Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Deleon

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

October 29, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ANGEL DELEON, JOE LAWRENCE GALLEGOS, EDWARD TROUP, a.k.a. “Huero Troup, ” LEONARD LUJAN, BILLY GARCIA, a.k.a. “Wild Bill, ” EUGENE MARTINEZ, a.k.a. “Little Guero, ” ALLEN PATTERSON, CHRISTOPHER CHAVEZ, a.k.a. “Critter, ” JAVIER ALONSO, a.k.a. “Wineo, ” ARTURO ARNULFO GARCIA, a.k.a. “Shotgun, ” BENJAMIN CLARK, a.k.a. “Cyclone, ” RUBEN HERNANDEZ; JERRY ARMENTA, a.k.a. “Creeper, ” JERRY MONTOYA, a.k.a. “Boxer, ” MARIO RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. “Blue, ” TIMOTHY MARTINEZ, a.k.a. “Red, ” MAURICIO VARELA, a.k.a. “Archie, ” a.k.a. “Hog Nuts, ” DANIEL SANCHEZ, a.k.a. “Dan Dan, ” GERALD ARCHULETA, a.k.a. “Styx, ” a.k.a. “Grandma, ” CONRAD VILLEGAS, a.k.a. “Chitmon, ” ANTHONY RAY BACA, a.k.a. “Pup, ” ROBERT MARTINEZ, a.k.a. “Baby Rob, ” ROY PAUL MARTINEZ, a.k.a. “Shadow, ” CHRISTOPHER GARCIA, CARLOS HERRERA, a.k.a. “Lazy, ” RUDY PEREZ, a.k.a. “Ru Dog, ” ANDREW GALLEGOS, a.k.a. “Smiley, ” SANTOS GONZALEZ; PAUL RIVERA, SHAUNA GUTIERREZ, and BRANDY RODRIGUEZ, Defendants. Citation Summary

          Fred Federici Attorney for the United States Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515 Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Maria Ysabel Armijo Randy M. Castellano Matthew Beck Assistant United States Attorneys United States Attorney's Office Las Cruces, New Mexico Attorneys for the Plaintiff

          Sarah M. Gorman Law Offices of Robert D. Gorman Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Susan M. Porter Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Angel DeLeon

          Richard Sindel Sindel, Sindel & Noble, P.C. Clayton, Missouri --and-- Brock Benjamin Benjamin Law Firm El Paso, Texas Attorneys for Defendant Joe Lawrence Gallegos

          Patrick J. Burke Patrick J. Burke, P.C. Denver, Colorado --and-- Cori Ann Harbour-Valdez The Harbour Law Firm, P.C. El Paso, Texas Attorneys for Defendant Edward Troup

          Donald R. Knight Littleton, Colorado --and-- Russell Dean Clark Las Cruces, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Leonard Lujan

          Jason Bowles Bowles Law Firm Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Joseph Libory Green The Law Firm of Joseph Green, L.L.C. Chesterfield, Missouri --and-- Kathleen Lord Lord Law Firm, LLC Denver, Colorado --and-- Mario Carreon Las Cruces, New Mexico --and-- James A. Castle Castle & Castle, P.C. Denver, Colorado --and-- Robert R. Cooper Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Billy Garcia

          Carlos Ibarra Las Cruces, New Mexico --and-- David A. Lane Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP Denver, Colorado --and-- Robert J. Gorence Gorence & Oliveros, P.C. Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Douglas E. Couleur Douglas E. Couleur, P.A. Santa Fe, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Eugene Martinez

          Phillip A. Linder The Linder Firm Dallas, Texas --and-- Joseph E. Shattuck Marco & Shattuck Law Firm Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Jeffrey C. Lahann Las Cruces, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Allen Patterson

          Eduardo Solis El Paso, Texas --and-- David L. Andersen Andersen & Zimmer Oakland, California --and-- John L. Granberg Granberg Law Office El Paso, Texas --and-- Orlando Mondragon El Paso, Texas Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Chavez

          Nathan D. Chambers Nathan D. Chambers, Attorney at Law Denver Colorado --and-- Noel Orquiz Deming, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Javier Alonso

          Scott Moran Davidson Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Billy R. Blackburn Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Arturo Arnulfo Garcia

          Stephen E. Hosford Stephen E. Hosford, P.C. Arrey, New Mexico --and-- Jerry Daniel Herrera Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Benjamin Clark

          Pedro Pineda Las Cruces, New Mexico --and-- León Encinias León Felipe Encinias, Attorney at Law Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Ruben Hernandez

          Gary Mitchell Mitchell Law Office Ruidoso, New Mexico Attorney for Defendant Jerry Armenta Larry A. Hammond Osborn Maledon, P.A. Phoenix, Arizona --and-- Margaret Strickland McGraw & Strickland Las Cruces, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Jerry Montoya

          Steven M. Potolsky Jacksonville Beach, Florida --and-- Santiago D. Hernandez Law Office of Santiago D. Hernandez El Paso, Texas Attorneys for Defendant Mario Rodriguez

          Steven Lorenzo Almanza Las Cruces, New Mexico --and-- Jacqueline K. Walsh Walsh & Larranaga Seattle, Washington --and Ray Velarde El Paso, Texas Attorneys for Defendant Timothy Martinez

          Michael David Lindsey David Lindsey, Attorney at Law Engelwood, Colorado --and-- Joe Spencer El Paso, Texas --and-- Mary Stillinger El Paso, Texas Attorneys for Defendant Mauricio

          Varela Josh R. Lee Denver, Colorado --and-- Lauren Noriega The Noriega Law Firm Los Angeles, California --and-- Amy E. Jacks Law Office of Amy E. Jacks Los Angeles, California --and-- Richard Jewkes El Paso, Texas Attorneys for Defendant Daniel Sanchez

          George A. Harrison Las Cruces, New Mexico --and-- Kimberly S. Bruselas-Benavidez Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Gerald Archuleta

          B.J. Crow Crow Law Firm Roswell, New Mexico Attorney for Defendant Conrad Villegas

          Cesar Pierce-Varela Las Cruces, New Mexico --and-- Jess R. Lilley Lilley Law Office Las Cruces, New Mexico --and-- Theresa M. Duncan Duncan Earnest LLC Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Marc M. Lowry Rothstein Donatelli LLP Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Anthony Ray Baca

          Charles J. McElhinney CJM Law Firm Las Cruces, New Mexico Attorney for Defendant Robert Martinez

          Marcia J. Milner Las Cruces, New Mexico Attorney for Defendant Roy Paul Martinez

          Marc M. Lowry Rothstein Donatelli LLP Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Christopher W. Adams Charleston, South Carolina --and-- Amy Sirignano Law Office of Amy Sirignano, P.C. Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Garcia

          Michael V. Davis Michael V. Davis, Attorney & Counselor at Law, P.C. Corrales, New Mexico --and-- Ryan J. Villa Law Office of Ryan J. Villa Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- William R. Maynard El Paso, Texas --and-- Carey Corlew Bhalla Law Office of Carey C. Bhalla, LLC Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Carlos Herrera

          Donald R. West Don West Law Group Orlando, Florida --and-- Justine Fox-Young Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Ryan J. Villa Law Office of Ryan J. Villa Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Rudy Perez

          Lisa Torraco Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Donavon A. Roberts Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Andrew Gallegos

          Erlinda O. Johnson Law Office of Erlinda Ocampo Johnson Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorney for Defendant Santos Gonzalez

          Keith R. Romero Keith R. Romero, Attorney and Counselor at Law Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorney for Paul Rivera

          Angela Arellanes Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorney for Defendant Shauna Gutierrez

          Alfred D. Creecy Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Jerry A. Walz Walz and Associates Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Brandy Rodriguez

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER [1]

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Defendant Daniel Sanchez's Motion to Dismiss Case for Government's Outrageous Misconduct and Irreparable Violation of Brady v. Maryland, filed March 1, 2018 (Doc. 1841)(“Sanchez MTD”); (ii) Defendant Carlos Herrera's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Mistrail [sic] Based on Repeated Brady and Giglio Violations, filed March 1, 2018 (Doc. 1842)(“Herrera MTD”); (iii) Defendant Rudy Perez's Motion to Dismiss, filed March 1, 2018 (Doc. 1844)(“Perez MTD”);[2] (iv) Defendant Daniel Sanchez's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (FRCP Rule 29) or, in the Alternative, a New Trial (FRCP Rule 33), filed October 9, 2018 (Doc. 2408)(“Sanchez NTM”); (v) Defendant Carlos Herrera's Motion for New Trial and Notice of Joinder, filed October 15, 2018 (Doc. 2413)(“Herrera NTM”); and (vi) Defendant Anthony Ray Baca's Motion for New Trial and Notice of Joinder, filed October 15, 2018 (Doc. 2421)(“Baca NTM”). The Court held a hearing on the motions to dismiss in the middle of trial, from February 28, 2018 to March 2, 2018, and an evidentiary hearing on December 17-18, 2018, in which the motions for new trial were also heard. The primary issues are: (i) whether Plaintiff United States of America violated its discovery obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)(“Brady”), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)(“Giglio”), [3] by belatedly disclosing information to the Defendants; (ii) whether the United States' belated disclosures constitute outrageous government conduct such that dismissing the charges against the Defendants is appropriate; (iii) whether no reasonable factfinder could believe the United States' story and find D. Sanchez, Herrera, and Baca guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring a judgment of acquittal for these three men; and (iv) whether D. Sanchez, Herrera, and Baca suffered a miscarriage of justice during trial such that they are entitled to a new trial. The Court concludes that no Brady or Giglio violation occurred, and it also concludes that the United States' belated disclosures are not outrageous government conduct warranting dismissal. The Court further concludes that a rational factfinder could find D. Sanchez, Herrera, and Baca guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that they had a fair trial, and that no miscarriage of justice occurred. The Court therefore denies the Sanchez MTD, the Herrera MTD, the Perez MTD, the Sanchez NTM, the Herrera NTM, and the Baca NTM.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The Court takes its background facts from the Second Superseding Indictment, filed March 9, 2017 (Doc. 947)(“Indictment”). The background facts are largely unchanged from those facts that the Court provided in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, 323 F.R.D. 672, filed December 18, 2017 (Doc. 1585). The Court does not set forth these facts as findings or the truth. The Court recognizes that the factual background largely reflects the United States' version of events.

         This case deals with crimes that the Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico (“SNM”) allegedly committed through its members. Indictment at 2. SNM, through its members, operated in the District of New Mexico at all relevant times, and its members engaged in acts of violence and other criminal activities, “including murder, kidnapping, attempted murder, conspiracy to manufacture/distribute narcotics, and firearms trafficking.” Indictment at 2. SNM constitutes an enterprise “as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1959(b)(2), that is, a group of individuals associated in fact that engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce.” Indictment at 2-3.

         SNM is a prison gang formed in the early 1980s at the Penitentiary of New Mexico (“PNM”) after a violent prison riot at PNM during which inmates assaulted and raped twelve correctional officers after taking them hostage. Indictment at 3. During the riot, thirty-three inmates were killed, and over 200 inmates were injured. See Indictment at 3. After the PNM riot, SNM expanded throughout the state's prison system and has had as many as 500 members. See Indictment at 3. SNM now has approximately 250 members, including “a ‘panel' or ‘mesa' (Spanish for table) of leaders who issue orders to subordinate gang members.” Indictment at 3. SNM controls drug distribution and other illegal activities within the New Mexico penal system, but it also conveys orders to members outside the prison system. See Indictment at 3. Members who rejoin their communities after completing their sentences are expected to further the gang's goals: primarily the control and profit of narcotics trafficking. See Indictment at 3-4. Members who fail “to show continued loyalty to the gang [are] disciplined in various ways, [] includ[ing] murder and assaults.” Indictment at 4. SNM also intimidates and influences smaller New Mexico Hispanic gangs to expand its power. See Indictment at 4. If another gang does not follow SNM's demands, SNM will assault or kill one of the other gang's members to show its power. See Indictment at 4. SNM's rivalry with other gangs also manifests itself in beatings and stabbings within the prison system. See Indictment at 4. SNM engages in violence “to assert its gang identity, to claim or protect its territory, to challenge or respond to challenges, to retaliate against a rival gang or member, [and] to gain notoriety and show its superiority over others.” Indictment at 4. To show its strength and influence, SNM expects its members to confront and attack any suspected law enforcement informants, cooperating witnesses, homosexuals, or sex offenders. See Indictment at 5. To achieve its purpose of preserving its power, SNM uses intimidation, violence, threats of violence, assaults, and murder. See Indictment at 7. SNM generates income by having its members and associates traffic drugs and extort narcotic traffickers. See Indictment at 8. SNM members' recent conspiracy to murder high-ranking New Mexico Corrections Department (“NM Corrections Department”) Officials inspired the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (“FBI”) present investigation. See United States v. Garcia, No. CR 15-4275, Memorandum Opinion and Order at 2, 221 F.Supp.3d 1275, 1277, filed November 16, 2016 (Doc. 133). The other relevant facts giving rise to this case are as follows.

         In March, 2014, a Doña Ana County, New Mexico grand jury indicted Defendants Jerry Montoya and Jerry Armenta on charges of first-degree murder and four other felonies related to the death of Javier Enrique Molina. See Memorandum Opinion and Order at 6, 2016 WL 7242579, at *3, filed October 28, 2016 (Doc. 753)(“MOO”). Molina was J. Montoya and Armenta's fellow inmate during their incarceration at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility (“Southern New Mexico”). See MOO at 6, 2016 WL 7242579, at *3. The New Mexico Third Judicial District Attorney's Office accused J. Montoya and Armenta of fatally stabbing Molina with a shank in a gang-related attack. See MOO at 6, 2016 WL 7242579, at *3. That New Mexico indictment charged J. Montoya and Armenta with: (i) Molina's murder; (ii) possessing a deadly weapon; (iii) tampering with evidence; and (iv) two counts of conspiracy. See MOO at 6-7, 2016 WL 7242579, at *3. In November, 2015, the state District Attorney dismissed the charges against J. Montoya and Armenta -- as well as separate charges against their alleged accomplice, Defendant Mario Rodriguez, who had been charged with possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner, tampering, and conspiracy. See MOO at 7, 2016 WL 7242579, at *3. “A spokesperson for the District Attorney's Office indicated the charges were dismissed because the cases were going to be prosecuted at the federal court level.” MOO at 7, 2016 WL 7242579, at *3.

         The United States now brings this case, which it initiated in Las Cruces, New Mexico, against thirty-one Defendants, charging them with a total of sixteen counts. See Indictment at 1, 9-18. All Defendants are accused of participating in the SNM enterprise's operation and management, and of committing unlawful activities “as a consideration for the receipt of, and as consideration for a promise and an agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value from SNM and for the purpose of gaining entrance to and maintaining and increasing position in SNM, an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity.” Indictment at 9-18. Defendant Arturo Arnulfo Garcia, Defendant Gerald Archuleta, [4] Defendant Benjamin Clark, M. Rodriguez, Defendant Anthony Ray Baca, Defendant Robert Martinez, Defendant Roy Paul Martinez, [5] and D. Sanchez are the enterprise's alleged leaders. See Indictment at 6. The other Defendants are allegedly members or associates who acted under the direction of the enterprise's leaders. See Indictment at 6. The SNM gang enterprise, through its members and associates, allegedly engaged in: (i) racketeering activity as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(b)(1) and 1961(1) defines that term; (ii) murder and robbery in violation of New Mexico law; (iii) acts, indictable under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, and 1513, “involving obstruction of justice, tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant”; and (iv) offenses involving trafficking in narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Indictment at 9.

         Specifically, the Indictment alleges that, on March 26, 2001, Defendants Angel DeLeon, Joe Gallegos, Edward Troup, Leonard Lujan, and Billy Garcia murdered “F.C.” Indictment at 9 (Count 1). On the same day, Lujan, B. Garcia, and Defendants Eugene Martinez, Allen Patterson, and Christopher Chavez allegedly murdered “R.G.” Indictment at 10 (Count 2). On June 17, 2007, Defendant Javier Alonso, Troup, A.A. Garcia, Clark, and Defendant Ruben Hernandez allegedly murdered “F.S.” Indictment at 10-11 (Count 3). On November 12, 2012, J. Gallegos and Defendant Andrew Gallegos allegedly conspired to murder “A.B.” Indictment at 11 (Count 4). On the same day, J. Gallegos and A. Gallegos allegedly murdered A.B. See Indictment at 11-12 (Count 5). In March 2014, Armenta, Montoya, M. Rodriguez, Defendant Timothy Martinez, Baca, Defendant Mauricio Varela, D. Sanchez, Defendant Carlos Herrera, and Defendant Rudy Perez allegedly conspired to murder “J.M.” Indictment at 12 (Count 6). On March 7, 2014, Armenta, Montoya, M. Rodriguez, T. Martinez, Baca, Varela, D. Sanchez, Herrera, and R. Perez allegedly murdered J.M. See Indictment at 13 (Count 7).

         Further, starting in or around 2003 -- and until about July 13, 2015 -- Baca, Archuleta, and Defendant Conrad Villegas allegedly conspired to commit assault resulting in serious bodily injury to “J.R.” Indictment at 13-14 (Count 8). Starting “on a date uncertain, but no later than 2013, ” and until the date of the Indictment -- April 21, 2014 -- Baca, R.P. Martinez, and R. Martinez allegedly conspired to murder “D.S.” Indictment at 14 (Count 9). During the same time period, Baca, R.P. Martinez, R. Martinez, and Defendant Christopher Garcia allegedly conspired to murder “G.M.” Indictment at 15 (Count 10). On November 29, 2015, C. Garcia, a convicted felon, allegedly unlawfully possessed a firearm. See Indictment at 15-16 (Count 11). On the same day, C. Garcia, a convicted felon, allegedly knowingly used and carried a firearm in relation to a conspiracy to murder charge. See Indictment at 16 (Count 12).

         On March 17, 2015, J. Gallegos allegedly committed assault with a dangerous weapon against “J.G.” Indictment at 16 (Count 13). From February 1, 2016, until February 27, 2016, J. Gallegos and Defendants Santos Gonzales, Paul Rivera, Shauna Gutierrez, and Brandy Rodriguez allegedly conspired to murder “J.G.” Indictment at 17 (Count 14). Also, on February 27, 2016, J. Gallegos, B. Rodriguez, Gonzales, Rivera, and Gutierrez allegedly attempted to murder J.G., and committed assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury to J.G. See Indictment at 17-18 (Count 15). The same Defendants also allegedly tampered with a witness, J.G. See Indictment at 18 (Count 16).

         For fuller factual context, there are four cases before the Court related to SNM's alleged criminal activity. In a related case -- United States v. Baca, No. CR 16-1613 (D.N.M.)(Browning, J.)[6] -- the United States names twelve defendants, all alleged SNM members or associates, who have allegedly engaged in a racketeering conspiracy, under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).[7] There is also a separate prosecution of C. Garcia for drug crimes, see United States of America v. Garcia, No. CR 15-4275 (D.N.M.)(Browning, J.), and a four-defendant prosecution for alleged violent crimes in aid of racketeering, under 18 U.S.C. § 1959. See United States v. Varela, No. CR 15-4269 (D.N.M.)(Browning, J.).

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On October 4, 2016, in a pretrial hearing, the Court outlined its general approach regarding discovery in this case. See Transcript of Hearing (held October 4, 2016), filed October 18, 2016 (Doc. 743)(“Oct. 2016 Tr.”). The United States agreed to produce Jencks Act material, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, fourteen days before trial even though the Jencks Act does not require the United States to produce a witness' statements until after the witness testifies, see Oct. 2016 Tr. at 19:2-12 (Beck), and the Court indicated that it was “not going to require any Jencks material to be produced before the 14 days, ” Oct. 2016 Tr. at 23:10-12 (Court). On the other hand, the Court indicated that the United States “needs to go in and look at these files and do a Brady review, ” and “produce the Brady material promptly, immediately.” Oct. 2016 Tr. at 23:16-19 (Court). The Court later memorialized its discovery determinations in its Sealed Memorandum Opinion and Order at 106-11, 2017 WL 2271430, at *50-52, filed January 3, 2017 (Doc. 809).

         On June 30, 2017, the Court severed for trial the Indictment's Counts 6-12 from its Counts 1-5 and Counts 13-16. See Memorandum Opinion and Order at 3, 2017 WL 3054511, at *1, filed June 30, 2017 (Doc. 1204)(“Severance MOO”). The result of this severance is one trial for the Indictment's Counts 6-12 (“Trial 1”), and another, separate trial for the Indictment's Counts 1-5 and 13-16 (“Trial 2”). See Severance MOO at 3, 2017 WL 3054511, at *1. At the time of severance, nineteen Defendants remained in the case. See Severance MOO at 175, 2017 WL 3054511, at *102. The trial of the Indictment's Counts 1-5 and 13-16 “would then involve the prosecution of eleven Defendants, none of whom are named in Counts 6-12.” Severance MOO at 175, 2017 WL 3054511, at *102. Further, the trial of the Indictment's Counts 6-12 “would involve the prosecution of eight Defendants, none of whom are named in Counts 1-5 or 13-16.” Severance MOO at 175, 2017 WL 3054511, at *102.

         1. Media Coverage of the Case.

         This case garnered media coverage, from the filing of the first indictment until after the verdict's issue in the second trial. The Court summarizes the media coverage in the following table. The Court's table is drawn from the table D. Sanchez attaches to the Sanchez NTM, which provides a list of articles and television shows, with links to find them on the internet. See Summary of Media Coverage at 1-13, filed October 19, 2018 (Doc. 2408-19).[8]

Citation
Summary

Scott Sandlin, 25 Prison Gang Members Indicted, Albuquerque J. (Dec. 3, 2015, 11:25 PM), https://www.abqjournal.com/6858 37/25-prison-gang-members-indicted.html

Names the twenty-five indicted “members of an infamous and powerful prison gang, ” and provides background information on SNM's formation, SNM's alleged leaders, and SNM's expectation that members attack rival gang members, “suspected informers, cooperating witnesses, gays[, ] or sex offenders.” Outlines the crimes charged.

Chelo Rivera, 25 Members of Prison Gang Indicted on Federal Charges, KRQE (Dec. 4, 2015, 10:35 AM), https://www.krqe.com/ news/25-members-of-prison-gang-indicted-on-federal-charges/1019592730

States that twenty-five SNM members “have been named in two indictments that accuse them of a host of crimes including murder, drugs and kidnapping.” Provides that SNM formed after the 1980 riot at the PNM and that SNM coerces members who are outside of prison to commit crimes.

25 Charged in Prison Gang Racketeering Case, KOAT (Dec. 4, 2015, 3:53 PM), https://www.koat.com/article/25-charged-in-prison-gang-racketeering-case/5068554

States that two indictments charge twenty-five accused SNM members “with four murders, three assaults and conspiring to murder others, ” which, according to United States Attorney Damon P. Martinez, “are being prosecuted as part of a federal anti-violence initiative that targets the worst of the worst offenders for federal prosecution.” Gives background on the gang's formation and expectations. States that DeLeon and A.A. Garcia have not been arrested and are considered fugitives. Reminds the public that the charges “are merely accusations, and defendants are presumed innocent unless found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

U.S. Att'ys Office, Dep't of Justice, Federal Indictments Charge 25 Alleged Members of Syndicato De Nuevo Mexico (SNM) Prison Gang with Participation in Violent Racketeering Enterprise (Dec. 4, 2015),

https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/federal-indictments-charge-25-alleged-members-syndicato-de-nuevo-mexico-snm-prison-gang

Notes that the cases are “being prosecuted as part of a federal anti-violence initiative that targets ‘the worst of the worst' offenders for federal prosecution, ” in which the United States Attorney's Office (“U.S. Attorney's Office”) and federal law enforcement “work with New Mexico's District Attorneys and state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies to target violent or repeat offenders for federal prosecution with the goal of removing repeat offenders from communities in New Mexico for as long as possible.” Pete Kassetas, then-New Mexico State Police Chief, said that “[t]he citizens of New Mexico are safer today because of the collaborative effort between law enforcement agencies, ” and Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales, III stated that the collaboration “has proven to be highly effective in proactively preventing crime and making our community a safer place to live, work, and visit.” Provides a summary of the charges, including their death-penalty eligibility, and the Defendants' names, ages, cities of residence, and counts in which they are charged. States that all Defendants have been arrested except DeLeon and A.A. Garcia, who are fugitives, and provides the fugitives' pictures.

Frank Fisher, Fugitive Arrested in New Mexico Prison Gang Investigation, FBI (Dec. 16, 2015), https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/albuquerque/news/press-releases/fugitive-arrested-in-new-mexico-prison-gang-investigation

States that “[t]he U.S. Marshals Service's South West Investigative Fugitive Team and Colorado Violent Offender Task Force arrested Arturo Arnulfo Garcia, 48, at a residence” in Denver, Colorado, on December 15, 2015. Provides that A.A. Garcia “was allegedly involved in a murder on June 17, 2007, in service of the” SNM and that DeLeon, who “was allegedly involved in the murder of two people on March 26, 2001, in service of the gang, ” “is still at large.” Reminds the public that the charges “are merely accusations and defendants are presumed innocent unless found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Colleen Heild, Notorious Prison Gang Targets New Mexico Corrections Officials, Albuquerque J. (Feb. 20, 2016, 11:50 PM), https://www.abqjournal.com/7275 48/notorious-prison-gang-targets-nm-corrections-officials.html

Begins: “The reigning leader of the prison gang Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico is serving a life sentence for killing another inmate in a dispute over a bottle of vitamins.” Includes mugshots of Baca, R.P. Martinez, R. Martinez, and C. Garcia, and states that they are accused of planning to kill NM Corrections Department Secretary Gregg Marcantel and the head of the NM Corrections Department Security Threat Intelligence Unit (“STIU”), Dwayne Santistevan. Provides a photograph of an example SNM tattoo and describes SNM as “New Mexico's largest and most violent prison gang, ” which the FBI now “links to more than 20 homicides in New Mexico, ” including cold cases, resulting from its unprecedented “sweeping, concerted federally led effort to disrupt” SNM. Notes that the state charges for Molina's murder, in which J. Montoya and “Armenta were charged with stabling Molina more than 40 times around his heart, ” were dismissed because of the anticipated federal case. Describes Archuleta as a “familiar SNM face” and “three-time convicted killer” who “made headlines in 2009 after allegedly offering $20, 000 to anyone who would kill then-Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White, ” who had used him “as a poster boy for a tougher three-strikes law in New Mexico.” States that SNM was “recently” featured in two reality television shows, including A&E's “Behind Bars: Rookie Year, ” in which some “members have boasted that they run the state's prisons.” Reiterates that SNM formed “in the aftermath of the deadly” PNM riot and that nineteen Defendants “are charged with death penalty-eligible offenses.” States that the “SNM's grip extends beyond prison walls. Continued allegiance and contact with the gang is required even after SNM members are released from prison.”

Sandra Ramirez, 3 Charged Will [sic] Plotting to Kill NM Prison Boss, KOAT (Feb. 22, 2016, 3:10 PM), https://www.koat.com/ article/3-charged-will-plotting-to-kill-nm-prison-boss/5070061

Provides mugshots of Baca, R.P. Martinez, and R. Martinez. States that “Marcantel's and Santiestevan's [sic] lives were in danger, ” because three SNM members “were counting on a gang member to carry out the hit” on them. States that three inmates are indicted for this plot and that they have all pleaded not guilty.

KRQE Media, Feds Believe New Mexico Prison Gang Behind Killings, KRQE (Feb. 22, 2016, 8:36 PM), https://www.krqe.com/ news/feds-believe-new-mexico-prison-gang-behind-killings/ 1019718876

States that a search warrant provides that federal investigators began investigating SNM in 2015 and “uncovered a plot to murder several prison officials. Provides that “[i]nvestigators have targeted several SNM members they say are responsible for killings, in and out of prison, armed robberies, and drug trafficking.” Includes a photograph of a tattooed torso and arms.

Albuquerque Journal Editorial Bd., Editorial: Death Penalty Repeal Puts Guards', Cops' Lives on Line, Albuquerque J. (March 1, 2016, 12:02 PM), https://www. abqjournal.com/732504/deathpena lty-repeal-put-guards-cops-lives-on-line.html

The Albuquerque Journal uses the Marcantel and Santistevan murder plots to “harken[] back to New Mexico's repeal of the death penalty.” Argues that, in repealing the death penalty, the New Mexico Legislature and then-Governor Bill Richardson “abandoned the likes of” Marcantel and Santistevan, whom SNM plotted to kill, the Albuquerque Journal posits, “likely because state law no longer differentiates between the murder of an incarcerated killer and a law-abiding citizen entrusted with keeping society safe from killers.”

Phaedra Haywood, Widow Claims Negligence in Husband's Jail Death, Santa Fe New Mexican (March 7, 2016), https://www.santafenewmexican.c om/news/local_news/widow-claims-negligence-in-husband-s-jail-death/article_0731901f-dc75-5422-8c3c-8e4d5557c823.html

Discusses a lawsuit that Cynthia Molina, Molina's widow, filed in federal court alleging that the NM Corrections Department's negligence led to her husband's death. Mrs. Molina argues that her husband was three years into a thirteen-year sentence when SNM killed him, because he had dissociated himself from the gang and was “falsely label[ed] as a ‘snitch, '” and that prison officials should have known he would thus be a target and negligently failed to “hav[e] any guards in the common area of the pod at the time of the attack.”

Frank Fisher, FBI, Law Enforcement Partners Target Prison Gang in New Mexico, FBI (April 28, 2016), https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/albuquerque/news/ press-releases/fbi-law-enforcement-partners-target-prison-gang-in-new-mexico

States that “federal, state, and local law enforcement officers on Thursday executed 22 arrest warrants (21 federal, one state) and search warrants on eight residences in connection with an operation targeting the” SNM, arresting nine people and transferring another ten from the NM Corrections Department's custody to the United States Marshals Service (“U.S. Marshal”). States that Gutierrez, Rivera, and Leroy Torrez are fugitives, and gives their charges, cities of residence, and ages. Includes Gutierrez' photograph. States that the arrestees “are scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque on Friday at 1:30 p.m., ” and reminds the public “that defendants are presumed innocent unless convicted in a court of law.”

Elise Kaplan, Roundup Nets 19 Members of Syndicato, Albuquerque J. (April 28, 2016, 8:42 PM), https://www.abqjournal. com/765335/fbi-authorities-arrest-22-prison-gang-members-thursday. html

States that nine suspected SNM members “appeared before a federal judge on Friday afternoon and were told they will not be released before trial.” Describes that they are “charged with playing a role in a ‘mission to kill' the secretary of the [NM Corrections Department] -- as well as a mix of other crimes, ” and that “many of them sport[ed] tattoos on their necks and faces.” Provides the names, ages, and charges of those men who appeared, and the names, ages, cities of residence, charges, and photographs of three people whom “[a]uthorities are still looking for”: Gutierrez, Rivera, and Torrez. Features a photograph taken outside the federal courthouse in Albuquerque of two prison transport vans, and men wearing bullet-proof vests with guns holstered on their hips. Discusses how forty SNM members were arrested in December, 2015, and that the NM Corrections Department “locked down three of its facilities to conduct cell searches of SNM members in custody.”

Carlos Andres López, Sweeping Charges Filed Against Prison Gang Members, Las Cruces Sun News (April 28, 2016, 8:55 PM), https://www.lcsun-news.com/ story/news/crime/2016/04/28/swee ping-charges-filed-against-prison-gang-members/83683256/

Discusses that two recently unsealed indictments charge “[t]hirty-nine members and associates of a powerful New Mexico prison gang, ” SNM, “with racketeering and committing violent crimes, including murder and kidnapping, ” and that law enforcement officers served twenty-two arrest warrants, arresting nineteen suspects as part of “Operation Atonement.” States that three Defendants are named in both indictments: Baca, C. Garcia, and D. Sanchez. Summarizes the charges and names the Defendants involved in each count. Reiterates that DeLeon is still a fugitive and includes his photograph; states that Gutierrez, Rivero, and Torrez are fugitives, and gives their photographs, ages, and cities of residence.

Colleen Heild, Syndicato Was on “Mission to Kill” Corrections Chief, Albuquerque J. (April 28, 2016, 11:42 PM), https://www.abqjournal.com/7656 41

Victoria Velarde, Multiple Arrests Made in Operation Targeting Prison Gang, KRQE (April 29, 2016, 9:33 AM), https:// www.krqe.com/news/multiple-arrests-made-in-operation-targeting-prison-gang/1019709805

Describes the new indictment as “chilling, ” alleging that SNM's “mission to kill” Marcantel “was supposed to involve a hit man who would himself end up dead after the murder.” Summarizes the alleged plans to kill Marcantel and Santistevan, including that C. Garcia did not trust the hitman, so he instructed another member to give the hitman a lethal dose of heroin after murdering Marcantel. Notes that the new indictments charge SNM members in six cold case homicides and outline 244 “‘overt' acts committed by members since the gang was formed in the aftermath of the deadly prison riot in Santa Fe in 1980.” States that the charged crimes make the Defendants “eligible for the federal death penalty” and includes mugshots of Baca, identified as SNM's leader, and C. Garcia, identified as involved in the Marcantel conspiracy and a drive-by shooting in which a “stray bullet . . . struck a two-year-old girl in the face.”

Provides that “[f]ederal state and local authorities” made multiple arrests in “a roundup that was the second phase of an operation targeting” SNM, arresting nine members and moving ten inmates from state to federal custody. States that the first phase “netted the arrests of over 40 people.” Identifies Gutierrez, Rivera, and Torrez as “remain[ing] at large, ” and provides their ages and cities of residence.

Nancy Laflin, Multiple Arrests Made in Operation Targeting Prison Gang, KOAT (April 30, 2016, 2:21 PM), https://www.koat.com/article/multi ple-arrests-made-in-operation-targeting-prison-gang/5071185

Provides that the FBI arrested nine people in an operation targeting SNM and that ten others were transferred from state to federal custody. States that Gutierrez, Rivera, and Torrez “remain at large, ” and provides their ages and cities of residence. Includes mugshots of Baca and C. Garcia.

Andrew Oxford, Prison Gang Plotted to Kill Corrections Secretary, Indictment Says, Santa Fe New Mexican (May 2, 2016), https://www.santafenewmexican.c om/news/local_news/prison-gang-plotted-to-kill-corrections-secretary-indictment-says/article_a32922d0-3b83-5436-92c9-52cba11291ad.html

Discusses the indictment's charges and its suggestion of mistrust among co-conspirators in the plan to kill Marcantel -- citing C. Garcia's order to give the hitman a lethal dose of heroin. Provides that Baca is SNM's alleged leader and includes his mugshot. Names SNM members charged in the United States v. Baca case and discusses those charges. Gives background on the formation of SNM, and states that SNM “claims all of New Mexico as its territory and is locked in a fierce, violent war with rival gangs.”

Sun-News Report, Prison Gang Members Arraigned in Las Cruces Federal Court, Las Cruces Sun News (May 4, 2016, 6:18 PM), https://www.lcsun-news.com/ story/news/crime/2016/05/04/priso n-gang-members-arraigned-las-cruces-federal-court/83944650/

Reports that “[s]ecurity at the federal courthouse in Las Cruces was heighted significantly on Wednesday as 13 members and associates of a violent New Mexico prison gang appeared in court.” Provides the names of these men, including Baca and D. Sanchez, who “are facing charges in a superseding indictment that alleges they carried out various acts of violence in aid of racketeering, including murder, conspiracy and assault with a deadly weapon, among other crimes.” States that after the men pleaded not guilty, they were “taken into custody, ” and, as they “were transported out of the courthouse, ” “[p]olice officers, some armed with rifles, blocked part of” the street.

Scott Sandlin, Suspects in Murder Plot Deny Charges, Albuquerque J. (May 6, 2016, 12:05 AM), https://www.abqjournal.com/7693 13/suspects-in-murder-plot-deny-charges.html

States that Marcantel “was in federal court Thursday watching as a succession of men accused of involvement in the conspiracy entered not guilty pleas before a federal magistrate judge.” Provides that fourteen Defendants, “[s]ome in yellow jumpsuits, others in Metropolitan Detention Center orange, were escorted one at a time into

the courtroom by deputy marshals from holding cells outside the courtroom.” Notes that none were released.

Katy Barnitz, FBI: Police Arrest Suspected Syndicato Prison Gang Member, Albuquerque J. (May 8, 2016, 10:27 PM), https://www.abqjournal.com/7706 66/fbi-police-arrest-suspected-syndicato-prison-gang-member.html

Provides that Albuquerque police arrested Rivera, one of three people remaining at large following the April operation targeting SNM members. States that Rivera is “charged as part of a Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act indictment, ” “for a conspiracy to murder or attempt to commit murder.”

Frank Fisher, Albuquerque Police Arrest Fugitive Wanted in Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico Prison Gang Investigation, FBI (May 9, 2016), https://www.fbi.gov/ contact-us/field-offices/albuquerque/news/pressreleases/albuquerque-police-arrest-fugitive-wanted-in-syndicato-de-nuevo-mexico-prison-gang-investigation

States that Albuquerque arrested Rivera “on Sunday, May 8, 2016, ” and that he “is expected to appear in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque on Monday.” Provides that Gutierrez is still wanted on a “VICAR-conspiracy to murder/attempt murder” charge, Torrez “is wanted on a federal felon in possession of a firearm charge, ” and that DeLeon “is still a fugitive from an earlier operation involving the SNM gang.” Gives contact information so people can provide information on the whereabouts of the fugitives.

Gangers Inc. Eds., Fugitive Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico Prison Gang Member Arrested, Gangsters Inc. (May 10, 2016, 12:27 PM), http://gangstersinc.ning.com/profil es/blogs/fugitive-syndicato-de-nuevo-mexico-prison-gang-member-arrested

Provides a photograph of Torrez. States that Albuquerque police arrested Rivera on Sunday “on a charge of violent crimes in aid of racketeering and murder conspiracy.” Provides that this arrest was “in connection with a multi-agency targeting” SNM during Phase II of Operation Atonement. States that “[t]wo other fugitives are still at large” and provides contact information so people can give information on the whereabouts of the fugitives.

Elise Kaplan, Suspect in Syndicato Gang Dies When Motorcycle Crashes, Albuquerque J. (May 16, 2016, 4:46 PM), https://www.abqjournal.com/7750 88/fbi-fugitive-prison-gang-member-died-in-motorcycle-crash.html?TB_iframe=true&widt h=921.6&height=921.6

States that Torrez, “[o]ne of the three remaining members of the [SNM] gang wanted by federal authorities died in a motorcycle crash Friday morning” and provides his photograph. Notes that the Albuquerque Police Department spokesman said that Torrez was driving fast and lost control of the motorcycle, which was stolen, went through a fence, and died at the scene. Reiterates that authorities arrested nineteen SNM members in April “on various charges related to the ‘mission to kill'” Marcantel. States that “Gutierrez is still on the loose” and that DeLeon “is still wanted from the first phase” of Operation Atonement.

Scott Sandlin, Prison Gang Defendants to Get Tablet Computers, Albuquerque J. (June 4, 2016, 12:02 AM), https://www.abqjournal.com/7857 34/dozens-pack-courtroom-as-sindicato-prison-gang-case-gets-underway.html

Reports on the decision to give the Defendants tablets to review the discovery at the prosecution's suggestion “out of concern about having tons of paper floating around prisons, and available to prisoners with too much time on their hands and axes to grind.” States that “discovery issues consumed half a day Thursday in federal court for dozens of lawyers, law enforcement and security officials, court staff and 27 inmates in four different colors of jumpsuit -- red, orange, yellow and green striped.” Reiterates the background of SNM's formation. Notes that, “[e]xcept for one defendant undergoing psychiatric testing out of state, all those who had been arrested thus far were brought from various corners of New Mexico, along with their impressive security contingents.” Provides that “[c]ooperators were in the courtroom with others not cooperating. And additional threats have been made, the lead prosecutor said without offering specifics.” Notes that, in addition to “regular shackles, inmates had a black box over their handcuffs, ” to “prevent[] any manipulation of the cuffs.” Comments that U.S. Marshals, NM Corrections Department officers, STIU members in bulletproof vests, and at least one K-9 officer were present at the hearing, and that “the lineup illustrated the difficulties of having a multidefendant case in which the death penalty is on the table.”

Scott Sandlin, Prosecutors Won't Request Death Penalty in SNM Case, Albuquerque J. (June 6, 2016, 11:44 PM), https://www.abq journal.com/787041/prosecutors-wont-request-death-penalty-in-snm-case.html

Reports on the United States' decision not to seek the death penalty in this case. Includes the names of the Defendants “charged with capital-eligible offenses, ” including D. Sanchez, Baca, Herrera, and R. Perez. Notes that “[t]here are three or four separate but related indictments, all of them assigned to U.S. District Judge James O. Browning.”

Colleen Heild, SNM Prison Gang Member Enters Guilty Plea, Albuquerque J. (June 17, 2016, 11:41 PM), https://www.abq journal.com/794077/snm-gang-member-enters-guilty-plea.html

Provides that “[t]hree-time convicted killer Gerald ‘Stix' Archuleta, 49, ” “[t]he former leader of the notorious Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico prison gang pleaded guilty Thursday to one count of conspiring to seriously injure another gang member in a plea deal in which he implicated the current gang boss for sanctioning the hit.” Quotes from the plea agreement, in which Archuleta states he “put a ‘green light' on” Julian Romero after a falling out in 2003 and, because of Archuleta's “status in the SNM, this ‘green-light' was well known to members of SNM.” States that Archuleta faces “up to three years in federal prison under the plea agreement, ” and includes Archuleta's mugshot. States that, after then-Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White used Archuleta as “a ‘poster boy' to push for a tougher three-strikes law, ” Archuleta offered $20, 000.00 for White's murder. Reiterates that the indictment charges Baca with conspiring with three other SNM members “to murder the chief of the New Mexico Corrections Department and another top prison official last year.”

Sun-News Report, SNM Gang Member Pleads Guilty to Assault, Las Cruces Sun News (June 17, 11:07 AM), https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/local/courts/ 2016/06/17/snm-gang-member-pleads-guilty-assault/86039680/

States that Archuleta, also known as “Grandma” or “Styx, ” “pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit assault resulting in great bodily harm.” Notes that the plea agreement provides that Archuleta joined SNM in 1990, and conspired with Villegas and Baca to assault Romero after Romero and Archuleta “had a falling out in 2003.” Archuleta stated that he “put a ‘green-light' on (Romero), ” which “resulted in other members of the SNM shooting (Romero) in 2003; however, (Romero) survived the shooting” and “the ‘green-light' remained in effect until 2015, ” when another SNM member or associate acted on it. Notes that Archuleta “faces a maximum of three years in prison . . . plus a year of supervised release, ” and includes his mugshot.

Nancy Laflin, Feds: SNM Prison Gang Tied to Cold Case Murders In-and-Out of Prison, KOAT (July 15, 2016, 8:11 AM), https://www.koat.com/article/feds-snm-prison-gang-tied-to-cold-case-murders-in-and-out-of-prison/5072214

States that SNM members lead lives that “are anything but glamorous, ” and that federal authorities say SNM is “New Mexico's largest gang and the most violent, with members who are expected to remain loyal even when they get out.” Provides that SNM “formed after the bloody state prison riot in 1980” and spurred the current “massive investigation” by putting “a hit on Marcantel as a show of power, believing it would give them national recognition.” Describes that J. Montoya was on A&E's show “Behind Bars, ” filmed at PNM, and is now suspected of killing Molina: “Stabbed him over 40 times in the type pattern right around his heart.” Provides Marcantel's comment: “That doesn't surprise me when I see gangs killing their own . . . because there is no loyalty in gangs.” Underscores that the indictment also charges for murders outside prison, such as “the 2005 murder of Shane Dix” and that J. Gallegos is “a suspect in a 2012 homicide in Socorro county, where a man was shot to death and his car set on fire.” States that “investigators believe this new crackdown on the SNM gang is critical to keeping the public safe, because many of the prison gang members currently behind bars will eventually be walking free.”

Frank Fisher, Woman Wanted by FBI for Alleged Involvement with New Mexico Prison Gang Arrested, FBI (Aug. 3, 2016), https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/albuquerque/news /press-releases/woman-wanted-by-fbi-for-alleged-involvement-with-new-mexico-prison-gang-arrested

Provides that “Gutierrez, 36, of Belen, New Mexico, ” who has been wanted since April for her alleged involvement with SNM, “was arrested on Wednesday, August 3, 2016, ” and is expected in Albuquerque's federal courthouse on Thursday. States that she “was charged federally with violent crimes in aid of racketeering (conspiracy to murder), violent crimes in aid of racketeering (attempted murder, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and assault with dangerous weapon), and aiding and abetting.”

Albuquerque Journal Editorial Bd., Editorial: It's Time to Bring Back Death Penalty for Cop Killers and Child Molesters, Albuquerque J. (Aug. 23, 2016, 12:02 AM), https://www.abqjournal.com/8310 00/its-time-to-bring-back-death-penalty-for-cop-killers-and-child-murderers.html

Lists the names of three officers and one eleven-year-old child who were murdered, stating that “all of their accused killers are safe from facing the death penalty in New Mexico.” Their killers were not believed to be SNM members. Advocates for lawmakers to change the law and “reinstate the death penalty in New Mexico for murderers of police officers and children.” States that this change “could send a deadly serious message to violent criminals who think nothing of taking the life of law enforcement officers dedicated to protecting the rest of us, ” such as SNM members “who allegedly conspired to kill” Marcantel and Santistevan.

Adrian Gomez, “Behind the Bars” Expands Look at Prisons, Albuquerque J. (Aug. 25, 2016, 12:05 AM), https://www.abq journal.com/832779/behind-the-bars-expands-look-at-prisons.html

Opens with a line that cadets hear while training to become New Mexico correctional officers: “This is prison. Given the right circumstances, these inmates will kill you.” Notes that A&E's “Behind Bars: Rookie Year” is returning to New Mexico for a second year; the first year focused on the PNM and the second year expands to Southern New Mexico in Las Cruces, and the Western New Mexico Correctional Facility in Grants, New Mexico.[9] Notes that Southern New Mexico “has seen two murders in the last 18 month among its inmates, 85 percent of whom are involved in gangs within the compound.” States that the NM Corrections Department is “considered by some as one of the most notoriously dangerous prison systems in the country, ” which is intensified by SNM's, “war on law enforcement.” Provides that the rookies have to “confront hit plans on the Secretary of Corrections Gregg Marcantel and an attack on rookie officer Aaron Purto.” Quotes Marcantel: “Organized prison gangs have wreaked havoc on New Mexico prison systems. We cannot let that influence continue to grow.”

Carlos Andres López, Gang Leader Pleads Guilty to Conspiring to Murder Prison Officials, Las Cruces Sun-News (Sept. 15, 2016, 5:06 PM), https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/crime/2016/ 09/15/gang-leader-pleads-guilty-conspiring-murder-prison-officials/90433640/

States that R.P. Martinez, “[a] leader of a powerful New Mexico gang . . . pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering.” States that R.P. Martinez “admitted Thursday that he joined the prison gang known as [SNM] in 1995”; that, “between 2013 and 2015, he conspired with the gang's other leaders, [Baca] and [R. Martinez], to kill Marcantel and Dwayne Santistevan”; and that “he wrote letters instructing the gang's ‘foot soldiers' to carry out the planned killings.” States that the threat against Marcantel and Santistevan “‘culminated' late last year” when Baca directed C. Garcia, who was not incarcerated at the time, to get firearms and complete the murders. Includes R.P. Martinez' mugshot and a brief history of SNM's formation and the “Operation Atonement” investigation. States that R.P. Martinez “faces up to 20 years in prison.”

Colleen Heild, Syndicato Prison Gang Targets Witnesses, FBI Agents, Albuquerque J. (Sept. 18, 2016, 12:05 AM), https://www.abq journal.com/847504/prison-gang-targets-witnesses-fbi-agents.html

Includes a photograph of an “‘SNM house' frequented at all times of the day and night” by SNM members, “on Valley Gardens Circle in the South Valley” of Albuquerque, which law enforcement has “searched three times this year, ” while “investigating different crimes.” States that “newly released court documents” show that SNM “has fought back in recent months by marking victims, witnesses, informants and even perceived informants for death.” Provides examples:

A victim scheduled to testify in an aggravated battery case against an SNM member was beaten with clubs and hit in the head with a machete until he lost consciousness and was left for dead.

Another was shot several times just days after trying to order heroin from the mother of an SNM member who got suspicious and refused to make the sale.

A woman whose husband was considered a “snitch” has resorted to wearing a bullet-resistant vest, which she uses to cover her young child when they travel in the car.

SNM even discussed a plot for a gang member to get arrested on a federal parole violation so he could go to federal prison and kill a former SNM leader, the first defendant to plead guilty in an agreement that implicated a top gang boss.

Just recently, discovery material in the ongoing federal criminal racketeering prosecutions of incarcerated SNM members was secretly passed around by the defendants to try to identify cooperators and witnesses for possible hits.

Includes excerpts of an affidavit in which “lead FBI agent Bryan Acee said” that “SNM members are forbidden to speak with law enforcement officials and to do so may result in the SNM member's violent death.” Acee also wrote: “I believe the mere execution of the requested search warrants, combined with subject interviews, will likely dissuade the arget subjects and mitigate the threats, ” and that “SNM-generated crimes are not random, SNM members do not act alone, SNM affairs are widespread within the prison system and on the streets.” The affidavit also provides examples of SNM threats against informants. States that a “defense team motion” notes that SNM's violent crimes and racketeering case is “perhaps the single largest and most complicated prosecution this district has ever seen.” Briefly describes Operation Atonement's “crackdown” and how it implicates seventy-nine defendants. Notes that all but two defendants --Archuleta, who “will receive no more than three years in prison” under a plea deal, and R.P. Martinez -- have pleaded not guilty in the racketeering case. States that a “search of an SNM pod at the Torrance County Detention Center that holds 18 SNM defendants awaiting trial turned up three ‘shanks[.]'” States that SNM has spread to the federal prison system, with “Frankie Gallegos, a ‘validated member of the SNM,' . . . believed to be the highest ranking member of the SNM within the U.S. Bureau of Prisons”; two of F. Gallegos' brothers “are charged in the New Mexico SNM prosecution.”

Colleen Heild, Accused Cop Killer Joined Syndicato Gang While Awaiting Trial, Albuquerque J. (Sept. 18, 2016), available at https://www.pressreader.com/usa/a lbuquerque-journal/20160918/281 651074574209

Opens: “The murderous Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico prison gang added a new member to its ranks sometime after the May 25 fatal shooting of Rio Rancho police officer Gregg Benner -- the alleged killer himself.” Provides that “Andrew Romero, currently standing trial on a first-degree murder charge in Benner's death, ” “asked to join SNM after being transferred to the state prison system, ” because “he had assaulted staff at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center” while awaiting trial. States that Romero joined the gang and worked to make “homemade knives” and to plan “a prison escape from the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility”; the escape allegedly “was to occur when Romero and the other SNM member were to be transported to court.” States that Romero escaped his cell at night to “pass knives and other contraband between SNM members, ” but once state correctional officers found a knife in his cell, he was moved to the PNM.

Albuquerque Journal Editorial Bd., Editorial: NM Prison Gang Revelations Raise Death Penalty Questions, Albuquerque J. (Sept. 21, 2016, 12:02 AM), https://www.abqjournal.com/8495 16/nm-prison-gang-revelations-raise-death-penalty-questions.html

Provides that revelations into SNM “show the shocking extent of its resolve to defend its criminal enterprise by any means possible.” States that, according to court documents, SNM members have:

Plotted to have a gang member violate his parole so he could go to federal prison, and kill a former gang leader who had pleaded guilty in an agreement that implicated a top Syndicato boss.

Discussed killing FBI agents and blowing up a federal building.

Targeted for death several victims, witnesses, informants and perceived informants.

Beat and left for dead a man who was scheduled to testify against a gang member.

Secretly passed around discovery material from their federal case in an attempt to identify for possible hits people who were cooperating with prosecutors or who were witnesses.

States that the SNM investigation underscores “the difficulty in dealing with such violent and dedicated career criminals who are willing to do anything to further their organization's agenda and seem to know every prisoner protection in the book.” Provides that SNM members have killed dozens of people to further gang purposes and that “[t]hese kinds of ultraviolent criminals make a case for bringing back the death penalty in New Mexico for certain crimes, including killing a corrections or other law enforcement officer.”

Colleen Heild, Release of IDs on Gang Informants Requested, Albuquerque J. (Dec. 3, 2016, 11:44 PM), https://www.abq journal.com/901428/release-of-info-on-informants-requested.html

Provides that “heavily guarded defendants” wearing red and yellow prison jumpsuits, members of “a notoriously violent prison gang known for ordering hits on suspected law enforcement informants, ” requested that the government release informants' names and addresses. States that “the judge denied all but one of the defendants' requests for such information” -- “Browning is still deciding whether to release an informant's identity to Anthony Ray Baca, an alleged SNM leader who is charged with ordering Molina's murder.” Describes such release of information as “protected, ” meaning it is “not to be released to third parties.” Reports that seven of the FBI's nine confidential sources are SNM members, and that the “lead FBI case agent” is “certain that all nine informants, once their identities are revealed, will be marked for death by the gang.” States that the case agent also said that “one informant was shot twice and lived, ” while “[a]nother was beaten and left for dead[.]” Notes that “[m]ost, if not all, of the 30 defendants in the primary federal racketeering case are repeat violent offenders.” Briefly details SNM's formation and Operation Atonement's progress. States that three defendants -- Archuleta, R.P. Martinez, and Frederico Munoz -- have pleaded guilty but have not been sentenced, while “trial for the others is set for next summer.” Describes “the spectacle this week of two dozen SNM gang members seated in Browning's Downtown Albuquerque courtroom, ” with each defendant “secured in a belly chain, leg irons, and handcuffs enclosed by a special U.S. Marshals Service black security box that Browning himself tried out.” States that, “[b]efore the hearing, Browning denied a U.S. Marshals Service Request to erect a partition around alleged SNM leader Baca so he couldn't see or signal his SNM co-defendants in the courtroom.” Describes how Adrian Burns “was found dead in a burned-out car outside Socorro in 2012, ” and how R. Perez is alleged “to have made shanks out of his prison-issued walker to help SNM murder Molina, ” who “was stabbed about 40 times with three shanks.” States that “Browning inquired about whether defendant Jerry Montoya was alleged to have helped physically carry out the murder of Molina.”

Colleen Heild, Ex-Gang Members Help Break Grip of Massive Prison Gang SNM, Albuquerque J. (Sept. 10, 2017, 4:45 PM), https://www.abqjournal.com/1061 446/ex-gang-members-help-break-grip-of-massive-snm.html

Includes a mugshot of Lupe Urquizo, an example SNM tattoo, and the photograph discussed in Kaplan, Roundup Nets 19 Members of Syndicato, supra. States that “[l]oyalty is prized within the notorious [SNM] prison gang[, ]” but that “it only goes so far[.]” Provides that “[m]ore than 30 former members and leaders of SNM have been secretly cooperating with law enforcement to break the decades-old grip of the allegedly murderous New Mexico gang, ” leading to “about 114 suspected members and associates of the gang” being arrested “[o]ver the past two years.” Describes Urquizo as “the latest suspect charged” and states that he “is accused of assaulting inmates, correctional officers, committing arson, and acting as a messenger within the prison system to help communicate planned hits on other inmates.” Details Urquizo's alleged discussions on killing another member and agreeing to bring the “paperwork for the hit” to Southern New Mexico, and his noting that D. Sanchez “had failed to cover a security camera” during Molina's stabbing and had failed “to dispose of the shank used in the stabbing.” States that “less than 15 defendants are awaiting trial, ” because the majority of those charged federally have pleaded guilty. Provides that, while “[t]he prosecution contends that SNM is a violent and powerful racketeering enterprise, ” “at least one defense attorney has claimed that some people have been threatened by law enforcement with ‘inclusion' in the racketeering prosecution if they didn't agree to cooperate and give statements.” Describes SNM's formation in the PNM's “deadly riot” and how members are “expected to remain loyal to the SNM Gang” after release from prison, while those who fail to remain loyal can be murdered or assaulted. Notes that Judge Browning ordered the discovery tablets seized after discovering that their security controls could be bypassed, allowing the Defendants to access the Internet and camera functions.

Associated Press, Ex-Gang Members Helping to Dismantle New Mexico Prison Gang, AZ Central (Sept. 11, 2017, 6:11 PM), https://www.azcentral.com/story/n ews/local/new-mexico/2017/09/ 11/ex-gang-members-helping-dismantle-new-mexico-prison-gang/656270001/

Reports that an FBI document provides that “[n]early 114 suspected members and associates of an infamous New Mexico prison gang have been arrested over the past two years with the help of over 30 former members and leaders, who have been secretly working with authorities.” Identifies the gang as SNM, which formed at “the 1980 deadly riot” at the PNM “and has about 500 members.” States that the FBI began the investigation after discovering the Marcantel murder plot, which has led to about eighty defendants being “charged with federal crimes, ” with fewer than fifteen awaiting trial. Includes the allegation by Amy Sirignano, counsel for C. Garcia, that the government's threats to charge those who do not cooperate risks “involuntary statements.”

Angela Kocherga, Prison Gang at Pretrial Hearing for Racketeering, Albuquerque J. (Dec. 14, 2017, 11:30 PM), https://www.abq journal.com/1107093/prison-gang-at-pretrial-hearing-for-racketeering.html

Provides an SNM tattoo photograph. States that nine suspected SNM members “filled a heavily guarded federal courtroom this week for a pretrial hearing about evidence in a federal racketeering case.” Describes a hearing which “included testimony about secret recordings of inmates discussing the gang's violent crimes in and outside prison walls.” Notes that R. Perez “denied in court knowing details about the murder of SNM gang member” Molina, and that he repeatedly responding to Assistant United States Attorney Randy Castellano's questions with, “I lied.” Describes the defendants as having “shaved heads and tattoos on their necks, faces and back of their heads, and wearing prison jumpsuits.” States that the defendants “were strategically spaced out in the courtroom” with “[a] dozen guards, ” some of whom “were heavily armed.” Provides that “some of the best-known criminal defense attorneys in Albuquerque” are representing the defendants, and names Ms. Sirignano as representing C. Garcia, and Billy R. Blackburn as representing A.A. Garcia. Reiterates Ms. Sirignano's concern that cooperators gave “involuntary statements” because of “coercive police tactics.” States that the prosecutors do not want to provide “a week's notice of witnesses before they testify, ” because this “would jeopardize the safety of the witnesses.” Notes that the first trial is set to begin in January, 2018.

Christine Steele, State Murder Case Dismissed in Favor of Federal RICO Prosecution, Silver City Daily Press (Jan. 23, 2018), http://www.scdailypress.com/site/ 2018/01/23/state-murder-case-dismissed-in-favor-of-federal-rico-prosecution/

Describes that “Steven ‘Syklon' Morales, 39, was set to go to trial this week for the murder of Estevan Ortega, 22, who was found shot to death in his car on Radio Tower Road in Pinos Altos, ” New Mexico, but that “state prosecutors have dismissed their case against Morales in favor of federal prosecution, where Morales is being charged under the [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961-68 (‘RICO Act'), ] Conspiracy, which could see him serving a lot more time if he is convicted.” States that “Morales is a career criminal” who, during the past twenty years, has spent over fourteen years in the NM Corrections Department -- either serving time for many crimes, such as burglary and battery, or awaiting trial. Describes a federal complaint filed last week alleging Morales is an SNM member, with an SNM tattoo, who stabbed another inmate and killed Ortega, a rival gang member, for the gang. Briefly notes SNM's formation, and states that “Morales is facing a minimum of 20 years on the RICO charge, ” and, if the sentencing “court determines that he is an armed career criminal, ” “could face an enhanced sentence of a statutory mandatory minimal of 15 years to life.”

Associated Press, Man Charged in Plot to Kill State Officials Pleads Guilty, KVIA (Jan. 26, 2018, 10:58 AM), https://www.kvia.com/news/ newmexico/man-charged-in-plot-to-kill-stateofficials-pleadsguilty/691645478

Provides C. Garcia's mugshot and that he pleaded guilty “to violent crimes in aid of racketeering conspiracy to murder, felon in possession of a firearm and racketeering conspiracy.” States that he is “charged in a thwarted plot to kill two top New Mexico corrections officials, ” and “is expected to be sentenced to 30 years in federal prison under the [plea] agreement.” Describes that C. Garcia provided the gun to an assassin to kill Marcantel and that he “planned to have the assassin killed after Marcantel's death.”

Colleen Heild, Guilty Plea in Plot to Kill Corrections Officials, Albuquerque J. (Jan. 26, 2018, 12:02 AM), https://www.abq journal.com/1124545/guilty-plea-in-plot-to-kill-official.html

Provides that C. Garcia, “[o]ne of the primary defendants charged in a foiled plot to murder two top New Mexico corrections officials[, ] pleaded guilty Thursday” and “is to receive 30 years in federal prison under a plea agreement with federal prosecutors.” Reports that, in the plea agreement, C. Garcia admits to being an SNM member “for more than 20 years, ” to trafficking drugs to SNM members in prison, and “to paying someone in 2005 to kill a rival gang member who had previously shot him.” Describes that C. Garcia also admits to providing the gun to kill Marcantel and to not trusting the member recruited to kill Marcantel; “he instructed that the killer be given a lethal dose of heroin, after Marcantel was killed.”

Colleen Heild, Syndicato Trial Set to Begin Amid Security Concern, Albuquerque J. (Jan. 27, 2018, 10:42 PM), https://www.abq journal.com/1125394/syndicato-trial-set-to-begin-amid-security-concern.html

Begins:

For the U.S. Marshals Service, it's a “High Threat Trial.” For the FBI, the next four weeks in a Las Cruces courtroom will be the culmination of nearly three years of investigating an entrenched New Mexico prison gang accused of drug dealing, violence and even murder inside and out of prison walls.

States that “[c]ome Monday, four members of [SNM], including its purported leader, will have their day in federal court in the first of three planned trials involving some two dozen defendants.” Provides that jurors from across New Mexico will decide whether the alleged SNM boss Baca and alleged members D. Sanchez, Herrera, and R. Perez “are part of a criminal racketeering enterprise by virtue of alleged crimes involving the fatal stabbing in 2014 of an SNM gang member, the attempted murder of another, and, in the case of Baca only, a conspiracy to kill two top New Mexico Corrections officials.” Includes mugshots of Baca, D. Sanchez, R. Perez, and Herrera. States that federal prosecutors may call key witness and former SNM leader Archuleta, “who pleaded guilty in 2016 of conspiracy to commit assault resulting in great bodily injury.” Indicates that the defense may call former Bernalillo County Sheriff White as a witness and that “a 2016 prison documentary mentioning SNM might be entered into evidence during the trial.” Describes that C. Garcia opted to plead guilty last week rather than stand trial, and that “he will be sentenced to 30 years in prison” under his plea deal, whereas he faced life had he gone to trial. Notes that the other four members face life, if convicted. States that, “[o]n Friday, Judge Browning was considering how safe the Marshals Service can make the courtroom while still permitting the defendants their due process and other constitutional rights[, ]” as the defense attorneys argued that the defendants should be allowed to stand trial without shackles, “like any other person, ” and that if the jury saw security restraints it would be prejudicial. Cites a January 18, 2018, email from the Marshals Office to the Court arguing “there exists ‘High Threat Trial' circumstances, ” and noting a 2014 federal trial in Salt Lake City, Utah, where the defendant -- a known gang member -- was unrestrained, “attempted to stab an ‘in custody' witness, ” and died because of the Marshals' attempt to stop the stabbing. States that the email suggests that bunting on the counsel tables could keep security devices out of the jury's sight, that leg restraints housed in duct tape could be used to remove sounds, and that they could use stun belts -- although this type of restraint would require more Marshals in the courtroom and risks false activation. Cites the email's “attachment for the judge, not made public, that reportedly shows ‘each defendant's criminal history (all of which is very lengthy and violent especially given the number of years the defendants have served in prison.).” Notes the email detailing that two people brought shanks into court, that Baca wants to kill D. Sanchez, and that Defendants have come to court under the influence. Details how “a defense attorney unwittingly brought mail to his client that contained” Suboxone; the defense attorney has left the case, and the SNM member and his ex-wife, who allegedly asked the attorney to deliver the mail, have been charged.

Samantha Lewis, Members of Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico to Be Tried in Las Cruces Federal Court, KFOX 14 (Jan. 29, 2018), https://kfoxtv.com/news/local/me mbers-of-syndicato-de-nuevo-mexico-to-be-tried-in-las-cruces-federal-court

Provides that four SNM members, including the leader, will be tried Monday in federal court in what U.S. Marshals are calling “a high-threat trial.” States that the “trial has already sparked tension and fear[, ]” because SNM members “are known for taking shanks into the courtroom. Reports that “KFOX 14 spoke with people in Las Cruces who didn't wish to appear on camera in fear of retaliation.” Describes the gang as targeting “entire families, because that's the old school way of doing things[.]” Notes that, according to the Las Cruces Sun News, one Defendant wanted another Defendant killed and, while the attorneys want the Defendants to be tried without shackles to avoid prejudicing the jury, “a U.S. district judge was considering a U.S. Marshals' request to keep all four defendants in shackles during the trial based on their criminal history.”

Samantha Lewis, Jury Selection Takes Eight Hours for the Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico Trial in Las Cruces, KFOX 14 (Jan. 29, 2018), https://kfoxtv.com/ news/local/jury-selection-takes-eight-hours-for-the-syndicato-de-nuevo-mexico-trial-in-las-cruces

States that Baca, D. Sanchez, Herrera, and R. Perez --members of the “notorious” SNM -- are “accused of drug dealing, violence, and murder inside and outside of prison walls” in what the “U.S. Marshals are calling . . . a high threat trial.” States that the “trial with be tightly secured, ” and that SNM members “took weapons inside the courtroom during a pre-trial hearing.” Notes that there will “be three more trials taking place after this one” and that jury selection “went on for more than eight hours on Monday.” States that twelve jurors and three alternates will be selected, and that “opening statements could start tomorrow.” Includes mugshots of Baca, D. Sanchez, Herrera, and R. Perez.

Samantha Lewis, FBI Agent Says Prison Cellphones Helped Track Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico Gang Members, KFOX 14 (Jan. 31, 2018), https://kfoxtv.com/news/ local/fbi-agent-says-prison-cellphones-helped-track-syndicato-de-nuevo-mexico-gang-members

Reiterates the charges that Baca, D. Sanchez, Herrera, and R. Perez face, and includes their mugshots. Provides that, after sixteen hours of jury selection, opening statements for the SNM trial began “in a federal courthouse in Las Cruces.” States that Acee testified on the third day of trial, and said that “[c]ellphones inside prison walls helped track gang activity by members of the [SNM.]” Acee said “the cellphones were given to informants inside the jail to record drug deals and murder plots. Tablets were also given to the informants but had to be taken away from them because they used them to access the internet, send emails and create Facebook accounts.” Notes that Acee also discussed how undercover agents would buy and sell guns to SNM members and then arrest them, and how one informant “was given $45, 000 to relocate his family when he got out of prison, ” because he became a top SNM target for “ratting.”

Angela Kocherga, Investigator Gets Prison Gang Trial Started, Albuquerque J. (Jan. 31, 2018, 11:45 PM), https://www.abq journal.com/1127450/investigator-gets-prison-gang-trial-started.html

Provides that Acee, “who led the investigation of the racketeering investigation of the” SNM, “was the government's first witness, ” and “testified most of Wednesday about techniques to infiltrate the gang in and outside the prison, using members turned confidential informants.” States that Acee discussed accompanying “parole officers to get access to gang members' cases ‘looking for their vulnerabilities' or violations that might lead them to cooperate, ” and visiting prisons. Acee said he “learned of gang member Eric Duran's willingness to be an informant at the penitentiary in northern New Mexico, ” and that Duran, whose cell was next to alleged leader Baca's, would dial and hold “the cellphone up to the cell vent so Baca could talk to gang members outside the prison.” This communication, Acee stated, helped build the case. Reports that, in his opening statement, “Baca's attorney Marc Lowry told jurors his client was not the leader of the [SNM] anymore, that . . . when he was sent to a prison out of state, [he] fell out of favor with the gang, ” and that Duran “controlled when the recording device was on and when it was shut off. . . . [T]he conversation about killing two top New Mexico prison officials was instigated by Duran after the device had been off for several days.” States that Mr. Castellano had Acee explain the four Defendants' tattoos -- such as the “Zia symbol tattooed in strategic places.” Notes that most of Baca's tattoos “were not visible since he wore a dark grey suit and tie, ” that there were “[a]t least half a dozen U.S. Marshalls [sic] . . . strategically seated near the doorway and defendants, ” and that the trial “is expected to last four weeks.”

Associated Press, New Mexico Prison Gang Trial Begins with Agent's Testimony, AP News (Feb. 1, 2018), https://www.apnews.com/c9299a9 6861649d583b9d3a9326e490f

Provides that Acee -- “the FBI agent who used confidential informants to build a racketeering investigation against” the four SNM members standing trial -- was the first witness to testify. Describes Acee's testimony about finding “violations to convince the members to cooperate in the investigation, ” and equipping an informant housed next to Baca “with a cellphone and a recording device.” States that the informant, Duran, “would dial the phone and hold it up to the cell vent so Baca could make calls, ” the recordings of which “helped build the criminal case that involves drug deals, firearms trafficking, carjacking, armed robbery and intimidation of witnesses.” Notes that Baca's attorney, Mr. Lowry, “told jurors during opening arguments that his client was no longer a gang leader[, ]” because “Baca had fallen out of favor with the gang when he was sent to prison out of state.”

Las Cruces Sun-News, Testimony Begins in Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico Trial, Tarrent Cares (Feb. 2, 2018), http://tarrant.tx. networkofcare.org/ps/news-article-detail.aspx?id=91609

States that, after two days of jury selection, an eighteen-member jury “of residents from around the state was empaneled, ” and “began hearing testimony Wednesday in a high-profile trial that promises to shed light on the distributing culture of a notorious New Mexico prison gang.” Notes that the four Defendants -- the purported leader Baca, Herrera, D. Sanchez, and R. Perez -- are allegedly members of SNM, which “formed after the deadly 1980 riot at the” PNM, and “were among dozens of known SNM members and associates who were indicted by a federal grand jury” as part of Operation Atonement. Describes the alleged crimes as including a plot “to kill two top state prison officials” -- with which only Baca is charged -- and the March, 2014, murder of alleged SNM member Molina, “who was stabbed more than 40 times while incarcerated at the Southern New Mexico.” States that the defense “cautioned the jury to be wary of the government's case against their clients, suggesting that many of the prosecution's key witnesses have checkered pasts and have entered into deals in exchange for testimony.” Notes that Acee, “who led the nearly three-year-long investigation into SNM, ” was the first witness and testified that the investigation began after prison officials in Santa Fe intercepted letters detailing a plot to kill Marcantel and the head of the prison's STIU. Provides that Acee also testified about using wiretaps, “undercover drug transactions, ” and giving cellular telephones to “at least two SNM members” in prison, who were “cooperating with the FBI.” Acee said that Baca was transferred to the PNM from a Colorado prison, to a cell next to an informant -- Duran, “a key witness for the prosecution” -- who would make calls for Baca on his FBI-provided cellular telephone. Provides that “Baca's defense team pinned the entire plot [to kill the prison officials] on Duran” and “insisted that Baca did not order the killing of Molina.” Notes that Molina “was serving a 13-year sentence” at the Southern New Mexico, and “was found unresponsive near the doorway to a pod” at the prison after being “stabbed 43 times in his chest and abdomen, including his heart and lungs[.]” Notes that Armenta and J. Montoya were initially charged for Molina's death in state court, but that the FBI took over the “case as part of the SNM investigation, ” and indicted “nine known and purported members of SNM, including Montoya and Armenta, . . . on charges in connection to the murder.” Reports that defense attorneys assert that the Defendants who pleaded guilty did so “in exchange for the possibility of lenient sentences” and that they also received “hundreds of dollars from the FBI in exchange for their cooperation[, ]” and, in one case, an incarcerated informant “was given contact visits with his family, but that privilege was revoked after he was caught having sex with his wife in the presence of his children[.]”

Angela Kocherga, Informant Testifies Against SNM, Albuquerque J. (Feb. 7, 2018, 12:05 AM), https://www.abq journal.com/1130256/informant-testifies-against-snm.html

States that Guadalupe Urquizo, “gang member turned government informant, ” testified “about the inner workings of the [SNM], ” such as “delivering the ‘paperwork,' or orders, to kill an inmate in 2014 with a shank created from a piece of inmate Rudy Perez's walker.” Notes Urquizo said that “he agreed to help the FBI because he was ‘tired of the backstabbing[, ]'” and that “his plea included having him serve a state and federal sentence concurrently, which would cut years off his time behind bars.” States that jurors heard “part of a prison phone call taped in March 2017 in which Urquizo talks about knowing another gang member was ‘wired' and secretly recording inmates for the FBI inside the prison.” Provides that Tuesday morning's testimony was interrupted when “Perez began coughing uncontrollably and paramedics were called to the courtroom. Perez suffers from epilepsy and other chronic health problems and had been sent to the hospital Monday after reporting he had a seizure. He returned to court Tuesday with a surgical face mask.” Notes that R. Perez' attorney, Justine Fox-Young, moved for a mistrial -- which the Court denied -- because R. Perez “was ‘very vulnerable and frail' as well as ‘spacing out' and not able to assist with his defense.” States that, “[w]hen testimony resumed, Urquizo testified about his criminal history in and outside prison. Urquizo said it began in 1998 when he went to prison for stabbing a man in Clovis. That same year he joined the [SNM] and assaulted a corrections officer for ‘disrespecting the gang.'”

Sun-News Reports, Syndicato Nuevo Mexico Trial: Member Details Murder of Fellow Prisoner, Las Cruces Sun News (Feb. 13, 2018, 8:00 AM), https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/crime/2018/ 02/13/syndicato-nuevo-mexico-trial-member-details-murder-prisoner/331417002/

States that J. Montoya, “[c]onvicted murderer and member of the” SNM, testified that “he had no ‘beef' with fellow SNM member Javier Molina but still ended up killing him.” Provides that J. Montoya and Molina “had been handball partners while they were prisoners at the Southern New Mexico.” Notes that the testimony “came as Montoya testified in the federal government's case against four alleged SNM members” in a trial “stemming from a nearly three-year investigation, ” a trial which “entered its third week on Monday.” Includes J. Montoya's mugshot.

Angela Kocherga, Prison Gang Leader Says He Ordered Hit on Two Officials, Albuquerque J. (Feb. 18, 2018, 12:05 AM), https://www.abqjournal.com/1135 114/prison-gang-leader-says-he-ordered-hit-on-two-officials.html

States that R. Martinez, “FBI informant and high level ‘shot caller'” in SNM, took the stand midway through trial, and testified “about how and why he ordered a ‘hit' on top prison officials from behind bars.” Provides that R. Martinez testified that he wrote a letter telling SNM members on the street that “it was ‘time to step up' and ordering them to kill two prison officials[, ]” “because gang members were tired of being ‘in lockdown for a year.'” Notes that they targeted Santistevan “for making comments about Baca, ” the alleged leader, and that Baca's attorney Theresa Duncan asked R. Martinez “whether he really believed gang members would carry out the murder or if the threat was merely a way to ensure prison officials moved him out of state.” Reports that R. Martinez doubted whether the members on the street “would carry out his orders, ” because the willing ones were incarcerated. States that R. Martinez has been an SNM member for thirty years, but “no longer trusts fellow gang members and was disillusioned with the younger generation of new recruits who had not ‘earned their bones' but were allowed to join because they could provide drugs or had a relative in the gang.” R. Martinez said he told prison officials he wanted out of the gang and, “as proof, he handed over a shank, a crude weapon made in prison.” Describes F. Munoz' testimony that “he was a loyal ‘soldier' for the SNM who killed for the gang in and out of prison[, ]” such as his murder of a rival gang member “he didn't know, who happened to walk into a barbershop.” States that F. Munoz said it was “a full blown war[, ]” and that Archuleta, an SNM “leader in prison, ” ordered him to kill SNM member Romero, who had been released, because Romero had a romantic relationship with Archuleta's wife; Romero survived. F. Munoz also testified about using a sheet to strangle an SNM member in prison, who was “suspected of being disloyal.” Notes that defense attorneys asked F. Munoz “whether he was getting a lighter sentence in return for his testimony.” States that “[a]t least a dozen gang members turned informants are government witnesses in the first of three trials in federal court stemming from a massive FBI racketeering investigation.”

Sun-News Reports, Jury Hears Closing Arguments in Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico Trial, Las Cruces Sun News (March 5, 2018, 6:47 PM), https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/crime/2018/ 03/05/jury-hears-closing-arguments-syndicato-de-nuevo-mexico-trial/396877002/

States that the jury heard closing arguments as the trial centered on the violent SNM's “inner-prison activities” entered its sixth week. Provides that Baca, Herrera, D. Sanchez, and R. Perez have been on trial since January 29, 2018, “charged with conspiracy and murder in the brutal March 7, 2014, stabbing death of 34-year-old Javier Molina at the Southern New Mexico.” Provides that Baca, the alleged leader, is also “charged in a failed conspiracy to murder” Marcantel “and another top prison official -- a plot that was reportedly uncovered by the FBI and prompted the expansive investigation into SNM.” States that the four Defendants “aided and abetted the hit” on Molina, using “‘paperwork' to communicate and direct ‘hits,' and that if members failed to act on orders, they would become targets of the gang.” Provides that most of the prosecution's evidence was “disputed testimony from cooperating SNM members, ” whom the defense team argued were “‘untruthful' and ‘lying witnesses.'” States that “[o]ne defense also suggested that the cooperators had ‘colluded' with one another, ” and another “suggested that the plot to kill Marcantel had been ‘manufactured' by one of the government's cooperators during the investigation[.]” Notes that deliberations “are expected to begin this week.”

         2. The Trial.

         The Court scheduled the first trial in this case, on Counts 6-12, to begin on January 29, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. at the federal courthouse in Las Cruces. See Fourth Scheduling Order at 2, filed July 7, 2017 (Doc. 1205). Most of the Defendants charged in Counts 6-12 pleaded guilty, leaving D. Sanchez, Baca, Herrera, and R. Perez (collectively, “First Trial Defendants”) as the only Defendants in the first trial. Clerk's Minutes at 1-2, filed January 29, 2018 (Doc. 1746)(“Trial Minutes”). On January 29, 2018, the Court called this case for trial and, before the voir dire panel entered the courtroom, put on the record some developments that occurred over that weekend. See Transcript of Jury Trial Volume 1 at 2:6-7 (taken January 29, 2018)(Court), filed February 28, 2019 (Doc. 2548)(“Jan. 29 Tr.”); id. at 4:1-3 (Court). First, the Court put on the record some information about the shackles on the First Trial Defendants' feet, stating:

Yesterday afternoon Ms. Wild[10] came in with the marshals. She put the shackles on her feet, and then we listened to make sure that there was no sound. Ms. Wild requested more duct tape. So there has been more duct tape put on the shackles yesterday. So I think we're in good shape as far as there not being any sound.

Jan. 29 Tr. at 4:5-11 (Court). The Court underscored that the First Trial Defendants should be standing whenever the jury enters the courtroom and during introductions, and that “as long as everybody doesn't do anything out of . . . position, it looks like the jury will not see any of the shackles.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 4:17-20 (Court). See id. at 4:12-17 (Court). The Court said that its staff placed more briefcases at the back to prevent the venire panel from seeing the shackles, and that the First Trial Defendants should “keep their feet under the table when they stand.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 5:9-10 (Court). See id. at 4:21-5:8 (Court).

         The Court then addressed the First Trial Defendants' two motions to continue, one of which raised the Albuquerque Journal article “Syndicato Trial Set to Begin Amid Security Concern, ” which came out on the Sunday before the trial started. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 11:12-22 (Beck, Court). See also Motion to Continue the January 29, 2018 Trial Setting, filed January 25, 2018 (Doc. 1707); *Sealed* Second Motion to Continue the January 29, 2018 Trial and for an Order Imposing Sanctions Against the Government for Violation of the Court's Order Regarding Discussion with the Press: Request for Hearing, filed January 28, 2018 (Doc. 1720). The Court provided its recollection that the parties never agreed to an enforceable gag order about talking to the press. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 11:23-12:12 (Court). The United States said that it had the same recollection, but that it had not been talking to the press. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 12:13-20 (Beck). The United States and the First Trial Defendants then all agreed that nobody would talk to the press until the trial's verdict, and the Court stated that it would not “enter a traditional gag order, but . . . will enforce the agreement so that we don't infringe anybody's First Amendment rights.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 15:19-22 (Court). See id. at 14:24-15:22 (Court, Beck, Duncan).

         D. Sanchez harkened back to the Albuquerque Journal article, referring to it as “a worst-case scenario for the defendants because of the nature of the information[, ]” i.e., “communications between the United States Marshal Service and the Court about particularly high-security concerns related to these particular defendants that were named and pictured in the article.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 16:8-10, 23-16 (Jacks). The Court stated, however, that it never received the attachments to which D. Sanchez referred -- documents that supposedly delineate the First Trial Defendants' criminal records -- and stated that, to its knowledge, these records were never provided to the Court. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 16:22-17:8 (Court). D. Sanchez underscored that the issue is that the article “reported the content of the supposed attachment which contained . . . the lengthy and violent criminal histories of all the defendants who have been in prison for an extremely long time, ” Jan. 29 Tr. at 17:12-16 (Jacks), and that “this theme was picked up by TV news last night, and they had people . . . talking to the news broadcasters with their identities blocked out because if they were identified, they would be killed by the SNM, ” Jan. 29 Tr. at 18:3-7 (Jacks). D. Sanchez argued that “this is a carnival-like atmosphere that the jurors would have to be almost super-human to not have seen some piece of it. And it's extremely prejudicial.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 18:8-11 (Jacks). The Court reminded the First Trial Defendants that, when R. Perez filed a motion requesting that shackles be removed for trial, the Court asked the U.S. Marshal for advice, and requested a memorandum, so that the Defendants could see this advice. The Court also requested that somebody from the U.S. Marshals be in the courtroom on Friday to answer questions, so the Court could make a record. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 18:13-19:6 (Court). The Court underscored that everything in the article was publicly discussed in the courtroom Friday, and that the proceeding was likely “more robust” than the article, “given the fact that more information came out on Friday.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 19:19-20 (Court). See id. at 19:7-22 (Court). D. Sanchez countered that no “defense counsel could have anticipated that the U.S. Marshals would write an extremely inflammatory email that would then be filed publicly.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 20:6-8 (Jacks). The Court reiterated that, had the Albuquerque Journal article's author been in the courtroom on Friday, “she would have gotten more information about the men's criminal history, because of the motion to remove shackles, than she would have by reading that memo, because it would have been more robust” because “Mr. Castellano [and] the deputy marshal . . . stood at the podium and went in detail through the defendants' criminal history.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 23:11-18 (Court). Herrera requested that the Court poll the potential jurors as to whether any of the jurors had seen the case's media coverage over the last month and then individually talking to those potential jurors who raised their hands as to not taint the entire jury pool. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 39:19-40:4 (Bhalla). The Court stated that it “was planning on doing that.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 40:5 (Court).

         The parties also discussed the United States' production of Baca's, Herrera's, and R. Perez' statements with proposed redactions to comply with United States v. Bruton, 391 U.S. 123 (1968)(“Bruton”), despite the Court's conclusion that these statements do not fall within Bruton's ambit.[11] Jan. 29 Tr. at 7:19-8:5 (Court). The Court underscored that “[t]he jury will not know that there are redactions, ” Jan. 29 Tr. at 8:4-5 (Court), and that, even with the redactions, there likely would be a number of limiting instructions, see Jan. 29 Tr. at 8:6-16 (Court). Herrera requested that the United States provide the redacted transcripts at least seventy-two hours before the witness takes the stand. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 38:22-39:6 (Bhalla). The Court suggested that the United States provide the redacted transcripts within the next seventy-two hours, and the United States agreed that would be more reasonable. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 42:24-43:1 (Court); id. at 43:12-17 (Beck).

         a. The Jury Voir Dire.

         The venire panel entered the courtroom later in the morning on Monday, January 29, 2018. See Trial Minutes at 3; Jan. 29 Tr. at 50:2. The venire panel hailed from all over the state, and many arrived in Las Cruces on Sunday, January 28, 2018. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 50:10-14 (Court). The Court thanked everyone for coming to Las Cruces and providing their services for the federal court. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 51:21-24 (Court). The Court introduced itself and all its staff -- its former courtroom deputy, its new courtroom deputy, its court reporter, and three of its four law clerks --to the venire panel. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 51:5-54:8 (Court). After the courtroom deputy swore in the venire panel, the Court noted that the evidence and jury deliberations were expected to take six to eight weeks, and asked whether this length of time posed any problems to the panel members. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 57:16-58:9 (Court). Norah Harris stated that she had a vacation planned to visit friends but that she could change her reservation.[12] See Jan. 29 Tr. at 61:9, 12-14, 17-18 (Harris). Then the Court briefly described the case to the panel and introduced the Assistant United States Attorneys, the First Trial Defendants, and the defense counsel. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 74:2-76:21 (Court, Jewkes). The Court then asked if “any member of the panel [had] heard or read anything about the case, ” and requested that those individuals who had approach the bench “because I don't want to have you talking about what you know about the case in front of everybody.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 76:21-25 (Court). The prospective jurors who had heard of the case came up to the bench to discuss what each of them had heard or read, outside the hearing of the rest of the panel, with the Court and the lawyers. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 77:4-8 (Court). None of the eighteen people picked for the jury came to the bench to disclose hearing or reading anything about the case. Compare Jan. 29 Tr. at 77:9-153:11 (discussing with Mr. Oldknow, Mr. Compton, Ms. Tighe, Mr. Besson, Mr. Hassell, Mr. Eiffert, Mr. Billings, Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Moore what they heard or read about the case), with Transcript of Jury Trial Volume 2 at 309:5-16 (taken January 30, 2018)(Clerk, Court), filed February 28, 2019 (Doc. 2549)(“Jan. 30 Tr.”)(calling as jurors “Ms. Taylor, Ms. Quinones, Mr. Laroche, Ms. Harris, Ms. Sauer, Ms. McAdams, Mr. Dixon, Ms. Wojcik, Mr. Moore, Mr. Schoonover, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Murphy, Ms. May, Mr. Johnston, Ms. Courtier, Ms. Becker, Ms. Wolfe, and Ms. Bush”). During these discussions, the Court took a break and gave an instruction:

We're going to be taking the first break. The trial hasn't started, but we are taking kind of the first break during the voir dire. And I want to tell you a few things that are especially important, and I'll be reminding you as we go throughout the day on these. You'll probably get tired of me saying them. It shows how important they are.
Until the trial is completed -- it hasn't even started -- you're not to discuss the case with anyone, whether it's members of your family, people involved in the trial, or anyone else. And that includes your fellow jurors. So when you leave here, talk about something else, like who is going to win the Super Bowl this week, or how cool the judge is, or something like that. But don't talk about this case. Okay? We really don't need you to do that.
If anyone approaches you and tries to discuss the trial with you, please let me know about it immediately. Also, you must not read or listen to any news reports of the trial. Don't walk out of here and get on the internet or your phone and do research for purposes of this case. Don't do that, please.
And finally, remember that you must not talk about anything with any person who is at the table. I know we haven't gotten to the point of introducing them, but take a look at them right now and make sure that you kind of look at them, and then don't talk to them. So if you see them in the hall or in the elevator or something like that and they don't look at you and they don't speak to you, they're not being rude. They're doing what I told them to do, and that's not have contact with the jurors. So just respect that, and they're just doing what they're told.
If you need to speak with me about anything, simply give a note to one of the court security officers, the men and women that have the blue jackets on, or Ms. Wild or Ms. Standridge here, and they'll get it to me. Again, I'll try not to repeat these every time we take a break, but do keep them in mind because they're very important as we try to get this trial together.
Everyone has to leave the courtroom. So it's not that you can stay. Everyone has to leave the courtroom, and we'll let you know when to come back in. So when you're done walking around a little bit or using the restroom, line up outside. Don't come in until we come get you. When you come back in, please go back to the seat you're in now. Because of the seating chart, that's very important, because it will help me and help the lawyers in a little bit in asking you questions.

Jan. 29 Tr. at 134:24-137:1 (Court).

         The Court then had the United States' “attorneys introduce themselves and the witnesses they intend to call in the trial.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 153:21-22 (Court). After the United States complied, the Court asked that panel members approach the bench if they know any of the prospective witnesses or Assistant United States Attorneys on the case, or if they have connections with the FBI or the U.S. Attorney's Office. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 156:9-21 (Court). A few members approached and discussed whom they knew, and then the Court “ask[ed] counsel for the defendants to introduce themselves and to indicate any witnesses that the defendant may choose to call.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 188:13-15 (Court). First, Theresa Duncan and Marc Lowry, Baca's attorneys, introduced themselves and their client. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 189:4-11 (Duncan). Harris told the Court that she thought she “went to high school with one of the Rothstein children, ” referencing Mr. Lowry's firm Rothstein Donatelli LLP, but was not sure. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 191:14-16 (Harris). Harris maintained that her relationship with the Rothstein children would not prevent her fairness and impartiality. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 191:21 (Harris). Carey Bhalla and William Maynard, Herrera's attorneys, then introduced themselves and their client. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 192:11-17 (Bhalla). Anastasia Wolfe told the Court that she had “stayed in the same motel as this table last evening, and [she] saw them at breakfast, ” but that this fact would not interfere with her fairness or impartiality. Jan. 29 Tr. 193:4-5, 15 (Wolfe). Next, Ryan Villa and Justine Fox-Young, R. Perez' attorneys, introduced themselves and provided their prospective witnesses' names. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 201:2-23 (Villa). Sylvia Sauer approached the bench to discuss whether she knew one prospective witness -- Jesse Sedillo -- but Mr. Villa did not believe that the Sedillo whom Sauer knows is the prospective witness. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 204:12-19 (Court, Sauer); id. at 205:25-206:1 (Villa). Sauer verified, however, that if she knew the witness Sedillo and he testified, she would remain fair and impartial. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 206:4-17 (Court, Sauer). Richard Jewkes and Amy Jacks, D. Sanchez' attorneys, then introduced themselves and provided their prospective witnesses' names. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 208:23-209:4 (Jewkes); id. at 209:13-17 (Jewkes).

         The Court then moved to polling the panel on whether any panel member had previously served as a juror in a criminal or civil case in state or federal court, or as a grand jury member in state or federal court. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 211:4-7 (Court). Bridget Murphy responded that she served as a juror in “a solicitation case in California” around thirty-five years ago, in which the defendant was found guilty, and that she was called in as an alternate on a grand jury -- for a drug case and credit card theft. Jan. 29 Tr. at 2-3 (Murphy). See id. at 219:1-7 (Murphy). Murphy stated that she was not the foreperson in the solicitation case, that nothing about her prior service would prevent her from being fair and impartial, and that the use of juries in the United States' criminal justice system is “the best system in the world.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 219:24-25 (Murphy). See id. at 219:12-21 (Court, Murphy). Ellen Wojcik stated that she served on two juries in DeKalb County, Georgia -- once in a civil case twenty years ago, and then as an alternate in a driving-under-the-influence case which settled. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 221:6-12 (Wojcik). Wojcik could not remember the verdict in the civil case, but said that she was not the foreperson. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 221:13-19 (Court, Wojcik). Wojcik indicated that nothing about her service would prevent her fairness and impartiality, and that she believes the use of juries in the criminal justice system is “essential.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 222:15 (Wojcik). See id. at 222:9-15 (Court, Wojcik). Willis Schoonover stated that he had served on one jury in a theft case where the defendant was found innocent. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 222:19-20 (Schoonover). Schoonover stated that he was not the foreperson, that nothing about his experience would prevent his fairness and impartiality, and that the jury system is “the way to go.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 223:5 (Schoonover). See id. at 222:21-223:5 (Court, Schoonover). Stanley Dixon provided that he served as a juror on a murder trial in El Paso, Texas, in which the defendant was found guilty. See Jan. 29 Tr. 223:9-13 (Dixon, Court). Dixon stated that he was not the foreperson, that the experience would not prevent him from being fair and impartial, and that he finds the use of juries “[a]ppropriate.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 223:23 (Dixon). See id. at 223:14-23 (Court, Dixon). Bridget Bush stated that she served as a juror, but not the foreperson, in a district court drug charge case, in which the defendant was found guilty, and as an alternate in a civil magistrate case. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 228:14-229:4 (Bush, Court). Bush indicated that she believed juries worked well, and that her experience would not impede her fairness and impartiality. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 229:14-21 (Court, Bush).

         The Court released the venire panel for lunch, reiterating the instructions it gave before the first break. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 230:5-231:17 (Court). When the venire panel was outside of the courtroom, Mr. Castellano stated that he knew Dixon from high school, that Dixon did not appear to recognize or remember him, and that they went to different high schools, but that they “had friends in common.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 231:25 (Castellano). See id. at 231:21-25 (Castellano). When the venire panel returned from lunch and entered the courtroom, Sauer shared that she had been called to district court in Estancia, New Mexico, for a criminal case, but had been dismissed, because she “knew the fellow's family.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 236:11-12 (Sauer). See id. at 236:9-16 (Sauer). Sauer indicated that the experience would not prevent her from being fair and impartial, and that she thinks the use of juries in the criminal justice system is “good.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 237:1 (Sauer). See id. at 236:20-237:1 (Court, Sauer). Jesus Becerra stated that he served as a juror on a civil case, was not the foreperson, and agreed with the verdict. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 237:7-21 (Becerra, Court). Becerra did not believe that experience would impede his ability to be fair and impartial. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 237:22-25 (Court, Becerra). Ramona Becker provided that she served as a juror in magistrate court in a civil case, that the jury did not find the defendant guilty, and that she did not serve as the foreperson. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 238:2-14 (Court, Becker). Becker stated that nothing about the experience would prevent her from being fair and impartial, and that she believes the use of juries is valuable. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 238:15-21 (Court, Becker).

         The Court then asked whether any member of the panel would not be able to listen to a law enforcement officer witness, “judge the credibility, look at them and make a determination as to whether they're credible or not based on that individual law enforcement [officer] testifying, ” or whether any member of the panel would presume that law enforcement would tell the truth and give them “more weight, more credibility, than others[.]” Jan. 29 Tr. at 240:3-6, 10-11 (Court). See id. at 239:25-240:13 (Court). The Court then asked whether a law enforcement agency ever employed any panel member, or a family member, or a close friend. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 243:11-14 (Court). Koreena Taylor stated that her father was a deputy sheriff in both Harrison County, Mississippi, and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, as well as somewhere else that she could not recall. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 243:19-24 (Taylor, Court). Taylor maintained that this relationship would not prevent her from being fair and impartial. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 244:7 (Taylor). Cameron Johnston provided that he has friends serving as guards in the detention center in Delta, Colorado, and that his “wife's ex-husband is a state trooper there, ” Jan. 29 Tr. at 249:3-4 (Johnston), but that those relationships would not prevent him from being fair and impartial, see Jan. 29 Tr. at 249:1-9 (Johnston, Court). Becerra stated that he has a cousin who is a Texas state trooper, other cousins who are Hobbs, New Mexico, and Carlsbad, New Mexico, police officer, and a brother-in-law who is an El Paso, Texas, police officer. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 249:14-15, 17-19 (Becerra). Becerra stated that these relationships would not prevent him from being fair and impartial, and that he could be fair in this case. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 249:23-250:4 (Court, Becerra). Bush said that she has “a cousin who is a retired deputy sheriff in Wichita Falls, Texas, ” but stated that this relationship would not impede her fairness and impartiality. Jan. 29 Tr. at 254:13-14 (Bush). See id. at 254:11-19 (Court, Bush). Britney Courtier stated that she has an uncle who is a retired police officer, but stated that this relationship would not prevent her from being fair and impartial. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 255:16-22 (Courtier, Court).

         The Court then asked the venire panel: “Have you ever been involved in any court in a criminal matter that concerned yourself, any member of your family, or a close friend, either as a defendant, a witness, or a victim?” Jan. 29 Tr. at 256:10-14 (Court). Harris stated that, a year and a half ago, a friend in Idaho was convicted of possession of cocaine and is currently serving probation. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 261:13-16 (Harris). Harris said that this relationship would not prevent her from being fair and impartial. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 261:17-21 (Harris). Johnston responded that, in 1994, he was a defendant in a civil case regarding his “dog's barking, excessive noise, and we pled that out and I did some community service and paid a fine.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 262:3-5 (Johnston). Johnston stated that nothing about this experience, however, would prevent him from being fair and impartial. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 262:8-11 (Court, Johnston). Carolyn McAdams stated that, thirty years ago, her nephew was convicted of murder, see Jan. 29 Tr. at 263:21-22 (McAdams), but that she could be fair to the parties here, see Jan. 29 Tr. at 264:2-3 (Court, McAdams).

         Next, the Court asked whether the panel members have “had any experience involving yourself, any member of your family, or a close friend that relates to the use or possession of illegal drugs or narcotics?” Jan. 29 Tr. at 271:22-25 (Court). Dora Quinones shared that her “her brother was in prison in Illinois for drugs.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 273:4 (Quinones). Quinones stated that nothing about this experience would prevent her from being fair and impartial. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 273:11-15 (Court, Quinones). Harris mentioned that, besides her friend “serving probation for possession, ” she has a cousin who “died from an overdose of fentanyl.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 275:5-7 (Harris). Harris stated that this experience would not keep her from being fair and impartial. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 275:8-11 (Court, Harris). Becker noted that her sister had been “a dealer for methamphetamines for about eight years.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 275:18-19 (Becker). Becker stated that this relationship would not prevent her from being fair and impartial. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 275:25-276:4 (Court, Becker). Daedalus Laroche shared that many of his “friends and acquaintances have sold drugs or been charged with selling drugs.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 277:24-278:1 (Laroche). Laroche said that he did not believe these relationships would prevent him from being fair and impartial. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 278:2-7 (Court, Laroche).

         The Court asked whether any panel member would be unable to put aside notions or beliefs about the law to “just focus on the evidence in this courtroom, the instructions I give you, and only use those things to reach your verdict[.]” Jan. 29 Tr. at 282:16-19 (Court). See id. at 282:7-25 (Court). No. juror or alternate responded. The Court then asked again whether any panel member “has any special disability or problem that would make serving as a member of this jury difficult or impossible.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 283:25-284:2 (Court). The Court individually questioned some venire panel members about their jury questionnaires to clarify some of their answers, including about where they lived and worked, and the Court took a break in the middle of its questioning, reminding the panel of the instruction given before the first break. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 324:2-24 (Court). When the venire panel returned, the Court continued its questioning, but, at the end of the day, the Court noted that it had a few more questions to ask in the morning and then released the panel for the evening with the same instruction provided before the first break. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 378:17-379:23 (Court).

         After the venire panel left the courtroom, the Defendants noted that Russ Aoki -- the Defendants' coordinating discovery attorney -- delivered to them over 1, 000 pages of discovery, and requested that, to prevent delays, the United States start delivering discovery to them when it delivers discovery to Mr. Aoki. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 380:15-22 (Duncan). Ms. Duncan proposed that the Court order the United States to deliver documents to Mr. Aoki and Ms. Duncan at the same time, so she could disseminate the documents to the trial attorneys. See Jan. 29 Tr. at 380:23-381:6 (Duncan). Ms. Jacks underscored that the Jencks Act disclosure “deadline was January 16. It's January 29 and the Government is only now getting around to turning over grand jury testimony of witnesses it expects to call.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 385:1-4 (Jacks). The Court instructed the United States to provide its scheduling order and turn over testimony transcripts “immediately.” Jan. 29 Tr. at 385:17 (Court).

         The next morning, the Court finished asking some individual questions from the questionnaires and then allowed the United States to conduct its direct voir dire examination. See Jan. 30 Tr. at 35:15-18 (Court). Baca's attorneys then conducted their direct examination, see, e.g., Jan. 30 Tr. at 65:12-67:19 (Duncan), as did Herrera's, see, e.g., Jan. 30 Tr. at 100:19-22 (Bhalla). Ms. Bhalla asked the venire panel whether, after “what you've heard so far in voir dire and from the judge and from the government, is anybody afraid to sit on this jury? Is anybody afraid to render a fair verdict?” Jan. 30 Tr. at 128:15-18 (Bhalla). One member stated that “[t]he thought of retaliation is pretty scary, ” and that member was not picked for the jury. Jan. 30 Tr. at 128:22-23 (Apodaca). Another member, who was not picked for the jury, noted her worry that “with four people being defendants, I'm concerned that I would be able to separate the different charge[s] against each one, and between or among all four, and be fair to each one about each charge.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 130:11-15 (Hournbuckle). Ms. Bhalla asked whether others feel that way, see Jan. 30 Tr. at 130:25-131:1 (Bhalla), and one other member, who was not picked for the jury, raised her hand and provided that “I'm really scared for me to make a mistake, because we're talking about four people's lives[, ]” Jan. 30 Tr. at 131:8-10 (Montes). Another member who was not selected for the jury harkened back to the fear of retaliation, stating that, while it would not “impair me to the point where I can't go through the process[, ]” “it's definitely a real thought that you consider.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 133:18-19, 21-22 (Benavidez). Ms. Bhalla then asked: “Does anybody else think that a fear of this case is going to affect how they make decisions?” Jan. 30 Tr. at 134:21-23 (Bhalla). A member who did not make the jury stated: “So yes, I do have a concern. My name has been said.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 134:24-25 (Gonzales). He continued:

[M]y name's been said. My place where I live has been said. I mean, I own a company, you know. I don't know. I just kind of -- it is concerning, you know, if I were to be a juror, whatever, you know, and these guys were convicted and they -- you know, if it is true about, you know, what they did, how do I know they're not going to come after me, or something like that is going to happen? You know, I just want to throw it in there. You know, I don't feel comfortable and I really don't want no part of this.

Jan. 30 Tr. at 135:6-16 (Gonzales). Ms. Bhalla asked him whether “that concern [would] influence how you make a decision in this case, ” Jan. 30 Tr. at 135:20-21 (Bhalla), and he responded, “Yes, ” Jan. 30 Tr. at 135:22 (Gonzales). Ms. Bhalla inquired if any other panel members felt that way, and another member who was not selected for the jury raised his hand. See Jan. 30 Tr. at 135:25-136:2 (Bhalla). The panel member stated:

You know, I guess my concern is that -- about the retaliation, about the fact that when we were in orientation we were given a number to protect our anonymity, and as soon as we walked in here, we're talking about our spouse, where we work, and we can easily identify the fact that -- and I reflect, cool, I'm number 59. Kind of impress that a few times. I'm number 59. And I don't know what happened to that, but I talked to the clerks, and they said that's unusual, you know. They're using your names? I have anxiety about this, for sure.

Jan. 30 Tr. at 136:3-14 (Fink). Ms. Bhalla asked him whether “someone in the clerk's office [said] it was unusual for us to be using your names, ” Jan. 30 Tr. at 136:16-17 (Bhalla), and he responded, “Yes.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 136:18 (Fink). Ms. Bhalla then asked the panel: “Did someone in the clerk's office tell that to more than one person in the jury pool?” Jan. 30 Tr. at 136:19-21 (Bhalla). A panel member responded that, “[d]uring orientation[, ]” “[t]hey said identify yourself by your number.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 136:22-24 (Venire Panel Member). Ms. Bhalla inquired whether the clerk's office “specifically [told] you not to identify yourself by your name.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 137:1-2 (Bhalla). One panel member said “[y]es, ” Jan. 30 Tr. at 137:3 (Venire Panel Member), but another panel member did not remember that, see Jan. 30 Tr. at 137:4-5 (Fink). Another panel member stated that the clerk's office said to use their juror numbers, see Jan. 30 Tr. at 137:6-8 (Burton). Ms. Bhalla then requested that those panel members who “thought that your name was supposed to remain anonymous, can you please raise your hand?” Jan. 30 Tr. at 137:12-13 (Bhalla). Most panel members raised their hands. See Jan. 30 Tr. at 137:15 (Jacks)(“For the record, every juror.”). To get a more accurate count, Ms. Bhalla next asked: “If you were not told this information that your name wasn't supposed to be used, can you raise your hand?” Jan. 30 Tr. at 138:5-7 (Bhalla). Ten panel members raised their hands, although those who did not remember did not have to answer. See Jan. 30 Tr. at 138:7 (Bhalla); id. at 138:9-10 (Bhalla).

         R. Perez' attorneys then conducted their direct voir dire. See, e.g., Jan. 30 Tr. at 139:10-15 (Villa). Before breaking for lunch, the Court addressed the venire panel and stated that, while “maybe the judges down here in Las Cruces use numbers” to pick a jury, for “[e]very jury” the Court has picked, even as a trial lawyer, it has “always used names.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 161:3-4, 7 (Court). See id. at 160:25-161:7 (Court). The Court went on: “So I'm the sole reason that we've used names. I think it helps us with familiarity, it helps the lawyers, helps me, helps us all get to know each other. . . . You got some information from the clerk's office that may be the way the judges down here do it.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 161:13-19 (Court). After lunch, Mr. Villa continued with his voir dire and asked one of the panel members who mentioned a fear of retaliation, whether this fear would “come into play” while she determines guilt. Jan. 30 Tr. at 169:15-16 (Villa). She responded: “I don't want to say that it's going to skew my decision, but I'm scared of the ramifications of my decision.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 169:17-19 (Apodaca). Mr. Villa questioned this panel member some more, asking whether knowing that the Court's standard practice is to use names changes her feelings about the use of her name, see Jan. 30 Tr. at 170:5-11 (Villa), and she responded in the negative, see Jan. 30 Tr. at 170:12-14 (Apodaca). She provided that the “anxiety roller coaster I'm on” started when the clerk's office told the venire panel members that they “were given a number because it was for safety and that way, others wouldn't know our names.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 170:19-21, 24-25 (Apodaca). Another panel member who was not picked for the jury provided that, while she does not “necessarily have a fear[, ]” she has “some anxiety in the fact that these men's lives are in my hands, in our hands.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 173:2-5 (Gothard). A panel member who did not make the jury stated that she “didn't realize that the people that were on trial were going to be here hearing our personal information and gain personal identifiable information about each and every one of us, where we live and what we do[, ]” and so she has anxiety about that realization. Jan. 30 Tr. at 174:21-25 (Winston). She provided that, in making a decision about guilt, “the retaliation fears are very real in there, ” and, thus, those fears would likely affect her decisionmaking. Jan. 30 Tr. at 175:8-9 (Winston). See id. at 175:2-20 (Villa, Winston). Mr. Villa asked the panel if “anybody else share[s] those same feelings?” Jan. 30 Tr. at 175:23-24 (Villa). A panel member who did not make the jury stated that, while he “believe[s] these men to be innocent[, ] “if I were selected on the jury and we were coming to the decision that we believed they're guilty, I would feel anxiety over the fact that there may be repercussions, they may retaliate.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 176:4-8 (Baxa). He went on to say: “I put my information out here and now the people in this room know my thoughts and they know my name and they know what I look like and that's something that I would prefer not to have done.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 176:21-25 (Baxa). Another panel member who did not make the jury stated that she feels the same way. See Jan. 30 Tr. at 178:16-19 (Villa, Tighe). Wojcik concurred, stating: “I don't think it would affect that choice [as to guilt], but I definitely have anxiety.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 179:23-25 (Wojcik). Wojcik elaborated that the anxiety is both about the fear of retaliation and the fear of making the wrong decision. See Jan. 30 Tr. at 180:9-16 (Villa, Wojcik). Harris volunteered that she has anxiety about “the thoughts of any kind of coercion, you know, being approached by anyone not in this room, but maybe involved, you know, finding me and coercing me in a decision.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 181:8-11 (Harris). A panel member who did not make the jury asked whether the First Trial Defendants have the juror questionnaires that they completed, and Mr. Villa clarified that those questionnaires were given to the attorneys and the Court, but “we've all sat here in court, and so that's the extent of knowledge that everybody has.” Jan. 30 Tr. at 183:18-20 (Villa). See id. at 183:7-184:4 (Liebhart, Villa).

         After Mr. Villa finished, D. Sanchez' attorneys conducted their direct voir dire. See, e.g., Jan. 30 Tr. at 190:1-10 (Jewkes). Then the Court thanked the venire panel members for their patience, reiterated that the Court could not function without them and that they should not read news on the trial, and then excused them so the attorneys could pick their jury. See Jan. 30 Tr. at 223:1-225:3 (Court). The Court struck twenty-five panel members for cause, leaving forty members on which to do peremptory challenges. See Jan. 30 Tr. at 283:16-284:10 (Court). The Defendants requested five additional peremptory challenges “given the negative publicity and the comments made to the jurors in the jury room about the anonymous jury and to not let their identity be known because of safety concerns[.]” Jan. 30 Tr. at 287:6-10 (Jacks). See id. at 287:6-11 (Jacks). The Court denied this request. See Jan. 30 Tr. at 287:12 (Court). In the evening of January 30, 2018, after the parties exercised their peremptory challenges, the Court swore in the jury, consisting of twelve jurors and six alternates. See Trial Minutes at 7; Jan. 30 Tr. at 309:5-9, 13-16 (Clerk); id. at 310:19-24 (Court). The Court instructed the jurors that they “should not attempt to gather any information or do research on [their] own[, ]” should “not attempt to visit any places mentioned in the case, either actually or on the internet, and do not in any other way try to learn about the case outside the courtroom[, ]” Jan. 30 Tr. at 318:17-22 (Court), and “must not read or listen to any news reports of the trial, ” Jan. 30 Tr. at 320:2-3 (Court). See id. at 311:7-323:21 (Court).

         After the jury left the courtroom, the United States requested that the Court review any presentence reports prepared for the case's witnesses, and determine what the United States must disclose for Giglio or Jencks Act purposes, because the First Trial Defendants have requested disclosure of such presentence reports. See Jan. 30 Tr. at 324:3-11 (Castellano). The Court ordered that the United States make the first cut, and, if the parties cannot agree, it will make the determination. See Jan. 30 Tr. at 324:15-22 (Court).

         b. The Opening Statements.

         The next morning, the Defendants put on the record “that when the jurors were brought in and seated, two of the jurors were visibly emotional and crying.” Transcript of Jury Trial Volume 3 at 3:10-12 (taken January 31, 2018)(Jacks), filed February 22, 2019 (Doc. 2519)(“Jan. 31 Tr.”). Ms. Jacks stated that both her and Mr. Lowry observed Quinones and Harris “visibly crying and emotional when they were informed that they were actually on the jury.” Jan. 31 Tr. At 3:24-4:1 (Jacks). See id. at 3:23-4:4 (Jacks). The Court stated that it had confirmed with Ms. Wild that the jurors consisted of “a good bunch” and “were doing well.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 4:8-9 (Court). See id. at 4:5-5:10 (Court).

         The jury entered the courtroom, and the Court thanked everyone “for being back and ready to go, ” and explained that “[t]he rule has been invoked in this case[, ]” meaning “that witnesses may be excluded from the courtroom so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 12:19, 22-25 (Court). The Court explained that, with the exception of parties and expert witnesses, all witnesses “will be required to remain outside the courtroom until they are called to testify, ” and “should not discuss with other witnesses their testimony before they or the other witnesses testify, but they may discuss their testimony with the lawyers.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 13:4-9 (Court). See id. at 13:1-9 (Court). The United States then proceeded with its opening statement. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 13:14-15 (Armijo).[13] The United States provided a brief history of SNM's origins from the PNM riot and its rise to become “the largest prison gang in New Mexico.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 14:1-2 (Armijo). See id. at 13:17-14:5 (Armijo). The United States described the tension between SNM and the NM Corrections Department. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 14:6-15:8 (Armijo). The United States said that the First Trial Defendants are all SNM members. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 16:16-16:23 (Armijo). The United States stated that the trial will examine the 2014 murder of fellow SNM member Molina, who “was stabbed 43 times with shanks” “at the direction of Anthony Baca as leader.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 17:4, 11-12 (Armijo). See id. at 16:24-17:12 (Armijo). The United States touched on the motive for Molina's murder -- his statement to law enforcement -- the layout at Southern New Mexico, and how the First Trial Defendants worked with other SNM members to murder Molina and send a message to the NM Corrections Department. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 17:12-21:24 (Armijo). The United States said that the murder resulted in the NM Corrections Department putting SNM in lockdown, which SNM did not like, and that on the first day that SNM was let out of lockdown, “Julian Romero, a validated, long-standing SNM gang member, was brutally attacked.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 23:3-4 (Armijo). See id. at 21:24-23:4 (Armijo). The United States explained why Romero was killed -- because he became romantically involved with Archuleta's wife -- and that the NM Corrections Department put SNM back on lockdown after this murder, which, combined with Baca's forced move out of the state, resulted in SNM's plan to kill Marcantel and Santistevan to make a statement and regain respect. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 23:5-24:19 (Armijo). The United States stated that SNM cooperators, who wanted to leave the violence, would testify at the trial and shed light on SNM and prison life, and that, at the end of the trial, the United States will ask that the jury find them guilty. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 24:20-27:14 (Armijo). The United States referenced statements made by Baca -- stating, “If they would have let me out, Javier wouldn't be dead. That man would still be alive. But they didn't, and what's done is done. They called my bluff, and now they have a dead man on their hands.” -- and Herrera -- stating, “They fear us because they don't have it in them to kill. They ain't killers. That's the difference between them and us.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 26:11-15, 32-23 (Armijo).

         Then, D. Sanchez gave his opening statement, which began with a request that everyone embrace the spirit of a jury trial and “try this case based on what's presented here in court and the evidence that you're going to hear through the course of this trial.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 31:19-22 (Jacks). See id. at 30:7-32:6 (Jacks). D. Sanchez showed the jury a map of where Southern New Mexico is located, and photographs of a pod and a cell in the facility, and he stated that the evidence will show Molina was murdered in an austere, unpleasant environment under constant video and human surveillance. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 32:7-35:3 (Jacks). D. Sanchez noted that the two individuals who stabbed Molina -- Armenta and J. Montoya -- will testify as the United States' witnesses, as will T. Martinez, who incapacitated Molina, and M. Rodriguez, who supervised the murder and supplied weapons. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 35:4-36:16 (Jacks). D. Sanchez stated that “a lot of people in prison have a moral compass that's broken, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 37:4-5 (Jacks, ) and, when facing increased punishment, will try to find a way out, doing anything to help themselves -- such as Billy Cordova, who the evidence will show “made a deal to become a Government witness in part to avoid being charged as a defendant in this case, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 37:18-20 (Jacks). See Jan. 31 Tr. at 36:22-38:10 (Jacks). D. Sanchez underscored that, because Armenta, Montoya, and M. Rodriguez were charged for Molina's murder in state court, they had access to discovery and each other, and had “plenty of time to talk and think about how they're going to exploit the situation.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 38:24-25 (Jacks). See id. at 38:11-25 (Jacks). D. Sanchez stated that the investigating law enforcement officers offered witnesses benefits to encourage them to testify for the United States, creating a “parade of bought-and-paid-for criminals” whose testimony is uncorroborated “on many important points.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 41:6, 10-11 (Jacks). See id. at 39:1-41:12 (Jacks). D. Sanchez stated that he will establish his defense through cross-examination of the United States' witnesses and through presentation of his own witnesses, and he believes the evidence will show that he did not order Molina killed, that no “paperwork, ” or orders to kill, were sent to Southern New Mexico, and, therefore, that he is not guilty. Jan. 31 Tr. at 41:13-43:3 (Jacks).

         Herrera then gave his opening statement, admitting that he is a gang member and a drug user, but contending that the United States will not be able to prove that he murdered or conspired to murder Molina. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 43:10-44:7 (Bhalla). Herrera showed a picture of the door separating the blue pod from the yellow pod at Southern New Mexico, noting that there is no window, that he lived in the yellow pod, and that Molina was murdered in the blue pod. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 44:8-22 (Bhalla). Herrera asked the jury to consider how inmates could communicate between the pods, and noted that each pod has its own structure, that Herrera was “in the yellow pod for a pretty long time before the Molina murder, ” and yet Molina was not murdered despite the outstanding “hit, ” or order to kill, and that, while “the leaders got shipped out to PNM North, ” Herrera did not. Jan. 31 Tr. at 44:23-45:19 (Bhalla). Herrera noted that he is not in the video that the United States will show of the murder -- only the United States' witnesses are -- and that he is not charged in or involved with the conspiracy to kill Santistevan and Marcantel, so the jury should keep that evidence separate from Herrera. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 45:20-46:10 (Bhalla). Herrera stated that the United States threatened some of its witnesses with the death penalty and threatened some of its witnesses' families with prosecutions, so the witnesses felt increased pressure to cooperate and implicate more people to get a better deal -- which Herrera posited is “tainted testimony” and that “there is nothing, outside of these Government witnesses, to corroborate their testimony.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 47:21-23 (Bhalla). See id. at 46:11-47:23 (Bhalla). Herrera requested that the jury keep this pressure to cooperate in mind when listening to the evidence and weighing credibility. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 47:24-48:4 (Bhalla).

         R. Perez gave his opening statement next, outlining the medical issues with which he had struggled, and stating that he was very sick when Molina was murdered and spent most of his time in bed. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 48:11-49:16 (Fox-Young). R. Perez noted that he used a walker, so he did not leave his cell much and that his biggest concern was staying alive. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 49:17-50:22 (Fox-Young). R. Perez maintained that there will be no evidence that he was an SNM leader, or that he was involved in the Marcantel or Santistevan “hits”; rather, the only evidence of his involvement will come from M. Rodriguez, who will say that he saw D. Sanchez enter and leave R. Perez' cell, and that when M. Rodriguez entered the cell, he found R. Perez looking scared. Jan. 31 Tr. at 50:10-51:25 (Fox-Young). R. Perez stated that M. Rodriguez will not testify that R. Perez “gave him a piece to use to kill anybody, but that he himself took a piece off” R. Perez' walker and “put it in his pants, and that he returned to his own cell to make shanks out of that piece for a murder.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 51:25-52:2, 4-6 (Fox-Young). R. Perez provided that he and M. Rodriguez were the only people in that cell, and that M. Rodriguez “is going to tell you that Rudy was scared. He's also going to tell you that Rudy said that he was down for whatever, as long as it wasn't him. [R. Perez] didn't know if this [weapon] was going to be used on him.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 52:12-16 (Fox-Young). See id. at 52:7-16 (Fox-Young). R. Perez told the jury that it will see that R. Perez cared only about was not getting hurt, that he was “not somebody who is making an agreement” or “who wanted to help kill another person; not somebody who intended to carry out a murder, to assist in carrying out a murder, or to send a message. [He] was just trying to stay alive.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 52:20-25 (Fox-Young). See id. at 52:17-25 (Fox-Young). R. Perez explained that, when the defense “ask[s] questions of the Government's witnesses, we're putting on our case as well, so pay close attention to what we ask and how those questions are answered.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 53:4-7 (Fox-Young). R. Perez told the jury that it would hear from the United States' witnesses that R. Perez “had been threatened and that he would have been killed if he had tried to stop this from happening” and that, because he was so sick, he was physically unable to defend himself so he “had no choice.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 53:20 (Fox-Young). See id. at 53:9-22 (Fox-Young). R. Perez maintained that the evidence will show that he was in bed while Molina was murdered, and that, after the murder, he was moved to Santa Fe with other SNM members and housed in solitary confinement for two years “for doing nothing.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 55:8 (Fox-Young). See id. at 54:11- 55:12 (Fox-Young). R. Perez stated that, while in solitary confinement, he could communicate with others through cell vents, and that rumors started spreading after Montoya, Armenta, and M. Rodriguez were charged for the murder that R. Perez was cooperating, because he was not charged. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 55:13-56:22 (Fox-Young). R. Perez said that FBI Agent Acee went to B. Cordova and threatened him with prosecution, so B. Cordova -- who “knew that everyone thought Rudy was a rat, and he knew that he could take advantage of that and try to make a deal for himself by capitalizing on Rudy's fears, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 57:14-17 (Fox-Young); see id.at 57:3-17 (Fox-Young) -- decided to “save his own hide and try to get information[, ]” so the United States moved B. Cordova next to R. Perez in segregation, where R. Perez “was alone, paranoid, scared, hearing all these rumors, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 57:19-20, 23-24 (Fox-Young). See Jan. 31 Tr. at 57:18-25 (Fox-Young). R. Perez said that he could talk only to B. Cordova at this time and, knowing B. Cordova's reputation for having a big mouth, R. Perez “said nobody deserves a free pass on a violation, and that everybody has to do their part” to Cordova in an attempt to survive, because R. Perez knew he was in danger as people believed him to be a “rat, ” or a person cooperating with the government against SNM. Jan. 31 Tr. at 58:12-13 (Fox-Young). See id. at 58:3-20 (Fox-Young). R. Perez maintained that Molina's murderers and B. Cordova “have incentives to say anything in order to get a deal” when they testify, and underscored that the jury must view his case independently and that it will decide there is no evidence to hold him guilty in this case. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 58:21-59:17 (Fox-Young).

         Last, Baca gave his opening statement. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 59:23 (Lowry). Baca underscored that the jury must remember that, if “the evidence hasn't been recorded, it hasn't happened, ” and that “almost the entirety of this case rests upon the shoulders of men who are murderers, thieves, drug dealers, and wife-beaters” whose credibility “leaves something to be desired.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 60:3, 8-10, 12 (Lowry). See id. at 59:25-60:12 (Lowry). Baca noted that the United States' witnesses know that “they need to have a compelling story to avoid the consequences of their actions, ” and so he requested that the jury “listen carefully to the evidence and watch these witnesses testify, ” to decide if they are telling the truth and determine if their stories are corroborated. Jan. 31 Tr. at 60:19-21, 23-25 (Lowry). See id. at 60:13-61:4 (Lowry). Baca highlighted one particular cooperator, Eric Duran, who wanted out of prison, so he went to the FBI, lied and said he was not an SNM member, but said he would “be a great undercover agent” and do whatever the FBI wanted, because he wanted to give back to his community, if the FBI would get him out of prison. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 61:5-66:6 (Lowry). Baca posited that Duran “needed to create information to make sure the doors to that facility opened, ” so Duran collected evidence in the prison. Jan. 31 Tr. at 66:13-14 (Lowry). See id. at 66:7-67:16 (Lowry). Baca noted that, after the indictment in this case, Duran received many benefits, including thousands of dollars and early release from prison, but that, after being released and relocated to Washington, Duran kept having interactions with police, which Baca posited does not sound like a person who wants to give back to his community. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 67:17-71:23 (Lowry). Baca told the jury that the New Mexico Parole Division arrested Duran and brought him to New Mexico, and Baca emphasized that although all of Duran's interactions with law enforcement are recorded, “Duran will tell you stories that you cannot corroborate, ” so the jury must determine whether he is telling the truth. Jan. 31 Tr. at 73:4-5 (Lowry). See id. at 71:24-73:12 (Lowry). Baca described how he joined SNM “as a very young man, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 73:23-24 (Lowry), because “he needed the protection and the bonds of friendship that that gang had to offer[, ]” Jan. 31 Tr. at 74:21-22 (Lowry). See Jan. 31 Tr. at 73:13-74:22 (Lowry). Baca noted that the prison administration moved him to Nevada for about ten years and that, when he returned to Southern New Mexico in 2008, SNM “was in disarray, ” so he tried to unite them. Jan. 31 Tr. at 75:14-15 (Lowry). SNM did not like his plans, so they told the prison administration that he would be killed if he was not moved, so he was moved to solitary confinement at the PNM in 2011. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 74:4-76:16 (Lowry). Baca stated that he returned to Southern New Mexico in 2013 and, within a few months, he was moved back to the PNM, because SNM again rejected him -- in contravention of the United States' theory that Baca is SNM's leader -- and was living at PNM when Molina was killed. See Jan. 31 Tr. at ¶ 76:17-77:18 (Lowry). Baca maintained that the jury will not see any “paperwork” on Molina and will not hear Baca confess to ordering a “hit” on Molina in Duran's recordings. Jan. 31 Tr. at 77:19-78:8 (Lowry). Further, Baca stated that the only evidence regarding his alleged assault on Romero's wife will be provided by people trying to avoid prison, and that the evidence will establish that Archuleta ordered Romero's murder. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 78:9-79:23 (Lowry). Last, as to the conspiracy to murder Marcantel, Baca stated that the FBI asked Duran if there was a “hit” on the Secretary of Corrections and then, “miraculously, ” Duran intercepted a number of letters -- letters he talked people into writing -- discussing a “hit” on Santistevan. Jan. 31 Tr. at 79:24-83:3 (Lowry). Baca suggested that he did not actually want Marcantel killed, and asked the jury not to hold him guilty for his past mistakes and to find him not guilty. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 83:4-25 (Lowry).

         While the jury was taking a break outside the courtroom, D. Sanchez made two objections to the opening statements and moved for a mistrial. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 85:19-21 (Jacks). D. Sanchez first objected to the United States' reference to Baca's statement about ordering the Molina murder, because this statement is inadmissible hearsay as to D. Sanchez and is prejudicial. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 85:21-86:14 (Jacks). The Court stated that it would give a limiting instruction when D. Sanchez requested one. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 86:15-21 (Court, Jacks). D. Sanchez then objected to R. Perez' opening statement that D. Sanchez “threatened [him] to give up a piece of his walker, and that he was scared[, ]” Jan. 31 Tr. at 88:19-20 (Jacks), noting the “tension and conflicting defenses, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 88:16-17 (Jacks). See Jan. 31 Tr. at 88:13-22 (Jacks). The Court told D. Sanchez to send his arguments to the Court in a letter, and denied the motion for mistrial and to sever. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 89:3-5, 7-8 (Court). The United States noted that R. Perez' statement about being threatened is inadmissible hearsay and will not come in as evidence. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 90:8-17 (Castellano). The United States then called its first witness. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 91:1-3 (Court, Castellano).

         c. Bryan Acee's Testimony -- January 31, 2018, and February 1, 2018.

         The United States called Acee as its first witness. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 91:10 (Castellano). Acee stated that he began his law enforcement career as a police officer in 1997, then a detective, and then, in 2009, he became an FBI special agent. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 92:14-25 (Acee). Acee said that he “worked gangs and drug violations and organized crime, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 21-22 (Acee), and now “work[s] gang and organized crime investigations[, ]” Jan. 31 Tr. at 93:8-9 (Acee). Acee stated that he also trains new FBI agents, has taught FBI and university classes on gangs, drugs, and the Juárez Cartel, and that the FBI considers him an expert on SNM and the Juárez Cartel. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 93:16-21 (Acee); id. at 94:16-21, 24-25 (Acee). Acee said he completed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Firearm Specialist Academy, which trains agents how to determine and investigate whether a firearm traveled over state lines to establish an interstate nexus. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 95:13-20 (Acee).

         Acee provided that he was the lead case agent for the SNM investigation -- which focused on racketeering activities -- and that his involvement in the case began in 2015 when the Security Threat Intelligence Unit (“STIU”) at the PNM approached him with eight letters, written by SNM members, calling for Marcantel's and Santistevan's murders. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 95:21-97:13 (Castellano, Acee). Upon receiving these letters, Acee formed a task force that was comprised of the FBI, the New Mexico Corrections Department, and the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department with part-time participation from all of New Mexico's jails, detention centers, and some cold-case homicide units. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 97:18, 21-23 (Acee). See id. at 97:14-98:5 (Castellano, Acee). Acee stated that the task force collaborated with cold-case homicide units, because the task force “discovered that there were at least a dozen cold-case homicides[14] around the state [in which] there was suspected involvement with the SNM prison gang or SNM members who were on the street.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 99:21-25 (Acee). Acee conducted the investigation by “interviewing former members of the gang, associates of the gang, family members, [and] witnesses, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 100:21-22 (Acee), and attempting “to develop informants within the gang[, ]” Jan. 31 Tr. at 100:25-101:1 (Acee). Acee said that he was looking for the gang's “vulnerabilities” and, after collecting evidence, focused on “firearms and drug trafficking.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 101:13, 18-19 (Acee). See Id. at 101:9-19 (Acee, Castellano). To collect evidence of drug trafficking, Acee used controlled buys[15] and undercover buys[16] targeting SNM members and associates on the streets. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 104:13-107:3 (Acee, Castellano). Acee testified that these procedures led to the arrests of Mario Montoya and C. Garcia -- one of the investigation's “immediate targets” whom Acee described as “an SNM [member] that lived on the streets in Albuquerque, [and] was a pretty prolific heroin and crack dealer for many years.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 108:8-10 (Acee). Acee stated that he had the NM Corrections Department “conduct parole searches on all SNM members on the street, ” which revealed a firearm in Robert Lovato's house, and led to his charge for “being a felon in possession of a firearm.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 109:3-4, 15-16 (Acee). See id. at 108:20-109:16 (Castellano, Acee).

         Acee also described PNM's architectural layout as comprising of two similar-looking facilities: one to the north known as the “North” or the “Level 6, ” the most secure facility in New Mexico, and a facility immediately south called “South, ” which, in 2015, was a Level 5 facility housing many of the state's gang members. Jan. 31 Tr. at 98:21-99:6 (Acee). Acee noted that PNM South is different from Southern New Mexico, which is the prison in Las Cruces. Jan. 31 Tr. at 99:12-15 (Acee). Acee stated that, after obtaining court orders to use wiretaps, they introduced two wiretapped cellular telephones into prison with the Deputy Secretary's permission; Acee communicated only with Deputy Secretary Mark Myers, because he felt it inappropriate to communicate with the Cabinet Secretary Marcantel, because he is an alleged victim in the case and Acee did not think he should be involved in the investigation. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 109:22-112:24 (Acee). Acee noted that “[a] prison environment is a tough place to do any kind of undercover work” and is “not a trustworthy environment.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 113:15-16, 21-22 (Acee). Acee said that, after charging M. Montoya with drug offenses, the court placed him on pretrial supervised release under the FBI's supervision, and the FBI gave him with a wiretapped cellular telephone to use in controlled buys. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 114:4-115:9 (Castellano, Acee). Acee said that the FBI had Baca moved from a Colorado prison to a cell next to Duran at PNM North in October, 2015, and Baca learned of Duran's cellular telephone so Duran would make phone calls for Baca by putting his telephone “on speaker and hold[ing] it next to the vent and Baca would talk into it.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 116:9-11 (Acee). See id. at 116:2-11 (Acee); id. at 119:16-22 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 122:14-22 (Acee). Acee stated that, when Baca asked C. Garcia who should complete the “hit” on Marcantel, Acee told Duran to suggest M. Montoya and told M. Montoya to present himself to C. Garcia as a viable candidate for the job. Jan. 31 Tr. at 116:12-117:5 (Acee). Duran made “a lot of recordings” of Baca while they were housed next to each other. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 123:20-24 (Castellano, Acee).

         Acee stated that the U.S. Attorney's Office charged the Defendants and presented the case to a grand jury at the beginning of December, 2015, which resulted in the issuance and serving of “dozens of search and arrest warrants, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 125:22-23 (Acee), the NM Corrections Department's lockdown[17] of five prisons to search SNM members' cells, and “about 45 parole searches around the state of SNM members, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 126:5-6 (Acee). Acee described collecting the arrestees at a centralized facility and taking their fingerprints, DNA, and photographs of their street- and prison-gang tattoos, and also attempting to interview them. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 127:4-15, 18-25 (Acee). Acee recognized photographs of D. Sanchez taken at that time, and the United States published them to the jury. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 130:2-11 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 130:21-23 (Castellano, Court). Acee noted various tattoos of interest on D. Sanchez visible in the photographs: (i) the letters “N” and “M” for New Mexico on his right and left forearms, respectively; (ii) the Zia symbol on both elbows and his right knee; (iii) a “chata, ” which is a female wearing a sombrero, on his left shoulder; (iv) his name on his back and the left side of his leg; (v) his hometown, Belen, New Mexico, on his neck; (vi) an outline of the State of New Mexico with the words “Valencia County”; and (vii) a man wearing a headband behind prison bars. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 132:11-134:19 (Acee, Castellano). Acee stated that they arrested D. Sanchez for committing a “violent crime in aid of racketeering, specifically for the murder of Javier Molina that occurred in 2014 down here in Las Cruces, at the Southern New Mexico.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 135:9-12 (Acee). Acee explained that the Molina murder was a case he took from the state system to prosecute in the federal system, “because we had evidence that fell within the federal racketeering guidelines.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 135:23-24 (Acee). See id. at 135:13-24 (Castellano, Acee). He noted that initially only J. Montoya and Armenta were charged with the murder, and M. Rodriguez “was charged with tampering with evidence, ” but because of the FBI investigation more people were charged. Jan. 31 Tr. at 136:15-16 (Acee). See id. at 136:3-22 (Castellano, Acee).

         The United States then published photographs of Baca to the jury, taken the same day as D. Sanchez', and Acee noted tattoos of interest on Baca's body: (i) a Zia symbol with the letter “S”[18] in its center, near his left eye; (ii) his name on his neck; (iii) the phrase “Duke City, ” which refers to Albuquerque, New Mexico, on his neck; (iv) an outline of buildings in Albuquerque, including the Hyatt building, on his upper back; (v) currency, on his left shoulder; (vi) a ball cap or hoodie with the letter “S, ” on his right shoulder; (vii) a prison tower with the words “Nuevo Mexico Sindicato” in the center of his torso; (viii) Mayan or Aztec style artwork, which Acee identified as a theme among SNM members, on his shoulders and upper back; and (ix) a man with a handlebar mustache wearing a hat and sunglasses, on his right hand. Jan. 31 Tr. at 138:5-141:9 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 141:13-142:25 (Acee, Castellano). Acee identified Baca as another person charged in Molina's murder once it became a federal case. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 143:1-9 (Castellano, Acee).

         The United States also showed the jury photographs of Armenta, and Acee described his tattoos: (i) the letters “NSL, ” which Acee believed stood for the North Side Locos street gang, with “114%” and “Norteno, ”[19] on his stomach; (ii) guns, money, and naked women, which Acee identified as another theme, on his left arm; (iii) a prison tower and three scrolls[20] with “01, ” “02, ” and “05, ” on his right arm; (iv) his moniker “Creeper, ” on the back of his neck; (v) “Disavowed” behind his right ear; (vi) “Misunderstood” behind his left ear; (vii) a Zia symbol and an outline of New Mexico, which Acee identified as another theme, on the top of his head; (viii) “NSL 14, ” which Acee identified as a street gang, on his right middle finger; (ix) a Zia symbol on his right knee; (x) “NOR, ” for north, and “14, ” which Acee identified as referencing the street gang, on his right leg; and (xi) “SIDE” on Armenta's left leg, so both legs together reference “north side.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 145:1-148:18 (Acee, Castellano).

         The United States also introduced photographs of J. Montoya, with Acee again noting his tattoos: (i) “JR, ” referencing his nickname “Junior, ” on his chest; (ii) a peacock and the phrase “San Jo, ” which Acee identified as referencing the San Jose street gang, on his left forearm; (iii) “east” on the back of his left forearm and “side” on his right forearm, forming “east side” which Acee identified as referencing the east side San Jose street gang; (iv) “San Jose” on his neck and lower back; and (v) a Zia with an “S” in its center on his back. Jan. 31 Tr. at 149:24-151:22 (Acee, Castellano). The United States then showed photographs of M. Rodriguez and Acee noted his tattoos of interest: (i) “Blue, ” his moniker, across his abdomen; (ii) an outline of New Mexico with “Silver City, ” his hometown and the location of the street gang in which he belongs, between the “L” and the “U” in the previous tattoo; (iii) on his left wrist, “ES, ” meaning “east side, ” which Acee identified as the street gang in which M. Rodriguez belongs; (iv) prison bars on his inner left forearm; (v) “SC” and what Acee believed was “Silver City, ” on the back of his head; and (vi) a large Zia, on his left thigh. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 158:1-160:19 (Castellano, Acee).

         Acee then identified T. Martinez' tattoos as the United States showed his photographs: (i) “Silver City, ” his hometown, on T. Martinez' upper back; (ii) an outline of New Mexico and “Nuevo Mexico” on his back; (iii) Mayan or Aztec style tattoos extending from his right arm and shoulder down the right side of his back; (iv) a Zia containing the letter “M” and “575, ” the area code for southern New Mexico, on his left knee; (v) below that, an outline of New Mexico; (vi) a bird on his left calf, which is either a peacock -- a bird that some SNM members maintain is identified with SNM -- or a roadrunner[21]; (vii) on his right knee, a Zia containing the letter “N, ” for New Mexico when combined with the Zia on the other knee; and (viii) below that, what could be a prison tower or an Asian style building. Jan. 31 Tr. at 161:24-163:24 (Acee, Castellano).

         The United States then introduced photographs of David Calbert, who is not charged in Molina's murder but is charged with “with different racketeering activity” in the United States v. Varela case. Jan. 31 Tr. at 165:12-13 (Acee). See id. at 164:25-165:18 (Castellano, Acee). Acee noted Calbert's tattoos of interest: (i) an “S” on his chin; (ii) an “S” inside a Zia on his lower throat; (iii) “Spider, ” his moniker, across his stomach; (iv) spider webs[22] on his left bicep; (v) his name and NM Corrections Department identification number on the back of his neck; and (vi) the phrase “Trust no bitch” across his shoulder blades. Jan. 31 Tr. at 165:21-167:6 (Acee, Castellano).

         The United States then turned to R.P. Martinez, who was charged in the conspiracy to kill Marcantel and Santistevan, and Acee stated that he read the letters intercepted by corrections officials, some of which “claim to be written by someone named Roy Martinez[.]” Jan. 31 Tr. at 167:24-25 (Castellano). See id. at 168:3-11 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 168:21-169:1 (Castellano, Acee). The United States published to the jury photographs of R.P. Martinez' tattoos, and Acee described the ones of interest: (i) a Zia with “SNM”[23] on the right of his stomach; (ii) the letters “WSL, ” which Acee identified as standing for the West Side Locos street gang, and a “16” on the left of his stomach; (iii) a Zia on his left arm; and (iv) “home boy” with “Shadow, ” one of his monikers, above it on his back right shoulder. Jan. 31 Tr. at 169:2-171:1 (Castellano, Acee).

         The United States then showed photographs of R. Martinez and Acee noted R. Martinez' one tattoo of “significance” -- “SNM” on his left tricep. Jan. 31 Tr. at 172:10, 17-18 (Acee). See id. at 172:6-18 (Castellano, Acee). Acee explained that R. Martinez is “charged in the Marcantel-Santistevan conspiracy, ” for writing letters urging the “hits, ” “as well as another violent-crime-in-aid-of-racketeering assault, ” on an SNM member who had disrespected R. Martinez. Jan. 31 Tr. at 173:6-9 (Acee). See id. at 173:10-18 (Castellano, Acee).

         The United States next turned to Archuleta, noting that his photographs were taken on a different date than the rest, which Acee explained occurred because they arrested Archuleta in Tennessee as part of the investigation's Phase 2. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 174:7-175:4 (Castellano, Acee). Acee stated that Archuleta had been an SNM leader at one time, and then noted Archuleta's tattoos of interest: (i) “Nuevo Mexico” just above his waist; (ii) a peacock on the back of each shoulder; and (iii) “Lilly” on his neck and “Lilly S., ” who Acee identified as the woman who caused the “civil war in the SNM, ” on his right shoulder. Jan. 31 Tr. at 176:17 (Acee). See id. at 175:16-176:18 (Castellano, Acee). Acee said that the civil war “was a point of contention between” Archuleta and Romero, “and they politicked to make it a point of contention in the gang.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 176:17, 22-24 (Acee). It resulted in Archuleta being charged with a “violent-crime-in-aid-of-racketeering attempt to commit assault resulting in great bodily injury” on Romero. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 176:19-177:12 (Castellano, Acee).

         The United States then showed photographs of Manuel Jacob Armijo, who also was arrested in Phase 2, and Acee noted his tattoos of interest: (i) a prison tower, gate, and barbed wire on his right arm; (ii) below that, a Zia with an “S”; (iii) a wolf print with “Mex” underneath, which Acee believed to reference the Albuquerque Lobos, on the inside of Armijo's right arm near his armpit; (iv) the term “Barelas, ” which Acee recognized as an older Albuquerque neighborhood[24]and street gang, across his stomach; and (v) a Zia with an “S, ” on the inside of his left wrist. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 178:22-180:10 (Castellano, Acee). Acee said that Armijo is charged in a separate indictment[25] with a RICO Act conspiracy in which “[t]wo of the gentlemen in court were charged with . . . as well.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 180:18-19 (Acee). See id. at 180:11-19 (Castellano, Acee). Acee indicated that this separate indictment contained allegations against Armijo for SNM member Michael Giron's murder in the indictment's “overt acts” section, but that these overt acts were dropped, because the FBI found evidence showing Armijo was not involved in that murder. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 180:20-181:6 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 196:11-197:3 (Castellano, Acee).

         At the bench, outside the hearing of the jury, Baca's counsel “move[d] for a mistrial based on Bryan Acee announcing to the jury that two of the defendants are being charged in another case not before the jury.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 182:6-9 (Duncan). R. Perez' attorneys joined, because the testimony was not clear who the two Defendants were, which “leaves the impression that it could be Mr. Perez.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 182:21-22 (Villa). See id. at 182:18-22 (Villa). The Court suggested that the United States “come back to it and clear up that none of the men in this case are charged in other cases, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 183:6-7 (Court), at which point D. Sanchez' attorneys joined the objection and noted that “it's probably inappropriate for Mr. Castellano to tell Agent Acee to come back to court and testify to something that's not true, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 183:10-13 (Jacks). D. Sanchez' counsel determined that they did not want further testimony on the topic and the Court denied the motion for mistrial, so the proceedings continued. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 184:11-19 (Jacks, Court).

         Acee told the jury that, because of informants, Herrera and R. Perez were charged for the Molina murder. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 184:22-185:2 (Castellano, Acee). Acee stated that he was surprised that one informant, B. Cordova, started cooperating with the FBI; Acee did not want to charge B. Cordova, because Acee “was looking to utilize him as a tool to continue to collect the information on the SNM, ” although Acee noted that the U.S. Attorney's Office makes charging decisions and Acee makes only recommendations. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 186:8-190:8 (Castellano, Acee). Acee testified that B. Cordova was a “good-standing member of the S, a popular well-known one, ” and so the FBI placed him in prison wearing a wire, housed next to R. Perez and Herrera. Jan. 31 Tr. at 190:17-18 (Acee). See id. at 190:16-23 (Acee, Castellano). Acee stated that B. Cordova recorded R. Perez and Herrera, which led to their charges in this case. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 190:24-191:2 (Castellano, Acee).

         The United States then showed photographs of R. Perez and Acee noted his tattoos of interest: (i) R. Perez' name on his lower stomach; (ii) “Mi Vida Loca, ” which means “my crazy life” and which law enforcement attributes to gangs, although many non-gang members also get this tattoo, on his neck; (iii) “New” on the backside of one wrist and “Mexico” on the other side; (iv) “Brown Pride” on his upper back; and (v) a peacock on his left shoulder. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 191:14-192:17 (Castellano, Acee). Acee then discussed Herrera's significant tattoos as the United States showed photographs: (i) a Zia with an “S, ” above Herrera's belly button; (ii) an “18” on his left middle and ring fingers, which Acee identified as a reference to Albuquerque's 18th Street Gang; (iii) “Eighteen” on the back of his neck, again referencing the street gang; and (iv) his nickname, “Lazy, ” below three dots in a triangular shape[26] on his left hand. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 193:19-22 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 195:3- (Castellano, Acee).

         Acee described some of the benefits that the cooperators in the case received, such as putting about $50.00 a month in their NM Corrections Department accounts, extra telephone calls, and the ability to “buy extra stamps, envelopes, drawing pencils, chips, snacks.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 198:24-25 (Acee). See id. at 197:14-199:3 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 199:13-15 (Acee). Acee stated that the FBI would try to accommodate the cooperators' requests to send this extra account money to their wives or girlfriends. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 199:3-10 (Acee). If the cooperators broke FBI rules, Acee said he confronted them, “closed them as an informant, ” and stopped payments. Jan. 31 Tr. at 199:23-200:6 (Acee). Acee testified that he would open people as informants, which is the official documentation process recognizing their cooperation with the FBI, so they could wear wires, and obtain compensation, which he noted made it easier to dole out benefits and keep track of them. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 200:9-201:11 (Acee, Castellano). Acee described moving M. Montoya and Duran out of state for safety, offering to move other cooperators, and helping a cooperator's wife, who “felt threatened, ” move. Jan. 31 Tr. at 202:14 (Acee). See id. at 202:2-16 (Acee). Acee noted that the NM Corrections Department reduced Duran's sentence under its policy allowing the award of time off a sentence for saving lives, because it credited Duran with saving two lives. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 204:2-15 (Castellano, Acee). Acee stated that the FBI paid Duran about $45, 000.00 in total, including a deposit $25, 000.00 in Duran's prison account, but stated that no other cooperator was paid “anywhere near that.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 205:5 (Acee). See id. at 204:19-205:5 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 207:12-14 (Acee). Acee stated that this money helped cover Duran's expenses in moving out of state, and that includes money paid to Duran for his FBI involvement in his new state. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 206:1-24 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 207:6-17 (Acee). Acee described that, with this other FBI office, it was important that Duran not have outstanding charges and warrants, so, when a warrant in El Paso, Texas, surfaced for Duran for charges nearly twenty years old, Acee offered to arrest Duran and fly him to the El Paso District Attorney's office. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 208:11-209:12 (Castellano, Acee). Acee maintained that he did not ask the District Attorney's office to dismiss those charges, and that, after looking at the case, the District Attorney's office dismissed the case. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 209:13-19 (Castellano, Acee). When Duran was found with a firearm in a vehicle, Acee stated he had the NM Corrections Department issue a warrant, asked the FBI to charge Duran with being a felon in possession of a firearm, and obtained and executed a search warrant for Duran's DNA when he arrived back in New Mexico. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 209:24-210:17 (Castellano, Acee).

         As to the incarcerated cooperators, Acee said that they were, at one point, housed together away from other inmates for their safety, and that this housing came with additional privileges. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 211:3-15 (Castellano, Acee). These privileges included having more time outside their cells in the tier, extra telephone calls for friends and family, and more visits with family. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 211:17-24 (Acee). Acee stated that, during contact visits with their family, some of the cooperators broke the rules by having more contact than allowed -- which included sexual contact -- and so Acee closed them as informants and terminated payments. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 212:2-213:6 (Castellano, Acee). After this inappropriate contact, the informants were transferred from North PNM, which is where they were housed at the time. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 214:11-20 (Castellano, Acee).

         Acee testified that the investigation's Phase 3 addressed threats to cooperators and witnesses and resulted in twelve search warrants and four parole searches that uncovered money, eleven firearms, and drugs. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 214:21-215:10 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 215:15-18 (Acee). The FBI also searched a federal inmate's cell -- F. Gallegos -- who “has two brothers who are also SNM members that we've arrested” and who are facing charges in the second trial. Jan. 31 Tr. at 216:6-7 (Acee). See id. at 215:20-216:21 (Castellano, Acee). Acee described conducting three “reversal operations” in this case, in which the FBI sells contraband to someone -- here, guns -- and once the delivery is made, the FBI SWAT team goes in and makes the arrest. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 216:22-217:19 (Castellano, Acee). Acee also testified that, for every SNM member released from prison, an FBI agent is the initial check-in at the parole office to introduce themselves to the SNM members, gauge whether they will stay members, and let them know that “if they're going to continue to be gang members in New Mexico, we're going to keep an eye on them and we're going to be after them.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 219:5-8 (Acee). See id. at 218:18-219:8 (Acee, Castellano).

         Acee stated that using undercover agents placed in the prisons was not an option, because not only is it against protocol, but SNM likely would not open up to the agents. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 219:19-220:9 (Acee). Acee said that this inability to use agents necessitated the FBI's reliance on informants to obtain evidence. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 220:22-221:2 (Castellano, Acee). Acee stated that he was concerned about “paperwork” being provided to the Defendants, because any reports on cooperators could be distributed throughout the prisons and jails. Jan. 31 Tr. at 221:14-23 (Castellano, Acee). Acee stated that the Defendants received discovery on tablets, but that some of his cooperators told him that they could access the internet via these tablets -- a function which was supposed to be disabled. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 221:24-222:19 (Castellano, Acee). Acee stated that, without authorization, Defendants used the tablets “to send emails, access Facebook, make accounts, and surf the internet, and access pornography, ” so the FBI confiscated their tablets. Jan. 31 Tr. at 223:1-3 (Acee). See id. at 223:12-14 (Castellano, Acee).

         While the Court waited for the jury to return from a break, R. Perez requested that the Court strike B. Cordova as a witness, because an FBI 302 report[27] on B. Cordova from 2016 “has clearly exculpatory information about Mr. Cordova committing a murder, at least Giglio information, that wasn't produced until late January, mid-January, ” that “is part of a pattern by the United States that we've been pointing out in which they have not produced Giglio material, and this Court ordered it to be produced back in the spring.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 226:12-15, 17-20 (Villa). See id. at 226:7-20 (Villa). The Court requested that R. Perez point to “some prejudice in a more concrete way, ” because as it stands, “it's too academic for me to impose such a drastic remedy.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 227:1-3 (Court). R. Perez stated he would “submit a letter to the Court.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 228:4 (Fox-Young).

         When the jury returned, the United States finished its direct examination of Acee. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 228:25-229:1 (Castellano, Acee). Baca conducted the first cross-examination. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 230:10-13 (Court, Lowry). Baca returned to the benefits that the FBI gave to cooperators, and showed Acee an FBI document that allowed Acee to recall that, as of November 1, 2017, the FBI had paid Duran $46, 297.00. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 231:4-12, 18-23 (Lowry, Acee). Acee described the process by which the FBI determined payment amounts, noting that the incarcerated cooperators received, on average, $50.00 per month, while special circumstances, such as car issues, warranted some larger payouts -- such as the $1, 601.50 payment to M. Montoya, to repair a recreational vehicle he was using to leave New Mexico. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 232:8-233:12 (Lowry, Acee). Acee noted that Alonso received only $400.00, because “[h]e started cooperating much later.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 233:16 (Acee). See id. at 233:13-16 (Lowry, Acee). Acee agreed that another benefit for the cooperators is that they are not prosecuted, and Baca underscored that this benefit would not appear on the FBI's financial reports and that Archuleta was not prosecuted for his admitted desire to kill Romero. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 233:21-234:25 (Lowry, Acee). Baca inquired whether Archuleta had the opportunity to kill Romero, because of Archuleta's status as a leader of SNM, but Acee noted that, in Baca's absence, leadership changed so “there has been certainly more than one leader in the gang, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 235:22-23 (Acee), and that Archuleta “was one of the leaders, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 235:13 (Acee). See Jan. 31 Tr. at 235:1-23 (Lowry, Acee). Baca elicited that Acee asked each SNM member which faction they are in -- the Archuleta camp or the Romero camp -- although, today, Acee said that he believes that there is a state faction and a federal faction. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 235:24-237:3 (Lowry, Acee). Acee stated that he told the grand jury that Archuleta and Romero were SNM's two leaders, and Acee clarified that he discussed the split in SNM over these men because of the fight over a woman. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 238:11-14 (Lowry, Acee); id. at 238:23-239:1 (Acee). Acee stated that the “SNM is a blood in, blood out gang, ” but noted that there are many contradictions within the gang, so just some members believe that death is the only way out. Jan. 31 Tr. at 239:13 (Lowry). See id. at 239:12-24 (Lowry, Acee).

         Baca inquired whether Acee was “aware of any calls made on [Duran's] behalf when it got in trouble with the law, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 240:11-12 (Lowry), and Acee said that the New Mexico U.S. Attorney's Office contacted prosecuting agencies for the warrant in El Paso and the charges Duran picked up in Multnomah County, Oregon, see Jan. 31 Tr. at 240:9-241:21 (Lowry, Acee). Acee noted that the Oregon district attorney dismissed the charges against Duran once it learned that the FBI would pick them up, and that the Oregon U.S. Attorney's Office wants the “results of fingerprints or DNA[, ]” Jan. 31 Tr. at 243:7-8(Acee), so Duran has not “been charged yet, but it's pending[, ]” Jan. 31 Tr. at 243:11-12 (Acee). See Jan. 31 Tr. at 241:17-23 (Lowry, Acee); id. at 243:2-12 (Lowry, Acee). Acee said that he contacted the Oregon district attorney, because he was concerned that Duran had been released and “wanted to know why he had been released.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 243:23 (Acee). See id. at 243:20-23 (Acee). Acee said that, in March, 2015, the local FBI office signed up Duran as a confidential human source (“CHS”) under agent Katie Brusuelas, and that Duran was transferred to Acee that fall. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 244:4-245:13 (Lowry, Acee). Acee shared Brusuelas' feedback on Duran's CHS performance, that “he had phenomenal access to the SNM, was housed up at the Level 6 with some of the leaders, and that he was willing to testify and make recordings.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 245:1-3 (Acee). Acee stated that Duran sounded promising, so when Duran was transferred to Acee, Acee “deployed a different recording device or devices with him[, ]” because there were issues with the first device. Jan. 31 Tr. at 245:12-13 (Acee). See Id. at 245:7-16 (Lowry, Acee). Acee testified that he told his informants that “there needs to be a recording” so that he can “corroborate what they're telling me[, ]” Jan. 31 Tr. at 246:1, 4-5 (Acee), and Baca underscored that in a pretrial hearing, Acee testified: “Well, if it's not recorded, the conversation, in my mind, didn't happen[, ]” Jan. 31 Tr. at 246:18-19 (Lowry). See Jan. 31 Tr. at 245:21-246:20 (Lowry, Acee). Acee testified that his desire for recordings sometimes stems from his concern about the incarcerated informants' honesty and integrity. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 246:21-247:5 (Lowry, Acee).

         Herrera then began his cross-examination. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 247:22 (Maynard). Herrera first had Acee clarify that Herrera is not charged in the “other accusations of other murders involved in SNM, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 248:4-5 (Maynard), or in the state case involving Armenta, J. Montoya, and M. Rodriguez, see Jan. 31 Tr. at 248:3-18 (Maynard, Acee). Acee said that, after Molina's murder in 2014, three people were sent from Southern New Mexico out of state and “several were sent to the North facility in Santa Fe, ” and although Acee could not recall who was moved, he stated that Herrera was not sent out of state. Jan. 31 Tr. at 249:1 (Acee). See id. at 248:19-249:13 (Maynard, Acee). Herrera harkened back to the rivalry between Archuleta and Romero, noting that there are many disagreements between inmates. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 249:14 (Maynard, Acee). Acee admitted that determining whether a disagreement is personal or an SNM issue “depends on a lot of facts” and rumors Jan. 31 Tr. at 250:8 (Maynard). Jan. 31 Tr. at 249:15 (Maynard, Acee). Acee said that he interviewed many people, incarcerated and free, who “by all appearances, appear to be, at one time or another, members of SNM, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 251:10-11 (Maynard), encountered different opinions on issues, and interviewed some people more than once, see Jan. 31 Tr. at 251:3-252:19 (Maynard, Acee). Acee noted that some witnesses “received benefits for some of the time, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 253:7 (Acee), and that, as time has passed since 2014 -- when the charged conduct occurred -- some of the witnesses would come back for “a second or third interview with more details, something that they remembered when they went back and thought about it more, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 253:15-17 (Acee). See Jan. 31 Tr. at 252:20-23 (Maynard, Acee). Herrera elicited that some of the witnesses were housed together and, “[i]f they had tier time together, ” could have exchanged stories about what happened, despite the FBI's instruction. Jan. 31 Tr. at 253:18-254:12 (Maynard, Acee). Regarding wires in the prisons, Acee explained that B. Cordova and Archuleta were housed adjacent to Herrera for “[a]t least a few weeks” in 2016 to elicit conversations about the Molina murder, and that B. Cordova and Archuleta had full control over when to record, with no way for Acee to determine when the recording devices were off. Jan. 31 Tr. at 255:18 (Acee). See id. at 255:5-256:17 (Maynard, Acee).

         R. Perez then conducted his cross-examination, clarifying with Acee that this is the only case in which R. Perez is charged, that he is charged only with the alleged conspiracy to murder and the murder of Molina, and that he was not charged until phase 2 of the investigation -- after B. Cordova recorded conversations with R. Perez in February, 2016. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 257:5-258:11 (Villa, Acee). R. Perez noted that Acee testified on direct that B. Cordova walked into the initial interview with a “big smile on his face, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 259:7 (Villa), but that Acee testified to the grand jury: “I'll spare you a long story, but basically I said, ‘I'm with the FBI and we're going to target you, '” Jan. 31 Tr. at 259:15-17 (Villa). See Jan. 31 Tr. at 259:6-18 (Villa, Acee); id. at 260:9-261:1 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that he told B. Cordova that they were preparing to charge him with racketeering and had another agent with him at the initial interview whose job was to write up the overt acts against B. Cordova, but that, either at that meeting or a later one, Acee told B. Cordova that in exchange for B. Cordova's cooperation, Acee would not recommend charges again. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 261:12-262:25 (Villa, Acee). Acee said that, around January, 2016, he made it clear to B. Cordova that they would not pursue charges against him if he cooperated and that, within a few weeks, B. Cordova was moved to PNM North. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 263:14-264:12 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that R. Perez was in a corner cell at PNM North and B. Cordova was placed in the cell next to him -- the only cell R. Perez could communicate with through the vent underneath his bed -- and that they spoke to each other, while B. Cordova had a recording device which he fully controlled. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 265:14-267:7 (Villa, Acee). Acee clarified that the recording device did not have live, real-time capabilities -- so he had to get the device back to listen to what was recorded. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 267:8-15 (Villa, Acee).

         Acee said that people were talking about the Molina murder, as he had received information about it from people with no firsthand knowledge. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 268:17-269:1 (Villa, Acee). R. Perez questioned Acee's characterization of B. Cordova as “popular, ” and Acee stated that he was “a rising star, well-liked, willing to put in work.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 269:8-9 (Acee). Acee believed that a lot of people knew B. Cordova, and assumed that R. Perez knew that B. Cordova was well-known and liked. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 269:10-17 (Villa, Acee). Acee said that, by the time R. Perez was charged for the Molina murder in April, 2016, J. Montoya and Armenta had already been charged. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 269:23-273:17 (Villa, Acee). J. Montoya and Armenta admitted to stabbing Molina, showed Acee how they did it, and stated how many times they stabbed Molina. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 273:24-274:10 (Acee, Villa). Acee stated that M. Rodriguez had also already been charged, for the Molina murder and an assault at the PNM, and that, in Acee's opinion, M. Rodriguez was one of SNM's “more fierce soldiers” and “a dangerous man.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 276:6-7, 10 (Acee). See id. at 274:11-275:9 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that M. Rodriguez was significant in orchestrating Molina's murder. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 277:5-8 (Villa, Acee). Acee said that T. Martinez had also been charged in Phase 1 for Molina's murder, and that T. Martinez' job was to incapacitate Molina, so J. Montoya and Armenta could stab him. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 277:9-278:4 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that these four men -- J. Montoya, Armenta, M. Rodriguez, and T. Martinez -- entered plea deals and that, if they cooperate and testify, the judge could reduce their sentences from life imprisonment. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 278:5-279:9 (Villa, Acee).

         Acee agreed with R. Perez that B. Cordova was never charged as part of the investigation. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 279:10-23 (Villa, Acee). R. Perez questioned whether, before B. Cordova recorded R. Perez, Acee knew there were rumors that R. Perez was cooperating. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 279:24-280:3 (Villa Acee). Acee recalled that, because R. Perez was not charged for Molina's murder in Phase 1, there were rumors that R. Perez may have cooperated, and agreed that R. Perez' life could have been in jeopardy because of the rumors. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 280:4-25 (Villa, Acee); id. at 281:7-11 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that sometimes SNM members would take responsibility for crimes they did not commit, and he opined that, while this practice was foolish, people could do it so others would not think they cooperated or to look tough. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 281:19-282:13 (Villa, Acee). Acee said that an SNM member may tell a popular member that he did something that he did not do, so that the popular member spreads this information and precludes rumors of cooperation. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 282:16-283:1 (Villa, Acee).

         Acee stated that SNM was divided on killing Molina, and he believed that some people decided to act on killing him. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 283:14-24 (Villa, Acee). Acee said that he was investigating mostly cold cases, and that he was investigating B. Cordova for three homicides, and that, although B. Cordova was not charged federally for any of these murders, he is currently serving a state sentence for one of them. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 284:3-285:2 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that B. Cordova was also involved in drug trafficking, but that B. Cordova was not charged for this involvement. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 285:25-286:16 (Villa, Acee). Acee testified that B. Cordova believed Molina should be killed for being an informant, because he believed all informants should be killed. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 285:25-286:16 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that the FBI put $650.00 into B. Cordova's prison account, at $50.00 per month, for his services as an informant, paid B. Cordova an additional $100.00 for food, and spent $200.00 on procuring a cellular telephone and plan, although Acee stated they did not end up deploying a telephone in B. Cordova's case. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 287:19-25 (Villa, Acee); id. at 289:7-23 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that B. Cordova could use prison account money to purchase whatever the prison sold at the commissary, although he recognized that prison account money could be used to purchase something at the commissary in exchange for contraband. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 291:2-23 (Villa, Acee). Acee testified that he did not know what B. Cordova purchased, and then the United States stipulated that, a month-and-a-half ago, B. Cordova used “Suboxone, [28] methamphetamine, heroin, spice, [29] and prescription medicines, while incarcerated in Clayton.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 293:17-19 (Villa). See Jan. 31 Tr. at 292:3-4 (Acee); id. at 293:20-21 (Castellano). R. Perez then asked Acee whether he attended a “party at PNM for some of the informants, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 294:9-10 (Villa), and Acee stated that he attended “some kind of social engagement, ” with other agents, informants, and informants' family at the PNM, see Jan. 31 Tr. at 294:17 (Acee); id. at 294:8-24 (Villa, Acee); id. at 297:14-15, 23-24 (Villa, Acee). Acee could not recall which informants attended the gathering, but thought Clark, R. Martinez, Armenta, B. Cordova, Javier Rubio, and Rivera may have been there. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 295:2-16 (Villa, Acee); id. at 297:3-6 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that he also attended T. Martinez' graduation from college -- he graduated while incarcerated at the Sandoval County Detention Center (“Sandoval County Detention”). See Jan. 31 Tr. at 298:9-12, 18 (Acee). Acee described Sandoval County Detention as one of the detention centers that houses individuals pending federal charges, and stated that T. Martinez was housed there in the same area as other cooperating witnesses. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 299:16-300:5 (Villa, Acee). R. Perez questioned whether Acee knew that T. Martinez was selling Suboxone in Sandoval County Detention, and Acee responded that there was “Suboxone all over that facility.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 300:6-11 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that he socialized at these two gatherings “[v]ery minimally, ” that he arrived, said “Hello, ” did not eat, and left. Jan. 31 Tr. at 302:3, 5 (Acee). See id. at 302:1-6 (Villa, Acee). Acee said that he did not ask investigative questions and that he stayed for the shortest amount of time that he could, attending to show the men respect. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 302:12-25 (Villa, Acee).

         The Court then took a fifteen-minute break and, while waiting for the jury to return, the United States stated that it would submit to the Court a letter or motion, because it believed “that Mr. Lowry's opening statement has created an issue regarding the conflict of interest.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 304:6-8 (Armijo). Mr. Lowry maintained that everything he said in opening was part of the public record. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 304:19-21 (Court, Lowry). The Court provided that, assuming that Mr. Lowry “rel[ied] on public record information, I wouldn't be inclined to change my ruling.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 305:5-6 (Court).

         The jury entered the courtroom, and R. Perez continued his cross-examination, repeating that the FBI paid Molina's killers -- J. Montoya, Armenta, T. Martinez, and M. Rodriguez -- after their cooperation, and that these men will be able to argue for a lesser-than-life sentence. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 306:12-308:4 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that he outlined the rules the informants would have to follow, and chose to close informants if they did not follow Acee's instructions, because it is hard to trust or control them. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 308:14-309:14 (Villa, Acee). Acee said that he closed B. Cordova for breaking rules, stating: “I don't have trust issues with him. I'm differentiating there. I just closed him because I didn't want to give him any more benefits, and I was no longer interested in keeping him open.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 310:11-14 (Acee). See id. at 310:2-8 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that B. Cordova broke the prison's rules for contact visits. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 311:11-312:2 (Villa, Acee). Acee explained his understanding that, beginning at level 5, inmates do not get contact visits, which are visits where inmates could visit with and touch their family members, although he recognized that each facility has different rules. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 312:19-313:20 (Villa, Acee). Acee provided that, unlike others housed at a level 6, B. Cordova was provided contact visits with his wife and children and, on more than one occasion, had sex with his wife while his children were in the room. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 314:16-24 (Villa, Acee). Acee subsequently closed B. Cordova as an informant. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 316:6-8 (Villa, Acee).

         D. Sanchez conducted his cross-examination and inquired whether Acee knew he was turning to the jury to answer the United States' questions and whether he was trained to do so; Acee stated that he thought it was polite, but that he was trained how to testify. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 316:22-317:10 (Jacks, Acee). Acee agreed that, when he testified about the tattoos, that meant the tattoos have some significance. Jan. 31 Tr. at 318:13 (Acee). See id. at 318:8-12 (Jacks). Acee admitted that tattoos are popular in and out of prison, and that New Mexico state prisons are mostly filled with New Mexicans. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 318:16-25 (Jacks, Acee). Acee said that tattoos are popular in prison, because they display things such as gang membership or pride in things, and that getting tattooed in prison is common but against the rules. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 319:11-320:4 (Jacks, Acee). Acee said that tattoos of partially nude or fully nude women are popular in prison, because “prison is full of men.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 320:23 (Acee). See id. at 320:19-22 (Jacks, Acee). Acee disputed that he said tattoos of guns were popular, believing he merely noted a gun tattoo, but allowed that such a tattoo would convey violence, power, and toughness. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 320:23-321:8 (Jacks, Acee). Acee stated that he believed that tattoos of dollar signs or currency convey that the bearer values wealth, which is not unique to the prison system. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 321:16-322:2 (Jacks, Acee). Acee stated that tattoos of guns, women, and money alone do not mean more than described, and that they do not mean the bearer is in a gang. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 322:7-12 (Jacks, Acee).

         D. Sanchez put up his tattoo photographs again, noting that Acee did not discuss the tattoo on D. Sanchez' stomach -- which Acee believed to be a religious tattoo, “a depiction of The Last Supper.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 323:19-20 (Acee). See id. at 323:21-22 (Jacks, Acee). Acee agreed with D. Sanchez that D. Sanchez' “NM” tattoo is not uncommon among inmates from New Mexico, noting that D. Sanchez is from Belen, and that the initials, alone, do not signify gang membership. Jan. 31 Tr. at 323:23-324:18 (Jacks, Acee). Acee admitted that the Zia symbol is on New Mexico's flag and is displayed on many things throughout the state as a symbol of pride. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 325:5-22 (Jacks, Acee). Acee stated that the fact that D. Sanchez has a Zia tattoo may or may not indicate that D. Sanchez is a member of a prison gang, because although the Zia symbol has been historically identified with SNM, it is more common now to see SNM's tattoo as a Zia with an “S.” See Jan. 31 Tr. at 325:23-326:16 (Jacks, Acee). Baca then showed a photograph of J. Montoya and Acee noted the Zia with an “S” behind J. Montoya's ear, which tattoo Acee identified as unique to SNM and said that if a non-SNM member displays this tattoo in prison, he would face problems. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 326:19-327:12 (Jacks, Acee). Acee identified the same tattoo in a photograph of Calbert on his neck, noting that the “S” on Calbert's chin is another tattoo associated with SNM and that the tattoos' locations are significant, because of their visibility. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 327:21-328:25 (Jacks, Acee). D. Sanchez then showed a photograph of R.P. Martinez, and Acee noted the Zia symbol with an “S” over “NM, ” another tattoo “uniquely associated with the SNM.” Jan. 31 Tr. at 329:6-16 (Jacks, Acee). Looking at photographs of D. Sanchez again, Acee noted nothing that he believed to be gang-specific. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 330:1-333:4 (Jacks, Acee). Acee did not know where D. Sanchez got his tattoos. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 333:19-23 (Jacks, Acee).

         D. Sanchez then asked Acee about Duran, and Acee clarified that Duran assisted with the case by way of an FBI-provided cellular telephone, was released from prison early, relocated with the FBI's help, and worked with a different FBI division until shortly before his arrest in the fall of 2017. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 334:16-335:18 (Jacks, Acee). Acee provided that Duran used the cellular telephone to assist the FBI's investigation but also used it to play fantasy football; Acee was not sure if Duran had gambled. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 336:1-22 (Jacks, Acee). Acee stated that he did not think Duran used the telephone to have telephone sex with his girlfriend or wife, or to solicit money from women, but Acee admitted that Duran used the telephone to text his family and contact women, including a stripper. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 337:11-338:9 (Jacks, Acee). Regarding B. Cordova, Acee said that, before he started cooperating, B. Cordova “would have had contact with at least one” cooperator housed in the same pod, Jan. 31 Tr. at 339:3-4 (Acee), but would not have known about what types of benefits cooperators received, because the cooperator B. Cordova was housed with was a “County informant, ” Jan. 31 Tr. at 339:13-14 (Acee). See Jan. 31 Tr. at 338:24-339:14 (Jacks, Acee). Acee said that he threatened B. Cordova with racketeering charges, but not for a death-penalty eligible offense, and Acee maintained that he did not threaten to charge B. Cordova's brother or promise B. Cordova money or a job upon release. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 340:5-25 (Jacks, Acee). Acee stated that B. Cordova asked him whether he could “work on the streets after his cooperation, ” but Acee did not know where B. Cordova got the idea from and that it was not for him. Jan. 31 Tr. at 341:13-14 (Acee). See Jan. 31 Tr. at 340:23-341:25 (Jacks, Acee).

         On the subject of witnesses who gave multiple statements, Acee clarified that the details did not change, but, rather, the witnesses expounded on their original statements. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 342:1-22 (Jacks, Acee). Acee stated that, for some time, the witnesses had access to the discovery tablets, which contain everything the FBI uncovered in its investigation, including police reports, prison reports, victim statements, witness statements, and recordings. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 343:3-23 (Jacks, Acee). Acee agreed that some of the witnesses were housed together and were granted more time together on the tier where they could talk and interact. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 344:2-345:2 (Jacks, Acee). Acee said that there were occasions in which he would set up meetings between two inmates -- one cooperating, one not -- to gauge whether the noncooperator would cooperate, but that he did not discuss any benefits with the cooperator about bringing in another cooperator, besides saying that he would make known to prosecutors the extent of any help. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 345:3-346:24 (Jacks, Acee).

         The Court then took the first overnight break, repeating its instructions to the jury not to discuss the trial, not to read or listen to news about the trial, not to do research, and not to talk to anybody involved in the trial. See Jan. 31 Tr. at 347:15-348:17 (Court). The next day, February 1, 2018, before the jury entered the courtroom, the Court read a note from Sauer that said, in substance: “Your Honor, my maiden name is Rodriguez. Is that a problem? No. relationship.” Transcript of Jury Trial Volume 4 at 4:18-20 (taken February 1, 2018)(Court), filed February 22, 2019 (Doc. 2520)(“Feb. 1 Tr.”). The Court stated that it would have its courtroom deputy confirm with Sauer that she is not related to any of the Rodriguezes mentioned and, if so, tell her that there is no issue; the parties indicated this procedure was acceptable. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 4:21-5:4 (Court, Armijo, Jacks, Villa). The United States then raised the issue of Mr. Lowry's representation again, arguing that when Baca began using the prior lawsuit as part of his defense, Mr. Lowry's partner's representation of Duran became “substantially related and [] materially adverse to” Baca, and that this conflict cannot be waived. Feb. 1 Tr. at 7:10-11 (Armijo). See id. at 6:8-7:15 (Armijo). The United States also requested that the First Trial Defendants avoid asking personal questions, such as where witnesses live. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 9:15-23 (Castellano). D. Sanchez requested that, to cure Acee's comment having pending charges against two First Trial Defendants in another case, the U.S. Attorney's Office or the Court dismiss these pending charges against D. Sanchez and Baca so “the Court can truthfully tell the jury that nobody has pending charges.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 11:15-16 (Jacks). See id. at 11:11-16 (Jacks). The Court said it would not do that, but told Acee not to “squeeze anything in” that is not called for by the question. Feb. 1 Tr. at 11:22-23 (Court). See id. at 11:20-25 (Court). The Court commented that it did not see Acee's comment as creating “a serious problem, ” because “there are just so many discussions of cases and charges that are being thrown at the jury at the very beginning.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 12:9-12 (Court).

         The jury entered the courtroom, and D. Sanchez continued his cross-examination. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 12:15-13:5 (Court). Acee admitted that whether witnesses' statements changed over time because they had more time to think about what happened was his conclusion, and Acee admitted that he did not know what witnesses were actually thinking. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 13:17-14:14:17

         (Jacks, Acee). D. Sanchez questioned whether people “jazzed up” their statements to get “more from” Acee, Feb. 1 Tr. at 14:19-20 (Jacks), but Acee said that he does not give the witnesses anything, and that they get benefits from the federal government that “don't have anything to do with their statements, ” Feb. 1 Tr. at 15:2-3. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 14:18-15:7 (Jacks, Acee). D. Sanchez asked about terminating FBI informants for abusing their visitation privileges, and Acee explained that he terminated four informants, because they had sexual contact with their girlfriends or wives during the visits in the visiting room at the North PNM. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 15:23-17:9 (Jacks, Acee). Acee described the visiting room as being small, with two glass windows, a door, a camera, a table, and two chairs. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 16:17 (Acee); id. at 17:13-17 (Acee). Acee believed that B. Cordova had the first inappropriate contact in early 2017 and had at least four incidents, that Clark had one incident of inappropriate contact, and that he believed the visiting room was used for such inappropriate conduct for about a month. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 19:25-20:6 (Acee); id. at 21:7-10 (Jacks, Acee).

         The United States then conducted its redirect examination, eliciting that the FBI does not control the NM Corrections Department, does not house the inmates, and does not oversee the contact visits. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 21:25-22:12 (Castellano, Acee). Acee stated that he investigated the inappropriate contact that occurred during the contact visits, and asked New Mexico State Police and Child Protective Services to investigate as well. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 22:13-21 (Castellano, Acee). As to interviewing witnesses, Acee said that at subsequent interviews he asks additional questions “to dig deeper into” the witnesses' statements. Feb. 1 Tr. at 23:20 (Castellano). See Id. at 23:17-21 (Castellano, Acee). Regarding the division in SNM because Archuleta and Romero, Acee stated that it “eventually rose to the level of the SNM leadership, to Anthony Ray Baca, and he kind of held court over it and determined that the hit on Julian Romero was a good hit.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 25:10-13 (Acee). See id. at 25:5-21 (Castellano, Acee). As to the tablet tampering, Acee stated that the tablets were seized and those who had tampered with them no longer had access to discovery. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 25:22-26:4 (Castellano, Acee). Acee stated that the FBI moved cooperators for their safety, and that the FBI provided $1, 600.00 to M. Montoya to repair his recreational vehicle so that M. Montoya could drive out of New Mexico and relocate. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 26:11-19 (Castellano, Acee). As to the cooperator pod, Acee said he believed that at first four cooperators were housed together, and but the number later grew to ten or twelve. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 27:21-28:3 (Castellano, Acee).

         Acee also maintained that he did not threaten witnesses with the death penalty, explaining that all the Defendants charged in this case for murder faced the death penalty, before they were deemed not eligible. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 26:20-27:9 (Castellano, Acee). Acee said that he investigated, but did not threaten, Defendants' family for “[w]itness intimidation, threatening informants, and smuggling drugs into the jails and prisons.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 27:18-20 (Acee). See id. at 27:10-20 (Castellano, Acee). Acee stated that across all the SNM cases there were about eighty cooperators and they could not be housed in a pod with people they were cooperating against for safety reasons, so the cooperator pod was one of the solutions to that problem. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 28:149-30:2 (Castellano, Acee). Acee said that many cooperators had lawyers -- specifically M. Montoya, B. Cordova, G. Urquizo, and R. Martinez -- and that those who were not charged were provided a Kastigar letter[30] before Acee spoke with them. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 30:10-22 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 31:2-10 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 32:13-17 (Castellano, Acee). Acee then described meeting R. Martinez at the North PNM, after R. Martinez “told the STIU he was done with the gang and he wanted out[, ]” Feb. 1 Tr. at 31:13-14 (Acee), and had surrendered a shank upon leaving the pod that he had been carrying in his rectum whenever he left his cell, see Feb. 1 Tr. at 32:9-12 (Acee); id. at 31:11-32:12 (Castellano, Acee).

         Acee said that he contacted the district attorney's office that had pending charges against Duran, because Duran needed to be in New Mexico for pretrial hearings and testimony, not ask the office to dismiss the charges. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 33:15-34:4 (Castellano, Acee). Acee also explained that he told informants “if it wasn't recorded, it didn't happen, ” Feb. 1 Tr. at 34:5-6 (Castellano), “[t]o stress the importance of them wearing a wire or a recording device, and taking that step to make sure they're wearing a wire and turning on a recorder[, ]” Feb. 1 Tr. at 34:15-18 (Acee). In Duran's case, Acee stated that the cellular telephone provided did not record everything as Acee told Duran it would, because photographs and internet activity were not captured by the court order. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 34:19-35:14 (Castellano, Acee). Acee said that the recording devices given to informants had no capability to delete recordings, and that he told the informants that he wanted conversations only about homicides and that they needed to conserve battery power, due to the limited ability to provide more batteries . See Feb. 1 Tr. at 36:13-37:25 (Castellano, Acee).

         Acee also underscored the need to conserve battery power due to a prior incident in which Duran stated he recorded great admissions -- from T. Martinez, M. Rodriguez, Varela, and Armenta --but when Acee went to download the recordings there were none, because the device's batteries were dead. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 38:2-12 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 39:7-23 (Castellano, Acee). Acee stated that at times he made arrangements with STIU officers he trusted to provide batteries or a new device, and that he was concerned the devices would be found and compromise the investigation. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 40:17-41:18 (Castellano, Acee). Acee characterized the cooperation as staggered over years, with Armenta cooperating early while the Molina murder was still a state case, whereas M. Rodriguez started cooperating “within the last few weeks.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 42:12 (Acee). See id. at 41:23-42:13 (Castellano, Acee).

         Regarding the Molina murder, Acee said that T. Martinez and Molina were friends. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 42:13-22 (Castellano, Acee). Acee stated that Herrera was not charged in the state case for Molina's murder, and that Herrera was not on video from the blue pod -- where Molina was killed -- because Herrera was housed in the yellow pod. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 35:15-36:12 (Castellano, Acee). Acee testified that seven people admitted to participating in Molina's murder -- Calbert, Urquizo, M. Rodriguez, T. Martinez, Armenta, J. Montoya, and Varela -- and that the United States is accusing four people in the courtroom of murdering Molina. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 48:4-16 (Castellano, Acee); id. at 49:23-50:4 (Court, Castellano, Acee). Acee noted that the cooperators who pled guilty to murder would likely receive life in prison, but are hoping to be sentenced to less than life by testifying. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 43:12-18 (Castellano, Acee). Acee also noted that there could be consequences within SNM for members who claim to have done something they did not. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 43:19-44:6 (Castellano, Acee). As to the three homicides B. Cordova to which B. Cordova is linked, Acee stated that two of the homicides appeared to be SNM-related: Sammy Chavez' murder and an unnamed Los Carnales prison gang member's murder. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 44:7-19 (Castellano, Acee). Regarding the pizza party, Acee said that it was planned by the NM Corrections Department to recognize the cooperators' renunciation of the gang and that it was emotional because family was allowed to attend; Acee said that it lasted an hour, although he was not sure, because he stayed for about fifteen minutes. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 44:20-45:24 (Castellano, Acee). Acee thought that T. Martinez' graduation ceremony had cake and ice cream. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 46:4-13(Castellano, Acee).

         Baca then recross-examined Acee, and Acee stated that he was concerned about the safety of cooperators who were not well-behaved. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 52:5-11 (Lowry, Acee). Acee admitted that, while some of the cooperators tampered with the discovery tablets to access the internet and he was concerned that they used the tablets nefariously or criminally, he did not obtain a court order to examine the tablets. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 52:16-53:13 (Lowry, Acee). Acee said that the U.S. Attorney's Office obtained a court order, but that the tablets are still being evaluated and that he does not know what is on them or whether there was a security threat. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 53:14-54:7 (Lowry, Acee). Acee maintained that nobody from the FBI or U.S. Attorney's Office suggested to Urquizo that he faced the death penalty. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 54:12-19 (Lowry, Acee). As to inmate telephone call monitoring, Acee testified that the SNM task force monitored the calls, focusing on the noncooperators' calls. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 54:20-55:9 (Lowry, Acee). Acee admitted to knowing that J. Montoya had an unauthorized cellular telephone in his cell, but Acee said that he was letting the local drug task force analyze the telephone before he asks to see the contents. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 55:10-12, 20 (Lowry, Acee); id. at 55:22-56:11 (Lowry, Acee). Acee also admitted that, even with the use of Kastigar letters, he never knows if somebody is being honest. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 56:12-21 (Lowry, Acee). Acee stated that the FBI-provided cellular telephones could take and receive photographs, which were not covered in the wiretap court order, and agreed with Baca that one could photograph a message written on a piece of paper and send that out, and that the FBI would have no idea what this communication contained. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 56:22-57:22 (Lowry, Acee). Acee testified that he assigned an agent to review the communications, but Acee stated that he did not ask to see the photographs, did not know how many were transferred, and did not know if the photographs contained messages. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 58:2-59:16 (Lowry, Acee).

         Acee stated that he asked individuals whether criminal activity was SNM business or personal business, but noted that he was asking for their opinion -- whether the U.S. Attorney's Office or the FBI believes the activity is gang-related is a different matter. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 59:17-60:13 (Lowry, Acee). Acee said that the cooperators may have suggested the pizza party idea, but that he was not aware that the cooperators offered to fund it. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 60:22-61:2 (Lowry, Acee); id. at 61:24-62:16 (Lowry, Acee). Acee did not recall asking the NM Corrections Department to pay for the party, stating that he told Deputy Secretary Myers that he would not pay for it. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 62:17-21 (Lowry, Acee). Acee also stated that, from his observations, the pizza party appeared to be “very emotional and seemed like a big deal for the inmates and their family members.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 63:5-6 (Acee). Acee clarified that Duran did not actually get recordings of Varela, and that Acee told Duran to record only conversations on murders and bodies. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 63:14-64:8 (Lowry, Acee). After Acee stated he was not sure if Duran told Acee at their first meeting that Baca wanted Marcantel and Santistevan killed, Baca showed Acee a document that Acee had drafted that says: “Baca was eager to kill the Secretary of Corrections.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 65:3 (Lowry). See id. at 64:9-18 (Lowry, Baca); id. at 64:23-65:4 (Lowry, Baca).

         Herrera then conducted his recross-examination, and Acee elaborated on the potential penalties of a racketeering conviction, ranging from the death penalty at the highest -- which is unavailable in this case -- to mandatory life imprisonment for various statutory maximums of terms of years. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 66:17-67:13 (Maynard, Acee). Acee said that he ensured that many of the cooperators had attorneys early in the case. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 67:14-20 (Maynard, Acee). Acee also elaborated on his understanding of the Kastigar letters, stating that the U.S. Attorney's Office provides them to immunize a defendant's truthful statements and encourage such truthfulness, and that earlier or future crimes will not necessarily be immunized. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 67:21-68:18 (Maynard, Acee). Acee said that some of the cooperators admitted involvement in prior murders and conspiracies to murder. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 68:19-24 (Maynard, Acee). Acee admitted that there is video of cooperators Armenta and J. Montoya stabbing Molina, but Acee was hesitant to agree that whatever Armenta and J. Montoya said in their Kastigar interviews could not be used against them, because Acee believes that they are not immunized if they lied. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 69:20-70:2 (Maynard, Acee). Acee stated that the U.S. Attorney's Office does not know what is truthful, and that the jury's role is to determine the truth. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 70:3-15 (Maynard, Acee). Acee said that he did not care what witnesses told him, and that he is “searching for the truth.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 70:25-71:1 (Acee). See id. at 70:23-71:1 (Maynard, Acee). Acee stated that most cooperators have not yet been sentenced, and that he did not know whether their testimony would affect the sentence. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 71:19-23 (Maynard, Acee).

         R. Perez conducted his recross-examination; Acee first discussed how Urquizo entered into a plea, was given a lawyer, and admitted involvement in the Molina murder. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 72:8-24 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that, when B. Cordova decided to cooperate, B. Cordova did not have a federal attorney and thus had no attorney to defend him against potential racketeering charges -- although the U.S. Attorney's Office decided not to pursue such charges against him. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 73:5-25 (Villa, Acee). Acee testified that, within a month of B. Cordova's decision to cooperate, B. Cordova recorded R. Perez. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 74:1-4 (Villa, Acee). R. Perez was charged for the first time in this case, and B. Cordova has not had to plead guilty to any federal charges. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 74:5-11 (Villa, Acee). Acee stated that R. Perez was not charged in the state Molina-murder case. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 74:12-18 (Villa, Acee).

         During D. Sanchez' recross-examination, Acee said that, while he is not responsible for the NM Corrections Department and does not control it, the NM Corrections Department is working with the FBI to investigate this case. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 75:3-13 (Jacks, Acee). Acee said that R. Martinez became a government informant after R. Martinez told the PNM's STIU he wanted out of the gang life and turned in a shank. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 75:14-76:5 (Jacks, Acee). D. Sanchez underscored that the STIU officers are employees of the NM Corrections Department, that some officers were at the PNM where the inappropriate contact visits occurred, and that Acee has email addresses of and is in telephonic contact with some STIU officers and other NM Corrections Department employees. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 76:6-77:4 (Jacks, Acee). Acee clarified that the U.S. Marshals ordered the discovery tablets' seizure the day after Acee received an email from a cooperator, sometime in early 2017. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 77:5-20 (Jacks, Acee). Acee confirmed that he did not investigate D. Sanchez' family for smuggling drugs into prison or for witness intimidation. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 78:1-4 (Jacks, Acee). Acee did not believe he had arranged a meeting between a cooperator and a Defendant, and testified that he arranged a meeting between Calbert and another cooperator after meeting with Calbert and Calbert agreed to cooperate. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 78:22-80:7 (Jacks, Acee).

         The jury left the courtroom for the morning break, and the Court clarified that his courtroom deputy spoke with Sauer, and Sauer confirmed she has no relationship with the witnesses. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 81:16-19 (Court). Herrera raised the issue of late disclosures, noting a 2015 report with Giglio material, and moved to strike the testimony of B. Cordova. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 82:19-23 (Bhalla). See id. at 82:3-23 (Bhalla). Herrera noted that the report contains “a letter from a confidential informant who gives Giglio material on almost every single cooperating witness in this case, which has been redacted and it's completely illegible, ” Feb. 1 Tr. at 82:13-16 (Bhalla), and the United States responded that the letter was provided in the form received, but it would try to find the original, unredacted letter to produce, see Feb. 1 Tr. at 84:4-9 (Beck). The jury then entered the courtroom. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 84:18-85:8 (Court).

         D. Sanchez continued his recross-examination; Acee first agreed that it was important for his informants to get recordings because the recordings would corroborate the informants' claims of what was said. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 86:7 (Acee). See id. at 86:3-6 (Jacks). Acee testified that the door between the yellow and blue pods at Southern New Mexico has to be opened by the monitoring station guards, so inmates cannot use it unless the guards open it. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 86:8-87:5 (Jacks, Acee). Acee said that there is constant video surveillance in the blue pod, which is stored for some period of time unknown to Acee, and that there should be similar video surveillance in the yellow pod. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 87:6-88:14 (Jacks, Acee). Acee reiterated his recollection that Armenta began cooperating during the state prosecution, but he said he did not know the circumstances or terms under which Armenta agreed to cooperate or whether Armenta was offered a reduced 18-month sentence. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 88:15-89:9 (Jacks, Acee). Acee said how he suspected that Varela participated in the Molina murder, and said that while Duran claimed Varela made an admission, Acee was not able to corroborate this with a recording. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 89:10-90:11 (Jacks, Acee). Acee reiterated that, to his recollection, nobody from the FBI or the U.S. Attorney's Office mentioned the death penalty to Urquizo. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 91:13-14 (Acee). See id. at 90:17-91:14 (Jacks, Acee). Acee then stepped down, with the United States noting that he “is subject to re-call.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 91:22-23 (Castellano). See id. at 91:20-21 (Court).

         d. Jerry Roark's Testimony.

         The United States then called Jerry Roark, the Deputy Secretary of the NM Corrections Department. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 92:20-93:6 (Armijo, Roark). Roark stated that there are eleven prisons within the NM Corrections Department: six public facilities, two of which are female facilities, and five private facilities. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 94:10-16 (Armijo, Roark). Roark described the PNM as primarily housing higher-risk inmates at the PNM North, previously called Level 6, now called “the Predatory Behavior Management Unit Facility, ” Feb. 1 Tr. at 95:8-9 (Roark), and the PNM South, previously called Level 5, now a Level 4 housing “special management population, ” Feb. 1 Tr. at 95:15 (Roark), but stated that there is also a Level 2, “work-camp type facility” there, Feb. 1 Tr. at 95:20 (Roark). See Feb. 1 Tr. at 94:17-95:20 (Armijo, Roark). Roark stated that “[t]here is a vacated prison called the Old Main, ” “the original Penitentiary of New Mexico” which “closed in 1999.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 96:2-4 (Roark). This facility is where the February 2, 1980, Santa Fe prison riot occurred. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 96:16 (Armijo); Feb. 1 Tr. at 96:13-18 (Armijo, Roark). Roark said that the Southern New Mexico is located near Las Cruces, which is sometimes referred to as “SNMCF” or “Southern.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 97:16-98:4 (Armijo, Roark).

         Roark described how, in the late 1990s, the NM Corrections Department formed a specialized unit to “gain control” of the prison gangs, because “there was a lot of gang-related violence” and, from his “own experience[, ] the gangs were running the prisons, and we wanted to get control over that.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 98:17-22 (Roark). See id. at 98:8-15 (Armijo, Roark). Roark stated that the NM Corrections Department went through a validation process, which he explained as looking at a group of inmates' “behavior” and “cohesion as a group” so as “to gain enough information on these inmates that we could definitely say that this group of inmates was a threat to our facilities.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 99:11-16 (Roark). See id. at 99:3-8 (Armijo, Roark). Roark testified that, as to SNM, the NM Corrections Department conducted “a threat assessment, ” “identif[ied] members, ” and took “actions to control their behaviors.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 100:23-101:1 (Roark). See id. at 101:2-3 (Armijo, Roark). The controlling actions included validation and then isolation at Level 6, and Roark stated that the inmates could work their way down Level 4, which is the lowest level in which a validated gang member could live. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 101:4-14 (Armijo, Roark). Roark said that the NM Corrections Department created the level system to control inmates' behavior around the same time period as the gang unit. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 101:15-23 (Armijo, Roark). Roark said that Level 6 “was our maximum security, ” so the inmates that the NM Corrections Department “believed . . . were a threat to commit acts of violence or acts of extortion or anything like that, or inmates who we believe would be victimized by acts of violence” were housed there until around 2014. Feb. 1 Tr. at 102:10-14 (Roark). See id. at 101:24-102:15 (Armijo, Roark). Roark described Level 5 as a step-down from Level 6, as a preparatory stage for Level 4, which is a restricted general population with more privileges than Level 5 or 6, but with isolation from other inmates for their protection. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 102:16-103:7 (Armijo, Roark). In the 1990s, Roark said that the NM Corrections Department was only validating two gangs, SNM and Los Carnales. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 103:8-19 (Armijo, SNM).

         Roark described the Southern New Mexico as housing Levels 2 through 4, but never Levels 5 or 6, and that, because it houses Level 4, it has housed gang members. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 103:20- 104:4 (Armijo, Roark). The United States showed a photograph of “an aerial view of Southern New Mexico.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 105:10-11 (Roark). See id. at 105:8-11 (Armijo, Roark). Roark noted that most of the buildings marked in red in the photograph are the pods where the inmates are housed. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 105:18-106:5 (Armijo, Roark). The United States then showed a diagram of a housing unit at Southern New Mexico, see Feb. 1 Tr. at 106:16-17 (Roark), with “three separate day rooms, ” called “pods, ” which are “separated unit[s] within the housing unit, ” Feb. 1 Tr. at 106:23-107:1 (Armijo, Roark). Roark noted that each housing unit is split into three pods, with doors connecting the pods to each other. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 107:6-17 (Armijo, Roark). Roark explained that there is “an outside door to get into the housing unit[, ]” which opens into “a foyer-type area, and then in the foyer you have the three housing unit doors and the control center door.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 108:6-9 (Roark). Roark stated that the housing units at the Southern New Mexico are color-coded, so each pod has an official name provided by letters and an unofficial name provided by the color -- such as the B pod in Unit 1-A being known as blue pod, because it is blue. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 107:25-109:4 (Armijo, Roark). The United States showed another diagram, which Roark described as portraying an individual pod, and explained that pods have a top level and a bottom level with eight cells each. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 109:5-23 (Armijo, Roark).

         Roark then discussed privileges at each level, explaining that “the privileges are based on visitation, property, telephone calls, . . . [and] access to programming, ” and that Level 6 is the most restrictive, with increased privileges as the level number decreases. Feb. 1 Tr. at 110:5-7 (Roark). See id. at 109:24-110:10 (Armijo, Roark). Roark defined “tier time” as “allowing inmates out of their cells to congregate with each other, ” Feb. 1 Tr. at 110:16-17 (Roark), and explained that “they congregate in the day room[, ]” Feb. 1 Tr. at 110:24 (Roark). Roark said that, “[a]t the time that we're talking about, Level 6 inmates did not have tier time, ” Level 5 inmates had one hour, five days a week, and Level 4 inmates had between two to four hours, five days a week. Feb. 1 Tr. at 111:4-5 (Roark). See id. at 111:6-11 (Armijo, Roark). Roark explained that “count” means that inmates “have to stand up, ” and an “officer walks by and makes sure that they're there, and they're alive.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 111:16-19 (Roark). Roark stated that the NM Corrections Department does six counts a day: (i) 12:00 a.m.; (ii) around 2:00 a.m. or 2:30 a.m.; (iii) 5:00 a.m.; (iv) 11:00 a.m.; (v) 4:00 p.m.; and (vi) 10:30 p.m. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 112:1-6 (Roark). Roark explained that, in some cases, inmates are not locked in their cells during count, “because we have to feed inmates, ” and “they have to get their clothing washed, ” and some “inmates [are] out during work during these counts, too.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 113:14-16 (Roark). Roark defined “lockdown” as meaning “inmates are locked in their cells.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 113:12-13 (Roark).

         Roark expanded on the NM Corrections Department's gang unit, and explained that its name now is the STIU and that, in addition to controlling gangs, it is “also doing intelligence information to gain information on drug trafficking and other types of criminal activity inside the prison.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 114:11-14 (Roark). See id. at 114:3-14 (Armijo, Roark). Roark explained that drugs enter prison through visitation, staff, the mail, and even “over fences.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 114:22 (Roark). See id. at 114:20-23 (Roark). Roark explained that, in 2013, he served as the Director of Adult Prisons overseeing the eleven facilities, and there was a directive from then-Secretary Marcantel to reduce the number of inmates in segregation, increase privileges, and provide more access to programming. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 113:17-23 (Armijo, Roark); id. at 115:7-23 (Armijo, Roark). Roark stated that part of his job included managing the prison gangs and that, because of his experience working in prison, he knew Baca and that Baca was moved from the Southern New Mexico to the PNM North in 2013, ” because of some concerns they had at Southern.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 116:22-23 (Armijo, Roark); id. at 117:7-13 (Armijo, Roark). Roark stated that, in 2013, SNM and Los Carnales were housed at the Southern New Mexico, in separate units, and that in January, 2014, Roark met with Baca -- who Roark knew was an SNM leader -- because Roark wanted to increase SNM's privileges and available programming, and “wanted to engage the interest on them cooperating.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 117:24-25 (Roark). See id. at 116:24-117:6 (Armijo, Roark); id. at 117:14-118:7 (Armijo, Roark). Roark explained that he and Baca discussed gang politics, recruitment, and violence, and that Roark had success with Los Carnales in increasing privileges and programming and wanted to do the same with SNM. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 118:12-119:4 (Armijo, Roark). With the Court's limiting instruction, [31] Roark stated that, in response to Roark's proposal, “Baca seemed to be willing to concede that he could control the members of the SNM; that -- that he would be able to control the violence. The only thing that concerned me is that when I asked him about recruiting, he was noncommittal and wouldn't --actually wouldn't answer that question at all.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 120:7-13 (Roark). Roark gave his impression that Baca was not willing to stop recruiting, and so Roark decided to “take a slower path” in increasing SNM's privileges and to keep it “on Tier 1 of Level 4 privileges, ” whereas Roark “had already begun the process of giving Los Carnales the Level 3 privileges.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 121:13-16 (Roark). See id. at 120:19-21 (Roark); id. at 121:18-20 (Armijo, Roark). Roark said that he believed Baca “would be the most influential member of the SNM, ” Feb. 1 Tr. at 121:6-7 (Roark), and that Baca said that he wanted to be housed at the Southern New Mexico, see Feb. 1 Tr. at 120:12-121:1 (Armijo, Roark). With the Court's limiting instruction, [32] the United States admitted a letter that Baca wrote on February 7, 2014, after the meeting and gave to his caseworker[33] to give to Roark. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 123:10-16 (Armijo, Roark); id. at 124:10-12 (Armijo, Roark). Roark explained that he thought the letter was Baca's attempt to negotiate and an offer to “maintain a peaceful environment at SNMCF, Level 4” -- to “call a ceasefire between SNM members” and other gang members housed at the Southern New Mexico, to “put a sudden halt to the SNM recruiting process if or when SNM members are released to general population, ” and to “prevent SNM members from targeting any and all suspected/validated SNM members who have or wish to subject themselves to the RPP Program[34]” upon Baca's release from Level 6. Feb. 1 Tr. at 125:6-7, 9-11, 17-20 (Armijo). See id. at 124:22-125:1 (Roark); id. at 125:2-21 (Armijo, Roark). Baca provided a postscript, noting his concern: “The SNMCF and STIU staffs' negative attitude toward me. They don't seem to understand me, nor the way I approach various issues to resolve other problems with no violence. There is a rush to judgment on their part.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 126:17-22 (Armijo). In response to this letter, Roark obtained wardens' and STIU coordinators' advice, and did not change his mind about negotiating with SNM. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 127:1-8 (Armijo, Roark). Roark stated that Baca was not moved, SNM's privileges and programming did not change, and, on March 7, 2014, a month after the letter's receipt, Molina was murdered at the Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 127:9-21 (Armijo, Roark). Roark stated that, after Molina's murder, “all active SNM members [were] placed on lockdown, ” and that, the next day, the NM Corrections Department moved D. Sanchez, M. Rodriguez, and Varela from the Southern New Mexico to North PNM. Feb. 1 Tr. at 128:7-8 (Roark). See id. at 127:22-24 (Armijo); id. at 128:22-129:9 (Armijo, Roark). A week or two afterwards, Roark testified that the NM Corrections Department moved Baca, D. Sanchez, and Varela out of state “to limit their communications with other inmates inside the system” and “to avoid further acts of violence.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 129:14-16 (Roark). See id. at 129:10-24 (Armijo, Roark). According to Roark, SNM stayed on lockdown during the investigation, and the NM Corrections Department decided to move SNM from the Southern New Mexico to the PNM, because it is “closer to Central Office, easier to monitor, ” and more convenient for the Albuquerque-based investigators. Feb. 1 Tr. at 130:14-15 (Roark). See id. at 130:3-18 (Armijo, Roark). The NM Corrections Department made individual determinations to send certain people to the North PNM and others to the South PNM. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 131:6-9 (Armijo, Roark).

         The NM Corrections Department slowly granted SNM more privileges -- Roark noted that the visits and telephone calls were cut off “for a significant amount of time, ” because of worries that SNM “would use these communications to arrange other violent acts.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 132:16-18 (Roark). See id. at 131:10-22 (Armijo, Roark). “[W]ithin a couple of hours” of lifting SNM's lockdown at the Southern New Mexico in July, 2015, Villegas assaulted Romero. Feb. 1 Tr. at 134:11-12 (Roark). See id. at 134:8-135:1 (Armijo, Roark). This assault resulted in the NM Corrections Department placing SNM back on lockdown, statewide. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 135:2-6 (Armijo, Roark).

         Roark stated that the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility (“Central New Mexico”) in Los Lunas, New Mexico, had several missions, including maintaining a “long-term care unit” for “inmates who need specialized health care.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 136:25-137:1 (Roark). Roark said that the NM Corrections Department has “transitioned it into a geriatric facility right now.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 137:7 (Roark). R. Perez elicited from Roark that R. Perez spent time in various hospitals, including Central New Mexico's long-term care unit, from September 6, 2012, through October 3, 2013, until he moved to Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 139:3-141:21 (Fox-Young, Roark). R. Perez questioned Roark whether he recalled communicating to Marcantel the results of the STIU's investigation into Molina's murder and whether he recalled investigating a threat against R. Perez. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 142:23-143:11 (Fox-Young, Roark); id. at 143:25-4 (Fox-Young, Roark). Roark recalled forwarding preliminary results of the investigation to Marcantel and that STIU investigated a threat against R. Perez, because they investigated everything surrounding the Molina incident.[35] See Feb. 1 Tr. at 143:4-11 (Fox-Young, Roark); id. at 144:13-19 (Roark).

         Roark testified that M. Rodriguez has a reputation of being fierce, difficult to control, and violent. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 155:4-10 (Fox-Young, Roark). Roark stated that R. Perez was in segregation or solitary confinement from March 8, 2014, until April 18, 2016. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 158:12-14 (Fox-Young, Roark). Roark could not recall the NM Corrections Department moving R. Perez out of state or ever meeting with R. Perez, and stated that he does not consider R. Perez an SNM leader. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 158:24-159:9 (Fox-Young, Roark); id. at 159:13-14 (Roark).

         Baca reiterated during his cross-examination that the NM Corrections Department moved him from Southern New Mexico to segregation at PNM, because of concerns for Baca's safety. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 162:1-16 (Duncan, Roark). Roark described the process through which an inmate placed in segregation may request a review of that placement. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 167:2-169:23 (Duncan, Roark). Roark stated that he did not document his decision not to return Baca to Southern New Mexico and that Baca did not receive any of the appeal forms from Roark's decision. See 170:14-23 (Duncan, Roark). Baca said that, a few weeks after Baca sent Roark the letter, SNM members received an additional contact visit. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 163:25-164:9 (Duncan, Roark).

         Roark stated that there are many criteria for validating someone as an SNM member, and that files are kept on each inmate regarding validation. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 172:14-22 (Jacks, Roark); id. at 173:2-9 (Jacks, Roark). Roark conceded that D. Sanchez has not admitted to membership in SNM, and that he was unaware of what D. Sanchez' file said about his validation status as of March 7, 2014. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 172:23-173:1 (Jacks, Roark); id. at 173:10-19 (Jacks, Roark). Roark stated that, to prevent further acts of violence after Molina's murder, he moved inmates whom he believed were “the most necessary to move, ” including D. Sanchez, although he did not think he had moved “enough people.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 175:9, 15 (Roark). See id. at 174:15-175:15 (Jacks, Roark). Roark said that housing suspected and validated SNM members together to try to ensure that the inmates would not have issues with each other. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 176:2-177:4 (Jacks, Roark).

         On redirect, Roark stated that the NM Corrections Department, as a matter of policy, routinely segregates inmates when there is a possible threat to their safety, despite the possibility that the threat could be false. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 182:12-183:4 (Armijo, Roark). Roark clarified that he would not have filled out any of the forms on which Baca questioned Roark, because his meeting with Baca was not a formal appeal hearing, but, rather, part of Roark's individual determination to see whether he would work with SNM as he had worked with Los Carnales. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 183:5-19 (Armijo, Roark). Roark maintained that the NM Corrections Department's validation process does not catch every gang member and that there could be gang members who are not validated. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 183:24-184:10 (Armijo, Roark).

         As to the pods, Roark testified that concrete walls separate the three pods, but that there are fire exit doors on the bottom and top levels of each pod, connecting the blue pod to the yellow pod, and the yellow pod to the green pod. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 185:6-186:1 (Armijo, Roark). Roark stated that he has seen inmates passing notes under these doors. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 186:2-6 (Armijo, Roark). Roark said that constantly-recording security cameras capture the doors and that this footage is kept in a computer storage system for roughly a month. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 187:5-189:1 (Jacks, Roark). Roark did not know whether these cameras were working on March 7, 2014, but he stated that the NM Corrections Department has since significantly improved the security camera system. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 189:23-9 (Armijo, Roark).

         e. Gregory Marcantel's Testimony.

         The United States next called Marcantel, who stated that he temporarily took over as Secretary for the NM Corrections Department around September, 2011, was officially appointed in November, 2011, was confirmed in January, 2012, was reconfirmed in 2015, and that he retired in October, 2016. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 192:4-193:3 (Beck, Marcantel); id. at 218:20-24 (Marcantel). Before he was appointed Secretary, Marcantel worked with the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office, where he first encountered SNM. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 193:4-196:10 (Beck, Marcantel). Marcantel stated that, as Secretary, his responsibility was to the Governor and that he served as executive manager for the entire NM Corrections Department -- consisting of between 2, 000 and 2, 500 staff, and 7, 000 to 7, 400 inmates in eleven prisons across the state. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 197:6-198:6 (Beck, Marcantel).

         Marcantel said he realized the need to examine the programming to ensure that inmates rehabilitated and did not reoffend upon release, and that he noticed early in his tenure that New Mexico segregated inmates. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 190:24-22 (Marcantel, Beck). Marcantel described segregation as holding an inmate in his or her cell for twenty-three hours a day without social contact. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 200:24-201:5 (Marcantel). Marcantel believed that NM Correction Department's use of segregation, and its subsequent focus on keeping the prisons riot-free, stemmed from the 1980 riot. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 201:9-18 (Marcantel). Marcantel described increasing the number of family visits, and speaking with the inmates to let them know the expectations from such visits and that, if the inmates broke the rules, the privilege would be taken away. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 208:8-209:3 (Beck, Marcantel).

         Marcantel clarified that Suboxone had come into a prison through a family visit with an SNM member, so he spoke with SNM members to make it clear that, if such smuggling happened again, they would lose privileges. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 243:2- 244:1 (Marcantel, Jewkes). Marcantel explained that Suboxone is used as a substitute for heroin, and is much easier to conceal and transport into prisons than heroin. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 244:11-245:8 (Marcantel, Jewkes). He said that narcotics may be smuggled into prisons through family, staff, and the mail. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 245:17-25 (Jewkes, Marcantel).

         Marcantel described the NM Corrections Departments Security Threat Group (“STG”) label, which classifies groups, such as different gangs, that are “a direct threat to the prison system.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 204:16-17 (Marcantel). See id. at 204:10-17 (Marcantel). When Marcantel served as Secretary, the NM Corrections Department had identified two STGs: SNM and Los Carnales. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 218:9-15 (Beck, Marcantel). After Molina's murder, Marcantel spoke to Baca, because the murder risked Marcantel's reform efforts and instilled fear into the prison system. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 210:5-211:4 (Beck, Marcantel). Marcantel wanted Baca to know that “[y]ou can't kill people in the prison system.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 212:9-10 (Marcantel). Marcantel also spoke to D. Sanchez for the same reason. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 213:13-15 (Marcantel). Marcantel testified that neither Baca nor D. Sanchez said anything when he spoke to them. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 210:12-13 (Beck, Marcantel); id. at 213:10-12 (Beck, Marcantel).

         After the lunch break, before the jury entered the courtroom, Herrera elaborated on the Giglio issue, confirming that the Baca letter had not been disclosed previously and maintained that “this is a letter with Giglio material that, at this point, is going on three years old.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 228:10-11 (Bhalla). See id. at 228:3-11 (Court, Bhalla). Herrera accordingly renewed his request to strike B. Cordova's testimony. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 230:1-3 (Bhalla). The United States explained that it had just received the letter within the last week as part of a large file, because of issues with the NM Corrections Department showing up with new documents, and that a legible copy of the letter would be disclosed. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 230:6-18 (Beck).

         With the jury in the courtroom, Marcantel admitted that, toward the end of his tenure as Secretary, the majority of correctional officers voted that they had no confidence in Marcantel. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 221:14-24 (Lowry, Marcantel). Marcantel stated that, in 2015, he invited a television show into the prisons so that the corrections staff would be better appreciated, to fuel his push for more funding to provide the staff with raises and to increase staffing levels, and to provide the public with an idea of what prison is like. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 209:11-210:4 (Beck, Marcantel). Marcantel believed filming occurred in 2015, and said that, for the most part, the television series' production team had access to the entire facility and filmed everything that happened. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 222:4-223:2 (Lowry, Marcantel). The show's season two finale included the arrests in this case, and Marcantel testified that he recommended that Acee and Ms. Armijo review the episode before it aired. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 225:8-226:21 (Lowry, Marcantel). Marcantel said that he spoke with Acee fifteen times over the course of the investigation and with Ms. Armijo about five times. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 232:5-13 (Lowry, Marcantel). Marcantel did not recall attending a pizza party with the cooperators. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 255:4-7 (Lowry, Marcantel).

         f. Manuel Jacob Armijo's Testimony -- February 1, 2018.

         At the bench, outside the hearing of the jury, Baca requested that the Court exclude the additional James statements from Armijo, [36] which the United States disclosed for the first time on January 28, 2018. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 256:16-22 (Duncan). The United States explained that it had overlooked these statements, which is why they were disclosed late. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 258:4-9 (Castellano). Baca said that his primary objection is the late disclosure, and noted that the defense learned that Armijo would be a witness only two days ago, because he was on the “may call” --not the “will call” -- witness list. Feb. 1 Tr. at 259:2-11 (Duncan). Baca maintained that the additional statement, which goes to the Marcantel murder conspiracy, is unfair and prejudicial. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 259:21-260:6 (Lowry). The Court said that it would allow Armijo to testify to the additional statements, subject to recall in a week to give Baca time to adjust to the new information. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 263:5-20 (Court); id. at 263:24-264:7 (Court, Lowry, Castellano). In open court, Armijo -- who is out of prison on conditions of release and wore an ankle bracelet -- stated that the United States charged him with racketeering and conspiracy, and that he pled guilty and agreed to cooperate. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 265:14-24 (Castellano, Armijo); id. at 321:20-322:7 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo stated that he is currently forty-four years old, and has spent, in total, twenty-seven to twenty-eight years incarcerated. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 284:19-25 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo later said, however, that he spent twenty-two years in prison. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 340:20-22 (Jewkes, Armijo). Armijo stated that the United States has not provided him money in exchange for his cooperation and that, while out on conditions of release, he violated with a dirty urinalysis for heroin three times. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 322:12-323:9 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo said that he used the heroin when the hydrocodone prescribed for the arthritis in his back, hands, and feet did not sufficiently remove the pain. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 323:10-15 (Castellano, Armijo). Besides his arrest for the conditions violation and his arrest during the racketeering roundup, Armijo has not been in prison since 2012. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 323:22-324:18 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo started cooperating about four months after the roundup, because he was tired of the backstabbing and disloyalty in SNM, and he pled guilty in March, 2017, pursuant to a plea agreement through which Armijo expects to receive a reduced sentence of under twenty years. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 348:1-20 (Armijo, Jewkes); id. at 370:7-9 (Duncan, Armijo). Under the plea agreement's addendum, Armijo acknowledged that he agreed to give truthful, complete information, and so if he exaggerated or minimized somebody's involvement, it would violate his plea agreement. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 373:11-374:7 (Castellano, Armijo).

         Armijo decided to join the gang in 1993, because the gang looked out for each other, and, to do so, he had to “move on” -- meaning “assault, stab, or kill” -- a Los Carnales gang member. Feb. 1 Tr. at 268:20, 24 (Armijo). See id. at 266:10-15 (Castellano, Armijo); id. at 268:16-25 (Castellano, Armijo); id. at 353:14-354:12 (Maynard, Armijo). Armijo explained that he never had the chance to “move on” a Los Carnales member, because he got in an altercation with a correction officer, was transferred to a different prison, and thus was only a prospect for SNM membership. Feb. 1 Tr. at 269:9-14 (Castellano, Armijo); id. at 272:1-4 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo was eventually moved to a pod in Southern New Mexico and housed with Angel Munoz, SNM's leader at the time, whom Armijo was responsible for protecting, because Armijo was big and a good fighter. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 270:6-271:15 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo testified that he would have assaulted on the spot anybody who disrespected A. Munoz. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 271:23-25 (Castellano, Armijo). In 1994-1995, Armijo also collected heroin, marijuana, and money from inmates and SNM members for A. Munoz, because the members were expected to share with their leader, and SNM was a powerful gang in the prison drug trade. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 272:5-273:9 (Castellano, Armijo). Sometime in 1996, while out of prison, Armijo became an official SNM member after stabbing two Los Carnales members with a knife. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 273:10-275:19 (Castellano, Armijo). Sometime after these assaults, Armijo and A. Munoz attended a party together, and a man started disrespecting A. Munoz, so Armijo stabbed him -- which Armijo testified was expected of him as an SNM member. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 276:6-24 (Castellano, Armijo).

         Armijo described how, to join SNM, three members first have to approve of a prospect. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 275:20-24 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo stated that it was SNM policy to “hit on sight any rival gang members, ” even outside of prison. Feb. 1 Tr. at 274:21-22 (Armijo); id. at 274:23-24 (Castellano, Armijo). Besides Los Carnales, SNM also disliked the Burquenos gang. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 286:12-16 (Castellano, Armijo). SNM would attack its own members, “[i]f they were no good, if they had paperwork on them, [or if they were] child molesters.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 278:2-3 (Armijo). “Paperwork, ” Armijo said, showed that a member was a “rat.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 278:4-6 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo stated that, while often members wanted to see “paperwork” establishing that a person “snitched, ” or cooperated with the government against SNM, before moving on that person, there was a faction within SNM willing to move on somebody without the “paperwork.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 332:7-20 (Villa, Armijo). SNM also did not tolerate sex offenders, homosexual behavior, or members who did not follow orders. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 278:17-23 (Castellano, Armijo). Further, people who entered protective custody[37] were considered “no good” and going into protective custody would create problems for those people, even after moving to a new pod or facility. Feb. 1 Tr. at 290:24-291:10 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo stated that disobeying an order to move on a rival gang member likely meant being stabbed or killed. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 280:1-7 (Castellano, Armijo). Further, SNM would kill a member who reported a planned murder or physically attempted to stop it. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 328:20-329:7 (Villa, Armijo). Armijo said that SNM was the largest, toughest, most violent gang in the prison system during his stints of incarceration. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 297:4-10 (Castellano, Armijo). He testified that correctional officers who insulted SNM members were assaulted. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 375:11-21 (Castellano, Armijo).

         Armijo testified that he was “very close” with A. Munoz and, through that relationship, learned about SNM's history. Feb. 1 Tr. at 219:16 (Armijo). See id. at 319:17-19 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo said that SNM “was born after the riots, the '80 riots, that happened in the main, ” Feb. 1 Tr. at 319:22-23 (Armijo), and that it was originally “a group of guys that took care of each other and that tried to represent the inmates, ” Feb. 1 Tr. at 319:25-320:2 (Armijo), in an attempt to get “better living conditions, better food, better everything, ” Feb. 1 Tr. at 320:4-5 (Armijo). It eventually grew from this brotherhood against the administration, although Armijo believed that drugs caused issues within the gang, and cited bickering and taking sides as a problem which he had with SNM. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 320:6-321:11 (Castellano, Armijo). Over the years, as the old-timers died, SNM members wanted to make their own rules and started putting “hits” on each other for personal reasons, which Armijo said he did not like. Feb. 1 Tr. at 352:17-353:13 (Maynard, Armijo).

         As to drugs, Armijo stated that C. Garcia supplied SNM members with drugs, and that Armijo himself had used heroin, methamphetamines, and cocaine. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 280:8-281:3 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo admitted to using drugs while in prison. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 282:4-7 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo said that SNM would get prison guards to bring in drugs for them. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 292:18-23 (Castellano, Armijo). Further, sometime in 2014 or 2015, Armijo sent, three or four times, Suboxone strips through the mail to Archuleta in Tennessee. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 309:6-24 (Castellano, Armijo). Next, Armijo was asked whether he was aware of any disagreements between Archuleta and Romero. Armijo stated that, when Romero got out of prison, he visited Archuleta's wife to pick up drugs for his own use and to send into prison, but Romero “hook[ed] up” with Archuleta's wife, which caused a split within SNM, although it remains one gang. Feb. 1 Tr. at 312:1-313:9 (Castellano, Armijo).

         Armijo provided that, from 2011 to 2012, Armijo was in Southern New Mexico with Baca, whom Armijo described as “t[aking] the keys over.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 293:16-17 (Armijo). See id. at 293:4-10 (Castellano, Armijo). This term means “[t]aking over leadership, ” as does “llavero, ” meaning “[s]omeone who has the keys, who is driving the car, which is the leader.”[38] Feb. 1 Tr. at 294:1, 5-6 (Armijo). The member with the keys in the pod has “to keep everybody in line and to make decisions.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 295:1-2 (Armijo). From 2010-2012, Armijo was in charge of a pod at Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 295:3-9 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo named SNM members who have been higher in command: A. Munoz, Marty Barros, Juan Baca, Jacobo Armijo, Archuleta, Razor Ramon, and Baca. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 294:7-22 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo believed A. Munoz was “one of the founding fathers that founded the SNM.” Feb. 1 Tr. at 319:12-13 (Armijo). Armijo knew Barros, J. Baca, and Jacobo Armijo as the other founding fathers. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 321:15-17 (Armijo). Armijo named Herrera, Baca, and D. Sanchez as SNM members, but he did not know whether R. Perez is an SNM member. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 302:16-303:19 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo verified that one could be an SNM member without the NM Corrections Department's validation. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 315:1-3 (Castellano, Armijo).

         Armijo said the SNM pod structure at Southern New Mexico had three pods -- blue, yellow, and green -- in the same building, separated by walls, with doors connecting each pod. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 299:7-15 (Castellano, Armijo). These doors fostered communication with people in the next pod, because the inmates could speak through the crack in the door or pass things under the door -- such as drugs, shanks, or letters -- through the inch-high crack at the bottom, by knocking and calling someone over. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 299:16-300:20 (Castellano, Armijo).

         Armijo provided that, until his release in 2012, he was housed in the blue pod at Southern New Mexico with R. Perez, whom Armijo recalled had health problems and slept a lot in his room. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 325:8-326:14 (Villa, Armijo). Armijo said M. Rodriguez was not at Southern New Mexico at that time, but that they had met at the PNM North facility sometime before 2012, and that M. Rodriguez had a reputation within SNM for being crazy, handling his business, and being scary. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 326:17-327:15 (Villa, Armijo). Molina was housed, however, in the blue pod in 2012. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 330:22-24 (Villa, Armijo). Armijo stated that news and rumors spread fast within prison, and that a rumor that somebody “snitched” could get that person killed. Feb. 1 Tr. at 331:20-332:1 (Villa, Armijo). See id. at 332:21-25 (Villa, Armijo). Further, sometimes SNM members would take responsibility for doing something that they did not do. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 333:1-7 (Villa, Armijo). This lying could also get the members in trouble with the gang. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 340:6-14 (Jewkes, Armijo).

         Armijo testified that correctional officers rarely pay attention to what occurs in the pods and play on their telephones as long as the inmates do what they were supposed to do and behave. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 341:10-25 (Jewkes, Armijo). Armijo maintained that drugs were constantly in prison -- with heroin and marijuana most prevalent in “the old days, ” and Suboxone prevalent now. Feb. 1 Tr. at 343:2-9 (Jewkes, Armijo). Armijo admitted to some parts of his criminal history -- including assault, burglary, and escape from jail -- but contended that he did not commit battery upon a police officer, because the description of the offender was much smaller than himself. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 349:11-351:21 (Jewkes, Armijo); id. at 352:3-5 (Armijo). Duncan also went through Armijo's criminal history, to underscore why the Court initially detained Armijo pending trial. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 363:13-365:16 (Duncan, Armijo). Then, after Armijo began cooperating, the Court released Armijo, with the United States' withdrawing its opposition, and the Court imposed conditions of release -- which Armijo broke by using heroin. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 367:17-368:19 (Duncan, Armijo).

         Upon the completion of the United States' redirect, Baca had a few more questions, but the Court decided to break for the evening and excused the jury. See Feb. 1 Tr. at 378:1-17 (Court, Duncan, Castellano). Baca briefly conducted his re-cross examination, obtaining Armijo's understanding that, to get a reduced sentence, the United States first has to file a motion for a downward departure, which is a decision entirely within the Assistant United States Attorneys' control. See Transcript of Jury Trial Volume 5 at 14:11-18 (taken February 2, 2018)(Duncan, Armijo), filed February 22, 2019 (Doc. 2521)(“Feb. 2 Tr.”). The Court then excused Armijo, subject to recall. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 15:15-19 (Court).

         g. Antonio Palomares' Testimony.

         The United States next called Palomares, a sergeant with the New Mexico State Police (“NM State Police”) Investigations Bureau. Feb. 2 Tr. at 16:5-6 (Armijo); id. at 16:22-17:2 (Armijo, Palomares). Palomares testified that the NM State Police handle investigations out of Southern New Mexico, because it is a state facility. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 18:11-21 (Armijo, Palomares). On March 7, 2014, Palomares' supervisor appointed him case agent -- the person who oversees the investigation -- on a homicide that occurred at Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 18:22-19:9 (Armijo, Palomares). Palomares arrived at Southern New Mexico with other NM State Police agents, and learned that Molina had been stabbed and transported to Memorial Medical Center in Las Cruces. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 19:16-23 (Palomares). The agents planned to process the scene for evidence, get statements from inmates, and talk to correctional officers. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 20:18-21:3 (Palomares). Upon arriving at the scene around 6:40 p.m., Palomares received a call from the agent who responded to the hospital, who told him that Molina had died. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 21:23-22:2 (Palomares); id. at 23:4-7 (Palomares). Around 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. the next morning, the agents started interviewing inmates; they interviewed about ten inmates and two or three correctional officers. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 23:14-24:2 (Armijo, Palomares). The inmate interviews lasted between two and five minutes, and Palomares stated that nobody provided any helpful information. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 25:11-20 (Armijo, Palomares). Palomares stated that, after this, he had suspects but did not make immediate arrests. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 24:3-10 (Armijo, Palomares). Palomares had been advised that Molina was an SNM member, but did not look at the homicide from a gang angle. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 26:4-15 (Armijo, Palomares).

         At some point, New Mexico charged M. Rodriguez with conspiracy and having a weapon in a correctional facility, and charged Armenta and J. Montoya with first-degree murder. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 26:16-27:4 (Armijo, Palomares). Palomares continued his investigation after filing charges, and served these three inmates and T. Martinez with DNA search warrants, based on Palomares' ability to identify them in a video of the incident that correctional officers had given him. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 27:5-19 (Armijo, Palomares). In October, 2015, Palomares interviewed Armenta at Armenta's request, but M. Rodriguez and J. Montoya did not cooperate. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 28:2-29:9 (Armijo, Palomares). Eventually, these charges were dismissed, because the charges were brought at the federal level. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 29:10-18 (Armijo, Palomares).

         Palomares stated that the homicide occurred in the blue pod -- or 1-A B pod. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 34:2-10 (Villa, Palomares). R. Perez then began playing the video of the incident, and Palomares noted that the video was dated March 7, 2014, and time stamped 17:14:59 -- or 5:14 p.m. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 35:5-17 (Villa, Palomares). R. Perez paused the video at time stamp 17:15:53, and noted a nurse coming from R. Perez' cell, whom Palomares stated was giving R. Perez medication. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 37:22-38:9 (Villa, Palomares). At 17:16:32, Palomares identified M. Rodriguez and Molina as they entered Molina's cell. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 39:12-13 (Villa, Palomares). At 17:16:39, Palomares identified Armenta walking up the stairs. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 40:18-25 (Villa, Palomares). At 17:17:38, Palomares identified J. Montoya walking up the stairs. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 41:20-25 (Villa, Palomares). At 17:18:24, Palomares identified Molina standing outside his cell and M. Rodriguez on the upper level, and, at 17:18:36, both entered Molina's cell to join T. Martinez, who was already there. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 42:16-43:23 (Villa, Palomares). At 17:18:54, Palomares identified Armenta as the person sitting down after walking up the stairs, and, at 17:19:09, J. Montoya as the person walking up the stairs and sitting next to Armenta. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 44:4-17 (Villa, Palomares). Palomares verified that, at 17:20:04, Armenta and J. Montoya stood and walked toward Molina's cell, and then, at 17:20:18, entered the cell and, at 17:20:31, T. Martinez walked from the cell's direction toward the stairs. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 45:6-46:4 (Villa, Palomares). At 17:20:56, Molina appears at the top of the stairs with something on his chest, which Palomares identified as blood, with J. Montoya coming up behind him and M. Rodriguez standing near the railing. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 48:6-24 (Villa, Palomares). At 17:21:02, Palomares identified J. Montoya attacking Molina, and at 17:21:19, Armenta heads back toward Molina and M. Rodriguez walked into the shower area. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 49:4-18 (Villa, Palomares); id. at 50:17-25 (Villa, Palomares). Palomares said that the investigation of the scene uncovered a shank in the shower drain, which Palomares believes was used to stab Molina. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 51:5-15 (Villa, Palomares). Palomares confirmed that R. Perez is not seen at any point in this video or the video from another angle. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 52:4-11 (Villa, Palomares).

         R. Perez then walked Palomares through the video taken from a different angle. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 53:8-54:5 (Villa, Palomares). R. Perez again stopped the video at various times to have Palomares identify who was on the screen and what was occurring, noting the same conduct from the first video. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 54:9-63:6 (Villa, Palomares); id. at 63:16-66:2 (Villa, Palomares). Palomares clarified that, at 17:18:22, Molina's cell door closes, and that a correctional officer controls this action the opposite side of the pod. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 59:12-22 (Villa, Palomares). Palomares also noted that, from the video's angle, M. Rodriguez, Molina, and T. Martinez are seen entering Molina's cell. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 60:16-61:5 (Villa, Palomares). Palomares stated that the initial investigation uncovered three weapons -- one from the shower and two from the downstairs trashcan -- and that, on March 10, 2014, investigators collected an additional two weapons in the wall connecting the top and bottom tiers near Molina's cell. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 68:2-69:6 (Villa, Palomares). Palomares said that he had not heard anything about threats against R. Perez. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 70:4-8 (Villa, Palomares).

         During the first break, with the jury outside the courtroom, the Court cautioned Marcantel not to talk while in the galley, because it distracts the jury. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 72:2-9 (Marcantel, Court). D. Sanchez then conducted his cross-examination, and Palomares clarified that the crime scene team, and not he, was responsible for collecting the physical evidence and that the crime scene supervisor in this case was Norman Rhoades -- who was present at Southern New Mexico on March 7, 2014, see Feb. 2 Tr. at 76:9-77:11 (Jewkes, Palomares). Palomares stated that, within an hour and a half after his arrival at Southern Correctional on March 7, 2014, he watched the video shown to the jury. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 77:17-23 (Jewkes, Palomares). Palomares explained that two cameras were operating that day, one on the right side of the pod and one on the left, and that they produced the same video from different angles. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 78:5-22 (Jewkes, Palomares). D. Sanchez questioned why, with security cameras operating constantly, Palomares did not collect video from before or after the assault, and Palomares explained that he was focused on solving the homicide and that there was no need to get additional recordings. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 79:12-24 (Jewkes, Palomares). Palomares stated that he initially had no reason to believe that “paperwork” had passed before the assault, but, a year later, when he learned of this fact, he did not attempt to secure video from before the assault, because the FBI was already assisting with the investigation. Feb. 2 Tr. at 79:25-80:15 (Jewkes, Palomares). Palomares noted that D. Sanchez is in the common area standing next to a table in the video, but that the video does not show D. Sanchez entering Molina's cell. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 85:9-86:4 (Jewkes, Palomares). Herrera showed Palomares a letter that Armenta wrote to J. Montoya's lawyer, which Palomares did not recall seeing before his trial testimony, and which Palomares admitted would have been important to his investigation. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 89:22-90:3 (Bhalla, Palomares); id. at 90:11-19 (Bhalla, Palomares).

         During its re-direct examination, the United States pulled up the video from the second camera view at 17:21:02 and circled an individual, whom Palomares identified as D. Sanchez. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 91:10-21 (Armijo, Palomares). Palomares indicated that he interviewed R. Perez on March 10, 2014, and that R. Perez said he was an SNM member and was in his cell during the Molina incident. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 93:24-95:9 (Armijo, Palomares). R. Perez told Palomares during this interview that the STIU took away his walker because a piece was missing, explaining that he was in the shower when somebody took the piece and that “he had an idea who took” the piece, but did not give Palomares a name, and that he would “handle it on his own.” Feb. 2 Tr. at 96:1-2 (Palomares). See id. at 95:10-96:4 (Armijo, Palomares). At this point, D. Sanchez objected on Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America grounds and hearsay grounds, and the Court provided a limiting instruction.[39] See Feb. 2 Tr. at 96:9-20 (Jacks, Court). R. Perez conducted his re-cross examination, and asked about R. Perez' statements to Palomares in this interview, and the Court provided the same instruction. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 97:7-16 (Villa, Jacks, Court). Palomares admitted that, if R. Perez had given him a name as to whom he believed took the piece from his walker, Palomares would have included this information in his police report, which possibly could have put R. Perez in danger. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 98:18-22 (Villa); id. at 99:2-10 (Palomares, Villa). Palomares stated that he believed the STIU also spoke with R. Perez about his walker, which caused R. Perez to ask whether Palomares knew R. Perez told the STIU that he was threatened. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 99:11-17 (Villa, Palomares). This question drew objections from the United States and D. Sanchez, so the parties approached the bench. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 99:18-23 (Armijo, Villa, Jacks, Court).

         Outside the jury hearing, R. Perez maintained that he was attempting to introduce his statement to the STIU to impeach R. Perez' statement to Palomares and that, before he can admit the statement through a STIU agent, he must ask Palomares whether he knows about the statement. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 100:17-101:22 (Villa, Court). Palomares came to the bench and stated that he does not know if R. Perez made a statement to STIU about being threatened when the piece was taken from his walker. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 102:7-11 (Villa, Palomares). D. Sanchez noted that R. Perez elicited a statement that the Court had already ruled was testimonial and excluded from the trial. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 105:14-21 (Jacks). The Court advised R. Perez that, before asking any questions about this statement of any witness, R. Perez would need to approach the bench, because the statement is not admissible. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 106:8-25 (Court, Villa). D. Sanchez requested that the Court strike R. Perez' question and instruct the jury to disregard it, and moved for a mistrial, noting that the United States' questioning on R. Perez' statements also elicited statements that may be admissible under a hearsay exception, but are testimonial -- and the United States has no exception to the Sixth Amendment. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 107:6-17 (Jacks).

         The parties left the bench, and, in open court, the Court instructed the jury that it is

not going to permit the answer to the question that Mr. Villa started. If you caught any of it before all the objections were made, I strike the question as well. So don't even consider the question, which is not what you should be doing anyway. You should be considering the answer. But in this case, I want you to strike the question and not even consider it.

Feb. 2 Tr. at 108:10-17 (Court). R. Perez continued with his re-cross, and Palomares admitted that he did not believe R. Perez' walker was evidence, did not attempt to get the walker to preserve it for trial, but that he was not sure whether the jury would see the walker. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 109:10-110:2 (Villa, Palomares). Upon D. Sanchez' request, the Court clarified that the testimony R. Perez solicited about his statements before the bench conference can be considered only against R. Perez, whereas the testimony following the bench conference can be considered against everyone. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 110:6-18 (Jacks, Court). The Court then excused Palomares, subject to recall. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 110:22-111:8 (Court, Armijo, Villa).

         h. Javier Rubio's Testimony.

         The United States called its next witness, Rubio, who was in custody, in a prison jumpsuit, and had uniformed correctional officers escort him and stand next to him in the witness box. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 111:11-12 (Beck); id. at 117:18-25 (Armijo); id. at 118:22-2 (Court). Rubio described the benefits he received for his cooperation, such as Acee's testimony at his state parole hearing if Rubio tells the truth, and noted that he was not indicted in the case. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 132:25-133:16 (Bec, Rubio). Rubio also received more telephone calls, tier time, and contact visits, and he attended the pizza party, but Rubio noted that these benefits terminated, he lost his good time, [40]and he was sent to solitary confinement for nine months when he was caught having sex with his wife in January, 2017. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 133:17-134:22 (Beck, Rubio). Rubio knew that having sex with his wife violated the rules and admitted that his one-year-old granddaughter was in the room when it occurred. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 152:18-153:6 (Beck, Rubio).

         Rubio joined SNM in 1994 at age eighteen at the PNM South, where he was serving a sentence for a murder he committed during a burglary. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 121:10-122:12 (Beck, Rubio). Rubio defined the term “earning your bones, ” which is murdering or assaulting somebody, and said that he “earned his bones” by stabbing someone in 1994 to join the gang, which, at that time, A. Munoz led. Feb. 2 Tr. at 123:12-124:5 (Beck, Rubio); id. at 130:9-14 (Beck, Rubio). Rubio also stabbed an SNM enemy in 1997. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 130:15-21 (Beck, Rubio). Rubio identified B. Garcia, Archuleta -- whom he knew only by his nickname “Styx” -- Barros, and Romero as other leaders below A. Munoz, and stated that Baca became the leader in 1999 or 2000 -- a role he still holds. Feb. 2 Tr. at 125:20 (Rubio). See id. at 125:3-23 (Beck, Rubio). Rubio said that SNM's “tabla” is its board of leaders, which includes leaders of pods within correctional facilities and that Rubio was a member of the “tabla.” Feb. 2 Tr. at 129:11-25 (Beck, Rubio).

         Rubio believed that SNM's purpose is to “[c]ontrol the prison system, ” which it does “[t]hrough violence and extortion.” Feb. 2 Tr. at 126:1, 2 (Rubio). He stated that SNM members sell and do drugs in prison, and that if anybody -- member or not -- brings drugs into a pod with SNM members, that person has to share the drugs with SNM. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 126:4-15(Beck, Rubio). Rubio said that, to be admitted to SNM, a recruit must “commit an act of violence, ” and have two or three SNM members vouch for admittance. Feb. 2 Tr. at 127:1 (Rubio). See id. at 127:2-6 (Beck, Rubio). People who have committed a sex offense are not admitted. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 127:10-11, 14 (Beck, Rubio). SNM members cannot cooperate with law enforcement, “snitch” to prison officials, refuse to commit violence when ordered, or enter protective custody. Feb. 2 Tr. at 126:21-24 (Beck, Rubio). See id. at 128:5-14 (Beck, Rubio); id. at 143:14-17 (Beck, Rubio). A member who violates a rule could get killed or beat up, depending on the violation's severity. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 127:20-128:4 (Beck, Rubio). For example, if a “tabla” member orders a member to perform a “hit” and that member does not do what he is told, the member will be murdered; likewise, if the “tabla” member gets an order to order a “hit” and does not do what he is told, the “tabla” member will be murdered. Feb. 2 Tr. at 130:1-8 (Beck, Rubio).

         Rubio said that “verified hits” are ordered by SNM's leaders and are not issued for personal reasons. Feb. 2 Tr. at 130:22-131:5 (Beck, Rubio). Rubio described calling a “hit” on SNM member Frankie Gonzalez in 2002, because F. Gonzalez had failed to “hit” the man who had caused problems for another member in the same facility in which F. Gonzalez was housed. Feb. 2 Tr. at 131:6-25 (Beck, Rubio). Rubio stated that he verified the “hit” before calling it by ensuring that F. Gonzalez was in the facility and did not do what he should have done. Feb. 2 Tr. at 132:1-6 (Beck, Rubio). Later, this man that F. Gonzalez failed to “hit” ended up in the same pod as Rubio, so Rubio had him “hit” with a shank which Rubio had made from a wooden Scrabble piece. Feb. 2 Tr. at132:7-24 (Beck, Rubio).

         Rubio described a conversation that he had with Baca in 2008 at Southern New Mexico, in which Baca stated his plan for people to vote for certain members to run pods to ensure people followed the rules, and how these leaders would report to Baca. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 135:19-136:2 (Beck, Rubio); id. at 136:23-24 (Rubio). Upon D. Sanchez' request, the Court provided a limiting instruction.[41] See Feb. 2 Tr. at 137:1-11 (Jacks, Court). In 2008, Rubio and Sedillo were voted leaders of the green pod and Rubio remained the leader in March, 2014. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 137:23-138:7 (Beck, Rubio). Baca provided Rubio a sheet of paper with rules that Baca wanted Rubio to write down and pass around, [42] so everybody would know them: “snitches” would be murdered, people who do not carry out an ordered “hit” would be murdered, exercise every day, be prepared to “earn your bones” if you have not, and “be ready to fight or go to war with anybody.” Feb. 2 Tr. at 139:18-19 (Rubio). See id. at 138:8-139:2 (Beck, Rubio); id. at 139:12-19 (Beck, Rubio); id. at 140:2-4 (Beck, Rubio). A member who violated a rule would be murdered or assaulted. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 140:7-12 (Beck, Rubio).

         Rubio stated that, in July or August, 2013, while at Southern New Mexico as one of green pod's leaders, Sedillo, green pod's other leader, provided Rubio “paperwork” on Molina containing a statement Molina had made to police. Feb. 2 Tr. at 140:19-141:19 (Beck, Rubio). At this point, Rubio “didn't want anything to do with SNM, ” because he did not agree with Baca's self-serving politics or his lack of loyalty, and so he told Sedillo that he did not want anything to do with the “paperwork.” Feb. 2 Tr. at 141:23-142:9 (Beck, Rubio). Rubio believed that Baca “would make enemies of his own people, ” Feb. 2 Tr. at 142:11-12 (Rubio), and that Baca had violated SNM rules, see Feb. 2 Tr. at 143:8-10 (Rubio). Rubio confronted Baca at some point, and Baca accused Rubio of wanting his position and threatened him.[43] See Feb. 2 Tr. at 143:21-2 (Beck, Rubio).

         Rubio said that, in March, 2014, at Southern New Mexico, D. Sanchez was the blue pod leader; Juan Mendez, Alex Munoz, and Herrera were the yellow pod leaders; and Sedillo and Rubio still led the green pod. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 144:20-24 (Beck, Rubio); id. at 145:9-12 (Beck, Rubio); id. at 145:23-25 (Beck, Rubio). Rubio stated that, before SNM could murder a “snitch, ” these six people had to verify the “hit” -- who sent it and how it got to these leaders -- and verify that the “paperwork” was real. Feb. 2 Tr. at 146:7-21 (Beck, Rubio).

         During the next break, with the jury outside the courtroom, D. Sanchez elaborated on his objection to the admission of co-Defendants' statements under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 150:7-12 (Jacks). D. Sanchez noted that his case hinges on the informants' credibility, so he argued that the jury will struggle with ignoring a co-Defendant's statement -- inadmissible as to D. Sanchez -- that corroborates an informant's testimony when evaluating that informant's credibility. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 150:13-151:1 (Jacks). The jury entered the courtroom, and the United States continued its examination of Rubio. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 152:14-16 (Court). Rubio explained that, after the Molina murder, Rubio and Herrera were placed in adjacent recreational cages, and Herrera told Rubio that he had ordered the murder.[44] See Feb. 2 Tr. at 154:4-10 (Beck, Rubio); id. at 155:10-12 (Beck, Rubio).

         Rubio verified that, there is always a chance in prison that people will fight for personal reasons and that, fights among SNM members for personal reasons violate the rules, so they are sometimes disguised as an SNM-sanctioned “hit.” Feb. 2 Tr. at 157:1-15 (Maynard, Rubio). Rubio said that Molina's murder occurred in the blue pod and communications occurred between the pods' leaders via word of mouth. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 158:4-25 (Maynard, Rubio). Rubio clarified that his expectation for cooperating is that the United States provides a statement at his state parole hearing in 2024, to help persuade the parole board to release him on that date. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 161:12-162:9 (Maynard, Rubio). Rubio maintained that the United States told him that he was not the investigation's target, and did not threaten him with pressing federal charges. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 162:13-23 (Maynard, Rubio). Rubio admitted that, for about two weeks, while waiting to go to a facility for people who renounced gang membership, he was housed with others who were contemplating cooperating with the investigation, and that he is in the process of renouncing his SNM membership. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 164:17-165:5 (Maynard, Rubio). Rubio also admitted that the federal government has not prosecuted him for his SNM gang activity and that he does not expect to be prosecuted. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 165:13-20 (Maynard, Rubio).

         Upon D. Sanchez' questioning, Rubio explained that shanks could be made from razor blades, plastic, wood, or metal, but that he preferred steel, because of its strength, and would usually make the shank by sharpening the material on concrete. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 169:6-22 (Jewkes, Rubio). Rubio stated that he could make a shank within an hour. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 170:10 (Rubio). Rubio stated that he decided to cooperate about a year after the indictments issued, was never housed with any of the Defendants after their indictment, and has not seen any of the discovery. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 174:2-175:2 (Jewkes, Rubio). Rubio expressed concern whether the Molina “paperwork” he saw was legitimate, because another inmate provided it. Feb. 2 Tr. at 178:4-12 (Jewkes, Rubio). Rubio said this inmate, Ronald Sanchez, handed him “paperwork” which had nothing to do with Molina, and that Sedillo handed him “paperwork” on Molina in 2013, which consisted of about fifteen to twenty sheets of regular-sized paper, containing a statement Molina made to the Las Cruces Police Department. Feb. 2 Tr. at 179:2-180:3 (Jewkes, Rubio). Rubio stated that he skimmed through the typewritten “paperwork, ” that it had a case number on it but no logos, that it looked like a police report containing interviews, and that Sedillo supposedly flushed it. Feb. 2 Tr. at 180:4-25 (Jewkes, Rubio).

         Baca elicited that Rubio was not happy with Baca, because he did not follow the rules and gave passes to people who entered protective custody, but Rubio was not aware that inmates at Southern New Mexico had “kited” Baca out.[45] Feb. 2 Tr. at 105:24 (Lowry). See Feb. 2 Tr. at 185:23-186:10 (Lowry, Rubio). Rubio said that Baca favored certain people and would let them enter protective custody if it benefitted him, rather than imposing the same rules on everybody. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 188:17-23 (Lowry, Rubio). Rubio admitted to being a heroin addict in the 1990s, but stated that he has since stopped doing drugs. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 186:15-24 (Lowry, Rubio). Rubio noted that, even if he does get paroled in 2024, he still will have to serve an additional eighteen years, because he was sentenced to life plus eighteen years. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 189:21-7 (Lowry, Rubio). The Court then admitted, over the United States' objection under rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a video clip of Rubio having sex with his wife during a contact visit, and Rubio identified that the people in the video are Rubio, his wife, and their granddaughter. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 193:4-194:9 (Lowry, Rubio, Court, Beck). R. Perez clarified that a different person with the surname “Perez” brought Rubio into the gang and asked Rubio to describe solitary confinement: being locked in an about ten-by-eight-foot room for twenty-three hours a day, no contact with other inmates, recreation time alone, and no human communication except possibly through the vent. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 194:21-195:13 (Fox-Young, Rubio). The Court then excused Rubio, subject to recall. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 197:8-10, 20-22 (Court).

         i. William Price's Testimony.

         The United States next called Price, who has been a correctional officer for eighteen years and works at Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 197:25-198:1 (Castellano); id. at 198:21-199:2 (Castellano, Price). Price said that inmates will pass “kites” -- or messages -- by attaching the kite to a string and throwing it to another cell, like a fishing line, and that inmates can slide things under the doors to each pod, and that the correctional officers usually do not get to intercept such communications. Feb. 2 Tr. at 211:4-212:22 (Castellano, Price). Price stated that inmates will talk at the inter-pod doors, but the officers in the control room cannot hear what is said, and normally the officers cannot see if the inmates slide anything underneath the doors. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 212:23-213:9 (Castellano, Price). Price contended, however, that the control room is designed for maximum visibility into the housing unit, so the officers could watch the inmates below in the pods. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 237:25-238:8 (Jacks, Price). The control center's windows overlooking the pods contain a hole, to allow a shotgun to go through “to shoot less lethal ammunition, ” which is now larger than it was on March 7, 2014, because of the Molina incident. Feb. 2 Tr. at 262:6 (Price). See id. at 262:3-10 (Jacks, Price); id. at 277:17-23 (Castellano, Price). Price stated that, per NM Corrections Department policy, inmates are allowed to possess legal materials -- such as legal paperwork -- and believed that inmates could possess legal materials related only to active cases. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 269:8-19 (Jacks, Price); id. at 270:10-271:18 (Jacks, Price). Because the correctional officers cannot read the inmates' personal property, and can thumb through it only to look for contraband, Price stated that he would not know if other documents are inserted into the legal paperwork. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 281:8-16 (Castellano, Price). Price said that there is a standard form used to inventory inmates' property: the property is inventoried, placed in a plastic bag, and then transported to the facility, without being accessible to the inmate See Feb. 2 Tr. at 272:10-275:1 (Jacks, Price). The inventory process does not always happen; with a big incident, like a murder, there is not time to properly inventory inmate property before transport. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 280:13-21 (Castellano, Price).

         Price stated that, on March 7, 2014, at about 5:18 p.m., he was on duty at Southern New Mexico and was roving[46] SNM housing unit from green, to blue, to yellow pod, escorting a nurse to give out medication. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 200:22-201:16 (Castellano, Price). Price described the environment in blue pod as “[c]alm, no tension; everyday, normal activity, ” and stated that he did not suspect that something was about to happen. Feb. 2 Tr. at 202:10-11 (Price). See id. at 202:8-20 (Castellano, Price). Price stated that green pod was also “normal, ” but that the yellow pod was “a little bit more rowdy, loud.” Feb. 2 Tr. at 203:5, 8 (Price). Price indicated that the yellow pod had three new intakes from the day before, who were on orientation status, meaning that they are locked in their cell for a week, so they cannot interact with other inmates to ensure that they all will get along. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 203:9-204:9 (Castellano, Price). Price stated that, after exiting blue pod, the nurse was handing out medication in yellow pod “when the control officer knocked on the [upstairs] window[47] and told us something was going on in blue pod, ” and Price testified that he “walked out of yellow pod, went over to the door of blue pod, and [] could see Molina with a bloody chest and two other inmates attacking him” through the little window on the closed door to blue pod. Feb. 2 Tr. at 204:21-25 (Price). See id. at 205:1-7 (Castellano, Price).

         At first, Price believed Molina was horse-playing with the inmates, so Price yelled at them to stop, but noticed blood on Molina's chest when he turned around, so Price told the pod to lock down. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 206:14-23 (Castellano, Price). Price testified that he could not enter the cell right away, because he had to wait for backup so that there would be enough staff to ensure their safety, and that backup probably took a minute to a minute and a half to arrive. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 207:11-208:12 (Castellano, Price). Price stated that, when backup arrived and the control officer opened the door, “Molina fell to the ground, and you could see his hands were -- fists clenched closed, his eyes rolled back in his head, and his hands just opened up, and he never moved again.” Feb. 2 Tr. at 209:2-6 (Price). See id. at 208:25-209:2 (Price). Price and the other officers secured the pod by putting each inmate in his assigned cell, and then the nurse attempted to stop Molina's bleeding. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 209:7-24 (Castellano, Price). Price stated that first responders arrived and performed CPR on Molina as they removed him on a gurney, and that he gave a witness statement and spoke with the NM State Police. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 210:4-22 (Castellano, Price).

         R. Perez played the video of Molina's homicide and, pausing it at 17:15:52, had Price verify that the nurse pictured was the nurse Price was escorting and that the person standing behind her in the video is Price. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 216:9-18 (Villa, Price). Price verified that R. Perez received medication that day, as R. Perez did every day -- more than once a day -- and that R. Perez used a walker, and mostly stayed in his cell. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 217:2-218:1 (Villa, Price). Price stated that the window through which he saw Molina's attack was on the door that leads into the pod, noting that the doors connecting the pods do not have windows, and that, at that time, he was unable to identify the men attacking Molina, but that, by looking at the video, he identified them as Armenta and J. Montoya. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 218:12-219:9 (Villa, Price). Price said that it appeared that whatever Armenta and J. Montoya did to Molina had killed him quickly. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 220:10-15 (Villa, Price). Price stated that the policy at the time was to keep the cell doors closed and open them all at once only for about ten minutes every hour for a bathroom break, because the pods do not have bathrooms. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 221:11-223:2 (Villa, Price). Price reiterated that the control officers control the doors and that they are not supposed to open a cell door unless there is an officer in the pod. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 223:5-25 (Villa, Price). Price did not know who opened Molina's door before his assault. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 224:9-11 (Villa, Price).

         Price stated that there were two other correctional officers in housing unit 1-A on March 7, 2014, one officer who stays in the control room all day, and two rovers. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 233:18-234:20 (Jacks, Price). Price stated that he was working a sixteen-hour shift that day and could not remember whether he observed activity at the door between the blue and yellow pods. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 235:22-24 (Jacks, Price); id. at 238:18-25 (Jacks, Price). Price testified that the control officer keeps a handwritten log on “[a]ny activity that goes on in the housing unit, like when inmates come out of their cells, when chow comes in, when we take them out to rec, when we return them to rec, when an officer goes to each pod, when nurses come in, do the rounds, education.” Feb. 2 Tr. at 239:13-18 (Price). See id. at 239:1-10 (Jacks, Price). Price stated that fights or major disturbances get logged, but petty violations do not. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 240: 3-12 (Jacks, Price). Price explained that, when a major incident occurs as with Molina's homicide, the normal log for the day is pulled and a new one is started at the time of the incident. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 246:10-19 (Jacks, Price). The Court let Price step down, subject to recall. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 287:19-22 (Court).

         j. David Calbert's Testimony.

         The United States next called Calbert, who joined SNM in 1998, and stabbed an SNM enemy with a piece of metal from a mop to enter the gang. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 287:25-288:1 (Beck); id. at 306:12-307:10 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert was on parole, but was detained and awaiting sentencing. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 363:5-10 (Duncan, Calbert). Calbert stated that he assaulted somebody named Nick Olivas in 1998 or 1999, because SNM ordered him to attack Olivas, and assaulted somebody he knows only as “Bandit” in 2004, because Bandit owed SNM drug money and Arturo Arnulfo Garcia ordered the assault. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 322:19-324:4 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert also assaulted three correctional officers with SNM's permission, and noted that SNM members generally have to get SNM's permission before assaulting anybody. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 327:2-16 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert stated that he assaulted these correctional officers, because he was sticking up for Urquizo. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 353:14-19 (Duncan, Calbert). Calbert testified that, in 2011, he and Varela attacked Paul Silva at PNM South over SNM politics. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 329:11-330:13 (Beck, Calbert); id. at 332:18-19 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert maintained that SNM did not sanction the Silva assault, but nonetheless he did it for SNM. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 364:5-18 (Fox-Young, Calbert). Calbert stated that he stabbed Silva multiple times, and that Varela kicked Silva in the head. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 356:8-11 (Duncan, Calbert). Calbert said that Silva attempted to lead the pod, with which Calbert disagreed, because he wanted Baca to get everything in order and fix the mess A.A. Garcia had caused. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 330:14-331:8 (Beck, Calbert); id. at 331:23-332:9 (Beck, Calbert).

         Calbert admitted that there are documents in his prison file in which he denies being SNM member, because SNM prohibits its members from talking to correctional officers. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 332:20-333:5 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert testified that he pled guilty on September 28, 2017, to all the charges that the United States filed against him -- conspiracy to murder Silva and assaulting Silva with a dangerous weapon. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 334:13-21 (Beck, Calbert); id. at 358:7-14 (Duncan, Calbert). Calbert noted that he faces up to thirty years and that he expects to receive a benefit from the United States in return for a truthful testimony. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 335:2-12 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert said that he chose to cooperate, because he was tired of SNM members attempting to kill him. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 335:13-336:6 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert admitted that he has already received some benefits for his cooperation, such as a lunch from Blake's Lotaburger, $408.05, more money for the canteen, more calls, and a visit with his family. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 336:21-337:2 (Beck, Calbert); id. at 337:9-21 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert stated that, before he decided to cooperate, he met with Urquizo and his attorneys for about five minutes, to discuss the case, and then he met with Acee after the meeting with Uquizo. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 337:22-338:13 (Beck, Calbert); id. at 346:15-22 (Beck, Calbert). R. Perez asked whether Urquizo wanted to get his and Calbert's stories straight during their meeting, but Calbert maintained that Urquizo just told him what Urquizo had told the United States. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 379:3-16 (Fox-Young, Calbert). Calbert also mentioned that he had once served as a personal representative for Urquizo when Urquizo faced a disciplinary charge. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 354:1-7 (Duncan, Calbert).

         Calbert testified that one day in 2014, after stabbing Silva, he was in the PNM North recreation yard when Joe Martinez, or “Cheech, ” provided Calbert “paperwork” on Molina, consisting of a police report which showed that Molina told about some robbery. Feb. 2 Tr. at 338:16-339:3 (Beck, Calbert). See id. at 339:16-340:9 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert took the “paperwork” and agreed to pass it to somebody else. Feb. 2 Tr. at 340:17-19 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert stated that, at first, he told J. Martinez that the “paperwork” was “nothing, ” but then J. Martinez said: “Pup wants you to take it down there.” Feb. 2 Tr. at 342:15-18 (Calbert). Calbert understood this statement to mean that he was required to make sure the “paperwork” got to Southern New Mexico. Feb. 2 Tr. at 342:22-343:4 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert admitted that, at this point, he had never met Baca or spoken with him. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 349:3-7 (Duncan, Calbert). Calbert stated that he moved to PNM South four to five months after receiving the “paperwork, ” and there he gave Urquizo the “paperwork.” Feb. 2 Tr. at 343:8-11 (Beck, Calbert); id. at 348:24- 349:2 (Duncan, Calbert). Calbert explained that Urquizo -- whom Calbert identified as a fellow SNM member - had also moved to Southern New Mexico, where Molina was incarcerated. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 347:2-348:1 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert was not charged for his involvement in the Molina homicide. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 359:7-17 (Duncan, Calbert). Calbert admitted that the United States did not charge him for the Molina homicide, because he is cooperating. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 371:20-372:1 (Fox-Young, Calbert).

         Calbert stated that, in 2014, after Molina's murder, he filed a lawsuit against Marcantel, complaining about being placed on lockdown following the incident, and requesting a change in the prison conditions, the return of the lost privileges, and monetary damages. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 359:18-361:2 (Duncan, Calbert). Baca asked Calbert, under penalty of perjury, whether he asserted in his complaint that he was not involved in Molina's murder. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 361:3-362:5 (Duncan, Calbert). Calbert admitted this fact, and asserted that the lawsuit never went anywhere. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 362:6-10 (Duncan, Calbert). R. Perez noted Calbert's prison calls, in which Calbert described receiving a television from the STIU and told his family that he would get sentenced to only three years. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 372:22-373:10 (Fox-Young, Calbert). Calbert admitted that he is spoiled now, compared to being in the prison in Estancia. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 374:1-6 (Fox-Young, Calbert).

         Calbert testified that, after his arrest in this case, R. Perez admitted to him that he initially “want[ed] credit for all this that went on, ” but now wanted nothing to do with it. Feb. 2 Tr. at 344:13-15 (Calbert). See id. at 343:17-22 (Beck, Calbert); id. at 344:6-16 (Beck, Calbert). At this point, upon Baca and D. Sanchez' request, the Court gave a limiting instruction.[48] See Feb. 2 Tr. at 344:18-345:1 (Duncan, Jacks, Court). Calbert explained that, because R. Perez is “crippled” and has trouble “getting around, ” Calbert believed that he “wanted to do something, ” and that Calbert understood R. Perez to mean that he would get credit for providing a piece of metal from his walker. Feb. 2 Tr. at 345:6-7 (Calbert). See id. at 345:4-15 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert elaborated that, because R. Perez cannot fight, Calbert felt like R. Perez wanted to contribute to the murder by doing something of which he was physically capable. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 346:1-10 (Beck, Calbert).

         Calbert stated that he is currently housed with M. Rodriguez, whom Calbert has known five or ten years, and T. Martinez, whom Calbert has also known for several years. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 374:7-375:11 (Fox-Young, Calbert). Calbert stated that M. Rodriguez' signature move in fights is biting off ears. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 375:24-376:9 (Fox-Young, Calbert). Calbert admitted that both M. Rodriguez and T. Martinez were housed with Molina at Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 2 Tr. at 375:18-23 (Fox-Young, Calbert). Calbert admitted that people thought to be cooperating with the United States get “hit” and that there were rumors that R. Perez cooperated. Feb. 2 Tr. at 383:9-22 (Fox-Young, Calbert).

         The Court then broke for the weekend, stating:

Because we're going to take our first weekend break during the trial, I want to remind you of a few things that are especially important. Until the trial is completed, you're not to discuss the case with anyone, whether it's members of your family, people involved in the trial, or anyone else, and that includes your fellow jurors. If anyone approaches you and tries to discuss the trial with you, please let me know about it immediately.
Also, you must not read or listen to any news reports of the trial. Again, don't get on the [internet] and do any research for purposes of this case.
And finally, remember that you must not talk about anything with any person who is involved in the trial, even if it doesn't have anything to do with the trial.

Feb. 2 Tr. at 386:12-387:3 (Court).

         The parties returned to court on Monday, February 5, 2018, and, before the jury entered the courtroom, R. Perez' counsel informed the Court that R. Perez had come down with the flu and requested a day so R. Perez could see a doctor. See Transcript of Jury Trial Volume 6 at 4:5-5:7 (taken February 5, 2018)(Villa), filed February 22, 2019 (Doc. 2522)(“Feb. 5 Tr.”). The United States offered that it is also concerned about R. Perez and that, while it is ready and willing to proceed with trial, the trial is ahead of schedule and taking a day off would not cause much delay. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 5:10-6:12 (Beck, Armijo). Other defense counsel provided their concern for R. Perez and stated that they did not want to get sick. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 6:17-7:6 (Bhalla, Lowry, Jacks). The Court decided to try and get a medical provider to the courthouse to see R. Perez by lunchtime and, if that does not occur, to have the United States Marshals take R. Perez to the hospital. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 11:11-17 (Court).

         The jury entered the courtroom, and the Court informed the jurors that R. Perez is wearing a mask, because he is sick, and that they may be taking more breaks for him. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 18:4-14 (Court). Calbert returned to the stand, and R. Perez continued his cross-examination, underscoring that R. Perez spoke with Calbert in 2017, three years after Molina's murder, and that R. Perez provided Calbert no details on how his walker piece was taken; Calbert verified that R. Perez did not mention M. Rodriguez took the piece or that R. Perez was scared of M. Rodriguez. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 19:12-20:13 (Fox-Young, Calbert). Calbert testified that he had a discovery tablet -- which was briefly taken away, because somebody else had been tampering with the tablets --and was able to see other cooperators' statements. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 21:6-22:3 (Fox-Young, Calbert). Calbert admitted that, when he spoke with Urquizo, he knew that R. Perez was fighting the case. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 23:18-24:6 (Fox-Young, Calbert). Returning to Calbert's prison telephone calls, R. Perez asked Calbert whether he told anybody besides his mother that he thought he would only get three years and, when Calbert answered negatively, the Court gave a limiting instruction.[49] See Feb. 5 Tr. at 27:24-28:5 (Fox-Young, Calbert). R. Perez then played an audio recording of a telephone call, in which Calbert tells a younger brother he would be out in three years at the latest. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 28:20-29:17 (Fox-Young, Calbert).

         Calbert elaborated on the Silva assault, and he stated that Silva was in charge of the pod after A.A. Garcia was removed from the pod -- Calbert believed A.A. Garcia was “kited out, ” but did not know for sure -- which made Calbert feel unsafe and angry. Feb. 5 Tr. at 37:9-14 (Jacks, Calbert); id. at 39:18-25 (Jacks, Calbert); id. at 40:18-41:6 (Jacks, Calbert). Calbert stated that he did not recognize Silva's authority and was mad at Silva for pushing him around, so he attacked Silva. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 41:3-22 (Jacks, Calbert). Calbert admitted that SNM did not sanction or order the attack, and that he did the attack to improve his status within SNM. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 41:23-42:7 (Jacks, Calbert). Calbert explained that, when he spoke to a STIU officer after the assault, Calbert said that the assault was personal. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 42:8-25 (Jacks, Calbert). Calbert testified that Varela got involved, because one of Silva's friends shoved Varela during the attack. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 43:4-24 (Jacks, Calbert).

         Calbert admitted that he fought his case for two years, and that, a month after speaking with Urquizo, entered a guilty plea and now faces a maximum sentence of thirty years imprisonment, but he expects his sentence will be significantly reduced because of his cooperation. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 44:22-45:21 (Jacks, Calbert). Calbert stated that Urquizo told him that cooperating would bring benefits, such as privileges and visits, but not money or dropped charges in Molina's homicide. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 53:18-54:16 (Jacks, Calbert). Calbert clarified that he had discovery on all of the SNM cases, not just his own, and listened to audio clips, watched videos, and read statements related to Molina's homicide. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 47:24-49:2 (Jacks, Calbert). Calbert maintained that he transferred “paperwork” from PNM to Southern New Mexico, but he admitted that he saw the “paperwork” mentioned in the discovery and thought it was something in which the United States was interested. Feb. 5 Tr. at 49:16-50:4 (Jacks, Calbert). Calbert described the “paperwork” as one or two typed pages about Molina's involvement in a purse-snatching. Feb. 5 Tr. at 68:19-70:16 (Jacks, Calbert). Calbert stated that a correctional officer escorted J. Martinez when J. Martinez passed the “paperwork” to Calbert through the recreation cage fence, and that the correctional officer did nothing about the hand-off. Feb. 5 Tr. at 75:7-19 (Bhalla, Calbert).

         During the United States' re-direct examination, Calbert admitted that, if he does not testify truthfully, he would lose his benefits and the United States could charge him with Molina's murder. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 76:12-23 (Beck, Calbert). Calbert maintained that he did not ask to meet with Urquizo and that he had already decided to cooperate when they met. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 76:24-77:5 (Beck, Calbert). The Court allowed Calbert to step down, subject to recall. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 83:8-10 (Court).

         k. Norman Rhoades' Testimony.

         The United States next called Rhoades, a NM State Police officer in the Crime Scene Unit. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 84:10-22 (Castellano, Rhoades). Rhoades stated that, on March 7, 2017, he and other officers were called to Southern New Mexico to process a crime scene involving an inmate's death. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 88:13-89:1 (Castellano, Rhoades). Rhoades stated that the scene as located within one pod of a unit. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 90:1-4 (Rhoades). Rhoades said that, at the time, they thought that nothing related to the crime occurred anywhere else, so they processed only the one pod. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 93:12-16 (Castellano, Rhoades). Rhoades stated that they photographed the scene as they found it to show what it looked like. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 90:21-91:7 (Castellano, Rhoades). Rhoades walked the jury through several photographs, and stated that, upon first walking into the pod, they saw a substance on the ground and wall later determined to be blood. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 96:7-14 (Castellano, Rhoades). Some photographs depicted scratches and disturbances on the floor, of which Rhoades did not know the significance at the time. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 103:19-104:8 (Castellano, Rhoades). Rhoades circled a footprint in another photograph, which he noted could be compared to the inmates' shoes in a laboratory. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 105:8-23 (Castellano, Rhoades). Rhoades described different blood patterns found within Molina's cell. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 107:17-114:7 (Castellano, Rhoades).

         Rhoades testified that a photograph of the door to the pod contained some sort of print, possibly from a finger or palm, which is important for comparison. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 115:14-25 (Castellano, Rhoades). Other photographs depicted a trashcan, which Rhoades said contained a shank underneath a chip bag to conceal the shank. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 116:1-118:8 (Castellano, Rhoades). Rhoades described the shank as appearing to be made from metal, which had been worked into a sharp point on one side, with the other side attached to a piece of string, either through tape or plastic. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 119:3-20 (Castellano, Rhoades); id. at 120:23-121:5 (Castellano, Rhoades). Other photographs depicted the upper-level shower, and Rhoades noted pieces of plastic and cardboard near the drain, with a string that appeared similar to that wrapped around the shank found in the trashcan. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 123:2-124:7 (Castellano, Rhoades). Rhoades noted, in a closeup photograph, an object in a shower drain, which he identified as a shank. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 124:8-125:1 (Castellano, Rhoades). Rhoades stated that a rope was collected from Molina's cell, and it appeared to be saturated in blood, see Feb. 5 Tr. at 126:8-23 (Castellano, Rhoades), that a pair of sweatpants covered in blood was found soaking in water in the sink of cell 111, [50] and that pieces of plastic from a shank handle were found in that cell's toilet, see Feb. 5 Tr. at 127:25-129:3 (Castellano, Rhoades). After the United States showed another trashcan photograph, Rhoades testified that correctional officers found another shank deep in the trashcan. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 129:4-15 (Castellano, Rhoades). Other photographs depicted Molina's bloody clothing, which another agent retrieved at the hospital, that appeared to contain cuts from the stabbing. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 137:14-142:7 (Castellano, Rhoades).

         After the lunchbreak, before the jury returned to the courtroom, R. Perez' counsel advised the Court of R. Perez' condition, stating that R. Perez returned from the hospital with a few prescriptions, had a fever of 101.6 and a concerning chest x-ray, and requested that the Court delay trial until the next day. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 153:21-154:19 (Villa). The United States Marshal informed the Court that R. Perez' flu test came back negative, and the Court noted that because R. Perez does not have the flu or pneumonia, they should continue with trial. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 155:10-13 (Court). With the jury present, the United States admitted as evidence the three shanks collected, and Rhoades noted that the shank collected from the drain and the shank found in the trashcan had threading on one end of the metal. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 158:20-159:23 (Castellano, Rhoades). The United States admitted M. Rodriguez' shoes collected on March 7, 2014, which Rhoades said had been sitting in evidence until recently, when he had reason to search the shoes for a shank he believed to be located in the cloth in the back of one of the shoes. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 160:6-161:25 (Castellano, Court, Rhoades). Rhoades stated that he sawed through the right shoe's heel and found a metal shank during his second search of the shoe. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 162:7-13 (Castellano, Rhoades); id. at 164:1-14 (Rhoades, Castellano). The Court let Rhoades step down, advising him that he will be re-called. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 165:4-7 (Court).

         l. Hannah Kastenbaum's Testimony.

         With the defense attorneys' agreement, the United States then called Dr. Hannah Kastenbaum to the stand, out of order, to suit her schedule. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 164:19-165:3 (Castellano, Court, Villa). At the bench, outside the presence of the jury, R. Perez conducted a voir dire examination of Dr. Kastenbaum to determine her role in preparing Molina's medical examination report, because she supervised the person who conducted the autopsy and prepared the report. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 166:15-168:8 (Fox-Young, Kastenbaum). R. Perez then objected to Dr. Kastenbaum testifying about the findings, and argued that R. Perez has the Sixth Amendment right to confront the person who actually performed the autopsy. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 169:19-170:7 (Fox-Young). The United States said that it would call the person who performed the autopsy. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 171:1-7, 24-25 (Armijo).

         In open court in front of the jury, Dr. Kastenbaum stated that she works at the Office of the Medical Investigator, which investigates sudden, unexpected, and unnatural deaths. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 172:12-25 (Armijo, Kastenbaum). Dr. Kastenbaum said that she received her M.D. in 2007, completed a residency in anatomic and clinical pathology, started a one-year fellowship in 2011 in forensic pathology at the Office of the Medical Investigator, and joined the staff in 2012. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 173:1-15 (Armijo, Kastenbaum). Dr. Kastenbaum stated that she is a Medical Examiner, and that she examines dead bodies and also supervises the fellows and residents by reviewing and signing off on their findings. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 175:3-22 (Armijo, Kastenbaum). Dr. Kastenbaum explained that the point of her examinations is to determine the cause of death, such as an injury or disease, and the manner of death, including the circumstances surrounding the death. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 177:22-178:4 (Kastenbaum). Dr. Kastenbaum stated that she supervised Molina's autopsy and that Dr. Leslie Hamilton performed it. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 175:23-176:10 (Armijo, Kastenbaum). The Court let Dr. Kastenbaum step down from the witness stand, and the United States re-called Rhoades. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 180:14-17 (Court); id. at 180:23-24 (Castellano).

         m. Norman Rhoades' Testimony Continued.

         Upon re-calling Rhoades, the United States passed the witness, and D. Sanchez began his cross-examination. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 181:22-15 (Castellano, Court, Jacks). Rhoades provided that he did not ask about the surveillance videos at Southern New Mexico and never saw any footage, because other NM State Police agents were in charge of dealing with the videos. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 184:9-24 (Jacks, Rhoades). Rhoades said he did not interview anyone about the potential source of the shanks and did not know about the prison's wheelchair program, where inmates refurbish wheelchairs and walkers for charity. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 185:8-18 (Jacks, Rhoades). Rhoades stated that all collected evidence was given to Palomares, who then sent it to the laboratory for testing. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 187:11-17 (Villa, Rhoades). Rhoades did not recall photographing a walker, taking one into evidence, or seeing one at Southern New Mexico during his investigation. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 191:18-192:9 (Villa, Rhoades).

         Rhoades testified that they photographed every inmate housed in blue pod and collected the clothing that the inmates wore to be photographed. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 193:4-24 (Villa, Rhoades). Rhoades stated that the shank recovered from M. Rodriguez' shoe was never submitted to the laboratory and admitted that there is no evidence tying it to the Molina case. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 196:15-23 (Villa, Rhoades); id. at 197:17-22 (Lowry, Rhoades). Rhoades said that all the evidence collected during the investigation is available to the defense, that he would bring any items they want, and that his job on March 7, 2014, was only to process the crime scene. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 198:16-199:4 (Castellano, Rhoads). The Court excused Rhoades. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 199:21-22 (Court).

         n. Guadalupe Urquizo's Testimony.

         The United States next called Urquizo, who was in custody. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 199:25-200:1 (Beck); id. at 220:9-11 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that he joined SNM in 1998, and that he “earned his bones” by assaulting inmates and correctional officers, including stabbing Paul Lasner at Torrez' request. Feb. 5 Tr. at 200:21-201:17 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo identified Torrez as the main leader at the time he joined SNM and Baca as the current leader. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 201:18-20 (Beck, Urquizo); id. at 202:10-12 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that under Baca there is a four-to-six-person “tabla.” Feb. 5 Tr. at 202:6-9 (Urquizo). Urquizo stated that SNM recruits inmates who are violent, crazy, and willing to stab, assault, bring in drugs, or do anything the gang asked. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 202:21-25 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo testified that he helped recruit M. Rodriguez, because he had assaulted correctional officers and, thus, exhibited the mentality which SNM sought. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 203:10-23 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo described the crimes that he committed for SNM: assaulting an inmate at Torrez' direction in 1998, assaulting a correctional officer in 1999 as a protest for being moved to lockdown at the Intense Supervision Unit, possessing a shank in 1999 which he used to assault a correctional officer, assaulting a correctional officer in 2002, shooting a rival prison gang member in the streets in 2002, assaulting a rival prison gang member in prison in 2005, and assaulting fellow member Greg Chacon over a political disagreement. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 208:1-214:16 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that it was incumbent on him, while running the pod with Rubio, to stop Chacon from coming in and changing the rules. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 215:10-15 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that Baca had put a “greenlight, ” or an order to kill, on Rubio in December, 2016, about which Urquizo informed Rubio. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 215:16-21 (Beck, Urquizo).

         Urquizo listed the gang's rules: loyalty to the gang, respect for other members, no sex crimes, no “snitching” or working with law enforcement, and willingness to assault and do anything. Feb. 5 Tr. at 204:2-7 (Urquizo). Urquizo stated that whoever violates the rules will get stabbed. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 204:8-11 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo testified that SNM controls the drugs in prison through the mail, intimidating or paying correctional officers and non-SNM prisoners. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 205:7-206:1 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo said that he has avoided drugs since 2009, when he almost killed himself after taking methamphetamine. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 206:11-16 (Urquizo). While on the streets in 2006, Urquizo sold drugs and sent the money to Calbert, R. Martinez, and A.A. Garcia. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 206:20-207:5 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that members communicate within prison through “huilas” -- meaning letters, or “kites” --written in code, or through telephone calls in which an inmate calls his wife who then calls another inmate's wife who then calls the other inmate to deliver the message. Feb. 5 Tr. at 207:8-16 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted to speaking in code with other SNM members. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 207:17-24 (Beck, Urquizo).

         Urquizo stated that he agreed to cooperate in February, 2017, after Acee asked him if he wanted to talk and, after initial resistance, he decided that he was tired of the lifestyle. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 215:25-216:16 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that he learned from Acee that he was being targeted for federal crimes, which also influenced his decision to cooperate. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 216:17-22 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that he debriefed with the FBI in August, 2017, and, afterwards, spoke with Calbert, which Urquizo said was not planned, for about five minutes. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 216:23-217:15 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that he mostly tried to convince Calbert to cooperate, and he and Calbert only discussed Calbert's statement that Urquizo initially provided Calbert the “paperwork.” Feb. 5 Tr. at 217:16-218:8 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo discussed his guilty plea, and he said he faces twenty years of imprisonment to be served concurrent with his state sentence of nine to twelve years. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 220:2-17 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that facing twenty years, as opposed to life imprisonment, which he would have received had he been charged in Molina's murder, is a benefit. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 220:23-221:8 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo said that he has to testify truthfully and that, if he does not, the plea will get thrown out and he could face additional charges. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 221:16-222:5 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo discussed the other benefits which he received for his cooperation: $200 to $300, contact visits with his family, and extra telephone calls. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 222:6-13 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that he told his wife that he was hoping to receive ten to fifteen years. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 222:20-223:3 (Beck, Urquizo).

         After the afternoon break, before the jury entered the courtroom, the Court informed the parties that one of the jurors sent a note requesting a list of the Defendants' respective charges and attorneys. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 223:13-21 (Court). The Court decided to provide the jurors with a copy of the preliminary instructions, altering the caption to include only the First Trial Defendants, and counsel agreed. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 225:3-24 (Court, Castellano, Jacks, Bhalla, Villa).

         With the jury back in the courtroom, Urquizo stated that he did not want to admit to his wife that he could get sentenced to twenty years, and that he was hoping the Court would sentence him to less for his honesty. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 229:1-15 (Urquizo, Beck). Urquizo said that he met with Beck three or four times to prepare for his testimony, and that, after the first meeting on February 1, 2018, Urquizo got in a disagreement with correctional officers when he refused to be transported back to the Otero County Detention Center (“Otero County”). See Feb. 5 Tr. at 29:16-230:23 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that he did not want to return to Otero County after spending three months there, because it was a dirty facility, and, when inmates leave the facility for any length of time, inmates cannot retrieve anything they purchased at the facility upon reentry, so he would have to start without hygiene products or clothing. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 230:24-231:12 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo said that he felt like the NM Corrections Department treated him unfairly, because, after spending three months at Otero County and returning to PNM, he found that his television was gone, his commissary and family photographs were missing and pages in his address book were torn out. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 231:13-232:2 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that he had a meltdown in the transport van to Otero County last Thursday, and he told the correctional officers that the was going to give D. Sanchez and Baca love, and not be truthful about what he knows. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 254:14-255:18 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo maintained, however, that he has been telling the truth. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 255:19-20 (Beck, Urquizo).

         Urquizo said that, in 2012 and 2013, he was incarcerated at PNM North in a pod right next to Baca's pod. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 232:6-23 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that Baca was SNM's leader at that time and that one day, while they were outside for recreation, Baca informed him that Molina needed to be “hit” because there was “paperwork” on him, and that Baca wanted Urquizo to take word about Molina down to PNM South when he moved. Feb. 5 Tr. at 232:24-233:20 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that, the last time that he spoke with Baca about Molina, Baca was in Q pod and spelled out the window to Urquizo, who was outside for recreation, “Don't forget that message. Take care of that.” and “Javier Molina.” Feb. 5 Tr. at 234:8-9, 15 (Urquizo). See id. at 233:24-234:234:19 (Urquizo, Beck). Urquizo maintained that he moved to PNM South that same day. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 235:1-4 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo said that Calbert showed up to PNM South in February, 2014, with Molina's “paperwork, ” and that Calbert called Varela, R. Martinez, and Urquizo to his cell to pass the “paperwork” and tell them that “Pup wants this done.” Feb. 5 Tr. at 236:2-3 (Urquizo). See id. at 235:5-236:7 (Beck, Urquizo).

         Urquizo stated that the “paperwork” was a one page, black and white, typed Las Cruces police report. Feb. 5 Tr. at 236:8-24 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo said that the “paperwork” described Molina's version of a purse-snatching incident, in which Molina maintained that he sat in the car while Jesse Sosa grabbed the purse. Feb. 5 Tr. at 236:25-237:8 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo recalled that Urquizo, Calbert, Varela, and R. Martinez laughed at the “paperwork, ” and did not think it was really telling, but Urquizo nonetheless agreed to transport the “paperwork” to Southern New Mexico. Feb. 5 Tr. at 237:15-238:7 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that he willingly transported the “paperwork” knowing that it would result in Molina's murder, because SNM wanted a murder and not just an assault. Feb. 5 Tr. at 238:8-14 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that, upon receiving the “paperwork, ” he hid it in his stack of legal paperwork for his appeals, because corrections officers cannot go through legal paperwork. Feb. 5 Tr. at 238:15-239:21 (Beck, Urquizo).

         On March 6, 2014, the day before Molina's murder, Urquizo was moved to Southern New Mexico, and he brought Molina's “paperwork.” See Feb. 5 Tr. at 239:22-240:3 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that he could not get his property, however, until the next day. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 240:6-10 (Urquizo). Urquizo said that he stopped by the window at the door to the blue pod as he walked into the unit, and spoke with T. Martinez and M. Rodriguez, who asked, “[y]ou got that?” and he responded, “[y]eah.” Feb. 5 Tr. at 240:15, 17 (Urquizo). See id. at 240:10-17 (Urquizo). Urquizo testified that he walked into yellow pod, and, while a correctional officer searched his cell, he walked to the door between the blue and yellow pods and spoke with M. Rodriguez through the door, verifying that he had the “paperwork” on Molina, but that the “paperwork” on J. Montoya did not make it. Feb. 5 Tr. at 240:25-242:9 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo said that M. Rodriguez slipped a letter under the door, and Urquizo told him that Urquizo would not get his property until the next day, so he would pass the “paperwork” as soon as he got it. Feb. 5 Tr. at 242:10-15 (Urquizo). According to Urquizo, the letter discussed M. Rodriguez' desire that Urquizo have the “paperwork” on Molina and J. Montoya, because nobody liked Molina, and because M. Rodriguez wanted have both “hit, ” and M. Rodriguez provided Urquizo permission to handle his personal dispute with Sammy Gonzalez. Feb. 5 Tr. at 243:24-244:7 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that his name was on the chalk board that lists who is arriving, so people knew he was arriving. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 242:18-23 (Urquizo).

         Urquizo stated that Herrera also asked him about Molina's “paperwork” and that Urquizo also told him that it was in Urquizo's property. Feb. 5 Tr. at 243:1-9 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo said that Herrera was the yellow pod's leader at the time. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 261:8-12 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo also stated that he and Herrera discussed “hitting” S. Gonzalez, and Herrera said he would still help. Feb. 5 Tr. at 243:10-19 (Beck, Urquizo). According to Urquizo, because he was locked down in orientation, he asked Herrera to pass a note back to M. Rodriguez verifying that he had the Molina “paperwork” and explaining that the J. Montoya “paperwork” was at PNM North and was not received in time, and that he wanted to “hit” S. Gonzalez; M. Rodriguez responded that they would “hit” S. Gonzalez as soon as possible. Feb. 5 Tr. at 244:8-245:2 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that the next morning, around 11:00 a.m., he received his property and, because certain people in the yellow and blue pods were asking for the “paperwork, ” he went quickly, then passed it under the cell door to Herrera. Feb. 5 Tr. at 245:3-246:20 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo said that Herrera looked closely at the “paperwork” with Mendez and Dale Chavez, and then passed it under the door to blue pod to M. Rodriguez, who was banging on the door asking for it. Feb. 5 Tr. at 246:21-247:9 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo said that, about twenty minutes later, he received a letter from M. Rodriguez saying that now they can take care of Molina, likely after dinner, and apologizing that the “hit” on S. Gonzalez was not going to occur. Feb. 5 Tr. at 248:6-18 (Urquizo). Urquizo stated that Herrera handed him Molina's “paperwork” with the letter. Feb. 5 Tr. at 249:17-23 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo said that, after dinner, he was the last to take a shower and he yelled to Herrera and Alex Munoz when he was done, so they hit the wall -- Urquizo believed they went to tell T. Martinez and M. Rodriguez that they were done with showers. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 248:23-249:6 (Urquizo). Urquizo said that, about five minutes after blue pod was let out of lockdown, he could hear yelling and “[g]et him, get him, ” so he knew Molina was being attacked. Feb. 5 Tr. at 249:7-16 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo said that the correctional officers ran into the blue pod and tried to revive Molina in front of the yellow and blue pods, and yelled into the yellow pod to lock down. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 250:1-24 (Urquizo, Beck). Herrera told Urquizo that Molina had been “hit” and, later that night, after finding out Molina died, Herrera told Urquizo to get rid of the “paperwork, ” so Urquizo tore it into pieces and flushed it. Feb. 5 Tr. at 250:25-251:12 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo testified that, after the murder, everybody in blue pod was moved out, and Varela and S. Gonzalez were moved from yellow pod. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 251:13-17 (Beck, Urquizo).

         At some point, Urquizo and M. Rodriguez spoke, and M. Rodriguez said that, if D. Sanchez had covered the cameras during Molina's murder, then “all this wouldn't have happened.” Feb. 5 Tr. at 251:23-24 (Urquizo). See Feb. 5 Tr. at 251:21-252:1 (Urquizo). Urquizo and M. Rodriguez decided that D. Sanchez should be “hit” for letting his “brothers” down, and they spoke with R.P. Martinez, R. Martinez, Archuleta, and Calbert, who agreed. Feb. 5 Tr. at 252:15-17 (Urquizo). Urquizo said that D. Sanchez was blue pod's leader at the time and, as a leader, was supposed to set an example. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 252:18-23 (Urquizo, Beck). Urquizo said that, sometime after Molina's murder, he was in a transport van to PNM with R. Perez. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 255:21-23 (Beck, Urquizo). The Court gave a limiting instruction, [51] and Urquizo stated that R. Perez admitted to providing a shank from his walker to M. Rodriguez and to D. Sanchez for Molina's murder. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 256:14-25 (Court, Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo said that R. Perez was bragging about his involvement, and Urquizo understood R. Perez to mean that he “put in work” for SNM by providing his walker. Feb. 5 Tr. at 257:1-17 (Beck, Urquizo).

         Urquizo said that, a year after Molina's murder, in July, 2015, Baca ordered Urquizo and Jonathan Gomez to assault Romero -- which is charged in Count 8.[52] See Feb. 5 Tr. at 257:18-258:6 (Beck, Urquizo). At that time, Gomez and Urquizo were housed in Southern New Mexico, and were the key-holders of their pod, so they told Villegas that he had to assault Romero. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 258:7-259:13 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo said that, after the assault, he was transferred to PNM North, and that, because Baca was in Arizona, he called Archuleta to let him know that they beat up Romero and that Gomez called his own wife, who called Baca's wife to pass along the message. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 259:14-280:6 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo described that, while Baca had ordered Romero killed, Gomez suggested only assaulting Romero, because SNM had been on lockdown since Molina's murder and because only one person would do it -- the other two people whom Urquizo and Gomez wanted to act on Romero did not want to do the murder. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 260:7-22 (Beck, Urquizo).

         Urquizo elaborated that Archuleta had ordered Romero killed years ago, because Romero slept with Archuleta's wife, but that Baca put out the order on which they acted. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 262:7-263:521 (Lowry, Urquizo). Baca confronted Urquizo with a report that Acee prepared which provides that Urquizo said Baca ordered Romero assaulted, but not stabbed or killed, and Urquizo maintained that Acee may have said that on accident, and that it was Gomez and not Baca who decided not to stab or kill Romero. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 264:9-265:8 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that the younger SNM members were trying to move up and did not like the politics Baca came with -- namely, the new agenda that he brought from out of state related to the Sureños gang. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 267:19-269:4 (Urquizo, Lowry).

         During his cross-examination, Baca underscored that Urquizo requested an attorney during his first meeting with the FBI, a request that the FBI ignored, and Urquizo verified that the FBI informed him that he could be charged in Molina's murder and could face prison time in addition to his state sentence. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 269:15-270:13 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo said that the FBI was not aggressive during this meeting and just asked Urquizo to listen. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 270:25-271:5 (Urquizo). Urquizo maintained that family support throughout his incarceration is important, and that he is honest with his sister and brother, but keeps some things from his wife to not hurt her. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 271:6-272:15 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo could not recall whether he had spoken to his sister about the FBI informing him that they could impose the death penalty. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 172:16-25 (Lowry, Urquizo); id. at 274:25-275:5 (Lowry, Urquizo). To refresh Urquizo's recollection, Baca played a clip of the conversation in which Urquizo told his sister that the FBI informed him of the possibility of bringing the death penalty, and Urquizo stated that the FBI did not discuss the death penalty; rather, Urquizo made the assumption that it was a possibility from seeing the news reports. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 278:10-279:1 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that the FBI informed him that, if charged with Molina's murder, he faced twenty years or life imprisonment, and that he did not lie to his sister about the possibility of the death penalty, because he saw that reported in the news and made an assumption. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 279:2-16 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo noted that the death penalty had not been taken off the table yet, so, as far as he knew, during this conversation, it was still possible -- although the FBI did not tell him that he could face the death penalty. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 280:6-10 (Urquizo). Urquizo said that he decided to cooperate, because the FBI came to him and because he had been wanting out of the gang, and this situation was easier than Urquizo having to go to the FBI himself. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 281:17-282:12 (Urquizo, Lowry). Urquizo admitted that he was not happy with the thought of getting twenty years, because prison is difficult and because he wants to get out. See Feb. 5 Tr. at 283:1-13 (Urquizo, Lowry). The Court broke for the evening and gave a limiting instruction regarding Urquizo's inconsistent statements.[53] See Feb. 5 Tr. at 283:17-283:4 (Court).

         The next morning, R. Perez' counsel made a brief record outside the presence of the jury, reporting that R. Perez was still feeling awful and had been sleeping intermittently the day before, and coughed so loud at times that the people at his table could not hear questioning or testimony. See Transcript of Jury Trial Volume 7 at 5:4-22 (taken February 6, 2018)(Fox-Young), filed February 22, 2019 (Doc. 2523)(“Feb. 6 Tr.”). The Court requested R. Perez' counsel signal when R. Perez needs a break or anything else. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 6:17-18 (Court). When the jurors entered the courtroom, the Court informed them that it would soon pass out the preliminary instructions -- providing the Defendants' names, their charges, and their attorneys' names -- to help them follow along. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 12:15-21 (Court).

         During Baca's continued cross-examination, Urquizo clarified that he had the “paperwork” on the RICO indictments, showing that everybody charged faced the death penalty, but admitted that he was not aware that the United States took the death penalty off the table before his first meeting with the FBI. Feb. 6 Tr. at 13:14-14:4 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo maintained that he made an assumption from the indictments that he faced the death penalty and that this possibly was not something the FBI told him. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 14:25-15:8 (Lowry, Urquizo). Baca played a clip, however, of Urquizo telling his brother that the FBI could impose the death penalty. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 19:7-10 (Lowry, Urquizo). About two weeks after the first meeting, on March 6, 2017, Urquizo said he met with the FBI and federal prosecutors in Las Cruces, and received a Kastigar letter, providing that his statements would not be used against him. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 17:8-25 (Lowry, Urquizo).

         Urquizo testified that he spoke with Baca in 2012 -- admitting that he was wrong when he told the FBI that it could have been 2013-- while they were housed in unit 3-B at PNM North. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 20:4-21:11 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo said he was in W pod and Baca was in X pod, that he had not been in W pod long, and that he spoke with Baca during recreation. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 21:12-24 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo believed that he was transferred to PNM South from PNM North in late 2012, so he spoke with Baca before he moved. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 29:5-12 (Lowry, Urquizo). Baca noted that the FBI 302 report from the March 6, 2017, meeting mentions only one conversation between Urquizo and Baca, although Urquizo maintained that he spoke with Baca twice. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 36:2-11 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo maintained that he told the FBI that, when he went to Southern New Mexico, he talked to T. Martinez and M. Rodriguez at the window in the door to their pod, that they told him to go to the side door, and that, when he went to the side door, M. Rodriguez slid a letter under the door and asked about the “paperwork.” Feb. 6 Tr. at 23:2-17 (Lowry, Urquizo). Baca noted that the FBI 302 from the March 6 meeting states that M. Rodriguez asked about the “paperwork” and held a note up to the window, but Urquizo maintained that this description is not what he said. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 23:18-25 (Lowry, Urquizo).

         Urquizo said that he told the FBI and prosecutors at the March 6 meeting that there was an incident involving his brother and that he wanted to make sure nothing happened to his brother, but that they told Urquizo that they were not after his brother. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 30:1-31:4 (Urquizo, Lowery). Urquizo testified that the incident involved M. Rodriguez and J. Montoya calling his brother to pass along the message to Urquizo not to forget the “huila” -- the “paperwork” on Molina and J. Montoya - and that J. Montoya did not know that he was calling about his own “paperwork.” Feb. 6 Tr. at 91:1-25 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo said his brother did not know what the message meant, but passed it to Urquizo. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 92:1-12 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo did not recall telling his brother that the FBI was asking questions about his brother's criminal conduct or that he tried to deflect these questions, but remembered that B. Garcia's lawyer asked questions about Urquizo's brother. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 31:5-21 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo said that he did not tell his brother that he was in the clear, because Urquizo decided to cooperate, but did tell him that he would be safe. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 32:15-33:13 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo said that he never dealt drugs from New Mexico to Baltimore, Maryland or worked with Duran to deal drugs. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 31:22-14 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo clarified that he never spoke directly with Baca regarding the Romero assault, but that he understood Baca wanted him killed but that Gomez wanted to assault him instead, and somehow the 302 report mistakenly states that Baca wanted Romero only assaulted. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 36:15-37:20 (Lowry, Urquizo).

         Urquizo admitted that his wife was present at the March 6, 2017, meeting, and that he was able to embrace and kiss her, but that he did not start receiving other benefits until a few months later. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 38:9-39:1 (Lowry, Urquizo). Baca noted that Urquizo told his wife that he believed he would get a sentence below five years and that, if he got other people to cooperate, such as Calbert, he would get substantial reductions in his sentence, but Urquizo stated that these statements were what he was hoping, and that he was trying to comfort his wife. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 39:21-41:1 (Lowry, Urquizo). Baca showed Urquizo a letter describing how to smuggle Suboxone into prison, and Urquizo admitted that the NM Corrections Department told the FBI that the letter was found in Urquizo's cell, but Urquizo maintained that he did not know if it was in his cell, and that he only saw and read it for the first time a few days ago. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 43:22-44:17 (Lowry, Urquizo); id. at 75:10-13 (Bhalla, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that the letter is not in his handwriting and admitted that he was told that the letter was found in his cell in January, 2018. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 75:4-16 (Bhalla, Urquizo). Urquizo maintained that he last used Suboxone “[a] few years ago, ” but could not recall the exact year. Feb. 6 Tr. at 44:22 (Urquizo). See Feb. 6 Tr. at 44:21-25 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that he told his wife that he assaulted Chacon over a dead telephone battery, explaining that, because the STIU listens to the telephone calls, he would not tell her the truth that it was an SNM assault, and he wanted to tell her why he could not call her. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 45:6-46:12 (Lowry, Urquizo). Baca also pointed out that Urquizo received around $650.00, as opposed to the $200.00 to $300.00 to which he testified on direct, and Urquizo stated that he was not tracking the money he received. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 53:16-25 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo also admitted that, if his federal sentence is equal to or less than the amount he has left on his state sentence, he can get out without serving additional time, because the plea agreement provides that the sentences will be served concurrently. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 55:8-15 (Lowry, Urquizo).

         Urquizo admitted that, in August, 2017, he met with Acee again and discussed the “hit” on Alex Sosoya, and told him that M. Rodriguez instigated the fight. Feb. 6 Tr. at 58:11-59:16 (Bhalla, Urquizo). Urquizo also admitted that he said M. Rodriguez wanted to be a leader, but M. Rodriguez' prior sexual assault charge -- for placing a hot sauce bottle in a fellow inmate's rectum -- prevents him from being a leader. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 59:17-61:9 (Bhalla, Urquizo). Urquizo said that, after deciding to cooperate, he was housed with Fred Quintana, Rubio, B. Cordova, and R. Martinez. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 72:10-74:10 (Bhalla, Urquizo). Urquizo maintained that he did not have tier time with these individuals and that the pod was locked down. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 176:10-17 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo said that he was only able to speak with R. Martinez, because he was housed nearby. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 176:18-24 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that he did not receive a discovery tablet. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 74:11-12 (Bhalla, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that he saw other people's discovery, which includes transcripts of recordings that Archuleta made while he was wired and cooperating, but Urquizo maintained that he was not implicated in those transcripts. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 77:8-78:24 (Urquizo, Bhalla).

         R. Perez questioned Urquizo about when R. Perez and Urquizo spoke about Molina's murder, and Urquizo said the conversation occurred in 2015 in the transport van from Southern New Mexico to PNM. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 80:12-25 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo believed that the conversation occurred in June, 2015, and agreed that this conversation took place about a year and three months after Molina's murder. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 82:17-83:11 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that, during the transport, R. Perez fell between the seats on the van and the correctional officers had to stop the van to help him up. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 85:15-21 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo verified that R. Perez did not tell him that M. Rodriguez took the piece from the walker or that R. Perez was scared when this happened, and admitted that M. Rodriguez has a reputation in SNM for being violent and scary. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 86:8-25 (Villa, Urquizo); id. at 89:5-16 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo also verified that R. Perez did not say that he was scared that he would be the next victim when M. Rodriguez took the piece from his walker, but Urquizo said that SNM knows R. Perez is disabled, so R. Perez gets a pass and nobody would mess with him. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 89:17-24 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo agreed that, if R. Perez said that he was scared for his life, that would be weak, but Urquizo said that he would not believe R. Perez if he made that statement. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 90:18-23 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo described himself, M. Rodriguez, Calbert, and Herrera, as close friends and that Urquizo, M. Rodriguez, and Calbert did not like Baca's politics. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 88:4-89:4 (Villa, Urquizo).

         R. Perez noted that, when Urquizo first spoke with the FBI in February, 2017, Urquizo did not mention his conversation with R. Perez, but Urquizo maintained that he did not want to say much until he got a lawyer. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 99:3-100:18 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo maintained that he told Acee about R. Perez' involvement in March, 2017, and about Urquizo's knowledge that there were three shanks, but did not recall whether he told Acee about the transport van in this meeting or in August, 2017. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 101:16-102:12 (Villa, Urquizo).

         Urquizo maintained that Molina's homicide occurred so quickly after Urquizo's arrival, because, otherwise, somebody would have “kited out” Molina. Feb. 6 Tr. at 94:2-7 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo also stated that the murder occurred quickly under D. Sanchez' orders. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 94:8-11 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo verified that he passed the “paperwork” to Herrera, who passed it to M. Rodriguez through the bottom tier's door between the yellow and blue pods. Feb. 6 Tr. at 94:19-96:4 (Villa, Urquizo).

         R. Perez noted how much work Urquizo did for SNM and that he later decided to cooperate against the gang. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 104:23-108:16 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that M. Rodriguez also decided to cooperate, albeit recently, and that Calbert decided to cooperate after Urquizo spoke with him. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 108:17-1092 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo maintained that he spoke with the government before his discussion with Calbert and that cooperating is different from being in a gang. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 109:3-17 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that other cooperators -- namely, R. Martinez and Quintana -- told him that, if he got Calbert to cooperate, he would get a shorter sentence. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 178:13-179:2 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo described telling Calbert that he decided to cooperate and had told the United States about their involvement in transporting Molina's “paperwork, ” but stated that he did not describe the benefits which he received. Feb. 6 Tr. at 179:6-180:14 (Jacks, Urquizo).

         During D. Sanchez' cross-examination, Urquizo admitted to discussing the “paperwork” story with D. Sanchez' counsel and an investigator in May, 2016, because Urquizo respected D. Sanchez, and believed he was wise, a good listener, and somebody to whom inmates looked up. Feb. 6 Tr. at 114:3-115:17 (Jacks, Urquizo). D. Sanchez noted that Urquizo laughed at this meeting when told the United States' allegation that he brought Molina's “paperwork” down to Southern New Mexico, but Urquizo said he laughs a lot, although he admitted to saying that the United States' allegation was impossible. Feb. 6 Tr. at 116:9-117:3 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo explained the transport process: first the inmate is strip searched; then the inmate is given a see-through, disposable white jumpsuit to wear during transport; and the inmate's property is placed into clear, plastic bags. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 117:14-121:5 (Jacks, Urquizo); id. at 122:12-13 (Urquizo). Urquizo did not believe that the guards inventoried his property before his transport to Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 121:6-15 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted, however, that he told D. Sanchez' counsel at the meeting that he gave his property to an officer who looked through it to ensure Urquizo was transporting permissible items and wrote down what was in the bag, and may have said that the officer inventoried the property. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 121:16-122:13 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo did not believe that he told D. Sanchez' counsel that he never got his property back at Southern New Mexico, because Molina was killed, but maintained that he received it around 11:00 a.m. on March 7, 2014. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 137:1-19 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that the Molina “paperwork” consisted of one page, but admitted to telling Acee in March, 2017, that “it was probably one or two pages.” Feb. 6 Tr. at 166:6 (Urquizo). See id. at 165:16-166:4 (Jacks, Urquizo). D. Sanchez noted that Calbert testified that the “paperwork” consisted of one page, and accused Urquizo of changing his description to match Calbert's, and Urquizo said that it was one page and could not recall telling Acee that it was two. Feb. 6 Tr. at 166:10-21 (Jacks, Urquizo).

         D. Sanchez showed Urquizo a release that he had signed so D. Sanchez' counsel could obtain Urquizo's records, and Urquizo said he signed the release so D. Sanchez could access his telephone calls and letters, but not so D. Sanchez' counsel could corroborate that Urquizo never received his property at Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 142:7-143:2 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that, when he spoke to D. Sanchez' counsel, he said that he did not see or have any “paperwork” on March 6 or 7, 2014, but that this was a lie. Feb. 6 Tr. at 145:11-146:5 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo also admitted that he told an STIU officer who asked him if he transported the “paperwork” that he did not, underscoring that he was still an SNM gang member at that time. Feb. 6 Tr. at 147:12-25 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo maintained that he informed D. Sanchez' counsel that SNM should not have asked Armenta to stab Molina, and not that SNM would not have asked him, because Armenta did not have much time left on his sentence and because he has a daughter with Down syndrome. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 148:17-149:19 (Jacks, Urquizo).

         Urquizo admitted that he was housed with J. Montoya for about a month while J. Montoya fought the state Molina murder case and that J. Montoya provided him with some of the discovery. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 143:10-144:6 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo maintained that he did not learn that he was accused of bringing the “paperwork” from these documents until later, when he saw the indictments. Feb. 6 Tr. at 144:7-21 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that J. Montoya also gave him T. Martinez' and Armenta's papers, so when he spoke of looking at T. Martinez' “paperwork” with the FBI, that “paperwork” is what he was describing. Feb. 6 Tr. at 173:1-24 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo was also adamant that he did not tell M. Rodriguez, in the holding cells during lunch break, what sort of questions were being asked, but that he merely greeted him and stated that testifying was “brutal.” Feb. 6 Tr. at 165:5 (Urquizo). See id. at 164:11-165:5 (Jacks, Urquizo).

         Urquizo admitted to loaning his PIN to other inmates so they could make telephone calls, since he had unlimited telephone calls. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 182:20-183:8 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo said he hoped that he would receive a federal sentence under twenty years, concurrent to his state sentence, and that he would be transferred to a federal facility, which would have better conditions than the state facilities. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 183:9-19 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo believed that his state sentence was twenty-eight years and, because he had served ten years and pled to a maximum of twenty years, he likely would not spend a day longer in prison than his state sentence. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 183:20-184:14 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that he was not charged with a crime carrying a life sentence or the death penalty, and that, while all these benefits were important, his life is now in danger, because of his testimony. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 184:15-21 (Jacks, Urquizo).

         On re-direct, Urquizo described how Troup threatened him at Otero County last time that Urquizo was housed there. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 189:11-24 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted to meeting with Mr. Beck three times to prepare for his testimony and thus explained that he was better prepared to answer Mr. Beck's questions during trial than he was to answer the FBI's questions during his debriefs. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 190:9-191:5 (Beck, Urquizo). The United Sates walked through Urquizo's and Baca's location history, with Urquizo noting that he was moved from PNM North to PNM South in September, 2012, and that Baca was housed in Q pod in the summer of 2012. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 195:20-196:22 (Beck, Urquizo). As to the letter on smuggling drugs found in Urquizo's cell, Urquizo stated that he had not seen it until it was given to him and that he was told it was found in his cell. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 197:16-19 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo also explained that he told Calbert that he wanted Calbert to cooperate, so he would not have to testify against Calbert -- whom Urquizo described as his “best friend.” Feb. 6 Tr. at 207:5 (Urquizo). See id. at 207:2-5 (Beck, Urquizo).

         The United States walked Urquizo through his plea agreement, and Urquizo noted that there were thirty-nine overt acts in his charge to which he pled guilty. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 212:18-1 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo mentioned that he is currently serving time for “[f]irst-degree attempted murder on a police officer, and aggravated assault on a police officer, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner” for stabbing a correctional officer for SNM. Feb. 6 Tr. at 215:12-14 (Urquizo). See Feb. 6 Tr. at 215:15-20 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that the Court has the final say on his sentence in this case. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 216:13-19 (Beck, Urquizo).

         R. Perez, during his re-cross examination, had Urquizo clarify that he met with Mr. Beck yesterday briefly before he testified and that Mr. Beck helped to refresh his memory on certain things. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 219:16-220:10 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that, after his March, 2017, meeting with Acee, he asked his lawyer to request that he be moved to Southern New Mexico and to get his visits back. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 220:11-16 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that he did not get his requested contact visits and that he was not moved to Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 236:3-13 (Beck, Urquizo). Urquizo admitted that he told his attorney that if he gets charged for the Romero “hit, ” it would not carry much time, but would get him into federal custody, and that he did not trust the Assistant United States Attorneys. Feb. 6 Tr. at 221:17-222:20 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo also told his attorney that he did not feel like he was getting any benefits and that, if something did not happen soon, he would not testify. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 223:4-13 (Villa, Urquizo). Urquizo verified that he is not serving time for all the crimes he committed for SNM. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 223:25-224:4 (Villa, Urquizo).

         Urquizo explained that the drug-smuggling letter looked like Kevin Folse's handwriting and that they were housed briefly together in W pod where they were able to hang out with each other, sometimes in Urquizo's cell. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 226:3-227:23 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo stated that Folse is not an SNM member, that he and Folse spent time together in Urquizo's cell while Urquizo was cooperating, and that Urquizo had heard Folse was cooperating, but did not know if he was. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 227:24-228:9 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo explained that, for approximately three weeks when T. Martinez was housed in T pod, T. Martinez -- who also cooperated -- would hang out with Urquizo and Folse in Urquizo's cell. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 228:14-229:2 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo said that Quintana, another cooperator, also hung out with them in Urquizo's cell. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 229:16-230:1 (Jacks, Urquizo). Urquizo explained that Folse had been talking to a woman and that Urquizo also started talking to her, and that she started answering Urquizo's calls, writing him letters, and sending him money, which Urquizo believed upset Folse and caused Folse to hold a grudge. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 233:17-25 (Urquizo). Urquizo stated that Folse “would always look at me funny, ” and two days after they all hung out in Urquizo's cell, correctional officers searched it, found Folse's drug-smuggling letter, and ordered Urquizo to take a urinalysis, which came back clean. Feb. 6 Tr. at 234:4-5 (Urquizo). See id. at 234:6-23 (Urquizo, Beck).

         Urquizo verified that, from 1998 to 2008, Baca was not in New Mexico and Archuleta was one of SNM's leaders; he also said that Archuleta had ordered Romero “hit.” Feb. 6 Tr. at 231:5-231:22 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo understood that Archuleta pled guilty to a three-year sentence for his role in Romero's assault, which Urquizo had told his attorney he wanted, and that this sentence is much less than the twenty-year sentence Urquizo faces. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 232:15-21 (Lowry, Urquizo). Urquizo explained that he wanted the FBI to charge him, because he wanted to enter federal custody. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 232:24-234:1 (Urquizo). The Court allowed Urquizo to step down from the witness stand, subject to recall. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 237:14-18 (Court).

         o. Daniel Blanco's Testimony.

         The United States next called Blanco, the STIU Coordinator at the NM Corrections Department. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 237:21-22 (Beck); id. at 238:12-17 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco described his duties as mainly “gathering intelligence” on gang activity within the prison system, to keep the system safe and secure. Feb. 6 Tr. at 238:25 (Blanco). See id. at 238:22-239:9 (Beck, Blanco). He also said that STIU screens the inmates' personal mail, noting that the legal mail is delivered unopened to the inmates and that a staff member opens the envelop in the inmate's presence. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 299:22-300:16 (Maynard, Blanco). Blanco stated that there are currently three STGs within the system -- Los Carnales, SNM, and the California Sureños -- and that, other than the STGs, the STIU looks at non-validated groups, which are the “regular street gangs.” Feb. 6 Tr. at 240:12-13 (Blanco). See id. at 240:3-14 (Blanco, Beck). Blanco said that, in December, 2009, he was working as a supervisor in Southern New Mexico and visited Baca in his cell, because of an incident between Baca and one of Blanco's employees. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 241:4-25 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco explained that his employee found heroin in Baca's cell and radioed him over shortly after the discovery. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 242:8-17 (Beck, Blanco); id. at 243:5-11 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco testified that when he entered the pod, he saw two of his officers, Baca, and two other inmates arguing in Baca's cell, while the rest of the inmates were locked down, and Blanco believed his officers were in danger. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 243:12-244:11 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco stated that the inmates backed off and there was no altercation, because Baca told the inmates “to back down because they were making the situation worse.” Feb. 6 Tr. at 245:2-3 (Blanco). See id. at 244:12-245:1 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco clarified that the other inmates had entered Baca's cell to prevent the guard from taking away the heroin. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 269:15-23 (Lowry, Blanco).

         Blanco said that, when Marcantel became the NM Corrections Department Secretary in 2011, the NM Corrections Department tried to bring SNM back into the general population, but Blanco thought that this move was a bad idea, based on SNM's history. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 245:10-246:7 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco said that, on March 7, 2014, he was the STIU Coordinator and was called to Southern New Mexico for a possible assault; upon arriving, he learned “Molina had been stabbed numerous times.” Feb. 6 Tr. at 246:16-17 (Blanco). See id. at 246:8-13 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco said that his job then was to assist the NM State Police in its investigation, because of Molina's status as a validated SNM member. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 246:18-247:6 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco explained that the SNM pod contained both validated SNM members and suspected SNM members. See Transcript of Jury Trial Volume 8 at 13:20-14:1 (taken February 7, 2018)(Jacks, Blanco), filed February 22, 2019 (Doc. 2524)(“Feb. 7 Tr.”). Blanco later recalled, however, that escorting the inmates to the NM State Police during the investigation was the extent of the STIU's assistance. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 302:1-4 (Fox-Young, Blanco); id. at 338:4-5 (Blanco). Blanco assigned STIU investigators to go with Molina to the hospital, and pulled videos from the surveillance cameras to try to see what occurred. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 247:15-248:6 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco said that only supervisors had access to the camera system -- which he believed stored videos for thirty days, and that one of the cameras in the blue pod was down, so only two videos were available. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 248:7-249:16 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco stated that he focused on video from the incident and not throughout the entire day, and noted that the camera view that would allow him to see who entered R. Perez' cell was the broken camera. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 319:6-17 (Fox-Young, Blanco). Blanco agreed that Herrera was not housed in the pod where Molina was murdered and admitted that he did not pull footage from the other two pods, which would have shown if inmates were at the doors separating each pod -- and that such footage is now long gone. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 287:1-4 (Lowry, Blanco); id. at 293:19-294:1 (Maynard, Blanco); id. at 295:18-296:22 (Maynard, Blanco). Blanco said that they watched the videos to identify who was doing what, and then gave the videos to the NM State Police as evidence. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 249:21-250:5 (Beck, Blanco).

         Blanco elaborated on the lockdown following Molina's murder, noting that, while the lockdown was announced in all three pods, the initial focus was securing the blue pod inmates in their assigned cells, and then filtering to the yellow and green pods. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 297:1-298:3 (Maynard, Blanco). Blanco stated, however, that there is no line of sight from one pod into another. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 298:11-21 (Maynard, Blanco). Blanco knew that the inmates' cells were searched following Molina's murder, but did not recall when the searches occurred. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 299:3-21 (Maynard, Blanco). Blanco was not aware of the “greenlight” on Molina until after the assault. Feb. 6 Tr. at 329:24-25 (Blanco). Blanco admitted that M. Rodriguez has a violent reputation. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 311:7-23 (Fox-Young, Blanco). Blanco believed that, as of March 7, 2014, D. Sanchez and his brother were both housed in the SNM unit as suspected and not validated SNM members. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 14:2-16 (Jacks, Blanco).

         About a week after Molina's murder, Blanco saw R. Perez' walker in Deputy Warden James Mulheron's office. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 262:11-13 (Beck, Blanco); id. at 262:22-25 (Beck, Blanco); id. at 265:15-18 (Fox-Young, Blanco). Blanco knew that R. Perez needed the walker, and that he had been transferred to Southern New Mexico from the hospital at Central New Mexico. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 303:21-304:2 (Fox-Young, Blanco). Looking at photographs taken of the walker in Mulheron's office, Blanco noted that a piece of cloth from the institutional sheets was on the bottom of the walker, near a wheel, to hold the walker together. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 267:3-23 (Beck, Blanco). This cloth was significant to Blanco, because it meant that the walker was missing a piece, and he noted that a piece was missing from both sides of the walker. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 267:24-5 (Beck, Blanco); id. at 305:1-2 (Blanco). Blanco stated that he had learned the walker was missing a piece before he saw it, from the course of his investigation. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 306:11-307:1 (Fox-Young, Blanco). Blanco explained that his officers interviewed everybody in Unit 1-A, from all three pods, after the NM State Police officers had finished with their interviews. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 308:17-22 (Fox-Young, Blanco); id. at 338:16-19 (Blanco). Blanco was not aware of any threats against R. Perez before Molina's murder and stated that R. Perez was moved to PNM after his walker was confiscated, along with every person involved in the Molina murder. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 324:12-325:11 (Fox-Young, Blanco); Feb. 7 Tr. at 15:2-21 (Beck, Blanco). Based on R. Perez' location history, Blanco admitted that R. Perez was not moved to PNM until June, 2015. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 17:12-20 (Fox-Young, R. Perez). Blanco said that the NM Corrections Department did not move everybody in blue pod and, based on location history, noted Herrera was moved to PNM in January, 2016. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 18:21-19:3 (Maynard, Blanco); id.at 20:14-21 (Maynard, Blanco).

         Blanco stated that he was at Southern New Mexico when Romero was assaulted, which Blanco believed occurred minutes after SNM's release from lockdown for Molina's murder, and which resulted in SNM's immediate return to lockdown. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 250:14-251:22 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco said he met Romero at the hospital after the assault, and described Romero's wounds as “fairly serious.” Feb. 6 Tr. at 252:12 (Blanco). See Feb. 6 Tr. at 251:25-252:7 (Beck, Blanco) Romero, a validated SNM member, stayed quiet and did not talk about the assault, which Blanco described as Romero's code. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 252:16-253:1 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco stated that he visited Romero at Memorial Medical Center, but that Romero was transported to the Trauma Center, in El Paso. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 261:22-262:6 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco believed that the STIU pulled the video of the assault the next day, which Blanco watched. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 253:2-8 (Beck, Blanco).

         Blanco described the July 13, 2015, Romero assault. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 254:5-255:2 (Beck, Blanco). The United States played the video of the assault, stopping at times to have Blanco explain what they were watching. See, e.g., Feb. 6 Tr. at 255:7-256:9 (Beck, Blanco)(explaining that four inmates were allowed tier time at a time, because of the prior incidents). At time stamp 14:38:16, Blanco identified Romero in the middle of the screen and an inmate in white next to him, and then, at 14:38:46, Blanco noted these two inmates were “engaging in a physical altercation.” Feb. 6 Tr. at 258:17-18 (Blanco). See id. at 258:2-16 (Beck, Blanco). At 14:40:09, Blanco identified an inmate in white walking away after assaulting Romero and observed that Romero attempted to stand up about three times during the assault, but the inmate continued to assault him. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 258:23-259:7 (Beck, Blanco). At 14:40:49, Blanco identified a dark spot on the wall between cells 108 and 109, which could be blood. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 259:23-260:15 (Beck, Blanco). Blanco noted that there were inmates folding laundry during the assault, and that they did not attempt to stop it or to help Romero as he staggered around afterward, but Blanco said that this lack of action was not unusual. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 343:13-344:11 (Jacks, Blanco).

         Blanco said that SNM has been somewhat divided politically, but that “[t]here has always been an organization, ” Feb. 6 Tr. at 271:17 (Blanco), and “Baca is the known leader, ” Feb. 6 Tr. at 271:20 (Blanco). See id. at 271:11-14 (Lowry, Blanco). Blanco maintained that Baca remained the leader while he was out of state and, although Archuleta had been a leader for years, he served under Baca. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 271:21-272:1 (Lowry, Blanco). Blanco admitted that Baca was removed from Southern New Mexico in 2011, because other influential SNM members wanted him out of leadership and planned to kill him. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 272:4-20 (Lowry, Blanco). For these reasons, the NM Corrections Department sent Baca to PNM North. See Feb. 6 Tr. at 273:8-23 (Lowry, Blanco). The Court let Blanco step down from the witness stand, subject to recall. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 21:18-21 (Court).

         p. Mario Rodriguez' Testimony.

         The United States next called M. Rodriguez, who joined SNM in 2006 and is in custody, in in-house parole. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 22:3-4 (Armijo); id. at 22:23-24 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. 396:18 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he has denied being a gang member, explaining that “you're not supposed to admit it.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 23:16 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 23:12-13 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez described SNM as “the most violent, dangerous criminal organization in New Mexico . . . based within the prison system and outside, ” with “ties to other criminal organizations throughout the United States.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 23:1-4 (M. Rodriguez). SNM, he said, is involved in “[j]ust about all criminal activity, ” such as anything violent or the distribution of drugs and weapons, and it promotes being “a carnal[54] first, a brother first, ” “hav[ing] each other's back” and “trying to be the best SNM member you can be.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 27:11-12, 17-21 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 27:7-21 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez described some of SNM's rules: no testifying or “snitching” against SNM, no denying your SNM membership to another criminal organization, and no “really bad charges” like rape or child molestation. Feb. 7 Tr. at 27:22-28:20 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that SNM finds it honorable to treat its enemies with respect, specifically the Los Carnales, but still attempts to kill them on sight[55]whenever an SNM member can. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 58:9-21 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez).

         According to M. Rodriguez, SNM is set up as a “tabla, ” consisting of people Baca appointed before he was moved out of state: A.A. Garcia, Mendez, Rupert Zamora, and R. Martinez. Feb. 7 Tr. at 24:8-11 (M. Rodriguez). Baca and Ramon Clark were the leaders. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 25:5-7 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez described himself as “a soldier, ” “putting in work and representing the SNM to the fullest, giving it [his] all, to uplift it and never bring it down.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 25:10, 12-14 (M. Rodriguez). “Putting in work, ” M. Rodriguez described, means doing whatever SNM needed, such as assaulting an enemy on sight -- even on camera or around a correctional officer. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 26:23-27:6 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez identified D. Sanchez as an SNM member, and said that he and D. Sanchez held a lot of respect for each other, and that he was D. Sanchez' “right-hand man.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 25:17 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 25:14-17 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 30:8-9 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez described D. Sanchez as his “big brother, ” and said he looked up to D. Sanchez and enforced anything D. Sanchez wanted, because of that adoration and respect. Feb. 7 Tr. at 29:21-25 (M. Rodriguez). D. Sanchez, M. Rodriguez explained, was A.A. Garcia's right-hand man and was set to replace him on the “tabla.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 132:7-19 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez discussed how D. Sanchez described an incident that occurred before they met, in which D. Sanchez stabbed a Sureño at Southern New Mexico and stabbed the correctional officer who got in the way.[56] See Feb. 7 Tr. at 134:8-19 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 135:4-5 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 136:1-8 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo).

         The United States questioned M. Rodriguez about his extensive criminal history from age eighteen, eliciting the charges, the underlying conduct, and the sentences that he received. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 30:20-32:18 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 33:4-45:12 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he has felony convictions, mainly from his conduct in the Grant County Detention Center[57] in Silver City, New Mexico, and only one felony from the streets. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 30:23-31:6 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez first discussed an incident in which he and four or five other inmates tried to make another inmate go into protective custody. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 35:4-25 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez and the other aggressors assaulted the victim every day and, during one such assault, one of M. Rodriguez' co-defendants in the state case shoved a hot sauce bottle and a lotion bottle into the victim's rectum. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 36:1-37:10 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). As a result, M. Rodriguez was convicted of kidnapping and two counts of sexual penetration in state court. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 36:24-37:10 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez maintained that he is not a sex offender and that he does not believe he will need to register as a sex offender when he is released from prison, because his offense was not against a woman or a child. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 384:9-385:7 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted, however, that, pursuant to state law, it appears that he has to register as a sex offender. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 396:11-15 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). He also verified that he does not want to register as a sex offender, because he is not a sex offender, but will do so if it is necessary to reintegrate into society. See Transcript of Jury Trial Volume 9 at 214:18-25 (taken February 8, 2018)(Jacks, M. Rodriguez), filed February 22, 2019 (Doc. 2525)(“Feb. 8 Tr.”). M. Rodriguez said he was present for or participated in other aspects of torture upon this victim. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 215:21-217:21 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez); id. at 218:10-14 (M. Rodriguez, Jacks). M. Rodriguez admitted that he has filed three petitions for writ of habeas corpus since 2007 to get his guilty plea for these charges overturned, because his conviction for sex offenses bothers him, and he does not want to register as a sex offender. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 226:13-230:16 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that he did not harm an innocent individual, because the victim was incarcerated. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 232:12-14 (M. Rodriguez). He stated that he pled guilty to gain respect and make his peers believe he is crazy, not because he was guilty. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 234:13-24 (M. Rodriguez, Jacks). Other convictions include battery upon a peace officer and escape. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 38:3-39:11 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez stated that he joined SNM while at PNM North after A.A. Garcia asked him to join, and, at A.A. Garcia's behest, kept his status as an SNM member quiet and tried to stay out of trouble, so he could move back to a Level 3 facility and attack a Burqueño or Sureño. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 46:7-52:1 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that, in 2008, although he stayed out of trouble for three years, the NM Corrections Department would not let him out of Level 6. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 52:11-16 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that he would do heroin and weed while at PNM North as often as the drugs were available. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 335:22-336:8 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez was also smuggling drugs into PNM North in 2008 to use and sell, and when fellow inmate Robert Esparza did not pay his drug debt to M. Rodriguez -- which would make SNM look weak if word got out -- so M. Rodriguez stabbed him with a shank. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 52:17-55:11 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo); id. at 129:10-13 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that he tried to pull Esparza back from the top tier's railing, but Esparza would not let go of the railing, so M. Rodriguez bit off the top of his ear. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 70:7-19 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez).

         During cross-examination, Baca showed videos of the Esparza assault in U pod at PNM North, which started in the shower where M. Rodriguez was hiding. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 66:10-67:5 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez).[58] M. Rodriguez explained that, to exit his cell, he had to back up to the door where a correctional officer handcuffed him through a food port and then the correctional office escorted him through the pod to the shower, where he did the same thing to have the handcuffs removed. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 67:10-68:17 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez noted that he got into the shower at time stamp 8:48:45, see Feb. 8 Tr. at 69:2-7 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez), and proceeded to hide in the shower so he could ambush Esparza, see Feb. 8 Tr. at 70:3-24 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez waited in the shower with a shank until the correctional officer opened the shower for Esparza and then M. Rodriguez jumped on Esparza -- who was still handcuffed behind his back -- put him in a headlock, and began repeatedly stabbing him. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 72:22-73:6 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez agreed that Esparza could do little to protect himself, because he was handcuffed, and M. Rodriguez verified that the correctional officers ran away, allowing M. Rodriguez to continue his assault. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 73:7-16 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez noted that he was criticized for the assault and that it was the first time he attacked somebody with the intention to kill. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 74:10-18 (M. Rodriguez, Lowry). He said that Esparza escaped, because correctional officers were shooting rubber bullets and one ripped M. Rodriguez' shorts, so he thought it was live ammunition and hid behind a pole. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 75:4-20 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez noticed a way to get to Esparza, however, so he “had to” take advantage of that opportunity, despite being bombarded with rubber bullets and pepper spray. Feb. 8 Tr. at 75:23 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 75:21-76:13 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that correctional officers waited outside the pod's front door and in the control room until M. Rodriguez gave up the assault; they do not enter in such situations at PNM North. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 77:17-78:7 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that “[n]o one has consideration for human life in” PNM North. Feb. 8 Tr. at 80:11-12 (M. Rodriguez). He admitted that he bit off Esparza's ear, and was trying to put him in a headlock and pull him over the rail, and stopped because M. Rodriguez believed Esparza dead. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 81:4-24 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez was never charged for this assault. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 82:19-21 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). He characterized this assault as his “proving moment for the SNM” in which he “let them know [he] was down to spill blood anytime, anywhere.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 83:14-16 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that this assault is connected to SNM, because he was an SNM member when he committed it and went after Esparza for making SNM look weak. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 316:12-14 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that, “when you commit these violent acts for yourself and for SNM, you're looked up to and you're on your way up the ranks, and it's proving moments.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 316:9-12 (M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez described living in an SNM pod at PNM South in 2011 with R. Martinez, and that they plotted to kill fellow SNM member Sosoya for disrespecting the “tabla” and for wanting to kill all of its members except Archuleta. Feb. 7 Tr. at 59:2-60:13 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that “it fell in our lap, ” because the NM Corrections Department moved Sosoya to this pod, next to R. Martinez. Feb. 7 Tr. at 61:16 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 61:19-62:6 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that Sosoya was out of orientation for about five days, that M. Rodriguez and R. Martinez took their shanks to the yard -- hiding their weapons so the correctional officers could not see them during the strip search -- and played basketball, and then M. Rodriguez and R. Martinez assaulted Sosoya when the gang unit left. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 64:5-65:3 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 129:18-130:9 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). The correctional officers shot tear gas and rubber bullets at them, and “hit” R. Martinez in the head, so M. Rodriguez attempted to pull out Sosoya's eyes with his hands and bit off the top of Sosoya's ear, but Sosoya got away as M. Rodriguez was sprayed with tear gas. Feb. 7 Tr. at 66:5-25 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez believed that Sosoya was hospitalized for five to seven days. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 69:10-18 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that he was moved to PNM North, as a result of this incident, and was housed in the same pod as Baca and Herrera. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 72:21-73:22 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez).

         The Court admitted into evidence a document which Baca prepared, with a limiting instruction that the document and testimony regarding the document could be considered only against Baca.[59] See Feb. 7 Tr. at 91:7-22 (Armijo, Court, Jacks). M. Rodriguez explained that the document provides a structural format for SNM and that Baca went over the basis of the document with M. Rodriguez -- although M. Rodriguez admitted that he also had access to this information for the past two years through his discovery tablet. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 91:25-92:18 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 107:4-13 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). The document is a half-circle with four rays, portraying the top part of the Zia symbol, which M. Rodriguez explained represents the northern region of New Mexico, with a county in each ray, so that there are members from each set, a sergeant on the streets, a lieutenant in prison, and a captain facing all directions; Baca organized this structure to make things less complicated, build a more structured and more disciplined SNM, and prevent the regions from interfering with each other. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 92:1-4 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 93:6-94:25 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez maintained that Baca returned from Nevada wanting to restructure SNM to make it stronger. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 101:13-16 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that the northern region was the most structured, because Espanola is an SNM hub and fully implemented Baca's structure, and that individuals had to adopt the structure for it to be implemented. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 103:1-26 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez stated that he bought into the structure and that, when individuals from one region adopted the structure, they got to vote on who they wanted to lead as the “captain, ” as opposed to Baca putting in somebody whom members did not respect. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 103:12-104:12 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 120:11-24 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez identified Archuleta as the northern region's elected captain. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 106:5-6 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez); id. at 106:12-14 (M. Rodriguez). The captains report directly to Baca and are in charge of their respective regions, including the four elected lieutenants in prison representing certain counties and the four sergeants on the streets appointed by the lieutenants. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 120:7-10 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 121:2-10 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 122:15-123:6 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that the elections occurred every four years and that a member from one region who got involved in another region's politics would draw a violation. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 126:2-23 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo).

         M. Rodriguez verified that he knew Molina and that, while Molina was an SNM member, by March, 2014, he was known to be a “rat, ” because he gave information to the police about a case that occurred outside prison. Feb. 7 Tr. at 147:18-148:10 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that, in 2013, while at PNM North, Calbert informed M. Rodriguez that Calbert had “paperwork” on J. Montoya and Molina. Feb. 7 Tr. at 148:11-149:9 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez wanted to get the “paperwork” from Calbert, because he was about to move to PNM South, but did not have the opportunity to get the “paperwork, ” because Calbert was transferred to a different housing unit the day after the conversation. Feb. 7 Tr. at 150:6-12 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that some members try to get others to carry out personal vendettas, which is why “paperwork” is important. Feb. 7 Tr. at 150:2-6 (M. Rodriguez). Before leaving PNM South, M. Rodriguez spoke with Varela, Urquizo, and R. Martinez, and requested that they tell Calbert to bring the “paperwork, ” because M. Rodriguez would not act on the “hits” without it. Feb. 7 Tr. at 153:13-18 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that he knew Calbert would move to PNM South soon, and that Varela and Urquizo were next up to be transported to Southern New Mexico, because of M. Rodriguez' understanding of how the classification process worked. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 153:20-7 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo).

         In late 2013, M. Rodriguez moved to Southern New Mexico from PNM South and was placed in blue pod of Unit 1-A with D. Sanchez, who was the key-holder. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 133:18-134:7 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 138:19 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 155:25-156:4 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that R. Perez was also in blue pod with them, and that Herrera and Munoz were housed in yellow pod at the time as the key-holders. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 136:23-137:6 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 137:24-138:10 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 260:3-5 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that R. Perez spent most of his time in his cell, but would come out for recreation about four times a week and that D. Sanchez had him in a workout routine. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 302:15-303:7 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that it appeared that R. Perez had gained fifty to sixty pounds since then. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 303:19-20 (M. Rodriguez). Baca, M. Rodriguez explained, was at PNM North at the time. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 138:14-17 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez noted that he was in cell 111 of blue pod. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 139:16-21 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez identified who was living in each cell in blue pod on March 6 and 7, 2014, and stated that Ronald Sanchez, D. Sanchez' brother, was also living in blue pod at the time, although he was not an SNM gang member, but, rather, as an associate of SNM.[60] See Feb. 7 Tr. at 143:18-146:9 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez verified that he heard from other inmates at Southern New Mexico that D. Sanchez had a conflict with Molina and T. Martinez over something that transpired in the recreation yard See Feb. 8 Tr. at 126:15-24 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that he had heard how D. Sanchez handled the conflict and did not believe it at the time, and “let it go as politics.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 128:6 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 127:21-128:8 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez stated that he did Suboxone every day while at Southern New Mexico and believed he once did methamphetamine, about two months before Molina's murder, for about four to five days straight, but he maintained that it has been close to seven months since he has done any drugs. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 334:17-335:18 (Villa, M. Rodriguez); Feb. 8 Tr. at 14:2-15 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that, during this methamphetamine binge before the “paperwork” arrived, he tried to convince Efrain Martinez and T. Martinez to murder Molina. Feb. 8 Tr. at 42:19-43:10 (Bhalla, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez elaborated that he knew Molina's “paperwork” was on its way and, while high on methamphetamine and paranoid, got in an argument with Molina, because M. Rodriguez had been awake for five days, was hallucinating, “thought people were talking shit about [him], ” and thought Molina and another inmate were discussing “hitting” M. Rodriguez -- so he asked E. Martinez and T. Martinez to assault Molina. Feb. 8 Tr. at 124:1-2 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 123:19-125:20 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that E. Martinez refused to “hit” Molina without the “paperwork.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 126:2-4 (M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez said that, at Southern New Mexico, he became friends with Molina, because Molina was hanging out with a friend of M. Rodriguez' from the streets -- T. Martinez. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 152:1-9 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). According to M. Rodriguez, T. Martinez was a “hitter, ” meaning he brought in drugs to the prison for SNM to sell. Feb. 7 Tr. at 152:10-22 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that, sometime in March, 2014, he saw Varela's and Urquizo's names on the chalk board in the control center, which shows who is being transported to Southern New Mexico, so M. Rodriguez told D. Sanchez that he believed the “paperwork” was on its way. Feb. 7 Tr. at 154:14-155:18 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that, before Urquizo arrived at Southern New Mexico, M. Rodriguez had called Urquizo's brother, but maintained that the call was not to get a message to Urquizo to bring the “paperwork.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 313:12-25 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that, when Varela and Urquizo arrived, he called Urquizo to the lower-tier door connecting the blue and yellow pods, and slid a letter under the door, which asked for a syringe and warned Urquizo that Clark wanted him killed. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 156:11-158:2 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that he also introduced Urquizo to T. Martinez, who also was at the door, because T. Martinez was the “hitter” and M. Rodriguez wanted his “good budd[y]” Urquizo “in on the ride.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 163:16 (M. Rodriguez). See id. 162:23-163:16 (M. Rodriguez). As far as M. Rodriguez knew, yellow pod was in lockdown during this interaction to get the new inmates in. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 162:13-16 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). That same day, Herrera brought Urquizo's response to M. Rodriguez, which outlined Urquizo's desire to stab S. Gonzalez, but M. Rodriguez responded with a note telling Urquizo just to beat up S. Gonzalez and asking where the “paperwork” was. Feb. 7 Tr. at 163:22-164:13 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted on cross-examination, however, that he was only “pretty sure” Herrera passed him Urquizo's response. Feb. 8 Tr. at 136:22 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that he called for Herrera and knew his voice, so he believed it was Herrera at the door. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 253:1-16 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez elaborated that he called for Herrera both when he received Urquizo's response and when he subsequently responded to Urquizo, but that he only got Herrera once, and somebody else passed the note the other time. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 255:1-15 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez believed that all of these messages were passed sometime before the 4:00 p.m. count on March 6, 2014. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 139:18-141:2 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). On cross-examination, D. Sanchez noted that M. Rodriguez met with the FBI six times, [61] which M. Rodriguez did not dispute, and M. Rodriguez could not recall whether he mentioned this note-passing in any of the interviews, but he said that he thought he mentioned it at the January 22, 2018, meeting. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 164:3-13 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez); id. at 172:1-7 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez said that, the next morning, March 7, 2014, sometime before lunch, he was in the sally port area underneath the control center, where the front doors to all three pods are, and that he went to yellow pod to call Herrera and ask if Urquizo had the “paperwork”; Herrera responded that Urquizo had the “paperwork” and would send it later. Feb. 7 Tr. at 166:11-167:24 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); Feb. 8 Tr. at 142:17-19 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that Urquizo was in the middle cell in yellow pod, so M. Rodriguez could see him through the window in the pod's front door. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 169:10-13 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 171:2-12 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). While in the recreation yard, M. Rodriguez spoke with D. Sanchez and Earnest Guerrero about not letting anything happen to Urquizo, and they thought they saw that Varela was getting his property back from the transport. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 172:8-173-7 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo); Feb. 8 Tr. at 271:3-5 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez also told D. Sanchez that Molina's “paperwork” had arrived. Feb. 8 Tr. at 271:6-9 (M. Rodriguez). After recreation, M. Rodriguez returned to blue pod, and Herrera called him to the lower-tier door between the pods and slipped underneath the door a manila envelope of legal paperwork. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 173:16-174:22 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). During cross-examination, M. Rodriguez gave his belief that he received the “paperwork” after the lunch count, which lasts from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and that he was alone when at the door. Feb. 8 Tr. at 143:22-144:12 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). See id. at 145:7-14 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). He maintained that Herrera passed him Molina's “paperwork.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 351:20-24 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that the inmates on orientation are released from their cells for a shower during lunch count. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 144:13-19 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that the “paperwork” was Urquizo's appeal from a state conviction, with Molina's “paperwork” tucked inside to hide the “real paperwork” for transportation. Feb. 7 Tr. at 174:23-8 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez believed that Molina's “paperwork” consisted of a Las Cruces Police Department police report from Sosa's case. Feb. 8 Tr. at 175:20-22 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 176:5-12 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). The “paperwork” appeared to M. Rodriguez to be a basic interview, on white paper with a stamp on it. Feb. 8 Tr. at 177:1-25 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez said that he called D. Sanchez to his cell, and they sat in front of the cell reading the “paperwork” at the same time; before M. Rodriguez could finish reading, D. Sanchez stated, “[i]t's done, ” which M. Rodriguez took to mean that it was time to kill Molina. Feb. 7 Tr. at 175:9-22 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that, in what he read, he did not see Molina give up names, and that Molina just said he drove the car for the purse snatcher and identified the street where the purse was thrown out. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 176:2-14 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that, although Molina did not name anybody, Molina still “ratted, ” because he disclosed that a crime had occurred and where evidence had been discarded. Feb. 7 Tr. at 316:15-317:6 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). Although M. Rodriguez did not think Molina's statements were that bad, he testified that they were against SNM rules. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 317:13-319:3 (M. Rodriguez, Villa). M. Rodriguez recalled only one page discussing Molina, but believed there were maybe three pages total, although he could not remember. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 176:15-177:2 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez returned the “paperwork” to Herrera, who said he was going to show it to green pod, but M. Rodriguez told him not to show it to green pod, because he did not trust the inmates in green pod -- even though some were on the “tabla.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 177:6-25 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez thought D. Sanchez came to the door with him to return the “paperwork, ” saying something about Wednesday, and Herrera said: “Just get it done.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 258:18-19 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 258:14-18 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he told the United States on January 22, 2018, that D. Sanchez wanted to hold off on the “hit, ” because of visits. Feb. 8 Tr. at 274:6-10 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 336:1-11 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that he understood Herrera to be concerned that the “paperwork” would get around and that somebody would “kite out” Molina, preventing the “hit” from occurring. Feb. 7 Tr. at 259:3-9 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez wanted to return the “paperwork” to Urquizo, because the bundle contained Urquizo's “paperwork, ” with which if M. Rodriguez were caught, would result in a misconduct report. Feb. 7 Tr. at 259:17-22 (M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez said that he then spoke with D. Sanchez about who would kill Molina, asking if it would be the two of them, and D. Sanchez said: “No.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 178:18 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 178:8-21 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). At Baca's request, the Court gave a limiting instruction.[62] See Feb. 7 Tr. at 178:22-179:3 (Lowry, Court). On re-direct, however, M. Rodriquez retracted and provided that this conversation occurred right after lunch, but before he received the “paperwork.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 275:18-276:8 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez conveyed that D. Sanchez wanted T. Martinez, Armenta, and J. Montoya to kill Molina, and that D. Sanchez instructed M. Rodriguez not to worry about the cameras, but to tell T. Martinez his role. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 179:7-180:23 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that D. Sanchez did not think Armenta had done anything for SNM in his sixteen years of being a member and did not think T. Martinez would be up to it, so D. Sanchez could get him “out of the picture” -- there were rumors of T. Martinez “punking [D. Sanchez] out.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 181:3, 5-6 (M. Rodriguez). See Feb. 7 Tr. at 180:13-17 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 181:1-9 (M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez testified that D. Sanchez decided that the “hit” would occur in Molina's room, alleging that the cameras could not see inside it, and D. Sanchez told M. Rodriguez to tell Herrera that it would occur after the 4:00 p.m. count -- which he did. Feb. 7 Tr. at 181:19-182:7 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo); id. at 182:24-183:1 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez described trying to make a shank with metal from his hamper, because D. Sanchez wanted Molina to be stabbed, and that, while M. Rodriguez was trying to quickly cut the metal, D. Sanchez was at R. Perez' door speaking with R. Perez. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 183:13-25 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that he could not hear the conversation that D. Sanchez and R. Perez were having, but said he did not hear any screaming or anything that caused him alarm. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 186:17-187:3 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that D. Sanchez called him over to R. Perez' cell -- noting that R. Perez' door was closed, and R. Perez was inside the cell at the door -- and when he got to the cell, D. Sanchez pointed to the bar on R. Perez' walker as R. Perez stepped aside, ordering M. Rodriguez to make the shanks out of the walker. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 184:1-3 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 185:3-6 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 187:4-17 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 189:14-16 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted on cross-examination that he could tell from looking at the walker that the bar was for stabilization. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 300:4-15 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that, around 2:00 p.m. or 2:30 p.m., he got the correctional officer in the control center to open R. Perez' door, took the walker's bar, and left, and that R. Perez later tied the sheet to the bottom of his window. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 189:6-13 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 191:3-7 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez maintained that, as he unscrewed the bar with nail clippers, R. Perez told him, “I'm down for whatever, as long as it's not me, ” and that R. Perez' mannerisms and tone were normal. Feb. 7 Tr. at 194:5-6 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 194:3-17 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez stated that R. Perez did not physically help remove the bar or tell M. Rodriguez how to remove it. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 300:18-301:1 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). On cross-examination, R. Perez questioned M. Rodriguez about what he told the United States on October 24, 2017, regarding R. Perez' mannerisms when M. Rodriguez took the bar, but M. Rodriguez could not recall, believing he did not pay attention to them. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 309:8-310:13 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). R. Perez confronted M. Rodriguez with the 302 from that meeting, which states that M. Rodriguez said that R. Perez looked scared, but M. Rodriguez said that the 302 was a misunderstanding and that R. Perez was not scared. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 311:25-312:9 (Villa, M. Rodriguez); id. at 422:17-21 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez did not believe that he told the FBI that R. Perez looked scared. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 28:7-13 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). He agreed, however, that he told the FBI that he understood R. Perez' statement to mean that R. Perez would help if he did not get hurt or otherwise be involved. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 324:1-5 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez at first maintained that he did not review the 302 report containing his alleged statement that R. Perez looked scared, but then said he reviewed the 302 at his November 1, 2017, meeting with the United States and clarified certain details. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 31:4-14 (Villa, M. Rodriguez); id. at 32:4-21 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he did not clarify at that meeting that he did not say R. Perez looked scared. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 36:10-13 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez likewise did not clarify that he did not say R. Perez looked scared during his last meeting with the United States on February 3, 2018, although he maintained that he told Ms. Armijo that he did not remember making such a statement. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 39:9-20 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that R. Perez would be in trouble with SNM if he did not give up the bar or if he “ratted” on M. Rodriguez, and that doing so could get him killed. Feb. 7 Tr. at 312:21-313:11 (Villa, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez described returning to his cell and breaking the bar into three pieces, using the floor to sharpen two pieces into points. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 195:18-197:14 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez stated that he tied a rope on the non-pointed side, explaining that the rope goes around the stabber's wrist so he does not lose the shank. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 197:23-198:4 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez said that he threw the third piece away, placing it in a jar with napkins into the trashcan near the stairs. See M Feb. 7 Tr. at 199:20-200:21 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said he stopped work on the shanks around 3:30 p.m. or 3:40 p.m. to follow D. Sanchez' order to speak to T. Martinez, who had just returned from his work at the wheelchair program. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 201:1-24 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez told T. Martinez to get high to numb his feelings and explained that they would be moved to Level 6 after the assault, so it would be the last opportunity to get high for a while. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 201:25-202:19 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez also told T. Martinez that the “paperwork” had arrived for his friend, and that D. Sanchez had tasked T. Martinez with knocking out Molina. Feb. 7 Tr. at 202:2-203:7 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that he told T. Martinez that he could knock out Molina and would let T. Martinez take the credit for knocking out Molina. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 203:13-14 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez testified that T. Martinez replied: “if this is what the onda needs me to do, I'll do it.”[63] Feb. 7 Tr. at 203:15-16 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that D. Sanchez wanted T. Martinez to use his mixed martial arts experience to knock out Molina, because D. Sanchez and M. Rodriguez did not believe that J. Montoya and Armenta -- who were ordered to stab Molina -- could take out Molina if he were conscious. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 204:19-206:2 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo).

         After the conversation with T. Martinez, it was time for the 4:00 p.m. count, so M. Rodriguez returned to his cell to finish making the shanks. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 201:6-10 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 206:16-22 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). An hour later, when count ended, M. Rodriguez went upstairs to T. Martinez' cell to see if he was ready, and T. Martinez said that he had Molina's shank and told M. Rodriguez to take it. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 206:23-207:25 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez took the shank back to his cell, and then D. Sanchez and Armenta entered asking if the shanks were ready, and M. Rodriguez handed Armenta a shank. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 208:1-25 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez said his only conversation with Armenta was telling him that D. Sanchez would handle his weapon. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 285:18-20 (M. Rodriguez). After M. Rodriguez handed Armenta the shank, D. Sanchez requested that M. Rodriguez tell J. Montoya his role -- although M. Rodriguez maintained that, initially, D. Sanchez said he would tell J. Montoya -- so M. Rodriguez entered J. Montoya's cell, pulled a shank from his pants, and told J. Montoya that Molina's “paperwork” arrived, and that J. Montoya was ordered to “hit” Molina. Feb. 7 Tr. at 209:2-210:2 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez told J. Montoya to change into his prison-issued uniform, explaining that both J. Montoya and Armenta were supposed to wear the uniforms to make it harder to see blood and to preclude their identification on camera. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 210:17-24 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo); id. at 332:1-5 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez then returned to T. Martinez' cell, and T. Martinez said he would choke out Molina, instead of knocking him out, so M. Rodriguez left and told D. Sanchez. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 211:5-17 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). D. Sanchez responded, “[m]ake sure it goes right, and don't forget the dope, ” Feb. 7 Tr. at 211:18-19 (M. Rodriguez), and M. Rodriguez explained that they were going to shoot up Suboxone in Molina's cell, because M. Rodriguez and T. Martinez were often in there tattooing or doing drugs, see Feb. 7 Tr. at 211:20-212:5 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). According to M. Rodriguez, “the closest people to you are the right ones to kill you in the SNM.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 212:4-5 (M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez said that, on March 7, 2014, he, T. Martinez, D. Sanchez, and Molina were sitting at a table on the bottom tier, and he asked Molina and T. Martinez if they were ready to do drugs; D. Sanchez then asked if he could come, but M. Rodriguez told him no, so D. Sanchez went to his cell, and the three other men went upstairs to Molina's cell. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 212:9-21 (M. Rodriguez). In Molina's cell, M. Rodriguez struggled with opening the Suboxone, so Molina grabbed it to open it himself. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 212:22-5 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 213:20-25 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said he nodded two or three times at T. Martinez to act, but nothing happened, so M. Rodriguez assumed they would just do drugs first, until T. Martinez suddenly grabbed Molina and began choking him, making Molina drop the drug contraband. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 214:8-16 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that the Molina assault “went into motions” “around 5:18, 5:20” p.m. Feb. 8 Tr. at 158:15-16 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez grabbed Molina's wrists, because Molina tried to grab T. Martinez' arms, then told T. Martinez to lay down Molina when he went unconscious, waived in J. Montoya and Armenta, and ordered T. Martinez to leave the room. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 215:1-9 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 345:4-18 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). J. Montoya and Armenta started stabbing Molina, with J. Montoya getting on top of Molina to stab him in the chest, so M. Rodriguez grabbed the Suboxone, spoon, and syringe that Molina dropped, and left the cell. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 215:10-25 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez said that Molina suddenly stood up, and J. Montoya tried to give M. Rodriguez his shank, but M. Rodriguez and D. Sanchez told J. Montoya to get Molina and not to let him out of the cell. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 216:1-15 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo); id. at 217:4-9 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). During cross-examination, M. Rodriguez maintained that J. Montoya did not try to give his shank to M. Rodriguez. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 351:4-7 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). Molina proceeded toward the stairs and made his way to the front door; J. Montoya and Armenta continued to stab him on the bottom tier, but M. Rodriguez could not see what happened. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 217:1-3 (M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez said that J. Montoya threw his shank from the bottom tier to the top tier, so M. Rodriguez retrieved it, went to the shower, “took a razor blade to the handle, ” “cut the handle off, ” and bent it to “put it in the drain all the way.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 199:9-11 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 199:6-8 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that the plan was for him to take care of J. Montoya's shank while D. Sanchez would deal with Armenta's shank. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 217:20-22 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 21-25 (M. Rodriguez). Instead, however, Armenta dropped his shank in a trashcan. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 227:16-19 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez recalled that, when he left the shower, he saw D. Sanchez and heard him yelling from the top tier into the emergency door “[h]ow do you like that, baby, ” in a bragging, excited tone, and somebody responded during lockdown, “Fuck, yeah, Dan.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 218:14, 16 (M. Rodriguez). See Id. at 218:10-16 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); Feb. 8 Tr. at 290:14-291:5 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez admitted that he disclosed this statement to the United States only recently. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 339:13-19 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez).

         The United States then played two videos of Molina's homicide again, stopping at various times for M. Rodriguez to identify the people shown and to orient the video's timing to his own testimony about how the “hit” occurred. Feb. 7 Tr. at 218:20-236:1 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). He admitted watching the videos three or four times. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 159:20 (M. Rodriguez). After showing the second video, which had a better view into Molina's cell, the United States noted that D. Sanchez was in front of the camera at some point and questioned whether he had planned to stand there, and M. Rodriguez responded that he did not know and did not pay attention to D. Sanchez' location until other SNM members noted it. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 236:7-13 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez then described going into lockdown, noting that he threw a mixture of water and hand sanitizer outside his cell to dilute the blood there, and covered his window with a towel. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 236:18-24 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez wrapped the syringe in Saran Wrap to place in his rectum but, when he bent over, noticed blood on his pants from disposing the shank, so he took off his pants and realized that he still had Molina's shank in his sock. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 236:25-237:14 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez described working anxiously and quickly: removing the shank's handle and placing it on his desk, bending the shank in half and trying to wrap it in Saran Wrap, and throwing his pants in his sink with hand sanitizer and toothpaste to wash them. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 237:15-238:1 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez explained that he could not get the shank wrapped in Saran Wrap, so he disposed of the Saran Wrap in the toilet and placed the shank in his rectum, noting that this act allowed him to bring the shank with him to PNM North the next day, March 8, 2014. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 251:2-13 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez eventually disposed of the shank by flushing it down the toilet. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 366:4-10 (Villa, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez believed that the NM State Police interviewed him that evening, March 7, 2014. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 251:14-22 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that, that evening, he was moved to 2-A or 2-B with R. Perez and some other inmates that he was cold, because he “was in a paper suit.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 254:14 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 251:24-252:15 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez explained that he spoke to R. Perez through the air vent near the toilet. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 252:24-253:7 (M. Rodriguez). R. Perez told M. Rodriguez “that he brought his jacket, his sweats, his radio, and that it wasn't his first rodeo.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 252:16-17 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said he shook his head when he saw R. Perez walk out of his cell for his interview, because he noticed the sheets on the walker for the first time, and he knew STIU would notice and realize the bar was missing. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 254:22-255:3 (M. Rodriguez). When Perez returned, he asked M. Rodriguez, “is everything all good with those things, ” and M. Rodriguez responded, “don't worry about it. Everything is all good.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 256:3-4, 11-12 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that R. Perez was trying to talk about the weapons, but, because M. Rodriguez did not know who was in the surrounding cells, he did not want Perez to say anything. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 256:9-11 (M. Rodriguez). The Court gave a limiting instruction.[64] See Feb. 7 Tr. at 258:5-9 (Court). The Court gave limiting instructions on re-direct as well, when Ms. Armijo revisited this testimony.[65] See Feb. 8 Tr. at 294:1-5 (Court); id. at 295:12-13 (Court).

         During the break and outside the jury's presence, the Court made a record of its observations of R. Perez, believing that he was engaged in the trial, and, while R. Perez' counsel agreed with the Court's observations of movement, Mr. Villa asserted that R. Perez has only been able to assist counsel part of the time, because of his illness, and thus moved for a mistrial, a continuance until R. Perez is healthy, or a severance. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 238:10-243:7 (Court, Villa). The Court denied the motion for mistrial, and decided to continue to monitor R. Perez' condition, and not to sever or to continue the trial at the moment. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 122:3-6 (Court). Baca shared his belief that the witnesses in the holding cells were “possibly sharing testimonial information.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 244:12-13 (Lowry). A United States Marshal said that they were keeping the witnesses separate and that, while the witnesses are in shouting distance, the United States Marshals were monitoring their conversations, and noted that the witnesses are not discussing trial, but are asking how things are going with each other. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 244:20-245:2 (Mickendrow).

         M. Rodriguez stated that, the day after Molina's homicide, March 8, 2014, he, Varela, and D. Sanchez were sent to PNM North. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 260:15-25 (Armijo, M .Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez verified that the State eventually charged him “[w]ith tampering with evidence, conspiracy to tamper with evidence, and possession of a weapon, ” all stemming from the shank found in the shower drain. Feb. 7 Tr. at 261:11-12 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 261:7-14 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 355:8-16 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). He admitted that, even before he made the shanks for Molina's homicide, he had a thin shank shoved into the sole of his shoe. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 261:15-262:17 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez maintained that he did not remove the shank on March 7, 2014, although he wore those shoes that day, and never actually used that shank. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 262:18-20 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); Feb. 8 Tr. at 12:23-13:4 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that, while his state case was pending, he was held at PNM South, isolated from “all SNM members” for about nine and a half months. Feb. 7 Tr. at 262:23-24 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 262:21-263:2 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). After this period of isolation, M. Rodriguez was moved to a non-SNM pod in PNM North and, about a month later, was moved to the SNM pod in PNM North -- where he remained until his arrest in this case. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 263:4-11 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez said that his state charges were dropped, because the federal government picked them up. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 263:12-15 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez described Level 6 as solitary confinement and said that, after three years there, he became adapted to solitary confinement, noting that he had his own television and enjoys it. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 408:8-22 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that, if he were placed in solitary confinement for no reason, he would have a problem with such placement. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 409:5-9 (M. Rodriguez). He also admitted that solitary confinement leads to paranoia. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 36:19-21 (Villa, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez said that, when Baca returned from Colorado in October, 2015, before the federal indictment came down in December, 2015, Baca was housed in the cell below M. Rodriguez at PNM North, and they could speak through the vents and shared some recreation time. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 263:16-264:24 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez).[66] M. Rodriguez spoke about his pending case for Molina's murder with Baca, specifically that Armenta was working with the STIU and that M. Rodriguez' charges were about to be amended to first-degree murder. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 267:14-268:3 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that he had discovery from the state case that provided personal information for Armenta's family, so, when Baca said that he wanted to have somebody threaten Armenta's family, M. Rodriguez wrote down the information on a piece of paper and fished it down to Baca. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 268:4-269:1 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez told Baca that he could get involved. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 269:7-8 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that Baca was disappointed in the charges against M. Rodriguez, T. Martinez, and J. Montoya, because they were “good brothers, ” and Molina was supposed to be murdered long before M. Rodriguez got to Southern New Mexico. Feb. 7 Tr. at 269:12-17 (M. Rodriguez). The Court then gave a limiting instruction at D. Sanchez' request.[67] See Feb. 7 Tr. at 269:18-24 (Jacks, Court). Baca also informed M. Rodriguez about how Marcantel and Santistevan “were having a banquet or a barbecue, and he was going to have someone follow [them] home, ” but M. Rodriguez told Baca that he did not want to be involved. Feb. 7 Tr. at 270:6-8 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that, before Baca arrived, he had already told SNM members that he did not want any part in the Santistevan and Marcantel “hits.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 270:9-17 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). The Court repeated the limiting instruction.[68] See Feb. 7 Tr. at 270:20-24 (Court). M. Rodriguez said that he did not ask who Baca was going to have follow Santistevan and Marcantel, because he knew somebody would tell, and because he did not want Baca to suspect him. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 271:5-11 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted, however, that he did not inform the FBI about the Marcantel “hit” at their October 24, 2017, meeting, admitted to only hearing about it in January, and did not describe the recreation-yard conversation with Baca until his last debrief. Feb. 8 Tr. at 107:18-108:18 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez relayed that Baca insisted that J. Martinez told him that Calbert had Molina's “paperwork, ” but M. Rodriguez feigned ignorance, because only about three people knew of Calbert's involvement and M. Rodriguez did not want Calbert's name out. Feb. 7 Tr. at 271:18-272:19 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez explained that he was speaking of one conversation with Baca, which occurred out in the recreation yard on a day that “Behind Bars: Rookie Year” was filming; both M. Rodriguez and Baca refused to be filmed. Feb. 7 Tr. at 273:3-8 (M. Rodriguez). The Court provided another instruction as to Baca's statements.[69] See Feb. 7 Tr. at 273:21-25 (Court).

         M. Rodriguez elaborated that the United States indicted him on December 3, 2015, in two cases: (i) the Sosoya incident with R. Martinez, who is cooperating with the United States; and (ii) Molina's homicide. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 279:9-280:1 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he knew T. Martinez, J. Montoya, and Armenta were cooperating with the United States. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 367:3-12 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez also admitted that he had heard Archuleta was cooperating, and, although M. Rodriguez did not believe it at the time, he now knows it to be true. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 15:24-16:8 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that he was the only defendant set to go to trial in the Sosoya case and arrived at a pretrial hearing on October 24, 2017, prepared to go to trial alone;[70] he said he met with the United States about cooperating, but, at that time, he was not interested. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 280:2-281:3 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 284:4-285:15 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). He denied being an SNM member at this meeting. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 71:5-9 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). He admitted to lying to the FBI when he denied being an SNM member at the time that he committed the Esparza assault, explaining that the FBI knew he was an SNM member and that it was “a running joke when [he] was denying it.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 82:14 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 82:7-18 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). After this meeting, however, M. Rodriguez told his lawyer, “I'm done, ” meaning he was tired of being a gang member and did not want to be one anymore. Feb. 7 Tr. at 286:8 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 285:20-286:13 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez also mentioned that he did not like that he would have had to go to trial alone in the Sosoya case or that the case would be used to “see how the Government approached the next cases, the next VICAR cases, and it was a test run at [M. Rodriguez'] expense.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 312:14-17 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 312:1-19 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). He stated that this situation, combined with the test run being a joke for the Defendants, influenced his decision to cooperate. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 312:20-25 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he is still struggling with his decision to cooperate and enter into a plea agreement. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 287:4-23 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez pled guilty on November 1, 2017, to all the federal charges. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 295:6-7 (M. Rodriguez). He met with his family and with the FBI that day to go over what danger M. Rodriguez and his family would face, because of his cooperation. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 295:17-24 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez went through his plea agreement with the United States, verifying that, for the Sosoya incident, he faces up to twenty years on one count and up to ten years on the other count, whereas, for Molina's homicide, he faces a mandatory term of life. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 288:19-290:7 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). He stated that he agreed with the United States that the federal sentences could run concurrent with each other and the state sentence which he is currently serving, and that the United States gave him a Kastigar letter and a 5K.[71] See Feb. 7 Tr. at 291:7-25 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 292:8 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that he has about a year and a half until he is released from state custody, so he will be free once he serves his federal time. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 397:22-398:7 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). He said that the 5K provides him the possibility for a sentence reduction, at the judge's discretion, if he helps the United States at trial. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 293:5-9 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); Feb. 8 Tr. at 242:18-25 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). R. Perez noted that the Court could sentence M. Rodriguez to two years total for his federal charges, which, served concurrent to his state sentence, means M. Rodriguez would be free in two years; M. Rodriguez admitted that such a scenario would be nice. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 405:20-406:16 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he had pondered the possibility of a reduced sentence and thought he could receive about fifteen years. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 406:20 (M. Rodriguez). As to other benefits from the plea deal, he provided that he receives about $50.00 per month from the United States in his commissary. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 295:13-16 (M. Rodriguez, Armijo). M. Rodriguez admitted that not being charged for Esparza's assault is another benefit he receives from cooperating. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 110:19-111:5 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). He also gets out of the gang life. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 243:2-3 (M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez stated that he saw no real opportunity to leave SNM until the United States approached him to cooperate, but he admitted that he could have gone to the RPP Program. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 109:7-14 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). He elaborated, however, that the RPP Program began when he was being prosecuted by the state for Molina's murder and that, had he joined the program, he would have served the rest of his sentence in solitary confinement. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 109:17-110:1 (M. Rodriguez, Lowry). M. Rodriguez said that those who left SNM for religious reasons still lived around SNM. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 110L5-12 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). He said that asking for protective custody “wasn't in [his] interests.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 113:3 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 112:23-113:2 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez).

         Accordingly, M. Rodriguez maintained that his cooperation “is the only opportunity [he has] to get completely out and [he] can never go back.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 110:17-18 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez described his mentality as being “in 100 percent or not in at all, ” so he was “completely loyal to the SNM” until he decided to change his life, and “commit [himself] 100 percent to [his] cooperation and changing [his] life.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 113:19-20, 23 (M. Rodriguez); id. at 114:1-2 (M. Rodriguez). He admitted, however, to lying to the FBI on October 24, 2017. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 114:4-14 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez disputed that he ever wanted to be on the “tabla, ” asserting that he wanted only to be a good soldier for SNM and that “that's something you do not express. Your brothers express that for you.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 369:2-12 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). R. Perez showed him a 302 that FBI Agent Stemo prepared after their October 24, 2017, meeting, which provides that M. Rodriguez aspired to be on the SNM “tabla.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 369:21-370:3 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez responded that Stemo must have misunderstood him. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 370:2-8 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he would have liked to be a leader someday and that desire is why he “put in the work”: “That's why I was such a good carnal. And you want your brothers to someday trust in you that you could lead them.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 371:12-14 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 371:8-10 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez explained that Sosoya was his first “hit” for SNM and that he could not have aspired to be a leader having only done one “hit.” Feb. 7 Tr. at 371:18-25 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez thought that his criminal history was not an impediment to his becoming a leader, but admitted that it could have been a problem he never considered. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 382:19-383:8 (Villa, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez verified that he still has his discovery tablet, and that he never tampered with it or lived near the men who were tampering with their tablets. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 296:24-297:7 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he has had the discovery in the case for the past two years, and knew it well enough that he noted to the FBI false statements in the discovery. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 43:18-44:23 (M. Rodriguez, Bhalla). M. Rodriguez explained that, at first, the tablet's use was restricted from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., but he eventually had access to the discovery tablet all day long, with the exception of three or four hours for it to charge. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 61:11-18 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez); id. at 195:3-9 (M. Rodriguez, Jacks). M. Rodriguez noted that he did not get the last update or his own 302 reports. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 60:11-21 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez).

         On cross-examination, M. Rodriguez described being shocked and upset when he listened to wiretaps of Herrera in which Herrera said unflattering things about M. Rodriguez. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 46:4-25 (Bhalla, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he felt that Herrera was acting like someone he was not, and, therefore, M. Rodriguez planned with other co-Defendants to strangle Herrera on the transport van with a sock. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 49:7-22 (Bhalla, M. Rodriguez); id. at 58:25-59:2 (Bhalla, M. Rodriguez).[72] M. Rodriguez said that Herrera also took credit for things which he had not done, but noted that this bragging did not include Molina's murder. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 326:16-21 (Bhalla, M. Rodriguez). On his own accord, M. Rodriguez told law enforcement about this plan, which he asserted another person formed. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 296:6-8 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez); id. at 298:3-9 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez verified that there were many reasons why they planned to “hit” Herrera, including his recordings, and because law enforcement interviewed Herrera's mother and brother. Feb. 8 Tr. at 298:10-20 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that, at this time, he was “[a] high-ranking SNM member, ” elevated because of his involvement in the Molina murder. Feb. 8 Tr. at 299:11 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 299:6-19 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez admitted that, before he began cooperating, he planned to attack a co-Defendant in the Sosoya indictment at court, and brought shanks into court to do so. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 376:23-377:7 (Villa, M. Rodriguez); id. at 382:8-9 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that, as an active SNM member, he took shanks everywhere, including when he spoke with the FBI, but that he does not carry shanks anymore. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 377:8-25 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez verified that he removed shanks from his rectum and gave them to the United States. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 378:10-16 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). He admitted that, although he never recruited anyone into SNM, he reached out to two friends to cooperate for the United States. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 410:3-411:5 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). On November 9, 2017, M. Rodriguez wrote D. Sanchez a letter explaining his decision to cooperate and to let D. Sanchez know that cooperation was an option. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 245:12-246:7 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez also described some of the benefits stemming from cooperating, such as entering witness protection and receiving a new identity with a clean criminal record, information which he learned through his family's Internet research. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 246:20-247:22 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he believed he would get a new identity with a clean record and that he would not have to register as a sex offender. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 249:25-250:9 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that he was not told he would receive any benefits for helping secure D. Sanchez' cooperation or guilty plea. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 246:8-15 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez said he met with the United States on three instances. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 306:7 (M. Rodriguez). R. Perez noted that M. Rodriguez met with the United States and D. Sanchez' brother recently on November 16, 2017, and M. Rodriguez verified that the meeting had occurred, but testified that he had forgotten about it and therefore did not count it when asked on direct how many times he had met with the United States. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 411:10-412:4 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez maintained that, although his memory is excellent, he could not recall how many times he met with the FBI. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 85:6-11 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said the November, 2017, meeting was a favor for D. Sanchez' brother, who wanted to work for the United States and who had asked M. Rodriguez to speak to D. Sanchez; M. Rodriguez testified that he told R. Sanchez that he excepted to receive contact visits once he moved to federal prison in Tucson, Arizona or in Florida. See Feb. 7 Tr. at 412:5-23 (Villa, M. Rodriguez); id. at 20:11-15 (Villa, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez verified that R. Sanchez wanted to discuss how to convince D. Sanchez to cooperate or plead guilty, and that, had M. Rodriguez convinced D. Sanchez, he would have received a benefit. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 165:10-24 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez denied that the potential benefit provided any motivation for the meeting. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 166:25-167:4 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez also told R. Sanchez that he believed that the federal indictments meant that SNM would eventually lose power. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 18:21-19:5 (Villa, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez said that SNM has always been political and that there were rumors that some members disagreed with Baca's politics. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 86:2-13 (M. Rodriguez, Lowry). M. Rodriguez confirmed that Baca had a disagreement with inmate Jeffrey Madrid and that Baca requested two other inmates kill Madrid. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 86:14-21 (Lowry, M. .Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that the inmates at Southern New Mexico, where the disagreement occurred, expected Baca to attack Madrid, but that he never did so because he did not want solitary confinement. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 89:7-25 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez).[73] M. Rodriguez verified that there is often discord and disagreement within SNM. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 92:12-19 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted to telling the FBI that Baca liked Molina, “[f]or certain reasons, ” Feb. 8 Tr. at 99:21 (M. Rodriguez), and that Baca would have stopped the “hit” had he been at Southern New Mexico, Feb. 8 Tr. at 101:5-13 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). With a limiting instruction, [74] M. Rodriguez also admitted that he told the FBI that Clark wanted to kill Baca and that no one attacked Clark even though such disloyalty violated SNM rules. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 102:20-21 (Lowry); id. at 103:10-16 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that he knew Romero had become involved with Archuleta's wife and that Archuleta wanted Romero killed “through SNM bylaws.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 103:5-6 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 101:22-102:15 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez proffered his opinion, which he maintained other SNM members shared, that Romero was not beaten severely enough, and he should have, at least, been sliced with a razor blade. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 104:10-23 (Lowry, M. Rodriguez).

         D. Sanchez asked M. Rodriguez about his October 24, 2017, meeting with the FBI, in which M. Rodriguez denied being an SNM member, and disclosed that although SNM attempted to recruit him in 2005, he heard a rumor that his membership had been shot down -- which he assumed was because of his criminal sexual penetration charges. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 115:10-116:25 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez had also told the FBI that, after that, he was moved to a pod with Los Carnales and SNM, and his friend Joseph Sifuentes pushed him “to get schooling from Diablo, from Los Carnales, ” but denied that Los Carnales recruited him or that he told the FBI that Sifuentes pushed him to join Los Carnales. Feb. 8 Tr. at 117:13-14 (M. Rodriguez). See id. at 117:1-118:9 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). D. Sanchez showed M. Rodriguez the 302 report from that October 24, 2017, meeting, containing “the statement that Joseph Sifuentes, also known as Snuffy, started pushing [M. Rodriguez] to join Los Carnales, ” Feb. 8 Tr. at 118:20-22 (Jacks), and M. Rodriguez responded that: (i) he skimmed that 302, (ii) made no changes to the 302, (iii) Sifuentes' moniker is “Snorty, ” and (iv) the statement in question is incorrect, Feb. 8 Tr. at 118:15-119:13 (M. Rodriguez, Jacks). M. Rodriguez admitted that the report's statement that Diablo taught him how to make shanks is correct, but M. Rodriguez clarified that Diablo taught him that skill later. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 120:4-8 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez observed another mistake in the 302, describing that, while they were housed at Southern New Mexico before Molina's murder, D. Sanchez -- not E. Martinez, as the 302 reports -- noted an inmate who had entered protective custody at another prison, so E. Martinez and M. Rodriguez decided to stab that inmate. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 128:19-129:23 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he told the FBI that D. Sanchez told everyone not to do anything to the inmate, which made D. Sanchez look weak in M. Rodriguez's eyes and the pod's other SNM members, and so M. Rodriguez took it upon himself to tell the inmate to leave, with D. Sanchez by his side. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 131:3-132:10 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez).

         M. Rodriguez verified that Keith Johnson came into PNM North to teach reentry and became M. Rodriguez' good friend. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 196:10-18 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that Johnson encouraged M. Rodriguez to write creatively and was the first person to tell M. Rodriguez that he was good at something. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 196:19-24 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he has used his story-telling skills in connection with his criminal cases, but did not use them in the state Molina case. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 197:9-20 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez admitted that he had been housed with J. Montoya for some time during the state case's pendency, but he said that he was not housed with Armenta. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 198:5-12 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez stated that he had heard of a letter which Armenta wrote to J. Montoya's lawyer, but “wasn't in the loop directly in that.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 198:19-20 (M. Rodriguez). He verified that, according to what he heard, the letter was Armenta's attempt to exonerate J. Montoya and, because of the letter, J. Montoya's lawyer filed a motion designating Armenta as his witness. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 199:4-16 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez maintained that he did not help fabricate the story and would not have had contact with Armenta during this time. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 202:12-203:11 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez asserted that, at that time, he thought Armenta was “snitching” and learned that Armenta “had charges contributing to the delinquency of a minor, . . . and they were charges that [M. Rodriguez] didn't agree with, and [M. Rodriguez] discontinued all communication with him.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 203:4-7 (M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez maintained that he therefore has not communicated with Armenta since receiving the discovery in the state case. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 205:9-206:13 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez said that he was also uninvolved in a unified defense that Armenta, J. Montoya, and a third person were presenting in the state Molina case. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 203:12-15 (Jacks, M. Rodriguez). M. Rodriguez maintained that his testimony has been the truth, see Feb. 8 Tr. at 351:25-352:3 (Armijo, M. Rodriguez), and the Court let him step down from the witness stand subject to recall, [75] see Feb. 8 Tr. at 352:13-16 (Court).

         q. Armijo's Testimony -- February 8, 2018.

         The United States re-called Armijo. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 353:3-4 (Castellano).[76] Armijo described that, sometime in 2011, while housed with Molina in the blue pod at Southern New Mexico, he spoke with “Baby G, ”[77] who lived in yellow pod, through the connecting door on the top tier. Feb. 8 Tr. at 357:7-358:12 (Castellano, Armijo). Baby G had called Armijo to the door during tier time, and informed Armijo that “he got word from the North, from the North facility, that there was “paperwork” on Javier Molina, and that Pup wanted him hit, ” so Armijo asked for the “paperwork.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 358:14-16 (Armijo). See id. at 358:11-17 (Armijo). Armijo explained that “paperwork” is important, because, otherwise, “there is a possibility that people could just hold a grudge, or personal reasons for them to have someone assaulted.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 358:20-22 (Armijo). He said that Baby G responded that he did not have the “paperwork, ” so Armijo told him that nobody was going to do anything to Molina. Feb. 8 Tr. at 358:23-359:6 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo, as “llavero” of blue pod at the time, ordered others in blue pod not to touch Molina although, had the “paperwork” been produced, he would have had to order Molina “hit.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 359:9-24 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo admitted that he liked Molina, but that would not have mattered had he received the “paperwork”; as “llavero, ” Armijo would have to ensure Molina was killed. Feb. 8 Tr. at 359:25-360:6 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo said that he had known Baby G about a year and a half, and that he had no problem with Baby G at the time; however, Armijo said that he believes Baby G conveyed the “hit” on Armijo and, when Baca got to Southern New Mexico, he no longer liked Baby G. Feb. 8 Tr. at 375:18-376:5 (Duncan, Armijo). Armijo liked Molina, however, and lived with him for about a year and a half in Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 380:6-14 (Jewkes, Armijo). According to Armijo, Molina was well-liked and was not “mouthy.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 380:21 (Jewkes). See id. at 380:15-22 (Jewkes, Armijo).

         Armijo described that, in December, 2015, he was out of prison and went to C. Garcia's mother's house to purchase heroin for personal use from C. Garcia, whom Armijo knew as an SNM member and drug dealer. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 360:7-23 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo explained that he normally bought from M. Montoya, but M. Montoya was out of heroin and on his way to C. Garcia's to buy, so M. Montoya told Armijo to follow him, which Armijo did. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 361:7-15 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo described that C. Garcia gave them both heroin, as well as a third SNM member who was there, and also gave M. Montoya a gun. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 361:18-24 (Armijo); id. at 364:1-4 (Castellano, Armijo). About a week later, Armijo called up C. Garcia asking for heroin, and C. Garcia told Armijo to meet him at his mother's house, which Armijo did. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 366:15-24 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo described that, while C. Garcia prepared heroin for Armijo, C. Garcia asked whether he knew Mandel Parker, and told him that Baca had a mission for them. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 367:2-9 (Armijo). C. Garcia explained that they were supposed to “hit” Marcantel, the NM Corrections Department Secretary, and Armijo told him that he was stupid for listening to Baca, because Baca “was going to be the downfall of everybody.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 368:1-2 (Armijo). See id. at 367:10-25 (Castellano, Armijo). Armijo stated that Parker is also an SNM member. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 368:3-5 (Castellano, Armijo). The United States also showed photographs of C. Garcia, and Armijo noted an SNM tattoo and the scar from when C. Garcia got shot. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 364:14-365:25 (Castellano, Armijo).

         Armijo verified that he first met C. Garcia in the 2000s while in prison. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 368:20-22 (Duncan, Armijo). Armijo did not agree with C. Garcia being brought into SNM, because he thought that they wanted C. Garcia only because he had drugs. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 369:1-6 (Duncan, Armijo). Armijo also did not agree with C. Garcia being brought in to SNM, because C. Garcia had “snitched” while on the street. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 369:13-17 (Duncan, Armijo). Armijo has, however, used heroin with C. Garcia “a couple of times, ” most recently sometime before the first sweep in the case in December, 2015. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 369:21-370:5 (Duncan, Armijo). Armijo admitted to having come up with a plan, sometime in the early 2000s, to rob C. Garcia of two kilograms of cocaine with M. Montoya, but they never acted on this plan. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 373:10-23 (Duncan, Armijo). Armijo verified that he was charged with a RICO conspiracy in April, 2016, and that one of the overt acts alleges that he and C. Garcia ordered two others to murder Giron. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 373:24-374:13 (Duncan, Armijo). Armijo learned from this case's indictment that C. Garcia and Baca were charged with conspiracy to murder Marcantel. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 375:8-12 (Duncan, Armijo).

         Armijo asserted that Archuleta was SNM's leader when this case was filed and that Archuleta remained the leader until he decided to cooperate. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 376:19-377:5 (Duncan, Armijo). Armijo denied giving drugs to Archuleta at Archuleta's request, but Armijo admitted that he sent Suboxone to Archuleta in Tennessee at his request, which he does not characterize as a drug. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 377:9-378:12 (Duncan, Armijo).

         Armijo admitted to having used methamphetamine in 2012, when he was first released from prison, but denied suffering hallucinations while using methamphetamine. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 370:15-20 (Duncan, Armijo). Armijo recalled, however, that, after an interview with Evolution Group, in July, 2016, the Evolution Group concluded that he had suffered hallucinations while using methamphetamine. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 371:17-372:5 (Duncan, Armijo). Armijo admitted telling Evolution group that he has trouble concentrating and, at one time, had trouble controlling his violent temper. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 372:13-20 (Duncan, Armijo). He stated that he takes Abilify, an antipsychotic medication intended to treat anger and post-traumatic stress disorder. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 372:21-373:3 (Duncan, Armijo).

         Armijo verified that he had been convicted for battery on a police officer in 2008. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 376:9-18 (Armijo). He stated that, while he was a validated member of SNM and joined in 1993, he did not know how long the STIU had him validated and does not consider himself an SNM member anymore. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 379:24 (Jewkes, Armijo). Armijo described how he would plan a “hit” in a prison, noting that there would have to be a reason for it, that he would want to use a shank, and that he would likely attack the victim in his room or the shower --somewhere more out of the way. Feb. 8 Tr. at 381:22- 384:22 (Jewkes, Armijo). Armijo stated that he would only stab the victim once, in the neck or armpit, because that is all that is needed. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 384:23-385:21 (Jewkes, Armijo). Armijo admitted that he has often seen inmates exhibit rage and commit violent acts while under that rage. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 387:3-388:1 (Jewkes, Armijo). The Court excused Armijo. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 391:8-11 (Court).

         r. Jerry Armenta's Testimony.

         The United States next called Armenta, who is in custody. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 391:16-17 (Castellano); Transcript of Jury Trial Volume 11 at 150:7-11 (taken February 12, 2018)(Fox-Young, Armenta), filed February 22, 2019 (Doc. 2527)(“Feb. 12 Tr.”). Armenta said that he is set to be released from his state sentence in May, 2020. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 150:10-11 (Armenta). Armenta said that he was an SNM member, explaining that he “let it down” and “threw it away, ” that he “want[s] nothing to do with it anymore.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 392:20-22 (Armenta). He described his tattoo of a Zia symbol with the state of New Mexico behind it as an SNM tattoo, admitting that he wanted to get an “S” inside the Zia, but that M. Rodriguez and D. Sanchez would not allow it, because they said he had not “earned his bones.” Feb. 8 Tr. at 394:1-25 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta explained that they said he “earned his bones” all in self-defense, which was not “the right way.” Transcript of Jury Trial Volume 10 at 65:4 (taken February 9, 2018)(Armenta), filed February 22, 2019 (Doc. 2526)(“Feb. 9 Tr.”). See id. at 64:20-65:4 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta believed that he had, however, “earned his bones, ” describing that, in 2005, at Lea County Correctional Facility (“Lea County Correctional”) in Hobbs, he and the person who recruited him into SNM were housed with Sureños, and got jumped after getting drunk on homemade wine, so he stabbed a Sureños member. Feb. 8 Tr. at 395:1-396:6 (Castellano, Armenta). See id. at 397:23-398:3 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta stated that he had been recruited into the gang in that same year and did not realize he had inherited rivals by becoming an SNM member. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 397:9-22 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta explained that this fight, caused senior SNM members, including Archuleta, to accept him into the gang. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 19:7-12 (Armenta); id. at 20:12-21:3 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta described that, when he joined, he did not know anything about SNM's culture, but learned that some gang rules that apply generally to prison life: you cannot be a “rat, ” you cannot have sex charges, you cannot be soft, and you fight when someone asks you to fight. Feb. 9 Tr. at 21:20-24 (Armenta). He later learned he had to do whatever SNM ordered or else be beaten up or killed. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 33:2-6 (Armenta).

         Armenta related that he had been dealing drugs since he was seventeen, and has four convictions for drug trafficking, three of which happened before he joined SNM at age nineteen. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 398:9-21 (Castellano, Armenta). He explained that he picked up two more drug-trafficking charges while out of prison on conditions of release pending his first charge. See Feb. 8 Tr. at 400:2-7 (Castellano, Armenta).[78] He was a member of the North Side Locos while dealing, selling, and using marijuana and crack cocaine. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 18:7-22 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta stated that he stopped using crack in 2008, but since then has used heroin and Suboxone sporadically. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 18:23-19:2 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta said he has also snorted cocaine since 2008. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 168:14-25 (Jacks, Armenta).

         Armenta recounted that he was released from prison in September, 2006, met his wife and had children, had a few run-ins with the law that were “mistakes, ” and was arrested on another drug-trafficking charge in 2011. Feb. 9 Tr. at 22:19-25:1 (Castellano, Armenta). That charge was pending for almost three years and, during that time, in 2013, Armenta was sent to Southern New Mexico for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 25:4-15 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta described that when he was at the facility in Los Lunas for classification, the STIU interviewed him about his gang affiliation. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 26:11-27:11 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta told STIU that it is impossible to leave a gang, because “once you're in, you don't get out. There is no way of getting out.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 28:15-16 (Armenta). See id. at 28:9-29:2 (Castellano, Armenta). At an earlier date, Armenta said that one could just walk away from the gang life, but he asserted that he was talking about his street gang and that he had not yet joined SNM. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 183:7-21 (Jacks, Armenta). He said that, at the time of classification, he had less than a year left to serve and refused to enter a drop-out program. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 30:4-19 (Castellano, Armenta). The NM Corrections Department classified Armenta to Level 4, so he moved to blue pod at Southern New Mexico shortly before Christmas of 2013. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 29:16-30:3 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 30:20-25 (Castellano, Armenta).

         Armenta first proffered his belief that everyone in blue pod at that time were SNM members, but then clarified that D. Sanchez' brother and somebody he knows only as “Polo”[79] are not SNM members. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 31:3-32:4 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta described D. Sanchez as the pod's “llavero.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 32:9-17 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta said that he arrived at the pod at the same time as M. Rodriguez, with whom he got along, and that he and D. Sanchez were the only people he knew. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 32:21-33:9 (Castellano, Armijo). Armenta recounted that inmates sometimes ask to see an unknown inmate's “paperwork, ” but that nobody asked to see his “paperwork, ” because D. Sanchez knew that he had protected a fellow SNM member by stabbing a Sureño. Feb. 9 Tr. at 35:1-18 (Armenta, Castellano). Armenta said that, when he arrived, the correctional officers thumbed through his legal paperwork to ensure that there was no contraband, but searched it no deeper than that. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 36:9-15 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta recalled Marcantel coming down and telling SNM that he was going to let them work in the wheelchair program, and eventually get back into the general population. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 38:18-39:5 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta said that he did not get a job in the wheelchair program, because he was going to court so often. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 39:12-18 (Castellano, Armenta).

         Armenta stated that Molina also lived in the blue pod and that, while they got along, they were not close. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 39:19-25 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta knew, through communications with other members, that Herrera, Alex Munoz, and B. Cordova were in the yellow pod. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 44:23-45:9 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta recalled telling Molina that Sosa had been in the Los Lunas facility with him. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 40:23-41:1 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta said that Urquizo and Varela arrived at yellow pod on March 6, 2014, and M. Rodriguez and T. Martinez ran to the connecting door to speak with Urquizo and Varela. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 41:5-42:11 (Castellano, Armenta). This conversation, Armenta recalled, occurred sometime between noon and 4:00 p.m. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 33:5-34:1 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta explained that it is easy to speak through the connecting doors, but that they are always locked. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 42:18-24 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta described M. Rodriguez asking, “You have it? Let me see it, ” explaining, “Oh, they'll give you your property tomorrow, ” and requesting, “As soon as you get it, let me get it.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 43:2-6 (Armenta). Armenta explained that, at that time, he did not know what M. Rodriguez was talking about. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 43:7-9 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta could not remember anything else remarkable from that day. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 43:23-25 (Castellano, Armenta).

         On March 7, 2014, Armenta recalled going to the big yard for recreation at 10:00 a.m. with M. Rodriguez, D. Sanchez, R. Sanchez, J. Montoya, and Molina. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 47:24-48:22 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta said that people working in the wheelchair program, such as T. Martinez, did not go to the big yard for recreation, and that R. Perez stayed in his cell. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 48:23-49:6 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta said that, around 10:30 a.m. or 10:45 a.m., he saw the property officer bringing the new inmates' property. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 50:17-21 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 51:6 (Armenta). Armenta described returning to his cell at 11:00 a.m. for count and lunch. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 51:7-25 (Armenta, Castellano). Sometime after lunch and the release from lockdown, Armenta saw M. Rodriguez and D. Sanchez get called to the connecting door, receive something from yellow pod that looked like a few sheets of loose paper, and then sit near M. Rodriguez' room reading something. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 52:1-19 (Castellano, Armenta); Feb. 12 Tr. at 35:11-18 (Jacks, Armenta). During cross-examination, however, Armenta said that M. Rodriguez was by himself at the connecting door. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 36:10-14 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta admitted that, in a pretrial interview, he had said that lunch lockdown occurred after the “paperwork” passed, but maintained that, had the interviewers asked him at what time the “paperwork” was passed, he would have told them the same time to which he testified. Feb. 12 Tr. at 47:5-48:2 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta said that he was watching television at the time and that, once M. Rodriguez and D. Sanchez finished reading, they returned to the door to return whatever it was they had received. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 52:20-53:3 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta recalled that, as M. Rodriguez and D. Sanchez spoke through the door, M. Rodriguez was staring at Armenta -- which Armenta “just took . . . as whatever.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 53:11 (Armenta). See id. at 2.:3-6 (Armenta). Armenta did not hear M. Rodriguez call any names through the door, but believed these actions occurred sometime between 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 53:20-54:1 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta admitted that he wondered whether M. Rodriguez could be coming after him because SNM may have learned about his sex offense somehow. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 123:18-124:6 (Fox-Young, Armenta).

         Armenta recalled that all inmates returned to their rooms at 2:00 p.m. and that phone yard was at 3:00 p.m. that day, describing “phone yard” as a smaller recreation yard containing workout equipment, a basketball, a handball, and a punching bag. Feb. 9 Tr. at 54:6-23 (Armenta, Castellano). Armenta said that he went to phone yard with D. Sanchez, J. Montoya, and Molina, and that M. Rodriguez stayed in his cell with his curtain up, having said that he was using the bathroom. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 55:6-24 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta admitted that this testimony was the first time in which he told anybody that M. Rodriguez did not go to phone yard and had a curtain in his cell window. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 41:2-42:13 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta recounted that, while in the phone yard, he was standing next to D. Sanchez when Clark came out of his pod and spoke with D. Sanchez about wanting to get Urquizo “hit.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 56:3-22 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 57:4-21 (Castellano, Armenta). D. Sanchez responded: “No, that's not going to happen.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 59:6-7 (Armenta). Armenta recalled the wheelchair program workers returning between 3:30 p.m. and 3:45 p.m. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 59:8-23 (Castellano, Armenta). At the 4:00 p.m. count, Armenta said returned to his cell, ate dinner, and was released from count about an hour later. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 60:9-61:11 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta said that, when the doors opened, people started bringing their food trays to the front door for the correctional officers to pick up, and D. Sanchez called Armenta over to their usual dinner table, and told Armenta that Molina's “paperwork” came “and that we were going to kill him.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 61:21-22 (Armenta). See id. at 61:13-24 (Armenta, Castellano). Armenta asked D. Sanchez who was going to kill Molina, and D. Sanchez said that it would be Armenta and J. Montoya, threatening Armenta that he would “be on the other side of that, too, ” Feb. 9 Tr. at 63:6-7 (Armenta), when Armenta protested that he had only forty-three or forty-four days left to serve. See id. at 62:14-63:10 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta said that he “succumbed to [D. Sanchez'] demands, . . . because [Armenta] did not want to get killed.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 63:20-22 (Armenta). Armenta knew that such work was expected from him as an SNM member, but was not expecting to have to “put in work, ” because he was close to being released and thought he had already “earned his bones.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 64:5-14 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta described that he later found out that M. Rodriguez threatened J. Montoya by approaching him in his cell with a shank and telling him that he had to commit the Molina murder. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 125:25-126:9 (Fox-Young, Armenta). Armenta admitted that he was scared of M. Rodriguez at the time and that this fear continued well after the murder. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 127:18-128:5 (Fox-Young, Armenta).

         D. Sanchez told Armenta to go to M. Rodriguez' room, so Armenta did, and M. Rodriguez handed him a shank and told him to wrap the string on the handle around his wrist, so it would not fall off, and demonstrated how to use the shank. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 65:11-66:5 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta described the shank as metal and “almost a whole foot long, ” “about 10, 11 inches, black, and about the width of a pencil.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 66:8-10 (Armenta). He identified the shank in a photograph exhibit that the United States showed. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 80:7-12 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta recalled that T. Martinez was supposed to punch Molina and knock him out, and then Armenta and J. Montoya were to stab Molina. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 66:16-22 (Armenta). Armenta said that M. Rodriguez told him to give his shank to D. Sanchez afterward for disposal and that D. Sanchez did not want to cover the cameras, which Armenta did not like. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 67:4-68:1 (Armenta, Castellano). Armenta said that M. Rodriguez would take care of J. Montoya's shank. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 68:2-5 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta described feeling scared and nervous, and, sometime between 5:05 p.m. and 5:15 p.m., going into his cell to wrap the shank around his wrist, and put it in his pants. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 68:9-25 (Castellano, Armenta). Later, when the cell doors closed, Armenta and J. Montoya were walking around the day room, discussing the plan and how they should not stab each other. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 69:1-15 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta recalled telling J. Montoya not to stab Molina's chest, because Armenta did not want Molina to die, noting that, if they stab him anywhere besides his heart, he could live. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 86:8-18 (Armenta).

         Armenta described that the pod doors opened, and a nurse and two correctional officers came into the pod to pass out the inmates' medication. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 70:2-15 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta admitted that he could have told the correctional officers about the “hit, ” but said that he would have been attacked the moment he told the correctional officer and that nobody could have stopped it. Feb. 9 Tr. at 70:16-71:3 (Castellano, Armenta). The nurse and officers, Armenta described, were in the pod for five to ten minutes. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 71:11-12 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta said that, during this time, D. Sanchez was sitting at the table, and that M. Rodriguez was going back and forth from Molina's cell to the day room. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 71:21-72:3 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta said that, during this time, he was weighing his options; then he went to the top tier in front of his room, where J. Montoya eventually joined him, and waited for D. Sanchez' signal for them to enter Molina's cell and for T. Martinez to place Molina in a chokehold. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 72:9-73:6 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta saw M. Rodriguez and T. Martinez enter Molina's cell, getting ready to do Suboxone with Molina, and then T. Martinez began to choke Molina. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 73:7-25 (Castellano, Armenta). About fifteen minutes after the correctional officers entered the pod, Armenta and J. Montoya went into Molina's room after Molina fell limp from T. Martinez' chokehold. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 72:4-8 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 74:1-6 (Castellano, Armenta). On cross-examination, however, Armenta said he witnessed T. Martinez choking out Molina, and he did not see Molina put up a fight or M. Rodriguez holding down Molina's arms. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 132:9-20 (Fox-Young, Armenta). Armenta said they hesitated at first, because M. Rodriguez told them to wait, but then J. Montoya walked into Molina's cell and began stabbing Molina's center chest, and Armenta followed, stabbing Molina's left flank. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 74:9-24 (Castellano, Armenta).

         At some point, J. Montoya told Armenta to slow down, because he did not want to be stabbed, so Armenta moved to stab Molina's right side, and Molina started convulsing, woke up, and stood up. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 74:25-75:10 (Armenta, Castellano). Armenta maintained that he was avoiding Molina's heart and was not trying to kill him. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 144:2-16 (Jacks, Armenta). M. Rodriguez told them: “Get him. Don't let him out of the room. Get him. Get him.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 75:15-16 (Armenta). Armenta said that they tried, but Molina, whom Armenta described as a big, heavyset man, “bulldozed his way out of the room.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 75:19 (Armenta). See id. at 75:17-19 (Armenta). Molina ran downstairs to the day room and M. Rodriguez was still yelling to get him, so J. Montoya and Armenta follow him and attack him by the pod's front door. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 76:4-14 (Armenta). Armenta said that he did not stab Molina once he ran out of the cell, but Armenta hit Molina's face as he was attempting to escape. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 144:17-145:8 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta described that he had noticed that the control officer had seen what was occurring and banged on the yellow pod's window to notify the correctional officers there, and Armenta saw officers watching through the front door's window. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 77:1-11 (Armenta); id. at 80:19-22 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta admitted to stabbing Molina twenty or twenty-one times, and asserted that J. Montoya also stabbed Molina at least twenty or twenty-one times. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 143:9-15 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta verified that he killed Molina. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 143:5-6 (Jacks, Armenta).

         After the assault, Armenta walked toward the stairs; D. Sanchez was near there and told Armenta to throw his shank in the trashcan, so he put it in the trashcan. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 80:23-81:7 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta stated that he understood that D. Sanchez was tasked with disposing of the shank. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 81:8-12 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta then returned to Molina, who was standing up, and punched him in the face, which caused a silver chain with a cross to fly off Molina's neck to the middle of the pod. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 81:13-24 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta said he picked up the chain, and gave it to another inmate, Jason Wright. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 81:13-15 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 81:25-82:1 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta then went to the top tier shower to wash off blood on his body, but bumped into M. Rodriguez, so he went to the shower downstairs. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 82:2-19 (Castellano, Armenta). After rinsing off, Armenta walked to the day room, but correctional officers are entering the pod, so he grabbed his things from the shower and went into his cell, and the inmates were locked down. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 82:20-83:4 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta explained that he began “tripping out” as he sat in his cell and “felt like a piece of shit.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 83:7, 15 (Armenta). He thought about his family, Molina, and how he “just stabbed this man for an organization that [Armenta] thought loved [him] and respected [him.]” Feb. 9 Tr. at 83:23-25 (Armenta). See id. at 83:5-25 (Castellano, Armenta). About twenty to thirty minutes after being placed on lockdown, the correctional officers started getting the inmates out of their cells and placing them in cells in other units. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 84:1-13 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta explained that there was not an open cell for him, so he was left in the recreation yard for a few hours. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 84:13-15 (Armenta). He said that his clothes were taken away, and that he only slept off and on. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 84:22-25 (Armenta). He thought the NM State police interviewed him around 3:30 a.m. or 4:00 a.m., and he told them he was standing near the door while Molina got beat up, but did not try to place the blame on somebody else. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 85:2-19 (Castellano, Armenta). He described meeting with Palomares, who informed him that Molina had died, which “made [Armenta] feel more like shit.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 86:5 (Armenta). See id. at 85:20-86:3 (Castellano, Armenta).

         Armenta recalled that after Molina's murder, the NM Corrections Department wrote him up, his privileges and property were taken away, he was placed in disciplinary segregation, [80] and was indicted. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 86:20-87:25 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta said he had requested that Gomez represent him in the administrative process that led to disciplinary segregation, because Gomez understood the disciplinary procedures, but that the NM Corrections Department did not allow Gomez to represent him. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 88:5-11 (Castellano, Armenta); id. 89:6-17 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta described that the Doña Ana County District Attorney's office indicted him -- along with J. Montoya and M. Rodriguez -- in March, 2014, charging Armenta with “[f]irst-degree murder, conspiracy, [and] tampering with evidence.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 920:10-11 (Armenta). See id. at 90:2-13 (Castellano, Armenta). While facing the state charges, Armenta was housed in unit 2-A, B pod at Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 90:18-91:2 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta described that he first tried to get out of the charges by lying in his first interview, the day after the murder, and saying that he was standing at the pod's door when the murder occurred. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 149:14-19 (Jacks, Armenta); Feb. 12 Tr. at 106:9-15 (Maynard, Armenta). He also said in the interview that he did not get involved, but admitted that this story did not work, because video of the incident refuted it. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 184:4-185:5 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta maintained that M. Rodriguez later directed him to take the fall for the charges. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 91:14-19 (Castellano, Armenta). According to Armenta, M. Rodriguez blamed Armenta for his charges, because the prosecution believed Armenta handed M. Rodriguez a shank when Armenta entered the top-tier shower, because the investigators found a shank in the shower. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 91:21-92:2 (Armenta). Armenta said that he decided to take the fall, and to exculpate J. Montoya and M. Rodriguez, because Armenta was caught on camera and there were witnesses. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 92:9-16 (Armenta). Armenta also said that he felt that he needed to follow M. Rodriguez' orders and thought he would be killed if he did not do as M. Rodriguez asked. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 127:1-15 (Fox-Young, Armenta). Armenta described that M. Rodriguez did not tell him how to take the fall for the crime, but that they discussed with J. Montoya and T. Martinez, over a few months, the story that they would tell. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 93:7-18 (Castellano, Armenta). T. Martinez, Armenta explained, had not been charged, but was a witness for the crime, and was going to verify the fabricated story. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 93:18-21 (Armenta). Armenta said that T. Martinez wrote something for him, but Armenta never sent this to his attorney, because he “was already feeling some kind of way about it.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 94:10-11 (Armenta). See id. at 94:1-11 (Castellano, Armenta).

         Armenta explained that he was housed in Southern New Mexico along with T. Martinez and J. Montoya until September, 2014, when they were moved to PNM North, where M. Rodriguez was already housed; at this time M. Rodriguez decided Armenta should take the blame. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 94:12-95:3 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta explained that T. Martinez, J. Montoya, and M. Rodriguez were housed in the same pod, and that Armenta was housed in the same unit, in a separate pod. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 129:7-14 (Fox-Young, Armenta). Armenta verified that there were a number of rumors around PNM as to what happened to Molina and who was involved. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 131:8-16 (Fox-Young, Armenta). There were also rumors that Armenta was a government witness, because of his statement that he was standing by the pod's front door, but Armenta said that, at that time, he was not cooperating. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 132:25-133:14 (Fox-Young, Armenta). He said that there were not rumors that R. Perez was cooperating, but the Court sustained the United States' hearsay objection to this testimony. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 135:1-9 (Fox-Young, Armenta, Castellano, Court).

         In January, 2015, Armenta wrote a letter to J. Montoya to give to J. Montoya's attorney, which stated that Armenta got into an argument with Molina and they got into a knife fight, leading to Molina's murder, and that J. Montoya was not guilty. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 95:14-20 (Armenta); id. at 97:12-22 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta verified that the letter stated that he killed Molina, because Molina threatened or insulted Armenta's daughter, who suffers from DiGeorge syndrome.[81] See Feb. 9 Tr. at 98:3-98:16 (Castellano, Armenta). D. Sanchez had Armenta read the entire letter aloud. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 186:24-188:17 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta explained that he fabricated this story, because “Molina would talk a lot about retarded children, Down syndrome children in the pod, and he'd scream it out loud, and this and that, ” and that witnesses would support this assertion. Feb. 9 Tr. at 98:17-19 (Armenta). See id. at 98:20-25 (Armenta). Armenta said that, while it is true that his daughter is mentally handicapped, Molina never insulted her, and the story was fabricated to exonerate J. Montoya. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 99:1-16 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta explained that he did this service for J. Montoya, because J. Montoya had been in jail for fifteen or sixteen years, and because J. Montoya “deserves to be out there to make things right with his daughter and try to see his grandma before she passes away. Make some memories. I wanted to be a good guy, let him get out.” Feb. 9 Tr. at 100:3-6 (Armenta). See id. at 99:17-100:3 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta also acknowledged that this story would have reduced his punishment, because it asserted that the murder was committed out of anger rather than premeditated. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 185:25-186:5 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta explained that M. Rodriguez just wanted Armenta to take the blame, but had no part in drafting the letter or coming up with its story, although J. Montoya, before sending the letter to his lawyer, showed M. Rodriguez the letter. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 190:10-22 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta discussed what the letter should include with J. Montoya and T. Martinez, and said it took a couple months to draft. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 190:23-191:7 (Jacks, Armenta); id. at 192:3-6 (Jacks, Armenta). When he drafted the letter, Armenta did not have access to discovery and had not seen the video. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 192:10-16 (Jacks, Armenta). He admitted that he did not draft the letter out of his free will, as the letter states, but because M. Rodriguez pushed him to take the blame. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 193:14-194:10 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta acknowledged that M. Rodriguez did not threaten him, but explained that, when a violent, long-term SNM member asks a newer member to do something, he does it. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 193:14-194:10 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta said that he had no issue saying that this letter was the truth and that he would testify to its contents in court. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 220:23-221:5 (Jacks, Armenta).

         Armenta stated that he had a change of heart in February, 2015, a few weeks after Duran asked him what was most important to him; Armenta responded that his daughters and getting home to his family was his top priority, and always would be. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 100:11-102:2 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta explained that Duran was a government witness, that they were neighbors at the PNM North, and that they spoke every day for months. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 25:12-26:3 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta did not know at the time of the conversation, however, that Duran was cooperating. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 183:2-7 (Castellano, Armenta). After this conversation, Duran made a telephone call to “let the right people know to pull [Armenta] out of the pod and have a little chat with them, ” Feb. 9 Tr. at 102:6-8 (Armenta), and Armenta met with STIU officers, see Feb. 9 Tr. at 102:11-14 (Armenta). Armenta maintained that Duran did not tell him about the benefits he could receive as government witness. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 27:25-29:7 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta described that he met with the STIU, not to determine what benefits he could receive as a witness, but to determine if Duran was serious about sending him to the right people to whom he could reveal the truth of Molina's murder. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 30:18-24 (Jacks, Armenta); id. at 44:9-19 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta said that he was then transported to Southern New Mexico in June, 2015, with J. Montoya and M. Rodriguez, but Armenta was housed in yellow pod while J. Montoya and M. Rodriguez were housed in green pod. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 102:20-103:4 (Armenta). Armenta was housed next door to Herrera, and Herrera told Armenta that “[h]e had the say-so” with D. Sanchez; that he had confirmed that the “paperwork” was legitimate, and Molina should be moved on; and that Herrera had decided to send Armenta and J. Montoya to complete the “hit, ” because they had not yet “earned their bones.”[82] Feb. 9 Tr. at 109:10 (Armenta). See id. at 108:25-109:19 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta provided that his understanding was that Herrera was a “llavero” and could, with “paperwork, ” give orders. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 110:20-111:12 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta admitted that he did not bring up this conversation with Herrera until two to three weeks ago, when he met with Acee. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 114:18-115:22 (Maynard, Armenta).

         Armenta testified that he attended an interview with his lawyer, J. Montoya's lawyer, and the district attorney on September 1, 2015, and first disclosed the truth surrounding Molina's murder; then, on September 17, 2015, met with the Assistant United States Attorneys, FBI, STIU, and NM State Police, and disclosed the truth. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 103:9-104:6 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 174:7-18 (Jacks, Armenta); id. at 177:21-25 (Jacks, Armenta). At the first interview, Armenta believed that he said he was an SNM member and did not want to be one anymore, but, upon looking at the transcript, admitted that he said he was not an SNM member. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 176:10-15 (Jacks, Armenta); id. at 177:7-20 (Jacks, Armenta). At the September 17 interview, however, Armenta said he was an SNM member. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 178:1-4 (Jacks, Armenta). He disclosed in this second interview that D. Sanchez ordered him to kill Molina and that he could have been killed had he refused to kill Molina. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 173:21-174:3 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta also told law enforcement the names of those involved in passing Molina's “paperwork” and how it got to Southern New Mexico, and gave names of those involved in the Marcantel-murder conspiracy. Feb. 12 Tr. at 176:12-177:2 (Castellano, Armenta).

         Between the two meetings, Armenta wrote J. Montoya another letter to inform J. Montoya that he was going to tell the truth and to try to get J. Montoya to also tell the truth. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 105:2-8 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 105:19-106:1 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 221:10-20 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta wrote, “if it weren't for the amor of this onda, I would have had more time with her, ” Feb. 9 Tr. at 106:23-24 (Castellano), and explained that his daughter had surgery around this time, fell into a coma, and almost died; that “amor” means love; and “onda” refers to SNM, see Feb. 9 Tr. at 107:4-20 (Armenta, Castellano). Armenta said he was trying to explain that he was a father first and his gang membership meant less to him. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 153:16-25 (Jacks, Armenta). D. Sanchez had Armenta read out loud the letter and asked him clarifying questions. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 222:3-232:2 (Jacks, Armenta);[83] Feb 12. Tr. at 18:20-22:12 (Jacks, Armenta). NM Corrections Department officials, however, intercepted the letter before J. Montoya received it. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 108:11-22 (Armenta, Castellano). The meeting with the federal prosecutors, Armenta admitted, occurred before the federal indictment, but Armenta decided, after this meeting, to plead guilty to first-degree murder on the forthcoming federal charges, and became a government witness before the indictment came down. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 111:13-22 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 148:3-12 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta verified that, at this meeting with the federal authorities, he was told that he could face the death penalty or life imprisonment. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 108:16-21 (Maynard, Armenta). In October, 2015, Armenta was moved to Southern New Mexico to attend a court date in which he was going to plead guilty to the state charges. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 135:11-17 (Fox-Young, Armenta). Armenta admitted that he was offered a plea bargain in the state case, which allowed him to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter and face eighteen months to three years imprisonment, and thought he had made a favorable deal to settle the Molina murder charges. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 147:1-24 (Jacks, Armenta).

         Armenta stated that his state charges were dismissed in December, 2015, when the federal indictment came down. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 91:8-13 (Armenta, Castellano). He entered into a plea agreement in December, 2016, pleading guilty to conspiracy to murder, with a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment, and to murder, with a mandatory term of life imprisonment. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 112:1-3 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 112:15-25 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 114:5-8 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta admitted that, although he did not intend to kill Molina, he pled guilty to intentionally conspiring to murder and to murdering Molina, and that he is guilty of murdering Molina. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 58:17-60:23 (Jacks, Armenta); id. at 63:11 (Armenta). Armenta stated that J. Montoya, M. Rodriguez, D. Sanchez, Baca, and Herrera were also implicated in the conspiracy charge. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 113:4-8 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 113:19 (Armenta).[84] Armenta verified that, as part of his plea agreement, he waived his rights to appeal, unless his attorney was ineffective. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 114:25-115:9 (Castellano, Armenta). He admitted that he agreed, in his plea agreement, to testify truthfully and that, while the United States may move for the Court to reduce his sentence, the decision to depart downward is within the Court's discretion, and the Court will ultimately sentence him. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 115:18-116:19 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta would like the sentence reduction, and entered into the cooperation plea agreement with the hope that he would not receive a life sentence for Molina's murder. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 142:10-13 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 148:16-24 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta admitted that he has been doing what he can to avoid the full consequences of his involvement in Molina's murder. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 149:5-9 (Jacks, Armenta). He maintained that he killed Molina because D. Sanchez made him. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 150:15-18 (Jacks, Armenta).

         Armenta verified that he received benefits in the case, which included contact visits. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 137:3-6 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta described being able to hug and kiss his family in an eight-foot by eight-foot room, and admitted that he abused this privilege by engaging in oral sex with and fondling his fiancée, whom he met through Duran. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 137:11-138:23 (Castellano, Armenta); Feb. 12 Tr. at 70:6-16 (Jacks, Armenta). D. Sanchez played excerpted videos of two such inappropriate visits Armenta had with his fiancée, which occurred on November 5, 2016, and December 3, 2016. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 83:17-24 (Jacks, Armenta); id. at 85:4-17 (Jacks, Armenta). This touching violated the contact visit rules and, as a result, Armenta's contact visit privileges were terminated indefinitely. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 138:24-140:2 (Castellano, Armenta). He recalled being told on January 6, 2017, that his contact visits were terminated. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 87:18-21 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta also received money in his inmate account from August or September, 2016, until December, 2016, which he believed to be around $500.00 to $700.00 in total. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 140:12-141:5 (Castellano, Armenta). During cross-examination, D. Sanchez walked Armenta through the payments that he received, which totaled $750.00. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 65:10-66:4 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta said that, when the United States discovered his misconduct, his payments also stopped. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 171:3-4 (Castellano, Armenta). He said that his benefits also included unlimited telephone calls. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 141:15-16 (Castellano, Armenta).

         Armenta provided that he received a tablet containing the case's discovery, which contained information of which Armenta had not known, and contained information on other murders. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 116:20-117:8 (Castellano, Armenta). He said that he used the tablet almost daily, but that it was compromised in January, 2017, while he was at PNM North, because another cooperator had determined how to reset the tablets, so Armenta reset his tablet to play games and take pictures, which deleted the discovery from the tablet. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 117:14-118:23 (Castellano, Armenta).[85] Armenta explained that he could have reset his tablet in December, 2016, and that R.P. Martinez told him how to reset it. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 89:20-90:24 (Jacks, Armenta). R.P. Martinez also reset tablets for himself, F. Munoz, Clark, Archuleta, T. Martinez, and Rivera. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 151:25-153:17 (Duncan, Armenta). Armenta said that, at some point, he was moved to Sandoval County Detention, and discovered that he could use his tablet to access the internet and looked up pornography, and that this resulted in the tablet's confiscation in April, 2017. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 132:14-133:10 (Castellano, Armenta). Armenta also used the tablet to access Facebook to find pictures of his daughters. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 161:20-162:4 (Jacks, Armenta). D. Sanchez questioned Armenta about searches that Armenta conducted on Google to find pornography, which included the term “teen, ” but Armenta did not recall making such searches, maintained that he is not sexually interested in girls under eighteen, and said another inmate may have used his tablet. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 163:19-166:20 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta admitted to downloading pornographic materials onto his tablet so that he could watch them without an internet connection, but did not believe he had downloaded images of teenagers, because he only accessed adult sites. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 95:1-11 (Jacks, Armenta). He admitted to using drugs while at Sandoval County Detention, but maintained he did not use staff to obtain drugs. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 133:11-17 (Castellano, Armenta). The United States, however, introduced into evidence a note Armenta wrote to female inmates who worked in the kitchen, asking whether they could provide him Suboxone, and Armenta admitted to writing the note. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 134:3-10 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 134:15-17 (Court). Although this attempt to obtain Suboxone was unsuccessful, Armenta frequently used Suboxone in the facility in violation of its rules and the law. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 136:4-17 (Castellano, Armenta); id. at 100:16-101:3 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta said that T. Martinez was selling the Suboxone and that everybody was buying it. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 147:13-22 (Fox-Young, Armenta). He maintained that he last used Suboxone a month and a half ago, while housed at Otero County, and that he obtained the Suboxone from strangers who were not government witnesses. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 149:7-16 (Fox-Young, Armenta).

         During cross-examination, Armenta laid out his convictions in chronological order: (i) distribution of cocaine in 1999; (ii) distribution of cocaine in 2000; (iii) aggravated battery in 2006; (iv) two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor for conduct between August 1, 2011, and February 29, 2012; and (v) drug trafficking in 2014, which was the pending case against Armenta when he killed Molina. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 151:1-152:21 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta maintained that he “was there for” his family, despite never having held a real job to provide for them, and denied that he ever stole their money or possessions to support his drug addiction. Feb. 9 Tr. at 154:8-23 (Jacks, Armenta). Upon more probing, Armenta admitted that his contributing-to-the-delinquency-of-a-minor convictions stemmed from a plea bargain in which he avoided the original charge, sexual contact with a minor in which the victim was his ex-wife's older daughter, who was fourteen at the time. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 157:25-158:15 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta said that he did not use his position as the family's father to apply force to the girl's genitals and that she was not distraught over the conduct. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 158:16-25 (Jacks, Armenta). Upon D. Sanchez asking whether the girl removed her bedroom-door handle and slept with a hammer, Armenta explained that his ex-wife had him remove the door, because the girl was not listening to his ex-wife, and that the girl slept with a hammer, because she was hanging up photographs on nails. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 159:1-14 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta disputed that the girl was too traumatized to testify against him and maintained that they were both ready for court. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 159:18-21 (Jacks, Armenta). He admitted, however, that the girl and his ex-wife do not want to see him again, and he does not want to see his ex-wife again. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 159:22-160:9 (Jacks, Armenta).

         Armenta averred that the NM Corrections Department validated that he is an SNM member, and that, while his arrests for the sex offenses came after he joined the gang, SNM likely would have killed him had it found out that he was a sex offender -- but he maintained that he was not a sex offender. See Feb. 9 Tr. at 179:5-181:1 (Armenta, Jacks). Armenta, however, asserted that he wants to be a full, responsible participant in society. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 54:21-55:1 (Jacks, Armenta). D. Sanchez asked Armenta about another letter, and Armenta described that F. Munoz wrote the letter and that Armenta signed it along with four other government witnesses, requesting that the PNM warden allow them and their families to have a banquet. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 48:12-50:2 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta explained that the four other government-witness signatories are Clark, B. Cordova, R. Martinez, and F. Muñoz; that they had all been housed together since May, 2016; and that they sent the letter on August 26, 2016. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 51:2-25 (Jacks, Armenta). They requested that certain people be invited to the banquet, including members of the NM Corrections Department, law enforcement, and the prosecution team. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 52:7-19 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta said that this banquet request was granted and that they had a banquet on December 23, 2016. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 57:14-19 (Jacks, Armenta). Armenta conceded, however, that at that time, he was not acting in a way that demonstrated his desire to become a responsible member of society or his respect for corrections personnel. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 68:13-25 (Jacks, Armenta).

         Armenta allowed that, since he was housed with other government cooperators, they had the opportunity to put their stories together, but maintained that he never took that opportunity. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 111:13-20 (Maynard, Armenta). He asserted that he never discussed the case with any of the cooperators and that, if Clark. R. Martinez, or T. Martinez testified otherwise, they would be wrong. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 116:18-117:21 (Maynard, Armenta). Baca elicited all the government witnesses with which Armenta had been housed: Duncan, R. Martinez, R.P. Martinez, J. Montoya, Urquizo, Clark, Hernandez, F. Muñoz, someone Armenta only knew by his moniker “Flaco, ”[86] B. Cordova, T. Martinez, Archuleta, Rivera, Lujan, M. Montoya, Rubio, M. Rodriguez, Calbert, and Lovato. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 154:3-161:4 (Duncan, Armenta); id. at 162:10-163:7 (Duncan, Armenta); id. at 169:25-170:2 (Duncan, Armenta). The Court excused Armenta, subject to re-call, and admonished him not to talk to anybody about his testimony. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 184:3-7 (Court).

         s. Jorge Borjas' Testimony.

         The United States called its next witness, Borjas, a correctional officer at Southern New Mexico, a job he has held for four and a half years. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 184:21-22 (Castellano); id. at 185:16-25 (Castellano, Borjas). Borjas explained that he has served in three capacities as an officer: (i) in the control center, controlling movement in the unit, making a log of who enters and exits the unit, and overseeing rovers; (ii) as a rover, moving around the unit to ensure the inmates are alive and fed, doors are secured, and locks are locked; and (iii) most recently as a visitation officer, overseeing Levels 3, 4, and 6 visitations. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 186:11-22 (Borjas, Castellano). Borjas verified that the control officer's log also records the security checks and counts that occur in each unit. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 216:16-23 (Jacks, Borjas).[87]

         Borjas explained that he became a control officer in Unit 1-A in January, 2014, and agreed that R. Perez would rarely leave his cell. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 200:13-19 (Villa, Borjas). D. Sanchez showed Borjas' log from March 6, 2014, when he worked from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. in Unit 1-A, and Borjas verified that, at 7:47 p.m., new inmates were brought into yellow pod, and that it took eleven minutes for the rovers to place the new inmates into their cells. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 218:4-23 (Jacks, Borjas); id. at 221:25-223:8 (Jacks, Borjas). Borjas explained that, in his experience, the rovers place new inmates directly in their cells, and do not allow them to stop and chat with other inmates. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 226:19-227:13 (Jacks, Borjas). On March 7, 2014, from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Borjas served as the control officer in Unit 1-A, overseeing the green, blue, and yellow pods from the control center. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 187:4-16 (Castellano, Borjas); id. at 214:20-215:3 (Jacks, Borjas). On that date, Borjas had worked at Southern New Mexico for four months, on top of his two months in the Academy. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 191:20-192:4 (Castellano, Borjas). Borjas described that the control center is on the second level of the unit, from which he can clearly see each individual pod depending on his vantage point within the center. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 187:21-188:12 (Castellano, Borjas). Borjas related his view of the pods, with green on the left, blue in the middle, and yellow on the right, and that he could see all three simultaneously, with an obstructed view, by standing on one side. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 187:21-188:12 (Castellano, Borjas). Borjas verified that the pods have cameras, but explained that he could not see them from the control center and could not tell whether they were working. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 192:5-12 (Castellano, Borjas). He explained that inmates tend to pass notes between the pods' inner door and stand at the door talking to each other. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 192:18-22 (Castellano, Borjas); id. at 193:9-10 (Borjas). Borjas said that, by the time a correctional officer gets to the pod to intercept a note, the note is gone. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 234:6-10 (Castellano, Borjas). Borjas did not recall specific instances of note-passing or talking in March, 2014, and verified that such activity would not be recorded in the log. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 193:19-23 (Castellano, Borjas); id. at 239:9-13 (Castellano, Borjas).

         Borjas explained that he would observe, but not log, when an inmate entered another inmate's cell. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 253:23-254:6 (Villa, Borjas). Borjas said that, on March 7, 2014, he did not see M. Rodriguez enter R. Perez' cell, and noted that the cell doors are normally closed. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 254:10-23 (Villa, Borjas). Borjas maintained that, if another inmate wanted to go into R. Perez' cell, Borjas would not open the door. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 254:24-255:15 (Villa, Borjas). Borjas explained that if an inmate locked in his cell wanted out, usually the inmate would flash the cell's lights, and Borjas would open the door. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 255:19-256:1 (Villa, Borjas).

         Borjas recalled that, a little after 5:00 p.m. on March 7, 2014, Officer Price walked through the pods with a nurse, conducting rounds and passing out medication. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 188:24-189:5 (Castellano, Borjas). Borjas could not recall whether the rovers and the nurse entered R. Perez' cell to provide him medication, but Borjas verified that they provided R. Perez medication. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 198:13-20 (Villa, Borjas). Borjas remembered that they entered yellow pod after leaving blue pod, and, as Borjas stood between the two pods, he looked over to blue pod and noticed a blood-covered Molina running out of his cell. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 189:6-190:10 (Castellano, Borjas). Borjas recalled that he opened Molina's cell door, because Molina showed Borjas his bowl, which Borjas explained was a sign that Molina wanted to go back into his cell to get soup. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 190:11-191:2 (Castellano, Borjas). Borjas said that he was watching his rovers in yellow pod for security purposes, because there were two rovers and a nurse in a pod with sixteen inmates who were out of their cells, so he did not see anybody besides Molina entering his cell. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 191:3-16 (Castellano, Borjas). Blue pod, Borjas described, had eleven inmates that day. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 191:17-19 (Castellano, Borjas).

         Upon seeing Molina covered in blood, Borjas banged on the window facing yellow pod to get his rovers' attention and to inform them that something was happening in blue pod, and he saw Price go over to the blue pod door. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 194:2-19 (Castellano, Borjas). Borjas grabbed his shotgun filled with bean-bag shells and saw an altercation in blue pod, but could not shoot the shotgun to stop the altercation, because of the angle. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 194:20-195:22 (Castellano, Borjas). Borjas described that the window had a hole through which to put the shotgun, but the hole was only two to three inches, so he could not point the shotgun to where the altercation was occurring directly below him. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 196:6-21 (Castellano, Borjas). Borjas said that the altercation stopped when Price began giving directives through the door and then when backup arrived Borjas opened the pod door. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 197:1-15 (Castellano, Borjas). When Borjas opened the door, he saw Molina lying on the floor. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 208:21-209:9 (Jacks, Borjas). Borjas saw the nurse tend to Molina and the backup officers go through each pod, placing the inmates on lockdown. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 209:10-21 (Jacks, Borjas). Borjas said that the backup officers had brought a gurney into the blue pod, so they placed Molina on it and brought him to the infirmary. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 210:13-24 (Jacks, Borjas). The Court excused Borjas, subject to re-call. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 259:3-7 (Court).

         t. Jerry Montoya's Testimony.

         The United States next called J. Montoya, who appeared in custody. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 260:3-4 (Beck); id. at 347:18-19 (J. Montoya). J. Montoya described himself as an ex-SNM member, and stated that he joined the gang around the year 2000, at the Bernalillo County Detention Center. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 260:20-261:5 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya said that he was in prison for a gang-related murder, and that he gravitated to SNM because his cousins were already members. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 263:1-10 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya said that he was nineteen years old at the time of the murder, during which he shot a 12-gauge shotgun, but that the other shooter shot the seventeen-year-old victim. See Transcript of Jury Trial Volume 12 at 20:4-21 (taken February 13, 2018)(Jewkes, J. Montoya), filed February 22, 2019 (Doc. 2528)(“Feb. 13 Tr.”); id. at 35:7-8 (Duncan, J. Montoya). His other, unrelated convictions include solicitation to bring contraband into prison and possession of a controlled substance. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 36:13-37:8 (Duncan, J. Montoya).

         J. Montoya described that he demonstrated early his willingness to work for SNM by assaulting two rival gang members at the county prison, elaborating that while Archuleta ordered him to do the first assault, he did the second assault on his own volition. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 261:22-262:17 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya admitted that he committed this second assault because the victim was a rival gang member, and because the victim was a co-defendant in his murder case and had made a statement against him to law enforcement. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 38:10-22 (Duncan, J. Montoya). J. Montoya recalled SNM's leaders at the time as A. Muñoz and Archuleta. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 265:7-10 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya said that, to join SNM, he had to produce his “paperwork, ” meaning the judgment and sentence, and plea bargain, to show that he did not have a sex offense and the time he had left to serve. Feb. 12 Tr. at 265:22-266:5 (Beck, J. Montoya). He described certain SNM rules: no “snitching” or “ratting, ” and being willing to “put in violent work” for the gang. Feb. 12 Tr. at 265:18-21 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya admitted that a rumor that an SNM member had “snitched” would get that member killed. Feb. 12 Tr. at 387:8-14 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). J. Montoya described that, if challenged, an SNM leader is expected to defend his position. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 317:16-24 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya went over his SNM-related crimes, admitting to assaulting a third rival gang member, conspiring with A.A. Garcia to bring drugs into a correctional facility, smuggling drugs into a prison through his girlfriend, and sharing drugs with other SNM members. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 266:24-268:24 (Beck, J. Montoya). He could not recall committing any other crimes for SNM before Molina's murder. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 268:25-269:4 (Beck, J. Montoya).

         J. Montoya described using and selling Suboxone in prison, before Molina's murder, to have money when he got out -- amassing close to $5, 000.00. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 269:7-270:1 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya likened Suboxone's effects to those of alcohol, stating that it is similar to having a buzz, but that it lasts all day and that he still had control over what he was doing. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 270:11-23 (Beck, J. Montoya). In October, 2010, J. Montoya moved to Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 359:11-14 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). He explained that he had a conversation about his future with Baca in the yellow pod at Southern New Mexico at this time, when J. Montoya had two or three years left on his sentence and was getting ready to parole out. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 311:3-312:12 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya understood Baca to be SNM's top leader at that time. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 310:20-23 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya told Baca about himself and how he was selling drugs on the streets, and Baca responded: “You know, when you get out, you could do good things for the onda, for the SNM, for the gang. I could put you to work to be a treasurer; you know, collect money, sell dope for the clique.” Feb. 12 Tr. at 312:21-25 (J. Montoya). See id. at 312:15-21 (J. Montoya). J. Montoya described that he “was all for it at that time.” Feb. 12 Tr. at 313:1-2 (J. Montoya). He noted that, at that time, he understood Rubio and others in green pod to be unhappy with Baca's rules and leadership, and that, therefore, Baca felt Rubio was challenging his position. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 330:6-17 (Beck, J. Montoya). In Baca's cell in blue pod, at Southern New Mexico, J. Montoya and Baca spoke about this dispute, and Baca requested that J. Montoya and Chris Trujillo wrap his stomach area in books and magazines. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 330:18-331:14 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya explained that Baca had a shank in his left knee brace and was preparing to go outside to phone yard, so that Baca could attack Rubio who was at recreation, but that Baca and Rubio talked and overcame their disagreement. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 331:14-332:18 (J. Montoya, Beck).

         J. Montoya described that, on March 7, 2014, M. Rodriguez approached him in the pod shortly after count ended at 5:00 p.m., brought him into his cell at Southern New Mexico -- cell 113, pulled out a shank, and told him: “It's time to put in work.” Feb. 12 Tr. at 286:5 (J. Montoya). See id. at 285:18-286:24 (Beck, J. Montoya); id. at 290:1-3 (Beck, J. Montoya); id. at 294:19-24 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya understood M. Rodriguez' statement to mean that it was time for J. Montoya to stab somebody. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 288:16-19 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya described that, when M. Rodriguez came into his cell with the shank, he threw up his hands to show he was not armed, but did not recall whether he thought M. Rodriguez was after him. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 365:5-12 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). M. Rodriguez told him that the shank came off R. Perez' walker. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 292:2-7 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya recalled asking questions, and that M. Rodriguez explained that J. Montoya, with Armenta, would “hit” Molina in Molina's cell, because there was “paperwork” on Molina and his cell is a blind spot. Feb. 12 Tr. at 286:25-287:4 (J. Montoya). See id. at 287:10-18 (J. Montoya). J. Montoya described asking to see Molina's “paperwork” and that M. Rodriguez said he no longer had it, but that he and D. Sanchez read it, and it is legitimate. Feb. 12 Tr. at 287:5-9 (J. Montoya). J. Montoya had also asked to cover the cameras, so they would not catch him and Armenta entering Molina's cell, but M. Rodriguez said that D. Sanchez does not want the cameras covered, because D. Sanchez wanted to be caught, on camera, not having anything to do with the murder. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 287:19- 288:4 (J. Montoya). J. Montoya described M. Rodriguez and D. Sanchez as his “big homies, ” so he trusted that they would not send him on the mission without it being valid. Feb. 12 Tr. at 288:23-289:3 (J. Montoya). J. Montoya recalled that M. Rodriguez also described that M. Rodriguez and T. Martinez would lure Molina to his cell under the guise of shooting Suboxone, and T. Martinez would knock out Molina, and then Armenta and J. Montoya would enter the cell, and finish Molina. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 291:17-292:1 (J. Montoya).

         After this conversation, J. Montoya exited his cell with M. Rodriguez and walked halfway with him to the commons area, but returned to his cell to change into his green prison uniform and place the shank into his sock. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 292:8-20 (Beck, J. Montoya). As J. Montoya was changing, D. Sanchez entered his cell, asking if M. Rodriguez had told J. Montoya what was going on, and telling J. Montoya to get it done and to be careful. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 293:7-18 (J. Montoya, Beck). They shook hands, then exited J. Montoya's cell and walked to the common area. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 294:2-6 (Beck, J. Montoya). The United States then played the video of the incident, and had J. Montoya describe what he was doing at various points in the video. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 294:7-304:23 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya and Armenta conversed on the top tier, but all J. Montoya recalled was asking what they should do and telling Armenta: “It's either him or us.” Feb. 12 Tr. at 297:18 (J. Montoya). See id. at 297:16-22 (J. Montoya). J. Montoya said that T. Martinez, M. Rodriguez, and Molina entered Molina's cell before J. Montoya entered Molina's cell, under the guise of using drugs. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 9:20-10:6 (Jewkes, J. Montoya). J. Montoya remembered looking into Molina's cell and seeing Molina mixing Suboxones in a spoon as T. Martinez came up from behind to strangle him. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 10:21-11:1 (J. Montoya). J. Montoya then followed Armenta into Molina's cell, and saw T. Martinez choking Molina while M. Rodriguez held down Molina's hands, so Molina could not get out of the chokehold. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 298:23-299:11 (J. Montoya, Beck). J. Montoya said that, after Molina lost consciousness, T. Martinez laid him to the ground on his back and stomped on his head three times. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 394:16-20 (J. Montoya);[88] Feb. 13 Tr. at 12:14-20 (Jewkes, J. Montoya); id. at 34:10-24 (Duncan, J. Montoya). J. Montoya described that T. Martinez let go and left, and J. Montoya positioned himself above a passed-out Molina's waist, stabbing Molina in the chest area about twenty times. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 299:20-301:4 (J. Montoya, Beck). J. Montoya verified that Molina was stabbed over forty times, and believed he was responsible for half of the stabs. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 366:21-25 (J. Montoya, Fox-Young).

         J. Montoya disputed that he was in a state of rage, explaining that his mind was blank and was just trying to complete the order. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 14:11-19 (Jewkes, J. Montoya). J. Montoya admitted that Molina was stabbed in the heart, but did not know whether he or Armenta was responsible for that wound. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 367:6-18 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). While J. Montoya and Armenta were stabbing Molina, Molina regained consciousness, stood up, and told J. Montoya to stay away. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 301:9-15 (J. Montoya). J. Montoya recalled that M. Rodriguez yelled that they called the code, so J. Montoya tried to hand M. Rodriguez his shank, so M. Rodriguez could get rid of it pursuant to the plan, but M. Rodriguez would not take it, and then Molina pressed his way out of the cell. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 301:16-22 (J. Montoya); id. at 302:16-21 (J. Montoya). Molina, J. Montoya explained, was headed to the exit door to get help. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 15:20-23 (Jewkes, J. Montoya). M. Rodriguez told J. Montoya to get Molina, which J. Montoya took to mean to continue stabbing Molina, so he followed Molina to stab him more. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 302:7-12 (J. Montoya); id. at 302:22-303:2 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya said that he hid the shank from the camera as he continued stabbing Molina, and then flung his shank up to M. Rodriguez on the top tier, so that M. Rodriguez could get rid of it. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 303:10-304:8 (Beck, J. Montoya); id. at 321:22-322:1 (Beck, J. Montoya). He verified that the shank was straight, not bent, when he stabbed Molina. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 322:13-17 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya explained that he then went to his cell to change clothes. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 304:14-20 (Beck, J. Montoya).

         J. Montoya verified that he killed Molina, but maintained that he did not have personal issues with Molina and had been playing handball earlier that day with Molina as his partner. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 304:24-305:9 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya believed that he had lived with Molina in blue pod for about a year, that they were cordial, and that, while Molina “was a knucklehead, ” he got along with others. Feb. 13 Tr. at 17:14 (J. Montoya); id. at 17:6-15 (Jewkes, J. Montoya). J. Montoya explained that Molina could be disrespectful, “mouthy, ” and disruptive, which caused some problems for him, and that the other inmates did not particularly like him. Feb. 13 Tr. at 18:10-19:9 (Jewkes, J. Montoya). J. Montoya said that he did not consume any drugs the day before or the day of Molina's murder. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 270:24-271:3 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya maintained that he did not call Urquizo's brother with M. Rodriguez to ask about “hitting” Molina, and that, if Urquizo said that J. Montoya and M. Rodriguez together called Urquizo's brother, then he was mistaken. Feb. 12 Tr. at 360:22-361:3 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya); id. at 365:2-4 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). J. Montoya maintained that he did not see M. Rodriguez kick or stomp on Molina at any point throughout the assault. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 15:5-16 (Jewkes, J. Montoya).

         On March 8, 2014, J. Montoya called Ernie Holguin to speak with him, and told Holguin where shanks were located in blue pod, a call that would have gotten J. Montoya in trouble with SNM. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 369:1-12 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya); id. at 371:2-372:1 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). J. Montoya said that he did not talk much about the murder in this conversation. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 372:4-11 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). He told Holguin to pull video of the incident, because it would show D. Sanchez and M. Rodriguez reviewing “paperwork” while sitting at a table. Feb. 13 Tr. at 74:20-75:3 (Duncan, J. Montoya). He did not mention R. Perez, saying that R. Perez did not cross his mind. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 372:19-24 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). On March 25, 2014, Palomares and another NM State Police officer interviewed J. Montoya at Southern New Mexico, and J. Montoya found out that there was a video of the murder, but he did not discuss the day's events very much and was fishing for a deal. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 381:1-382:19 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya); id. at 67:22-68:1 (Duncan, J. Montoya). J. Montoya, in an attempt to gain favor, told them the names of others involved whom the video does not implicate, but did not mention R. Perez' name, because he did not care from where the shanks came. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 383:6-384:15 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). Despite telling the officers that he wanted to cooperate, however, J. Montoya rejected two offers of a deal, explaining that his loyalties still aligned with SNM. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 69:15-25 (Duncan, J. Montoya).

         J. Montoya recalled a conversation he had with D. Sanchez a few weeks before Molina's murder, in the blue pod -- where D. Sanchez was the “llavero” -- in which J. Montoya told D. Sanchez that he wanted an SNM tattoo and D. Sanchez complained that there were SNM members in that pod who had not earned their right to the SNM tattoo. Feb. 12 Tr. at 305:14-306:17 (Beck, J. Montoya). See id. at 309:21-23 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya explained that D. Sanchez was tired of SNM members getting the tattoo without earning it, and allowing rival gang members who were accidently placed in the pod to enter protective custody without a scratch. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 307:5-308:4 (J. Montoya, Beck). D. Sanchez also said that SNM members who were not willing to use a shank and receive more prison time for SNM should just leave the unit. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 308:14-309:4 (J. Montoya, Beck).[89] J. Montoya believed that, while he was at Southern New Mexico, Rubio was green pod's “llavero” and believed Clark was also influential. Feb. 12 Tr. at 321:11-16 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya did not recall conflict with M. Rodriguez at that time, but admitted that he was probably scared of M. Rodriguez, who had a reputation for being “annoying, ” “aggressive, ” “unpredictable, ” and “scary.” Feb. 12 Tr. at 362:6-363:8 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). J. Montoya thought he was in good favor with SNM at the time, but verified that others, including M. Rodriguez, thought differently. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 363:9-20 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). J. Montoya explained that M. Rodriguez would make fun of himself for his criminal sexual penetration charge, and that he had heard rumors that M. Rodriguez' victim was a sex offender or rapist. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 70:3-16 (Duncan, J. Montoya); id. at 72:20-73:4 (Duncan, J. Montoya).

         J. Montoya related that the state charged him with Molina's murder, but those charges were dropped when the federal government brought federal charges against him. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 271:4-12 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya stated that Armenta, T. Martinez, and M. Rodriguez were also charged in the state case. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 77:14-17 (Beck, J. Montoya). Armenta wrote J. Montoya a letter in January, 2015, to give to J. Montoya's lawyer, in which Armenta took responsibility for Molina's murder. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 314:22-315:4 (Beck, J. Montoya); Feb. 13 Tr. at 47:2-4 (Duncan, J. Montoya). J. Montoya was surprised by the letter because he did not ask Armenta to write it, but he explained that M. Rodriguez told J. Montoya of his idea that Armenta should take the fall. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 315:5-20 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya explained that M. Rodriguez also did not tell Armenta to write the letter, but had just told Armenta to somehow take responsibility for Molina's murder. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 21:24-22:13 (Jewkes, J. Montoya). Armenta wrote the letter around the time that J. Montoya was transported to the PNM North, where he was housed with Armenta, T. Martinez, and M. Rodriguez. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 375:13-376:10 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya); id. at 377:2-4 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya); id. at 21:16-20 (Jewkes, J. Montoya). J. Montoya spoke with them about the case, the murder, and the letter after it was written, but he maintained that they did not discuss cooperating. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 377:5-24 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). J. Montoya would also communicate in the yard with B. Cordova and Duran, who were housed at PNM. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 379:11-380:3 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya).

         J. Montoya verified that the letter's account of events -- that Armenta killed Molina out of anger and without Montoya's assistance -- was false, but that J. Montoya gave it to his lawyer and said that it was true, because it was potentially a way for J. Montoya to avoid significantly more prison time. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 316:19-317:15 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya wrote his attorney a letter, telling her about Armenta's letter and stating that J. Montoya wanted to hand deliver it, and requesting that his attorney interview Armenta, Wright, and T. Martinez, because J. Montoya expected that they would corroborate Armenta's letter and state that J. Montoya was not involved in Molina's murder. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 41:20-43:14 (Duncan, J. Montoya). J. Montoya explained that he wrote this letter to gain his freedom, because he did not want to be incarcerated or serve a life sentence for Molina's murder. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 81:24-82:14 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya admitted that such statements were false, but that he did not understand, at the time, that giving false testimony in court is a crime. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 43:15-23 (Duncan, J. Montoya). J. Montoya verified that his attorney filed Armenta's letter with the state court, asking the court to grant Armenta immunity so that he would not be prosecuted for his testimony, and that the court granted this immunity. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 45:18-46:8 (Duncan, J. Montoya). J. Montoya also gave his attorney a false statement that T. Martinez wrote on J. Montoya's behalf, dated November 3, 2014. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 46:18-20 (Duncan, J. Montoya); id. at 47:23-48:9 (Duncan, J. Montoya). His attorney presented a separate, false statement from T. Martinez to the state court and requested immunity in exchange for Martinez' testifying on J. Montoya's behalf, which the court granted. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 49:3-18 (Duncan, J. Montoya). J. Montoya's attorney did the same thing with a false statement that M. Rodriguez provided, but the state court denied M. Rodriguez immunity to testify. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 50:8-23 (Duncan, J. Montoya); id. at 52:9-11 (Duncan, J. Montoya).

         At some point, J. Montoya learned that D. Sanchez had put out a “hit” on him, so he decided to work with the government. Feb. 13 Tr. at 27:4-14 (Jewkes, J. Montoya). Accordingly, he told the gang unit at PNM that he wanted to work with them. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 27:18-22 (Jewkes, J. Montoya). J. Montoya pled guilty to Molina's murder in the federal case on January 27, 2017. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 271:13-15 (Beck, J. Montoya); id. at 272:21-23 (Beck, J. Montoya); id. at 355:4-6 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). J. Montoya admitted that the United States could file a motion on his behalf for a downward departure in his sentence, if he continues to cooperate and tell the truth, but that the Court would make the final sentencing decision. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 273:5-274:3 (Beck, J. Montoya). R. Perez played a second telephone call recording, in which J. Montoya said that people from the United States would talk on his behalf at his sentencing, but J. Montoya said he made this statement up, again to provide hope. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 357:15-358:1 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). J. Montoya asserted that the United States did not make him promises regarding his sentence and noted that he pled to a life sentence. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 348:1-3 (J. Montoya); id. at 349:1-5 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). In response to this testimony, R. Perez played a call in which J. Montoya told his then-wife that he pled to a maximum sentence of ten years, but J. Montoya said he lied to give her some hope. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 352:14-353:2 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). He began to cooperate in January, 2017, and was surprised to learn he had been paid $1, 124.31, believing the amount to be $800.00, but he admitted to having one contact visit and that he was recently closed as an informant. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 274:4-275:5 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya said that he did not receive extra calls or better living conditions, explaining that he is in segregation and does not get anything extra. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 347:13-19 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). He maintained that he has lost more than he has received, having lost friendships, security, his wife, physical property, and eighteen years of family photographs, but that cooperating is worth the losses. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 29:2-11 (J. Montoya, Jewkes). J. Montoya said that he does not expect to gain anything from testifying, and is just in court to do the right thing and to tell the truth. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 32:20-33:3 (J. Montoya, Jewkes).

         J. Montoya admitted to using drugs while cooperating, describing that, while housed at Sandoval County Detention, he used Suboxone and smoked marijuana, which other cooperators, including R.P. Martinez and Clark, provided. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 2756-25 (Beck, J. Montoya). He would use Suboxone whenever it was available. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 2767-9 (Beck, J. Montoya). His girlfriend brought Suboxone and a cellular telephone into Lea County Correctional for J. Montoya, who split the Suboxone with fellow cooperator Richard Gallegos, and he used the cellular telephone to call and to text his girlfriend, to exchange photographs, including nude photographs, and to watch YouTube and pornography. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 27719-28022 (Beck, J. Montoya). Such activities were not allowed and, while J. Montoya did not notify the United States at the time what he was doing, he told the government two to three weeks ago. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 27610-18 (Beck, J. Montoya); id. at 2809-18 (Beck, J. Montoya). His girlfriend, J. Montoya described, was a correctional officer at Lea County Correctional, which is how they met, and J. Montoya admitted to having sex with her three times while incarcerated, which is also against the rules. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 281:1-282:3 (Beck, J. Montoya). He verified that she has been fired, because of what she did for him. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 335:22-336:1 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). J. Montoya therefore did not reveal the truth about the drugs, cellular telephone, and his relationship with this correctional officer until his meeting with Mr. Beck on February 3, 2018, and did not tell the truth at their earlier, January 22, 2018, meeting because he did not want to get his girlfriend in trouble or jeopardize their relationship. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 284:13-285:7 (Beck, J. Montoya); id. at 344:22-345:3 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). At the January 22, 2018, meeting, J. Montoya told Mr. Beck that the cellular telephone belonged to his cell mate, R. Gallegos, and that R. Gallegos had received it from a friend named Pate. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 55:18-56:9 (Duncan, J. Montoya). J. Montoya's providing Mr. Beck false information about his criminal activity to protect his girlfriend, he admitted, violated his plea agreement and, thus, the United States has the right to rescind it. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 88:12-23 (Duncan, J. Montoya); id. at 89:8-23 (Duncan, J. Montoya). He admitted that the cellular telephone, drugs, and drug paraphernalia had been found before he told the United States about this misconduct. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 340:6-25 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). He also admitted that there was cocaine and Xanax in the facility, but disputed that there was methamphetamine. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 342:1-8 (J. Montoya, Fox-Young). J. Montoya admitted that both he and his girlfriend are facing criminal charges for bringing contraband into prison, and that she faces charges for having sex with him, an inmate. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 56:22-57:13 (Duncan, J. Montoya). He denied that she was pregnant with his baby, allowing that she may have been without his knowledge, see Feb. 12 Tr. at 337:18-338:6 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya), but Baca presented him a letter he wrote in which he told his girlfriend: “Look at us now, we're pregnant” and “[n]ow to find out that you're going to have my child just made us eternal.” Feb. 13 Tr. at 61:17-18, 22-24 (Duncan). See id. at 61:8-62:1 (Duncan, J. Montoya). He then admitted that he previously said that his girlfriend was pregnant, but believed that she was no longer pregnant. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 62:17-23 (Duncan, J. Montoya).

         J. Montoya described that, sometime after the case's indictment, but before October, 2016, he had a conversation with R. Perez while they were housed together at the Torrance County Detention Facility (“Torrance County Detention”). See Feb. 12 Tr. at 323:10-16 (Beck, J. Montoya); id. at 392:1-13 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). In this conversation, R. Perez told J. Montoya that he offered his walker to be fashioned into shanks for Molina's murder, because he was not in good health and this action was how he could contribute to SNM. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 325:12-19 (Beck, J. Montoya). J. Montoya understood R. Perez' providing metal for the shanks to be his way of justifying his SNM membership. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 325:22-326:6 (J. Montoya, Beck).[90] R. Perez also told J. Montoya that he gave the metal to M. Rodriguez. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 335:2-6 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). J. Montoya admitted that he first disclosed this conversation to the government at their meeting on January 22, 2018, although he believed that he had disclosed it earlier. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 333:24-334:10 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). He explained that he revealed this information when Mr. Beck specifically asked whether any of the four First Trial Defendants told him anything about Molina's murder. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 76:14-17 (Beck); id. at 76:23 (J. Montoya). J. Montoya described that he first met R. Perez when R. Perez was moved to Southern New Mexico's blue pod, and verified that R. Perez was sick and used a walker to get around. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 359:18-360:13 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya).

         Sometime in January, 2017, J. Montoya met with Acee, Ms. Armijo, Mr. Castellano, and Mr. Beck, and disclosed, in his words, “everything I know about the Molina case, ” and “[t]hings that I knew of that the SNM had done.” Feb. 12 Tr. at 386:11-12, 15-16 (J. Montoya). See id. at 385:23-386:8 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). He disclosed at this meeting that he had asked M. Rodriguez where the shanks came from, and that M. Rodriguez had responded that he took them from R. Perez' walker. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 387:15-24 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). J. Montoya did not recall telling the government that R. Perez was scared, but remembered relaying that M. Rodriguez told him that R. Perez was concerned that he was the target. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 388:6-24 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya). J. Montoya admitted that he did not, however, mention at that meeting or later when he pled guilty that R. Perez volunteered to help in Molina's murder. See Feb. 12 Tr. at 390:20-23 (Fox-Young, J. Montoya).

         J. Montoya could not recall how many false statements that he has given in this case, but maintained that those false statements have mostly pertained to the events at Lea County Correctional and that he has been truthful about the murder. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 29:12-21 (Jewkes, J. Montoya). After the murder, however, he faced disciplinary proceedings, and requested that Armenta and T. Martinez be witnesses for him, because he expected that they would untruthfully deny that they saw J. Montoya assault Molina or whether they saw J. Montoya with a shank. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 53:7-54:14 (Duncan, J. Montoya).

         J. Montoya described that he read the first part of this case's discovery, but that he shattered his tablet's screen at Lea County Correctional and, thus, has not seen any of the new discovery. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 31:3-10 (Jewkes, J. Montoya); id. at 76:24-77:3 (Beck, J. Montoya). He said that he knew what Armenta would likely testify, because they are co-Defendants, but that he never discussed with T. Martinez or M. Rodriguez what they would say, and did not read any discovery on them. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 31:11-32:3 (Jewkes, J. Montoya). The Court allowed J. Montoya to step down, subject to re-call, and reminded him not to discuss his testimony with anybody. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 92:9-14 (Court).

         u. Rogelio Fierro's Testimony.

         The United States next called Fierro, who is a correctional officer at Southern New Mexico, where he began working in November, 2012. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 92:19-20 (Beck); id. at 93:13-94:8 (Beck, Fierro). Fierro described that he was working as a rover on March 7, 2014, in Unit 4-A or 4-B at Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 94:19-95:14 (Beck, Fierro). At some point, around 5:00 p.m. that day, he received a radio call that there was a stabbing in Unit 1-A, blue pod, so he went to that pod and waited outside the front door for backup. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 95:15-96:7 (Beck, Fierro). Once the pod-door opened, Fierro entered the blue pod and saw Molina on the floor near the door, and went through the pod to lock down inmates. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 96:8-12 (Beck, Fierro). He had no recollection whether R. Perez was outside his cell. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 104:9-22 (Villa, Fierro). Fierro described that he then went upstairs to look for evidence, and that he found blood and water droplets going into either cell 110 or 111, which he told the sergeant, and was called to the infirmary to accompany Molina on the ambulance. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 96:18-24 (Fierro).

         Fierro said that people attempted CPR on Molina in the infirmary, but Fierro did not do so in the infirmary, because he wanted to save his energy should he have to perform CPR in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 97:10-23 (Beck, Fierro). When the EMTs arrived ten to fifteen minutes later, Fierro entered the ambulance with another corrections officer, and they continued CPR while the EMTs took Molina's vital signs. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 98:3-20 (Beck, Fierro). Fierro described administering CPR for the entirety of the fifteen-minute ride to the hospital, that Molina was unconscious the entire time, and that Molina was bleeding profusely. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 99:20-100:8 (Beck, Fierro). Fierro said that nurses were waiting at the hospital for their arrival and took Molina inside to the emergency room, but that, within a few seconds, the doctor stepped inside and pronounced Molina deceased. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 100:19-101:12 (Beck, Fierro). Fierro said that he called Southern New Mexico and updated his supervisor, who told Fierro to stay with Molina until he was moved to the morgue. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 102:4-10 (Beck, Fierro). Fierro described that, after watching the medical examiner clean, count, and photograph Molina's wounds, he escorted Molina to the morgue, grabbed Molina's belongings, and returned to Southern New Mexico around 10:30 p.m. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 102:11-103:11 (Beck, Fierro). The Court excused Fierro from the proceedings. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 106:21-23 (Court).

         v. Timothy Martinez' Testimony.

         The United States next called T. Martinez, who was in custody.[91] See Feb. 13 Tr. at 107:2-3 (Armijo); id. at116:9-11 (T. Martinez); id. at 218:23-219:5 (T. Martinez, Armijo). T. Martinez described that he graduated from high school and was never part of a street gang. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 116:18-22 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He maintained that he was considered a jock and a cowboy in high school, explaining that he was in the Honor Society and excelled in sports. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 116:23-117:5 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez stated that he joined the United States Marines Corps after graduation, but he was discharged, neither honorably nor dishonorably, for striking an officer and that, after the discharge, his life took a downward turn as he became a heavy drug-user. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 117:8-118:4 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 283:22-284:7 (T. Martinez). He explained that his first conviction was for possession with intent to distribute, but, because he received probation for that conviction, he was first imprisoned at age twenty-one for an armed robbery conviction. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 114:6-115:5 (Armijo, T. Martinez). Another felony conviction, T. Martinez proffered, earned him twelve and a half years of incarceration, and he explained that these three convictions occurred before he joined SNM. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 116:4-17 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He admitted also to convictions for attempted aggravated burglary, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer, and false imprisonment. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 281:22-282:9 (Jewkes, T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez related that he joined SNM in March, 2009, while incarcerated at PNM South, and that A.A. Garcia, Zamora, and B. Cordova recruited him. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 110:23-111:18 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez explained that the unit in which he lived at PNM South was primarily an SNM unit, so he lived with SNM members. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 118:12-23 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez described SNM as “a violent criminal organization . . . that's running the New Mexico prison system, ” explaining that it is “known for its fear and . . . [is] also on the streets of New Mexico.” Feb. 13 Tr. at 111:20-25 (T. Martinez). Its objective, T. Martinez stated, “is to be the best in the criminal world, pretty much, of New Mexico.” Feb. 13 Tr. at 112:12-14 (T. Martinez). T. Martinez described SNM's structure as that of a military, with captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and soldiers, and that he was a soldier. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 112:15-25 (Armijo, T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez said that he was known in SNM for drugs. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 113:5-6 (T. Martinez). He explained that he would smuggle heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and Suboxone into prison, so he gained a reputation for being a drug dealer. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 119:1-12 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 19-21 (T. Martinez). T. Martinez asserted that he is not a drug user, but did rarely use drugs. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 119:13-16 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He described that he would rather have money and live well than use drugs, so he would sell the drugs which he smuggled into the prison for a profit, and would send the money home to take care of his wife at the time or use the money in the prison canteen. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 119:22-120:10 (Armijo, T. Martinez).

         In June or July, 2011, T. Martinez moved to Southern New Mexico from PNM South. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 122:19-123:10 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He believed that he first met Baca in 2013, at Southern New Mexico, and knew Baca to be the head or -- in military terms -- the general, of the entire SNM. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 124:2-15 (Armijo, T. Martinez). At that time, T. Martinez described, the pod operated on tier time, where the top tier is locked down when the bottom tier is out, and the bottom tier is locked down when the top tier is out. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 124:19-125:3 (Armijo, T. Martinez). As Baca lived on the bottom tier and T. Martinez lived on the top tier, T. Martinez related that he only occasionally spoke with Baca. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 124:19-125:3 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez verified that Baca revealed his plans for SNM, and described Baca's desire to move SNM forward and repair the factions within the gang by setting it up like the Zia symbol, and allowing counties to have their own sergeant. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 125:11-126:1 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez said that he bought into Baca's plan, because he looked up to Baca and wanted to see SNM grow. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 126:15-127:4 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He admitted to having supplied Baca with Suboxone. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 127:5-7 (Armijo, T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez said that he was “very good friends” with Molina and also knew D. Sanchez. Feb. 13 Tr. at 132:5 (T. Martinez). See id. at 132:4-8 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez explained that D. Sanchez was moved to Southern New Mexico and that they were housed in the same pod. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 133:1-11 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez said that he has had disagreements with D. Sanchez, but that, because D. Sanchez was the key-holder of the pod, T. Martinez had to obey him. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 133:15-21 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 134:5-11 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He elaborated that D. Sanchez never truly viewed him as a full SNM member. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 272:23-25 (T. Martinez). T. Martinez said that he liked D. Sanchez as an individual but disagreed with the way he ran things, although T. Martinez respected his SNM rank. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 290:3-24 (Jewkes, T. Martinez). T. Martinez described that, while they were housed together in blue pod, sometime at the end of 2013, D. Sanchez tattooed his back, but that D. Sanchez would not allow him to get an “S, ” because he had not yet “put in work.” Feb. 13 Tr. at 136:21-137:17 (Armijo, T. Martinez). This tattoo, T. Martinez described, was meant, in part, to mend fences after he and D. Sanchez almost got into a physical altercation following a handball match in which T. Martinez slapped D. Sanchez' rear end, causing an argument. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 273:7-274:25 (Jewkes, T. Martinez). T. Martinez verified that this tattooing, along with any tattooing within the prison system, is not allowed and, had they been caught, they would have been sent to segregation, or lost commissary or telephone call privileges. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 139:4-11 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez stated that he also knows Herrera, who lived in an adjoining pod and to whom T. Martinez sold drugs. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 139:23-140:5 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez identified R. Perez as also living in blue pod and as his friend. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 140:15-16 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 141:3-5 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez described that R. Perez was “a true friend” and that he took a liking to him, so he would buy him things from canteen when R. Perez did not have money and gave him Suboxone. Feb. 13 Tr. at 141:11-12 (T. Martinez). See id. at 141:16-17 (T. Martinez); id. at 142:17-21 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He described that, at one point in 2012, R. Perez got very sick, and T. Martinez notified the correctional officers, which resulted in R. Perez' moving to the long-term care unit for a while. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 320:7-25 (Villa, T. Martinez). T. Martinez said that R. Perez returned to Southern New Mexico five to six months later, and got into a few fistfights, but was still sick and spent most of his time in his cell. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 322:8-25 (Villa, T. Martinez). T. Martinez verified that both Herrera and R. Perez are SNM members. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 140:23-141:2 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez stated that he grew up with M. Rodriguez and that he was also in blue pod. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 143:10-14 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez also verified that on March 7, 2014, Armenta, J. Montoya, and R. Sanchez were all housed with him in blue pod. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 145:6-14 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez explained that, sometime before then, in December, 2016, or January, 2017, he got M. Rodriguez high on methamphetamine, and that M. Rodriguez revealed that there was “paperwork” on Molina, and asked T. Martinez and E. Martinez to beat up Molina and get him out of the pod. Feb. 13 Tr. at 284:8-25 (Jewkes, T. Martinez). T. Martinez discounted this as the ramblings of someone under the influence of drugs. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 285:13-286:9 (T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez described that he worked at the prison for a program called “Wheels for the World” in which he would refurbish wheelchairs, which would then be sent to third-world countries. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 145:25-146:9 (T. Martinez). According to T. Martinez, this program was a pilot offering, specifically for SNM. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 146:12-17 (T. Martinez). He stated that he left for the program on March 7, 2014, around 7:30 a.m., and returned to the pod in the afternoon around 3:40 p.m. after being strip searched, because they worked with sharp equipment. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 146:20-147:19 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez recalled that, when he returned, his pod was in the yard for recreation time and, as he was walking into the unit, M. Rodriguez stopped him to talk. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 148:15-24 (Armijo, T. Martinez). M. Rodriguez told him to get high and, when T. Martinez refused, explained that Molina's “paperwork” had arrived, but that they were still waiting on J. Montoya's “paperwork.” Feb. 13 Tr. at 149:8-150:5 (T. Martinez, Armijo). T. Martinez took the fact that there was “paperwork” to mean that there was proof that Molina was an informer. Feb. 13 Tr. at 150:9-24 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez said that he was sad upon hearing about the “paperwork, ” and relayed how M. Rodriguez explained that he and D. Sanchez saw the “paperwork, ” that it was real, and that D. Sanchez wanted T. Martinez to knock out Molina so that he could not leave his cell. Feb. 13 Tr. at 150:25-152:19 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez explained that D. Sanchez, as the pod's senior member, provided the order, but had M. Rodriguez tell it to T. Martinez, because M. Rodriguez and T. Martinez grew up together. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 280L18-25 (T. Martinez, Jewkes). T. Martinez asserted that he was loyal to SNM and so did not question his orders. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 281:1-9 (Jewkes, T. Martinez). T. Martinez narrated that he told M. Rodriguez that he was going to get high, and, as he walked up the stairs, Molina stopped him and asked how he was doing, and handed T. Martinez his shank to hold while he showered. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 153:17-154:22 (T. Martinez, Armijo). T. Martinez said that he then went into his cell and made coffee, and that the correctional officers came into the pod to start the 4:00 p.m. count while Molina was still showering. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 155:13-156:1 (Armijo, T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez verified that the plan was to have Armenta and J. Montoya come in the cell after T. Martinez knocked out Molina, which he described as necessary because Molina was stockier than all of them, taller than Armenta and J. Montoya, but shorter than T. Martinez. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 156:10-23 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez said that he stayed in his cell during count and was nervous, so he got high. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 157:3-8 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 159:3-8 (T. Martinez, Armijo). He described that, during count, D. Sanchez, who lived in the cell next to his, initiated a conversation with him. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 157:9-158:4 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 159:2-3 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 163:19-21 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez said that, after he got high, he heard a knock on his wall, which he believed to be D. D. Sanchez trying to get his attention, so he went down to the vent and asked: “What's up, carnal?” Feb. 13 Tr. at 159:24 (T. Martinez). See id. at 159:8-24 (T. Martinez, Armijo). T. Martinez described that they spoke about Molina's “hit, ” and D. Sanchez asked if M. Rodriguez had updated him, and told T. Martinez that it was time to “earn his bones.” Feb. 13 Tr. at 159:25-160:21 (T. Martinez, Armijo). T. Martinez verified that D. Sanchez' asking if M. Rodriguez spoke with him underscored that the order was D. Sanchez', especially because M. Rodriguez told him that D. Sanchez wanted him to go. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 346:18-347:6 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez relayed that D. Sanchez described how SNM has always used violence to earn its reputation and that he wants to go back to the old ways, where it was violent and feared; D. Sanchez wanted SNM to no longer only assault people, but to also kill those who break the rules so that people realize that “the SNM ain't playing no more.” Feb. 13 Tr. at 161:23 (T. Martinez). See id. at 161:4-25 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez testified, however, that he argued against killing his friend, Molina, and D. Sanchez again reiterated that SNM is returning to its old, violent ways, and told T. Martinez that he better get it done or he would be in danger himself. See Feb. 13 Tr. At 162:2-12 (T. Martinez); id. at 280:16-19 (T. Martinez). T. Martinez thus thought that, if he did not do as ordered, D. Sanchez would order a “hit” on him. Feb. 13 Tr. at 287:11-24 (Jewkes, T. Martinez). D. Sanchez also told T. Martinez not to worry, because they already made the shanks from metal taken from R. Perez' walker. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 192:16-193:8 (Armijo, T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez said that, after count, he was still preoccupied and high, and M. Rodriguez came to his door and tried to give him a pep talk. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 163:24-165:6 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez described that M. Rodriguez relayed that he had offered to go in T. Martinez' place and did not want him involved, but that D. Sanchez required T. Martinez' participation. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 164:7-15 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez then showed M. Rodriguez Molina's shank, explained how he got it, placed it in a canteen bag, and handed the bag to M. Rodriguez. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 164:16-165:16 (Armijo, T. Martinez). M. Rodriguez left, and, when he returned, T. Martinez also told M. Rodriguez that he was changing the plans, that, instead of beating up Molina to knock him out as originally planned, T. Martinez was going to choke out Molina, which he explained would be quieter and involve less risk of leaving his DNA everywhere. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 165:17-166:18 (Armijo, T. Martinez). After M. Rodriguez agreed that choking out Molina was a better plan, because it would not get blood everywhere, he left to tell D. Sanchez. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 166:23-167:6 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez described that he eventually left his cell and walked over to an area on the top tier between the shower and cell 105 -- Molina's cell, when Molina came out of his cell. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 167:9-17 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 168:7-9 (Armijo, T. Martinez). Molina suggested getting high -- T. Martinez elaborated that the plan was for M. Rodriguez and T. Martinez to get Molina in his cell by offering to do drugs in his cell, which would not be unusual, because they were all friends -- so T. Martinez returned to his cell to get Suboxone. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 168:17-169:25 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez returned, and M. Rodriguez was with Molina, so they all entered Molina's cell and T. Martinez gave them both pieces of Suboxone. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 170:23-171:10 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez explained that M. Rodriguez and Molina were looking for spoons to use to dissolve the Suboxone in hot water and inject it intravenously. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 171:10-16 (T. Martinez, Armijo). As they were preparing the Suboxone, T. Martinez saw M. Rodriguez nodding at him, which he took to mean that it was time to move on Molina, but he did nothing and just stood there. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 172:17-173:1 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez said that M. Rodriguez nodded at him again as Molina was waiting for the Suboxone to dissolve, and, at what T. Martinez thought was a third nod, T. Martinez went up behind Molina and started choking him. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 173:7-174:6 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez said that Molina reached up, ostensibly to grab T. Martinez' arms, while M. Rodriguez grabbed Molina's wrists to pull his hands down, as T. Martinez continued choking him. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 174:9-25 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez described feeling Molina's body start to give, so kicked out Molina's legs and laid him down. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 175:1-16 (Armijo, T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez recalled that, when he stood up from placing Molina on the floor, M. Rodriguez had turned around, and J. Montoya and Armenta were seated near cell 101, the cell at the top of the stairs. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 175:17-176:6 (Armijo, T. Martinez). M. Rodriguez motioned J. Montoya and Armenta into the cell, saying “What the fuck, ” but T. Martinez, at the time, thought M. Rodriguez had discovered that he had not choked out Molina good enough. Feb. 13 Tr. at 176:7-22 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez described that, because Molina is his friend, he had loosened his grip when he felt Molina's legs give out, so that Molina would awake quicker and have a chance at surviving the attack. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 176:23-177:8 (Armijo, T. Martinez). Because he thought he had been found out, T. Martinez stomped on Molina's head about three times, hitting Molina's forehead the first time and grazing the side of Molina's head the second and third time, but mostly hitting the floor. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 177:9-178:2 (Armijo, T. Martinez). At this point, J. Montoya and Armenta were in the cell and M. Rodriguez was yelling at them to get Molina, so T. Martinez had to maneuver himself out of the cell by stepping onto the toilet and then the bed, and he saw one of the Jerrys straddling Molina while the other was at Molina's side. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 178:4-23 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez left the cell and looked back, and could see J. Montoya and Armenta stabbing Molina. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 178:24-179:9 (T. Martinez, Armijo). T. Martinez heard noises as he walked down the stairs, but did not look, and noted that Madrid was going up the stairs, so T. Martinez told him that it was none of his business and to go back downstairs. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 180:1-14 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez described that Madrid stopped and looked up, and would have seen directly into Molina's room. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 180:17-23 (Armijo, T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez said that he was downstairs in the common area, and saw a blood-stained Molina leave his cell, saying “you got me, all right I'll leave” as he walked downstairs, with M. Rodriguez telling J. Montoya and Armenta to get Molina. Feb. 13 Tr. at 181:12 (T. Martinez). See id. at 181:1-25 (T. Martinez, Armijo); id. at 183:1-6 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He did not hear M. Rodriguez tell Molina that he is not a carnal, but verified that he did not believe Molina to be a carnal, because of the “paperwork” on him. Feb. 13 Tr. at 333:14-23 (Villa, T. Martinez). See id. at 350:5-20 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez recalled D. Sanchez and his brother were also in the common area, sitting at a table playing cards. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 184:8-16 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez described that J. Montoya and Armenta were a few steps behind Molina, who took a fighting stance when he got downstairs, and that J. Montoya then punched Molina and they got in a fight. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 182:1-12 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 185:10-16 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez did not see J. Montoya holding or using a shank, but saw Armenta join the fight and stab Molina more, and, at some point, Molina fell. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 185:17-186:9 (T. Martinez, Armijo). When Molina fell, T. Martinez said that J. Montoya disappeared to his room, and that Armenta stabbed Molina a few more times and kicked him, then walked over to the middle of the pod to retrieve Molina's chain that had flown off. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 186:9-187:7 (T. Martinez, Armijo). Armenta walked away, and T. Martinez heard scuffling, then the correctional officers opened the door and entered the pod, so T. Martinez climbed up the bars to the top tier and went to his cell. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 187:11-188:2 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He stated that the correctional officers locked everyone down and that he knew D. Sanchez was put in his cell next to T. Martinez', because they had a conversation. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 188:10-25 (Armijo, T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez described that D. Sanchez again initiated conversation by knocking on the wall, so T. Martinez went to the vent, and Sanchez congratulated him and told him that he now had D. Sanchez' respect. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 189:3-16 (Armijo, T. Martinez).[92] D. Sanchez reiterated that SNM was “going back to the old ways, ” and instructed T. Martinez not to talk or worry, because the cameras could not see into Molina's cell so there would be no evidence against him. Feb. 13 Tr. at 189:24-190:12 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez explained that he was in shock, having participated in assaulting or killing -- he did not know if Molina was still alive or not -- one of his best friends, and reeling from Suboxone and his adrenaline rush. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 190:13-24 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He provided he would be shocked to discover that he participated in Molina's assault over “paperwork” that did not contain much. Feb. 13 Tr. at 335:6- 21 (Villa, T. Martinez). T. Martinez described that, at least thirty minutes later, the NM State Police arrived and locked down the scene, then took each inmate to the unit manager's office to collect clothes and take pictures, and moved them all to unit 2-A. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 191:1-16 (Armijo, T. Martinez).

         When Palomares and another NM State Police officer interviewed T. Martinez on March 8, 2014, T. Martinez stated that he did not know anything about the murder, was in Molina's room discussing food, and just wanted to go home. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 223:3-224:9 (Duncan, T. Martinez). T. Martinez said that he only found out that Molina died when the STIU interviewed him that same day, and maintained that he did not give the STIU a statement, only telling them that he was in Molina's cell making small talk and discussing food. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 192:1-15 (T. Martinez, Armijo); id. at 224:14-21 (Duncan, T. Martinez). He then, however, told the STIU that he was in Molina's cell to get high, but that he panicked and ran out when he saw “them two coming in.” Feb. 13 Tr. at 225:24 (Duncan). See id. at 225:13-9 (Duncan, T. Martinez). T. Martinez also gave the STIU his opinion as to various people's roles in SNM who were in Southern New Mexico at that time and suggested that Molina's murder was a “hit.” Feb. 13 Tr. at 226:21-227:1 (Duncan, T. Martinez); id. at 317:20-25 (Villa, T. Martinez). T. Martinez verified that the STIU suspected that the shanks came from metal acquired from the wheelchair program and questioned him about it, but T. Martinez did not tell them that the metal came from R. Perez' walker. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 318:1-16 (Villa, T. Martinez). T. Martinez knew that, early that next morning, D. Sanchez, Varela, and M. Rodriguez were placed on emergency transport to PNM North. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 191:17-23 (Armijo, T. Martinez). On March 10, 2014, T. Martinez gave another statement in a recorded interview, which was provided on the discovery tablets, in which he said he was getting high with Molina in Molina's cell when two people ran into the cell, surprising him as he did not know if they were coming for him. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 227:5-21 (Duncan, T. Martinez); id. at 230:11-231:19 (Duncan, T. Martinez). T. Martinez told the interviewers -- an NM State Police officer and an FBI agent -- that he recognized the men who ran into the cell and that they had a shank, but would not give up the men's names, just saying the cameras would tell. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 231:23-233:2 (Duncan, T. Martinez); id. at 233:12-23 (Duncan, T. Martinez); id. at 298:2-11 (Villa, T. Martinez). T. Martinez also told them that Molina was killed in a cowardly way and that, had he intervened, Molina could still be alive. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 298:22-299:11 (Villa, T. Martinez). He admitted, however, that he told the interviewers that one of the men was a fan of Tupac[93] -- which is one of J. Montoya's identifying traits -- that he heard the men call Molina a “rat, ” and that he asked how he could help the investigation. Feb. 13 Tr. at 233:24-234:21 (Duncan, T. Martinez). T. Martinez admitted that he lied to a federal agent in the interview, a crime for which he has not been charged. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 318:24-319:14 (Villa, T. Martinez). T. Martinez remained at Southern New Mexico for about six months, because he faced a writeup there. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 191:24-192:1 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 193:15-17 (T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez described that his institutional writeup at Southern New Mexico carried four charges -- “murder, attempted complicity to a murder, gang activity[, ] . . . and tampering with evidence” -- but verified that he was not charged at the state level for Molina's murder. Feb. 13 Tr. at 193:12-14 (T. Martinez). See id. at 193:9-11 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez said he fought the writeup, and was found guilty of only the attempted complicity to murder and gang activity charges, so he was moved to PNM North around September, 2014 -- although his offender location history showed he moved to PNM North in June, 2015. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 193:18-194:10 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 324:12-14 (Villa, T. Martinez). T. Martinez verified that he denied knowledge of Molina's murder in the disciplinary hearing over the writeup. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 277:5-14 (Jewkes, T. Martinez). T. Martinez recalled that, while at PNM North, there was talk about Molina's murder, although such talk was rare. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 327:18-328:3 (Villa, T. Martinez). With the Court's limiting instruction, [94] T. Martinez verified that he heard rumors that R. Perez had been cooperating with the STIU regarding Molina and that, if the rumors were true, R. Perez could be killed. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 331:10-23 (Villa, T. Martinez).

         In October, 2015, while T. Martinez was still housed at PNM North, Baca returned to PNM North after having been incarcerated out of state. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 199:7-24 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez said that, at some point in the week before Halloween, he was in the yard with Baca, who was still SNM's main leader, and they talked. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 200:11-21 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 205:20-22 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 343:25-344:3 (Armijo, T. Martinez). Baca told T. Martinez that he “sent them a letter, they didn't want to take me seriously when I said I would stop the killings. They thought I was joking. Now they have a body on their hands.” Feb. 13 Tr. at 205:24-206:2 (Armijo). See id. at 206:3 (T. Martinez).[95] Baca also told T. Martinez that SNM needed to reestablish its power so that its presence was felt again and wanted to “hit” the top officials, and revealed that there was a plan regarding Marcantel and Santistevan. Feb. 13 Tr. at 206:9-23 (Armijo, T. Martinez). Baca also said that it would be nice to “hit” wardens to add to SNM's name, noting that the worst thing that could result would be if SNM members were shipped out of state, but that they would eventually be let back in to New Mexico. Feb. 13 Tr. at 207:4-19 (Armijo, T. Martinez). Baca revealed that Molina's murder was a building block to show the prison system that SNM means business, and told T. Martinez not to worry about Armenta, who was known to be cooperating at that time with the state, because Baca was going to have somebody visit Armenta's family. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 207:20-208:19 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez took this visit to mean that Armenta's family was told to tell Armenta to stay quiet. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 208:20-23 (Armijo, T. Martinez). Baca also told T. Martinez to not cooperate with law enforcement, keep his head up, and be strong and proud. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 208:23-24 (T. Martinez). A few days later, T. Martinez was transferred to Southern New Mexico, because the state trial, in which he was supposed to testify on J. Montoya's behalf, was about to start. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 209:2-6 (T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez described that he had written J. Montoya a false statement under penalty of perjury in November, 2014, on his own volition to get J. Montoya out of the murder charge and to have Armenta take the fall. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 195:22-196:18 (Armijo, T. Martinez). In this statement, he reported that his earlier, March 10, 2014, statement was false, although he did not know if this prior statement was in the state discovery. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 229:15-24 (Duncan, T. Martinez). T. Martinez verified that he also wrote an earlier draft of the statement for J. Montoya, in September, 2014, which J. Montoya edited, and which eventually became the November, 2014, statement. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 236:24-8 (Duncan, T. Martinez); id. at 238:11-20 (T. Martinez, Duncan). Baca had T. Martinez read the draft statement out loud, and T. Martinez described that he came up with its contents to match the video evidence that T. Martinez expected existed and Molina's reputation for being a bully, so that the statement would be believable while exonerating J. Montoya. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 239:19-245:19 (Duncan, T. Martinez). T. Martinez verified that he signed this statement under penalty of perjury as well, to give weight to the statement, and that the statement itself was perjury, which is a crime. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 245:21-246:15 (Duncan, T. Martinez). The later, revised statement, T. Martinez explained, included J. Montoya's ideas to portray T. Martinez as being very high during Molina's murder, so his earlier statements could be written off as part of a drug-induced haze; to admit his friendship with Molina; to provide an incentive for T. Martinez to lie earlier; and to help J. Montoya's edits to match the story that he knew Armenta was telling. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 247:16-251:19 (Duncan, T. Martinez). Baca also walked T. Martinez through statements that T. Martinez made under oath in an affidavit T. Martinez signed, and T. Martinez admitted that such statements were false, despite his oath that they were truthful. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 257:16-261:5 (Duncan, T. Martinez). T. Martinez admitted that he has not been charged with perjury. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 296:12-15 (Villa, T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez described STIU waking him up around 5:00 a.m. on December 3, 2015, in his cell at Southern New Mexico, telling him that it was for emergency transport, and that he arrived at the federal courthouse in Albuquerque, where U.S. Marshals interviewed and arrested him on the federal charges; he was arraigned the next day. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 120:20-121:16 (Armijo, T. Martinez). On this date, T. Martinez had over $25, 000.00 in his NM Corrections Department account from selling drugs -- both inside and outside of prison. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 121:17-122:3 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He described that he did not yet have his SNM tattoo on this date, noting that, while he has many Zia symbol tattoos, none contain “SNM, ” and that he got his SNM tattoo while on federal hold in Torrance County Detention, which tattoo he said was allowed, because he “put in work.” Feb. 13 Tr. at 134:12-135:15 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez admitted that this work was helping kill Molina, and the tattoo was celebratory in a way, as he had finally earned the right to carry SNM's patch. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 294:8-17 (Villa, T. Martinez); id. at 338:2-13 (Jewkes, T. Martinez).[96] T. Martinez described talking with R. Perez at Torrance County Detention Center, at some point between R. Perez' was arrest in the case and December 29, 2016. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 209:10-16 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 312:7-312:13 (Villa, T. Martinez). R. Perez told T. Martinez that everybody has a part to play in SNM, even if it is just staying quiet, and that his own part, because R. Perez was not physically capable of carrying out the “hit, ” was to provide pieces from his walker. Feb. 13 Tr. at 210:2-14 (Armijo, T. Martinez).[97] See id. at 210:25-211:7 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez admitted that he did not tell the United States about this conversation until January 23, 2018, despite speaking with the government the day on which he left Torrance County Detention and entered his plea agreement. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 312:4-6 (Villa, T. Martinez); id. at 312:14-24 (Villa, T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez provided that he decided to cooperate in the case at the end of 2016, and pled guilty on January 26, 2017, to conspiracy to murder and murder. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 211:11-21 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 212:17-23 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez was loyal to SNM until he officially decided to cooperate on December 29, 2016. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 303:10-14 (Villa, T. Martinez); id. at 350:21-24 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He described that he decided to cooperate, because the murder of his friend weighed on him and, having found God again, wanted to take responsibility and do the right thing. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 217:25-218:17 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez also said that he felt like SNM used him in the murder and does not care about him, so he wanted a new life and cooperating gave him the opportunity to get out of SNM. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 219:6-23 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez verified that the murder charge carries a mandatory term of life imprisonment. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 212:24-213:1 (Armijo, T. Martinez). T. Martinez admitted to betraying his friend, because he wanted to help SNM and “earn his bones, ” and that, if not for his conduct, Molina may still be alive. Feb. 13 Tr. at 292:22-293:17 (Villa, T. Martinez). T. Martinez described his understanding of the addendum to his plea agreement, in which he agreed to be a cooperating witness and to testify truthfully in this and any future proceeding. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 213:24-214:12 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He said that, by testifying, he has exposed himself to being “hit.” Feb. 13 Tr. at 300:14-17 (Villa, T. Martinez). T. Martinez verified that he could get a reduced sentence, but that that reduction depends on the prosecutors first filing a motion for a downward departure, which they have not promised to do. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 264:12-21 (Duncan, T. Martinez). He said that he is not, however, hoping for a reduced sentence, but is instead testifying to clear his conscience and atone for his sins. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 301:6-19 (Villa, T. Martinez). As impeachment, R. Perez played a telephone call in which T. Martinez told his wife that it would be a blessing if he got sentenced to time served or a couple years. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 307:18-308:12 (Villa, T. Martinez). T. Martinez described that his wife wanted a lower sentence for him, because of his minimal role. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 345:19-346:9 (Armijo, T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez admitted that he is hoping that the United States helps him relocate, because he is in danger if he stays in New Mexico. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 308:21-25 (Villa, T. Martinez). R. Perez played another telephone call, however, in which T. Martinez told his wife that, if he gets prison time, the government will get him trained in an electrical field and help him to get a job upon release. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 309:19-25 (Villa, T. Martinez). T. Martinez verified that he visited with his wife at a plea hearing and later had one contact visit with her while at PNM North. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 268:7-22 (Duncan, T. Martinez). He admitted to receiving $50.00 a month from the United States, but disagreed that the payments added up to over $1, 100.00, until Baca showed him receipts. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 265:1-268:6 (Duncan, T. Martinez). After making the decision to cooperate, T. Martinez was moved, and housed with other cooperators. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 214:13-21 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He gave names of all the Defendants with whom he could recall being housed since his federal arrest. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 262:1-263:24 (Duncan, T. Martinez).

         T. Martinez described that he had discovery tablet and that, at some point, while housed at Sandoval County after entering into the cooperation addendum, he discovered how to reset the tablet to its factory settings and access the internet. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 214:22-215:25 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 222:2-8 (Duncan, T. Martinez). He admitted that this modification was “[a]bsolutely not” allowed. Feb. 13 Tr. at 216:6 (T. Martinez). See id. at 216:4-5 (Armijo). With the internet access, T. Martinez watched movies, used Google to help him with his math assignments in his college classes, created a Facebook page, and watched pornography. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 216:7-21 (Armijo, T. Martinez). At some point in May, 2017, the tablet was seized, and T. Martinez has not had it since. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 216:22-217:1 (Armijo, T. Martinez); id. at 353:6-8 (Duncan, T. Martinez). T. Martinez also verified that, after his federal arrest, he continued dealing drugs at Torrance County and Sandoval County, which was not allowed, but that he stopped dealing about five months ago. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 217:6-24 (Armijo, T. Martinez). He admitted that he decided to take on the drug trade at Sandoval, with F. Munoz, after deciding to cooperate and getting close with God again. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 221:18-222:1 (Duncan, T. Martinez). He also admitted to entering a romantic relationship with a correctional officer at Sandoval County who was not his wife, although he said that his wife and he were going through a divorce at the time. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 222:13-20 (Duncan, T. Martinez). The Court allowed T. Martinez to step down, subject to re-call, and ordered him not to discuss his testimony with anybody during the trial's pendency. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 355:24-356:4 (Court).

         w. Jack Vigil's Testimony.

         The United States next called Jack Vigil, a correctional officer at Southern New Mexico. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 356:10 (Armijo); id. at 357:8-13 (Armijo, Vigil). Vigil said that he has worked as a Southern New Mexico correctional officer for six years, both as rover and control officer. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 357:14-358:1 (Armijo, Vigil). He said that he was working on July 13, 2015, as a unit rover in Unit 1-A. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 358:2-17 (Armijo, Vigil). Vigil described that this unit was an SNM unit at that time and that SNM members had just gotten back their tier time. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 359:13-22 (Armijo, Vigil). He said he was working overtime in this unit on July 13, 2015, switching out the tiers with his colleague, when they heard a loud banging noise. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 360:1-9 (Armijo, Vigil); id. at 363:14-17 (Armijo, Vigil). Vigil said that they checked A pod, did not find the source of the noise, and checked green pod -- C pod -- and saw Romero covered in blood, banging on the door. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 360:9-14 (Vigil); id. at 362:14-20 (Vigil, Armijo); id. at 364:17-23 (Armijo, Vigil). Vigil said that they called the responders and their supervisors, then told the control officer to open the door so they could retrieve Romero. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 365:16-20 (Armijo, Vigil).

         Vigil said that, once they got Romero out of the pod, hear appeared beat up with cuts, lots of blood on his face, and possibly an indentation in his head. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 365:12-15 (Armijo, Vigil); id. at 365:22-23 (Vigil). Vigil described Romero as an older man, and one of the four individuals who had been let out for tier time, along with Villegas, a man he identified as “Uranda, ” and a man whose name he could not recall. Feb. 13 Tr. at 364:4-16 (Armijo, Vigil). Vigil said that the responders arrived to assist after pulling out Romero, so they went into green pod to lock down the inmates. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 365:23-25 (Vigil). Vigil described that, when he entered the pod, he saw Villegas rush into the shower with his sneakers on, which raised Vigil's suspicion that he was doing so to wash off blood. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 366:3-13 (Armijo, Vigil). Vigil said that Villegas was shirtless, wearing only shorts or boxers and his white sneakers. See Transcript of Jury Trial Volume 13 at 13:13-20 (taken February 14, 2018)(Armijo, Vigil), filed February 22, 2019 (Doc. 2529)(“Feb. 14 Tr.”). Vigil saw the other two individuals let out for tier time standing near the laundry cart as if nothing happened. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 366:19-22 (Armijo, Vigil). Accordingly, Vigil told Villegas to stop and, as Villegas walked out of the shower, Vigil said that he knew Villegas had started it. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 367:4-9 (Armijo, Vigil). Vigil said that, after locking down everyone, they checked the inmates for marks, and Villegas was the only one with any marks on him. See Feb. 13 Tr. at 367:10-13 (Vigil). Villegas, Vigil described, had long, black hair, was younger than Romero, and was fit. See Feb. 14 Tr. at 13:21-2 (Vigil, Armijo). The Court excused Vigil from the proceedings. See Feb. 14 Tr. at 15:23-25 (Court).

         x. Julian ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.