In December 2025, Ramon Alexandro Rovirosa Martinez was found guilty after a bizarre trial of various charges in connection with an alleged Mexican bribery scheme. (See here for the prior post).
As reported here: “the US corruption trial of Mexican businessman Ramon Alexandro Rovirosa Martinez featured no fact witnesses, which led the judge to block the government from introducing most of its evidence until their closing argument.”
Post-trial, Rovirosa filed a motion for a judgement of acquittal and among the reasons stated were the following:
(i) “the Government presented evidence to the jury that was either not properly admitted into evidence and/or that should not have been admitted into evidence;”
(ii) “the jury was provided with text messages to and from alleged co-conspirators that were never properly admitted into evidence, and the Government never offered evidence to satisfy any legal exception to the hearsay rule;” and
(iii) “the jury was provided with testimonial translations of text messages with no testimony by the translator, despite defense counsel’s request and objection, in violation of the Confrontation Clause.”
With that motion pending Rovirosa also filed a “Motion to Dismiss Case with Prejudice Based on the Court’s Supervisory Powers.” Among the reasons stated were the following: “the Government attorneys in this case (1) made misrepresentations to the Court and/or to the jury that willfully mispresented both the record and the legal standards; (2) failed to provide evidence to defense counsel, and (3) failed to present any witnesses at trial with actual knowledge of the facts. Even more alarming, the case was under the legal supervision of a Department of Justice supervisory attorney, who apparently allowed such conduct to occur.”
Last week, Judge Kenneth Hoyt (S.D. Texas) issued an order stating:
“Before the Court are the defendant’s motions for Rule 29(a) dismissal and for acquittal.
Also before the Court are the government responses. After careful review of the motions and responses, the Court determines that clarification is necessary in three areas:
a) When, if ever, do WhatsApp and email transmissions become testimonial, as opposed to instances of translations of a foreign language conversation?
b) When, if ever, do government translations of written foreign communications become admissible and under what federal rules of evidence? The Court seeks case precedent over arguments.
c) Who translated the WhatsApp and email transmissions from the defendant’s device? Are there certificates to support translations? What rules support admission?
It is ORDERED that within 15 days, the defendant and the government shall respond with case law to support limited arguments.”
