Mario Juarez, Interviewed by Zennie Abraham, at Center of Oakland Mayor Thao Trial Evidence Fight
Mario Juarez has been part of my Oakland blogging and vlogging work for nearly two decades. I interviewed Mario many times, beginning in 2007 and at one point called him a friend. In 2011, when he was an Oakland businessman I covered as part of my reporting on the city's business and political community. Today, Juarez is a central figure in the federal criminal trial involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, Andre Jones, and Oakland businessmen David Duong and Andy Duong. That history makes the latest development particularly interesting to me. On October 23, federal prosecutors filed a response opposing several defense efforts to introduce additional portions of recordings and text messages under the **Rule of Completeness**. The government argues that the defense is trying to introduce communications that do not actually provide context for the excerpts prosecutors presented to the jury. The Mario Juarez connection My relationship with Juarez is part of the historical record. I interviewed him in 2007: [Watch the 2007 interview with Mario Juarez](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4wgN6nvaAk)** I interviewed him again in 2011: [Watch the 2011 interview with Mario Juarez](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1STxeOg6YqI)** I interviewed him many other times as well. Our relationship changed, for reasons I will explain in the stream, **[Watch the later Zennie/Juarez video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD90fiSmpY8)** I disclose that history because it gives me a different perspective on Juarez's emergence as a key witness in one of Oakland's most consequential federal criminal cases. It does **not**, however, establish whether the government's allegations are true. Those questions belong to the evidence and ultimately the jury. Prosecutors challenge defense evidence In the October 23 filing, prosecutors cite Ninth Circuit precedent holding that the Rule of Completeness does not automatically require an entire recording or written statement to be admitted simply because one side introduced an excerpt. The government says several defense requests involve material that is substantially removed from the government's excerpts — in some instances months earlier, or approximately 100 transcript pages and more than an hour later. One dispute involves **Government Exhibit 987B**. Prosecutors say their excerpt concerns David Duong asking about the status of matters involving the City of Oakland and then discussing Larry Gallegos. The defense wants to add material involving Juarez and money reimbursements. Prosecutors say those are different subjects. Another dispute, **Exhibit 990A**, concerns Andre Jones requesting money. The government says the defense wants to add earlier material about Juarez's reimbursement requests and is attempting to use the Rule of Completeness as a way to introduce additional hearsay. The same argument appears with **Exhibit 998A**, involving Evolutionary Homes. Evolutionary Homes and earlier messages The filing also addresses text messages involving Juarez and Evolutionary Homes. For **Exhibit 706A**, the defense wants to add January 2022 messages concerning a proposed luxury-housing investment in the Oakland Hills and CEQA requirements. The government's exhibit begins with messages from December 2022. For **Exhibit 692A**, the defense wants to add November 2021 messages in which Juarez mentions the modular-homes project. The defense says excluding them could create the impression that Andy Duong initiated Evolutionary Homes. Prosecutors say the defense can simply question Juarez about who initiated the venture and use the earlier message for impeachment if his testimony conflicts with it. Not everything is disputed The government does not oppose every defense request. Prosecutors say they **do not object** to the defense introducing Exhibit 699J, another Evolutionary Homes group-chat excerpt. The government also says the issue concerning Exhibits 730 through 733 is moot because prosecutors already agreed to introduce them. And prosecutors have no objection to Exhibit 1197, concerning the initial House in Box presentation from Juarez. Why this matters The dispute illustrates the larger courtroom battle over how the jury should interpret Juarez's role, his communications and his relationships with the defendants. Current trial reporting describes Juarez as a key cooperating witness. He has pleaded guilty to participating in the alleged scheme, while the defendants on trial have pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors say Juarez's account is supported by other evidence, including texts, recordings, videos and financial records. The defense has challenged his credibility, which makes the question of context especially important. And for me, there is an unusual personal dimension. 🎙️ New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! 😍 https://ift.tt/HUmOg2A
via YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odOw_W2Gadc
Mario Juarez has been part of my Oakland blogging and vlogging work for nearly two decades. I interviewed Mario many times, beginning in 2007 and at one point called him a friend. In 2011, when he was an Oakland businessman I covered as part of my reporting on the city's business and political community. Today, Juarez is a central figure in the federal criminal trial involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, Andre Jones, and Oakland businessmen David Duong and Andy Duong. That history makes the latest development particularly interesting to me. On October 23, federal prosecutors filed a response opposing several defense efforts to introduce additional portions of recordings and text messages under the **Rule of Completeness**. The government argues that the defense is trying to introduce communications that do not actually provide context for the excerpts prosecutors presented to the jury. The Mario Juarez connection My relationship with Juarez is part of the historical record. I interviewed him in 2007: [Watch the 2007 interview with Mario Juarez](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4wgN6nvaAk)** I interviewed him again in 2011: [Watch the 2011 interview with Mario Juarez](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1STxeOg6YqI)** I interviewed him many other times as well. Our relationship changed, for reasons I will explain in the stream, **[Watch the later Zennie/Juarez video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD90fiSmpY8)** I disclose that history because it gives me a different perspective on Juarez's emergence as a key witness in one of Oakland's most consequential federal criminal cases. It does **not**, however, establish whether the government's allegations are true. Those questions belong to the evidence and ultimately the jury. Prosecutors challenge defense evidence In the October 23 filing, prosecutors cite Ninth Circuit precedent holding that the Rule of Completeness does not automatically require an entire recording or written statement to be admitted simply because one side introduced an excerpt. The government says several defense requests involve material that is substantially removed from the government's excerpts — in some instances months earlier, or approximately 100 transcript pages and more than an hour later. One dispute involves **Government Exhibit 987B**. Prosecutors say their excerpt concerns David Duong asking about the status of matters involving the City of Oakland and then discussing Larry Gallegos. The defense wants to add material involving Juarez and money reimbursements. Prosecutors say those are different subjects. Another dispute, **Exhibit 990A**, concerns Andre Jones requesting money. The government says the defense wants to add earlier material about Juarez's reimbursement requests and is attempting to use the Rule of Completeness as a way to introduce additional hearsay. The same argument appears with **Exhibit 998A**, involving Evolutionary Homes. Evolutionary Homes and earlier messages The filing also addresses text messages involving Juarez and Evolutionary Homes. For **Exhibit 706A**, the defense wants to add January 2022 messages concerning a proposed luxury-housing investment in the Oakland Hills and CEQA requirements. The government's exhibit begins with messages from December 2022. For **Exhibit 692A**, the defense wants to add November 2021 messages in which Juarez mentions the modular-homes project. The defense says excluding them could create the impression that Andy Duong initiated Evolutionary Homes. Prosecutors say the defense can simply question Juarez about who initiated the venture and use the earlier message for impeachment if his testimony conflicts with it. Not everything is disputed The government does not oppose every defense request. Prosecutors say they **do not object** to the defense introducing Exhibit 699J, another Evolutionary Homes group-chat excerpt. The government also says the issue concerning Exhibits 730 through 733 is moot because prosecutors already agreed to introduce them. And prosecutors have no objection to Exhibit 1197, concerning the initial House in Box presentation from Juarez. Why this matters The dispute illustrates the larger courtroom battle over how the jury should interpret Juarez's role, his communications and his relationships with the defendants. Current trial reporting describes Juarez as a key cooperating witness. He has pleaded guilty to participating in the alleged scheme, while the defendants on trial have pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors say Juarez's account is supported by other evidence, including texts, recordings, videos and financial records. The defense has challenged his credibility, which makes the question of context especially important. And for me, there is an unusual personal dimension. 🎙️ New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! 😍 https://ift.tt/HUmOg2A
via YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odOw_W2Gadc
Comments