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 

MICHAEL BAILEY 

United States Attorney 

ANNA WRIGHT

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

State Bar No.: 029708 

405 West Congress, Suite 4800 

Tucson, Arizona 85701-5040 

Telephone: (520) 620-7300 

E-mail: anna.wright@usdoj.gov 

E-mail: nathaniel.walters@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

 Defendant.

18-CR-223-TUC-RCC (DTF) 

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO 

RECONSIDER PRIOR RULING 

REGARDING USE OF DEFENDANT’S 

PRIOR TESTIMONY FOR 

IMPEACHMENT 

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby 

respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its prior ruling and permit the government 

to fully impeach the defendant with his prior testimony in the misdemeanor matter. With 

the benefit of transcripts from both trials, it is now clear that the defendant testified during 

the misdemeanor matter that he would violate the law as part of his work with No More 

Deaths, which is directly contrary to his testimony during the first trial on the felony matter.

In the first trial in the felony matter, mid-way through the defendant’s direct 

examination, the defendant announced that he would abandon his defense under the 

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). TR 6/6/19 at 3:7-22. Then, at side-bar prior 

to cross-examination, the defendant orally moved to preclude the government from 

impeaching the defendant using his testimony from the misdemeanor trial, arguing that 

such impeachment was no longer relevant given his abandonment of his RFRA defense. 
- 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 

Id. at 80:11-81:5. The Court then ruled that, regarding the defendant’s testimony in the 

misdemeanor trial, the government could only ask the defendant if he “testified at a prior 

hearing that if following your religion meant breaking the law, then [he] would do it.” Id.

at 88:16-18. Now having the benefit of the defendant’s testimony from both trials, the 

government asks the Court to reconsider its ruling limiting the government’s ability to 

impeach the defendant through his prior testimony. 

The defendant testified during his misdemeanor trial that his actions in that case 

were part of his volunteer work with No More Deaths. TR 5/6/19 at 28:9-21, 59:3-14; TR 

5/7/19 at 21:11-23:2; see also Docs. 43, 45, 47, 95. On direct examination, defense counsel 

asked the defendant questions about what he would do if he were faced with a choice 

between violating his beliefs and breaking the law. Id. at 42:4-7. The defendant answered, 

“If I were faced with that choice, I would go to those areas of greatest need to deliver those 

supplies and risk violating those laws, yes.” Id. at 42:8-10. The defendant also testified that 

his “beliefs in that sense really compel [him] to go further” even if it meant violating United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulations. Id. at 39:12-40:8. On redirect 

examination, the defendant again testified that he would break the law if he were forced to 

choose between his following his beliefs and following the law. TR 5/7/19 at 13:1-5. The 

defendant also testified that he was aware that members of No More Deaths approached

USFWS to get permission to drive on restricted roads and were denied that permission. See 

id. at 18:8-19:23. 

In direct contrast to his testimony in the misdemeanor trial, the defendant testified 

during the first trial in this matter that he does not intend to violate the law when he is 

giving “humanitarian aid.” Specifically, when the defendant was asked “When you give 

humanitarian aid to people, people that you perceive to be in need, are you intending to 

violate any law?” he answered “No.” TR 6/5/19 at 189:15-17. He also testified that, under 

the No More Deaths’ protocols, “We can’t break the law.” TR 6/6/19 at 50:10. The 

defendant further testified that he “want[s] to work within the bounds of the law and not 

do anything that’s illegal[.]” TR 6/5/19 at 196:17-18. 
- 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 

In both the misdemeanor and felony matters, the defendant testified he was acting

as a No More Deaths volunteer and following the organization’s protocols. In the felony 

matter the defendant testified that, as a volunteer with No More Deaths, he does not intend 

to violate the law, and this testimony is directly contradicted by his testimony in the 

misdemeanor matter that he intentionally violated the law as part of his work with No More 

Deaths. In order to provide the jury with “sufficient information to assess the credibility” 

of the defendant, United States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007), the 

government must be allowed to impeach him with his contradictory testimony in the 

misdemeanor matter. Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that the Court 

reconsider its prior ruling and permit the government to fully impeach the defendant with 

his prior testimony. 

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of September, 2019. 

 

 MICHAEL BAILEY 

United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

 /s/ Anna R. Wright & Nathaniel J. Walters

 ANNA WRIGHT &

 NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

Copy of the foregoing served electronically or by 

other means this 30th day of September, 2019, to: 

All ECF participants