Free Motion Hearing - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cr-00403-LTB

Document 660

Filed 04/07/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO CHIEF JUDGE LEWIS T. BABCOCK _____________________________________________________________________ Courtroom Deputy: Deborah Hansen Court Reporter: Gwen Daniel Date: April 7, 2006 Interpreter: Julia Davis and Susana Cahill

______________________________________________________________________ Criminal Action No. 04-cr-00403-LTB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Counsel:
Stephanie Podolak Guy Till

Plaintiff, v.
1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 CARLOS ZAPATA-HERNANDEZ SERGIO ZAPATA-HERNANDEZ, ARNOLDO ZAPATA, JOSE ALFREDO ZAPATA, JAIME ARMENDARIZ RAMON ZAPATA JAIME ZAPATA, EFRAIN VENZOR, ALBERTO CABRAL, ARTEMISA ZAPATA-MONTOYA, HUMERTO GALVAN, LILIAN GALVAN, BARBARA ZAPATA, OSCAR ZAPATA, Defendants. 1)Richard Tegtmeier (2)Jeffrey Pagliuca (4)Rick Toray (5)Richard Banta (6)Lisabeth Castle (7)Ronald Gainor (8)Forrest Lewis (9)Harvey Steinberg (10)Martha Eskesen (11)Scott Poland (12)Donald Lozow (13)Michael Root (14)Walter Gerash (15)Charles Elliott

_____________________________________________________________________ COURTROOM MINUTES _____________________________________________________________________ HEARING - MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS WIRETAPS 09:38 a.m. Court in Session 1

Case 1:04-cr-00403-LTB

Document 660

Filed 04/07/2006

Page 2 of 4

Interpreters sworn Appearances All defendants are present and on bond except for Defendants Carlos ZapataHernandez, Jose Alfredo Zapata, and Jaime Armendariz, who are present and in custody. Court' comments - on review of the affidavits and the various seven wiretap orders, s together with extensions, there has been no substantial preliminary showing that the affidavits contained intentional or reckless material omissions or that the affidavits with any omitted information included would be insufficient to support a finding of probable cause. Court' further comments s The Court finds and concludes, with regard to the argument addressing the necessity requirement under the statute for the issuance of a wiretap order, that the analysis will be within the four corners of the various affidavits. Mr. Pagliuca' comments - he has no objection in addition to what's in the papers and s would submit it on the papers to the Court. Court' further comments s Mr. Tegtmeier filed ten discrete motions; the motions not only address the necessity requirement, but also the question of minimization. Mr. Tegtmeier' comments - he has nothing to offer on the minimization issue. He does s have argument regarding the issue of necessity. 09:44 Argument (by Mr. Tegtmeier) Mr. Pagliuca' further comments - there is one open question in the joint motion that he s filed that deals with what he calls the gaps in timing between either the wiretaps or the extension. There are a couple of days between a number of the different wiretaps or extensions. Ms. Podolak has confirmed that there was no wiretapping during those time periods, and so that's a non-issue for the Court. Court' further comments s Mr. Pagliuca confirms that there would be nothing to consider suppressing during those gaps.

2

Case 1:04-cr-00403-LTB

Document 660

Filed 04/07/2006

Page 3 of 4

Court' further comments s 09:55 Argument (by Ms. Podolak) Court' findings and conclusions entered on the record. s In summary, the Court finds that on de novo review there was a full and complete statement submitted to the issuing judge, and there was not abuse of discretion in issuing any of the seven wiretaps, including their extensions. The Court will enter a more detailed and thorough written order in the next few days. ORDERED: Trial is set Monday, August 14, 2006 for six weeks, excluding Fridays, commencing at 8:30 a.m. Mr. Gainor' comments s Mr. Gainor, counsel for Defendant No. 7, Ramon Zapata, requests 14 days to file additional motions. ORDERED: Mr. Gainor has until April 19, 2006 to file any additional motions on behalf of Defendant Ramon Zapata. ORDERED: Any severance motions shall be filed by Wednesday, April 19, 2006; Government' responses are due April 27, 2006. s ORDERED: A hearing on the severance motions is set Friday, May 5, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. Defendants not filing severance motions need not be present for this hearing. ORDERED: Preliminary Trial Preparation Hearing is set Friday, May 12, 2006 at 3:00 p.m. ORDERED: The Government shall address the status of discovery and submit its preliminary trial materials: witness list, exhibit lists, set of Instructions, and transcripts of 801(d)(2)(e) issues by Friday, May 5, 2006. These materials shall be delivered to the court in hard copy. 10:33 a.m. Court in Recess 3

Case 1:04-cr-00403-LTB

Document 660

Filed 04/07/2006

Page 4 of 4

Hearing concluded Time: 55 minutes

4