home

11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Arizona

By Jeralyn, Section Misconduct
Posted on Fri May 13, 2005 at 07:43:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In an Arizona federal court yesterday, 11 law enforcement agents caught up in the FBI cocaine sting we wrote about here, offically pleaded guilty. They were all granted bond pending sentencing. In an amazing display of arrogance, the wife of the nabbed INS Agent said,

"I think that the FBI should get the real drug dealers out there not just come and find all the innocent people to bribe them," said Kim Castillo.

Flash to Mrs Castillo: Your husband pleaded guilty. He admitted he took bribes to let cocaine come into the country. He's no longer innocent. Practice a little remorse or you'll both be sorry come sentencing day. There's no difference between the guy who loads or drives the truck and the agent who takes a bribe to let it proceed onto the streets. In fact, your husband is more culpable because he abused his position of trust.

Maybe Mrs. Costillo wasn't listening in court, but here's what her husband admitted doing:

John M. Castillo, 30, was on duty as an INS inspector at a border checkpoint in Nogales in April 2002 when he twice allowed a truck he believed was carrying at least 88 pounds of cocaine to enter the country without being inspected, Hillman said.

Castillo later sold INS documents to an undercover FBI agent that fraudulently provided for entry of undocumented immigrants into the United States, he said.

Actually, this was a reverse sting, not a sting. A reverse sting is where the feds are selling or providing the drugs, rather than purchasing. I am totally against them, as all the ones I've defended have bordered on entrapment.

I had a reverse sting case in Fort Lauderdale some years ago where the agents pretended to be sellers and took $200k of my client's money. By the end of the case, a Customs agent and three members of the Hallendale police department went to jail for several years, and my client, whom they had tricked into buying drugs, was released after serving a year in the county jail without bond awaiting trial. Unlike the Arizona case, these agents got caught not for assisting the drug dealers, but for robbing them. But then, what did they do with the drugs they stole except turn around and re-sell them. In other words, they put them back on the street.

From the Miami Herald, 10/29/97 (available on Lexis.com):

Three former Hallandale police officers and an ex-Customs inspector who admitted to a grand scheme to overlook smuggled drugs then rob the traffickers were sentenced Monday in Miami. U.S. District Judge Lenore C. Nesbitt gave out sentences that ranged from six to 7-1/2 years. All four defendants pleaded guilty in May to federal conspiracy and extortion charges after a nine-month joint sting operation by U.S. Customs and the FBI.

The admissions were part of a plea agreement arranged by federal prosecutors, which helped the former officers avoid 25-year maximum sentences, if convicted. The arrests of Officers Gilberto Hernandez and Thomas Murphy and Sgt. John Salazar sent tremors through Hallandale's police ranks. With only 88 sworn personnel, the scandal left deep scars in morale.

Hernandez, a seven-year veteran of the force, confessed that he and a friend, Customs Supervisor Edwin Perez, masterminded the operation. Hernandez received the most severe sentence, 7-1/2 years, and Perez got 6-1/2. Prosecutors said the pair used Perez's knowledge of trafficking routes and airport security to pull profitable heists.

Cops are like everyone else. There are good ones and bad ones. And sometimes, just like other people, good cops do bad things. It's why it makes no sense that juries seem so ready to believe the word of a police officer over other witnesses.

Update: Two more pleaded guilty in Arizona today.

The Justice Department website says the cops did not plead guilty to drug crimes as the news is now reporting, but to one count of "conspiracy to enrich themselves by obtaining cash bribes from persons they believed to be narcotics traffickers," which carries a maximum penalty of five years.

< Three Prominent Boston Lawyers Facing Disbarment | Weekend Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Arizona | 11 comments (11 topical)
    Re: 11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Ariz (none / 0) (#1)
    by livefree on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    TL, a little gentler on the wife I think, its her job to be in her husband's corner. Hey, she's probably still very much upset, frustrated, angry over learning what her husband did. It is a sad lesson in the realities of the drug war.

    Re: 11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Ariz (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    Well said. Human beings seem to have a lot of trouble saying, hey, I screwed up. How do I make this right now? It get easier with practice, but to get any practice, you have to be willing to own up to a mistake now and again. Working in bankruptcies right now I see one type of client who has created their financial nightmare, but can't figure out their responsibility for it. When they are in Chapter 13, I get to work with them for 3 to 5 years and help them figure out how they have to do to maintain their fiscal contract. Three to five at hard labor can be pretty educational. I feel sorry for this custom agent wife and for the young man TL described, they are on the hook and writhing around. It would be a good time to stop fighting and take that personal moral inventory thing that 12 steppers mention occasionally.

    Re: 11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Ariz (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    Oh, and by the way, the War on Drugs is almost as stupid as the war on terrorism. Time to sue for peace and terms. Let's get the profit margin down by decriminalizing drug use and addiction and have our border patrols focus on other matters, like toxic or dangerous materials deliberately or unintentionally being transported across our borders. NAFTA has made that legal to some extent, but there may still be some dangerous contraband in transit.

    Re: 11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Ariz (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    Aren't they supposed to confiscate all the property to sell and pay for the drug war? If the "poor wife" (like thousands of other innocents caught up in the WOD) is still driving her car and going to her home then she got special treatment. I feel bad for her too but the law should be applied evenly or, IMHO, not at all.

    Re: 11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Ariz (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    I plead guilty to a DUI almost ten years ago and was absolutely remorseful about what had happened. The reason why I was pulled over while moving my friends car from one side of the street to the other was pretty shaky, but I wasn't going to bring this up in court, especially during sentencing. It is just common sense to let the judge know that you are sorry for what you did and want to rectify the situation by going along with whatever punishment is handed down. The time to argue any point of contention was over as soon as I plead guilty. The best thing to happen to me was I learned my lesson well, haven't done it again, and now it is completely expunged from my record. It pays to fess up sometimes.

    Re: 11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Ariz (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    Excellent response, TL. Kinda reminds Blahg of the old practice of swearing on a stack of Bibles that you "didn't do it," and then when you're convicted, pleading for leniency "as an abused child..." Well, if you didn't do it, why are you making excuses for why you did it? Another sure-fire ticket to the bighouse, if Blagh is on the bench...

    Re: 11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Ariz (none / 0) (#8)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    Even with credit for cooperation in investigating and prosecuting others involved in the scheme, this is still a sweetheart deal that most defendants never see.
    Maybe he was threatened with a 30 year sentence if he took the case to trial and lost. Maybe he was entrapped but figured a guaranteed sentence of under five years was better than a risk of a ten, twenty or thirty year sentence. That's fine. Thousands of defendants decide to take that choice -
    Well TL which is it? Were they given preferential treatment or did they just get what's coming to them? Seems like I recall an early plea being a circumstance in mitigation, could that be the case here since there was a very early plea? Perhaps they were honorable, knew they were caught and did what was right. Personally I think they are a good argument for mandatory minimums, they should do at least 10 years. They are the front lines of protection and they dishonored their profession. Plus, we're not talking about a gram of coke here. Blahg, I don't get your comment, I read no information in these articles about anyone claiming they didn't do it, or asking for leniency, nor were there any excuses IIRC. Perhaps you, like many others here, saw a easy chance to take a shot at cops and took it?

    Re: 11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Ariz (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    Patrick: In my view they got preferential treatment. Justice Department policy, since Ashcroft, is that the Government is supposed to make you plead to the most serious count they can prove. By the agents' admissions during guilty pleas, it sounds to me like they could have proven (1)conspiracy to import cocaine, (2)aiding and abetting importation of cocaine, (3)conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute cocaine, (4)aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine. Conspiracy and aiding and abetting are separate crimes and they carry the same penalty as the object crime. Depending on quanity, these would be either 5 to 40 year or 10 year to life penalties - these cops have pleaded guilty to a 0 to 5 year crime. Again, I don't give legal advice here so don't rely on this, it's just my opinion.

    Re: 11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Ariz (none / 0) (#10)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    since Ashcroft, is that the Government is supposed to make you plead to the most serious count they can prove.
    Hmmm, shouldn't they believe they can prove every charge they bring? and, if they are limited as you say, what good are plea bargains if you can't plea to a lesser include?
    By the agents' admissions during guilty pleas, it sounds to me like they could have proven..........
    Well they didn't have those admissions prior to the plea now did they? Be careful, your bias is showing again. I'm not defending their actions, I believe they should be in prison for a long time, just like the rest of the criminals. It sounds like they got a plea deal that even according to you, happens thousands of times...Hardly preferential, and rightly so.

    Re: 11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Ariz (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:04 PM EST
    well, we will never know now what the prosecutors could have proven, and as Ms, Castillo said, the FBI should get the real drug dealers out there not just come and find all the innocent people to bribe them. You know, stop going after the decent folks. Mr. and Ms. Castillo - redstaters or blue staters? You make the call.

    Re: 11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Ariz (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:00:48 AM EST
    Sorry, Live Free. It's a message to defendants. I was in court today, waiting for my case to be called, and watched a sentencing on a probation violation. The defendant, a college student, had been driving drunk and crossed over the median on the highway, and his passenger, his best friend, was killed. The defendant accepted a plea bargain and at the sentencing a year ago, the parents of the best friend had pleaded with the judge to give the defendant another chance. The judge did. Now, a year later, the defendant admitted violating probation by getting drunk and blacking out and whatever else he did, I wasn't paying attention to that part. I started paying attention when the DA made an argument that the defendant hadn't honored the memory of the victim. At that point, I was in the defendant's corner. That's not a requirement of probation. All of a sudden the whole courtroom was listening. The DA was forced to acknowledge, in response to a question from the Judge, that the parents of the dead best friend still didn't want prison for the guy, even though he had violated probation. She agreed prison was not necessary, but she wanted boot camp. When she was done, the Judge, as required, asked if the defendant had anything to say. His lawyer stepped back from the microphone as he urged the defendant forward, expecting an appropriate response, which, knowing the lawyer, they had gone over several times. The defendant's first words were, "This was a one time occurance." I wish there was a camera on the lawyers in the "peanut gallery." We all did a double take and whispered to each other, "oh sh*t" - he just bought himself a ticket to the Department of Corrections." Sure enough, the judge got upset. He didn't lose his cool, but he basically called the guy an idiot. All the defenant had to do was go along. By trying to justify the unjustifiable, he blew it. The judge said, "I was all set to put you back on probation until you said that." The kid got 3 years in the state penitentiary. No boot camp, no community corrections. As his lawyer and associate were leaving the courtroom, the associate leaned down to those of us watching and said, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't...." His lawyer, of course, was too professional to say or show anything. But we all know him and knew he was mortified. Six months of negotiations and work down the drain. Defendants need to know, once you plead guilty or acknowledge a probation violation, the gig is up. It's not time for excuses or recrimininations. Your only hope is remorse, remorse and more remorse. If you're not prepared to do that, you should maintain your innocence, make them prove it and keep your mouth shut. I would cut this INS agent's wife some slack if her husband had not admitted his guilt. But now that he has, her comments are only gong to anger the probation officer doing the presentence report and the judge who is going to sentence him. Maybe he was threatened with a 30 year sentence if he took the case to trial and lost. Maybe he was entrapped but figured a guaranteed sentence of under five years was better than a risk of a ten, twenty or thirty year sentence. That's fine. Thousands of defendants decide to take that choice - and most of them should take that choice. The point is, once they do, they need to stop claiming they are the victim and go the remorse route. Otherwise, they are jeopardizing the deal. One more thing: These Arizona cops and agents [edited] agreed to plead guilty before charges were filed. That means they didn't wait for the benefit of court-ordered discovery -and any exculpatory evidence the Government would have been required to diclose. In other words, they knew, after seeing whatever limited information the Government felt like showing them, that their goose was cooked.

    11 Law Enforcement Agents Plead Guilty in Arizona | 11 comments (11 topical)