|
Only have a minute? Listen instead
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
McALLEN — The trial of two Mission siblings implicated in part of a larger probe into rampant public corruption in Western Hidalgo County has been rescheduled until at least December.
Jorge O’Caña Jr. and his sister, Veronica O’Caña, were scheduled to begin trial this week in McAllen federal court. The trial has had a dozen resets since they were indicted and arrested.
The pair — who are the nephew and niece of former Mission Mayor Armando O’Caña — are facing a combined five counts of witness tampering and obstruction, money laundering, and Travel Act violations.
However, two factors resulted in their trial being delayed — a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that has impacted the prosecution, and Veronica O’Caña wanting new legal representation.
“I believe there are no contentious issues … but a conflict has arisen and a breakdown in communications,” David Acosta, the McAllen attorney who has thus far been representing Veronica O’Caña, said during a hearing Wednesday morning.
Acosta said he and Veronica O’Caña had had a difference of opinion on her defense, and as such, he could no longer represent her.
The attorney said he had been unable to come to an agreement with Veronica O’Caña on potential defense strategies, “in part, as she is unsatisfied with my services.”
Acosta added that O’Caña had already been searching out new attorneys.
A moment later, Veronica O’Caña confirmed that before senior U.S. District Judge Micaela Alvarez.
“Yes, I agree that I would like to seek other counsel,” Veronica O’Caña said.
The judge acknowledged that O’Caña has the right to choose who represents her, but nonetheless warned the career real estate agent about the risks of obtaining new counsel so close to the start of trial.
“He’s going to be on the fast track. … This case is going to move forward fast,” Alvarez said, noting that the case has been pending since 2022.
Ultimately, Alvarez allowed Acosta to withdraw from the case, citing the prosecution’s need for more time before trial can commence.
There’s “some legal issues, some new cases from the Supreme Court,” Alvarez said.
“The government’s gonna need to go back to amend the indictment,” she added.
Alvarez was referring to a federal statute whose long-held interpretation was recently changed by a June 28 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving a defendant accused of participating in the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
That statute, Title 18, Sec. 1512 of the U.S. Code, deals with witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
Both Jorge and Veronica O’Caña are facing charges under that statute — Jorge in Count 1, and Veronica in Count 5 of the amended superseding indictment.
But both counts lie at the crux of the prosecution’s case against them.
Count 1 alleges that Jorge O’Caña informed his sister, as well as a witness, Antonio Gonzalez III, of the ongoing federal bribery investigation into contracts awarded to an Indiana-based energy infrastructure company called Performance Services Inc., and the Mission school district.
The bribery scheme allegedly occurred between January and March 2018 and involved paying off a Mission CISD school board trustee to sway the board’s vote in PSI’s favor.
In early April 2022 — just three months before a federal grand jury would hand up the first criminal charge against him — Jorge O’Caña attempted “to influence Antonio Gonzalez, III not to cooperate with law enforcement regarding said investigation,” the indictment reads, in part.
Further, Jorge O’Caña allegedly told Gonzalez that he “intended to lie to law enforcement regarding payments he received that were related to said investigation.”
Count 5, meanwhile, alleges that around the same time that Jorge was allegedly pressuring Gonzalez to stymie investigators, Veronica O’Caña tried to convince Gonzalez to lie to the grand jury.
“Veronica O’Caña did knowingly and corruptly attempt to obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding … by attempting to influence Antonio Gonzalez, III to state that bribe payments made to Veronica O’Caña were for real estate or interior design consulting,” the indictment reads.
However, federal prosecutors cited a particular section of the witness tampering statute in Counts 1 and 5 of the indictment.
Specifically, the O’Cañas are charged under Sec. 1512(c)(2), which states that is a crime for someone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so…”
In this case, the “official proceeding” is the grand jury’s deliberations.
But, in late June, the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors in several Jan. 6 insurrection cases were applying the statute too broadly in indictments that allege those defendants had obstructed the “official proceeding” of the U.S. Congress certifying the results of the November 2020 presidential election.
The high court found that obstruction under that section of the statute should only apply if physical objects used as part of an official proceeding were impacted by the alleged crime.
“(T)he Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so,” the June 28 opinion in Fischer v. United States states.
Alvarez, the judge overseeing the O’Caña case, reset the trial for Dec. 9.
