Case 3:10-cr-00232-FAB Document 494 Filed 05/25/11 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Criminal No. 10-232 (FAB)
)
JUAN BRAVO FERNANDEZ )
)
and )
)
HECTOR MARTINEZ MALDONADO, )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)

UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Yesterday the Government, together with the people of Puerto Rico, became aware of the

disclosure of sensitive information taken from an official FBI document summarizing an

interview of Jorge de Castro Font. That document had earlier been provided by the Government

to defendants Bravo and Martinez as part of its discovery production in this case. The

Government’s disclosure was made pursuant to the limitations of a Protective Order issued by

the Court in this case, which strictly govern the disclosure of the document to third parties, and

the use that the defense could make of the document. In view of these facts, the Government

moves the Court for an Order to Show Cause.

I. The Protective Order

On July 6, 2010, this Court issued a Protective Order concerning the disclosure of

discovery material from the Government to defendants Juan Bravo and Hector Martinez. Dkt.
 Case 3:10-cr-00232-FAB Document 494 Filed 05/25/11 Page 2 of 7

No. 29. The Court’s Protective Order expressly prohibits the defense from publicly disclosing

information provided by the Government, and provides strict guidelines for how documents

provided by the Government are to be handled. Notably, the Court’s Protective Order granted

the Government’s unopposed motion “[b]ecause of the confidential and law-enforcement-

sensitive information which may be disclosed in accordance with the Government’s discovery

obligations . . . .” Dkt. No. 29 at 1.

Specifically, the Court’s Protective Order commands that “any and all discovery materials

the United States produces to defendants Bravo and Martinez shall be reviewed by only [the

defendants and their defense team.]” Dkt. No. 29 at 1. The Order also declares unequivocally

that “Defendants Bravo and Martinez shall not disclose the contents of any discovery material to

any individual or entity except as provided in this Order, as has been agreed by the parties, or as

further ordered by the Court.” Dkt. No. 29 at 2. The Court’s Protective Order further provides

strict guidelines defining the appropriate use of the material provided by the Government:

Defendants Bravo and Martinez shall use discovery material and their
contents solely for the preparation, trial, direct appeal (if any), and
collateral attack (if any) of this matter and for no other purpose
whatsoever. No additional copies of any discovery material shall be
made by any person or entity receiving discovery material except as
necessary for those purposes.

Dkt. No. 29 at 2.

The Order’s guidelines for handling the material provided by the Government are

unambiguous and impose affirmative obligations on the defense:

Before first disclosing discovery material or its contents to any of the

individuals or entities listed above, defendants Bravo and Martinez
or their attorneys of record must give to the individual or entity a

2
 Case 3:10-cr-00232-FAB Document 494 Filed 05/25/11 Page 3 of 7

copy of this Order and maintain a copy signed and dated by the
individual or a representative of the entity until such time as all
appeals in this matter (if any) are concluded.

Dkt. No. 29 at 2. The Court’s Order limits the manner and means for public disclosure of any

material provided by the Government:

With respect to all discovery material which is disclosed that may

relate to other (non-Bravo and non-Martinez) investigations (to
include grand jury transcripts, investigative interview reports, and
other discovery), the parties (to include any and all of the defendants’
attorneys, agents and all persons who receive that type of discovery
material) shall not, without the United States’ prior express written
agreement or a Court order, use any information contained in those
discovery materials in any public court filing, refer to any such
information in open court, or otherwise publicly disclose those
contents.

Dkt. No. 29 at 2-3.

The seriousness of the Protective Order and the potential sanctions for violating the

Order’s strict guidelines are stated without ambiguity:

This Order also applies to any and all individuals to whom defendant
Bravo and defendant Martinez (to include any and all of their
attorneys and agents), pursuant to this Order, show or disclose the
contents or substance of any material produced to them by the United
States. By signing and dating this order, any person or entity that
receives copy of any material produced, submits himself, herself or
itself to the jurisdiction of this Court for all purposes, including
sanctions or contempt for violation of this Order.

Dkt. No. 29 at 4.

II. Violations of the Protective Order

On Monday, May 23, 2011, Senator Thomas Rivera Schatz read publicly from the Senate

floor the contents of an FBI document summarizing an interview of Jorge de Castro Font. Those

3
 Case 3:10-cr-00232-FAB Document 494 Filed 05/25/11 Page 4 of 7

statements were widely publicized throughout Puerto Rico. This morning, El Vocero newspaper

published an article disclosing additional substance of the FBI document, and additionally

published photographs of the FBI document, which is heavily redacted. This FBI document was

produced to defendants Bravo and Martinez, with these precise redactions, as part of the

discovery production in this case, and is subject to the limitations of the Protective Order. As

this Court knows from the recent sealed hearing involving the sentencing of de Castro Font, this

document contains sensitive law enforcement information, which if publicly disclosed could

compromise the integrity of ongoing investigations, threaten the safety of sources and

cooperators, and obstruct justice.

Rivera Schatz has publicly, and repeatedly, identified himself as an agent and supporter

of defendant Martinez. Pre-indictment, Rivera Schatz held press conferences in which he

addressed the allegations against defendant Martinez and spoke on his behalf, publicly

identifying himself as defendant Martinez’ representative. During trial, Rivera Schatz identified

himself as part of defendant Martinez’ defense team, addressing the media on defendant

Martinez’ behalf and, while attending trial, sitting in the first row of pews behind the defendants,

which was reserved for the defendants’ legal team. Post-verdict, Rivera Schatz was the first

person to address the media on defendant Martinez’ behalf, speaking even before defendant

Martinez’ lead attorney addressed the media.

This FBI document was produced to defendants Bravo and Martinez as part of the

discovery production in this case. Significantly, a review of the video of Rivera Schatz reading

the FBI document, and photographs of the document published in today’s El Vocero newspaper,

4
 Case 3:10-cr-00232-FAB Document 494 Filed 05/25/11 Page 5 of 7

reveal unmistakable marks on the document confirming with absolute certainty that this is the

identical document that the Government provided to defendants Bravo and Martinez. Finally,

this morning Senator Roberto Arango said on 580 am radio that he has seen the document in the

possession of Rivera Schatz, and that it contained many redactions, which is consistent with the

document the Government produced to defendants Bravo and Martinez as part of its discovery in

this case. This FBI document is covered by the Protective Order.

III. Defense Counsel Understood the Seriousness of the Protective Order

On February 2, 2011, counsel for defendant Martinez filed an informative motion with

the Court disclosing the theft of grand jury transcripts—produced by the Government to the

defense and subject to the Protective Order—that she left in a briefcase in a co-worker’s vehicle.

Dkt. No. 260. On February 3, 2011, the Court issued an order directing counsel for defendant

Martinez to “inform the Court which grand jury transcripts were in her briefcase and [] submit

the police report once filed.” Dkt. No. 261 at 1. On February 4, 2011, counsel for defendant

Martinez filed a motion in compliance with the Court’s order, identifying the grand jury

transcripts that were stolen from her co-worker’s vehicle. Dkt. No. 269. Notably, the FBI

document that was disclosed to the public this week was not among the stolen documents. See

Dkt. No. 269. The Court’s prompt, firm response to defendant Martinez’ informative motion

reaffirms to the defendants the seriousness of such public disclosures.

IV. Conclusion

Based on all of the above, it appears that defendant Bravo or defendant Martinez, or

someone on their defense team, violated the Court’s Protective Order and is compromising the

5
 Case 3:10-cr-00232-FAB Document 494 Filed 05/25/11 Page 6 of 7

integrity of ongoing criminal investigations. The fact that the defendants may be violating the

Court’s Protective Order while contemporaneously accusing the judge and the jury of

misconduct, see Dkt. Nos. 475 & 477, is particularly brazen and alarming. Accordingly, this

Court should grant the Government’s motion for an order to show cause to determine who

violated the Court’s Protective Order and what action should be taken, including but not limited

to, sanctions and contempt.

Respectfully submitted,
JACK SMITH
Chief

Dated: May 25, 2011 By: _/s/ Peter Koski________

PETER M. KOSKI
DEBORAH S. MAYER
Trial Attorneys
Criminal Division, Public Integrity Section
United States Department of Justice
1400 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 514-1412

6
 Case 3:10-cr-00232-FAB Document 494 Filed 05/25/11 Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing United States’

Motion with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of

such filing to the attorneys of record for the defendants.

_/s/ Peter Koski________

PETER M. KOSKI
Trial Attorney
Criminal Division, Public Integrity Section
United States Department of Justice

Dated: May 25, 2011