United States v. Chery Gonzalez
658 F. App'x 867
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Gonzalez was convicted in federal court for importing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 and appealed.
- Before and during trial, Gonzalez sought broad discovery of evidence relating to “unknowing drug couriers” and moved to compel such materials from the government; the district court denied the motion as she failed to show materiality.
- The government introduced TECS (border-entry) records and summary charts of Gonzalez’s telephone and TECS data at trial; Agent Pham testified and laid foundation for those records.
- Gonzalez filed a suppression motion for cellphone evidence only after conviction, citing Riley; the district court denied it as untimely and for lack of good cause, the government relying on the border-search doctrine.
- The court admitted Gonzalez’s prior felony conviction for impeachment under FRE 609(a)(1)(B); Gonzalez did not timely object to several trial matters (e.g., Agent Pham’s credibility remarks, absence of a dual-role instruction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to compel broad "unknowing courier" discovery | Gonzalez argued the government had material evidence linking the vehicle/owner/mechanic to unknowing-courier schemes and sought discovery | Govt and district court required a prima facie showing of materiality she did not provide | Denied: Gonzalez failed to show materiality; only discoverable if specific linking evidence existed and none was shown |
| Admissibility of TECS records (Confrontation Clause / hearsay) | Gonzalez argued TECS data implicated hearsay/Confrontation concerns | Govt: TECS are non-testimonial administrative records admissible under public-records exception; Agent Pham laid foundation | Affirmed: TECS non-testimonial (Ohio v. Clark); admissible under FRE 803(8) and proper foundation laid |
| Timeliness of cellphone suppression motion (Riley) | Gonzalez sought to suppress cellphone evidence post-verdict, invoking Riley v. California | Govt: motion untimely; Gonzalez knew phone evidence before trial; Riley does not control border searches; govt relied on border-search doctrine | Denied: no good cause to excuse untimely filing; Riley does not justify late motion vis-à-vis border-search exception |
| Admission of summaries and prior conviction for impeachment | Gonzalez challenged summary charts and admission of prior identity-theft conviction under FRE 609 | Govt: summaries based on admissible underlying records provided in discovery; conviction admissible under FRE 609(a)(1)(B) for impeachment | Affirmed: summaries admissible (under Aubrey standard); impeachment conviction admissible; related arguments waived or moot |
| Prosecutor/agent testimony and jury instruction on dual-role witness | Gonzalez argued Agent Pham’s credibility testimony and absence of a dual-role instruction were errors requiring relief | Govt: Agent Pham’s comments were not plain error; he was not an expert and not eliciting credibility of another witness who testified; no objection made at trial | No reversible error: Gonzalez waived or failed to show plain error; Vera inapplicable because Agent Pham did not testify as an expert |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mandel, 914 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir. 1990) (Rule 16 discovery requires prima facie showing of materiality)
- Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (2015) (Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrantless cell-phone searches not justified by search-incident-to-arrest rule)
- United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) (border-search doctrine and digital-border-search framework)
- United States v. Orozco, 590 F.2d 789 (9th Cir. 1979) (TECS records admissible under public-records exception)
- United States v. Aubrey, 800 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2015) (requirements for admitting summary evidence)
- United States v. Vera, 770 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2014) (dual-role expert/lay testimony requires jury instruction when officer testifies as expert)
- United States v. Sanchez-Lima, 161 F.3d 545 (9th Cir. 1998) (prohibition on witness offering opinion as to credibility of another witness)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (plain-error review burden on appellant to show prejudice and effect on proceedings)
- Ramsey v. United States, 431 U.S. 606 (1977) (establishing scope of border search doctrine)