Judge Grants Zaglin Request For A Federal Prisoner To Appear As A Witness During Hearing On A New Trial

Key Takeaways

• Judge granted writ for inmate witness in Zaglin new trial.
• Alleged inmate testimony claims co-defendant planned false testimony.
• DOJ argues affidavit unreliable, unlikely to change verdict.
• New trial motion hinges on credibility of prison informant.
• Hearing set for April 17, could impact FCPA enforcement.

Summary

In September 2025 Carl Zaglin was convicted of FCPA violations and sentenced to eight years in federal prison. He has filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that co‑defendant Aldo Marchena discussed lying about Zaglin while incarcerated at FDC Miami. The government disputes the credibility of the inmate affidavit, but a federal judge has issued a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum ordering inmate Danny Rodriguez to appear as a witness at the April 17 hearing. The outcome could determine whether the alleged prison conversation is sufficient to overturn Zaglin’s conviction.

Pulse Analysis

The Zaglin case illustrates the complex interplay between criminal procedure and corporate compliance enforcement. After a jury found Zaglin guilty of bribing Honduran officials and sentenced him to eight years, his legal team seized on an alleged prison conversation in which co‑defendant Aldo Marchena purportedly admitted he would lie on the stand. By securing a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, Judge Jacqueline Becerra has forced the government to confront whether an inmate’s affidavit—originating from a fellow prisoner with a history of false statements—can meet the evidentiary threshold required for a new trial. This procedural maneuver underscores how defendants may leverage any perceived procedural flaw to challenge convictions, especially in high‑stakes foreign‑corrupt‑practice prosecutions.

The Department of Justice’s response focuses on the affidavit’s credibility gaps and the broader evidentiary record that secured Zaglin’s conviction. DOJ officials argue that Marchena denied making the incriminating remarks and that the inmate, Danny Rodriguez, has a pattern of unreliable testimony. They contend that even if the statements were true, they would be immaterial in light of extensive documentary and witness evidence. The court’s willingness to hear the inmate as a witness, however, signals a judicial openness to scrutinize the reliability of prison informants, a factor that could affect future motions for new trials where defendants claim government misconduct or witness tampering.

Beyond the immediate stakes for Zaglin, the hearing may set a precedent for how U.S. courts handle inmate‑derived evidence in FCPA and other white‑collar crimes. Corporations monitoring compliance programs will watch closely, as a ruling that validates such testimony could encourage defendants to seek similar avenues, potentially complicating the DOJ’s investigative strategies. Conversely, a dismissal could reinforce the principle that only robust, corroborated evidence can overturn convictions, reinforcing the deterrent effect of FCPA enforcement across multinational operations.