Páginas vistas en total

martes, 7 de enero de 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

MARIO FABRICIO ORMACHEA ALIAGA,

 Defendant.
 ____________/

UNITED STATES’ NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE
INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED AND/OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
RULE 404(B) EVIDENCE

 The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States
Attorney, hereby gives notice of intent to introduce evidence pursuant to the inextricably
intertwined doctrine or, alternatively, Rule 404(b) and provides a summary of the evidence
below.
 By way of background, the Defendant has been charged with two counts. Count 1
charges the Defendant with foreign travel in aid of racketeering, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1952(a)(3). Count 2 charges the Defendant with attempted Hobbs Act
extortion, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a). The charges stem from
the Defendant’s alleged attempt to extort Humberto Roca, a Bolivian citizen living in the United
States. At the time of this alleged extortion, the Defendant was a high-ranking police officer in
the Bolivian police department.
At trial, an attorney1
 for Humberto Roca will testify about two meetings that he had with
the Defendant in Bolivia -- a meeting in January 2013 and a meeting in March 2013. The
attorney will testify that, prior to these meetings, Roca and other family members had been
 1
 The name of this attorney has been disclosed to defense counsel.
Case 1:13-cr-20690-RSR Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2013 Page 1 of 4 2
charged with economic crimes in Bolivia. The attorney will explain that, at both of these
meetings, the Defendant told him that, if Roca paid him money, he could help resolve these
charges.
 The attorney will also testify that, at both the January 2013 and March 2013 meetings, the
Defendant talked with the attorney about other cases that the attorney was handling.
With respect to the January 2013 meeting, the attorney will testify that he met with the
Defendant in La Paz, Bolivia at the Defendant’s office in the police department. At this meeting,
the Defendant noted that the attorney represented many criminal defendants and that he, the
Defendant, was investigating many of these clients. He noted that, if these clients were to pay
him directly, they could avoid criminal consequences of the investigations. As an example, the
Defendant noted that he had arrested the general manager of Aerosur airlines, a man named
Carlos Mayer. The Defendant said that, if Mayer had paid him, Mayer may have been able to
avoid arrest.
 With respect to the March 2013 meeting, the attorney will testify that he spoke with the
Defendant in La Paz, Bolivia at the prosecutor’s office. The Defendant mentioned that he knew
that the attorney represented several directors/officers of a company by the name of Jindal Steel
and Power. The attorney will testify that the Defendant said that he was investigating this
company and noted that several directors of the company had been criminally charged. The
attorney will testify that the Defendant told him that the Defendant knew that these directors
were not currently living in Bolivia and that two were in the United States and three were in
India. The Defendant then explained that he was in the process of having these men extradited to
Bolivia. He explained that he could make the “process” go away depending on how “good” the
clients were to him. For example, the Defendant stated that he could make sure that the arrest
Case 1:13-cr-20690-RSR Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2013 Page 2 of 4 3
warrants for these clients were not issued, that the arrest warrants would not be passed on to
Interpol, or that the clients would not be classified as fugitives from justice. This meeting was
referenced in an FBI 302 that was turned over to the defense on December 4, 2013.
 The Court should admit the testimony above under either the inextricably intertwined
doctrine or 404(b). With respect to the inextricably intertwined doctrine, the Defendant was
attempting to extort third-parties (1) at the same time that he was attempting to extort the victim
in this case and (2) through the same attorney. In that sense, the testimony above is “linked in
time and circumstances with the charged crime” or “forms an integral and natural part of an
account of the crime to complete the story of the crime for the jury.” United States v. McNair,
605 F.3d 1152, 1203 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). With respect to 404(b), the testimony
described above will be offered to demonstrate the Defendant’s plan, knowledge, and intent in
committing the charged offenses. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).

 Respectfully submitted,

 WIFREDO A. FERRER
 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 By: /s/ John R. Byrne
 John R. Byrne
 Assistant United States Attorney
 Court ID No. A5501770
 99 Northeast 4th Street
 Miami, Florida 33132-2111
 Tel: (305) 961-9018
 Fax: (305) 530-7976








Case 1:13-cr-20690-RSR Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2013 Page 3 of 4 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 31, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.

 /s/ John R. Byrne
 John R. Byrne

Publicar un comentario en la entrada