The Variety is withholding the name of the government source due to the sensitivity of his testimony that led to the arrest of the defendant, Fernando Quitano.
Quitano has denied the charges of two counts of aggravated assault and battery, two counts of assault and battery, two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, armed robbery, theft, contempt, two counts of attempted first degree murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and burglary.
Wiseman denied the motion in limine filed by Quitano’s lawyer, Stephen Woodruff.
According to Wikipedia, a “motion in limine (Latin: “at the threshold”) is a motion made before the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may, or may not, be introduced to the jury in a trial.”
Court documents showed that the government source was together with Quitano, and Marlon Martin, when they robbed 24 Hours Pawnshop on Oct. 23, 2009.
Martin is now serving a seven-year jail term after he admitted armed robbery.
Quitano escaped but was arrested on Nov. 2, 2009.
Prior to his appearance in court, the cooperating source entered into an agreement with the government.
As part of the stipulation which was filed under seal, the cooperating source would be released from custody on his own recognizance.
In exchange, the source agreed to cooperate with law enforcement.
As a result of fast personnel turnover, the Attorney General’s Office said it lost track of utilizing him as the key cooperating source in this case.
The lead prosecutor in the case resigned last year.
The cooperating source was supposed to report to a local police officer, but the latter was taken into federal custody at that time.
Assistant Attorneys General Russel Lorfing and Tiberius Mocanu were assigned to the case, four weeks prior to the Feb. 28, 2011 jury trial.
“The court finds that the government has acted in good faith and has presented a credible reason for its failure to identify the witness earlier,” Wiseman stated in his written ruling yesterday.
He added, “The court is well aware that the Attorney General’s Office has, in the last year and a half, suffered a great deal of turmoil due to staff and attorney turnover. However, the court considers losing track of a key cooperating source witness egregious misconduct on the part of the Attorney General’s Office. This type of negligence and inability to keep the office organized cannot be tolerated. Such misconduct will not go without adverse consequences in the future.”
