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

When a confession results from certain types of Fourth Amendment violations, the government must go beyond proving that the confession was voluntary—it must also show a sufficient break in events to undermine the inference that the confession was caused by the Fourth Amendment violation.In 2017, police officers went to defendant's home after someone at his address pointed a laser at a police aircraft in flight and illegally detained defendant. The police interrogated defendant without Miranda warnings and seized the laser. Eight months later, an FBI agent approached defendant to ask follow up questions about the incident where defendant again admitted to shining the laser at the plane. After defendant was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 39A, he moved to suppress the statements he made to the FBI agent.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the inculpatory statements he made to the FBI agent. In this case, the panel considered the temporal proximity of the search to the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct, and held that the second encounter was directly linked to the original illegalities. Therefore, defendant's statements should have been suppressed. View "United States v. Bocharnikov" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion to reopen proceedings on his habeas corpus petition. Petitioner sought to invalidate his plea of "guilty but mentally ill." Three years after Nevada eliminated the insanity defense, petitioner pleaded guilty but mentally ill to lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen.The panel held that petitioner's motion was timely under Rule 60(b)(6) rather than any of Rule 60(b)'s other grounds for relief. Furthermore, in Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2016), the panel clarified that district courts can indeed stay and abey entirely unexhausted habeas petitions. The panel also held that petitioner presented extraordinary circumstances warranting re-opening the final judgment. In this case, the six Phelps factors supported reconsideration of the district court's 2009 judgment and the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. On remand, petitioner may request the district court to stay his petition while he returns to state court to exhaust his federal constitutional claims. View "Bynoe v. Baca" on Justia Law

Moran-Garcia, caught off the California coast in a disguised boat, was indicted for attempting to enter the United States after having been deported, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b), and for attempting to enter other than at a place designated, 8 U.S.C. 1325. The indictment alleged that these offenses occurred “within the Southern District of California.” The evidence established that Moran was apprehended six miles off the coast, within sight of the lights of San Diego. San Diego is within the Southern District of California. Defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence of venue, arguing that the Southern District extended only three miles out to sea. The court denied the motion and ruled that no jury instruction was appropriate because venue was a legal question that it had already decided.The Ninth Circuit vacated, finding that venue was not established. The Southern District of California as defined by Congress comprises the counties of (landlocked) Imperial and San Diego. The territorial sea of the United States extends to 12 nautical miles, but that is not true of the Southern District of California. California law defines the western border of San Diego County as extending “to a point three English miles [into the] Pacific Ocean.” Venue is a question of fact that the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.” It is a jury question. View "United States v. Moran-Garcia" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed defendants' conviction for federal mortgage fraud. In this case, the government disclosed after the close of evidence information impeaching a government witness in violation of Brady v. Maryland.The panel held that there is a reasonable likelihood that the undisclosed evidence impeaching the government witness could have affected the judgment of the jury. The panel explained that the impeachment substantially weakened the credibility of the government's cooperating witnesses and the strength of its case, and the panel could not conclude that the district court's instruction fully cured the prejudice. Furthermore, given the difficulty the jury faced in reaching a verdict, the panel could not say with confidence that the undisclosed impeachment did not affect the jury's judgment. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Obagi" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions stemming from his robbery of a victim at gun point after luring him into a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) train station by posting an advertisement for a used car on a Craigslist site. The panel held that, because a rational juror could have concluded that defendant advertised a commercial transaction on Craigslist to facilitate the robbery, the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the interstate-commerce element of the Hobbs Act. The panel also held that, because there was sufficient evidence presented at defendant's first trial to sustain a conviction, there was a fortiori sufficient evidence presented at his retrial.The court further held that there was no construction amendment of the indictment; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a specific unanimity instruction; any error in the Hobbs Act jury instruction was harmless; claims of prosecutorial misconduct rejected; Rehaif claim rejected; Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a predicate crime of violence and thus defendant's conviction on count 2 affirmed; but the district court erred by declining to give defendant a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the panel vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Tuan Ngoc Luong" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's pre-sentencing order enjoining the government from spending additional funds on the prosecution of defendants, who pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute marijuana.The panel held that the appropriations rider that prohibited the Department of Justice from using congressionally-allocated funding to prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws does not bar the government from spending funds on this appeal. The panel also held that the district court did not err in concluding that defendants met their burden to show that they were strictly compliant with the Medical Marijuana Program Act at the time of their arrest. In this case, the district court properly focused the McIntosh hearing on the conduct underlying the charge, and the district court's analysis of state law was not in error and its factual findings were not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Pisarski" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's December 2015 order of removal, holding that the BIA did not err in relying on binding precedent to conclude that petitioner was removable on the ground that he was convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude. The panel discussed that, if it were writing on a clean slate, what categorical analysis it would use. However, because the panel was not writing on a clean slate, the panel held, according to binding precedent, that petty theft under section 484(a) of the California Penal Code is a crime involving moral turpitude.The panel also denied the petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum or withholding of removal. Finally, the panel held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for protection under the Convention Against Torture. View "Silva v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during a search that followed a 911 call and the stop of defendant's car. Defendant was subsequently convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm.The panel held that the totality of the circumstances in this case demonstrates that the 911 call was sufficiently reliable to support reasonable suspicion. Furthermore, the 911 call gave the police reason to suspect defendant was carrying a concealed firearm, which is presumptively a crime in California. Therefore, the 911 call generated reasonable suspicion justifying the stop and the district court was correct to deny defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop. View "United States v. Vandergroen" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of six counts of assault on a federal officer with a deadly or dangerous weapon, six counts of discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Defendant argued that the five assault counts based on four shots he fired toward the door of his motel room are multiplicitous in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.The Ninth Circuit held that defendant failed to show that the district court erred, let alone plainly erred, in entering judgment on the four assault convictions based on the four shots he fired toward the door. However, the panel reversed one assault conviction. Furthermore, because each assault conviction served as a predicate offense for each firearm conviction, the panel also reversed one firearm conviction. The panel rejected defendant's remaining arguments and remanded with instructions. View "United States v. Voris" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a special condition of supervised release prohibiting defendant from residing in the town of Browning, Montana, which is the tribal headquarters of the Blackfeet Indian Nation, or visiting the town without prior approval of his probation officer. Defendant is an enrolled member of the Blackfeet Nation and the special condition was imposed after he violated the conditions of his probation through alcohol and drug-related infractions.The panel held that the residency restriction is a legitimate condition of supervised release, because the condition is not an illegal banishment or exclusion. In this case, the condition allows defendant to freely travel or reside in all but one quarter square mile of the 1.5 million acres of reservation land, restricting only his access to Browning itself. Furthermore, defendant is free to visit his family, to participate in tribal life, and to receive tribal services in Browning. The panel also held that the tribe's authority does not preclude the federal government from exercising its own authority over defendant and the government's exercise of authority over defendant does not infringe the inherent sovereignty of the Blackfeet Nation. Finally, the panel held that the residency restriction is substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Many White Horses" on Justia Law