New Trial Sought for Man Convicted in Camarena Killing

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, brother-in-law 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 co-defendants 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 then-president 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.