1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Gregory J. Kuykendall, Bar # 012508

Amy P. Knight, Bar # 031374

KUYKENDALL & ASSOCIATES

531 S Convent Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 792-8033

greg@kuykendall-law.com

amyknight@kuykendall-law.com

Attorneys for Defendant Scott Daniel Warren

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCOTT DANIEL WARREN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 18-CR-00223-RCC(DTF)

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

CLARIFY ORDER ON REDACTIONS 

TO VIDEO DEPOSITIONS

Defendant is concerned that there may have been some misunderstanding regarding 

the proposed redactions to the depositions of the two material witnesses to be played during 

trial, and accordingly respectfully requests that the Court review and clarify its ruling 

concerning the redactions.

On August 26, 2019, defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude evidence 

that was relevant to the conspiracy charge but irrelevant to harboring (Doc. 315). Along with 

that motion, defendant filed copies of the transcripts of each of the two depositions indicating

proposed redactions (Docs 315-1 and 315-2). The government filed a response on September 

9, 2019 (Doc. 319), in which it did not address the proposed redactions, arguing only that 

the subject evidence was relevant. Defendant filed a reply on September 16, 2019 (Doc. 

321). This Court held a hearing on October 15, 2019 (Doc. 352) and took the motion under 

advisement. The Court then issued an order granting the motion in part on October 18, 2019 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 368 Filed 11/04/19 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(Doc. 353). Specifically, the Court ruled that the migrants’ journey was no longer relevant, 

but the government could introduce (1) what the migrants said to the defendant and (2) the 

gas station video footage as evidence of the extent of injury. 

On October 25, 2019, the government filed a Motion to Clarify regarding the October 

18 order (Doc. 356). In this Motion to Clarify, the government identified a subset of the 

redactions the defense had requested that it believed would comply with the Court’s order

that evidence of the journey be excluded with the exceptions of things the migrants told Dr. 

Warren and gas station videos. This Court filed an Order on October 31, 2019 in which it 

approved the government’s proposed redactions with the exception of one exchange from 

each deposition, which it ordered should remain (Doc. 364). 

Those two portions the Court excised from the government’s proposed redactions 

constitute exchanges that the defense sought to exclude in its original motion, and the 

government agreed should be excluded; neither party was seeking to include them. 

Moreover, the portions the Court identified that should remain appear to be inconsistent with 

the substance of the Court’s order. 

In the Perez-Villanueva deposition (Doc. 315-1), the Court allowed to remain the 

witness’s testimony that “From there, I did not tell him about the ride that we had gotten, 

and nor did I say that we had been left near his house.” But the effect of allowing this 

testimony is to tell the jury that in fact the witness did get a ride and get left near the Barn—

precisely the information they are not supposed to have because the migrants did not tell Dr. 

Warren and it is not relevant to harboring, as opposed to conspiracy. Although it does also 

state that that information was not provided to Dr. Warren, it does so by revealing the 

underlying irrelevant fact, which the jury would not otherwise hear. Because the operative 

principle is that information about the migrants’ journey unknown to Dr. Warren was 

irrelevant and inadmissible, the jury should not in fact be told that these things occurred 

outside of Dr. Warren’s knowledge.

In the Sacaria-Goday deposition (Doc. 315-2), the Court identified the following 

exchange to remain:

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 368 Filed 11/04/19 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Q: What else did you lie about?

A: I had said that the man who took us had talked to him, and he hadn’t.

Q: Talked to you about what?

A: Talked to him.

Q: The man had talked to you about what?

A: The one who took us to that house, I just said that he had talked to him, and 

that’s not true. He just dropped us off.

Q: I understand.

Again, although this testimony does serve another function (in this case impeachment of the 

witness’s consistency and credibility), it does so be revealing an irrelevant fact that, per the 

Court’s original order, was not to be shared with the jury: the fact that the two migrants 

received a ride and were dropped off near the Barn. Accordingly, as with the excerpt from 

the Perez-Villanueva deposition, the defense sought to exclude it, and the government 

agreed. 

Because both of these instances involve testimony that could be construed as 

favorable to the defense, defendant understands that the Court may have intended to curtail 

the government’s proposed limitations on testimony; however, this particular testimony 

reveals irrelevant information, as acknowledged by both parties. Accordingly, defendant 

requests that this Court review its October 31 Order (Doc. 364) to confirm which testimony 

from the depositions is admissible.

Dated this 4th day of November, 2019

KUYKENDALL & ASSOCIATES

By /s/ Amy P. Knight________

Gregory J. Kuykendall

Amy P. Knight

531 S Convent Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85701

Attorneys for Defendant Scott 

Daniel Warren

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 368 Filed 11/04/19 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on November 4, 2019, I electronically transmitted a PDF version of 

this document to the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System for filing and for 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 

Nathaniel J. Walters, Esq. (email: Nathaniel.walters@usdoj.gov) 

Anna R. Wright, Esq. (email: anna.wright@usdoj.gov) 

United States Attorney’s Office 

405 W. Congress, Suite 4800 

Tucson, AZ 85701

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 368 Filed 11/04/19 Page 4 of 4