United States v. Brian Wright
19-10152
| 9th Cir. | Nov 1, 2021Background
- Brian Wright was convicted by a jury for armed robbery of two Las Vegas jewelry stores and appealed.
- Before Carpenter v. United States, investigators obtained Wright’s historical cell‑site location information (CSLI) via a state‑court order under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d).
- The SCA affidavit reported that a phone linked to suspected robber Deandre Brown was in substantial contact with a phone identified as Wright’s before, during, and after one robbery.
- Wright moved to suppress the CSLI after Carpenter; the district court denied suppression under the good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
- At trial the government elicited testimony that Wright bragged to co‑defendant Aquail Harris about prior robberies to recruit him, and introduced testimony about Wright making threatening statements to alleged co‑conspirators; the court gave limiting instructions and excluded evidence of an uncharged robbery.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the SCA order satisfied then‑lawful requirements (so good‑faith applied), and that the testimonial evidence and limiting measures were within the court’s discretion; no cumulative error warranted reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of CSLI obtained under SCA §2703(d) (pre‑Carpenter) | Carpenter requires a warrant for historical CSLI; data should be suppressed | The SCA order and affidavit met then‑governing §2703(d) standards; good‑faith exception applies | Affidavit met then‑lawful SCA requirements; good‑faith exception applies; suppression denied |
| Admission of testimony that Wright bragged about prior robberies to recruit Harris | Testimony is improper propensity/prior‑bad‑act evidence and unfairly prejudicial | Statements were "inextricably intertwined" with the charged conduct and probative of Wright as mastermind; court limited scope | Admission proper under Vizcarra‑Martinez; not an abuse of discretion; probative and limited |
| Admission of threatening statements to alleged co‑conspirators | Statements were not true threats and were more prejudicial than probative | Threats relate to consciousness of guilt; court gave a limiting instruction and limited testimony to avoid prejudice | Court did not abuse its discretion; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice |
| Cumulative error claim | Even if each error is harmless, their cumulative effect requires a new trial | Individual claims lack merit, so no cumulative prejudice exists | No cumulative error; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (historical CSLI generally requires a warrant)
- United States v. Korte, 918 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 2019) (SCA §2703(d) standard and good‑faith analysis)
- United States v. Crawford, 372 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Vizcarra‑Martinez, 66 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 1995) (inextricably intertwined evidence doctrine)
- United States v. Beckman, 298 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2002) (application of inextricably intertwined rule)
- United States v. DeGeorge, 380 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (similar evidentiary principles)
- United States v. Green, 648 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1981) (limits on prior‑bad‑act evidence under Rule 403)
- Ortiz‑Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 1996) (threats and consciousness of guilt; limiting instruction analysis)
- Parker v. Joe Lujan Enters., Inc., 848 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1988) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)