Arresting Alex Sanchez Courts Crime and Punishment Criminal Justice FBI LAPD

Arresting Alex Sanchez: Part 7: The 9th Circuit & the Brief

Alex-Sanchez-5

In the past few weeks, a new element has been unfolding in the case of Alex Sanchez.

(For those unfamiliar with the basics of the case: Alex Sanchez is the El Salvadoran-born, former MS-13 gang member who transformed his life to become a nationally respected gang intervention leader. This past June, Alex was arrested by the FBI as part of a federal racketeering indictment and accused of plotting the murder of another gang member among other charges. Previous posts on the matter may be found here and here and here and here.)

As you will remember, in three different hearings, Sanchez was denied release on any kind of bail, despite more than 100 letters of support from various prominent LA community members, plus $2.5 million dollars in bail pledges and property. His trial is not expected to begin until December 2010.

Now his lawyer, Kerry Bensinger, is trying one more time for bail by taking the matter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with what blogger/author Tom Diaz, describes as a “take-no-prisoners brief that (in nice, polite lawyer language) flames trial Judge Manuel L. Real.”

The government is expected to answer Bensinger’s brief with it’s own legal pile of papers as soon as this week.

Diaz, who leans strongly to the law enforcement view of things in the Sanchez case, has an excellent rundown of Bensinger’s brief. I urge you to read the whole of Diaz’s post. But here are a very few representative clips:

The brief scorches a few other targets, including the government’s trial lawyers and the principle MS-13 expert witness in the case, Los Angeles Police Department Gang Detective Frank Flores. Flores’s testimony about the meaning of wiretaps (Sanchez allegedly directing a “hit” on a renegade gang member) was key in the detention hearings. The defense claims that the government not only got one of the key phone call participants wrong, but Flores misconstrued what happened during the calls.

But Bensinger focuses his flamethrower on the 85-year old Judge Real, stating, “At a minimum, the matter should be remanded for a detention hearing before a different judge.”

If the judge did anything right, it escaped counsel’s notice.

Reading between the lines, Bensinger is conveying to the appeals court the message that — in his view — Real for whatever reason or reasons is confused or willfully obtuse about what the federal law requires in a bail (“detention”) hearing. In short, the brief argues that the trial judge just doesn’t “get it.”

The 32-page document landed in the appeals court docket less than a week after that court issued an opinion and order applying its own flame to Judge Real.

After that, Diaz pretty much lays out the whole brief, in interesting and accurate detail.

The core of Sanchez’s appeal is that he was denied a fair hearing on the only issues relevant to whether he should be released, which are (1) is he a risk of flight, and (2) does he present a threat to persons or a community? Instead, the brief claims, Judge Real essentially held a “mini-trial” on whether Sanchez is guilty of the offenses with which he is charged.

Yet, while Judge Real held a “mini-trial,” the brief contends that he refused to allow any evidence from the defense that would dispute the central core of the government’s case against Sanchez.

A focus of the case so far has been the government’s wiretaps of four calls in which Alex Sanchez certainly takes a leading role. But the crucial question has developed to be: was that leading role as a mediator and peace-maker or as a “shot caller” pushing the conversation to the ultimate murder in El Salvador of one Walter Lacinos (aka Camaron) by a gangster known as “Zombie”? A close second is whether the government got the wrong “Zombie.”

…Of critical importance, given the district court’s focus on “the content of these [four wire-tapped] conversations” is the district court’s refusal to permit Father Greg Boyle’s testimony. Fr. Boyle is the Executive Director of Homeboy Industries, the largest gang intervention program in the country, and a nationally recognized gang expert knowledgeable in gang language, interactions and “codes.” After listening to the calls and reviewing Det. [Frank] Flores’s declaration re-interpreting the calls and the prosecution’s arguments based thereon, Fr. Boyle concluded that, rather than corroborating a murder plot, Mr. Sanchez’s statements reflected a gang mediator’s peacemaking efforts.

Anyway, there’s lots, lots more. So just read it.

By the way, when I last wrote about the bail hearing, although I was present in the court, I had not read the transcripts of the hearing. I have now.

And I can hardly wait to see how the government replies to this brief.

13 Comments

  • Couldn’t forget it, Woody. I gave my 8th grade speech on an aspect of the Pearl Harbor attack (and won the schoolwide prize, she hastens to add).

    Bizarrely, although I don’t remember the names of some of my college roommates, I can still remember the opening line of that freaking speech.

    “At 7 o’clock on December 7th, a young private and a corporal with horn-rimmed glasses were just finishing up their watch at Opana Radar Station when a blip came on the screen….”

  • I didn’t forget, Woody. In my ruminations today I thought it great global theater when George HW Bush vomited on the table of that group of Pacific Rim profiteers. No one I think recognized the irony that an airman shot down from that War would return to hurl on their pomp and circumstance.

    They need to quit eating whale meant too. Damned smurfs.

    PS. Yes Rob Thomas I realize that’s a tad racist.

  • Celeste, the difference between the way you worded your report and the way that I would have done it is that I wouldn’t have mentioned that the private was young or the type of glasses worn by the corporal. And, rather than mention “a blip on the screen,” I’d write that the private said, “Good heavens! What are all those dots on the radar! Has Roosevelt set us up for attack just to get us into a war to end the depression?!”

  • You have a lot of competition in writing. Here are samples from a real book site.

    The English: Are They Human?
    Gangsta Rap Coloring Book
    How You Can Bowl Better Using Self-Hypnosis
    Jewish Chess Masters on Stamps
    Help! A Bear is Eating Me
    How Green Were the Nazis?
    Is Your Dog Gay?
    The Big Book of Lesbian Horse Stories
    Dead Clients Don’t Pay: The Bodyguard’s Manual
    How to Defend Yourself Against Alien Abduction
    The Bible Cure for Irritable Bowel Syndrome
    Rebellious Wives and Slacker Husbands
    Impeccable Birdfeeding: How to Discourage Scuffling, Hull-Dropping, Seed-Throwing, Unmentionable Nuisances and Vulgar Chatter at Your Birdfeeder

    I hope you have prepared your student to compete in this literary world.

  • Why on earth would the prosecution try to prosecute a man like Sanchez after all his very public service in fighting against gangs?

  • Ah, using the logic of the NYT writer, Bush isn’t to be criticized for Iraq and Afghanistan. All of that was set up by another Nobel Peace Prize President…Jimmy Carter.

    Sorry. This post is really about Sanchez, and Joe wss the only one to discuss that. However, Joe, a crime doesn’t go away just because of later good deeds to offset it. That’s like Jimmy Carter (the first one, not the one in office now) saying that he was a good president because he later helped build some houses for the poor and hugged Castro.

  • You’re close Woody – just off by a couple of years – it was Reagan who armed the crazies in Afghanistan and gave military intelligence to Saddam to help him slaughter people. Reagan, of course, was the same guy who shifted the long-term trend of deficit reduction as % of GDP – since WWII – into a trend of drastic increases in deficits (except for the Clinton years) so I guess we can also put the origins of the current economic mess on him as well. Republicans do little except ruin the country -lucky for Reagan that Gorbachev ascended to power in the USSR and began to dismantle the Soviet empire so that he could take some of the credit. Of course poor Reagan had to completely revise his crackpot views on the intrinsically evil “Darth Vader” quality of Soviet leaders to make it work.

  • Your history is a little distorted, reg. Carter’s ineptitude with the middle east, the military, and the economy were left for Reagan to clean up using the best route at the time and with the information available.

    Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet bloc and the destruction of the Berlin Wall as he refused to compromise military rebuilding from Carter and military expansion with Gorbachev who couldn’t keep pace, he took over an economy with double-digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates, and helped Americans get back on their feet with tax cuts which they could choose to spend as they wanted rather than through some phony government stimulus, and our hostages in Iran were released because that country knew that Reagan was no Carter. Also, essential to the Gorbachev negotiations, Reagan started our missile defense system, which liberals opposed and which we now find is critical in defending ourselves against rogue nations like Iran, which Obama generally ignores in its nuclear build-up.

    If you don’t like Reagan’s mideast strategies, perhaps you would have preferred an isolationist doctrine for the U.S. in that region, but then, you do need oil to drive from Oakland to the S.F. Castro district.

Leave a Comment