United States v. Caruto
2011 WL 5120524
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Caruto was indicted for importation of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute 34.5 kg of cocaine.
- On remand after an earlier reversal, Caruto moved to dismiss the indictment alleging defective grand jury instructions.
- The district court denied the motion; Caruto was convicted at trial and appeals challenging grand jury instructions.
- The panel previously held a similar instruction on punishment permissible; Caruto challenges four elaborations to the model charges.
- The court reviewed de novo whether the grand jury instructions complied with the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment and affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment dismissed due to punishment instruction | Caruto contends the added emphasis rendered the instruction unconstitutional. | Caruto asserts the off-script addition violated Cortez-Rivera by removing permissiveness. | Harmless error; indictment affirmed. |
| Wisdom of the criminal laws instruction | Navarro-Vargas framework preserved; additions breach independence. | Elaborations improperly tied grand jurors to the judiciary and urged voting remedies. | Elaborations did not meaningfully impair independence; instruction constitutional. |
| Probable cause and magistrate judges | Elaboration implied magistrate involvement undermines grand jury independence. | Dialogue explained typical timelines; no impermissible delegation. | No constitutional flaw; any error harmless as Caruto was later convicted. |
| Grand jury's relation to the U.S. Attorney | Phrase 'independent arm of the United States Attorney' misstates independence. | Context shows correction to emphasize independent judgment by grand jurors. | Instruction properly underscored independence; no violation. |
| Disclosure of grand jury voir dire materials | Voir dire materials may be needed to establish injustice. | Secrecy should be preserved; need shown not established. | District court acted within discretion; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Haynes, 216 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2000) (de novo review of grand jury indictment dismissal)
- United States v. Isgro, 974 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir. 1992) (grand jury independence and supervisory powers)
- United States v. Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc; structure and independence of grand jury)
- United States v. Marcucci, 299 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2002) (permissive vs mandatory instruction and independence)
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988) (pretrial indictment dismissal standard for violations)
- United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992) (no right to exculpatory evidence in grand jury context)
- United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973) (grand jury independence and investigative function)