United States v. Escamilla-Rojas, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9695

Escamilla-Rojas was arrested December 2, 2009 and charged with illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, and appeared at a large group plea hearing as part of Operation Streamline.
The district court used a group hearing with 67 defendants, 15 attorneys, and one magistrate judge to combine initial appearances, pleas, and sentencing.
Escamilla sat with translators; her or others’ attorneys represented multiple defendants, preventing simultaneous personal contact with each client.
The magistrate gave a group advisement of rights and consequences, then individually questioned each defendant, including Escamilla, about understanding and waiving rights and about the plea.
Escamilla pleaded guilty after the group advisement and was sentenced to time served and returned to Mexico; she appealed arguing Rule 11 violations and constitutional rights were violated.
The district court rejected the arguments; Escamilla appeals challenging the Rule 11, Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the group hearing violated Rule 11(b)(1).	Escamilla argues the court failed to address her personally.	Escamilla contends the en masse advisement did not satisfy personal address of rights.	Group advisement plus individualized questioning can satisfy Rule 11(b)(1); here, substantial individual questioning occurred, but the timing created potential lack of personality; harmless error found.
Whether the group procedure violated Rule 11(b)(2) voluntariness.	Escamilla alleges the plea was not made voluntarily due to flawed procedure.	Escamilla's counsel did not raise Rule 11(b)(2) error; any error is plain, but record shows voluntariness.	Not plain error; the plea was voluntary based on the record and counsel's satisfaction with voluntariness.
Whether the group plea hearing violated due process (Fifth Amendment).	Group procedure prevented proving knowing and voluntary waiver of rights.	Record shows Escamilla was advised of rights and voluntarily waived them in individual colloquy.	Due process satisfied; individual colloquy and informed waiver supported knowing and voluntary plea.
Whether the temporary separation from counsel violated the Sixth Amendment.	Escamilla lacked effective counsel during the group advisement.	Counsel provided adequate representation; she had time to meet beforehand and stood with her during the plea.	Not a Sixth Amendment violation; no demonstrable effect on trial outcome.

United States v. Roblero-Solis, 588 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2009) (group advisement allowed but required individualized assurance of understanding)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court 2004) (harmless error when defendant would have pleaded guilty anyway)
United States v. Anderson, 993 F.2d 1435 (9th Cir. 1993) (contemporaneous statements have great weight in voluntariness assessment)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (U.S. 2002) (Sixth Amendment not violated absent probable effect on outcome)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (plea must be knowing and voluntary)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (counsel's absence or ineffective assistance must affect trial reliability)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (waiver of rights must be knowing and voluntary)
United States v. Santiago, 466 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2006) (plain error standard for Rule 11 violations when not objected to at trial)