Two developments in the Fernando Parra case today: Federal Judge Norbert Garney granted bond to Parra in a hearing that featured a show of support from his family and a strong endorsement from the stand by County Clerk Delia Briones. The decision quickly was appealed by the government, and late Wednesday it was unclear when the appeal would be heard.

Meanwhile, as the hearing took place, the U.S. Attorney's office sent out a news release announcing that Parra had been indicted on the child pornography charges for which he was arrested.

The news release from the U.S. Attorney's office stated this about the indictment: "The indictment charges Parra with one count each of distribution of child pornography, possession of child pornography and interstate transportation of obscene material. Upon conviction of all charges, Parra faces between five and 35 years in federal prison. The indictment alleges that for a year beginning in September 2005, Parra knowingly received and transmitted via a computer visual depictions of child pornography." [see indictment via link at bottom of story]

The news release stated that the case was "being prosecuted as part of the Department of Justice’s Project Safe Childhood (PSC) initiative. PSC is a comprehensive initiative aimed at preventing the abuse and exploitation of children through the Internet or other distribution technology."

However, testimony during the bond hearing made it clear that the case against Parra stemmed from the FBI public corruption investigation.

FBI Agent Ricardo Ale testified that the child pornography case against Parra began in October. Toward the end of the hearing, prosecuting Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Gregory ran down a list of reasons why Parra was a flight risk, including that he was a target in the FBI corruption case. Garney asked how long he had been a target, and Gregory said that Parra had been a target since September, 2006.

Parra's arrest received a high level of media interest because of his connection to the FBI public corruption investigation. The immediate speculation in the legal community -- and among many NPT readers who sent in comments -- was that the charge was being used to pressure Parra into making a deal with prosecutors, making the bond hearing a key element in building the case.

***

The hearing began with Gregory calling Ale to the stand.

Gregory asked a series of questions designed to show that Parra was a flight risk because he went to Juarez often -- more than he admitted during pre-trial interviews, she said -- and that he was close to his father, who owns property in Mexico.

The questions also touched on Parra's marriage. Ale asserted that recovered computer files showed Parra discussing his marriage and residence with his father, friends and co-workers.

Ale said Parra, a naturalized citizen who applied for citizenship in 2006, wrote notes to his father in which he discussed the 2004 purchase of a home at 919B Agua Caliente as a payment to his wife, whom he married in 2004.

Ale said Parra moved out of the home in 2006, to an apartment owned by Luther Jones at 1800 Stanton.

Gregory used that testimony -- and other testimony by Ale alleging homosexual relationships between Parra and others -- to make the case that the marriage was sham, another element to what rapidly is becoming a very convoluted plot. That was to come up later, when Parra's wife was called to the stand.

***

On cross examination, Regina Arditti, who said she was working on the case as a favor to Doris Sipes, who is Parra's lawyer and with whom Arditti shares an office, attempted to undercut the argument that Parra was a flight risk. Arditti used her questioning of Ale to make several statements: That Parra has lived in the U.S. for 11 years, that he attended Cathedral and UTEP, that he has held several jobs, and that he has demonstrated his commitment to the country by going through the citizenship process.

She said that the government evidence that Parra's two vehicles -- a Honda and a Jaguar -- had entered the U.S. 50 times since July did not prove that it was Parra at the wheel. And Ale answered "no" when Arditti asked whether Parra lived in any residence outside of El Paso lived in by Parra since the investigation began.

Then Arditti called Sipes, who was not there.

Then Arditti called Adrian Parra, Fernando Parra's wife.

Here is where the case took another turn.

***

Garney told Adrian Parra that there was a strong possibility, "if not probability," that "if what I heard is true, and the government asserts that it is," the government might charge her with crimes related to a fraudulent marriage.

He asked her if she wanted to proceed. She hesitated, and said yes.

Garney was not convinced, and asked her if she wanted a lawyer. She looked at Arditti.

That was enough for Garney. He said that Arditti had a conflict. He told Parra that she could talk to Arditti, but "you're certainly not going to do it in front of me."

The same happened with Ruth Fernandez, who was called as a character witness.

As soon as she was called, the prosecutor asked to approach the bench. "I've just been informed by the prosecutors that you too could be charged," said Garney, who did not specify the charges other than to say they were state charges.

Fernandez said she hadn’t done anything wrong and she was ready to testify, but Garney insisted she seek legal counsel.

Then Arditti called Briones.

***

After she was sworn, Garney made a statement.

"Obviously," he said, "Judge Briones is the senior district judge here. If someone has a problem, I don't know what we'll do."

Delia Briones is married to Federal Judge David Briones.

Nobody raised the issue further.

Arditti asked a series of basic questions: Does Briones know Fernando Parra? Yes. How long? About three years.

She asked whether Parra would leave the country. Briones said that he has a sister with mental needs and he has "a calling to be with his family."

She said that to her knowledge, Parra was an "upstanding citizen," and she considered he and his wife friends of the family.

"He loves the United States, and he roots here. He treasures that," Briones said. She said he was applying to law school, and she did not think he would leave the country: "His word has validity."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof stepped in for the cross-examination.

She asked if Briones cared about Parra personally. Yes. Had she been in his home? Yes.

Which one?

Briones answered, the home on Stanton.

Then Kanof fired off a series of questions designed to show Parra's interests in Mexico. Did Briones know Parra's father owned property? Yes. Did she know Parra collected rents for his father? Yes, but not how often. What is a flight risk? "I have two sons," Briones said, comparing Parra to them. "I know the condition of his heart. I'm just going by how I know him."

Kanof: You said he gave you political advice? Briones: In the past, yes.

Garney interrupted: Irrelevant.

In a somewhat light moment, Kanof asked whether Briones would take Parra into her home. "Yes," Briones said. "I haven't discussed it with my husband, but it's a marriage." Some light laughter filtered through the room, packed several rows deep with family members and supporters.

***

Both sides wrapped up their arguments.

Arditti offered six items of evidence, including round-trip tickets from El Paso to Houston to Brazil, to counter the government's implication that Parra's trip to Brazil, where he would be out of contact, was a warning flag.

She said that had Adrian Parra been allowed to testify, she would have said that she and Fernando Parra were reconciling. Fernandez would have testified that she knew Fernando Parra for several years and he was not a flight risk, Arditti said.

She reiterated that Parra had lived in El Paso for 11 years, his siter was here, he made an effort to naturalize, he had no criminal history, and he was willing to report to the court on a daily basis.

Garney asked where Parra lived. In the N. Stanton rental, Arditti said, but he would move in with his wife at the home on Agua Caliente.

Gregory ran down the counts against Parra, and said for such crimes there is a presumption that the accused is a danger to the community. She said that he gave conflicting statements about how often he traveled to Juarez, and told investigators his father lived in Juarez, when his father lives in the interior of Mexico.

"He continues to engage in deceit," she said.

Gregory said in addition to the serious crimes he is charged with, marriage fraud is another "potential crime," and he is a target in the public corruption case.

"He has every reason to flee," she said.

Arditti had a last comment. She said Parra cooperated with the government as much as he could "with what he knows."

Kanof came to attention. "That is absolutely false!" she exclaimed.

Garney stopped them, said they were getting "afield."

Then he made his ruling. Bond set at $50,000, with the condition that Parra live on Agua Caliente, be subject to electronic monitoring, turn in his passport, and follow a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew.

Parra's family collectively breathed a sigh of relief. Some had tears in their eyes. Earlier, a sister had mouthed "I love you" to Parra.

As the family filed outside to huddle and talk to counsel, the government lawyers hurried to file their appeal of Garney's decision.

Related Documents: