USA v. Luis-Azamar

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.
Isaac Luis-Azamar,
Defendant.
No. CR-26-00084-001-PHX-SHD
ORDER
Before me is Defendant Isaac Luis-Azamar’s Emergency Motion for a Status
Conference, Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Motion to Compel Immunity, Motion
for Emergency Deposition, and Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 65 (the “Motion”).) On June 4,
2026, I granted some of the relief Defendant requested, (see Doc. 66), and on June 5, 2026,
I held a hearing to discuss the remaining issues, (see Doc. 72), and denied some of the other
relief requested, (see Doc. 74). On June 8, 2026, Defendant filed a Supplement to the
Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 78 (the “Supplement”).) That same morning, a day before trial
was set to begin, I held a further status conference to address the Supplement and other
outstanding pretrial issues. (See Doc. 83.) For the reasons stated on the record at that
hearing, I continued the trial and set a schedule for briefing on the Motion to Dismiss and
the Supplement. This written order further explains my reasoning.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant and his father, Silas Luis-Castro, were arrested on January 30, 2026,
outside a Home Depot parking lot. (Doc. 78 at 1.) The Government deported Mr. Luis-
Case 2:26-cr-00084-SHD Document 84 Filed 06/08/26 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
Castro on February 2, 2026—the same day as Defendant’s initial appearance—without
charging him with any offense. (Id. at 1–2; Doc. 65 at 2.)
Defendant intends to assert a defense-of-others theory at trial, (see e.g., Doc. 28 at
2), and describes Mr. Luis-Castro as the only non-law-enforcement witness, other than
Defendant himself, to the alleged assault, (Doc. 65 at 4). In early March 2026, defense
counsel notified the Government of its intent to call Mr. Luis-Castro as a witness at trial.
(Doc. 78 at 2.) Over the following months, the parties exchanged communications about
whether and how Mr. Luis-Castro could be paroled into the United States to testify. (See
id. at 2–3.) In light of the challenges identified, Defendant moved to depose Mr. Luis-
Castro in Nogales, Sonora prior to the final pretrial conference. (Doc. 31.) The
Government ultimately represented that U.S. Customs and Border Protection would parole
Mr. Luis-Castro into the United States to testify at trial, and I ordered the Government to
take all reasonable and logical steps to ensure his attendance. (Doc. 51.)
On June 3, 2026—one week before trial—the Government “raised that Mr. Luis-
Castro would be incriminating himself by testifying as to his presence in the United States
on January 30, 2026,” and suggested that he should be appointed independent counsel.
(Doc. 65 at 2–3.) Defendant contends that this was the first time the Government had
raised the issue; the Government disputes that characterization. On June 4, 2026,
Defendant filed the Motion, seeking, among other relief, an order compelling the
Government to grant use immunity to Mr. Luis-Castro under 18 U.S.C. § 6001; an
appointment of counsel for Mr. Luis-Castro; an emergency deposition; and, as a final
alternative, dismissal in the interest of justice based on the Government’s handling of Mr.
Luis-Castro. (See id. at 3–5.) I appointed counsel for Mr. Luis-Castro,1 (Docs. 67, 76),
and denied the request to compel the Government to grant use immunity, (Doc. 74).
On June 5, 2026, after counsel was appointed, Mr. Luis-Castro indicated through
counsel that he is no longer willing to testify or to sit for a deposition, even with assurances
1 Initial counsel was required to withdraw, and on Friday, June 5, 2026, I appointed
Joseph Duarte as substitute counsel for Mr. Luis-Castro. (Doc. 76.) Mr. Duarte will be
ordered to remain as counsel through the conclusion of trial.
Case 2:26-cr-00084-SHD Document 84 Filed 06/08/26 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
against prosecution. (See Doc. 77.) Defendant then filed the Supplement, framing the
Government’s deportation of Mr. Luis-Castro, the protracted delay in resolving his
appearance, and the suggestion on the eve of trial that he may incriminate himself, as
governmental interference with a material defense witness in violation of the Fifth and
Sixth Amendments. (See Doc. 78.) For the first time, Defendant supports that argument
with case authority. Defendant seeks dismissal as the primary remedy, in the alternative
requests an adverse jury instruction at trial, and also withdraws the Motion for Emergency
Deposition. (Id. at 8.)
II. GROUNDS FOR CONTINUANCE
As stated on the record, I find that a continuance is warranted because the ends of
justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the
Defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C § 3161(h)(7)(A). Failure to grant a continuance
would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice and would deny counsel for the parties
the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of
due diligence. See id. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (iv). First, the Supplement expands Defendant’s
allegations of governmental misconduct, raises very serious allegations, and seeks an
adverse jury instruction as alternative relief. The Government must be afforded a
meaningful opportunity to respond, particularly because Defendant has now cited case
authority that, if established on the facts alleged, could support dismissal. Full briefing is
required before I can rule.
Second, at the status conference held this morning, additional grounds for
continuance came to light. Defendant identified a potential issue under United States ex
rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), concerning one of the witnesses the defense
intends to call. Defendant also identified discovery materials disclosed by the Government
late last week—approximately fifty pages of documents and a ten-minute audio
recording— portions of which Defendant asserts are helpful to the defense. The defense
asserted that the materials were produced two days before the scheduled start of trial, and
the Government did not flag or otherwise call attention to the disclosure, which further
Case 2:26-cr-00084-SHD Document 84 Filed 06/08/26 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
supports a continuance.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the trial set to begin June 9, 2026, is CONTINUED and
reset for July 14–16, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Emergency Deposition (part of
Doc. 65) is DENIED as moot in light of Defendant’s withdrawal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government shall file its response to the
Supplement, (Doc. 78), no later than June 15, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant may file a reply no later than June
22, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference is set for Thursday, July
2, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joseph Duarte shall continue as counsel for
material witness Silas Luis-Castro through the conclusion of trial.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if any subpoenas were previously issued and
served in this matter, that they remain in effect and are answerable at the new trial date and
the party who served the subpoena should advise the witnesses of the trial date.
The Court finds excludable delay under Title 18 U.S.C § 3161(h)(7)(A) from
June 10, 2026, to July 14, 2026.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2026.
Case 2:26-cr-00084-SHD Document 84 Filed 06/08/26 Page 4 of 4