Archive for the ‘Fifth Amendment’ Category

Woman was caught with pounds of meth in Waynesboro – The News Leader

Karina Soto-Garcia(Photo: Submitted by the Waynesboro Police Department)

WAYNESBORO - It was a family affair the night of Sept. 23, 2018, whena Colorado woman and her husband, with their two young children in tow, brought nearly $200,000 worth of methamphetamine into the area.

Their arrests would eventually rip the family apart.

Tipped off by a confidential informant,police tracked the couple's SUV to the Chili's restaurant on Richmond Avenue in Staunton. The SUV made its way to Waynesboro, where it was followed by police and pulled over on West Main Street just inside the city limits.

Reached your article limit?Click here to subscribe to The News Leader.

After a drug dog alert, authorities seized four pounds of meth from a grocery bag in the back of the SUV. Prior to the bust, almost two additional pounds of meth were reportedly delivered by the couple to a man in the Walmart parking lot on Richmond Avenue in Staunton, evidence at Soto-Garcia's trial showed.

In September of 2019, the husband, 32-year-oldJose Edwardo Basurto Munoz, pleaded guilty to two felony drug charges and was sentenced to 13 years in prison.

On Friday in Waynesboro Circuit Court, his wife,Karina Soto-Garcia, 30, was also sentenced to 13years in prison on charges oftransporting one ounce or more of a Schedule I or II drug with intent to distribute in Virginia and possessing 100 or more grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.

The couple were working ascouriers for a Mexico-based drug ring in Chihuahua that has been under investigation the past few years by the Waynesboro Police Department's Special Operations Division, resulting in numerous convictions and lengthy prison sentences for some suspects.

Soto-Garcia, a former teacher's aide, speaksEnglish and helped her husband arrange the drug delivery, according to Waynesboro Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Will Flory.

More: Girls in Kentucky and Staunton were victims, prosecutor said

At her trial, Soto-Garcia claimedshe was unaware of her husband's ties to the drug trade organization in Mexico. The drug ring smuggles meth across the border to the Four Corners region of the United States (Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah). From there, the drugs are shipped to Waynesboro, Flory said.

Circuit Judge Paul Dryer said Soto-Garcia's explanations for the trip to Virginia didn't add up, including one where she said her husband was pursuinga business opportunity to open up a mechanic's shop on the east coast. The judge wondered why the issue couldn't be discussed by phone or through email. Dryer also noted that Soto-Garcia's husband, who testified at her trial, didn't know the name of the man who was offering the supposed business opportunity.

Soto-Garcia was also wired $300 from Virginia to Colorado through the confidential informant after vehicle troubles threatened the drug delivery, evidence showed.

The drugs brought into the area had a street value of more than $180,000, Flory said.

Some of the meth was allegedly delivered toLouis M. Goulet at the Staunton Walmart. Goulet, arrested about a month later in Augusta County,facesa drug distribution charge. Exercising his Fifth Amendment right during Soto-Garcia's trial, Goulet did not testify when called to the stand as a witness.

He is set for trial on Feb. 27.

Others connected to the Mexican-based drug ring that are currently doing prison time include Manuel Lopez Garcia, convicted last year and sentenced to three years in prison; Robin Nicole Forrester, aWaynesboro woman who is currently serving 15 years; Nancy Martinez, a Waynesboro woman sentenced in April to 3 1/2 years; and Manuel Loya Chavez,sentenced to 15 years behind bars in May.

According to John Hill, Soto-Garcia's attorney, the couple's children are in foster care with her family members.

More: Andrew Rowsey proving doubters wrong again in NBA G League

Have questions or a tip? Email Brad Zinn at bzinn@newsleader.com. You can also follow him on Twitter.

Read or Share this story: https://www.newsleader.com/story/news/local/2020/02/03/woman-headed-prison/4621002002/

Here is the original post:
Woman was caught with pounds of meth in Waynesboro - The News Leader

There was a lot of reasonable doubt, Ghost Ship juror says about why she voted to acquit manslaughter defendant – East Bay Times

OAKLAND One of the two jurors who voted to acquit Ghost Ship fire defendant Derick Almena told reporters Friday in an impromptu interview she didnt think he would have knowingly put his family in harms way if he thought the warehouse was dangerous.

Along with a couple dozen artists, Almena, his wife and three children lived inside the warehouse before it was destroyed in a blaze Dec. 2, 2016 that claimed the lives of 36 people during a dance party.

He made a mistake, we all make mistakes. He has to live with this the rest of his life, and to me thats a horrible sentence, Betty Parker, aka Juror Number 5, said after a court hearing at the Rene C. Davidson courthouse.

He has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And there was a lot of reasonable doubt as far as Im concerned, Parker said.

When asked what advice she has for the next jury during the retrial, scheduled to begin in April, she said they should take everything into account, and think with both your mind and your heart.

After her statements to reporters, Parker was seen hugging Almenas wife, Micah Allison, inside the courthouse. Allison attended Fridays hearing with a friend.

In September, a jury deadlocked 10-2 in favor of convicting Almena, 49, who was charged with 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter one for each of the three dozen people who perished in the warehouse fire.

The prosecution alleged that Almena, the main leaseholder for the Ghost Ship warehouse, was criminally negligent in allowing a collective of artists to illegally inhabit the East Oakland warehouse, which he turned into a fire trap by filling it from floor to ceiling with art, pianos, RVs and other combustible items.

During Fridays court hearing, Almenas attorney, Tony Serra, made a motion requesting that jurors information be unsealed so the defense team could possibly speak with them in preparation for the retrial.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Trina Thompson said four jurors consented to have their information released. At least five former jurors, including Parker, attended the hearing.

Pretrial motions are set to begin on April 1 and jury selection on April 6 almost exactly a year after jurors were being selected for the first trial. A jury found former co-defendant Max Harris not guilty in September of the same charges Almena faced.

Serra said Harris may testify in the trial on behalf of Almena, although he hasnt yet committed.

Hes out there, hes free, hes enjoying life, hes an artist, hes beautiful, Serra said.

Serra indicated the owners of the warehouse, the Ng family, will also be called to testify in the new trial. Now that the statute of limitations to file criminal charges for them ran out in December, they wont be able to plead the Fifth Amendment as before to avoid testifying.

They dont have the Fifth, they cant shut up. Were going to serve them and Im going to grill them Serra said. And thats going to make all the difference in the world.

Serra said he and his team are ready to go and expect this trial to last about half as long as the first one, which stretched out over four months.

Read the original here:
There was a lot of reasonable doubt, Ghost Ship juror says about why she voted to acquit manslaughter defendant - East Bay Times

Dylan Tate refuses judge’s order to testify against former girlfriend in neglect death case – The Herald Bulletin

ANDERSON Dylan Tate, wearing a green striped jail uniform and handcuffs, was sitting in the witness chair when jurors returned from their lunch break on Thursday.

Tate was called to testify against his former girlfriend, Jennifer Harris, 29, who is on trial for Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in the death and Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in bodily injury following the death of her 18-month-old son Harlan Haines.

Tate, 28, did not testify in his trial and was found guilty of murdering Harlan on June 14, 2019, and ordered to serve life without parole. He is currently serving his sentence at the Miami Correctional Facility.

On Thursday, Tate told jurors he was in a relationship with Harris in 2017, but then he stopped the questioning by Madison County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Steve Koester.

I dont want to answer any more questions, Tate said.

Jurors were excused from the courtroom and outside of their presence, Koester told Tate he could be found in contempt by the court for refusing to answer the questions.

Koester said Tate did not have a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer the questions because he had been convicted of killing Harlan.

Attorney Paul J. Podlejski then addressed the court saying he was representing Tate on the appeal of Tates murder conviction and had spoke with Tate about being found in contempt if he refused to answer questions.

Tate told Podlejski he was aware of the repercussions.

Judge Angela Warner Sims immediately found Tate in contempt and sentenced him to an additional six months in prison.

Take him, she ordered law enforcement in the room.

Jurors were brought back into the courtroom to hear testimony from a Marion County deputy coroner after Tate was removed from the courtroom.

The court adjourned just before 2:30 p.m. with testimony scheduled to resume Friday morning.

See original here:
Dylan Tate refuses judge's order to testify against former girlfriend in neglect death case - The Herald Bulletin

Assange would be held in darkest corner of the prison system if extradited to the US – World Socialist Web Site

Assange would be held in darkest corner of the prison system if extradited to the US By Oscar Grenfell 1 February 2020

Representatives of the Dont Extradite Assange (DEA) organisation revealed last week that if Julian Assange is extradited from Britain to the US, he will be held in almost total isolation and subjected to draconian conditions usually inflicted on those convicted of terror offences.

The information, which was sourced from official US court filings, was relayed in a statement by John Rees outside Westminster Magistrates Court after Assanges most recent case management hearing on January 22. Rees said that Assange would be placed under Special Administrative Measures as soon as he arrives in the US and prior to any trial.

WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hraffnsson said the US State Department had indicated that the First Amendmentthe central US constitutional protection for free speech and freedom of the presswould not apply to Assange, despite the fact that he has been charged under domestic American law.

Taken together, the revelations damn the attempt to extradite Assange to the US as an extraordinary rendition operation, where he faces espionage charges and the prospect of life imprisonment, or even the death penalty, for exposing US war crimes. In violation of fundamental precepts of international law, Assange, a journalist and publisher, will be treated as a national security threat and deprived of his fundamental democratic rights.

Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) were introduced by the Democratic Party administration of Bill Clinton in 1996. They were legislated with bipartisan support in the wake of the right-wing terrorist Oklahoma City bombing.

SAMs provide for the intensive monitoring and isolation of prisoners already in solitary confinement, on the pretext of preventing any threats to national security, including violent acts and disclosures of classified information. The already draconian measures were expanded in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, including providing authorities the right to spy on prisoners privileged attorney-client conversations.

A 2017 report by the Allard K. Lowenstein Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) described SAMs as the darkest corner of the US federal prison system.

The report explained that SAMs combine the brutality and isolation of maximum security units with additional restrictions that deny individuals almost any connection to the human world. They prohibit prisoners who live under them from contact or communication with all but a handful of approved individuals, and impose a second gag on even those few individuals. The net effect is to shield this form of torture in our prisons from any real public scrutiny.

Underscoring the intensity of the US-vendetta against Assange, there were just 51 SAMs prisoners in 2017 out of a federal prison population of more than 183,000. Most had been convicted of terror-related offences and were held at ADX Florence, a supermax prison in the Colorado Desert. The facility has been described as a clean version of hell by one of its former wardens, Robert Hood.

Prisoners held under SAMs are denied even the narrow avenues of indirect communicationthrough sink drains or air ventsavailable to prisoners in solitary confinement. They are generally held in single cells for all but 10 hours a week. Their recreation hours are spent alone in a confined space with few or no amenities.

SAMs detainees are only allowed to communicate with lawyers and relatives who have been screened by authorities, including the intelligence agencies. All outbound and incoming mail is read by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI).

The Yale-CCR report presented case studies of prisoners at ADX Florence who had to wait months before their letters to relatives were cleared for sending. Visitation rights are also extremely curtailed and are monitored by the FBI.

The reports authors bluntly stated that pretrial prisoners were placed under SAMs with the aim of compelling them to plead guilty, fundamentally undermining the presumption of innocence.

The coercive nature and harsh conditions placed on pretrial SAMs detainees was no accident: experience shows that the DOJ uses total isolation as a tool to break people, just as the CIA did during its foray into detention, the report states.

Because SAMs prisoners are barred from communicating with the outside world, and are denied any information, they are effectively prevented from participating in their own defence.

One attorney cited in the report stated that SAMs dehumanise defendants and create a situation where they cannot exist in a defiant posture to fight the case, serving to eliminate them as participants in their defence. Another noted that SAMs prisoners are expected to give testimony before a jury, after having been prevented from speaking to anyone for months, or even years.

SAMs prisoners have no access to the internet and when they receive newspapers, weeks after publication, they arrive with substantial redactions. In many cases, they are arbitrarily prevented from receiving reading materials. In one incident recounted in the report, the authorities prevented a prisoner at ADX Florence from getting books by former President Barack Obama, on the grounds that it would threaten national security.

SAMs prisoners are also barred from speaking to reporters, or anyone other than their attorney and FBI-approved family visitors. Lawyers are also gagged from relaying anything said by their client, or even talking about the conditions they face. If they violate these draconian conditions, which are aimed at suppressing any discussion of their clients plight or attempting to win public support, they face criminal prosecution.

In 2005, famous civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart and her Arabic interpreter were convicted of conspiracy and of providing material support to terrorists, after publicly-releasing statements from her client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. Lynne Stewart was sentenced to a decade in prison and was only released early on compassionate grounds in the late stages of her terminal cancer.

The authorities can also spy on private communications between lawyers and their SAMs clients. Under official regulations, this material supposedly cannot be provided to prosecuting authorities. However the ability of the state to monitor defence strategies effectively erodes the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Lawyers quoted by the Yale-CCR report, moreover, disclosed they had been placed under pervasive government surveillance while representing SAMs prisoners, including being placed on airport watch lists. Such measures are aimed at intimidating attorneys and preventing SAMs inmates from receiving legal counsel.

The report documents the harrowing conditions faced by convicted inmates, who are afflicted with psychological disorders after years of isolation under SAMs. In a number of cases, prisoners had entered an almost catatonic state, which prevented them from communicating, or carrying out any activities, including reading.

The report continues, Physical conditions are similarly inhumane at pre-trial facilities where SAMs detainees are heldthat is, facilities designed to hold individuals who have been charged, but not convicted, of a crime. Conditions at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in Manhattan, where defendants charged with terrorism-related offenses are often held pre-trial, are particularly harsh. Detainees in the MCCs 10 South, where high-level defendantsincluding those under SAMsare held, have little natural light and no possibility for outdoor recreation. Recreational time is provided in a closed room identical to the detainees cell. Unable to open windows or spend time outdoors, detainees in 10 South have no access to fresh air.

The SAMs measures would be compounded by the fact that Assange would appear before the Eastern District Court of Virginia, the preferred government venue for national security cases because it is located close to the Pentagon and CIA, with the largest concentration of intelligence agency employees in the US. It has registered a conviction rate in such trials of more than 98 percent.

Assange has already endured almost a decade of US-led persecution. He was arbitrarily detained in Ecuadors London embassy for almost seven years, as a result of British threats to arrest him if he set foot outside the tiny building. Since being dragged out of the embassy by British police on April 11, Assange has been held in the maximum-security Belmarsh Prison, where his health has continued to deteriorate, to the point that the UN Rapporteur on Torture has warned that he might die.

The revelation that Assange would be placed under SAMs makes clear that his extradition to the US would be nothing less than a death sentence. In a 2015 interview, Assange himself warned that if extradited, he would likely be subjected to SAMS, which he described as a sort of living death.

The lawless character of the US attempt to prosecute Assange underscores the necessity for workers, students, young people and all defenders of democratic rights to prevent his extradition. The Socialist Equality Parties in Britain and Australia have announced meetings and rallies next month, coinciding with the beginning of the extradition hearing, to galvanise the widespread support for Assange into a political movement to secure his freedom.

2019 has been a year of mass social upheaval. We need you to help the WSWS and ICFI make 2020 the year of international socialist revival. We must expand our work and our influence in the international working class. If you agree, donate today. Thank you.

See more here:
Assange would be held in darkest corner of the prison system if extradited to the US - World Socialist Web Site

What Happens to Trade Secrets in a World Where Professor X & Mind Reading Are Real? – The Escapist

One of the most interesting narrative devices in science fiction stories is mind reading. Some of the more prominent uses of mind reading in recent years have included Star Wars, Inception, and X-Men, though there are many others. This week, Ill consider how the law would handle secrets in a world where mind reading, telepathy, and thought-stealing are commonplace. In particular, I will consider how the law would handle trade secrets.

The law of trade secrets provides special protection to business secrets. The protections are fairly straightforward the owner of a trade secret can use the legal system to prevent others from using the trade secret or, if the secret has already been misappropriated, to recover losses from the disclosure of the secret or to obtain the thiefs ill-gotten profits.

In order for information to qualify as a trade secret, it has to satisfy two requirements it has to have independent economic value from not being generally known, and the owner must have taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret. As one court stated, it is axiomatic that without secrecy, no trade secret can exist.

The keyword in that definition is reasonable. In our current mind control-free world, reasonable measures has a fairly straightforward meaning. In order to benefit from trade secret protections, businesses have to implement specific secrecy measures. These measures typically include things like non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), storage protocols, and access control. For example, if one has a trade secret in a design schematic, then it would be reasonable to implement protocols to ensure that only authorized personnel have access to the schematic and to ensure that each authorized person signs a non-disclosure agreement. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to post the schematic on a public server or to provide a copy of the schematic to a potential competitor.

Enter mind reading. In a world where anyones thoughts can be probed and scanned, our understanding of reasonable would understandably change. The specific outcome would depend on the version of mind control that were dealing with, as well as the prevalence of mind control in society.

It can hardly be disputed that mind reading is incredibly invasive. A mind reader can access or probe peoples deepest thoughts without permission and, potentially, without notice. In this sense, we can say that reading someones mind is roughly analogous to hacking someones computer or breaking into someones home. As far as trade secrets are concerned, that would mean that obtaining a trade secret through mind reading would simply be viewed as a new method of stealing and would not require any change in how secrets are actually protected or maintained. In other words, the existence of mind reading might not meaningfully change how the law views trade secrets. At most, companies would be expected to add a provision to their NDAs prohibiting employees from voluntarily submitting themselves to mind reading.

Some depictions of mind reading include the concept of psychic barriers or other defenses that can block mind readers, or at least make it difficult for mind readers to access secrets. If those kinds of defenses existed, then companies would be required to use psychic defenses to protect their trade secrets. A failure to provide psychic barriers would essentially be the same as failing to use locks on the door to the room containing the trade secret.

In a world where mind reading is ubiquitous, or where the process of mind reading is involuntary, social norms and expectations might change and create an environment where mind reading is viewed as inevitable. In that world, the only way to reliably keep a secret would be to prevent potential mind readers from accessing (voluntarily or otherwise) the minds of secret-carrying individuals. In a world with lots of mind readers, the only reliable way to do this would be to distribute sensitive information across multiple individuals (if possible) or to keep secret-carrying individuals away from society at large. While this is a pretty extreme solution, in a world where mind reading is commonplace, it would be one of the only sure ways to keep secrets.

If you think that requiring companies to house their entire R&D division in an isolated bunker is absurd, youre not alone. Instead of going to such great lengths to keep information secret, society might just decide to give up on secrets (or at least trade secrets) in their entirety. In a world where mind reading is everywhere, or where mind reading is automatic and unavoidable, the concept of secrets including trade secrets doesnt really make sense.

Because a world of mind readers is so different from the current world, its hard to imagine what a mind readers everywhere society would look like. As an example, consider the criminal justice system. In a world where you can access anyones thoughts at will, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination doesnt make any sense. Similarly, the right to be free from unreasonable searches also takes on reduced importance, since most of the information one would want to search for would be accessible with a simple glance. Outside the legal sphere, lying would become a thing of the past, necessitating a monumental change in all of our social and professional interactions.

Needless to say, in a mind readers everywhere society, trade secrets would barely be a topic of conversation. Companies would inevitably rely more on patents to protect their inventions than on trade secrets. Unlike trade secrets, patents dont lose their protections if they are disclosed to the public. To the contrary, public disclosure is an essential component of obtaining a patent.

The law has an interesting relationship with secrets. On its face, the law purports to comply with ones reasonable expectations of privacy and secret keeping. The problem, though, is that the laws understanding of reasonable doesnt always align with traditional expectations. On one hand, the law provides tremendous respect to secrets associated with special relationships. For example, secrets between attorneys and clients, doctors and patients, and husband and wife are generally protected. On the other hand, the law is quick to dismiss pretty much every other category of secrets, and it provides virtually no legal protections for information stored in your Gmail account, or even for secrets shared between best friends.

When it comes to trade secrets, though, the law is straightforward at least in theory: Secrecy is good. The more mechanisms one uses to protect their trade secret, the harder it will be for ones adversary to challenge the legitimacy of the trade secret protections. Thus, it is not surprising to see that mind reading which is a natural enemy to secrets spells nothing but trouble to trade secrets and to the legal infrastructure on which trade secrets are built. In a world with just a handful of mind readers, or where one can establish mind reading defenses, trade secrets can survive. But if there are too many mind readers, then trade secrets (and every other kind of secret, for that matter) will cease to have any legal relevance.

And those are my thoughts on the matter.

Follow this link:
What Happens to Trade Secrets in a World Where Professor X & Mind Reading Are Real? - The Escapist