893 F.3d 689
9th Cir.2018Background
- Salvador and Armando Vera were convicted at trial of conspiracy to distribute narcotics; jury found specific drug-quantity findings that produced long mandatory sentences. On appeal, convictions were affirmed but sentences vacated because a key FBI agent’s interpretive testimony about wiretaps was unreliable (United States v. Vera, 770 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2014)).
- On remand the government declined a new sentencing jury and instead relied heavily on co-conspirators’ plea agreements to attribute drug quantities to the Veras. The district court treated those plea-basis statements as reliable under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) (statement-against-interest) and found them the "single most significant data source."
- The district court resentenced Salvador and Armando to lengthy terms (324 and 168 months respectively), and the Veras appealed the resentencing.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in relying on plea-agreement factual bases to determine drug quantities at sentencing, requiring sufficient indicia of reliability under U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a).
- The Ninth Circuit held that plea-agreement factual bases that incriminate a co-defendant are not inherently statements against interest and are often unreliable because they may reflect incentives to "point the finger" to curry favor; Williamson v. United States and other authority disfavor treating such statements as Rule 804(b)(3) material.
- Because the plea agreements were neither genuinely self-inculpatory as to their drafters nor adequately corroborated as to specific drug quantities attributable to the Veras, and because the district court demonstrably relied on them, the court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Vera) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether co-defendants’ plea-agreement factual bases qualify as statements against interest under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) and thus are inherently reliable at sentencing | Plea factual bases are admissions against interest and thus admissible and reliable under Rule 804(b)(3) | Plea factual bases are not genuinely self-inculpatory for the declarant and are unreliable finger-pointing motivated by leniency incentives | The court held they are not categorically admissible under Rule 804(b)(3); plea-basis statements pointing at others are often not statements against interest and cannot be treated as inherently reliable |
| Whether the plea agreements (and related materials) provided sufficient corroboration to attribute specific drug quantities to the Veras under U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a) | Government contends plea agreements, wiretaps, complaints, reports and lab results collectively corroborate quantity findings | Veras argue the plea agreements lack independent corroboration as to quantity and inter-agreement corroboration is weak; many entries do not tie specific transactions/quantities to them | The court held the record lacks sufficient indicia of reliability as to drug quantities: plea agreements did not corroborate each other on quantities, only a few transactions were corroborated by calls or complaints/reports, so reliance on them was an abuse of discretion and requires resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (1994) (statement must be genuinely self-inculpatory to qualify as a statement against interest)
- Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986) (codefendant confessions inculpating the accused are inherently less reliable)
- United States v. Magana-Olvera, 917 F.2d 401 (9th Cir. 1990) (in-custody co-conspirator statements implicating others may be made to curry favor and are unreliable)
- United States v. Berry, 258 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2001) (co-defendant hearsay may be relied on at sentencing when multiple corroborating statements provide external consistency)
- United States v. Littlesun, 444 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2006) (hearsay is admissible at sentencing only if accompanied by minimal indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Huckins, 53 F.3d 276 (9th Cir. 1995) (remand required when sentencing judge relies on demonstrably unreliable information)
- United States v. Vera, 770 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2014) (prior opinion vacating original sentences because expert testimony interpreting wiretaps was unreliable)