USA v. Burgos-Lopez

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Jesus Antonio Burgos-Lopez,
Defendant.
No. CR-25-01394-001-PHX-SHD
ORDER
On January 6, 2026, the Court held the Final Pretrial Conference. For the reasons
stated on the record and below,
IT IS ORDERED granting the parties’ request to invoke Fed. R. Evid. 615(a).
Witnesses shall be excluded from the courtroom during other witness’s testimony unless
they are exempted from exclusion by Rule 615(a)(1)–(4).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED acknowledging that Defendant has waived his
presence at side bar for the duration of trial.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Jurors 107, 169, 180, 170, 184, 189, 213,
232, 236, 238, 245, 250, 262, 288, 311, 312, 327, 360 for cause.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Jurors 168, 298 for hardship.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Juror 167 for cause and hardship.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking all Jurors who did not respond to the Juror
Questionnaire.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the unopposed First Motion in Limine to
Case 2:25-cr-01394-SHD Document 56 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Admit Certified Records, (Doc. 37). The following certified records will be admitted
without requiring live testimony by records custodians:
1. Certified Form I-213, dated September 27, 2025
2. Certified Form I-294, dated September 27, 2025
3. Certified Booking Photos, dated September 27, 2025
4. Certified Form I-213, dated September 23, 2020
5. Certified Form I-860, dated September 23, 2020
6. Certified Form I-867A, dated September 23, 2020
7. Certified Form I-867B, dated September 23, 2020
8. Certified Form I-296, dated September 24, 2020
9. Certified Form FD-249 Fingerprint Card, dated September 23, 2020
10. Certified Form FD-249 Fingerprint Card, dated September 27, 2025
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the unopposed Motion in Limine to
Prohibit Defendant from Challenging the Lawfulness of the Removal Order, (Doc. 38).
Defendant is precluded from challenging the lawfulness of the September 2020 removal
order and introducing evidence or argument in that regard at trial.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the unopposed Third Motion in Limine to
Admit Mexican Birth Certificate, (Doc. 39). The Government may admit the Defendant’s
Mexican birth certificate without requiring live testimony by records custodians.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part the Fourth
Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence, (Doc. 40). The motion is granted as to
sections II(b) and (c), which Defendant does not oppose. Accordingly, Defendant is
precluded from offering evidence or testimony regarding his wife’s legal status. The
probative value of this evidence is marginal because Defendant has not gained lawful status
through his wife. The evidence’s marginal probative value is substantially outweighed by
the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, and wasting time.
Defendant is also precluded from offering evidence or testimony regarding his prior
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) acceptance. The evidence is not
Case 2:25-cr-01394-SHD Document 56 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, and wasting time. If Defendant
nevertheless refers to his prior DACA acceptance or uses the terms “DACA” or
“DREAMer,” the government may introduce evidence of Defendant’s criminal history.
The motion is denied as to section II(a), which seeks to preclude testimony about
Burgos-Lopez’s reasons for reentering, including testimony about the fact that he lived,
was educated in, and/or has friends and family in the US. (Doc. 40 at 3.) As structured,
this request is overly broad. The Government may raise objections to specific evidence as
they arise at trial.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s
Motion in Limine to Preclude 404(b) Evidence, (Doc. 35). The motion is granted in part
as to the unopposed request not to adduce evidence concerning the underlying
circumstances of Defendant’s arrest in September 2025 for Aggravated Driving Under the
Influence or the physical fight Defendant had with his neighbor that precipitated the DUI
investigation. Such evidence would violate Rule 403 because any probative value is
substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendants, and further, it is
improper other-acts evidence.
The motion is denied in part as to the request to prohibit any testimony from a Mesa
Police Department officer. (Doc. 35 at 3.) The government has the burden of establishing,
among other elements, that the Defendant voluntarily entered, knowingly remained, and
was free from observation or restraint while present in the United States. It may do so
through the testimony of a Mesa Police Department Officer.
///
///
///
///
///
///
Case 2:25-cr-01394-SHD Document 56 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the parties shall submit simultaneous
supplemental briefing by 5:00pm on Wednesday, January 7, 2026, regarding the
adequacy of the Government’s Supplemental Notices of Intent to Introduce Fingerprint
Expert, (Docs. 36, 41). Supplemental briefing shall focus on whether the Supplemental
Notice provided “the bases and reasons” for the Expert’s opinions. Fed. R. Crim. P.
16(a)(1)(G)(iii).
Dated this 6th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cr-01394-SHD Document 56 Filed 01/07/26 Page 4 of 4