Under the CJA Guidelines 230.23.40(b)-(c), this case qualifies as both complex and extended. The factual and legal issues arising from this case during the jury trial phases, the multiple sentencing phases, and petition to the Supreme Court, begins to explain why excess payment is necessary to provide fair compensation. The summary below provides greater detail. BACKGROUND
This case involved a multi-day jury trial down in South Texas. A jury found Maria Guadalupe Rubio-Mendoza (Rubio) guilty of conspiracy and with intent with possession to distribute heroin. Newlyweds Rubio and her husband, Rubin Luis Camberos-Magallon (Camberos), embarked on a trip from interior Mexico to Texas for Rubio’s cancer treatment. Unbeknownst …show more content…
Record.
Spanning over 1,600 pages, the record was voluminous.
2. Exhibits.
The trial included more than 70 detailed exhibits. The exhibits were fact intensive. The exhibits were also confusing to understand based on the government’s random piece-meal strategy utilized in a largely circumstantial case. Consequently, this translated to additional time required in the review process.
3. A snapshot of the factual challenges associated with the case.
The many moving parts of circumstantial evidence offered by the government to thread its case together, required extensive time to understand, process, research, and ultimately draft numerous briefings in this case. The issues below provide a summary of only some of the wide-ranging issues presented in this case, which included:
• Rubio’s testimony regarding her efforts to purchase insurance for her vehicle when crossing from Mexico into the United States.
• Rubio’s prior trips to Texas in search of cancer treatment. • Inconsistencies with testimony related to doctor appointments in prior trips made by Rubio into the United States.
• The October 28th Zapata, Texas, route …show more content…
• Documentation related to Rubio’s health, her battle with cancer, and the mysterious lack of evidence provided by the government that was inside Rubio’s vehicle at the time she was detained.
• Decisions made by the district court concerning the exclusion of Rubio’s medical evidence.
• Trial testimony from a nurse who had conducted cancer testing on Rubio.
• A hidden issue that surfaced later regarding whether Rubio’s trial lawyer had taken the basic professional steps necessary to secure the missing medical information in Rubio’s case before trial.
4. Convoluted trial testimony from a range of different individuals on both sides of the case.
When the range of issues above was added to the shifting explanations of various witnesses on each side of the case, together with the multiple versions of what transpired, made the factual review of the record exhausting. The individuals who testified during the trial included:
• Rubio;
• Camberos; • Numerous law enforcement agents also testified with conflicting accounts of the events giving rise to the