United States v. Bresil
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18301
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Bresil was aboard a 26-foot boat intercepted off Puerto Rico, with 18 passengers including Bresil; the boat had taken on water and limited fuel, and the Coast Guard sank the boat as a navigational hazard.
- The government contended Bresil intended to reenter the United States, while Bresil claimed he was traveling to St. Maarten via Puerto Rico.
- The government disclosed an expert on fuel consumption five days before trial, prompting Bresil to seek a continuance to obtain his own expert.
- The district court denied the continuance; Bresil argued Rule 16(a)(1)(G) was violated and that prejudice ensued.
- The government later argued Bresil’s Rule 16 argument was waived by not naming the rule in his motion, but the court reviewed for abuse of discretion and considered prejudice.
- Bresil challenged due process on two grounds: destruction of the boat and deportation of witnesses, arguing he was deprived of potentially exculpatory testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 16 notice timing prejudice | Bresil argues late notice prejudiced defense | Bresil argues late notice was untimely and prejudicial | No reversible prejudice; harmless due to lack of demonstrable prejudice |
| Destruction of evidentiary boat violates due process | Destruction denied potential exculpatory evidence | Government acted safely and was not acting in bad faith | No due process violation given safety and no bad faith showing |
| Deportation of witnesses violated due process | Deportations deprived defense of exculpatory testimony | Testimony unlikely to affect judgment; other witnesses available | No due process violation; insufficient likelihood testimony would affect verdict |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict | Evidence showed intent to reenter via Puerto Rico | Insufficient evidence of intent to reenter | Sufficient evidence to sustain conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Espinal-Almeida, 699 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 16 prejudice; test for prejudice exists)
- United States v. Melucci, 888 F.2d 200 (1st Cir. 1989) (late expert disclosure does not automatically bar testimony; prejudice required)
- United States v. Damra, 621 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 2010) (good-faith prong in Valenzuela-Bernal framework discussed)
- United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2000) (bad-faith/deportation considerations in Valenzuela-Bernal analysis)
- United States v. Dring, 930 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1991) (Valenzuela-Bernal influence on witness-deportation claims)
- United States v. Iribe-Perez, 129 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 1997) (Valenzuela-Bernal framework applied to witness deportation)
- United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2006) (discussion of good-faith/Valenzuela-Bernal considerations)
- Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982) (due process limits on deportation of witnesses in criminal prosecutions)
- Youngblood, 488 U.S. 55 (1988) (good-faith requirement interplay with Valenzuela-Bernal)
- Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (conduct of nondisclosure and materiality in due process)
- Femia, 9 F.3d 990 (1st Cir. 1993) (framework for nondisclosure cases; distinction from Brady)