA NF , which the Cuban governm ent believed was r espons ible for tw o July1997 hotel bom bing s. In

215 Oper ation Paradise, Cam pa and others, including Rene G onzalez and other Cuban ag en ts, ga the re d in fo rm at ionon the param ili tary a ct ivi tie s of

Cu ban e xil e gr oups ope ratin g inthe Baha m as , inc lud ing CA N F, A lph a 66, Cu

ba21, BT T R, a nd ind ivi dua ls i n th ose or ganiz at ion s. O pe ratio n G ir on w as a n a tte m pt t o in fi ltr at e 216 CA N F, w hic h in vol ve d M ed ina a nd l at er Cam paa s ate m

por ar y r ep la ce m en t f

or Me din a. S om e of

the unn am ed

ope ratio ns i nc lud ed

ide nti fy ing a nd v ide ota

pin g 217R97 at 11284-86, 11289. 218 I d. at 11285, 11288-89. 219 I d. at 11290-91. 220 Campa Ex
. R32 at 2- 3; G ovt. E x s. DAV 102 at 1; 109 at 1-2, 5-6; 116 at 3, 7; 118 at 2; 221 124 at 8; 126 at 21; 129 at 3, 59. R97 at 11277-78; R101 at 11714, 11721-23. 222 59 boa ts i n th e Mi am i R ive r, obt ai nin g in fo rm at ionc onc er nin g C uban e xil e param ilitary

cam ps, and surveillance of various anti-Castro persons and group s. I n Jul y 199 8, Cam

paa nd H er

nande z, w orkin g w ithoth er Cu ban a ge nts , ide nti fi ed

a nd vid eo ta pe d tw o bo at s inthe Mi am i R ive r w hic h w er e be lie ve d to c ont ai n w ea pons and explos ives destin ed for Cuba. T he agents wer e instructed to consi der 218 disablin g the boats byburning or dam aging th em or anonym ouslynotify ing th e FBI ab out the boa ts. C am

paa nd H er

nande z al so unsuc ce ssf

ull y tr ie d to loc at e the 219 Com andos L cam

p F-4, near Cle wiston, Florida, with directions provided to them by the Cu ban go ve rn m en t. 220 T he a ge nts sup er

vis ed by Cam paa nd M ed ina

ope rate d w ithase parate sm al l budg et requiring approval by the authorities in Cub a, and the officer s shared hous ing to ec onom iz e. C am pali ve d ina n a

partm en t owne d by

H er nande z fr om 221 N ove m be r 1997 unt il Fe br

uary 199 8, a nd i n an a

partm en t sh ar ed

w ithMe din a fr om Jul y unt il Se pte m

be r 1998
. 222See supra note 137. 223 Govt. Ex s. DAV 102 at 1; 129 at 62. 224 R74 at 7918; Govt. Ex . DG 120 at 2- 3. 225 R74 at 7959; Govt. Ex . 122 at 5-8, 10. 226 Govt. Ex s. DAV 101 at 9-28; DAV 102 at 17-29; DG 121; DL 102 at 11; DG 141 at 19. 227 60 G ue rr er o w as li ste d a s apart of adif fe re nt o pe rativ e ba se w hic h c ar ri ed out M- V m iss ion s, inc lud ing tho se targ et ing U nit ed S ta te s m ili tary

ins ta llatio ns. 223 224 U nde r O pe ratio n A er opue rt o, G ue rr er o a ch ie ve d “ lon g- te rm ” pe ne tr at ionof the NA S through hi s em

ploy m ent in the Public W orks Departm ent in 199 3. H e w as
em ploy ed in m aintaining the sewa ge lift-off stations and had access to m any are as of the NA S. A lthou gh he executed several U nited States loy alty aff idavits as 225
co ndi tio ns o f tha t e m

plo ym en t, he w as a lso f

ulf ill ing aD I w ork pl anto obt ai n
m ili tary inf orm at ion , to co nduc t vi sua l i nte lli ge nc e of the N A S, a nd t o se ar chf or ope ratio na l r es our ce s. 226 G ue rr er o de liv er ed

f re que nt d et ai le d r ep orts t o C am pa , H er nande z, a nd Me din a re gard ing the de plo ym en t of U nit ed S ta te s m ili tary

a sse ts at the N A S fr om 1994 thr ough199 7. 227 Gonzalez worked in a num ber of operations and “ active m easures. ” H e w as furn ish ed w ithpr opos ed

te xt f or a nony m ous le tte rs a nd t el ep hone c al ls b y H er nande z an d w as dir ec te d to c onsi de r w ay s to hara ss and c au se dis se nsi onR49 at 4583-91, 4598-604, 4612-13; R60 at 6277- 83; G ovt. E x . DC 101 at 11-19, 701, 228 701A, 702. Govt. Ex . DHo101 at 2- 6. 229 Govt. Ex s. HF 105 at G-3, 125 at G- 3. 230 R69 at 7044, 7077-78. 231 Govt. Ex . DG-107 at 58-60. 232 61 am ong th e counter-re volu tionary organizations bydissem inating rum ors that Ba sul to w as dis para gin g vari ous m em be rs . G onz al ez w as dir ec te d to stu dy 228 BT T R’ s a ir

plane hangar, to co nsi de r bur nin g do w n it s w ar eh ouse a nd s pr ea din g
ru m or s th at

BT T R h ad

bur ne d th e w ar eh ouse f

or ins ur an ce m one y , to dis ab le BT T R e qui pm en t and ante nna e, a nd t o th re at enaU nit ed S ta te s go ve rn m en t a ge nt with execution and send h im a book bo m

b-appearing device. 229 G onz al ez w as a lso ins tr

uc te d to a ct

a s an F BI inf

orm an t. S hortly

a ft er the 230 BT TR shoot down, G onzalez told his FBI contact that he fe lt betray ed by Roque. 231 Af ter the disks found in the Avispa officer s’ apartm ents wer e decr y pted, the FBI again approached Gonzalez based on his BT TR association; Hernandez w arned G onz al ez to ac t t or

n be tw ee n hi s op posi tio n to te rr or ism a nd h is l oy al ty

to the a nti
Ca str o “br oth er s” a nd n ot t o a ct li ke a“ Ca str o a ge nt. ” G onz al ez r ep orte d th at he 232 ha d to ld the F BI that e thi ca lly he c oul d no t i nf

orm on the BT T R, but

a ssure d th e FBI that he would contact its agents if he learned of anything that would affe ctI d. at 65-67. 233 R44 at 3699-700. The U .S. Attorney asked g overnme nt witness Stuart Hoy t to describe 234 the structure of the Cuban intellig en ce s y s t em b y questioning “ who is at the top of the Cuban intelligenc e sy stem.” R44 at 3699. Hoy t responded by stating that “F idel Castro” wa s at the top as
“ Command e r- in- Chi e f”, “[ P ]re sid e nt” , “ Counc il M ini ste r” , a nd “ he a d o f t

he Cub an Co mmunis t Party .” I d. R73 at 7806-07. 235 R80 at 8748. After a defe nse witness explained on cross- examination that the tone of the 236 dissenters within Cuba was “ more re spectful” than that of Cuban e x ile org anizations located outside of Cub a , th e g ov e rnme nt atto rn e y a sk e d whe the r s uc h a

n a ns we r w a s r e levan t whe n it wa s a “[p] articula

rly repr essive g overnme nt.” R80 at 8748. L ate, afte r the witness stated that, if he ha d been a dictator, he would have tr ied to stop the BTTR flig ht, the g overnme nt attorney questioned whether “[w]e live in a dictatorship.” I d. at 8754. After the wit ness replied “F ortunately we don’ t,” the g overnme nt attorney

commented, “ And people do ha ve that fr eedom of

choice .” I d. I d. at 8754. 237 R124 at 14474. 238 62 U n i t e dS t a t e s s e c u r i t y. 233 D ur ing the tr ia l, the gov er nm en t de sc ri be d th e Cu

ban in te lli ge nc e ope ratio ns as “ an intelligence pyram id” headed by Fidel Castro. It suggested that the Cuban

234 gove rn m en t a

ppl ie d th e “ pe na lty ” of

de ath f or thr ow ing thi ngs out

of a ir plane windows, and was “ repressive” and a “ dictatorship ”.

235 236 237 G. Closing A rgum ents Du ri n g cl o s i n g ar g u m en t s , t h e g o v ern m en tco m m en t ed t h at He rn an d ez ’s attorney had called the shootd own “ the final soluti on” and not ed that such term inolo gy

had been “ heard .
. . bef

ore in the history

of m ankind .” It ar gued

238 that the defendants had vo luntarily j oined “ a hostile intelli gence bureau” that sawI d. at 14475. 239 I d. at 14532, 14481. 240 I d. at 14480. 241 I d. at 14495. 242 I d. at 14480-81. 243 I d. at 14482. 244 I d. at 14483-85, 14488. 245 63 “ the United States a s its prim e and m ain enem y .” It stated that “ the Cuban 239 governm ent” had a “ huge” stake in the ou tcom e of the ca se, and that th e j urors
w oul d be abandon ing the ir c om m uni ty unl es s th ey

c onvi ct ed

the “ Cu ban sp [i es ]
se nt t o . . . de str oy

the U nit ed

S ta te s. ” I t m ai nta ine d th at the Cu ban go ve rn m en t 240 spon sor ed

“ book bom bs, ” “ te le phon e thr eats o f car bom bs, ” an d “ sa

bot ag e, ” an d

“ killed four inn ocent people.” It suggested that the Cuban g overnm ent used 241

“ goon squads” to to rture its critics. It asserted that the Cuban go vernm ent had 242 the ir a ge nts f al sif y the ir ide nti tie s by

usi ng the ide nti fi catio n of “ de ad ba bie s” a nd

“ ste al ing the m em or ie s of f am ili es . ” I t arg ue d th at the de fe ndants w er e “ be nt o n 243 destroy ing th e U nited States” and we re “paid for by the Am erican taxpay er. ” It 244
co nte nde d th at

the de fe nse a rg um en t tha t the a ge nts w er e in the U nit ed S ta te s to keep an ey e on the Cuban exile groups wa s false beca use they we re on U nited St at es m ili tary

ba se s, spy ing on U nit ed

S ta te s m ili tary , the F BI , a nd C ongr es s. 245I d. at 14493. 246 I d. at 14512-13. 247 I d. at 14513. 248 I d. at 14519. 249 I d. at 14475. 250 I d. at 14482, 14483, 14493. 251 64 T he gov er

nm en t i m pli ed that the gov er

nm en t of Cu baw as not

c oope ratin g w iththe FBI. It com

m ented that Cuba “ wa s not alon e” in shootin g down civilian aircraf t 246
as th ey “ are f rie nd s wi th ou r en em ie s,” i nc lu di ng “ th e Ch in es e an d t he Ru ss ia ns ,” and com pared the BT TR

shoot down to the 198 6 Liby an shoot down of a civilian ai rc ra ft
. I t m ai nta ine d th at the gov er

nm en t of Cu badid not c ar e ab out

the 247
oc cu pants of the plane s, a nd s hot

dow n th e plane s e ve n th oughthe y c oul d have f o r c e dB a s u l t o ’s p l a n e t o l a n d
. I ta r g u e dt h a tC ub aw a s a“r e p r e s s i v e r e g i me 248 [tha t] doe sn’ t be lie ve in an y [ hum an ] r igh ts. ” I t sum m ar iz ed that the de fe ndants 249 ha d j oin ed

a n “ int el lig en ce bur ea

u . . . that se es the U nit ed S ta te s of A m er ic a as it s pr im e an d m ai n e ne m

y ” an d th at

the j ur y w as “ not ope ratin g un de r the r

ule of Cuba , th an k Go d.” 250 Cam pa and Her

nandez’ s objections through out th e closing argum ents wer e sustain ed. T he j ury

wa s subs equently

instructed to cons ider only the evidence 251 adm itt ed dur ing the tr ia l, a nd t o r em em be r that the law y er s’ c om m en ts w er e notR125 at 14583. 252 R104 at 12091-92. 253 I d. at 12091-94. 254 I d. at 12094-95. 255 R59 at 6096-108, 6145-49. The 20 prote stors car ried sig ns stating “ take Castro down,” 256 “[f]air trial wanted,” and “spie s to be killed.” I d. at 6145. R81 at 9005. 257 65 evidence. 252 H. Ju ry C on du ctan d C on ce rn s D ur in g t he Tr ial Five m onth s into th e trial, when one seated j uror had a conflict, the court dis cu sse d th e poss ibi lity

of r em ovi ng a

j ur or w ho h ad a tw o- day c onf lic t and
se at ing one of

the a lte rn at es . H er

nande z’ s a tto rn ey

r eque ste d ar ec es s, a rg uin g 253 that the parties and the court had worked very hard to select “ a j ury

we are very happy with” and, w ith Gonzalez, Guer rero, and Medina’ s attorney s, m aintained tha t i t w oul d be unr ea sona ble to re fu se to ac co m

m oda te the j ur or

a ft er he r le ngth of
se rv ic e an d he r re que st t o c om ple te the tr ia l. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e

254
re ce ss. 255 Ine ar ly F eb ru ar y 200 1, asm al l pr ote st r el at ed to the tr ia l w as he ld o uts ide of the c ourtho use , but

the j ur y w as pr ote ct ed

f ro m c ont ac t w iththe pr ote sto rs a nd fr om e xpos ur e to the de m onst ratio n. O n 13 Marc h 20 01, the c ourt no te d th at the 256 day be fo re , c am er as w er e fo cu se d onthe j ur or s a s th ey le ft the bui ldi ng. D es pit e

257R126 at 14644-47. 258 I d. at 14645-47. 259 R124 at 14546-47; R125 at 14624. 260 R126 at 14643-46. 261 I d. at 14644-45. 262 I d. at 14645-47. 263 66 the court’ s arrangem ents to prevent expo sure to the m edia, j urors we re a gain film ed entering and leaving th e courthouse durin g the deliberations and that footage wa s te le vis ed
. S om e of

the j ur or s in dic at ed

that the y f el t pr es sur ed ; the re fo re , the 258 dis tr ic t c ourt a ga in m odi fi ed the j ur or s’ e ntr

y a nd the ir e xit f ro m the c ourtho use
an d tr an spor

ta tio n. 259 Fo r de lib er at ion s, the j ur

y w as m ove d to a nothe r fl oor of the c ourtho use w ith controlled access. D uring the delib erations, m em bers of the j ury

we re f ilm ed 260
en te ri ng and l eavin g th e co urtho use , a nd the m ed iar eque ste d th e na m es of the j ur or s. T he j ur or s e xpr es se d c onc er n th at the y w er e fi lm ed

“ al l the w ay

to the ir 261
cars a nd [ tha t] the ir

li ce nse plate s ha d be enf ilm ed
. ” T o pr ote ct

the j ur or s’ 262 pr iva cy , the dis tr ic t c ourt arr an ge d f or the j ur or s to c om e int o th e co urtho use by pr iva te e ntr an ce a nd p ro vid ed the m w ithtr an spor

ta tio n to the ir

ve hic le s or

to m as s transit. T he j ury

spent five day s in deliberations and, during that period of tim e, 263R125 at 14625; R126 at 14640-43. 264 R12-1338 at 2-3; R12-1342 at 2-3; R12-1343 at 1-4; R12-1347 at 1-2. 265 R12-1343 at 1-3. 266 R12-1342 at 3; R12-1343 at 3-4. 267 67 asked for and wa s given a com prehensive list o f all of the a dm itted evidence. 264 I. M ot ion s f

or N ew Tr ial In late July

and early August 200 1, following the trial, Cam pa, G onzalez, Guer rero, and Medina m oved for a newtrial and renew ed their m otion s for a ch an ge of ve nue , a rg uin g th at

the ir f ears of pr es um ed

pr ej udi ce r em ai ne d de spi te the district court’ s efforts during voir dire. Cam pa asserted that the j ury ’ s failure 265 to ask quest ions and its quick v erdicts in the com plex, alm ost seven-m onth trial sugg es te d th at

it w as sub j ec t t o c om

m uni ty pr es sur e an d pr ej udi ce . C am paa nd 266 G onz al ez a lso m ai nta ine d th at the j ur y w as und uly pr ej udi ce d by

the r em ar

ks o f
w itn es s Jo se Ba sul to. A cc or din g to Cam paa nd G onz al ez , Ba sul to’ s te sti m ony im plied that Hernandez’ s counsel was “ either a spy , a repre sentative of the Cuban Gov ern m en t, a co m

m un is t, o r in th e em

pl oy of th e Cu ba n i nt el li ge nc e se rv ic e.” 267 The district court denied the m otion s for newtrial. It r efer enced its prior orders de ny ing ac hange of

ve nue a nd d en y ing r ec onsi de ratio n of the de nia l of

the c hange of venue, and stated that because it was “ [a] ware of the im passion ed Cuban exilecom m unityresiding within th is venue, the Court im plem ented a series of m easuresR13-1392 at 14. 268 I d. at 15. 269 R14-1430, 1435, 1437, 1439, 1445. 270 R 1 5 -1 6 3 5 , 1638, 1644, 1647, 1650, 1651. The National J ury Project, the National 2 71 L awyers Guild, the International A ssociation of Democr atic L awyers soug ht and wer e g rante d leave to file brief

s as amicus c uriae in support of this moti on. R15-1640, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1677. R15-1635 at 1, 1636. On appe al, Her nandez men tions that the gove rnment also made 272 other misrepr esentations related to this case in a petition for wr it of prohibition and motion t o stay in another c ase f

iled in this court, I n re United States of Amer ica, No. 01- 12887 (1 1 Cir. 2001) th re g ard ingthe dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ru lin g s in thi s c a se . T he dis tr ic t ju dg e c omm e nte d o n b oth state me nts made by the g overnme nt and alleg ed by Her nandez to be mispresentations, calling one “a n outrig ht misrepre sentation of fa ct” a nd another

an “e rrone ous statement” a nd “g ross m i s re p re sentation[] .” R121 at 13918, 14025. 68 to g uarante e the D ef

en dants ’ r igh t t o af

ai r tr ia l. ” T he c ourt c onc lud ed that “ an y 268 pot en tia l f

or pr ej udi ce w as c ur ed ” “ thr oughthe Co urt’ s m ethodi ca l, a ct ive pur sui t of a fai r tr ia l fr om

vo ir d ire
. . . to . . . th e ret urn o f ve rd ic t.” 269 In De cem ber 2001, Guer

rero, He rnandez, and Medina we re sentenced to life, Cam paw as se nte nc ed

to 228 m onths, a nd G onz al ez w as se nte nc ed to 15 y ears . 270 InN ove m

be r 2002 , G ue rr er o r en ew ed his m oti on f

or ane wtr ia l ba se d on newly discovered evidence; the m otion wa s adopted b y Cam pa, G onzalez, H er nande z, a nd M ed ina
. G ue rr er o arg ue d th at ane wtr ia l w as w ar

rante d be ca

use 271 of “ m isr ep re se nta tio ns o f fa ct a nd l awm ad e by

the U nit ed

S ta te s A tto rn ey

in oppo sin g th e . . . m oti on f or c hange of

ve nue ” an d su

bm itt ed a n a ppe ndi x to supp ort hi s arg um en t. H e al so arg ue d th at the gov er

nm en t’ s po sit ionr eg ar din g 272R15-1636, Ex . 2 at 1-2. 273 I d. 2-3, 11. 274 69 ch an ge of ve nue w as c ontra dic te d by it s po sit ionin a m oti on f or c hange of

ve nue whi ch th e g ov ern m en t fi le d i n R am ire z v . Ash cro ft, No . 01 -4 83 5- Ci v- Huc k (S .D. Fl a. ) on 2 5 June 200 2. InRam ir ez , the pla int if

f, aH isp an ic e m

plo y ed by the I N S, a lle ge d ahos til e
w ork e nvi ro nm en t, unl aw fu l r et al ia tio n, a nd i nti m ida tio n f ro m his non -H isp an ic fe llo we m plo y ee s’ hos til ity

r es ult ing f

ro m the I N S’ s 22 Apr il 2000 r em ova l of Elian G onzalez fr om

the United State s and his return to hi s father in Cuba. 273 W ithin the Ram irez m otion for change of venue, the governm ent noted th at [T ] he E lian G onz al ez m atte r w as a n in ci de nt whic h hi ghl y a ro use d th e pa ss io ns of t he co m

m un it y an d re su lt edin nu m ero us de m on st rat io ns . .

. . 5. While the Elian G onzalez af fair has r eceived national atte nti on[ , ] the e xpos ur e in M ia m i- D ad e Co unty ha s be en c ont inu ous an d pe rv as ive
. I nde ed , e ve n no w , m or e than ay ear af te r the r et ur n of E lian to his f

athe r [i n Apr il 2000 ] , the re c ont inu es to be e xte nsi ve publ ic ity
. . . w hic h w ill a ro use a nd i nf la m e the pa ssi ons of

the Mi am iDad e co m

m un it y .

. . . 8. H ist or ic al ly , m ed iaa rt ic le s r el at ing to E lian G onz al ez a nd the handlin g of his return to his father have persisted from Novem ber 1 9 9 9 t o t h e p re s en t[J u n e 2 0 0 2 ]. 274 T he gov er

nm en t arg ue d th at [i ] t c an not

be dis put ed

that the r et

ur n of E lian G onz al ez to his f

athe r in Cu bac re at ed

ase ri ous ri ft

in thi s c om

m uni ty , ar if

t w hic h c ont inu es toI d. at 14-15. 275 I d. at 17, 16. 276 I d. at 16 n.1. 277 R15-1636, Ex . 3 at 24. 278 70 the pr es en t. T his r if

t e xis ts n ot o nly

be tw ee n H isp an ic s and n onH isp an ic s, but

a lso be tw ee n C ubans a [n ] d no n- Cu bans and w ith in the Cuban com

m unityitself. It is bey ond d isput e that virtually every pe rs on i n M ia m i- D ad e co unty [ sic ] ha s astr ong opi nio n, one w ay or another, r egarding the INS and the U. S. Attorney Ge neral’ s Of

fice, an d th e m an ne r in whic h th e E lian G onz al ez m atte r w as handl ed
. T he ef fe ct of the m ed iac ove ra ge . . . se rv es to fo m en t and r ev ive the se fe el ing s ona n on goi ng b as is.
. . . A s su chthe m ed iaa cc ount s c an not do anythi ng o the r than c re at e the ge ne ra l st at e of m ind w he re the inh ab itants of

Mi am i- D ad e Co unty

a re so i nf

ec te d by kno w le dge of the incident and accom

pany ing prejudice, bias, and prec onceived opi nio ns tha t j ur or s c oul d no t po ssi bly put the se m atte rs out

of the ir m ind s and try

the ins tant c as e sol el y

on the e vid en ce pr es en te d inthe co urtr oom . . . . U nde r suc h c ir cu m stanc es a nd s tr ongl y he ld e m oti ons, an d inli ght

of the m ed iac ove ra ge . . . , it w ill be vir

tua lly im poss ibl e to e nsur e tha t the de fe ndants w ill r ec ei ve af ai r tr ia l i f the tr ia l i s he ld i n M i a mi
- D a d e C o u n t y. 275 T h e g o v e rn me n tr e qu e s t e d“ac h a n g e i n t h e l o c a t i o n / v e n u e ” “o u t s i d e o f M i a mi D ad e Co unty

to en sur e tha t the D ef

en dant . . . r ec ei ve af

ai r an d im

part ia l tri al on the m er its of

the c as e. ” T he y

not ed that, “ [w ] hil e not

r eque ste d, ” the c ourt a lso 276 ha d th e dis cr et ionto tr an sf er the tr ia l t o anothe r j udi ci al dis tr ic t. T he 277 governm ent orally

argued that there w ere no incid ents “ since 1985 that so pol arize d the com m unity
. That so af

fecte d every

indiv idual in th e com

m unityas the E lian G onz al ez a ff

ai r. ” Whe n th e dis tr ic t c ourt a ske d w he the r a tr an sf er of the c as e to 278I d. at 25. 279 R15-1636, Ex s. 7-10, 12. 280 R15-1636, Ex . 7 at 7. 281 R15-1636, Ex . 1 at 1. 282 71 the F ort L au de rd al e div isi on c ourtho use w oul d be suf fi ci en t, the gov er

nm en t
re spon de d th at

“ [t ] he de m onstratio ns o cc ur re d inMi am i. T he y

a re pr ed om inantl y
co nduc te d by

c iti ze ns o f Mi am i D ad e co unty [ sic ]
. A s y ou m ove the c as e out of Mi am i D ad e y ou h av e le ss l ike lih ood the re a re goi ng t o be de ep -s eate d f ee lin gs and de ep -s eat edpre

jud ic es in th e cas e.” 279 The a ppendi x filed in sup port of the m otion for newtrial included an affidavit by

Profe ssor Moran, new s articles, and reports by Hum an Rights W atch
re gard ing thr eats t o th e fr ee dom of e xpr es sio n w ith in the Mi am i C uban e xil e
com m unity
. Moran stated that he had previouslyhad contact with the district

280 j udge in ane ar lie r, unr el at ed li tig at ionin w hic h sh e ha d “ ex co ri at ed ” him f or interviewing j urors after

a trial and threatened the attorney s who had retained him
. G ue rr er o in cl ude d ale tte r fr om Mo ran to the dis tr ic t c ourt i n w hic h he 281 of fere d “ as si st [an ce]” to th e d is tri ctco ur t “ reg ard in g (c ha ng e o f ve nu e) s ur ve y s.” 282 InMo ran’ s a ff

idavit , he e xpl ai ne d th at

he did not pr ovi de ac opy

of his le tte r to the dis tr ic t j udge to G ue rr er o’ s c ouns el be ca use he w as ups et

that he w as not

ti m el yR15-1636 at 4-7. 283 J im Mull in, Fra

nk Talk About F ree Speech, M IA M I N EW T I MES , May 25, 2000, R15-1636, 284 Ex . 9 (“The rea son that the issues related to Cuba are the hot-button issues . . . is that we ca n’t esca pe the fa ct that in this town there ar e 700,000 Cuban Americ ans. There are 10,000 people in this town who had a r elative murde red by Fidel Castro. The re a

re 50,000 pe ople in this town who’ve had a relative tortured by

Fidel Castro. The re a

re thousands of

former political prisoners in this town. For these pe ople and f

or the 500,000 Cuban Ame rica ns who are old enoug h to remembe r having to l eave their homeland, the issues relate d to F idel Castro are not a historical note; they are living, bre athing wounds.”); Jim Mullin, The Burde n of a V iolent History , M IA M I N EW T I MES , Apr. 20, 2000, R15- 1636, Ex
. 10 (“L awless violence a nd intimi dation have be en hallmar ks of el exilio for more than 30 y ear s. Given that fa ct, it’s not only understanda

ble many people would be deeply worrie d, it’s prudent to be w orried.” ). We a lso tak e judic ia l no tic e of an e dit or ia l: L

uis B oti fo l, T he Cub an Sp ie s’ Ca se vs . Credibility

of the U.S. Judi ciar

y , M IA M I H ER A LD , M ay

16 , 2 00 1 at 9B (“ [T]he me dia ’s re po rt s g ener ate unf

avora ble comments i n the [Cuban ex ile] communi ty , which attributes the judg e’s permissiveness a s stemming from an association with prominent members of the past administration wh o d on ’t

sy mpa thi ze w iththe e xile c omm un ity
. . . . [T]he de fe ns e su rel y has re c e ive d ampl e cooper ation from the Castro reg ime. . . . [T] he judg e has pe rmitted the defe nse a br oad investig ation

. . . [T ]r ia ls li k e th is o n e d im in is h th e tr u s t an d c r e d ib il it

y o f th e ju d ic ia

r y u p o n which our dem ocra cy

res ts .”). Hern and ez ’s Br. , Ap p. F. Ameri ca s Watch/The F und for F ree Ex pression/Divisions of Human Rights Watch, 285 Da n ger o u s Di al o gu e/ At t ac k s o n Fr ee d o m o f E x p re s s i o ni nM i am i ’s C u b an E x i l e C o m mun i ty , Au g. 19 92 , R1 5- 16 36 , E x. 12 (“ Mia mi’ s Cub an e xile c omm

un ity
. . . ha s lon gbe e n d omi nate d b y fi e rc e ly anti -C omm

un ist fo rc e s w ho are str on g ly op po se d to c on tr ary

vie wp oints, e ve n if

–e sp e c ia lly if–expressed simply

in terms of the de sirability of a dia logue wi t h , o r o peningto, the Castro reg ime.”); Huma

n Rights Watch/Americ as Human Rig hts W atch F ree Ex pression Project, United State s D ang e ro us Di a logue /T hr e ats t o F re e do m of Expr e ssi on

Contin ue in M iami’ s Cu

ba n E xile Communi ty , Nov. 1994, R15-1636, Ex. 8. 72 pa id f or his w ork by

the dis tr ic t c ourt. T he ne w s art ic le s a ddr es se d th e num er ous 283 inc ide nts of

vio le nc e an d th re at s by

a nti -C ubans i n th e de ca de pr ec ed ing the tr ia l. 284 T he H um anRi ght s W at chr ep orts c ove re d hara ssm en t and i nti m ida tio n su ff er ed by Mi am i C uban e xil es in ex pr es sin g m ode rate pol iti ca l vi ew s a s to Cu ban r el at ion s or F i d e l C a s t r o ’s g o v e rn men t . Th e mo t i o n f o r n e wt r i a l wa s a l s o s up p o rt e db y a 285 publ ic opi nio n surv ey

c ondu ct ed

by le ga l ps y ch olo gis t D r. K en dr a Br en nan and aR15-1636, Ex s. 4, 5. 286 R15-1636, Ex . 4 at 1, 3. 287 I d. at 8. 288 I d. at 3. 289 I d. 290 73 stu dy by F lor ida I nte rn at ion al U niv er sity ’ s P ro fe sso r of S oc iol ogy

a nd D ir ec tor

of the Cuban Researc h Institu te D r. Lisandro Pé rez. By aff idavit, Dr . B rennan 286 charac terized the r esults of a poll of Miam i Cuban-Am ericans as reflec ting “ an attit ude of astate of w ar . . . a ga ins t C uba
. ” S he r ev ie w ed Mo ran’ s surv ey

a nd 287 stated that it “ accurately

ref lects profound exis ting b ias against tho se associated wit h t he Cuba n g ov ern m en t i n M ia m i[- ]D ad e Co un ty” where “ [p ]ote nt ia l ju ro rs . . . w oul d be im

pe rv iou s to tr ad iti ona l m ethods of de te ct ing a nd c ur ing bia s th ro ugh voi r dir e an d c ourt i nstru ct ion
. ” B re nnan de te rm ine d th at , a lth ough49. 7 pe rc en t 288 of the loc al Cu

ban po pul at ionstr ongl y

f av or ed dir ec t U nit ed

S ta te s m ili tary

a ct ion to o ve rthr owthe Ca str o r eg im e, onl y 26 p er ce nt o f the loc al non -C uban po pul at ion
an d 8 .1 p erce nt of t he na ti on al po pu la ti on fav or edsu ch act io n. Sim il arl y , 55 .8 289 pe rc en t of

the loc al Cu

ban po pul at ionstr ongl y

f av or ed m ili tary a ct ionby the e xil e
com m unityto overthrow the Cuban governm ent but on ly 27.6 perce nt of the local non-Cuban p opul ation and 5.8 percent of the national pop ulation favored such
ac tio n. S he c onc lud ed

that the re w as “ ana tti tud e of astate of w ar be tw ee n th e 290I d. 291 I d. at 7. 292 R15-1636, Ex . 5 at 2-3. 293 I d. at 3-4. 294 74 loc al Cu ban c om m uni ty a ga ins t C uba ” w hic h ha d “ spi lle d ov er to the r es t of

the
co m m uni ty ” an d ha d a“ subs tanti al im pa ct on the r es t of

the Mi am i- D ad e
co m m uni ty . ” S he f

ound that the doc um en te d c om m uni ty bia s sh ow ed

a“ de ep ly 291
en tr en ch ed

body of opi nio ns [ so e ntr en ch ed

a s to of te n no t be c onsc iou sly

he ld] tha t w oul d hi nde r an y

j ur y in Mi am i- D ad e Co unty

f ro m r ea ch ing af

ai r an d im pa rti al de ci si on in th is cas e.” 292 D r. P ér ez c onc lud ed

that “ the pos sib ili ty

of se le ct ing tw el ve c iti ze ns o f Miam i-Da de Countywho can be im partial in a ca se involv ing acknowledged agents of the Cuban gov ernm ent is virtuallyzer o . . . even if the j ury we re
com posed entirely

of non-Cubans, as it wa s in this case. ” H is conclusi on was 293 ba se d onanum

be r of f ac tor s, inc lud ing the de m ogr ap hic s of the a re a an d th e cohesiveness, polit ical im pact, interests, and em otion al concerns of the Cuban
co m m uni ty . S pe ci fi ca lly , he not ed that “pe rs ons of

Cu ban bi rth or

de sc en t
re pr es en t the larg es t si ngl e ra ci al /e thn ic /na tio na l or igi n gr oup in the ve nue gr oup in Miam i-Da de County , c om prising two out every

seven residents.” H e explained 294 tha t the Cu

bans c re at ed

a“ tr ue e thn ic e nc la ve ” w hic h e xe rc ise d stro ng e co nom icI d. at 6-7. 295 I d. at 7. 296 I d. at 8. 297 I d. at 8-9. 298 75 an d po lit ic al inf

lue nc e w ith in the Mi am i- D ad e Co unty c om m uni ty a s e vid en ce d by the establishm ent of m aj or institu tions such as the Cuban Am erican National Foundatio n, the H ispanic Build ers A ssociation , the L atin Cham ber of Com

m erce , and the Latin Builders A ssociation and the election of num erous Cuban-Am erican publ ic of fi ci al s in cl udi ng the Mi am i m ay or , c ity a nd c ounty

m an ag er s, c ity
com m issio ners, state legislators, m em bers of the U nited States Congress, m ay ors
an d c ity c om m iss ion er s and c ounc ilp er sons in oth er loc al c iti es and t ow ns, a nd le ad er s a t l oc al uni ve rs iti es . T he Cu ban c om m uni ty ’ s “ m ost

ove rr idi ng c onc er

n: 295 the ong oin g stru ggl e fo r the r ec ove ry of the ir hom el an d” ha d be en“ inj ec te d” int o th e Mi am i-Da de Co un ty comm un it y to th e ex te nt th atit to ok“ cen te r st ag e.” 296 Pé re z state d th at

the iss ue w as c hara ct er iz ed by a n “ unc om

pr om isi ng h ost ili ty tow ar ds the Cu

ban go ve rn m en t” a nd i nc lud ed a n in tol er an ce tow ar d op posi ng vie w s w hic h br ough t e co nom ic , pol iti ca l, soc ia l pr es sur e on the dis se nti ng i n d i v i du a l o r

g r o up . H e r e p o rt e dt h a t“[ t ]h e r e w a s al o n g h i s t o ry o f t h r e a t s , b o mb 297
sc ar es , a ct

ua l bo m bin gs, a nd e ve n m

ur de rs dir ec te d a t” ind ivi dua ls and g ro ups pe rc ei ve d to ha ve a“ sof

tne ss” tow ar d C as tr o’ s r eg im e. H e al so n ote d th at , w hil e 298I d. at 12-13. 299 R15-1678 at 8-9. 300 I d. at 9. 301 I d. 302 76 m any Cubans and no n-Cubans had expressed di ssentin g views on the fate of Elian Gonzalez and on the United States policy towar d Cuba, the defe ndants’ ca se
co nc er ne d “ [t ] he 199 6 sh oot dow n [ w hic h] w as uni fo rm ly r ep udi at ed

in Mi am i” a nd thus app roached a “ taboo, a position that no on e w ould want to take, or even a ppear to tak e.” 299 The district court denied the m otion , stating that “ the situatio n in Ram irez dif fe re d f ro m the f ac ts o f thi s c as e in num er ous w ay s” be ca use it “ re la te d di re ct ly to the INS ’ s handlin g of the rem oval of Elian G onzalez fr om his uncle’ s hom e, an
ev en t w hic h, it

is ar gua ble , garn er ed

m or e atte nti on h er e in M ia m i and
w or ldw ide
. ” A lso , the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th at the gov er

nm en t’ s po sit ionin 300 Ram ir ez “ w as pr em ise d sp ec if ic al ly upo n th e fa ct s of

that c as e, inc lud ing that the pla int if f ha d .
. . sti rr ed

up e xte nsi ve pub lic ity

in the loc al m ed iaf

oc usi ng d ir ec tly
o n t h e f ac t s h e a l l eg ed i n t h e l aw s u i t .” Itco n cl u d ed t h at t h e g o v ern m en t ’s 301
ar gum en ts “ in R am ir ez do n ot i n any w ay de m onstrate pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct in the instant case.” T he district court did n ot consid er the “ interests of j ustice” 302 iss ue a nd thus de cl ine d to c onsi de r an y of the e xhi bit s su

bm itt ed in supp ort of

thi sI d. at 6 n.3. 303 T h e c h an g e o f

v e nu e is s u e w a s b r ie f

e d b y G u e r

r e r o an d Ca

mp a , an d a d o p te d b y

G o n za le z, 304 Her nandez, and Me dina. Campa also adopted the argument prese nted by Guer rer o, while Guer

rer o adopted the a

rgument prese nted by

Campa on this issue. The issue a ddressing prosec utorial misconduct during closing arguments was a ddresse d 305 by He rn and e z and Campa , and a do pte d by Gu e rr e ro and Me din a . Ca

mpa a lso a do pte d th e argume nts prese nted by

Her nandez on this issue. 77 a r g u men t , i n c l u d i n g Dr
. B r e n n a n ’s s u rv e y an dc o n c l u s i o n s a n dDr
. P é r e z ’s s tu d y. 303 II. D ISCU SSION On appeal, Cam

pa, G onzalez, Guer

rero, He rnandez, and Medina argue that the district court’ s denial of their m otion s for change of venue violated Federa l Ru le of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e 21( a) , de nie d th em af ai r tr ia l, a nd unde rm ine d th e
re lia bil ity of the ve rd ic ts. T he y

c ont en d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt i gnor ed the 304
u n i qu e c o n f

l u e n c e o f d e mo g r ap h i c s , p o l i t i c s , a n d c u l tu r e i n t h e M i a mi c o mm u n i t y, the strong anti -Castro sentim ent in that comm unity , and the his tory

of violence within the Cuban-exile com m unity
. They

m aintain that a new tr ial wa s war ranted be ca use of the gov er

nm en t’ s us e of

inf la m m at or y state m en ts d

ur ing c los ing argum ents. Cam

pa, G onzalez, Guer

rero, He rnandez, and Medina contend th at 305 the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing the m oti on f or ne wtr ia l and change of venue because it failed to properly consider the newly

discovered
ev ide nc e w hic h su

ppor te d th e ar gum en t tha t the de fe ndants w er e una ble to re ce iveThe National L awyers Guild also filed a n amicus curiae brief on the motion for new tr ial 306 based on ne wly

discovere d evidenc e. In Bonne r v. Cit y o f P ri t ch ard, 661 F .2d 1206, 1209 (11 Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 307 th adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down pri or to 1 October 1981. 78 a fa ir trial bef

ore an im partial j ury

in Miam i. T hey

posit th at the district court 306 ab use d it s di sc re tio n by

de ny ing the r eque sts f

or a n e vid en tiary

he ar ing to pr es en t ad di ti on al ev id en ce re ga rd in g i rreg ul ari ti es wit h e xp ertwit ne ss Mo ran . A. De nial of Motion f

or Ch ange of V enue W e co nduc t a

m ult i- le ve l r ev ie won the de nia l of am oti on f

or c hange of
ve nue . W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s in te rp re ta tio n of the F ed er al Ru le s of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e de nov o, se e U nit ed S ta te s v. N oe l, 231 F
. 3d 8 33, 836 ( 11 th Cir. 2000 ) (per

curiam ), and application o f Rule 21(a) for abuse of discre tion, see United States v. W illiam s, 523 F. 2d 12 03, 1208 (5 Cir. 1975 ).
. How ever, t h 307

“ [w ] hen a crim inal defendant alleges that pretrial publicity precluded a trial consist ent with the standards of due process,” w e ar e bound to “ undertake an independ ent evaluation of the facts established in s uppo rt of such an allegation.” Id
.

“ A fai r tr ia l i n a fai r tr ib un al is a ba si c req ui rem en t o f du e p ro ces s,” requiring not only

“ an absence of a ctual bias,” but also an eff ort to “ prevent even the pr oba bil ity of unf ai rn es s. ” I n r e Mur ch iso n, 349 U
. S. 133 , 136 , 75 S
. Ct
. 623 ,The 1966 Amendments eliminated ear lier versions of Rule 21 which ref ere nced tr ansfe rs 308 to “divisions” and clar ified that “[t] transfe rs within the district to avoid pre judice will be within the power of the ju d ge t o fi x the place of trial” unde r Rule 18. See F ed. R. Crim. P. 21 advisory committee’s note. Unde r Rule 18, “[t] he cour t must set the place of trial within the di strict with due regard for the conve nience of the de fenda nt and the witnesses, a

nd the prompt administration of justice.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 18. The 1966 Amendments vested the district c ourt with “discre tion . . . to fi x the pla c e of tr ia l at any pla c e wi thi n the dis tr ic t. . . . I f t he c ourt is s atis fi e d th at th e re e xists in the place fix ed for

trial prejudice ag ainst the defe ndant so g reat as to rende r the trial unf air, the court may , of cour se, fix another plac e of trial within the district (if ther e be suc h) whe re pr ejudice does not exist .” F ed. R. Crim. P. 18 advisory committee’s note. At the cha

ng e of ve nue motion hear ing, the defe ndants ag ree d that a t ra n s fer to the For t L auder dale division office would be ac cepta ble. 79 625 (1 955) ; se e al so S he ppard v. Ma xw el l, 384 U
. S. 333 , 362 , 86 S
. Ct
. 150 7, 1522 (1966) (“ Due proce ss requires that the accused re ceive a f air trial by

an im partial j ury

fre e fr om outsid e influences.” ). Aj uror’ s verdict “ m ust be based uponthe e vid en ce de ve lop ed a t the tr ia l” “ re gard le ss o f the he ino usne ss o f the
cr im e ch ar ge d, the appare nt g uil t of the of fe nde r or the statio n inli fe w hic h he occupies.” I rw in v. D owd, 366 U.S . 717, 722, 81 S. Ct. 1639 , 1642 (1961). A f ed er al c ri m ina l de fe ndant’ s m oti on f or c hange of

ve nue ba se d on pr ej udi ce is gove rn ed

by F ed er al Ru le of

Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e 21. Upon suc h a
m oti on, the c ourt m

ust tr an sf er the pr oc ee din g a ga ins t tha t de fe ndant t o an oth er dis tr ic t i f the c ourt i s satis fi ed that so gr eat a

pr ej udi ce a ga ins t the de fe ndant e xis ts i n th e tr an sf er ri ng d istri ct

that the de fe ndant cannot obt ain a fa ir and im partial trial there
. Fe d. R. Cr im
. P
. 21( a)
. O ur r ev ie wof

the de nia l of

ac hange of

ve nue m oti on i s 308 gui de d by adue pr oc es s ana ly sis
. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. F ue nte s- Co ba , 738 F
. 2d80

11 91 , 11 94 (11 Cir . 19 84 ). th Whe n th e j ur or s are to be dr awn f ro m ac om m uni ty w hic h is “ al re ady pe rm eate d w ithhos til ity

tow ar d ade fe ndant, ” w he the r tha t ho sti lity is a re sul t of pr ej udi ci al pub lic ity

or oth er r ea sons , the c ourt sh oul d e xa m ine the vari ous
m ethods a va ila

ble to as sur e anim

part ia l j ur y . G ro ppi v. W isc onsi n, 400 U
. S. 505 , 509-10 , 91 S. Ct. 490, 493 (197 1). Those m ethods in clude granting a contin uance to a llo w“ the f

ir es of pr ej udi ce [ to] c ool , ” the e xe rc ise of pe re m pto ry a nd f or c au se ch al le nge s to the ve nir e to e xc lud e j ur or s w ho e xhi bit the pr ej udi ce s of

the ir
com m uniti es, and granting a change of venue w hen the com m unityhas been repeate dly

and deeply

exposed to prej udicial pub licity
. See id. at 510, 91 S. Ct. at 49 3. While a change of venue or a c ontin uance should be granted w hen pr ej udi ci al pr etri al pub lic ity thr eate ns t o pr ev en t a

f ai r tr ia l, ane wtr ia l sh oul d be ordered if publicity

during th e proceedings threatens the fairness of the tr ial. See Sheppard, 384 U. S. at 363, 86 S. Ct. at 1522. Afair trial is denied when a c ourt
re fu se s to gr an t a

r eque st f or c hange of

ve nue de spi te pr et

ri al pub lic ity

a nd pe rv as ive c om

m uni ty e xpos ur e to the c ri m e ca use s atr ia l t o be a“ hol low fo rm al it y .” Rid eau v. Lo ui si an a, 37 3 U.S. 7 23 , 72 6, 8 3 S . Ct. 1 41 7, 1 41 9 (1 96 3)
. To en su re t ha t a d efen da nt wil l “ be tri edin an atm os ph ere u nd is tu rb edby . . . a81

w av e of pub lic pa ssi on, ” Ir

vin , 366 U
. S. a t 72 8, 81 S
. Ct
. a t 1 645, ac ourt i s
re qui re d, upo n ac ri m ina l de fe ndant’ s m oti on, to tr an sf er the pr oc ee din gs “ if

the
co urt i s satis fi ed

that so gr eat a

pr ej udi ce a ga ins t the de fe ndant e xis ts i n th e transferr ing di strict that the defendant cannot obt ain a fa ir and im partial trial. ” Fe d. R. Cr im
. P
. 21( a)
. I t i s un ne ce ssary to de te rm ine w he the r pr ej udi ce is disclos ed during v oir dire if the e vidence refle cts a “ generally hostil e atm osph ere of the c om m uni ty ” w hic h c au se s th e j ur or s to “ inh er en tly sus pe ct c ir cu m stanc es of . . . preju di ce ag ai ns t a p art ic ul ar d efen da nt .” Pam pl in v. Ma so n, 3 64 F.2d 1, 6 , 7 (5 th C ir
. 196 6)
. F urthe r, w he re c om m uni ty hos til ity is pr ev al en t, “ [i ] t i s
un ne ces sa ry

to pro ve th atlo cal pre

jud ic e act ua ll y

en te redth e jury bo x.” Id. at 6. If c om m uni ty se nti m en t i s stro ng, c ourts s houl d pl ac e “ em pha sis on the f

ee lin g in the c om m uni ty r athe r than th e tr an sc ri pt o f voi r dir e” w hic h m ay not “ re ve al the sha de s of pr ej udi ce that m ay

inf lue nc e a ve rd ic t. ” I d. a t 7; se e al so W ill ia m s, 523 F. 2d at 120 9 n.10 (stating th at although voir dire exam ination results “ are an im portant factor in gauging the depth of com m unityprej udice, continual pr ote statio ns o f im

part ia lity . . . a re be st m et

w ithahe al thy

ske pti ci sm

f ro m the bench”). InI rw in, the S upr em e Co urt he ld that a de fe ndant w as e nti tle d to ac hange of ve nue e ve n th oughe ac h in div idu al j ur or ha d sp ec if

ic al ly c la im ed the c ap ac ity82

to b e fa ir a nd i m part ia l. I t no te d: N o do ubt e ac h j ur or

w as sin ce re w he n he sa id tha t he w oul d be f ai r an d im part ia l t o pe tit ion er , but

psy ch olo gic al im

pa ct r equir ing suc h a d e c l a r a t i o n b e f

o r e o n e ’s f

e l l o w s i s o f

t e n i t s f a t h e r . Wh e r e s o man y, so m an y ti m es , a dm itt ed

pr ej udi ce , suc h a s st at em en t of im part ia lity can be giv enli ttl e w ei ght
. Ir w in, 366 U
. S. a t 72 8, 81 S
. Ct
. a t 16 45. “ Whe re out sid e inf lue nc es a ff

ec tin g th e
co m m uni ty ’ s c lim at e of

opi nio n a s to ade fe ndant are inh er en tly sus pe ct , the resulting p robabilityof unfairness requires suitable procedural safe guards, such as a ch an ge of v en ue , to ass ur e a fai r an d i m pa rti al tri al .” Pam

pl in , 36 4 F .2d at 5
. Mi ndf ul tha t the f

ir st and b es t j udge of

c om m uni ty se nti m en t and j ur or ind if fe re nc e is the tr ia l j udge , a n a ppe llate c ourt sh oul d “ int er fe re onl y upo n a show ing of

m an if es t pr oba bil ity of pr ej udi ce . ” Bi shop v. W ai nw ri ght , 511 F
. 2d 66 4, 6 66 (5 Cir . 19 75 ).

th Pr es um ed pr ej udi ce ha s be enf

ound “ w he re pr ej udi ci al pub lic ity so poi sone d th e pr oc ee din gs tha t i t w as im poss ibl e fo r the a cc use d to r ec ei ve af ai r tri al by an im

pa rti al jury . . . andth e p res s s atur at edth e co m m un it y wit h . . .
ac co unt s of

the c ri m e an d c ourt pr oc ee din gs. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Ca

po, 595 F
. 2d 1086 , 1090 (5 Cir. 1979 ). Fac tors to be consid ered in determ ining prej udice

th include the extent of the dis sem ination of the publicity , the c haracte r of that publ icity , the proxim ity

of the publicityto the trial, and the fam iliarity of the j uryWe a lso note that the Americ an B ar A ssociation rec ommends that a cour t’s deter mination 309 of a c hang e of ve nue motion based on “dissemination of potentially prejudicia l material” be base d on “such e vidence as qualified public opinion surve y s or opinion testimony by individuals, or on the cou rt ’s o wn e val uat i o n o f t h e nature, frequen cy , an d t im in g of t he m ate ri al i nv ol ved .” A BA Stand ard s for Cr imi na l Just ic e : F a ir Tr ia l and

F re e Pr e ss, 8- 3. 3( b) (1 99 2) . Wh e re the re is a substantial likelihood of prejudice from such publicity , Standard 8-3.3 also instructs: (1) that “[a] s h o wi n g o f a ctu al p re

j u d i ce ” i s n o t re qu i re d ; (2 ) t h e se l ec t i o n o f an ac ce p t ab l e ju ry i s n o tco n tro l l i n g; and (3) “the f

ailure to e x erc ise all ava ilable per emptory challeng es” is not a waiver
. I d. at 8-3.3(b) , (c) , and (d)
. 83 with the charged cr im e. See W illiam s, 523 F. 2d at 120 9-10. Pr esum ed 309 pr ej udi ce m ay

be r eb utt ed

w he re the j ur

y is shown to be c ap ab le of sittin g im partially
. See Knight v. D ugger, 863 F.2d 705, 707, 723 (11 Cir. 1988 ); th Co le m anv. K em

p, 778 F
. 2d 1 487, 154 2 n. 25 ( 11 Ci r. 198 5) ;. th If a m ovant “ adduces evidence of inflam m atory , pre

j udicial pretrial publ ic ity that so pe rv ad es or

sa tur at es the c om

m uni ty a s to r en de r virtua lly im poss ible a fair

trial by an im partial j ury

draw n from

that com m unity , j ury pr ej udi ce is pr es um ed

a nd the re is no f

urthe r duty

to es ta bli sh b ia s. ” May ola

v. A la ba m a, 623 F
. 2d 9 92, 997 ( 5 Ci r. 198 0) ( ci ta tio n and i nte rn al quo ta tio ns th
om itt ed ). A lth oughsuc h pr es um ed pr ej udi ce is onl y

r ar el y appl ie d, the suc ce ssf

ul
m ovant n ee d no t sh owthat the j ur y w as a ct ua lly pr ej udi ce d by

the pe rv as ive
co m m uni ty se nti m en t or

that the j ur or s w er e ac tua lly e xpos ed to an y pub lic ity , but
m ust sho wthat, f

ir st, “ the pr etri al pub lic ity w as suf fi ci en tly pr ej udi ci al a nd inf la m m at or y a nd s ec ond tha t the pr ej udi ci al pr etri al pub lic ity sa tur at ed the
co m m uni ty w he re the tr ia l w as he ld. ” S piv ey v. H ea d, 207 F
. 3d 1 263, 127 0 ( 11 th84

Ci r. 200 0) ; M ay ola , 633 F
. 2d a t 99 7. T he m ovant b ears the e xtr em el y he av y bu rd en of p ro vi ng th atth e p ret ria l p ub li ci ty dep riv edhi m of h is rig ht to a fai r tr ia l. Se e Co le m an , 778 F
. 2d a t 14 89, 153 7. Jus t a s is sue s in vol vin g pr ej udi ce f ro m publ icity require a reviewof the “ special fac ts” of eac h case, Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S . 310, 312, 79 S. Ct. 1171 , 1173 (1959) (per curiam), a re view of presum ed prej udice requires a r eview of the totality

of the circ um stances. S ee Mu rp hy v. Flo rid a, 42 1 U.S. 7 94 , 79 8- 99 , 95 S. Ct. 2 03 1, 2 03 5- 36 (19 75 ). Furthe r, ac ourt c onsi de ri ng a c hange of

ve nue m oti on m

ust r ev ie wa ll of

the ci rc um stanc es a nd e ve nts oc curr ing be fo re a nd d ur ing the tr ia l and the ir
cu m ula tiv e ef fe ct . S ee W ill ia m s, 523 F
. 2d a t 12 06 n
. 7. One of the m atters to consider in reviewing the totality of the circ um stances is an extensive vo ir dire. See Patton v. Y ount , 467 U. S. 1025 , 1029, 1034, 104 S. Ct. 2885 , 2888, 2890 (1984 ); Jordan v. L ippm an, 763 F. 2d 12 65, 1276 (11 Cir. th 1985 ) (n oti ng “ the f

undam en ta l i m

portanc e of

voi r dir e as atoo l f

or ins ur ing the right to an im

partial j ury ”). Pre sum ed prej udice can be shown through adm itted prej udice or the dem eanor and cre dibil ity of the venire. See Patton, 467 U. S. at 10 29 , 10 38 , 10 4 S . Ct. at 28 88 , 28 92
. Whe re , how ev er , the c ourt r ev ie w ed a n e xte nsi ve pub lic opi nio n surv ey of pot en tia l j ur or s and a

pur porte d j ur y pr ej udi ce e xpe rt ’ s ana ly sis of m ed ia85

co ve ra ge , w he re atho ro ugh voi r dir e w as c ondu ct ed by the c ourt and c ouns el , a nd
w he re the j ur

y pane l w as a cc ep te d by

c ouns el w ith out

the r en ew al of

am oti on f

or ch an ge of v en ue , a de fen da nt ’s rig ht s wer e h el d t o b e su ffi ci en tl y saf eg ua rd ed
. See Fuentes-Coba, 738 F.2d at 1194 -95. F urther, the presum ption of prej udice
wa s not foun d where , a lthou gh “ virtually every venireperson and actual j uror had he ar d or r ea d a cc ount s of

the c as e, ” onl y

af ewof the ve nir ep er sons ind ic at ed a pr ec onc ei ve d op ini on a

bout the de fe ndant’ s gu ilt

or inn oc en ce , the ve nir ep er sons
w ithpr ec onc ei ve d op ini ons w ho d id n ot b el ie ve that the y c oul d se t the ir

opi nio ns aside we re e xcused for cause, and the extensive pu blicity wa s neither inflam m atory nor pervasive. Ross v. Hopper, 716 F.2d 1528 , 1541 (11 Cir. th 1983 ). I f a party

f ai ls t o de m onstrate e ith er a ct ua l or pe rv as ive c om

m uni ty prej udice, the absence of j uror prej udice m ay also be indicated by

the failure of

a party to use all of its allotted perem ptory challenges. S ee U nited States v. A lvarez, 755 F. 2d 8 30, 859 ( 11 Ci r. 198 5) ; D obbe rt v. F lor ida , 432 U
. S. 282 , 303 -0 4, 97 th S. Ct. 2290 , 2303 (1977). Further, a lack of j uror prej udice can be presum ed when
a de fe ndant f

ai ls t o c ha lle nge the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s vo ir dir e or m ove f or ac hange of venue after the voir dire. S ee U nited States v. Y ousef, 327 F. 3d 56 , 90 (2d Cir. 2003 ). I n a sse ssi ng a

c hange of

ve nue r eque st b as ed

on p re tr ia l pu

bli ci ty , the
ex ist en ce of

ove rwhe lm ing e vid en ce of gui lt is n ot d isp osi tiv e. S ee Co le m an , 778Wit hout de termining the validity of Profe ssor Moran’ s poll, we note that the district cour t 310 approve d the expenditures re lated to the poll, including the siz e of the statistical sample. 86 F. 2d a t 15 41. D es pit e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s nu m er ous ef fo rt s to e nsur e anim

part ia l j ur y in this case, w e find that em paneling su ch a j ury

in this comm

unitywa s an unreasonable probabil ity because of per

vasive comm

unityprej udice. T he entire
co m m uni ty is se nsi tiv e to and p er

m eate d by

c onc er ns f or the Cu ban e xil e popu la tio n inMi am i. W av es of pub lic pa ssi on, a s e vid en ce d by the pub lic opi nio n pol ls and m

ult itu din ous ne w spa

pe r ar tic le s su bm itt ed w iththe m oti ons fo r ch an ge of ve nue –som e of

w hic h f oc use d onthe de fe ndants in thi s c as e an d th e gove rn m en t f

or w hom the y w orke d, but

oth er s w hic h f

oc use d onr el at ion shi ps be tw ee n th e U nit ed

S ta te s and C uba

–f loo de d M ia m i bo th b ef

or e an d duri ng this tr ia l. T he tr ia l r equir ed c onsi de ratio n of

the BT T R s hoot down and the 310
m ar ty rd om of tho se pe rs ons on the f

lig hts
. D ur ing the tr ia l, the re w er e both

“ co m m em or at ive f

lig hts ” an d publi c ce re m oni es to m ar k th e an niv er sary

of the
s h o o t d o w n . M o r e o v e r , t h e E l i a n G o n z a l e z ma t t e r , w h i c h w a s o n g o i n g a tt h e t i me of the change of venue m otion , c oncerned these relationships betwee n the United St at es a nd C ubaa nd n ec es sari ly r ai se d th e co m

m uni ty ’ s aw ar en es s of

the c onc er

ns of the Cu ban e xil e co m

m uni ty . I t i s un co nte ste d th at the pub lic ity

c onc er nin g E lian G onz al ez c ont inu ed dur ing the tr ia l, “ ar ousi ng and i nf la m ing ” pa ssi ons87

w ith in the Mi am i- D ad e co m m uni ty . D es pit e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s th or ougha nd
e x t e n s i v e v o i r

d i r e a n di t s man y e f

f o rt s a i med a tp r o t e c t i n g t h e ju r o r s ’ p r i v a c y, voi r dir e hig hli ght ed

the c om m uni ty ’ s aw ar en es s of

thi s c as e an d a lso of

that of E lian G onz al ez . I n th is i nst an ce , the re w as no r ea sona ble m eans o f as sur ing af ai r tri al by the us e o f a co nt in ua nc e o r vo ir d ire ; t hu s, a c ha ng e o f ve nu e was req ui red
. T he e vid en ce a t tri al va lid at ed the m ed ia ’ s pu

bli ci ty r eg ar din g th e “ Sp ie s A m ong U s” by dis cl osi ng the c lande sti ne a ct ivi tie s of not onl y the de fe ndants , but

a lso of the vari ous Cu

ban e xil e gr oups a nd the ir param ili tary

c am ps tha t c ont inu e to operate in the Miam i area
. The per ception that th ese groups could harm j urors that
re nde re d ave rd ic t un favor ab le to the ir vie w s w as pa lpa

ble
. F urthe r, the gove rn m en t w itn es s’ s r ef er en ce to a de fe nse c ouns el ’ s a lle gianc e w ithCa str o and the gov er nm en t’ s arg um en ts r eg ar din g th e ev ils of Cu baa nd C uba ’ s th re at

to the
sanc tity of A m er ic anli fe onl y

se rv ed to ad d f ue l t o th e inf

la m ed c om m uni ty pa ss io ns . B. D en ial of

N ew Tr ial W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of am oti on f

or ne wtr ia l f

or abuse of di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Fern an de z, 13 6 F .3d 14 34 , 14 38 (11 Cir . 19 98 ). th A dis tr ic t c ourt i s auth or iz ed to gr an t a

ne wtr ia l “ if

the int er es ts o f j ust ic e so
re qui re ” in e xtr ao rd inary c ir cu m stanc es a nd, if

the m oti on i s ba se d onne w lyRule 33 was “stylisti cal l y ” am ended in 2002 “to make [it] more e asily understood and 311 to make style and ter

minology consistent throug hout the rules.” See F ed. R. Crim. P. 33 advisory committee’s note ( 2002). The e arlier revision was not subdivi ded, but the re levant wor ding rema ined the same
. 88 dis co ve re d e vid en ce , if

am oti on f

or ne wtr ia l i s f

ile d w ith in thr ee y ears of the verdict. See Fed. R. Crim . P . 33(a) and (b)(1) ( 2002 ). N ew ly discovered 311 evidence m

ust satisfy

a five- part test: (1) the e vidence was new ly discovered after the tr ia l; (2 ) the m ovant s how s du e dil ige nc e in d isc ove ri ng the e vid en ce ; ( 3) the
ev ide nc e is n ot m er el y

c um ula tiv e or im pe ac hin g; ( 4) the e vid en ce is m at er ia l t o issues before the court; and (5) the evidence is of such a nature that a new trial
w oul d r ea sona

bly pr oduc e a ne wr es ult
. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. D iB er

nard o, 880 F. 2d 1 216, 122 4 ( 11 Ci r. 198 9)
. T he ne w ly dis co ve re d e vid en ce is not li m ite d to th jus t t he qu es ti on of t he de fen da nt ’s in no cen ce, b ut can in cl ud e o th er i ss ue s o f la w, See United States v. Beasley , 582 F. 2d 33 7, 339 (5 Cir. 1978 ) (per curiam ), th inc lud ing que sti ons of

the f ai rn es s of the tr ia l. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. W ill ia m s, 613 F. 2d 5 73, 575 ( 5 Ci r. 198 0)
. C onsi de ratio n of am oti on f

or ne wtr ia l ba se d on th
ne w ly dis co ve re d e vid en ce c ana lso inc lud e a re vie wof e vid en ce obt ai ne d po sttrial. See United State s v. D evila, 216 F. 3d 10 09, 1013, 1017 (11 Cir. 2000 ) (per th curiam ), vacated in part on other grounds , 242 F. 3d 99 5, 996 (2001). Th e g ra n to f a n ew t ri al m ay b e b as ed o n p re t ri al p ub l i ci t y, a p ro s ec u t o r’s im proper closing argum ent, and the com bined effect of publ icity

and prosecutorial89

ze al
. T hus, w e thu s “ w ide n th e br ea dthof our c onsi de ratio n” to de te rm ine
w he the r “ the se tw o f

ac tor s op er at ing tog ethe r de pr ive d th e [d ef en dant] of

af ai r tr ia l. ” W ill ia m s, 523 F
. 2d a t 12 04- 05, 120 9; s ee a lso Jor dan v. L ipp m an , 763 F
. 2d 1265 , 1266, 1267, 1269, 1279 (11 Cir. 1985 ) (f indin g that, in a state habea s th corpus proceeding, a newtrial based on a change of venue w as required w hen

“ extensive pu blicity ” w as coupled with the com m unity ’ s “ long history

of rac ial tur bul en ce ” an d th e inv olv ed ins tit uti on’ s “ ec onom ic a nd s oc ia l i m pa ct ” on
co m m un it y ). Attorney s representing the United States ar e burdened both with an oblig ation to zealousl y

repre sent the gov ernm ent and, as a “ represe ntative of a gove rn m en t de dic at ed

to fa ir ne ss and e qua l j ust ic e to a ll, ” an“ ove rr idi ng obl iga tio n of

f ai rn es s” to de fe ndants . U nit ed S ta te s v. W ils on, 149 F
. 3d 1 298, 1303 ( 11 Ci r. 199 8)
. Apr ose cu tor m ay not m ak e im pr ope r as se rt ion s, th in si nu at io ns , or s ug ge st io ns th atco ul d i nf la m e th e jury’ s p reju di ces or p as si on s. United States v. Rodriquez, 765 F. 2d 15 46, 1560 (11 Cir. 1985 ). Such an th obl iga tio n in cl ude s a“ duty to re fr ai n f

ro m im pr ope r m ethods c al cu la te d to pr oduc e a w ro ngf

ul c onvi ct ion
. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Cr

utc hf ie ld, 26 F
. 3d 1 098, 110 3 (1 1 Ci r. 199 4) ( int er

na l c itatio n om itt ed ). Atr ia l m ay be r en de re d f

undam en ta lly th unf ai r by the pr ose cu tio n’ s us e of

f ac tua lly c ontra dic tor

y the or ie s. S ee S m ithv.We note that judicial equitable estoppel g ener ally bars a party from asse rting a position 312 in a lega l proce edingthat is inconsistent with i ts positi on in a pre vious, related pr ocee ding. See New H ampshire v. Ma ine, 532 U.S. 742, 749, 121 S. Ct. 1808, 1814 (2001). As discussed ea rlier, one of the arguments Guerr ero ma de in his motion for a newtrial (which w as adopte d by Campa, Gonzalez, Herna

ndez and Medina) was that the g overnme nt c ontradicte d its position on c hang e of venue in this ca se with the position that it took reg arding the motion for chang e of venue that it filed in t he Ramir e z ca se . Se e su

pr a at . B ut, jud ic ia l e qu ita ble e sto pp e l is no t a

pp lic a ble he re be c a

us e Ramirez, a civil case , was unre lated to this cr i m i n al p ro secution. Howe ver, be cause the doctrine seeks to pre vent a “ party

from ‘pla ying f ast and loose’ ” with the courts, the g uidance that it provides may be helpf ul to parties consider ing a chang e in their subse q u ent position in unrelated litigation based upon the same set of fac ts. See 18B Cha

rles Alan Wright , Ar t hur R. Miller & E dwar d H. Cooper, F eder al Prac tice and Proc edure § 4477 (2d ed. 2002)
. 90 G ro ose , 205 F
. 3d 1 045, 105 1- 52 ( 8 Ci r. 200 0) ( hol din g th at the pr ose cu tio n’ s us e th of c ontra dic tor

y the or ie s f

or dif fe re nt d ef en dants in a m

ur de r tr ia l vi ola te d du e pr oc es s)
. Apr ose cu tor ’ s r el ianc e on a le ga l po sit ionde spi te “ know ing f ull 312
w el l” that i t i s w ro ng i s “ re pr eh en sib le ” in l igh t of his duty “ by vir tue of his oa th of of fi ce . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ma ste rs , 118 F
. 3d 1 524, 152 5 & n. 4 ( 11th C ir
. 199 7) (p er c ur ia m ). F urthe r, w he n th e gove rn m en t ha s so ught to fo re cl ose the subm issio n of evidence, an evidentiary hearing is war

ranted on a m otion for new tri al when th e n ewly-di sc ov ered ev id en ce “ m ig ht li ke ly lead ” to a ne w tri al
. United States v. Espinosa-He rnandez, 918 F.2d 911, 914 (11 Cir. 1990 ) (per th curiam ). W e also note that the rule against the use of evidence of other crim es or bad
ac ts b y ade fe ndant i s in te nde d to pr ev en t a c onvi ct ionba se d onthe the or y of

“ G ive adog a n il l nam e an d hang h im
. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Bo y d, 446 F
. 2d 1 267,91

1273 ( 5 Ci r. 197 1) ( ci ta tio n and i nte rn al pun ct ua tio n om itt ed ). T he int er es t of the th U nit ed S ta te s A tto rn ey , a s r ep re se nta tiv e of a sovereignty

whose obligation is to gov ern im partially is as co m pe lli ng a s it s ob lig at ionto gove rna t a ll; a nd w hose int er es t, the re fo re in a cr im ina l pr ose cu tio n is not that i t sh al l w in a

c as e, but tha t j ust ic e sha ll be don e. . . . H e m ay pr ose cu te w ithe ar

ne stn es s and vig or –in de ed , he sho uld

do s o. B ut, w hil e he m ay str ike hard

blo w s, he is not a t l ibe rty to str ike f

oul one s. I t i s a s m

uc h hi s du ty

to re fr ai n fr om im pr ope r m ethods c al cu la te d to pr oduc e a w ro ngf ul c onvi ct ion as it is to use every

legitim ate m eans to bring abou t a j ust on e. Be rg er v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 295 U
. S. 78, 88, 55 S
. Ct
. 629 , 633 ( 1935 ). B ec au se “ the
av erag e jury . . . has co nf id en ce t ha t t he se ob li ga ti on s wi ll be fai th fu ll y ob se rv ed , .

. . im pr ope r sugg es tio ns [ an d] ins inu at ion s . . . a re apt t o c ar ry m uc h w ei ght against the accused when they shoul d properly

car ry none.” I d. at 88, 55 S. C t. a t 633. “ Whe re suc h c ondu ct w as pr onounc ed

a nd p er sis te nt, w ithapr oba ble
cu m ul at iv e eff

ect up on th e jury whic h c an no t b e d is reg ard edas i nc on se qu en ti al [,] [a] new t ria l m

us t b e award ed .” Id . at 8 9, 5 5 S . Ct. at 63 3. H er e, ane wtr ia l w as m an da te d by the pe rf ec t st orm c re at ed w he n th e sur ge of pe rv as ive c om

m uni ty se nti m en t, a nd e xte nsi ve pub lic ity both be fo re a nd d

ur ing t h e t ri al , m er g ed wi t h t h e i m p ro p erp ro s ec u t o ri al re fe re n ce s . Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s ins tr uc tio ns t o th e j ur

y onl y ge ne ra lly r em ind ed

the j ur y that st at em en ts b y

the attor ne y s w er e not

e vid en ce to be c onsi de re d. T he c om m uni ty ’ s di spl ea sur e w ith the E lian G onz al ez c ontro ve rs y pa le d inc om

pari son w ithit s r ev uls iontow ar d th e92

BT T R s hoot dow n. I n ac ivi l c as e w hic h aro se out of the sa m e fa ct s a s th is
cr im ina l pr ose cu tio n, the BT T R s hoot dow n w as de sc ri be d a s an “ outra ge ous contem pt for international law and basic hu m an rights” perpetrated by the Cuban gove rn m en t i n m

ur de ri ng “ fo ur

hum anbe ing s” w ho w er e “ Br oth er s to the Re sc ue pil ots , f ly ing tw o c ivi lian, unarm ed plane s onar out ine hum an itari anm iss ion , searching for ra fters in the w aters betw een Cuba and the Florida K ey s.” Alej andre, 996 F. Supp. at 1242
. In Ram irez, the governm ent not on ly rec ogni zed the e ff ec t of the E lian G onz al ez m atte r on the c om m uni ty , but a lso that the publ icity continu ed through 2002
. See supra at . If the eff ect of those inflam ed passion s is clear in an e m ploy m ent discrim ination action against the agency which contributed to Elian G onzalez’ s rem oval and which failed to suppo rt the Cuban
ex ile s’ pos iti on, it

is m an if es t i n ac ri m ina l c as e ag ai nst a dm itt ed Cu ban sp ie s w ho
w er e al le ge d to ha ve c ontri but ed to the m ur de r of “ hum an itari an s” w orkin g to
rescue r after s such as Elian G onzalez. III. C ONC LUS ION In light of the foregoing discussi on, the defendants’ conviction s are RE V E RS E D a nd w e RE MA N D f or ane wtr ia l. T he c ourt i s aw ar e tha t, f or m an y of the sa m e re as ons dis cu sse d a bove , the
re ve rs al of

the se c onvi ct ion s w ill be unp opul ar a nd e ve n of

fe nsi ve to m an y93

ci tiz en s. H ow ev er , the c ourt i s e qua lly m ind fu l tha t those sa m e ci tiz en s c he ri sh
an d su ppor t the f re ed om s th ey

e nj oy in thi s c ountry

that are unava ila

ble to
re sid en ts o f Cu

ba
. O ne of

our m ost sa cr ed f re ed om s is the r igh t t o be tr ie d f ai rl y in a non co er ci ve a tm osph er e. T he c ourt i s c ogni zant tha t i ts j udgm en t t oday w ill be r ec ei ve d by

tho se c iti ze ns w ithgr av e dis ap poi ntm en t, but is equa lly

c onf ide nt of our share d c om

m itm en t t o sc ru

pul ousl y pr ote ct our f re ed om s. T he Cu

banAm erican com

m unityis a bastion of the tradition al values that m ake A m erica great. Included in tho se values are the r ights of the acc used crim inal that insu re a fa ir tr ia l. T hus, in the f

ina l ana ly sis , w e tr

ust that any dis ap poi ntm en t w ithour j udgm ent in this case w ill be tem pered and balanced by

the rec ogni tion th at w e ar e
a na tio n of

law s inw hic h e ve ry

de fe ndant, no m atte r howunp opul ar , m ust be tr eate d f ai rl y . O ur

Co nst itu tio n r equir es no l es s.