Arms Suspect Was Mistaken for Mexicali Aide

U.S. authorities in San Diego were under the mistaken impression that a former San Diego gun shop employee charged with arranging illegal arms sales to Mexico was serving on the staff of the mayor of Mexicali, Mexico, at the time of his indictment, a federal agent testified in U.S. District Court here Tuesday.

Sonny D. Manzano, an agent of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, acknowledged in testimony that investigators thought Roberto Martin del Campo was working for the mayor during the inquiry this year for alleged arms violations. At the time, Martin del Campo was on probation for an arms conviction when he worked as a salesman in a downtown San Diego gun shop.

Kenneth R. McMullan, the defense lawyer who elicited the testimony from the federal agent, was apparently attempting to demonstrate that the investigation against his client was improperly motivated.

In April, a federal grand jury in San Diego indicted Martin del Campo on new gun charges. He is accused in a 34-count indictment of arranging the illegal sales of 16 paramilitary assault rifles that were allegedly destined for a Mexican police official with close ties to that nation’s lucrative drug trade. He has denied the charges.

The confusion about the defendant’s job apparently arose because Martin del Campo’s son, whose first name is also Roberto, is the personal secretary and press officer for Francisco Santana Peralta, the Mexicali mayor.

In his testimony, Manzano said investigators saw the press secretary’s name in a newspaper article in December and assumed he was the same man being investigated.

Officials didn’t learn of their mistake until the elder Martin del Campo was arraigned on the latest gun-smuggling charges in May, Manzano said.

The agent testified during a hearing before U.S. District Judge J. Lawrence Irving. The session was called to hear various motions, including a defense request that the latest charges against the elder Martin del Campo be dropped.

The defense maintains that the federal indictment against him is vindictive, constitutes double jeopardy and violates a plea-bargain agreement reached in the earlier case.

Disputing that assertion was Warren P. Reese, the assistant U.S. attorney handling the case. Reese said in an interview afterward that the mistake about the defendant’s employment was irrelevant.

No decision was reached during the court session. The hearing was scheduled to resume Oct. 17.