Defensa de JOH insiste que testimonio de analista de la DEA es falso y solicita un nuevo juicio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
- against-
JUAN ORLANDO HERNANDEZ,
Defendants.
15 Cr. 379 (PKC)
X
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
JUAN ORLANDO HERNANDEZ’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNDER
RULE 33 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Juan Orlando Hernandez submits this reply memorandum of law in further support of
his motion for a new trial under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Mr.
Hernandez seeks a new trial because (1) the government’s expert witness, DEA Analyst
Jennifer Taul, testified that cocaine trafficking through Honduras went up during the
Presidency of Juan Orlando Hernandez, when, in fact, it went down, and (2) Mr. Hernandez’s
trial was improperly held in the Southern District of New York, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
3238, and the jury received erroneous jury instructions on venue and an incorrect stipulation,
that were emphasized during the government’s summation.
As to point one, the government’s April 12, 2024 Opposition to the Defendant’s Rule
33 Motion (“Gov’t Opp”) argues (i) that “there is no evidence that Taul’s testimony was
inaccurate.” (Gov’t Opp; 26), (ii) “the defendant did not confront Taul with any evidence
suggesting that her testimony was false, call its own expert witness, or otherwise introduce
Case 1:15-cr-00379-PKC Document 778 Filed 04/29/24 Page 1 of 16

2
evidence that would have contradicted her conclusions.” (Id. at 32), and (iii) “Taul’s
testimony…was immaterial to the jury’s guilty verdict.” (Id. at 33).
As to point two, the government now admits that GX 1010, the venue stipulation, was
incorrect, but argues that (i) venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because
several “joint offenders” were “first brought” to this district (Id. at 35), (ii) the defendant’s
challenge to venue is untimely (Id. at 40), and (iii) the defendant waived any challenge to
venue by signing the inaccurate stipulation drafted by the government (Id. at 45).
Now that the government has admitted that GX 1010 was false, there is an additional
issue with respect to the incorrect venue jury instructions and the government’s incorrect
argument on venue during its summation. The Court’s erroneous jury instruction, the parties’
erroneous stipulation, and the government’s erroneous argument on venue, preclude a
sustainable finding of venue by the jury, under any standard of proof. For those additional
reasons, Mr. Hernandez’s conviction should be vacated.
1. Juan Orlando Hernandez’s Conviction Should be Vacated Because Taul’s
Testimony That Cocaine Trafficking Through Honduras Went “Up” Between
2014 and 2019 Was False
The government’s opposition to Mr. Hernandez’s Rule 33 motion is surprising because
given the opportunity to present evidence to support Taul’s testimony that cocaine trafficking
through Honduras went up between 2014 and 2019, the government presented absolutely
nothing.
During her sworn testimony, Taul referenced “statistics reported by a number of
different bodies, both private and government, DEA reporting mostly.” (Tr. 614:20-21). One
might expect the government to produce some of those statistics in support of Taul, but the
government did not produce anything. Instead, the government makes several unsupported
statements that Taul’s testimony was accurate, such as: “there is no evidence that, as the

3
defendant baselessly argues, Taul’s testimony about the amount of drugs transiting through
Honduras was inaccurate” (Gov’t Opp 1) (emphasis added), “there is no evidence that Taul’s
testimony was inaccurate” (Id. at 26) (emphasis added), “Taul’s testimony was accurate” (Id.),
“there is simply no evidence that Taul testified falsely” (Id. at 27).
Although the government claims that there is “no evidence” that Taul’s testimony that
cocaine trafficking through Honduras went up between 2014 and 2019 was false, and
downplays the sources of information presented by Mr. Hernandez in his Rule 33 motion,
there is additional evidence that (a) Taul’s testimony was false and (b) that the United States
consistently praised Honduras for leading Central America in efforts to combat drug
trafficking.1
We previously provided the Court with International Narcotics Control Strategy Reports
(INCSR) from 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020, and 2022, which reflect the decline in cocaine
trafficking through Honduras during Mr. Hernandez’s presidency. Additional INCSR reports
show the same trend:
INCSR 2014 Report on Honduras (Exhibit J):
The United States also estimated in 2012 that 75 percent of all cocaine
smuggling flights departing South America first land in Honduras.
* * *
The Government of Honduras actively engaged in narcotics interdiction
operations in 2013 and worked to strengthen institutions responsible for
preparing criminal cases, bringing them before a judge, and remanding
convicted criminals to prison facilities. In 2013, Honduras seized more
than $800 million in drug-related cash and assets as well as more than 1.7
metric tons of cocaine, and Honduran authorities arrested 30 people in
connection with drug related activities.
1
The government dismisses as irrelevant reports that the murder rate in Honduras declined
substantially during Mr. Hernandez’s administration. Of course, there is a direct correlation
between drug trafficking and violence, so a demonstrated decrease in murder and violence is
indicative of a decline in drug trafficking.

4
In one of their greatest successes, the HNP, the Public Ministry, and OABI
(with support from the Honduran military) conducted a major law
enforcement operation against Los Cachiros drug trafficking organization
in September. The inter-agency operation, which received assistance from
the United States, seized assets connected to Los Cachiros valued at more
than $500 million. In October, Honduran military forces conducted
Operation Armadillo, a successful operation to disrupt and disable illicit
airfields used for drug trafficking. The United States assisted the operation
by transporting Honduran forces to and from several remote locations in
the Gracias a Dios region.
Honduras improved its maritime, border, and land interdiction capabilities
in 2013. In February, the HNP conducted Operation Three Points with
U.S. support. The one-day operation included a raid at Choluteca Prison
and mobile checkpoints along the southern section of Honduras, yielding
45 arrests and the seizure of weapons, ammunition, vehicles, and
narcotics. In September, the Honduran Navy, HNP, and the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration completed a joint investigation of a suspected
maritime trafficking group that resulted in the seizure of 420 kilograms of
cocaine, as well as the arrest of two suspects and a boat. Throughout the
year, the Honduran Navy took commendable initiative to increase its
presence in under-governed spaces.
INCSR 2020 Report on Honduras (Exhibit K):
The United States estimates approximately 4 percent, or 120 metric tons
(MT), of cocaine shipments from South America made a first stop by air
or by sea in Honduras in 2019, though more is assessed to have transited
through Honduras by land after making a first arrival in other countries.
INSCR 2021 Report on Honduras (Exhibit L):
During the first nine months of 2020, Honduran authorities claimed to
have seized approximately 2.8 metric tons (MT) of cocaine, exceeding the
2.2 MT seized during the 2019 calendar year.
In addition to these additional INCSR reports, we provide the following excerpted
exhibits from official U.S. government sources extolling Honduras’s efforts and successes in
combating drug trafficking under the presidency of Mr. Hernandez:

5
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations for 2019, Hearings
Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives,
115th Congress (Second Session), (Exhibit A), p. 84:
Mr. GREEN. What I can say is that in areas where we have been able to
focus resources, an example would be San Pedro Sula in Honduras, we
have seen a dramatic reduction in crime, a dramatic reduction in the
activities of gangs. And so we see that the work succeeds and makes
progress, but it is certainly uneven.
114th Congress (Second Session), (Exhibit B), p. 69:
Since INL and USAID began joint PBS efforts in Honduras in early 2015,
we have already seen a significant reduction in homicide rates. For
example, in the Chamelecon neighborhood of San Pedro Sula there were
287 recorded homicides in 2014, eight times the national average. In 201 5
there was a decrease every month in the number of homicides, leading to
an overall drop of 40 percent. This is a promising indication that the
combination of U.S. government efforts and Honduran commitments are
having a positive effect.
114th Congress (First Session), (Exhibit C), pp. 575 & 583:
There are some who suggest that after 6 years there is little to show for the
effort. I do not agree. Thanks to Operations Martillo and Anvil, drug
smuggling by air through Honduras is down perhaps 50 percent since
2012. Maritime drug seizures, our best measure of drug flow, have fallen
40 percent in Costa Rica and 60 percent in Panama.
Seventy-two maritime drug smugglers have come to United States to face
justice. The homicide rate in Honduras has dropped more than 20 percent
from 2011. And joint border law enforcement task forces now work along
the borders between Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, as
well as Panama and Colombia.
* * *
In Honduras, INL-supported vetted units are responsible for the arrests
and in some cases extraditions of key members of the Los Valle drug
organization, the arrest of drug kingpin Carlos Arnoldo Lobo, and the
seizure of $800 million in assets from the Los Cachiros criminal
organization.

6
Posture Statement of Admiral Kurt W. Tidd, Commander, United States Southern
Command, Before the 115th Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, April 7, 2017
(Exhibit D), p. 17:
Honduras has also made a concerted effort to dismantle threat networks,
extradite suspected drug traffickers to the U.S., and eliminate corruption.
Our Evolving Understanding and Response to Transnational Criminal Threats, Hearing
Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 114th Congress (Second
Session), June 16, 2016 (Exhibit E), p. 33:
Honduras has shown significant progress and commitment to fighting
corruption in the prosecution and investigation of public officials. On
March 3, three senior and influential judges in the Honduran judiciary
resigned following an investigation by the Honduran Supreme Court.
Additionally, from January through March, the Honduran Attorney
General’s office detained, indicted, and successfully sentenced five
mayors for charges of money laundering, illicit association, contract
killing, drug trafficking, misuse of office, and illicit enrichment. The
Honduran government also recently affirmed its commitment to support
the new OAS Mission Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras
(MACCIH).
* * *
Question 9. How have the Honduran government’s efforts to apprehend
and extradite top drug-traffickers affected the dynamics of the criminal
underworld in Honduras and Central America?
Answer. After the 2014 extradition of Carlos Arnoldo Lobo, Honduran
drug traffickers have become increasingly concerned with the possibility
of apprehension and extradition. Honduras has extradited a total of 11
people, most if whom were the leaders of Honduras’ most notorious drug
trafficking organizations. Those actions, together with repeated operations
seizing hundreds of millions of dollars in assets from drug traffickers, sent
a shockwave through the criminal organizations, which had previously
found Honduras to be a completely permissive environment. U.S.
assistance to Honduras has demonstrated a significant impact on illegal
drug flows into and through Honduras. Transnational narcotraffickers
have become more reluctant to work with Honduran drug traffickers due
to an uptick in Honduran government’s efforts to efficiently and
effectively combat drug trafficking. Honduran government efforts to
prosecute financial crimes, including the high-profile Rosenthal case, and
to apprehend narcotics traffickers are sending a strong message throughout
Honduras that all people are subject to the law.

7
Posture Statement of Admiral Kurt W. Tidd, Commander, United States Southern
Command, Before the 114th Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, March 10, 2016
(Exhibit F), p. 23:
Operational Results and Impact: In the air domain, over the past year,
JIATF-South documented a 53 percent decrease in illicit air tracks
destined for Central America (primarily Honduras).
Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 166 (August 29, 2017) (Exhibit G):
By virtue of the authority vested in me as the Secretary of State, including
pursuant to section 7045(a)(4)(A) of the Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017 (Div. J, Pub.
L. 115-31), I hereby certify that the central government of Honduras is
taking effective steps, which are in addition to those steps taken since the
certification and report submitted during the prior year, to:
o Inform its citizens of the dangers of the journey to the
southwest border of the United States;
o Combat human smuggling and trafficking;
o Improve border security, including to prevent illegal
migration, human smuggling and trafficking, and
trafficking of illicit drugs and other contraband; and
Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 177 (September 18, 2018) (Exhibit H):
By virtue of the authority vested in me as the Secretary of State, including
pursuant to section 7045(a)(3)(A) of the Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2018 (Div. K, Pub.
L. 115-141) (SFOAA), I hereby certify that the central government of
Honduras is:
o improving border security, including preventing illegal
migration, human smuggling and trafficking, and
trafficking of illicit drugs and other contraband; and
Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 102 (May 27, 2020) (Exhibit I):
Pursuant to section 7045(a)(1)(B) and section 7045(a)(2)(A) of the
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2020 (Div. G, Pub. L. 116-94), per delegation of
authority 245-2, I hereby certify that the central government of Honduras
is:
o Combating corruption and impunity, including prosecuting
corrupt government officials;

8
o Implementing reforms, policies, and programs to increase
transparency and strengthen public institutions;
…
o Combating human smuggling and trafficking and
countering the activities of criminal gangs, drug traffickers,
and transnational criminal organizations; and
The government also argues that “the defendant did not confront Taul with any
evidence suggesting that her testimony was false, call its own expert witness, or otherwise
introduce evidence that would have contradicted her conclusions.” (Gov’t Opp at 32). As an
initial matter, Taul was not an expert on Honduras and confronting her with reports about
Honduras would have been futile, since she was not qualified as a Honduran expert and
testified that “Honduras specifically isn’t a specialty.” Taul was asked:
Q: Well, do you specialize in Honduras?
A: Honduras specifically isn’t a specialty, no.
Q: Well, do you specialize in narcotics operations in Honduras?
A: Again, Honduras specifically isn’t a designated specialty for me.
Q: But would you agree that most of your – well, let me ask you this:
How much time in your entire life have you spent in Honduras?
A: Approximately a month.
* * *
Q: Ok. Did Honduras have increased success in combating drug
trafficking after 2014 than it did before 2014?
Mr. Wirshba: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
(Tr. 594:9-18 and 595:3-6).

9
While the defense attempted to hire an expert on Honduras, we were unable to secure
an expert who was willing to testify on such short notice.2
The Court precluded the defense
from calling Leonel Humberto Nunez Espinoza as an expert witness in Honduran laws to
explain to the jury the anti-narco-trafficking laws that were enacted during the presidency of
Mr. Hernandez. (Tr. 1437-1440).
Finally, the government relies on the Court’s March 8, 2024 Order (Dkt. 734) that
concluded that “evidence of whether drug trafficking went up or down during the defendant’s
administration was of minimal probative value that was substantially outweighed by the risk of
jury confusion of the issues.”
Starting with the Superseding Indictment, however, the government argued that Mr.
Hernandez “abused his position as the president of Honduras to operate the country as a narco-
state, in order to enrich himself and corruptly gain and maintain power; corrupted the
legitimate institutions of Honduras, including parts of the Honduran National Police, military,
and National Congress; and, while publicly purporting to be an ally of the United States,
contributed with his co-conspirators to Honduras becoming one of the largest
transshipment points in the world for United States-bound cocaine.” (Superseding
Indictment ¶ 3) (emphasis added). The government argued in summation that Mr. Hernandez
“paved a cocaine superhighway to the United States” (Tr. 1663:7-8), and that he “put on a
good show” (Tr. 1652:18) that he was fighting drug trafficking, despite “years of cocaine
trafficking and all with the defendant’s protection. Not a cocaine load seized, not an arrest
made, and no fear of either of those things happening.” (Tr. 1652:12-15).
2
Because of counsel’s late appointment to represent Mr. Hernandez, the defense first engaged a
former DEA Special Agent as an expert witness at the start of the trial. Understandably, the
defense’s DEA expert was reluctant to testify at trial, due to insufficient time to review the
voluminous case materials to prepare and therefore provided consulting services only.

10
Taul’s testimony was material and highly supportive of the government’s main trial
theme, which was that Mr. Hernandez paid lip service to combating narco-trafficking, while
secretly protecting some of the country’s biggest drug traffickers. Mr. Hernandez’s
strengthening of Honduras’s military and police and enacting laws to help fight narco-
trafficking is inconsistent with the allegation that he was helping some of Honduras’s largest
drug dealers and contrary to the goals of the conspiracy.
That is why it was so crucial for Mr. Hernandez to present evidence of all the steps he
took to combat drug trafficking in Honduras. The Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) that
the government introduced to the jury – Los Cachiros, Ardons, Valle-Valles, Sinaloa -- were
sprawling international criminal enterprises. The aggressive steps Mr. Hernandez took to
combat drug trafficking in Honduras could not surgically avoid impacting these groups by
protecting just a few members, even if he had tried to do that. In any event, the investigation
and prosecution of DTOs in Honduras is the responsibility of a separate branch of government,
led by the Attorney General, who is not a member of the executive branch as in the United
States. (See Tr. 1499:6-9). There was no evidence that Mr. Hernandez had any control over
who the Honduran Attorney General investigated or prosecuted. If the Attorney General did
not investigate certain individuals in Honduras or was asked by the United States not to
prosecute certain individuals (such as DEA informant Leonel Rivera), that would be the sole
responsibility of the Attorney General, not Mr. Hernandez.3
3
Government witness Jose Sanchez testified that video recordings of Mr. Hernandez supposedly
receiving cash from Geovanny Fuentes Ramirez were delivered to Honduran Attorney General
Oscar Chinchilla. (Tr. 147:11-13). Attorney General Chinchilla was not called as a witness to
corroborate whether or not he received any such recording and no recording has ever been found.

11
The government falsely portrayed Mr. Hernandez as supporting the flow of drugs
through Honduras, by casting him as a narco-dictator determined to remain in power
indefinitely, which was false and the jury was severely misled as to this critical fact.
2. Venue Was Not Proper In The Southern District Of New York And The
Court’s Erroneous Jury Instruction, The Parties’ Erroneous Stipulation, And
The Government’s Erroneous Argument On Venue, Preclude A Sustainable
Finding Of Venue By The Jury
After receiving the defendant’s Rule 33 motion, the government realized it made
a mistake and that venue could not be based on the theory that Mr. Hernandez was “first
brought” to the Southern District of New York, under 18 U.S.C. § 3238, because he was
first brought to the Southern District of Florida. The government’s new theory for venue
is that venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because some of Mr.
Hernandez’s alleged “joint offenders” were “first brought” to the Southern District of
New York. This new venue theory also fails.4
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3238:
The trial of all offenses begun or committed upon the high seas, or
elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, shall be
in the district in which the offender, or any one of two or more joint
offenders, is arrested or is first brought; but if such offender or offenders
are not so arrested or brought into any district, an indictment or
information may be filed in the district of the last known residence of the
offender or of any one of two or more joint offenders, or if no such
4 The government claims that the defendant waived any venue objection by signing the
erroneous stipulation that was presented to counsel by the government. As the Court knows,
counsel was in this case for a matter of weeks when asked to sign the venue stipulation in the
middle of trial and had insufficient time to become familiar with all relevant materials. Besides,
there is no evidence that Mr. Hernandez knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to proper
venue or to correct jury instructions. “’[T]he constitutional underpinning and importance of
proper venue dictate that waiver of objections to venue should not be readily inferred.’ United
States v. Price, 447 F.2d 23, 27 (2d Cir.1971). That being the case, this Court has found a waiver
of the right to challenge venue in a criminal trial only under extraordinary circumstances.”
United States v. Novak, 443 F.3d 150, 161 (2d Cir. 2006).

12
residence is known the indictment or information may be filed in the
District of Columbia.
It appears that the first federal district to which any of Mr. Hernandez’s alleged “joint
offenders” was brought was the Eastern District of Virginia. Migual Arnulfo Valle and Luis
Valle (“Los Valles”), who were both arrested in the Eastern District of Virginia on December
19, 2014. See United States v. Luis Alonso Valle, 14-CR-135 (E.D. Va.) (PACER Dkt. 21 –
arrest warrant return for Luis Valle) and (PACER Dkt. 23 – arrest warrant return for Miguel
Arnulfo Valle).
Under the government’s new venue theory, venue should have been established in the
Eastern District of Virginia, because that was where Los Valles were first brought. See, e.g.,
United States v. Carlisle, No. SA CR 02-174 AHS, 2009 WL 2900301, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Sept.
3, 2009) (“Additionally, as the government demonstrates, venue was also proper because
petitioner’s co-defendants were the first arrested in this case and were within the Central
District of California. The charged offenses occurred in Korea, so the proper venue is
governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3238. United States v. Liang, 224 F.3d at 1059. Section 3238
provides that venue is proper where any of the joint offenders is arrested. Because petitioner’s
co-defendants were arrested in Los Angeles prior to petitioner, venue is proper here. Because
the arrests of petitioner’s co-defendants established venue, the location of petitioner’s later
arrest was irrelevant. United States v. Feng, 277 F.3d at 1155.)”
Reading § 3238 in any way other than establishing venue in the district where the
initial “joint offender” is first brought would result in the absurd situation of the government
hypothetically being able to conduct the trials of 94 joint offenders in 94 different federal
districts. A much more reasonable and grammatically accurate interpretation is that venue is in

13
“the” district where the initial joint offender is arrested or first brought, not in “any” district
where “any” joint offender is brought.5
The government clearly considers the Valles joint offenders with Mr. Hernandez. For
example, in its memorandum in opposition the government repeatedly argued that Mr.
Hernandez was working with the Valles:
“Among others, Ardon trafficked drugs with Juan Antonio Hernandez
Alvarado, a/k/a ‘Tony Hernandez,’ the defendant’s brother, as well as with
the prolific cartel led by brothers Miguel Arnulfo Valle and Luis Valle
(‘Los Valles’). (See, e.g., Tr. 215-20)” (Gov’t Opp 5)
“…Sentado told Fabio Lobo that a plane had crashed in Roatan, Honduras,
loaded with approximately 1,200 kilograms of cocaine that ‘belonged to a
partnership between the Hernandez brothers, Los Valles, and another
person who was Columbian.’ (Tr. 1111-13)” (Gov’t Opp 6)
“And, of course, the trial was replete with evidence of the Valles cocaine
trafficking and financial support of the defendant through cocaine
trafficking proceeds. (See, e.g., Tr. 631-33 (Perez testimony about
providing bribes, with the Valles, to the defendant); Tr. 825 (Rivera
testimony that the Valles had told him that the defendant was protecting
them, they had made “a lot of money thanks to that protection” and they
had “bribed him several times.”); Tr. 1020 (Santo testimony about the
Valles supplying MS-13 with cocaine)).” (Gov’t Opp 8)
Accordingly, there is no doubt that the government considered Mr. Hernandez and the Valles
“joint offenders” for purposes of § 3238. As a matter of resources, it would have made more
sense to bring this case in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Los Valles were prosecuted,
due to the overlap in evidence and resources devoted to the cases.
5
If Congress intended for venue to be proper in “any” district where any joint offender is
arrested or first brought, it would not have used the word “the” to make the proper district a
singular location. See, e.g., 46 U.S.C. § 70504 (b)(2) (“if the offense was begun or committed
upon the high seas, or elsewhere outside the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, may
be tried in any district.”) (emphasis added).

14
Putting aside that venue is not proper in the Southern District of New York because the
first joint offenders were brought to Virginia, the jury was improperly instructed on venue. At
trial, the government argued to the jury during summation that “the parties stipulated that
when the defendant was arrested, he was first brought to the Westchester airport, which is
located with the Southern District of New York. And I expect Judge Castel will tell you that
satisfies the venue requirement for all counts.” (Tr. 1696:7-12).6
The Court erroneously instructed the jury that:
“Instead, with respect to venue, it is enough if you find that the point of
entry where the defendant was first brought into the United States was in
the Southern District of New York. The parties have stipulated in
Government Exhibit 1010, that’s GX 1010, that the defendant was first
brought into the United States through Westchester County airport. I
instruct you that Westchester County is in the Southern District of New
York.” (Tr. 1820:21-25 to 1821:1-4).
“’A jury instruction is erroneous if it misleads the jury as to the correct legal standard or does not
adequately inform the jury of the law.’ United States v. Nektalov, 461 F.3d 309, 313 (2d Cir.
2006) (quoting United States v. Wilkerson, 361 F.3d 717, 732 (2d Cir. 2004)). We will reverse
only if ‘the charge, viewed as a whole, demonstrates prejudicial error.’” United States v.
Coppola, 671 F.3d 220, 247 (2d Cir. 2012).” United States v. Lange, 834 F.3d 58, 75 (2d Cir.
2016). See also United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215, 240 (2d Cir. 2010) (“We agree that a
party’s summation can heighten the already present risk that an erroneous jury instruction may
mislead the jury.”).
Here, the Court’s jury instruction on venue was based on a false factual premise.
Obviously, the jury could not base venue on facts that are not true and here there is no dispute
that the facts upon which the jury was asked and instructed to find venue were incorrect. United
6
The government also relied on the erroneous venue stipulation to oppose the defendant’s Rule
29 motion. (Tr. 1326:25 to 1327:1-4)

15
States v. Brennan, 183 F.3d 139, 149 (2d Cir. 1999) (reversing conviction for improper venue)
(citing United States v. Rodriguez, 465 F.2d 5, 10-11 (2d Cir.1972) (reversing conviction on
ground that erroneous instruction based on § 3237 allowed jury to find venue proper in Southern
District; venue would have been proper in Eastern District); United States v. Bozza, 365 F.2d
206, 220-22 (2d Cir.1966) (Friendly, J.) (reversing convictions and dismissing counts of
indictment on ground that venue was improper in Eastern District, despite fact that venue would
have been proper in Southern District); United States v. Zeuli, 137 F.2d 845, 847 (2d Cir.1943)
(L. Hand, J.) (reversing conviction and dismissing indictment on ground, inter alia, of improper
venue where “[t]he substantive crime was committed altogether in Manhattan and the
prosecution was in Brooklyn.”).
But even had the jury been properly instructed on venue – in other words, had the jury
been properly instructed that venue could be established “in the district in which the offender, or
any one of two or more joint offenders, is arrested or is first brought” – the government did not
submit any evidence that any joint offender had been attested or first brought to the Southern
District of New York. For that reason as well, Mr. Hernandez’s conviction must be vacated for
lack of proof of venue.

16
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein and in Mr. Hernandez’s March 22, 2024 memorandum
with exhibits, the Court should grant Mr. Hernandez a new trial.
Dated: April 29, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
_________/s/____________
Renato C. Stabile (RS8925)
580 Broadway, Suite 400
New York, NY 10012
646-564-3311 (office)
renato.c.stabile@gmail.com
attorney for Juan Orlando Hernandez

Defensa de JOH insiste que testimonio de analista de la DEA es falso y solicita un nuevo juicio

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Defensa de JOH insiste que testimonio de analista de la DEA es falso y solicita un nuevo juicio

Similar to Defensa de JOH insiste que testimonio de analista de la DEA es falso y solicita un nuevo juicio (20)

More from AlexisTorres963861

More from AlexisTorres963861 (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (8)

Defensa de JOH insiste que testimonio de analista de la DEA es falso y solicita un nuevo juicio