United States v. Cristian Quintero Felix
663 F. App'x 557
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Felix was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense.
- A government confidential informant (CI) testified for the defense; prosecution had previously produced a short Giglio letter describing the CI’s DHS work and benefits received.
- Felix sought additional Giglio/Brady material (CI’s full criminal history, OPD cooperation) on the day the CI testified; court allowed defense to treat CI as an adverse witness and impeach him on cross-examination.
- A sidebar/in-camera discussion transcript was inadvertently disclosed; Felix moved for a new trial based on the allegedly newly discovered material.
- Detective Stofle testified about Felix’s prior arrest, including possession of drugs, a gun, and an incriminating text message; the prosecution asked a question implying Felix’s truthfulness in that prior questioning.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: withheld Giglio evidence was not material, the new-trial motion was properly denied, and any errors in admitting testimony or prosecutorial questioning were harmless or harmless under plain-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution violated Brady/Giglio by not disclosing more CI records | Felix: additional CI criminal/OPD records would impeach CI and be material | Govt: produced Giglio letter; further records cumulative or not material to critical evidence | No Brady/Giglio violation; withheld evidence not material to outcome |
| Whether inadvertent sidebar transcript warranted new trial | Felix: in-camera statements were newly discovered and would likely change verdict | Govt: sidebar added nothing admissible or new that would alter result | Denied; transcript not new, not admissible material, unlikely to produce acquittal |
| Admission of Detective Stofle’s testimony (lay opinion/irrelevant/prejudicial) | Felix: testimony included improper comment on defendant’s truthfulness and should be excluded | Govt: testimony about prior arrest and text message was relevant; any error harmless | Any error harmless given overwhelming admissible evidence of intent |
| Prosecutorial misconduct for eliciting truthfulness comment (plain error) | Felix: prosecutor improperly elicited testimony implying uncharged bad acts/truthfulness | Govt: no plain error affecting substantial rights or fairness of proceeding | Plain-error standard not met; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor must disclose deals/benefits provided to witnesses)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality standard for nondisclosure: reasonable probability of different result)
- Silva v. Brown, 416 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2005) (impeachment evidence more likely material when it targets a critical witness)
- United States v. Wikes, 662 F.3d 524 (9th Cir. 2011) (impeachment evidence is cumulative if grounds are already known to jury)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (five-part test for newly discovered evidence/new-trial motions)
- United States v. Bailey, 696 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmlessness analysis where other evidence is overwhelming)
- United States v. Moreland, 622 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review standards)