United States v. Brown
2:17-cr-00047
C.D. Cal.Aug 7, 2017Background
- Defendant Gaston Brown indicted for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine involving flight attendant Marsha Gay Reynolds; trial set for Nov. 28, 2017.
- Defendant moved to compel additional discovery; government produced materials under a protective order and agreed to meet-and-confer and to provide certain prior testimony transcripts.
- Defendant moved to exclude DEA Special Agent Steve Paris’s expert testimony on several topics (price, distribution mechanics, couriers, L.A. as a hub).
- Defendant moved to suppress historical cell-site location information (CSLI) obtained under a 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) order and to exclude related expert testimony by FBI SA Nicole Black.
- Government moved to compel a DNA buccal swab from defendant to compare with low-quality DNA recovered from shirts in Reynolds’s luggage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Completeness of discovery | Produced discovery (reproduced with Bates numbers) and will produce additional materials; requested protective order compliance | Discovery still missing categories (videos, notes, grand jury transcripts, prior testimony) | Parties ordered to meet-and-confer by Sept. 5, 2017; Court reserved ruling on outstanding requests and directed production of Paris prior-testimony info by Sept. 5 |
| Admissibility of Paris expert testimony: price of cocaine | Paris may testify on price differences and those opinions are relevant to knowledge/intent | Testimony is advocacy/modus operandi and unduly prejudicial; requests Daubert hearing | Price testimony and L.A. as a distribution hub admitted; testimony on mechanics and couriers excluded unless government later shows specific relevance to defendant; no Daubert hearing required pretrial |
| Suppression of historical CSLI obtained under §2703(d) | Obtained under a magistrate’s §2703(d) order; objectively reasonable reliance on statute and order; good-faith exception applies | Warrantless seizure violated Fourth Amendment; application defective (unsworn prosecutor statements); seeks suppression | Court declines to decide CSLI Fourth Amendment status pending Supreme Court in Carpenter; even if protected, evidence admissible under Leon/Krull good-faith exception; suppression denied |
| Compelled DNA buccal swab | Probable cause established to compel DNA for comparison to DNA from shirts; buccal swab appropriate | Risk of unfair prejudice given low-quality DNA and statistical uncertainty | Government granted authorization to obtain DNA via oral swab; admissibility at trial may be revisited depending on probative value vs. prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Leon v. United States, 468 U.S. 897 (exclusionary rule does not apply when officers reasonably rely on a magistrate’s warrant)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (trial court gatekeeping obligation for expert scientific testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert gatekeeping applies to technical and other specialized knowledge)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (good-faith analysis and limits of exclusionary rule when police act reasonably)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (good-faith reliance on statute can preclude exclusion)
- United States v. Alatorre, 222 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir.) (law enforcement may give expert testimony on drug value without pretrial Daubert hearing)
- United States v. Campos, 217 F.3d 707 (9th Cir.) (permitting expert testimony on general criminal practices/modus operandi)
- United States v. Golden, 532 F.2d 1244 (9th Cir.) (expert testimony on drug market value admissible)
- United States v. Vallejo, 237 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir.) (limits on admitting broad organizational modus operandi testimony when not probative of defendant)
- United States v. Sepulveda-Barraza, 645 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.) (Vallejo does not create a per se bar to modus operandi testimony; relevance must be shown)
- United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir.) (court may compel physical samples upon probable cause of evidentiary value)
- United States v. Mendonsa, 989 F.2d 366 (9th Cir.) (errors by magistrate do not necessarily trigger exclusion)
- United States v. Jones, 908 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D.D.C.) (applying good-faith exception to SCA-based cell-data acquisition)