Opinion ID: 173269
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony Concerning Lopez-Ahumado

Text: On initial cross-examination of Officer Johnson, defense counsel asked about his encounter with Lopez-Ahumado at the Clearfield apartment: Q. And then you placed [Lopez-Ahumado] under arrest ... ? A. Yes. .... Q. And you charged him? A. Yes. Q. With possession of the 13 kilos of methamphetamine found in the truck? A. Yes. With the meth found there. Q. And that person was convicted in this courtroom? A. He pled guilty. Q. And he was convicted? A. Yes. Accepted guilt. Q. Same thing. And he's in prison for 22 years? A. I don't know exactly. (R. Supp. Vol. I, Doc. 184 at 26.) Based on this exchange, the prosecutor advised the court he intended to ask Johnson about the factual basis of Lopez-Ahumado's plea on re-direct. Defense counsel said [o]kay but argued if the factual allocution was admitted, Lopez-Ahumado's entire plea agreement should be admitted so he could point out Lopez-Ahumado had been offered the possibility of a reduction in sentence if he gave substantial assistance to the government. (R. Supp. Vol. I, Doc. 184 at 41.) The court denied this request. The government then asked Officer Johnson to read into evidence the factual basis for Lopez-Ahumado's plea as reflected in the transcript of Lopez-Ahumado's change of plea hearing. Defense counsel again argued if the factual basis was admitted, the whole agreement should be admitted. The following exchange occurred: THE COURT: Here's what I'm going to do. And you're not going to like this so you make your record. I'm going to let in Pages 11 and 12 [the fact allocution].... That doesn't mean the stuff he never did can come in and he's not here, unfortunately. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Then, Your Honor, how do I  [be]cause I need to cross-examine this witness on the basis of him pleading guilty and why and what was the offer, what [were] his expectations. THE COURT: The guy you need to cross-examine on this is the guy who won't testify for anybody, and that's not your fault. .... [PROSECUTOR]: And I just want to say this was brought up at pretrial. It was brought up yesterday. If he opened the door, we would be able to drive that truck in. He knew the consequences. .... [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I have no problem opening any door in this case. And I did that purposely, and I knew exactly what I did. THE COURT: We did cover this generally in pretrial. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes. THE COURT: That the factual basis could come in. And that doesn't leave the door open for everything else to come in. ( Id. at 50-52.) The court then allowed Officer Johnson to read into the record the portion of the transcript of Lopez-Ahumado's change of plea hearing containing the factual allocution. On final re-cross-examination, defense counsel asked Officer Johnson a number of questions about Lopez-Ahumado's plea: Q. And somehow voluntarily [Lopez-Ahumado] implicated his brother Gerardo in this case? A. Not somehow. He appeared very sad, was crying and confessed. .... Q. You read [Lopez-Ahumado's factual allocution] in the record to the jury. It says, and I'll read it again. That he plead guilty to jointly possessing 4.833 kilograms of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine. By jointly meaning he meant he possessed that with Gerardo? A. Yes. .... Q. He pled guilty and implicated my client for possessing the drugs in the car; yes? A. Yes. Q. And he ... also admitted that inside his apartment was located 444.4 grams of a mixture of methamphetamine? A. Yes. Q. He did not implicate my client in that part, did he? A. No. Q. So he took responsibility for that part as the finding in the apartment? A. Yes. Q. But the big, the 12 kilos, he implicated my client? A. The 12 pounds, yes. ( Id. at 58-61.)