Moción en Respuesta A Defensa de Ángel Pérez
Moción en Respuesta A Defensa de Ángel Pérez
Moción en Respuesta A Defensa de Ángel Pérez
ANGEL PEREZ-OTERO,
Defendant.
The United States, through the undersigned attorneys, responds to Mr. Perez-Otero’s
Motion Regarding Adverse Pretrial Publicity and Requesting Measures for the Protection of
The United States filed its motion for a protective order on January 23, 2023. (ECF
No. 34). In the proposed order attached to that filing, the United States inadvertently stated
that parties agreed on the terms of the order. (Id., Attachment #1.) Clearly, this was
unintentional error since the United States had stated in a motion filed contemporaneously
to the motion for protective order that the parties “were unable to agree on the parameters of
a protective order.” (See ECF No. 33, p. 1, n.1). The United States apologizes to the Court
and defendant for this inadvertent error in its attachment and has no objection to the
defendant filing a response to the United States Motion for a Protective Order.
Notwithstanding the above, the defendant complains in his most recent filing that they
are “investigating the background of potential government witnesses. The Protective Order
should not be interpreted to limit the defendant’s legal team ability to use the evidence to be
provided by the government for its discussion with potential witnesses for the defense.” (ECF
1
Case 3:21-cr-00474-ADC Document 42 Filed 02/06/23 Page 2 of 3
No. 41, p. 5.) The Protective Order specifically permits “witnesses or potential witnesses” to
review the discovery material. (ECF No. 38, p. 1.) Accordingly, the defense is permitted to
share discovery with witnesses in the case in order to prepare and investigate in preparation
for trial and no interpretation of the Protective Order should prevent them from doing so.
In December of 2021, the United States filed a motion with the Court to state its
position on bond for Mr. Perez-Otero. (ECF No. 6.) The motion contains a photograph, but
Mr. Perez-Otero’s face can barely be seen and he is wearing a mask. The United States does
not believe that this photograph – which it clearly intends to show as an exhibit at trial – can
be said to have prejudiced him to the point that he cannot receive a fair trial. If the Court
wishes to brief this matter further, the United States stands ready to provide supplemental
briefing on the law on this subject. If, however, the defendant is requesting simply that the
Motion for Bond filed by the United States be designated with the “selected parties”
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date I electronically filed the present motion with
the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to
COREY R. AMUNDSON
CHIEF, PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION
/s/Nicholas W. Cannon
Nicholas W. Cannon
Trial Attorney (G01814)
Department of Justice
Public Integrity Section
2
Case 3:21-cr-00474-ADC Document 42 Filed 02/06/23 Page 3 of 3
3