United States v. Cazares
788 F.3d 956
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Four Avenues 43 gang members (Cazares, Saldana, Martinez, Avila) were tried and convicted of a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 241 to intimidate Black residents of Highland Park and of racially motivated murder and related firearms offenses in the death of Kenneth Wilson.
- Prosecution evidence included testimony from former gang members (Diaz, De La Cruz), testimony of Black Highland Park residents about harassment, and forensic firearm comparisons linking shootings.
- Defendants were physically shackled to chairs in the courtroom (shackles not clearly visible to seated jurors); much of voir dire (hardship/bias questioning) occurred in a nearby jury room outside the defendants’ presence and the public; defense counsel was present.
- The government introduced out-of-court statements (e.g., statements by Christopher Bowser) under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception; Bowser had been murdered before trial.
- The government’s gang expert (LAPD Lt. Lopez) gave opinions based in part on interviews and police intelligence; a firearms examiner testified and characterized some matches as made to a “scientific certainty.”
- Defendants raised multiple constitutional and evidentiary errors on appeal (shackling, presence/public voir dire, hearsay/Confrontation Clause, expert testimony, Miranda suppression, §245(b)(2)(B) scope), and alleged cumulative prejudice. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shackling at trial | Government: security justified given violent gang membership and prior convictions | Defendants: shackles violated due process by undermining presumption of innocence and were imposed without findings or less-restrictive alternatives | Affirmed: judge acted within discretion; shackles not visible to seated jurors; no prejudice shown |
| Voir dire held privately; defendants absent | Government: private voir dire necessary to avoid jurors seeing shackles; defense counsel present and defendants acquiesced | Defendants: right to be present and to a public trial violated; closure was structural error | Affirmed: defendants waived presence/public-trial rights (counsel present, oral waivers); any error was harmless/plain-error review fails |
| Admission of Bowser’s testimonial statements (forfeiture by wrongdoing) | Government: Bowser was killed to prevent his testimony; Rule 804(b)(6) forfeiture applies | Defendants: no proof murder was to silence Bowser; Confrontation Clause violated | Affirmed: district court met preponderance standard as to intent and causation; admission not reversible; any articulation omission harmless |
| Gang expert testimony & Rule 703 / Confrontation | Government: expert may rely on field intelligence and police sources; testimony helps jury understand gang context | Defendants: Lopez relayed inadmissible hearsay, improperly characterized defendants as top violent members (impermissible factual substitution) and violated Confrontation | Affirmed in part: general gang attitudes admissible; it was error to identify specific officers/members as sources for ranking defendants (Rule 703) but error harmless; no plain Confrontation error established |
| Firearms expert testifying to “scientific certainty” | Government: expert qualified; methodology admissible; cross can probe reliability | Defendants: testimony overstated toolmark certainty; Daubert/Rule 702 issues and misleading to jury | Affirmed: methodology admissible; “scientific certainty” was improper characterization but harmless given cross-examination and other corroborating evidence |
| Suppression of Saldana’s statements (Miranda custody) | Defendant: statements made without Miranda because he was effectively in custody during search/interview | Government: Saldana not in custody; told not under arrest and free to leave; volunteered info | Affirmed: district court’s factual findings plausible; totality shows no custody triggering Miranda |
| § 245(b)(2)(B) applicability to street murder | Defendants: statute exceeds Congress’s power; a street is not a “facility” for §245(b)(2)(B) | Government: public streets are facilities; statute constitutional as applied | Affirmed: courts uniformly treat streets as facilities; §245(b)(2)(B) constitutional as applied |
| Cumulative error / Due process | Defendants: multiple trial errors together deprived them of fair trial | Government: evidence overwhelming; errors harmless or waived | Affirmed: record shows overwhelming proof; cumulative errors did not deny due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (visible restraints undermine presumption of innocence)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (public-trial right applies to voir dire; closures require specific findings)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay barred absent prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing requires intent to make witness unavailable)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (testimonial analysis; forfeiture extinguishes confrontation claim when defendant procures unavailability)
- United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (defendant may waive presence at proceedings he knows are occurring)
- United States v. Allen, 341 F.3d 870 (9th Cir.) (upholding §245 challenges; relevant precedent on §245 constitutionality)
- Hankey v. [United States], 203 F.3d 1160 (expert gang testimony may rely on street intelligence; admissibility principles)
- Cox v. Ayers, 613 F.3d 883 (shackling due-process analysis factors)