Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    Moción en Respuesta A Defensa de Ángel Pérez

    Uploaded by

    Metro Puerto Rico
    The United States filed a response to the defendant's motion regarding adverse pretrial publicity. The response acknowledges an inadvertent error in a previous filing stating the parties agreed to a protective order when they did not. The response clarifies that the protective order allows sharing discovery with witnesses. The response also states that a photo filed previously likely does not prejudice the defendant's ability to a fair trial but the government is willing to provide supplemental briefing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Moción en Respuesta A Defensa de Ángel Pérez

    Uploaded by

    Metro Puerto Rico
    4K views3 pages
    The United States filed a response to the defendant's motion regarding adverse pretrial publicity. The response acknowledges an inadvertent error in a previous filing stating the parties agreed to a protective order when they did not. The response clarifies that the protective order allows sharing discovery with witnesses. The response also states that a photo filed previously likely does not prejudice the defendant's ability to a fair trial but the government is willing to provide supplemental briefing.

    Original Description:

    Caso Ángel Pérez

    Original Title

    Moción en respuesta a defensa de Ángel Pérez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States filed a response to the defendant's motion regarding adverse pretrial publicity. The response acknowledges an inadvertent error in a previous filing stating the parties agreed to a protective order when they did not. The response clarifies that the protective order allows sharing discovery with witnesses. The response also states that a photo filed previously likely does not prejudice the defendant's ability to a fair trial but the government is willing to provide supplemental briefing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    4K views3 pages

    Moción en Respuesta A Defensa de Ángel Pérez

    Uploaded by

    Metro Puerto Rico
    The United States filed a response to the defendant's motion regarding adverse pretrial publicity. The response acknowledges an inadvertent error in a previous filing stating the parties agreed to a protective order when they did not. The response clarifies that the protective order allows sharing discovery with witnesses. The response also states that a photo filed previously likely does not prejudice the defendant's ability to a fair trial but the government is willing to provide supplemental briefing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Case 3:21-cr-00474-ADC Document 42 Filed 02/06/23 Page 1 of 3

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    Criminal Case No. 21-474 (ADC)


    v.
    FILED SELECTED PARTIES

    ANGEL PEREZ-OTERO,
    Defendant.

    UNITED STATES MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

    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

    Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Rights. (ECF No. 41.)

    I. The Protective Order

    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.

    II. Motion for Bond (ECF No. 6.)

    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”

    restriction, the government would have no objection to this request.

    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 6th day of February 2023.

    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

    the parties of record.

    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

    1301 New York Ave., NW


    10th Floor
    Washington, D.C. 20530
    (202) 514-8187
    [email protected]

    3
     

    You might also like