United States v. Arturo Ruiz
665 F. App'x 607
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Eighteen-defendant prosecution for large-scale OID (original issue discount) tax fraud involving approximately $250 million in false refund claims; trials were consolidated.
- District court continued the trial date to January 15, 2013, excluding the delay under the Speedy Trial Act to allow joint trials, discovery review, and accommodate counsel schedules.
- Ruiz sought severance and argued both statutory and Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violations; he also alleged selective prosecution and improper grand-jury use.
- Other defendants challenged evidentiary rulings: admission of a separate land-patent scheme as 404(b) evidence, admission of Lynch’s prior failure to file taxes, exclusion of Gongora’s English demonstration, and impeachment by references to co-defendants’ prior trials.
- Defendants also challenged jury instructions on duty to convict, willfulness, willful blindness, and raised cumulative-error claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy Trial Act continuance | Ruiz: statutory speedy-trial rights violated by >1-year continuance for all defendants | Court: continuance justified for joint trial, voluminous discovery, complexity, counsel schedules; severance inappropriate | Exclusion of time was proper; delay reasonable under §3161(h)(6),(h)(7) |
| Sixth Amendment speedy trial | Ruiz: constitutional right violated by lengthy delay | Government: delay warranted by case complexity, discovery, joint-trial interests; Ruiz asserted right but no prejudice | No Sixth Amendment violation after Barker factors; no showing of prejudice |
| Selective prosecution / grand jury abuse | Ruiz & Gongora: Hispanics targeted; similar non-Hispanics received civil treatment; grand jury used improperly | Government: defendants not similarly situated to cited civil cases; numerous criminal OID prosecutions exist; no evidence of impermissible motive or grand-jury misuse | Claim rejected; no basis for discovery or relief |
| Admission of other acts & related evidentiary claims | Defendants: land-patent scheme and Lynch’s prior nonfilings were prejudicial; Gongora: court barred English-demonstration; Lynch: improper impeachment via prior trials | Government: evidence probative to explain scheme, intent, knowledge; limiting instruction given; interpreter/use of assigned interpreter appropriate; impeachment permissible on points raised by testimony | 404(b) admission of land-patent evidence proper; Lynch’s prior filings admissible; court did not abuse discretion on interpreter demo; impeachment allowed; jury instructions and cumulative-error claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor Sixth Amendment speedy-trial test)
- Stuard v. Stewart, 401 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2005) (delay length context)
- United States v. Turner, 926 F.2d 883 (9th Cir. 1991) (timely assertion of right not dispositive)
- United States v. Lewis, 611 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2010) (prejudice inquiry re: delays for co-defendant plea negotiations)
- United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2007) (selective-prosecution test)
- United States v. Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 1995) (404(b) use to tell coherent story)
- United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1986) (404(b) probative purposes)
- United States v. Petrosian, 126 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 1997) (use of interpreter; review standard)
- United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1988) (scope of cross-examination on matters raised at trial)
- United States v. Gomez, 725 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2013) (model jury instruction on duty to convict upheld)
- United States v. Ruiz, 462 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2006) (instruction precedent)
- United States v. Atalig, 502 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (willfulness instruction authority)
- United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976) (willful blindness doctrine)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review on unpreserved objections)
AFFIRMED.