Sinaloa

I was located in my first private practice office, on 8th Street across from the Courthouse. It was either in the late 1970s or 80s; I can’t recall exactly. Along with Bob Brodie, I hired another young guy out of the DA’s office, Brad Boeckman. Brad was one of the top prosecutors, but young, and he needed some guidance regarding defense practice, but he was very willing to learn. He was a rather good-looking young man, in good shape and one of those long-distance runners. He, like most of my associates, lasted about 6 years. Married a local girl, whose father was very well-to-do, and who owned a large compound of homes in Shasta County, famous for the Mount Shasta Ski resort and Shasta Lake for summer boaters and fishers. So, Brad moved into the compound with his new bride and went back to being a prosecutor for the Shasta County DA’s Office, and eventually was elected a Superior Court Judge located in the City of Redlands in northern California.  The last time I saw Brad was at a State Bar Convention in Monterey. and it was good to see him, a little older and his black hair had a touch of grey. Funny how so many of my associates ended up as judges. I have been approached to become a judge several times, but it was just not for me for various reasons, one being that I am not the most patient individual and believed I just did not have the temperament and patience required  to be a good jurist and for me, it feels a little too confining. But, I am proud that many attorneys who worked with me were considered top quality and good examples of lawyers with vast legal knowledge.

Anyway, one day, this fellow Manuel C popped into my office, asking me to represent him in a case. I think it was in South Gate, a city in the North part of LA County. Manuel was charged with possession of heroin for sale, plus being armed with a firearm, a pistol, which enhanced the penalty and precluded any grant of probation.The catchphrase in California was: “use a gun – go to prison.” We talked and I set a fee of over $10,000 to take the case. Manuel assured me that was fine, and he would see to it the retainer was paid. We arranged to meet in Court on the day he was to appear. So, one day, while I was out of the office, probably in Court somewhere, I came back to my baffled secretary telling me that some guy had come into the office with a folded Tijuana newspaper, dropped it on her desk, saying it was for Manuel’s fee, and left.  When the paper was unfolded, it contained a very large retainer in cash. This caused a problem, as the Federal government requires one to report all cash transactions over $10,000.00; they can grab the money if the government believes the cash is drug money. I reported, but had no knowledge who or where the money came from and there began to be a lot of correspondence between the Feds and me regarding the amount. Bottom line was that the Feds eventually gave up. So, the client and I met in court for arraignment and setting of the preliminary hearing to where the DA must show there is enough evidence to hold the accused to trial; the process known as a preliminary hearing. The same rules of admissibility of evidence applies to a preliminary hearing as to a trial, except the standard of proof is “reasonable belief a crime has been committed and the defendant committed the crime.” At the preliminary hearing phase, one can raise the issue that the evidence obtained was in violation of the defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure based on the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. So, if the seizure of the evidence was unlawful, the rule is evidence obtained by such conduct is not permitted to be introduced, which leaves the prosecution with no evidence and the charge would be dismissed. The avenue to raise the issue of unlawful search and seizure is set out in the Penal Code Section 1538 and can be raised at the preliminary hearing. So I did just that by way of a motion raising the issue and setting out the reasons why. In Manuel’s case, he was stopped for no particular reason, searched, and the heroin and pistol were recovered which was the basis of the charge. The judge, acting as a magistrate, heard the evidence and agreed with me, and granted the motion and then dismissed the charge.

Some time later, I got another visit from Manuel. He had again been arrested, and again heroin was recovered, and again, Manuel was armed with a firearm, but, this time, the cops obtained a warrant to search Manuel’s residence and person. I should mention what the Fourth Amendment actually says- basically that the people shall be secure in their person, papers and house against unreasonable search and seizures and no warrant can be issued except with probable cause. So, a body of law has developed called the “Exclusionary Rule.” Originally, the exclusionary rule developed with a series of Federal cases, but the rule did not apply to the states, so state police had no restrictions as to police violating one’s privacy until a case called People v Cahan. The California Supreme Court ruled the cops went too far in ransacking Cahan’s house to get bookmaking evidence and the Court said enough is enough and developed a rule of admissibility and exclusion not on Constitutional grounds, but as a rule of admissibility. The Cahan case had just came down around 1955 or 1956, when I was a new deputy DA in LA. I had mentioned Art Alarcon in much earlier blogs, and Art was a Deputy DA, did all the research, and the DA’s Office published his work, which was used throughout the State as the authority for the exclusionary rule. Later in a case of Mapp v Ohio, the US Supreme Court in 1961 ruled that the 4th Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule also applied to the States as a rule of Constitutional Law.

So, Manuel again appeared in my office with the new case and this time the evidence seized: heroin and a weapon, was obtained by way of a warrant. Much tougher. Arrangements were made for a retainer and appearance like last time, but with a different twist. Even though a judge OKs a warrant, the seizure can still be attacked by claiming the facts presented to the judge to support the warrant are either insufficient or too broad. So, the second time around, I raised the suppression motion, asserting the affidavit in support of the warrant was insufficient and I moved to suppress the evidence. Guess what? The judge that actually issued the warrant was assigned the preliminary hearing and motion to suppress the evidence and unbelievably agreed with me; said he shouldn’t have signed the warrant, and granted the motion to suppress the heroin and firearm, and the case was dismissed.

Things did not end there as after the case was dismissed I got a call from Manuel and was told the sheriffs had put word out in the street that the reason Manuel beat his two cases was because Manuel was working as an informant. That false information put out by the LA Sheriffs was in effect a death sentence, as the gangs were out to kill Manuel. Manuel asked me to call an attorney who represented most of the Hispanic LA drug dealers who basically, it was alleged, got their drugs to sell from an organization in Mexico, located in the State of Sinaloa, near the Northwest part of Mexico, bordered by Sonora in the North, Durango in the East, and Nyarit to the South. The Sierra Madre Range is included and part of the east end of the Gulf of Mexico, where the resort city of Mazatlan is located. I knew nothing about drug cartels and their machinations at the time. But, I called the lawyer, explained each case, offered to send the Court minutes and docket, and the problem went away. I thought Manuel, who was a Mexican citizen and I think also a US citizen, was sufficiently scared by what the Sheriffs did that I would not see him again involved in drug carrier activities. Not so.

One day I got a call from Manuel, telling me that his cousins from Mexico, basically Cuilican  in Sinaloa State, were in custody in Long Beach and charged with murder 1st,  and he wanted me to represent one of them for a murder located in Santa Barbara County.

Next: the Sinaloa Murder case in Santa Maria. Should be good reading!

 

Marshall