United States v. Cabrera
811 F.3d 801
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Cabrera, a convicted felon, was indicted for being a felon in possession after procuring a handgun for a confidential informant in a controlled buy; a jury convicted him.
- Defense argued pretrial and post-trial that the audio recording of the buy had been altered and requested an expert; magistrate denied the CJA expert request for lack of particulars.
- Cabrera did not testify at trial; his counsel filed an affidavit and called witnesses to support an informant/agent theory but Cabrera himself remained silent.
- At sentencing the district judge imposed the top-of-guidelines term (63 months), citing (1) Cabrera’s pursuit of a "fantastic" doctored-tape theory and (2) Cabrera’s failure to "put himself on the record" (i.e., not testifying).
- Cabrera did not object at sentencing and appealed, arguing the judge impermissibly punished him for exercising the Fifth Amendment right not to testify and for exercising his Sixth Amendment right to challenge the prosecution.
- The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding the district judge plainly erred by relying on those impermissible factors and by failing to provide an adequate § 3553(c) explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Cabrera punished at sentencing for invoking the Fifth Amendment (not testifying)? | Cabrera: Judge relied on his failure to testify to justify upward placement within the guideline range, violating the Fifth Amendment. | Government: Judge referenced lack of proof for tampering claim, not specifically punishment for silence; viewed comments as legitimate assessment of record. | Court: Held the judge plainly erred — sentencing in part for not testifying violated the Fifth Amendment; vacated and remanded. |
| Was Cabrera punished for asserting a defense (challenging the tape) in violation of the Sixth Amendment? | Cabrera: Being penalized for advancing a "fantastic" doctored-tape theory chilled his right to meaningfully test the prosecution. | Government: Characterized judge's remarks as critique of lack of evidence and disrespectful courtroom behavior, not a Sixth Amendment infringement. | Court: Concluded judge erred in relying on the fact of raising a "fantastic" defense; this infringed the right to challenge the prosecution. |
| Is the error procedural or substantive unreasonableness and does § 3553(c) require resentencing? | Cabrera: Error was procedural — judge relied on impermissible factors and failed to explain reasons as required by § 3553(c). | Government: Sentence was reasonable; any remarks were permissible considerations. | Court: Treated the claims as procedural errors; failure to rely on permissible § 3553(a) factors and to explain the sentence violated § 3553(c) and required vacatur/remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reda, 560 F.3d 539 (6th Cir.) (vacatur where district court considered impermissible factors)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (plain-error test for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- United States v. Malone, 503 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2007) (consideration of impermissible factor is procedural error affecting § 3553 analysis)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural-reasonableness standards and § 3553(a) considerations)
- Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999) (sentencing error where judge drew adverse inference from defendant's silence)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (importance of reasoned sentencing explanation for public confidence)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error framework)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (perjury at trial may be relevant at sentencing)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982) (punishing constitutionally protected conduct violates due process)