Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction for importing marijuana where he attempted to enter the country by driving a car that had multiple packages of marijuana hidden in the gas tank and dashboard. At the time of defendant's arrest, he was driving a car owned by Diana Hernandez. At issue was whether the government’s use of Hernandez’s hearsay statement violated the Confrontation Clause. The court held that because Hernandez's statement - that she had sold the car to defendant six days before defendant's arrest - was "testimonial," defendant had the right to confront her as a witness; defendant's rights were violated where he was not given an opportunity to do so; and the admission of the statement was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Esparza" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for knowingly and intentionally importing a controlled substance into the United States. The court affirmed the judgment, rejecting defendant's argument that recent Supreme Court authority requires the government to prove that the defendant knew the specific type and quantity of the drugs he imported in order to trigger the ten year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(H). View "United States v. Jefferson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of willful infliction of harm or injury to a child, appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition. The district court denied the petition, concluding that the trial court’s determination that petitioner forfeited his Confrontation Clause rights was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine as pursuant to Giles v. California. The court affirmed, concluding that the trial court's finding that petitioner himself actively procured the witnesses' failure to appear was not objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceedings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Carlson Sr. v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for willful attempt to interfere with the operator of aircraft with reckless disregard for human life and was sentenced to fourteen years in prison. The court concluded that there is insufficient evidence that he willfully attempted to interfere with the safe flight of the helicopter. The evidence showed that defendant was attempting to see how far his laser would go at night, not try to interfere with the pilot of the helicopter. Because the district court did not have the benefit of United States v. Gardenhire, a very similar case, and because it premised the sentence for the 18 U.S.C. 39A conviction, in part, on the fact that defendant had also been convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 32(a)(5), (a)(8), the court remanded for resentencing on the section 39A conviction. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of eleven counts including two counts of first degree murder, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for habeas corpus relief, alleging that his team of defense lawyers rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. The court agreed with the district court that counsel did not fall below professional standards in either their investigation of a possible intoxication defense or their decision to pursue a different defense strategy. The court also agreed with the district court that petitioner’s legal team, during the sentencing phase, made a more-than-adequate investigation of possible mitigation, including his mental health and social history. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mitchell v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1326 as a previously removed alien who entered and was found in the United States. At issue was whether a Google Earth satellite image and a digital “tack” labeled with GPS coordinates are considered hearsay. The court held that a tack placed by the Google Earth program and automatically labeled with GPS coordinates is not hearsay where the relevant assertion is not made by a person. The court concluded that the real work is done by the computer program itself. The program analyzes the GPS coordinates and, without any human intervention, places a labeled tack on the satellite image. Because the program makes the relevant assertion - that the tack is accurately placed at the labeled GPS coordinates - there is no statement as defined by the hearsay rule. In reaching that conclusion, the court joined other circuits that have held that machine statements are not hearsay. The court noted that machine statements may present evidentiary concerns addressed by the rules of authentication, which defendant did not raise an objection to at trial. Because the satellite image and tack-coordinates pair were not hearsay, their admission also did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims in a memorandum disposition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lizarraga-Tirado" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a devout racist and an Aryan Christian Odinist, challenged the State's classification of him as eligible to occupy a prison cell with an individual of a different race, alleging that such a placement would interfere with his religious practice. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's ruling that the State's refusal to exempt him from its Integrated Housing Policy did not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. a2000cc et seq., or the First Amendment. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that plaintiff's challenge was not moot even though he had transferred prisons because he remains in State custody, and that he was not barred from arguing on appeal that the State improperly burdened his ability to perform the Odinist warding ritual. On the merits, the court concluded that the State has a compelling interest in avoiding invidious racial discrimination and potential liability under the Equal Protection Clause, and the only way for the State to satisfy this interest was to reject plaintiff’s request for an exemption from the Housing Policy. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Walker v. Beard" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed suit claiming that California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 6600–6609.3, is unconstitutional on its face. Petitioner contended that the absence of a provision setting forth a time within which to hold a trial extending the term of his commitment denies him equal protection of the laws because, under California law, other civilly committed persons have a statutory right to a recommitment trial within a specified period. The court concluded that state courts reasonably may apply the rational basis test when considering equal protection challenges to civil commitment laws; because state courts held that SVPs are not similarly situated to mentally disordered offenders (MDOs) and individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGIs) for the purpose of challenging the lack of a timing provision in the SVPA, that holding amounts to a determination that the state has a constitutionally sufficient reason for treating the groups differently; even assuming equal rates of recidivism, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a state rationally may decide that sexually violent crime is qualitatively more dangerous than other kinds of violent crime; and it was not objectively unreasonable for the state courts to hold that the lack of a timing provision in the SVPA does not deprive SVPs of equal protection of the laws. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. View "Seeboth v. Allenby" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of the BIA's decision finding him removeable based on his no contest plea to a methamphetamine-related crime. Petitioner was charged with sale of methamphetamine under California Health and Safety Code section 11379(a) but pleaded to - and was convicted of - a “lesser included/reasonably related offense” to the charge under section 11377. The court applied the modified categorical approach and held that there is clear and convincing evidence in the documents permissible for review that petitioner pleaded to - and was convicted of - possession of methamphetamine. Therefore, petitioner is removable as an aggravated felon. The court denied the petition. View "Ruiz-Vidal v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of the Philippines, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the IJ's order of removal. The BIA concluded that petitioner's conviction under Cal. Penal Code 417.26 for "unlawful laser activity" was a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Petitioner used a laser device in the hallway of a county criminal courthouse. The court concluded that section 417.26 can be violated with conduct that bears a striking resemblance to non-turpitudinous simple assault, and little similarity to turpitudinous terrorizing acts. Therefore, a violation of section 417.26 is not categorically a CIMT. Applying the categorical approach, the court concluded that it was not satisfied. Accordingly, the court granted the petition. View "Coquico v. Lynch" on Justia Law