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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for two counts of sex trafficking by force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion. The panel held that defendant had ample notice of the charges against him and the jury was properly instructed on the nature of those charges. Therefore, defendant's argument that force, threats of force, fraud, and coercion were separate elements of the crime was unavailing. The panel clarified that the prosecution was required to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt—without a requirement to subdivide the inquiry to the atomic level—and that jury instructions should not only match the statutory language but should be internally consistent. The panel also held that there was no constructive amendment of the indictment where the omission of the phrase "or any combination of such means" in the indictment did not seriously affect the integrity of the proceedings. In this case, the evidence at trial that defendant used force, threats of force, fraud, and coercion in trafficking his victims was voluminous and overwhelming. View "United States v. Mickey" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for two separate fraud schemes pursuant to trials in 2009 and 2012. The panel held that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated in the 2009 case when the district court partially rejected the eighth request for a continuance, after continuing the trial for over two and half years; the district court reasonably concluded that defendant had repeatedly alternated between invoking his right to self-representation and his right to counsel in order to manipulate proceedings and cause delay and thus his Sixth Amendment claim in the 2012 case was rejected; and the district court did not err in refusing to authorize funds to hire a psychiatrist to conduct a mental evaluation, in not sua sponte conducting a competency hearing, and in not declaring a mistrial during the 2012 trial. In this case, a reasonable court would not doubt defendant's competency. View "United States v. Turner" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and for money laundering offenses. The panel vacated defendant's sentence and restitution order, remanding for further proceedings. The panel rejected defendant's challenges to the mail and wire fraud jury instructions. The panel held that, assuming without deciding that defendant's argument to the contrary was not foreclosed by precedent, this court's caselaw that "participating" in a scheme to defraud was forbidden by the mail and wire fraud statutes did not amount to the creation of a common-law crime in violation of separation-of-powers principles, and the district court did not err by instructing the jury that it could find defendant guilty for "participating in" a scheme to defraud.The panel vacated the custodial sentence, holding that the record did not support the district court's imposition of a two-level "organizer" sentencing enhancement under USSG 3B1.1. Finally, the panel held that the written restitution order was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the district court's oral announcement. Therefore, the panel vacated the restitution order and remanded for the district court to strike the lump-sum payment requirement from the judgment. View "United States v. Holden" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted and sentenced to death for killing an FBI agent. The panel applied de novo review and held that an unrevealed connection between the FBI agent and the judge who presided over petitioner's trial violated due process by creating a constitutionally intolerable risk of judicial bias. In this case, the FBI agent had previously investigated the judge for possible criminal prosecution. The panel held that the risk of bias deprived petitioner of a fair tribunal to which he was constitutionally entitled. View "Echavarria v. Filson" on Justia Law

There is no presumption of public access under the First Amendment or common law that attaches to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) subpoena applications and their supporting materials. Accordingly, parties can only justify accessing sealed or in camera Rule 17(c) subpoenas, subpoena applications, and supporting documents by demonstrating a "special need." The Ninth Circuit held that, in this case, defendant failed to demonstrate a special need for his codefendant's Rule 17(c) subpoena materials, and that there was a continuing need to seal them. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the denial of defendant's motion. View "United States v. Sleugh" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's determination that petitioner's conviction for felony child endangerment constituted a crime of child abuse that rendered him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Petitioner's conviction of felony child endangerment under California Penal Code 273a(a) was for driving under the influence with a child in his car who was not wearing a seat belt. The panel held that the Board's interpretation of a crime of child abuse, neglect or abandonment in Matter of Velazquez-Herrera, 24 I. & N. Dec. 503 (BIA 2008), and Matter of Soram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 2010), was entitled to Chevron deference. Applying that definition in this instance, the panel held that petitioner's California conviction was a categorical match to the crime of child abuse, neglect, or abandonment. Furthermore, the Board's interpretation applied retroactively to Martinez-Cedillo's 2008 conviction, which occurred before the Board's decisions in Velazquez-Herrera and Soram. View "Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for theft of mail by a postal employee and possession of stolen mail. The panel held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on due process grounds based on the government's failure to preserve a video of a Postal Service employee parking lot. In this case, the investigating agent did not act in bad faith and the exculpatory value of the video was speculative. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to instruct the jury on lost or destroyed evidence as a sanction for the government's failure to preserve the parking lot video; a conversation between the prosecutor and two investigating agents outside the courtroom did not violate Fed. R. Evid. 615; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for production of an agent's notes under the Jencks Act; and the district court did not err by adopting a jury instruction on embezzlement of mail by a postal employee. View "United States v. Robertson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The panel held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress where, although the underlying warrant for defendant's arrest was the product of judicial abandonment, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was applicable. In this case, the officers executing the infirm warrant were unaware, and had no reason to be, of any judicial misconduct. The panel also held that the district court properly barred defendant's necessity defense because he failed to adequately demonstrate that he took possession of the gun in response to an imminent threat of death or bodily injury. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an amended habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 as time-barred. Petitioner filed an amended habeas petition eight months after the statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) had run. The panel held that the facts set out in the state court order were not clearly incorporated into petitioner's original petition, and Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States precluded the panel from construing the petition as incorporating such facts. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that the amended petition could not relate back to the claims in his original petition. View "Ross v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) and motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Defendant filed his motions after President Obama's commutation of his sentence from life in prison without release to 360 months in prison. The panel held that defendant was ineligible for a sentence modification where he was originally sentenced based on a statutory mandatory minimum, not based on a sentencing range; a presidential commutation did not overturn the sentence imposed by the sentencing court; President Obama's commutation was not based on a recalculation of a sentencing range and it did not create a new judgment; and thus the sentence remained subject to the restrictions on second-or-successive motions under section 2255. View "United States v. Buenrostro" on Justia Law