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

The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for importation of methamphetamine, holding that the district court necessarily abused its discretion because it applied the wrong legal standard in excluding the evidence of third-party culpability for failing to meet the "substantial evidence" threshold in Perry v. Rushen, 713 F.2d 1447 (9th Cir. 1983), and Territory of Guam v. Ignacio, 10 F.3d 608 (1983). The panel held that nothing in Perry purported to import California's evidentiary standard, and nothing in Ignacio purported to announce a new rule for the admissibility of third-party culpability evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Because the district court's error was not harmless, the panel remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Urias Espinoza" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for panel rehearing, withdrew a previous opinion, filed a superseding opinion affirming a conviction and sentence arising out of the operation of purported medical-marijuana collective storefronts in California, and denied a petition for rehearing en banc. The panel held that defendant was not entitled to remand for an evidentiary hearing on his state law compliance; the district court erred by giving an overly strong anti-nullification jury instruction, but the error was harmless; the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a state search warrant; the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a Franks hearing; the district court did not err by declining to instruct the jury on defendant's joint ownership defense; the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the government's late-filed objections to the presentence report; and defendant's 211 month sentence was substantively and procedurally reasonable. View "United States v. Kleinman" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's 60-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and remanded for resentencing. The panel held that defendant's previous conviction for drug conspiracy under Washington state law did not qualify as a controlled substance offense because the Washington drug conspiracy statute was not a categorical match to conspiracy under federal law. Therefore, the district court erred when calculating defendant's Sentencing Guidelines range and the error was not harmless. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for rehearing, filed an amended opinion reversing the denial of habeas relief challenging petitioner's death sentence, and remanded. The panel held that the Arizona Supreme Court denied petitioner his Eighth Amendment right to individualized sentencing by applying an unconstitutional causal nexus test to his mitigating evidence of a troubled childhood and mental health issues. Such error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the sentence. The panel denied habeas relief on petitioner's claim that the Arizona courts failed to consider his history of substance abuse as a nonstatutory mitigating factor. Finally, the panel agreed with the district court that petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was procedurally defaulted because it was fundamentally different from the claim he presented in state court. View "Poyson v. Ryan" on Justia Law

A trial judge may excuse a juror at any time for any material problem impeding fair deliberations as long as it was not due to the juror's views of the merits of the case. The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence for fraud and conspiracy in connection with a mortgage fraud scheme. The panel held that Juror No. 9 was removed for reasons other than his views on the merits of the case, but rather, because he was physically unwell and could not serve with his fellow jurors. The panel also held that defendant failed to show that the district court committed plain error when it considered evidence for Guidelines-based sentencing purposes which defendant had made no effort to address. View "United States v. Depue" on Justia Law

A proceeding to revoke supervised release is not a criminal case for purposes of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment revoking defendant's supervised release based on his admissions during mandatory sex-offender treatment. The panel held that the district court did not violate defendant's right against self-incrimination because that right extended only to prohibit the use of an admission in a criminal case. View "United States v. Hulen" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of plaintiff's action challenging DHS's denial of I-130 visa petitions. Plaintiff filed petitions seeking Legal Permanent Residence (LPR) status for his non-citizen wife and her three non-citizen children. DHS denied the petitions pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 because defendant had been convicted of committing a lewd and lascivious act with a child under the age of fourteen. Because the Adam Walsh Act clearly delineates who may have a petition granted—rather than who may literally file a petition—the panel held that the amended statute applied to petitions that were filed before, but were still pending on, its effective date. Therefore, USCIS correctly applied the Adam Walsh Act in plaintiff's case. The panel also held that applying the Adam Walsh Act to pending petitions did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause; the panel lacked jurisdiction to review plaintiff's statutory claims concerning the "no risk" determination; and plaintiff's constitutional claims were not colorable. View "Gebhardt v. Nielsen" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendants' misdemeanor convictions under 8 U.S.C. 1325(a)(1) for attempting to enter the United States "at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers." The panel held that a place "designated by immigration officers" refers to a specific immigration facility, not an entire geographic area. In this case, there was no dispute that defendants did not enter the United States through a facility where immigration officials could accept applications for entry. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants attempted to enter the United States in a place other than as designated by immigration officers. View "United States v. Aldana" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of habeas relief as to petitioner's guilt phase claims and vacated his convictions. In this case, a jury convicted defendant of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of rape, and two counts of forcible sodomy. The panel held that had counsel performed effectively and investigated and presented a diminished mental capacity defense based on mental impairment, there was a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have had a reasonable doubt as to whether petitioner could have formed the requisite mental state for first degree murder. View "Hernandez v. Chappell" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus based on petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) at sentencing and affirmed the district court's denial of relief on petitioner's other claims. The panel held that federal court review was not procedurally barred; vacated the district court's grant of relief because it could not find the Arizona Supreme Court's determination that petitioner's counsel's deficient performance at sentencing was not prejudicial to be clearly unreasonable; affirmed the denial of relief on petitioner's claims of inadequate funding to investigate mitigating evidence and mental disability; granted a certificate of appealability for petitioner's claims of an application of an unconstitutional causal nexus standard by the Arizona Supreme Court and for ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to challenge petitioner's competency to stand trial; and denied the claims on the merits. View "Apelt v. Ryan" on Justia Law