United States v. Olson

Facts

The Latin Kings are a national criminal organization based in Chicago, with chapters in many states. The Latin Kings are a highly organized criminal enterprise. All of the defendants, in this case, were members of the Latin Kings in Milwaukee. Martinez (D) was the Inca of the Kagel Kings beginning in 1991 or 1992. Ds were charged with racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). The indictment alleged sixty-seven underlying predicate offenses, including murders, robberies, kidnappings, arson, intimidation, drug trafficking, and witness tampering. Martinez (D) was tried and convicted in federal court for racketeering and murder. During the trial, he made a motion to exclude evidence on the following facts. In April 1998, Martinez (D) was serving a 157-month sentence in federal prison in Indiana for a conviction on an unrelated offense. On April 27, 1998, he was brought to appear in a line-up. FBI Special Agent Craft decided to interview Martinez (D) on matters related to the instant case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Larsen determined that Martinez (D) could not be interviewed until Larsen determined whether Martinez (D) was represented by a lawyer. Agent Craft stayed in a conference room with Martinez (D), and Larsen went into the room two or three times during that period. Agent Craft used this opportunity to tell Martinez (D) about Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano, a well-known underboss of the Gambino crime family. Agent Craft described Gravano to Martinez (D) as a mobster who confessed to nineteen homicides but served only five years in prison because he cooperated with the government in its case against John Gotti. Martinez (D) believed that Agent Craft raised the Gravano case in order to obtain Martinez's (D) cooperation. Agent Craft denied talking about Gravano on April 28 but acknowledged that he discussed Gravano with other Latin Kings, telling them that Gravano cooperated and then received leniency. Martinez (D) claims Agent Craft also told him that Agent Craft might be able to get him a ten-year deal and that Assistant U.S. Attorney Karine Moreno-Taxman trusted Agent Craft and would likely listen to any recommendation he made. Between April 28 and April 30, Larsen determined that Martinez's (D) lawyers represented him only in the appeal of his conviction and not on new potential charges. Prosecutors then called for an April 30 meeting to explore Martinez's (D) potential cooperation. Agent Craft testified that prosecutors were present in the hope that Martinez (D) might offer to confess and incriminate others in exchange for a deal that only prosecutors could offer. The meeting lasted only ten or fifteen minutes. Agent Craft brought Martinez (D). Martinez (D) testified that on the drive over from the jail, Agent Craft told him several times, 'Don't worry about the numbers, you'll be satisfied with the outcome.' Martinez (D) stated he would not cooperate if it meant a double-digit sentence, Agent Craft replied that they might be able to have his sentence run concurrently with the sentence he was then serving. Once at the meeting, according to Martinez (D), when he asked Agent Craft why they were meeting, Agent Craft replied, 'if you cooperate, we can make this disappear.' Larsen corroborated Agent Craft's denial regarding this statement. On the motion to exclude this evidence, the court found that Agent Craft made no such statement. Instead, the court found that Agent Craft read Martinez (D) his Miranda rights. Agent Craft then asked him if he wanted to speak without an attorney present. Martinez (D) agreed to do so. Martinez (D) was told they had evidence linking him to at least three homicides and gave Martinez (D) an account of the murder of Angelique Morales. Martinez (D) corrected parts of her account that he believed were mistaken, thereby implicating himself in the murder. Martinez (D) asked if he could speak off the record and he was told emphatically that everything was on the record. The meeting ended. Larsen testified that no promises or threats were made during the meeting, nor was there any plea bargaining or discussion of plea bargaining. The district court noted that Agent Craft's credibility had been seriously undermined by his conduct in an unrelated case in another state. The court held that even assuming that Agent Craft discussed the Gravano case with Martinez (D) on April 28, Martinez (D) did not have an objective reason to believe he was participating in plea negotiations on April 30. It held that Agent Craft's statement about getting Martinez (D) a ten-year deal demonstrated that Agent Craft did not himself have the authority to engage in plea bargaining because he indicated he would simply make are commendation to Moreno-Taxman. D was convicted and appealed. Martinez (D) argues that he exhibited a subjective belief that he was engaging in plea discussions at the April 30 meeting and that this belief was reasonable.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.