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-TUC-RCC (BPV)

EMERGENCY MOTION TO 

POSTPONE DEPOSITIONS OR 

EXCLUDE WITNESSES DUE TO 

GOVERNMENT 

NONDISCLOSURE

There are two material witnesses in this case: Kristian Perez Villanueva and Jose 

Sacarias Godoy. The government made its initial disclosure on February 6, 2018; this 

disclosure included reports of Border Patrol interviews of both witnesses. It also included 

two video files of the interview of Perez Villanueva (there was a technical difficulty during 

the recording, causing there to be a short gap and two separate files) and a single file of the 

interview of Sacarias Godoy.

At a status conference before Hon. Bernard Velasco on February 7, 2018, 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 30 Filed 03/02/18 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

depositions of those material witnesses were reset from February 9, 2018 to March 2, 2018 

at 8:30 a.m. 

On February 12, 2018, defense counsel Amy Knight emailed AUSA Anna Wright, 

requesting, among other things, “any and all additional material witness interview 

recordings that may exist.” Wright responded four days later, on February 16, 2018 “No 

other recordings of interviews with the material witnesses exist.” That same day, Knight 

again emailed AUSA Wright, explaining that the written reports of the interviews indicate 

an additional interview session with Perez Villanueva later in the evening, for which video 

was never disclosed. The government disclosed a video file of this additional session on 

February 23, 2018. 

Meanwhile, on February 15, 2018, the government disclosed some video 

surveillance footage from two gas stations: the Ajo Chevron and the Why Not. The 

Chevron footage consisted of footage from two cameras: one showing the pump areas, and 

one showing the register. The pump footage was three files, divided by time, covering the 

time from 8:23 am until approximately 1:00 pm. They also include 7 files entitled 

“REGISTER 1” through “REGISTER 7.” The material witnesses do not appear in any of 

this footage. The Why Not footage contains footage from cameras called North, Pumps, 

and South. The witnesses are seen in some of the footage from North and Pumps. 

On March 1, 2018, at 3:40 p.m., the afternoon before the scheduled depositions, the 

government made an additional disclosure. Defense counsel promptly collected this 

disclosure at approximately 4:00 pm on March 1, 2018. This disclosure included transcripts 

of the border patrol’s interviews with the material witnesses that were, according to their 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 30 Filed 03/02/18 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

date stamps, printed on February 26, 2018 – three days earlier, yet not disclosed until the 

afternoon before the depositions.

The disclosure also included a never-before-disclosed report from a Border Patrol 

agent who reviewed the surveillance footage (Bates numbered 513). The reported is dated 

January 24. The report describes the agent’s viewing of the footage and indicates that he 

observed both material witnesses “on two different surveillance cameras.” He notes that he 

observed them in files REGISTER (8), REGISTER (9), REGISTER (10), Coffee (4) and 

Coffee (5). None of these files in which the agent observed the witnesses have been 

disclosed to the defense. The defense only received “REGSITER” videos through number 

7, and no footage from “Coffee.” 

There is a key disputed fact in this case about when and how the material witnesses 

arrived at the subject property. Their stories in the interviews are inconsistent, but include 

in some instances talking with individuals at the Chevron station; video footage of the 

witnesses at a location where they may have been picked up and transported is absolutely 

crucial evidence in this case. The defense has not been able to review this evidence, and 

was not made aware of its existence until the late afternoon the day before the depositions. 

The report has existed, and the depositions have been scheduled, for weeks. It would be 

badly prejudicial to the defense to force them to proceed with these depositions—which 

are the only opportunity the defense will have to secure their testimony for trial--without 

having a chance to review this crucial evidence. 

Accordingly, the defense asks that the witnesses be excluded, or in the alternative 

that the depositions once again be continued.

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 30 Filed 03/02/18 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

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2018.

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 30 Filed 03/02/18 Page 4 of 4