Latin Kings Pretrial Detention Motion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINAUNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.JORGE PETER CORNELL

::: 11-CR-402-1GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION

I. IntroductionSince approximately 2005, defendant JORGE PETER CORNELL hasproclaimed himself to be the “Inca” or leader of the AlmightyLatin King and Queen Nation (“Latin Kings”) for the entire Stateof North Carolina. The Latin Kings are a violent street gangwith thousands of members across the United States and overseas. After forming in North Carolina, the Latin Kings, led by CORNELL,have committed violent crimes, not only in the Piedmont region,but across the state. These offenses include armed robberies,assaults, firearms violations, an arson, and one attemptedmurder. Most of these crimes were not personally committed byCORNELL, but by Latin King members acting under his direction andpurview. In addition, the Latin Kings and CORNELL in particularhave engaged in a systematic scheme to threaten and intimidatewitnesses in an attempt to prevent them from testifying againstLatin King members for crimes they have committed.The defendant has been charged in a RICO conspiracy. The

Case 1:11-cr-00402-UA Document 37 Filed 12/12/11 Page 1 of 17

maximum punishment for this offense is life in prison. Theestimated advisory sentencing guideline range is 360 months tolife in prison. Because no condition or combination ofconditions will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance asrequired and/or the safety of the community, the government movespursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(e) and (f) for pretrial detentionof defendant JORGE CORNELL. II. Legal StandardPursuant to the Bail Reform Act, a defendant’s pretrialdetention is warranted “upon proof of a likelihood of flight, athreatened obstruction of justice or a danger of recidivism inone or more of the crimes” specified in the statute. UnitedStates v. Himler, 797 F.2d 156, 160 (3d Cir. 1986). The BailReform Act was designed to address “the growing problem of crimescommitted by persons on release and the recognition that ‘thereis a small but identifiable group of particularly dangerousdefendants as to whom neither the imposition of stringent releaseconditions nor the prospect of revocation of release canreasonably assure the safety of the community or other persons.’” United States v. Accetturo, 783 F.2d 382, 383-84 (3d Cir. 1986). The Bail Reform Act enumerates four factors forconsideration: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crimecharged, (2) the nature and seriousness of the danger posed bythe defendant’s release; (3) the history and characteristics of2


the defendant; and (4) the weight of the evidence against thedefendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). An additional factor which the Court should consider iswhether the defendant is associated with a criminal organization,the activities of which routinely include violence and threats ofviolence. The Latin Kings are a criminal organization designedto protect itself and its leadership through a pattern ofviolence and obstruction of justice in a similar manner as othertypes of organized crime groups. Cf. United States v.Martorano, Cr. No. 92-26-J, 1992 WL 73558, at *7 (D. Mass. Mar.23, 1992) (holding that “it is appropriate to consider the natureof the La Cosa Nostra organizations in making the detentioncalculation. In particular, courts have noted the oath taken bymembers of these organizations . . . of vowing to kill anyindividual posing a threat to the organization. The testimonybefore the Court indicates that membership in these organizationsis highly probative of both danger and flight. Past cases alsodemonstrate a danger of obstruction of justice.”). Consequently,where there has been a probable cause finding that a member orassociate of organized crime committed crimes of violence, courtsroutinely find that the risk of continued criminal conduct issubstantial and detention is appropriate. The rationale fordetention in such cases is clear, “The activities of a criminalorganization . . . do not cease with the arrest of its principals3


and their release on even the most stringent of bail conditions.” United States v. Salerno, 631 F. Supp. 1364, 1375 (S.D.N.Y.1986), order vacated, 794 F.2d 64 (2d Cir.), order reinstated,829 F.2d 345 (2d Cir. 1987). Many courts have also found that the leader of a criminalorganization who did not personally commit violent crimes butdirected or controlled other who did to be the most dangerousperson in the criminal organization. See, e.g., United States v.Defede, 7 F. Supp. 2d 390, 395 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (orderingdetention of defendant charged with extortion and extortionconspiracy, and holding that “[g]iven Defede’s position ofleadership in a notorious and violent criminal organization, hisability to plan, order and supervise criminal activity is ofparamount importance. Defede is a danger at least as much forwhat he might direct or assist others in doing as for what hemight do himself”); United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96, 99 (2dCir. 1985) (the captain of an organized crime family crew wasproperly detained even though there was “virtually no evidence ofColombo’s direct participation in the crimes charged.”) III. Factors to be ConsideredA. Nature and Circumstances of the OffenseThe indictment alleges that CORNELL and the Latin Kingsconspired to engaged in a pattern of violent racketeeringactivity between 2006 and 2011 involving instances of robbery,4


assault, and other violent activity. As the “Inca” or “boss” ofthis criminal enterprise, CORNELL did not personally commit manyof the substantive crimes but Latin King members or “soldiers”committed these crimes on behalf of the organization. The indictment in this case is 25 pages long. The FBIinvestigators have accumulated thousands of pages of reports andother records documenting crimes committed by Latin Kings inNorth Carolina under the direction of JORGE CORNELL. It would bedifficult to summarize these crimes in any reasonable length. However, the government will provide a summary of some of themore noteworthy crimes herein.! On April 4, 2008, a Latin King member got into afight with an MS-13 member nicknamed “Guero” at the MaplewoodApartments in Greensboro and was taken to the hospital fortreatment of his injuries. After hearing what happened to theLatin King member, CORNELL met with a group of Latin Kings atJASON YATES’s residence. CORNELL ordered the Latin Kings toavenge the attack on their brother against “Guero”. NumerousLatin Kings, including MARCELO PEREZ, returned to the MaplewoodApartments looking for “Guero”. PEREZ carried a shotgun withhim. CORNELL and a group of Latin Kings pounded on the frontdoor of the apartment belonging to “Guero” while PEREZ andanother Latin King, possibly LUIS ROSA, went around back. Whenhe could not find “Guero,” PEREZ shot a friend of “Guero” with5


the shotgun at close range, nearly killing him. As he shot,PEREZ yelled, “Where’s Guero?”! A few months after the MS-13 associate was shot byMARCELO PEREZ, MS-13 struck back. On August 10, 2008, CORNELLwas shot twice as he entered his apartment. The shooters werereportedly MS-13 members. In response, RUSSELL KILFOIL orderedthe Latin Kings to transport firearms from Charlotte toGreensboro. Two Latin Kings from Charlotte then attempted totransport the firearms to CORNELL and KILFOIL in Greensboro. Enroute, the FBI arranged for local police to pull over the vehicleand seize the loaded guns and a knife. ! In January and February 2008, CORNELL and RUSSELLKILFOIL devised an extortion scheme to get money for themselvesand the gang. One of KILFOIL’s girlfriends worked as anassistant manager at a local cell phone store called HelloWireless. She was responsible for making the cash depositsseveral times per day. One day, CORNELL and KILFOIL confrontedthe assistant manager while she was on her way to make a bankdeposit. CORNELL showed her a handgun and threatened her and herfamily if she did not give the deposits to him. The assistantmanager knew that CORNELL and KILFOIL were Latin Kings membersand knew their reputation for violence. In total, CORNELL,KILFOIL, and the assistant manager embezzled funds on 17occasions for a total of $33,377.97 from Hello Wireless.6


! On June 2, 2009, a group of Latin Kings who hadrebelled against CORNELL’s rule got into an altercation with someLatin Kings who had remained loyal to CORNELL. The next day,CORNELL and other Latin King members met to discuss thisincident. During this meeting, CORNELL spoke on the phone to anunidentified person. CORNELL stated that he wanted 15 “nenas” –code for handguns. CORNELL stated that he needed them by thenext day and said that “all the motherfuckers are going to pay. They [the rebellious Latin Kings] better be glad I wasn’t therethat morning.” CORNELL later stated, “If Latin Kings come fromanother territory and bother my brothers, then bodybags will befilled. North Carolina is my territory.”! On December 31, 2009, in light of the conflict hewas having with the rebellious Latin King members, CORNELL toldone Latin King member that he wanted the rebellious Latin Kingmembers to be killed by stating, “I do not want enemies in thenew year”. Later that evening, SAMUEL VELASQUEZ was stopped bypolice. Inside his bag, police found two rather gruesome lookingmachetes with the word “Corona” (a Latin King reference) stampedon the blade which the Latin Kings were to use to kill members ofthe rebellious faction.! In October 2009, CORNELL ordered a Latin Kingmember to burn down the home of belonging to WESLEY WILLIAMS’sgrandmother so that they could collect the insurance proceeds. 7


The Latin King member refused. Knowing the consequences of hisrefusal, this Latin King member felt that his life was in dangerand fled Greensboro leaving all his belongings behind. On July24, 2010, WESLEY WILLIAMS set the house on fire causing greatdamage. On February 1, 2011, the insurance company issued acheck in the amount of $96,466.23 to WESLEY WILLIAMS’sgrandmother as payment for the house.! In late April 2010, CORNELL rented a van for RICHARDROBINSON and WESLEY WILLIAMS to use. On April 25, 2010, policeofficers stopped this van for a traffic violation. Inside thevehicle, police found a loaded assault rifle, a shotgun, and morethan 90 rounds of ammunition.! On May 26, 2010, some Latin Kings held a meetingafter CORNELL had gotten into an altercation with a rebelliousLatin King member at a local Target store. CORNELL stated thatthis rebellious Latin King had threatened him. The Latin Kingsthen discussed various ways they could get him. A Latin Queenfrom New York stated that she could make an explosive withammonium nitrate to “light that whole shit up”. RUSSELL KILFOILthen ordered the other Latin Kings to find out the rebelliousmember’s daily schedule because “I want to know when and where Ican fucking get him.” Another Latin King member suggested thatthey “throw him in the trunk and duct tape his ass.” That LatinKing further inquired, “Does anybody got duct tape and a machete. 8


I know we got duct tape, but I want to know who got duct tapewith them or some string or something. If I got to take my damnshoe laces to tie this mother fucker up.” A Latin Queen replied,“You’ve got to be careful. You don’t want anything that can betraced back.” CHARLES MOORE then suggested that they “cut histongue out” to prevent him from “snitching” and “cut his handsoff” to prevent him from writing.! On May 27, 2010, the Latin Kings held anothermeeting to further discuss firebombing the homes and vehicles ofthe rebellious Latin King members. During this meeting, theLatin King members started making Molotov cocktails by fillingbottles with gasoline. When they discussed whether to firebombthe “white truck” or the “green” car, CORNELL stated, “You oughtto try and go for both if you could. The green one is in frontof the house normally.” CORNELL further suggested that they waituntil “around 4:30 [a.m.] . . . because between four and five[the] police are switching up [shifts].” CORNELL then instructedthe bombers to park down the block from the targeted house andcome up to the house from the side of the house to avoid beingseen. CORNELL related that RICHARD ROBINSON would make thebottles with the gasoline. As they filled bottles with gasoline,WESLEY WILLIAMS and another Latin King member then got into anargument about how to make the bottles. WILLIAMS said that hehas done this before and he knows what worked for him. At the9


end of the meeting, CORNELL stated that they were going tofirebomb the house on Friday night.! On June 4, 2010, CORNELL and another Latin Kingmember discussed the purchase of a firearm for protection. CORNELL stated that he needed more money to buy a .38 Specialhandgun for $325. In the alternative, CORNELL stated that hecould buy a “little machine gun” which “the Marines use” for$475.00. On June 22, 2010, CORNELL related that he was going togo to Detroit to attend a Latin King meeting. CORNELL statedthat when he got back from Detroit, they would be buying weaponsin “bulk”.! On July 9, 2010, CORNELL bragged about killing anMS-13 gang member. CORNELL stated, “I’m not going to say whenand where but, I got me a 13. I got me one.” CORNELL statedthat he was with RUSSELL KILFOIL at the time and a “certainbrother did not want to mother fucking pull the trigger, so Isnatched it out of his hand and did what I had to do.” CORNELLelaborated, “You know what I’m saying? I can’t stand niggashesitating.”B. Strength of the EvidenceIn this case, the FBI has developed a significant amount ofevidence to substantiate the racketeering enterprise allegationsagainst JORGE CORNELL and the Latin Kings. The FBI has securedthe cooperation of several current and former members of the10


Latin Kings in North Carolina. Through the use of thesecooperators, FBI has recorded scores of conversations involvingCORNELL and the other Latin Kings totaling hundreds of hours. The quotations cited herein are taken from these audiorecordings. Some of the crimes committed by the Latin King werecaptured on videotape. Furthermore, Latin King members havealready been found guilty in state court on many of the RICOpredicate acts. Those state court convictions can be used attrial in federal court to prove their participation in theenterprise. In sum, the government’s case against JORGE CORNELLis very strong.C. History and Characteristics of the DefendantJORGE PETER CORNELL came to North Carolina from New YorkCity, where he claimed that he was the Third Crown or Warlord ofa Latin Kings chapter in that city. CORNELL bragged that he wasfriends with prominent Latin King leaders in New York such asKing Tone and King Blood. CORNELL showed witnesses photographsof himself with these Latin King leaders in New York. After hearrived in North Carolina, CORNELL and his half-brothers,RANDOLPH KILFOIL and RUSSELL KILFOIL, recruited sociallydisadvantaged teenagers and pre-teens to join his gang andparticipate in its criminal conduct. CORNELL’s ties to this community are slim. He has usedmultiple addresses in the past few months. He told the arresting11


agents that he planned to move to New York in February 2012. Tothe government’s knowledge, his employment record can best bedescribed as sporadic. He does have two middle-school ageddaughters who reportedly have already been made as “Latin Queens”and who have attended Latin King meetings in the past.CORNELL has several misdemeanor convictions in NorthCarolina and a felony gun charge from New York. CORNELL wasconvicted (1) in July 2000 in New York for criminal possession ofa loaded firearm, (2) in November 2001 in New York for hinderingprosecution, and (3) in May 2011 in North Carolina for resistingarrest. He remains on probation from his last conviction. The government submits that his conviction relating toobstruction of justice (hindering prosecution) is particularlytroubling. Pretrial detention is warranted in cases in whichthere exists “a serious risk that such person will obstruct orattempt to obstruct justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B). Although the underlying rationale for the rule is based to somedegree on the need to protect potential witnesses from harm,detention is nonetheless authorized by statute absent theprospect of violence. See, e.g., United States v. LaFontaine,210 F.3d 125, 135 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming lower court’srevocation of defendant’s bail based on evidence that LaFontainehad sought to influence witnesses while released on bond, andreiterating “that a record of violence or dangerousness [in the12


sense of violence or threats aimed against witnesses] is notnecessary to support pre-trial detention”).D. Danger Posed by the Defendant’s ReleaseIn this case, there is a very strong danger to the communityand to the government’s witnesses if CORNELL were to be released. Virtually every witness associated with CORNELL, especiallyformer Latin King members, has strongly expressed their fear ofCORNELL. CORNELL has already issued “terminate on sight” or“beat on sight” orders against many of them. CORNELL’s power toendanger witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice is not limitedto his own personal conduct, but he has the power as “Inca” ofthe Latin Kings in North Carolina to order other Latin Kingmembers, from North Carolina and elsewhere, to act on his behalf.It is well established that even the most elaborateconditions of home detention cannot substitute for incarcerationwhere the defendant is violent or cannot be trusted to complywith the conditions of release. For example, in United States v.Bergrin, Cr. No. 09-369, 2009 WL 1560039, at *9 (D.N.J. May 29,2009), Magistrate Judge Madeline Cox Arleo ordered the defendant(a defense lawyer and former prosecutor) detained where he hadadvanced his criminal enterprise “through conversations andmeetings” in which he directed others to commit crimes because“even the most stringent house arrest does not address this harmand does not minimize the very real possibility that further13


similar criminal conduct could be carried out from home.”Courts have consistently held, particularly with respect toprohibiting criminal association, that elaborate bail conditionshave an Achilles’ heel: if there is a unifying theme inthis intricate set of restrictions, it is thatvirtually all of them hinge on the defendant’s goodfaith compliance. To illustrate, electronicmonitoring, while valuable in pretrial release cases .. . cannot be expected to prevent a defendant fromcommitting crimes or deter him from participating infelonious activity within the monitoring radius. Second, by allowing outside visits to doctors andlawyers, the conditions open up a sizeable loophole;there is no feasible way of assuring that [thedefendant], while en route to and from suchappointments, will not make stops and take detours witha view toward continuing his criminal life. Housearrest poses much the same problem; limiting visitorscan only work, for example, if the appellee submits thenames of potential guests for clearance. . . which,itself, is honor-dependent. United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 886-87 (1st Cir. 1990);see also United States v. Bellomo, 944 F. Supp. 1160, 1167(S.D.N.Y. 1996) (“As in Colombo and Orena, the nature and extentof the danger that Bellomo presents arises not only from thethreat of violent acts on his part, but from his position ofleadership in a criminal organization and his ability to plan,order, and supervise criminal activity arising from that positionas well. He is a danger at least as much for what he mightdirect or assist others in doing as for what he might do himself. Keeping him under house arrest would not defuse this danger.”);United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632 (2d Cir. 1993) (“homedetention and electronic monitoring at best ‘elaborately14


replicate a detention facility without the confidence of securitysuch a facility instills’”).IV. ConclusionJORGE PETER CORNELL has reigned over a group of violentLatin Kings spanning over five years. If convicted, CORNELL isfacing an estimated advisory guideline range of 360 months tolife in prison. The evidence against him is strong. He has afelony criminal record and a conviction relating to obstructionof justice (hindering prosecution). He committed the instanceoffense while on probation. When all these factors are viewed inlight of the substantial sentence defendant faces if convicted,it is contended that no condition or combination of conditionswill reasonably assure the presence of the defendant as requiredand/or the safety of the community. The government respectfullysubmits

15Case 1:11-cr-00402-UA Document 37 Filed 12/12/11 Page 15 of 17

that its Motion for Defendant's Pretrial Detention should begranted. Respectfully submitted,RIPLEY RANDUnited States Attorney/s/ROBERT A.J. LANGAssistant United States AttorneyNCSB# 13012U.S. Attorney’s Office251 North Main St., Suite 726Winston-Salem, NC 27101Ph: 336-631-5268Email: [email protected] J. LIVERMORETrial AttorneyU.S. Department of JusticeOrganized Crime and Gang SectionEmail: [email protected]


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA )) Case 1:11CR402-1v. ))JORGE PETER CORNELL )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that on the 12th day of December, 2011, Ielectronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Courtusing the CM/ECF system which will send notification of suchfiling to the following: Michael Patrick [email protected], and I hereby certify that I havemailed by United States Postal Service the document to thefollowing non CM/ECF participants: none.Respectfully submitted,RIPLEY RANDUnited States Attorney/s/ROBERT A.J. LANGAssistant United States AttorneyNCSB# 13012U.S. Attorney’s Office251 North Main St., Suite 726Winston-Salem, NC 27101Ph: 336-631-5268Email: [email protected]


Date post:	02-Dec-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jordan-green
View:	142 times
Download:	1 times

Latin Kings Pretrial Detention Motion

Documents