Juan Carlos Martinez Cecias Rodriguez v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

During trial opening statements, in response to prompting by the AUSA, the district court made an erroneous ruling in reference to a motion-in-limine that unhinged defense counsel. A few hours later in a sealed bench conference (sealed from Martinez and the jury) the AUSA and defense counsel collectively sought to pause trial to explore plea negotiations. This action was unknown to and unauthorized by Martinez. The court, to induce and assist defense counsel in coercing a plea from Martinez, offered "a sweetener" to defense counsel in violation of Fed. R. Crim. Proc. Rule 11(e). In response, the United States confessed that the court’s practice of offering "sweeteners" to coerce pleas from defendants was a long standing practice and procedure of the court and well known to counsel who practice before the United States District Court in San Antonio, Texas. Martinez filed a motion to recuse based on this and other irregularities in the court's procedural conduct. I. The question for this Court is whether a trial court's long held practice of offering "sweeteners" to induce defense counsel to coerce their clients into pleading guilty meets the Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) "extrajudicial source" standard applied by this Court requiring recusal under 28 U.S.C. §455(a)? II. The question for this Court is whether a court's long held practice of offering "sweeteners" to induce defense counsel to coerce their clients into pleading guilty is structural error as explained in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 535 (1927) (no matter the evidence, there is the right to have -i- an impartial judge) and Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 306 (1991) (structural error "affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds," as distinguished from a lapse or flaw that is "simply an error in the trial process itself")? III. The question for this Court is whether the court's supervisory power under McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 322, 340 (1943) ("Judicial supervision of the administration of criminal justice in the Federal Courts implies the duty of establishing and maintaining civilized standards of procedure and evidence.") is invoked to correct a trial court's long standing policy and practice of offering inducements or "sweeteners" to defense counsel in secret to coerce their clients to plead guilty?