Free Motion for Discovery - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 1 of 31

JODI D. THORP California Bar No. 223663 2 427 "C" Street Suite 300 San Diego, California 92101 3 Telephone: (619) 233-3169 ext. 14 [email protected]
1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Counsel for Mr. Motivosyan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (HONORABLE ROGER T. BENITEZ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ARSEN MOTIVOSYAN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) U.S.D.C. No. 08CR1455-BEN Date: June 30, 2008 Time: 2:00 p.m. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS I. STATEMENT OF FACTS1 On April 26, 2008, without reasonable suspicion, a border patrol agent stopped a car with three passengers of Armenian origin. Mr. Motivosyan was a passenger in the car. The border patrol agent indicated that he stopped the car because it was in an area near the border and the occupants to the car were seen throwing out trash, including receipts and bank statements. Despite being stopped illegally, the car occupants were cooperative and yielded to border patrol. The agent identified himself as border patrol and conducted an immigration inspection. All three people in the car provided their valid immigration documents, which the agent inspected and determined were valid.

This statement of facts is taken in part from the criminal complaint, indictment, and discovery provided by the government. Mr. Motivosyan does not adopt all of these facts and reserves the right to challenge these facts at any future proceeding.

1

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 2 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Despite having seen the valid immigration documents, the border patrol agent continued to detain the car and its passengers and called for back up. As a "back-up agent," Agent Stallings waited at the passenger side rear of the vehicle until the first agent had finished his "immigration inspection." Both officers were in uniform and armed. Then, without providing any Miranda warnings, the officer began questioning the car passengers. Although it is not clear who the agent alleges responded to the question, one of the passengers allegedly stated in English that they were going to ride horses. At some point after questioning, the agents released the car and its passengers. About two hours later, the second agent saw the people from the earlier stop walking in Border Field State Park. Thirty minutes later, near the entrance to that same park, the agent saw the car that was stopped earlier with four doors open. This led the agent to believe four people were trying to get into the car. The agent stated that he was "suspicious" that there were four people instead of three. The agent again approached the four people who were sitting on a log and performed an immigration stop on all four people, including the three people who had already cleared the immigration stop with him earlier that day. The agent again verified that three people had valid immigration documents. However, the fourth person only had a California Drivers License on him. The agent continued to detain all four people, asking them if they remembered him earlier. Three people nodded yes. At that point all three people allegedly made statements in English about the fourth person and what they were doing in the park; however, it is unclear who made what statement. The fourth person indicated he was here on asylum from Armenia. The agent requested to search the car where belongings of the material witness were present. After searching the car, records checks revealed that the fourth person was denied asylum in January of 2008. All four people were arrested. After being advised through an Armenian attorney that he had the right to an attorney, Mr. Motivosyan requested counsel and did not make any further statements. Mr. Motivosyan and two others were indicted by the January 2007, grand jury on charges of Conspiracy to Transport and Attempted Transportation under Title 8 USC Sections 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II).

2

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 3 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

II. THE INDICTMENT SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE JUDGE BURNS'S INSTRUCTIONS AS A WHOLE PROVIDED TO THE JANUARY 2007 GRAND JURY RUN AFOUL OF BOTH NAVARRO-VARGAS AND WILLIAMS AND VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BY DEPRIVING Mr. Motivosyan OF THE TRADITIONAL FUNCTIONING OF THE GRAND JURY2 A. Introduction. The indictment in the instant case was returned by the January 2007 grand jury. That grand jury was instructed by the Honorable Larry A. Burns, United States District Court Judge on January 11, 2007. See Reporter's Transcript of the Proceedings, dated January 11, 2007, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Judge Burns's instructions to the impaneled grand jury deviate from the instructions at issue in the major Ninth Circuit cases challenging a form grand jury instruction previously given in this district in several ways.3 These instructions compounded Judge Burns's erroneous instructions and comments to prospective grand jurors during voir dire of the grand jury panel, which immediately preceded the instructions at Ex. A. See Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, dated January 11, 2007, a copy of which is attached

In United States v. Martinez-Covarrubias, Case No. 07CR0491-BTM, Judge Moskowitz found there was error but that it was not structural. If this Court again finds that there was error, but that the error was not structural, this Court must determine whether the error was harmless in this case. Ms. Motivosyan asks that this Court order the government to produce the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings that resulted in the instant indictment. The Court may order disclosure of grand jury proceedings "at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). The Ninth Circuit requires a "particularized need" to justify disclosure, see United States v. Walczak, 785 F.2d 852, 857 (9th Cir. 1986), but that need cannot be any different than the standard set for in Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii): Mr. Motivosyan need only show that "a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) (emphasis added). That is why the Rule's "general suggestion [is] in favor of disclosure." See Walczak, 785 F.2d at 857. Here, it is clear that, at the very least, "a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). See, e.g., United States v. Cortez-Rivera, 454 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 736 (2005) (Navarro-Vargas II); United States v. Navarro-Vargas, 367 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2004)(NavarroVargas I); United States v. Marcucci, 299 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). 3 08CR1455-BEN
3

2

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 4 of 31

1 2 3 4

hereto as Exhibit B.4 1. Judge Burns Instructed Grand Jurors That Their Singular Duty Is to Determine Whether or Not Probable Cause Exists and That They Have No Right to Decline to Indict When the Probable Cause Standard Is Satisfied.

After repeatedly emphasizing to the grand jurors that probable cause determination was their sole
5

responsibility, see Ex. A at 3, 3-4, 5,5 Judge Burns instructed the grand jurors that they were forbidden "from
6

judg[ing] the wisdom of the criminal laws enacted by Congress; that is, whether or not there should be a
7

federal la w or should not be a federal law designating certain activity [as] criminal is not up to you." See id.
8

at 8. The instructions go beyond that, however, and tell the grand jurors that, should "you disagree with that
9

judgment made by Congress, then your option is not to say `well, I'm going to vote against indicting even
10

though I think that the evidence is sufficient' or `I'm going to vote in favor of even though the evidence may
11

be insufficient.'" See id. at 8-9. Thus, the instruction flatly bars the grand jury from declining to indict
12

because the grand jurors disagree with a proposed prosecution.
13

Immediately before limiting the grand jurors' powers in the way just described, Judge Burns referred
14

to an instance in the grand juror selection process in which he excused three potential jurors. See id. at 8.
15 16 17 18

I've gone over this with a couple of people. You understood from the questions and answers that a couple of people were excused, I think three in this case, because they could not adhere to the principle that I'm about to tell you. Id. That "principle" was Judge Burns's discussion of the grand jurors' inability to give effect to their

19

disagreement with Congress. See id. at 8-9. Thus, Judge Burns not only instructed the grand jurors on his
20

view of their discretion; he enforced that view on pain of being excused from service as a grand juror.
21

Examination of the voir dire transcript, which contains additional instructions and commentary in
22

the form of the give and take between Judge Burns and various prospective grand jurors, reveals Judge Burns's
23 24 25 26 27 28

The transcript of the voir dire indicates that grand jurors were shown a video presentation on the role of the grand jury. Mr. Motivosyan requests that the video presentation be produced. See United States v. Alter, 482 F.2d 1016, 1029 n.21 (9th Cir. 1973) ("[t]he proceedings before the grand jury are secret, but the ground rules by which the grand jury conducts those proceedings are not.").
5

4

See also id. at 20 ("You're all about probable cause."). 4 08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 5 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

emphasis on the singular duty to determine whether or not probable cause exists, and his statement that grand jurors cannot judge the wisdom of the criminal laws enacted by Congress merely compounded an erroneous series of instructions already given to the grand jury venire. In one of his earliest substantive remarks, Judge Burns makes clear that the grand jury's sole function is probable cause determination. [T]he grand jury is determining really two factors: "do we have a reasonable belief that a crime was committed? And second, do we have a reasonable belief that the person that they propose that we indict committed the crime?" If the answer is "yes" to both of those, then the case should move forward. If the answer to either of the questions is "no," then the grand jury should not hesitate and not indict. See Ex. B at 8. In this passage, Judge Burns twice uses the term "should" in a context makes clear that the term is employed to convey instruction: "should" cannot reasonably mean optional when it addresses the obligation not to indict when the grand jury has no "reasonable belief that a crime was committed" or if it has no "reasonable belief that the person that they propose that we indict committed the crime." Equally revealing are Judge Burns's interactions with two potential grand jurors who indicated that, in some unknown set of circumstances, they might decline to indict even where there was probable cause. Because of the redactions of the grand jurors' names, Mr. Motivosyan will refer to them by occupation. One is a retired clinical social worker (CSW), and the other is a real estate agent (REA). The CSW indicated a view that no drugs should be considered illegal and that some drug prosecutions were not an effective use of resources. See id. at 16. The CSW was also troubled by certain unspecified immigration cases. See id. Judge Burns made no effort to determine what sorts of drug and immigration cases troubled the CSW. He never inquired as to whether the CSW was at all troubled by the sorts of cases actually filed in this district, such as drug smuggling cases and cases involving reentry after deportation and alien smuggling. Rather, he provided instructions suggesting that, in any event, any scruples CSW may have possessed were simply not capable of expression in the context of grand jury service. Now, the question is can you fairly evaluate [drug cases and immigration cases]? Just as the defendant is ultimately entitled to a fair trial and the person that's accused is entitled to a fair appraisal of the evidence of the case that's in front of you, so, too, is the United States entitled to a fair judgment. If there's probable cause, then the case should go forward. I wouldn't want you to say, "well, yeah, there's probable cause, but I still don't like what our

5

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 6 of 31

1 2 3

government is doing. I disagree with these laws, so I'm not going to vote for it to go forward." If that is your frame of mind, the probably you shouldn't serve. Only you can tell me that. See id. at 16-17 (emphasis added). Thus, without any sort of context whatsoever, Judge Burns let the grand

4

juror know that he would not want him or her to decline to indict in an individual case where the grand juror
5

"[didn't] like what our government is doing," see id. at 17, but in which there was probable cause. See id.
6

Such a case "should go forward." See id. Given that blanket proscription on grand juror discretion, made
7

manifest by Judge Burns's use of the pronoun "I", the CSW indicated that it "would be difficult to support
8

a charge even if [the CSW] thought the evidence warranted it." See id. Again, Judge Burns's question
9

provided no context; he inquired regarding "a case," a term presumably just as applicable to possession of a
10

small amount of medical marijuana as kilogram quantities of methamphetamine for distribution. Any grand
11

juror listening to this exchange could only conclude that there was no case in which Judge Burns would permit
12

them to vote "no bill" in the face of a showing probable cause.
13

Just in case there may have been a grand juror that did not understand his or her inability to exercise
14

anything like prosecutorial discretion, Judge Burns drove the point home in his exchange with REA. REA
15

first advised Judge Burns of a concern regarding the "disparity between state and federal law" regarding
16

"medical marijuana." See id. at 24. Judge Burns first sought to address REA's concerns about medical
17

marijuana by stating that grand jurors, like trial jurors, are simply forbidden from taking penalty
18

considerations into account.
19 20 21 22 23

Well, those things -- the consequences of your determination shouldn't concern you in the sense that penalties or punishment, things like that -- we tell trial jurors, of course, that they cannot consider the punishment or the consequence that Congress has set for these things. We'd ask you to also abide by that. We want you to make a business-like decision of whether there was a probable cause. . . . Id. at 24-25. Having stated that REA was to "abide" by the instruction given to trial jurors, Judge Burns went

24

on to suggest that REA recuse him or herself from medical marijuana cases. See id. at 25.
25

In response to further questioning, REA disclosed REA's belief "that drugs should be legal." See id.
26

That disclosure prompted Judge Burns to begin a discussion that ultimately led to an instruction that a grand
27

juror is obligated to vote to indict if there is probable cause.
28

6

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 7 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I can tell you sometimes I don't agree with some of the legal decisions that are indicated that I have to make. But my alternative is to vote for someone different, vote for someone that supports the policies I support and get the law changed. It's not for me to say, "well, I don't like it. So I'm not going to follow it here." You'd have a similar obligation as a grand juror even though you might have to grit your teeth on some cases. Philosophically, if you were a member of congress, you'd vote against, for example, criminalizing marijuana. I don't know if that's it, but you'd vote against criminalizing some drugs. That's not what your prerogative is here. You're prerogative instead is to act like a judge and say, "all right. This is what I've to deal with objectively. Does it seem to me that a crime was committed? Yes. Does it seem to me that this person's involved? It does." And then your obligation, if you find those to be true, would be to vote in favor of the case going forward. Id. at 26-27 (emphasis added). Thus, the grand juror's duty is to conduct a simple two part test, which, if both

11

questions are answered in the affirmative, lead to an "obligation" to indict.
12

Having set forth the duty to indict, and being advised that REA was "uncomfortable" with that
13

paradigm, Judge Burns then set about to ensure that there was no chance of a deviation from the obligation
14

to indict in every case in which there was probable cause.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court: Do you think you'd be inclined to let people go in drug cases even though you were convinced there was probable cause they committed a drug offense? REA: It would depend on the case. The Court: Is there a chance that you would do that? REA: Yes. The Court: I appreciate your answers. I'll excuse you at this time. Id. at 27. Two aspects of this exchange are crucial. First, REA plainly does not intend to act solely on his political belief in decriminalization -- whether he or she would indict "depend[s] on the case," see id., as it should. Because REA's vote "depend[s] on the case," see id., it is necessarily true that REA would vote to indict in some (perhaps many or even nearly all) cases in which there was probable cause. Again, Judge Burns made no effort to explore REA's views; he did not ascertain what sorts of cases would prompt REA to hesitate. The message is clear: it does not matter what type of case might prompt REA's reluctance to indict because, once the two part test is satisfied, the "obligation" is "to vote in favor of the case going forward."6

This point is underscored by Judge Burns's explanation to the Grand Jury that a magistrate judge will have determined the existence of probable cause "in most circumstances" 7 08CR1455-BEN

6

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 8 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

See id. at 27. That is why even the "chance," see id., that a grand juror might not vote to indict was too great a risk to run. 2. The Instructions Posit a Non-Existent Prosecutorial Duty to Offer Exculpatory Evidence.

In addition to his instructions on the authority to choose not to indict, Judge Burns also assured the grand jurors that prosecutors would present to them evidence that tended to undercut probable cause. See Ex. A at 20.7

before it has been presented with any evidence. See Ex. A at 6. This instruction created an imprimatur of finding probable cause in each case because had a magistrate judge not so found, the case likely would not have been presented to the Grand Jury for indictment at all. The Grand Jury was informed that it merely was redundant to the magistrate court "in most circumstances." See id. This instruction made the grand jury more inclined to indict irrespective of the evidence presented. These instructions were provided in the midst of several comments that praised the United States attorney's office and prosecutors in general. Judge Burns advised the grand jurors that they "can expect that the U.S. Attorneys that will appear in from of [them] will be candid, they'll be honest, and . . . they'll act in good faith in all matters presented to you." See Ex. A at 27. The instructions delivered during voir dire go even further. In addressing a prospective grand juror who revealed "a strong bias for the U.S. Attorney, whatever cases they might bring," see Ex. B at 38, Judge Burns affirmatively endorsed the prospective juror's view of the U.S. Attorney's office, even while purporting to discourage it: "frankly, I agree with the things you are saying. They make sense to me." See id. at 43. See also id. at 40 ("You were saying that you give a presumption of good faith to the U.S. Attorney and assume, quite logically, that they're not about the business of trying to indict innocent people or people that they believe to be innocent or the evidence doesn't substantiate the charges against."). Judge Burns's discussion of his once having been a prosecutor before the Grand Jury compounded the error inherent in his praising of the government attorneys. See Ex. A at 9-10. Judge Burns's instructions implied that as a prior prosecutor and current "jury liaison judge," see id. at 8, he would not allow the government attorneys to act inappropriately or to present cases for indictment where no probable cause existed. In addition, while Judge Burns instructed the Grand Jury that it had the power to question witnesses, Judge Burns's instructions also told the Grand Jury that it should "be deferential to the U.S. Attorney if there is an instance where the U.S. Attorney thinks a question ought not to be asked." See Ex. A at 12. As the dissent in Navarro-Vargas pointed out, "the grand jury's independence is diluted by [such an] instruction, which encourages deference to prosecutors." Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d at 1215. The judge's admonition that his statement was only "advice," see Ex A at 12, does not cure the error as courts regularly presume grand jurors follow instructions provided to them by the court. See id. at 1202, n.23 ("We must presume that grand jurors will follow instructions because, in fact, we are prohibited from examining jurors to verify whether they understood the instruction as given and then followed it."). 8 08CR1455-BEN
7

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 9 of 31

1 2 3 4 5

Now, again, this emphasizes the difference between the function of the grand jury and the trial jury. You're all about probable cause. If you think that there's evidence out there that might cause you to say "well, I don't think probable cause exists," then it's incumbent upon you to hear that evidence as well. As I told you, in most instances, the U.S. Attorneys are duty-bound to present evidence that cuts against what they may be asking you to do if they're aware of that evidence. Id. (emphasis added).

6

The antecedent to this instruction is also found in the voir dire. After advising the grand jurors that
7

"the presentation of evidence to the grand jury is necessarily one-sided," see Ex. B at 14, Judge Burns
8

gratuitously added that "[his] experience is that the prosecutors don't play hide-the-ball. If there's something
9

adverse or that cuts against the charge, you'll be informed of that. They have a duty to do that." See id. Thus,
10

Judge Burns unequivocally advised the grand jurors that the government would present any evidence that was
11

"adverse" or "that cuts against the charge." See id.
12

B.
13 14

Navarro-Vargas Establishes Limits on the Ability of Judges to Constrain the Powers of the Grand Jury, Which Judge Burns Far Exceeded in His Instructions as a Whole During Impanelment. The Ninth Circuit has, over vigorous dissents, rejected challenges to various instructions given to

15

grand jurors in the Southern District of California. See Navarro-Vargas II, 408 F.3d 1184. While the Ninth
16

Circuit has thus far (narrowly) rejected such challenges, it has, in the course of adopting a highly formalistic
17

approach8 to the problems posed by the instructions, endorsed many of the substantive arguments raised by
18

the defendants in those cases. The district court's instructions cannot be reconciled with the role of the grand
19

jury as set forth in Navarro-Vargas II. Taken together, the voir dire of and instructions given to the January
20

2007 Grand Jury, go far beyond those at issue in Navarro-Vargas, taking a giant leap in the direction of a
21

bureaucratic, deferential grand jury, focused solely upon probable cause determinations and utterly unable to
22

exercise any quasi-prosecutorial discretion. That is not the institution the Framers envisioned. See United
23

States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 49 (1992).
24

For instance, with respect to the grand jury's relationship with the prosecution, the Navarro-Vargas
25 26 27 28

See Navarro-Vargas II, 408 F.3d at 1210-11 (Hawkins, J., dissenting) (criticizing the majority because "[t]he instruction's use of the word `should' is most likely to be understood as imposing an inflexible `duty or obligation' on grand jurors, and thus to circumscribe the grand jury's constitutional independence."). 9 08CR1455-BEN

8

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 10 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

II majority acknowledges that the two institutions perform similar functions: "`the public prosecutor, in deciding whether a particular prosecution shall be instituted or followed up, performs much the same function as a grand jury.'" Navarro-Vargas II, 408 F.3d at 1200 (quoting Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 510 (1978)). Accord United States v. Navarro-Vargas, 367 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2004) (Navarro-Vargas I)(Kozinski, J., dissenting) (The grand jury's discretion in this regard "is most accurately described as prosecutorial."). See also Navarro-Vargas II, 408 F.3d at 1213 (Hawkins, J., dissenting). It recognizes that the prosecutor is not obligated to proceed on any indictment or presentment returned by a grand jury, id., but also that "the grand jury has no obligation to prepare a presentment or to return an indictment drafted by the prosecutor." Id. See Niki Kuckes, The Democratic Prosecutor: Explaining the Constitutional Function of the Federal Grand Jury, 94 Geo. L.J. 1265, 1302 (2006) (the grand jury's discretion not to indict was "`arguably . . . the most important attribute of grand jury review from the perspective of those who insisted that a grand jury clause be included in the Bill of Rights'") (quoting Wayne LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 15.2(g) (2d ed. 1999)). Indeed, the Navarro-Vargas II majority agrees that the grand jury possesses all the attributes set forth in Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986). See id. The grand jury thus determines not only whether probable cause exists, but also whether to "charge a greater offense or a lesser offense; numerous counts or a single count; and perhaps most significant of all, a capital offense or a non-capital offense -- all on the basis of the same facts. And, significantly, the grand jury may refuse to return an indictment even "`where a conviction can be obtained.'" Id. (quoting Vasquez, 474 U.S. at 263). The Supreme Court has itself reaffirmed Vasquez's description of the grand jury's attributes in Campbell v. Louisiana, 523 U.S. 392 (1998), noting that the grand jury "controls not only the initial decision to indict, but also significant questions such as how many counts to charge and whether to charge a greater or lesser offense, including the important decision whether to charge a capital crime." Id. at 399 (citing Vasquez, 474 U.S. at 263). Judge Hawkins notes that the Navarro-Vargas II majority accepts the major premise of Vasquez: "the majority agrees that a grand jury has the power to refuse to indict someone even when the prosecutor has established probable cause that this individual has committed a crime." See id. at 1214 (Hawkins, J. dissenting). Accord Navarro-Vargas I, 367 F.3d at 899 (Kozinski, J., dissenting); United States v. Marcucci, 299 F.3d 1156, 1166-73 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (Hawkins, J.,

10

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 11 of 31

1 2 3 4

dissenting). In short, the grand jurors' prerogative not to indict enjoys strong support in the Ninth Circuit. But not in Judge Burns's instructions. C. Judge Burns's Instructions Forbid the Exercise of Grand Jury Discretion Established in Both Vasquez and Navarro-Vargas II. The Navarro-Vargas II majority found that the instruction in that case "leave[s] room for the grand

5

jury to dismiss even if it finds probable cause," 408 F.3d at 1205, adopting the analysis in its previous decision
6

in Marcucci. Marcucci reasoned that the instructions do not mandate that grand jurors indict upon every
7

finding of probable cause because the term "should" may mean "what is probable or expected." 299 F.3d at
8

1164 (citation omitted). That reading of the term "should" makes no sense in context, as Judge Hawkins ably
9

pointed out. See Navarro-Vargas II, 408 F.3d at 1210-11 (Hawkins, J., dissenting) ("The instruction's use
10

of the word `should' is most likely to be understood as imposing an inflexible `duty or obligation' on grand
11

jurors, and thus to circumscribe the grand jury's constitutional independence."). See also id. ("The `word'
12

should is used to express a duty [or] obligation.") (quoting The Oxford American Diction and Language Guide
13

1579 (1999) (brackets in original)).
14

The debate about what the word "should" means is irrelevant here; the instructions here make no
15

such fine distinction. The grand jury instructions make it painfully clear that grand jurors simply may not
16

choose not to indict in the event of what appears to them to be an unfair application of the law: should "you
17

disagree with that judgment made by Congress, then your option is not to say `well, I'm going to vote against
18

indicting even though I think that the evidence is sufficient'...." See Ex. A at 8-9. Thus, the instruction flatly
19

bars the grand jury from declining to indict because they disagree with a proposed prosecution. No grand juror
20

would read this language as instructing, or even allowing, him or her to assess "the need to indict." Vasquez,
21

474 U.S. at 264.
22

While Judge Burns used the word "should" instead of "shall" during voir dire with respect to whether
23

an indictment was required if probable cause existed, see Ex. B at 4, 8, n context, it is clear that he could only
24

mean "should" in the obligatory sense. For example, when addressing a prospective juror, Judge Burns not
25

only told the jurors that they "should" indict if there is probable cause, he told them that if there is not
26

probable cause, "then the grand jury should hesitate and not indict." See id. at 8. At least in context, it would
27

strain credulity to suggest that Judge Burns was using "should" for the purpose of "leaving room for the grand
28

11

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 12 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

jury to [indict] if it finds [no] probable cause." See Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d at 1205. Clearly he was not. The full passage cited above effectively eliminates any possibility that Judge Burns intended the Navarro-Vargas spin on the word "should." [T]he grand jury is determining really two factors: "do we have a reasonable belief that a crime was committed? And second, do we have a reasonable belief that the person that they propose that we indict committed the crime?" If the answer is "yes" to both of those, then the case should move forward. If the answer to either of the questions is "no," then the grand jury should not hesitate and not indict. See Ex. B at 8. Of the two sentences containing the word `should," the latter of the two essentially states that

9

if there is no probable cause, you should not indict. Judge Burns could not possibly have intended to "leav[e]
10

room for the grand jury to [indict] even if it finds [no] probable cause." See Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d at
11

1205 (citing Marcucci, 299 F.3d at 1159). That would contravene the grand jury's historic role of protecting
12

the innocent.
13 14

See, e.g., United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974) (The grand jury's

"responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions.") (citation omitted).
15

By the same token, if Judge Burns said that "the case should move forward" if there is probable
16

cause, but intended to "leav[e] room for the grand jury to dismiss even if it finds probable cause," see
17

Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d at 1205 (citing Marcucci, 299 F.3d at 1159), then he would have to have intended
18

two different meanings of the word "should" in the space of two consecutive sentences. That could not have
19

been his intent. But even if it were, no grand jury could ever have had that understanding.9 Jurors are not
20

presumed to be capable of sorting through internally contradictory instructions. See generally United States
21

v. Lewis, 67 F.3d 225, 234 (9th Cir. 1995) ("where two instructions conflict, a reviewing court cannot
22

presume that the jury followed the correct one") (citation, internal quotations and brackets omitted).
23

Lest there be any room for ambiguity, on no less than four occasions, Judge Burns made it explicitly
24

clear to the grand jurors that "should" was not merely suggestive, but obligatory:
25 26 27 28

This argument does not turn on Mr. Motivosyan's view that the NavarroVargas/Marcucci reading of the word "should" in the model instructions is wildly implausible. Rather, it turns on the context in which the word is employed by Judge Burns in his unique instructions, context which eliminates the Navarro-Vargas/Marcucci reading as a possibility. 12 08CR1455-BEN

9

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 13 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

(1)

The first occasion occurred in the following exchange when Judge Burns conducted voir

dire and excused a potential juror (CSW): The Court: . . . If there's probable cause, then the case should go forward. I wouldn't want you to say, "Well, yeah, there's probable cause. But I still don't like what the government is doing. I disagree with these laws, so I'm not going to vote for it to go forward." If that's your frame of mind, then probably you shouldn't serve. Only you can tell me that. Prospective Juror: Well, I think I may fall in that category. The Court: In the latter category? Prospective Juror: Yes. The Court: Where it would be difficult for you to support a charge even if you thought the evidence warranted it? Prospective Juror: Yes. The Court: I'm going to excuse you then. See Ex. B at 17. There was nothing ambiguous about the word "should" in this exchange with a prospective juror. Even if the prospective juror did not like what the government was doing in a particular case, that case "should go forward" and Judge Burns expressly disapproved of any vote that might prevent that. See id. ("I wouldn't want you [to vote against such a case]"). The sanction for the possibility of independent judgment was dismissal, a result that provided full deterrence of that juror's discretion and secondary deterrence as to the exercise of discretion by any other prospective grand juror. (2) In an even more explicit example of what "should" meant, Judge Burns makes clear that

it there is an unbending obligation to indict if there is probable cause. Grand jurors have no other prerogative. Court . . . It's not for me to say, "Well, I don't like it. So I'm not going to follow it here." You'd have a similar obligation as a grand juror even though you might have to grit your teeth on some cases. Philosophically, if you were a member of Congress, you'd vote against, for example, criminalizing marijuana. I don't know if that's it, but you'd vote against criminalizing some drugs. That's not what your prerogative is here. Your prerogative instead is act like a judge and to say, "All right. This is what I've got to deal with objectively. Does it seem to me that a crime was committed? Yes. Does it seem to me that this person's involved? It does." And then your obligation, if you find those things to be true, would be to vote in favor of the case going forward. Id. at 26-27 (emphasis added). After telling this potential juror (REA) what his obligations and prerogatives

26

were, the Court inquired as to whether "you'd be inclined to let people go on drug cases even though you were
27

convinced there was probable cause they committed a drug offense?" Id. at 27. The potential juror responded:
28

13

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 14 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

"It would depend on the case." Id. Nevertheless, that juror was excused. Id. at 28. Again, in this context, and contrary to the situation in Navarro-Vargas, "should" means "shall"; it is obligatory, and the juror has no prerogative to do anything other than indict if there is probable cause. Moreover, as this example demonstrates, the issue is not limited to whether the grand jury believes a particular law to be "unwise." This juror said that any decision to indict would not depend on the law, but rather it would "depend on the case." Thus, it is clear that Judge Burns's point was that if a juror could not indict on probable cause for every case, then that juror was not fit for service. It is equally clear that the prospective juror did not dispute the "wisdom of the law;" he was prepared to indict under some factual scenarios, perhaps many. But Judge Burns did not pursue the question of what factual scenarios troubled the prospective jurors, because his message is that there is no discretion not to indict. (3) As if the preceding examples were not enough, Judge Burns continued to pound the point

home that "should" meant "shall" when he told another grand juror during voir dire: "[W]hat I have to insist on is that you follow the law that's given to us by the United States Congress. We enforce the federal laws here." See id. at 61. (4) And then again, after swearing in all the grand jurors who had already agreed to indict

in every case where there was probable cause, Judge Burns reiterated that "should" means "shall" when he reminded them that "your option is not to say `well, I'm going to vote against indicting even though I think that the evidence is sufficient' . . . . Instead your obligation is . . . not to bring your personal definition of what the law ought to be and try to impose that through applying it in a grand jury setting." See Ex. A at 9. Moreover, Judge Burns advised the grand jurors that the were forbidden from considering the penalties to which indicted persons may be subject. Prospective Juror (REA): ... And as far as being fair, it kind of depends on what the case is about because there is a disparity between state and federal law. The Court: In what regard? Prospective Juror: Specifically, medical marijuana. The Court: Well, those things -- the consequences of your determination shouldn't concern you in the sense that penalties or punishment, things like that -- we tell trial jurors, of course, that they cannot consider the punishment or the consequence that Congress has set for these things. We'd ask you to also abide by that. We want you to make a business-like decision of whether there was a probable cause. ...

14

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 15 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

See Ex. B at 24-25 (emphasis added). A "business-like decision of whether there was a probable cause" would obviously leave no role for the consideration of penalty information. The Ninth Circuit previously rejected a claim based upon the proscription against consideration of penalty information based upon the same unlikely reading of the word "should" employed in Marcucci. See United States v. Cortez-Rivera, 454 F.3d 1038, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2006). Cortez-Rivera is inapposite for two reasons. First, Judge Burns did not use the term "should" in the passage quoted above. Second, that context, as well as his consistent use of a mandatory meaning in employing the term, eliminate the ambiguity (if there ever was any) relied upon by Cortez-Rivera. The instructions again violate Vasquez, which plainly authorized consideration of penalty information. See 474 U.S. at 263. Nothing can mask the undeniable fact that Judge Burns explicitly instructed the jurors time and time again that they had a duty, an obligation, and a singular prerogative to indict each and every case where there was probable cause. These instructions go far beyond the holding of Navarro-Vargas and stand in direct contradiction of the Supreme Court's decision in Vasquez. Indeed, it defies credulity to suggest that a grand juror hearing these instructions, and that voir dire, could possibly believe what the Court held in Vasquez: The grand jury does not determine only that probable cause exists to believe that a defendant committed a crime, or that it does not. In the hands of the grand jury lies the power to charge a greater offense or a lesser offense; numerous counts or a single count; and perhaps most significant of all, a capital offense or a non-capital offense ­ all on the basis of the same facts. Moreover, "[t]he grand jury is not bound to indict in every case where a conviction can be obtained." 474 U.S. at 263 (quoting United States v. Ciambrone, 601 F.2d 616, 629 (2nd Cir. 1979) (Friendly, J.,

20

dissenting)); accord Campbell v. Louisiana, 523 U.S. 392, 399 (1998) (The grand jury "controls not only the
21

initial decision to indict, but also significant decisions such as how many counts to charge and whether to
22

charge a greater or lesser offense, including the important decision whether to charge a capital crime."). Nor
23

would the January 2007 grand jury ever believe that it was empowered to assess the "the need to indict." See
24

id. at 264. Judge Burns's grand jury is not Vasquez's grand jury. The instructions therefore represent
25

structural constitutional error "that interferes with the grand jury's independence and the integrity of the grand
26

jury proceeding." See United States v. Isgro, 974 F.2d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 1992). The indictment must
27

therefore be dismissed. Id.
28

15

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 16 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Navarro-Vargas II majority's faith in the structure of the grand jury is not a cure for the instructions' excesses. The Navarro-Vargas II majority attributes "[t]he grand jury's discretion -- its independence -- [to] the absolute secrecy of its deliberations and vote and the unreviewability of its decisions." 408 F.3d at 1200. As a result, the majority discounts the effect that a judge's instructions may have on a grand jury because "it is the structure of the grand jury process and its function that make it independent." Id. at 1202 (emphases in the original). Judge Hawkins sharply criticized this approach. The majority, he explains, "believes that the `structure' and `function' of the grand jury -- particularly the secrecy of the proceedings and unreviewability of many of its decisions -- sufficiently protects that power." See id. at 1214 (Hawkins, J., dissenting). The flaw in the majority's analysis is that "[i]nstructing a grand jury that it lacks power to do anything beyond making a probable cause determination ... unconstitutionally undermines the very structural protections that the majority believes save[] the instruction." Id. After all, it is an "`almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions.'" Id. (quoting Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206 (1987)). If that "invariable assumption" were to hold true, then the grand jurors could not possibly fulfill the role described in Vasquez. Indeed, "there is something supremely cynical about saying that it is fine to give jurors erroneous instructions because nothing will happen if they disobey them." Id. In setting forth Judge Hawkins' views, Mr. Motivosyan understands that this Court may not adopt them solely because the reasoning that supports them is so much more persuasive than the majority's sophistry. Rather, she sets them forth to urge the Court not to extend what is already untenable reasoning. Here, again, the question is not an obscure interpretation of the word "should", especially in light of the instructions and commentary by Judge Burns during voir dire discussed above - unaccounted for by the Court in Navarro-Vargas II because they had not yet been disclosed to the defense, but an absolute ban on the right to refuse to indict that directly conflicts with the recognition of that right in Vasquez, Campbell, and both Navarro-Vargas II opinions. Navarro-Vargas II is distinguishable on that basis, but not only that. Judge Burns did not limit himself to denying the grand jurors the power that Vasquez plainly states they enjoy. He also excused prospective grand jurors who might have exercised that Fifth Amendment prerogative, excusing "three [jurors] in this case, because they could not adhere to [that] principle...." See Ex. A at 8; Ex. B at 17, 28. The structure of the grand jury and the secrecy of its deliberations cannot embolden

16

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 17 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

grand jurors who are no longer there, likely because they expressed their willingness to act as the conscience of the community. See Navarro-Vargas II, 408 F.3d at 1210-11 (Hawkins, J., dissenting) (a grand jury exercising its powers under Vasquez "serves ... to protect the accused from the other branches of government by acting as the `conscience of the community.'") (quoting Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d 1061, 1066 & n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1969)). The federal courts possess only "very limited" power "to fashion, on their own initiative, rules of grand jury procedure," United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 50 (1992), and, here, Judge Burns has both fashioned his own rules and enforced them. D. The Instructions Conflict with Williams' Holding That There Is No Duty to Present Exculpatory Evidence to the Grand Jury. In Williams, the defendant, although conceding that it was not required by the Fifth Amendment,

10

argued that the federal courts should exercise their supervisory power to order prosecutors to disclose
11

exculpatory evidence to grand jurors, or, perhaps, to find such disclosure required by Fifth Amendment
12

common law. See 504 U.S. at 45, 51. Williams held that "as a general matter at least, no such `supervisory'
13

judicial authority exists." See id. at 47. Indeed, although the supervisory power may provide the authority
14

"to dismiss an indictment because of misconduct before the grand jury, at least where that misconduct
15

amounts to a violation of one of those `few, clear rules which were carefully drafted and approved by this
16

Court and by Congress to ensure the integrity of the grand jury's functions,'" id. at 46 (citation omitted), it
17

does not serve as "a means of prescribing such standards of prosecutorial conduct in the first instance." Id.
18

at 47 (emphasis added). The federal courts possess only "very limited" power "to fashion, on their own
19

initiative, rules of grand jury procedure." Id. at 50. As a consequence, Williams rejected the defendant's
20

claim, both as an exercise of supervisory power and as Fifth Amendment common law. See id. at 51-55.
21

Despite the holding in Williams, the instructions here assure the grand jurors that prosecutors would
22

present to them evidence that tended to undercut probable cause. See Ex. A at 20.
23 24 25 26 27 28

Now, again, this emphasizes the difference between the function of the grand jury and the trial jury. You're all about probable cause. If you think that there's evidence out there that might cause you say "well, I don't think probable cause exists," then it's incumbent upon you to hear that evidence as well. As I told you, in most instances, the U.S. Attorneys are duty-bound to present evidence that cuts against what they may be asking you to do if they're aware of that evidence. Id. (emphasis added). Moreover, the district court later returned to the notion of the prosecutors and their

17

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 18 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

duties, advising the grand jurors that they "can expect that the U.S. Attorneys that will appear in from of [them] will be candid, they'll be honest, and ... they'll act in good faith in all matters presented to you." See id. at 27. The Ninth Circuit has already concluded it is likely this final comment is "unnecessary." See Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d at 1207. This particular instruction has a devastating effect on the grand jury's protective powers, particularly if it is not true. It begins by emphasizing the message that Navarro-Vargas II somehow concluded was not conveyed by the previous instruction: "You're all about probable cause." See Ex. A at 20. Thus, once again, the grand jury is reminded that they are limited to probable cause determinations (a reminder that was probably unnecessary in light of the fact that Judge Burns had already told the grand jurors that they likely would be excused if they rejected this limitation). The instruction goes on to tell the grand jurors that they should consider evidence that undercuts probable cause, but also advises the grand jurors that the prosecutor will present it. The end result, then, is that grand jurors should consider evidence that goes against probable cause, but, if none is presented by the government, they can presume that there is none. After all, "in most instances, the U.S. Attorneys are duty-bound to present evidence that cuts against what they may be asking you to do if they're aware of that evidence." See id. Moreover, during voir dire, Judge Burns informed the jurors that "my experience is that the prosecutors don't play hide-the-ball. If there's something adverse or that cuts against the charge, you'll be informed of that. They have a duty to do that." See Ex. B at 14-15 (emphasis added). Thus, if the exculpatory evidence existed, it necessarily would have been presented by the "duty-bound" prosecutor, because the grand jurors "can expect that the U.S. Attorneys that will appear in from of [them] will be candid, they'll be honest, and ... they'll act in good faith in all matters presented to you." See Ex. A at 27. These instructions create a presumption that, in cases where the prosecutor does not present exculpatory evidence, no exculpatory evidence exists. A grand juror's reasoning, in a case in which no exculpatory evidence was presented, would proceed along these lines: (1) (2) I have to consider evidence that undercuts probable cause. The candid, honest, duty-bound prosecutor would, in good faith, have presented any such evidence to me, if it existed. (3) Because no such evidence was presented to me, I may conclude that there is none.

18

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 19 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Even if some exculpatory evidence were presented, a grand juror would necessarily presume that the evidence presented represents the universe of all available exculpatory evidence; if there was more, the duty-bound prosecutor would have presented it. The instructions, therefore, discourage investigation -- if exculpatory evidence were out there, the prosecutor would present it, so investigation is a waste of time -- and provide additional support to every probable cause determination: i.e., this case may be weak, but I know that there is nothing on the other side of the equation because it was not presented. A grand jury so badly misguided is no grand jury at all under the Fifth Amendment. III. THIS COURT SHOULD ORDER PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE. Defendant requests the preservation of all physical evidence in this case. This includes any evidence that may be destroyed, lost, or otherwise put out of the possession, custody, or care of the government (or its private contractors) in this case. United States v. Riley, 189 F.3d 802, 806-808 (9th Cir.1999). This request includes, but is not limited to: (1) any money seized; (2) the results of any fingerprint analysis; (3) all personal effects; (4) the agents' rough notes; (5) any radio broadcast, if it is recorded, and all tape recordings (5) the car; and (6) any evidence seized from the defendant or any third party (i.e., material witnesses, co-defendants). This request also includes any material or percipient witnesses who is likely to become unavailable. Defendant requests that government counsel be ordered to notify the agencies and private contractors with custody of such evidence be informed of the Court's preservation order. IV. THIS COURT SHOULD COMPEL DISCOVERY. Mr. Motivosyan moves for the production by the government of the following discovery. This request is not limited to those items about which the prosecutor knows, but includes all discovery listed below that is in the custody, control, care, or knowledge of any government agency. See generally Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995); United States v. Bryan, 868 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir. 1989). 1. The Defendant's Statements. The Government must disclose to the defendant all copies of any written or recorded statements made by the defendant; the substance of any statements made by the defendant which the Government intends to offer in evidence at trial; any response by the defendant to interrogation;

19

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 20 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the substance of any oral statements, whether recorded or not, which the Government intends to introduce at trial and any written summaries of the defendant's oral statements contained in the handwritten notes of the Government agent; any response to any Miranda warnings which may have been given to the defendant; and any other statements by the defendant. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A). The Advisory Committee Notes and the 1991 amendments to Rule 16 make clear that the Government must reveal all the defendant's statements, whether oral or written, regardless of whether the government intends to make any use of those statements. In this case it is unclear which statements the government is attributing to Mr. Motivosyan and which statements the government is attributing to the other defendants. It is also unclear whether the statements were made in English or Armenian. Thus, Mr. Motivosyan requests clarification. 2. Arrest Reports, Notes and Dispatch Tapes. The defense also specifically requests that all arrest reports, notes and dispatch or any other tapes that relate to the circumstances surrounding his arrest or any questioning, if such reports have not already been produced in their entirety, be turned over to him. This request includes, but is not limited to, any rough notes, records, reports, transcripts or other documents in which statements of the defendant or any other discoverable material is contained. This is all discoverable under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). See also Loux v. United States, 389 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1968). Arrest reports, investigator's notes, memos from arresting officers, dispatch tapes, sworn statements, and prosecution reports pertaining to the defendant are available under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(B) and (C)), Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2 and 12(i). Preservation of rough notes is requested, whether or not the government deems them discoverable. 3. Brady Material. The defendant requests all documents, statements, agents' reports, and

tangible evidence favorable to the defendant on the issue of guilt and/or which affects the credibility of the government's case. Impeachment and exculpatory evidence both fall within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). 4. Any Information That May Result in a Lower Sentence. As discussed above, any

information which may result in a more favorable sentence must also be disclosed pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Government must disclose any cooperation or attempted cooperation by the defendant, as well as any information that could affect any base offense level or specific offense

20

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 21 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

characteristic under Chapter Two of the Guidelines. Also included in this request is any information relevant to a Chapter Three adjustment, a determination of the defendant's criminal history, or any other application of the Guidelines. 5. The Defendant's Prior Record. Evidence of a prior record is available under Fed. R.

Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(B). Counsel specifically requests a complete copy of any criminal record. 6. Any Proposed 404(b) Evidence. Evidence of prior similar acts is discoverable under

Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(C)) and Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 609. In addition, under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), "upon request of the accused, the prosecution . . . shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial . . . of the general nature . . . ." of any evidence the government proposes to introduce under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) at trial. Sufficient notice requires the government to "articulate precisely the evidential hypothesis by which a fact of consequence may be inferred from the other acts evidence." United States v. Mehrmanesh, 689 F.2d 822, 830 (9th Cir. 1982) (emphasis added; internal citations omitted); see also United States v. Brooke, 4 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir. 1993) (reaffirming Mehrmanesh and reversing convictions). This includes any "TECS" records (records of prior border crossings) that the Government intends to introduce at trial, whether in its case-in-chief, impeachment, or rebuttal. Although there is nothing intrinsically improper about prior border crossings, they are nonetheless subject to 404(b), as they are "other acts" evidence that the government must produce before trial. United States v. Vega, 188 F.3d 1150, 11541155 (9th Cir. 1999). The defendant requests that such notice be given three weeks before trial to give the defense time to adequately investigate and prepare for trial. 7. Evidence Seized. Physical evidence seized as a result of any search, either warrantless

or with a warrant, is discoverable under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(C)). 8. Henthorn Material. The defendant requests that the Assistant United States Attorney

("AUSA") assigned to this case oversee (not personally conduct) a review of all personnel files of each agent involved in the present case for impeachment material. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 437, 438 (1995) (holding that "the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police"); United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1991). This request includes, but is not limited to, any complaints filed (by a member of the public,

21

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 22 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

by another agent, or any other person) against the agent, whether or not the investigating authority has taken any action, as well as any matter for which a disciplinary review was undertaken, whether or not any disciplinary action was ultimately recommended. The defendant further requests production of any such information at least one week prior to the motion hearing and two weeks prior to trial. If the prosecutor is uncertain whether certain information should be disclosed pursuant to this request, this information should be produced to the Court in advance of the motion hearing and the trial for an in camera inspection. 9. Tangible Objects. The defendant requests the opportunity to inspect, copy, and test, as

necessary, all other documents and tangible objects, including photographs, books, papers, documents, fingerprint analyses, vehicles, or copies of portions thereof, which are material to the defense or intended for use in the government's case-in-chief or were obtained from or belong to the defendant. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(C)). Specifically, the defendant requests copies of all photographs in the government's possession of the alleged compartment. 10. Expert Witnesses. The defendant requests the name, qualifications, and a written

summary of the testimony of any person that the government intends to call as an expert witness during its case in chief. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G). This summary should include a description of the witness' opinion(s), as well as the bases and the reasons for the opinion(s). See United States v. Duvall, 272 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 2001) (finding that government's written expert notice did not adequately summarize or describe police detective's testimony in drug prosecution where notice provided only a list of the general subject matters to be covered and failed to identify what opinion the expert would offer on those subjects). This request includes, but is not limited to, disclosure of the qualifications of any government witness who will testify that she understands and/or speaks Spanish or any other foreign language that may have been used during the course of an interview with the defendant or any other witness. The defense requests the notice of expert testimony be provided at a minimum of two weeks prior to trial so that the defense can properly prepare to address and respond to this testimony, including obtaining its own expert and/or investigating the opinions, credentials of the government's expert and obtain a hearing in advance of trial to determine the admissibility of qualifications of any expert. See Kumho v. Carmichael Tire Co., 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999) (trial judge is "gatekeeper" and must determine, reliability and relevancy of expert testimony and such determinations may require "special briefing or other

22

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document 38

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 23 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

proceedings") 11. Impeachment evidence. The defendant requests any evidence that any prospective

government witness has engaged in any criminal act whether or not resulting in a conviction and whether any witness has made a statement favorable to the defendant. See Fed. R. Evid. 608, 609 and 613. Such evidence is discoverable under Brady v. Maryland, supra. See United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988) (witness' prior record); Thomas v. United States, 343 F.2d 49 (9th Cir. 1965) (evidence that detracts from a witness' credibility). 12. Evidence of Criminal Investigation of Any Government Witness. The defense requests any evidence that any prospective witness is under investigation by federal, state or local authorities for any criminal conduct. United States v. Chitty, 760 F.2d 425 (2d Cir. 1985). 13. Evidence of Bias or Motive to Lie. The defense requests any evidence that any prospective government witness is biased or prejudiced against the defendant, or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 14. Evidence Affecting Perception, Recollection, Ability to Communicate, or Veracity. The defendant requests any evidence, including any medical or psychiatric report or evaluation, tending to show that any prospective witness's ability to perceive, remember, communicate, or tell the truth is impaired; and any evidence that a witness has ever used narcotics or other controlled substance, or has ever been an alcoholic. United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988); Chavis v. North Carolina, 637 F.2d 213, 224 (4th Cir. 1980). 15. Witness Addresses. The defense requests the name and last known address of each prospective government witness. See United States v. Napue, 834 F.2d 1311 (7th Cir. 1987); United States v. Tucker, 716 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1983) (failure to interview government witnesses by counsel is ineffective); United States v. Cook, 608 F.2d 1175, 1181 (9th Cir. 1979) (defense has equal right to talk to witnesses). The defendant also requests the name and last known address of every witness to the crime or crimes charged (or any of the overt acts committed in furtherance thereof) who will not be called as a government witness. United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir. 1984). 16. Name of Witnesses Favorable to the Defendant. The defendant requests the name of any

23

08CR1455-BEN

Case 3:08-cr-01455-BEN

Document