New Trial Sought for Man Convicted in Camarena Killing

Courts: Motion claims government misconduct and perjured testimony in trial
of Mexican businessman.

By Fredric N. Tulsky, Times Staff Writer

In a sweeping attack on a major federal investigation, a defendant
Wednesday sought a new trial Wednesday on the grounds that his conviction
in the murder of a U.S. agent in Mexico was built on government misconduct
and perjured testimony. Ruben Zuno Arce, a Mexican businessman now serving
a life sentence in Texas, asked a U.S. District Court judge to overturn his
conviction in the 1985 kidnapping and slaying of Drug Enforcement
Administration Agent Enrique Camarena in Mexico. Zuno's attorney, Edward M.
Medvene, said: "The government's behavior in this matter has been
outrageous, and its conduct has compromised its entire prosecution of Zuno
and, most certainly, the jury's verdict" in the 1992 trial. Chief Assistant
U.S. Atty. Richard Drooyan in Los Angeles said he could not comment because
he had not yet received the motion. Drooyan said earlier that he has "great
confidence" in the "integrity and judgment" of the trial prosecutors. The
motion challenges several details of testimony by key witnesses in the case
against Zuno, brotherinlaw of former Mexican President Luis Echeverria.
It disputes one witness' testimony that a companion went to a Guadalajara
bank in 1984 and withdrew from a drug lord's account enough U.S. currency
to fill two suitcases. The witness said he and the companion then flew by
private jet to an airstrip on a Mexico City army base, where the money was
delivered to the country's defense minister. But accompanying the motion
are two affidavits that raise questions about that testimony. One, from a
banking official, says it was illegal for banks to disburse U.S. dollars at
the time of the alleged withdrawal. The other, from a Mexican army
commander, says the base named in the testimony does not have an airstrip.
The motion offers the first legal challenge based on questions that have
arisen about the credibility of former Mexican policemen who worked for
drug lords before becoming paid DEA informants in the case.

New information developed by attorneys connected with the case prompted The
Times to undertake a separate examination four months ago that raised
additional questions about the evidence. Prosecutors have said the U.S.
government did its best to corroborate the statements of informants but was
hampered by a lack of cooperation from Mexican authorities. The U.S.
government's informants contended that Zuno, drug lords, top Mexican
government officials and corrupt police conspired to plan the kidnapping.
That testimony was the heart of trials in 1990 and 1992. Wednesday's motion
makes public the declaration from one former informant that U.S. officials
encouraged him to commit perjury during the 1990 trial, which led to the
convictions of Zuno and two others, who are all now serving life sentences.
The key witness was Hector Cervantes Santos, who has recanted that
testimony and now says the U.S. government urged him to falsely implicate
Zuno, his two codefendants and top Mexican officials. Zuno won another
trial but was again convicted after two new informants testified that he
was involved in the conspiracy against Camarena. Even though Cervantes did
not testify at the 1992 trial, the motion argues that his recantation
justifies another trial because it undercuts the testimony of the new
witnesses used in the second trial. The motion also alleges that the two
new witnesses had legal problems that were discovered only after the trial.
Both witnesses, the motion says, used false statements to escape
prosecution in Mexico. The legal challenge also says the U.S. government
acted improperly in withholding a portion of a statement by another
informant who was not called to testify in 1992. Removed from the statement
was an allegation that two months before Camarena's Feb. 7, 1985, slaying,
the thenpresident of Mexico and a former president met with a drug lord to
discuss the agent.

That accusation, Medvene argued, contradicts trial testimony that Zuno and
others still had not determined in late 1984 the identity of the DEA agent
responsible for major marijuana raids in Mexico. "The material
surreptitiously excised by the government, without the knowledge of either
this court or defense counsel, obviously was relevant and should have been
turned over to defense counsel," the motion says.

Copyright Los Angeles Times