Opinion ID: 3064120
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Indictment and Plea Hearing

Text: A 43-count indictment charged Galdos and nine others (Raul Rodriguez, Armando Araas, Carlos Enrique Monteagudo, Alain Rhaf Vega, Marisol Gonzalez Torres, Edith Balog, William Balladares, Yulen Arderi, and Jannette Morales) with a massive Medicare fraud conspiracy. More specifically, the indictment charged Galdos in only 6 of the 43 counts, as follows: (1) conspiracy to launder 2 money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 13); (2) money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(I) and 2 (count 27); (3) conspiracy to engage in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 30); (4) two counts of engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2 (Counts 35 and 37); and (5) testifying falsely before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a) (Count 43). Galdos initially indicated that he wanted to plead guilty. The district court held a plea hearing and questioned Galdos to ensure that he understood the nature of the proceedings. Galdos said that he was twenty-seven years old, that he dropped out of school in the 7th grade, and that he never had been treated for any mental illness. The district court asked Galdos if he had received a copy of the indictment, and Galdos said, “I didn’t understand that.” The district court explained what the indictment was and asked Galdos again if he had seen the document. Galdos said, “No.” The district court said it would hold the proceedings in abeyance until Galdos had an opportunity to review the indictment. Galdos’s counsel said he thought Galdos was “confused” because counsel had spent hours with Galdos and his family reviewing the case. The district court 3 asked counsel what it was supposed to do if Galdos said he has never received a copy of the indictment. Galdos’s counsel responded, “I don’t think he knows what an indictment is, Your Honor.” Counsel further stated, “[T]his has been one of those cases where we struggled to make the language so plain with Mr. Galdos and . . . I know that he’s easily confused.” The district court responded, “[B]ut the problem is that if he’s that easily confused, that sounds like it might be a defense to the case . . . . I’m not going to force somebody to plead guilty when they don’t know that they’re doing and they claim not to have ever seen the indictment before.” Galdos’s counsel added that his office “did the due diligence in having Mr. Galdos forensically looked at” and that Galdos “did very badly . . . on core issues.” The district court asked if the government was sure that Galdos had taken the actions he did with criminal intent and commented, “That’s the thing that concerns me, is I think he could do all of those things because somebody told him to or asked him to.” After Galdos’s counsel said that he had met with Galdos and his family the previous day for two hours, the district court responded, “[Y]ou’re not helping your case because what you’re telling me is that he’s not capable of entering into a plea because he’s too stupid to understand what’s going on.” The district court 4 went into recess and instructed Galdos’s counsel to determine whether he would plead or not. When the court resumed, Galdos’s counsel stated that Galdos had chosen to proceed to trial.