Court Affirms Gang Convictions Arising from Murder of Alleged Informant

US v. Ordonez-Zometa: Ordonez-Zometa and his codefendants, Hernandez-Garcia* and Ortega-Ayala, were charged with being a part of MS-13 and having participated in the murder of a teenage gang member that was believed (incorrectly) to have been talking to police. Ordonez-Zometa was the leader of this particular clique and ordered the murder, in which the others participated and assisted either in disposal of the body or cleanup of the murder scene. Each was charged with multiple offenses, including murder in the aid of racketeering. They were convicted at trial and sentenced to life in prison.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the defendants’ convictions. As to all three, the court concluded that the Government had sufficiently proved that the clique, and MS-13, had the required impact on interstate commerce to support federal jurisdiction. Noting that the standard is a “de minimis effect,” the court held that proven by evidence of the gang’s use of Western Union to collect dues and send them to El Salvador, along with the use of cell phones. As to Ordonez-Zometa specifically, the court concluded that the district court correctly denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the traffic stop that led to his arrest (based on the necessary suspicion), a statement he made to police after his arrest (not involuntary and, even if it was, any error was harmless), and evidence recovered pursuant to search warrants (supported by probable cause and sufficiently specific and, if not, good faith applied). As to Ortega-Ayala, the court affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence retrieved from his phone for the same reason. Finally, as to Hernandez-Garcia, the court held that there was no error in the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial based on testimony regarding an altered cell phone location expert report, holding that while the district court ruling on such motions could reweigh the credibility of witnesses, it was not required to do so.

* NOTE: I represented Hernandez-Garcia in this appeal.