United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 102) AND DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT (DKT. NO.
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
March 18, 2014, a grand jury in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin returned a sealed indictment charging defendant
Daniel Contreras (among others) with one count of conspiring
to distribute controlled substances involving fifty grams or
more of methamphetamine and 100 grams or more of heroin, and
one count of distributing fifty grams or more of
methamphetamine. Dkt. No. 1. The indictment remained under
seal until the court unsealed it as to the defendant on March
2, 2016. Dkt. No. 14. On February 27, 2017, the defendant
moved to dismiss the indictment. Dkt. No. 91. After briefing,
Magistrate Judge David E. Jones issued a report, recommending
that this court deny the motion without prejudice. Dkt. No.
102. The defendant objected to that recommendation. Dkt. No.
103. The court adopts the recommendation, overrules the
objection, and denies the motion without prejudice.
defendant's motion implicates three other indictments,
all filed on January 7, 2015 in the Northern District of
Illinois. See Dkt. Nos. 95-1; 95-3; 95-5.
Northern District of Illinois case number 14-CR-544, the
indictment alleged in relevant part that (1) from February
2013 to April 2013, the defendant conspired with Hector
Murillo to distribute cocaine (Count One); and (2) in March
2013, the defendant intentionally distributed cocaine with
Hector Murillo (Counts Two & Four). Dkt. No. 95-1. The
indictment alleged that these offenses took place “at
Bellwood, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, and elsewhere[.]” On November 18, 2015, the
defendant pled guilty to Counts One, Two and Four. Dkt. No.
95-2 at 13.
Northern District of Illinois case number 15-CR-009, the
indictment alleged that in April 2013, the defendant
intentionally distributed cocaine in Bellwood, Illinois. Dkt.
No. 95-3 at 2. The indictment listed Adan Baca and Armando
Garcia as co-defendants. Id. at 1. The defendant
pled guilty to this charge on November 18, 2015. Dkt. No.
95-4 at 10.
Northern District of Illinois case number 15-CR-010, the
indictment charged the defendant with three counts of
intentionally distributing cocaine (Counts One, Six and
Seven). Dkt. No. 95-5. Count One alleged conduct occurring in
Park Ridge, Illinois on March 22, 2013; Counts Six and Seven
alleged conduct occurring in Bellwood, Illinois on April 25,
2013. Id. at 1, 6-7. The indictment charged four
co-defendants-Roberto Cortez, Michael Aguirre, Eitel Mendoza
and Joseph De La Vega. Id. at 1.
instant indictment (“Wisconsin indictment”)
charges the defendant with one count of conspiring to
distribute methamphetamine and heroin (Count One) and one
count of distributing methamphetamine (Count Five). Dkt. No.
1. Count One of the Wisconsin indictment alleges conduct
which occurred “[b]eginning on or about January 1, 2012
and continuing until March 18, 2014, in the State and Eastern
District of Wisconsin, the Northern District of Illinois, and
elsewhere[.]” Dkt. No. 1 at 1. It charges Manuel
Soto-Estrada, Roberto Rangel Garcia and Angel Garcia as
co-conspirators. Id. Count Five of the Wisconsin
indictment alleges conduct that took place on December 12,
2012 “in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the
Northern District of Illinois and elsewhere[.]” Dkt.
No. 1 at 6. It charges Soto-Estrada and Rangel Garcia as
The Parties' Arguments
the magistrate judge, the defendant argued that because the
offenses charged in the Wisconsin indictment overlapped in
time, place and conduct with the offenses charged in the
Illinois indictments, the Wisconsin indictment violated the
double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Dkt. No. 91 at
4. He alleged that the government broke one conspiracy into
several, and charged him multiple times for the same scheme.
Id. at 5. More specifically, the defendant contended
all of [his] alleged acts involving Wisconsin could have been
pled or encompassed in [the Northern District of Illinois]
prosecution since there is no evidence that [the defendant]
did any further acts involving Wisconsin after April, 2013
and the acts he is accused of all took place in the Northern
District of Illinois.
Dkt. No. 91 at 5.
defendant also argued that he should have been given an
opportunity to resolve the charges against him “on a
global basis”: “[I]t is not due process of law to
secure a conviction and a sentence and then inform the person
that there are yet more previously filed cases out there to
resolve.” Dkt. No. 91 at 6.
government responded that the indictments involved different
crimes; the Illinois indictments involved distribution of
cocaine while the Wisconsin indictment involved distribution
of heroin and methamphetamine. Dkt. No. 95 at 3-4. The
government also contended that in the Wisconsin indictment,
drug quantity was an element of the offense that the
government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Id. at 4. The government asserted that “the
evidence required to support a conviction in Illinois would
not have been sufficient to warrant a conviction on the
Wisconsin indictment.” Id. The government also
maintained that there was no evidence that the conspiracy
charged in the Wisconsin indictment relied on or involved the
same evidence as any of the crimes charged in the Illinois
indictments. Id ...