United States v. Caruto
663 F.3d 394
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Caruto was indicted for importation of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute 34.5 kg of cocaine.
- On remand, Caruto moved to dismiss the indictment alleging violations of the Grand Jury Clause from district court grand jury instructions.
- The district court denied the motion; Caruto was convicted by a new petit jury.
- On appeal, Caruto challenged four grand jury instructions as violating the Grand Jury Clause.
- The panel amended the opinion and denied the petition for rehearing; the conviction was affirmed as harmless error.
- The district court’s voir dire materials request was also deemed harmless and not a basis to overturn the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Punishment instruction harmless error | Caruto argues the off-script emphasis eliminated permissiveness. | Caruto contends the added emphasis changed the model charge to mandatory. | Harmless error; instruction not constitutional violation. |
| Wisdom of the criminal laws instruction | Caruto challenges elaborations on voting to change laws and judicial role. | Navarro-Vargas allowed minor elaborations; not constitutionally harmful. | Not constitutionally significant; properly denied. |
| Probable cause and magistrate judge role | Caruto claims it improperly tied magistrate determinations to grand jury duty. | Court explained typical timeline; did not constrain independence; harmless if error. | Not reversible; error cured by guidance and later conviction. |
| Grand jury independence and relationship to U.S. Attorney | Caruto alleges phrasing made grand jury appear as an arm of the U.S. Attorney. | Context shows admonitions reinforcing independence; no constitutional violation. | Instruction emphasized independence; not a violation. |
| Disclosure of grand jury voir dire materials | Caruto sought voir dire transcripts and instructional video disclosure. | district court properly denied; disclosure not necessary to overturn verdict. | Harmless error; no impact on petit jury verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cortez-Rivera, 454 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2006) (permissive 'should' vs 'shall' standard for grand jury instruction)
- United States v. Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2005) (grand jury independence and model instruction standards)
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1988) (harmless error standard for grand jury process)
- United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1992) (grand jury non-dependence on defense presentation in Grand Jury context)
- United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1986) (harmless error doctrine in grand jury context after conviction)
- United States v. Marcucci, 299 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2002) (grand jury instructions consistent with independence and historical function)
- United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1973) (grand jury independence from prosecution and judge)
- United States v. Haynes, 216 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard for reviewing district court's dismissal posture under Grand Jury Clause)
- United States v. Isgro, 974 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir. 1992) (source for authority on grand jury sovereignty and procedures)