United States v. Fredi Vargas-Estudillo
706 F. App'x 434
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Vargas–Estudillo was convicted of attempted re‑entry of a removed alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) and appealed.
- The government failed to preserve a video recording of the pedestrian lane at the San Ysidro Port of Entry for the relevant time (March 6, 2015, ~5:23 p.m.).
- Vargas moved to dismiss the indictment based on the destroyed video evidence and separately sought a list of people who entered via the adjacent SENTRI lane/booth who might have observed his encounter with Border Patrol.
- The district court denied dismissal, finding the loss of the video resulted from mistake rather than bad faith, and denied the request for the witness list.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of dismissal (no clear error in mistake finding) but held the district court erred in denying the witness‑list discovery request and remanded for production and a prejudice inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Vargas' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the indictment should be dismissed for government failure to preserve video evidence | The destroyed video prejudiced defense; dismissal warranted if destruction was in bad faith | Loss was accidental/mistake, not bad faith; dismissal not required | Affirmed denial of dismissal; district court's mistake finding not clearly erroneous |
| 2) Whether the defense was entitled to a list of people who used the adjacent SENTRI lane/booth | List could identify eyewitnesses who observed Vargas and Border Patrol interactions; defense should be allowed to interview them | Disclosure not required | Reversed as to this denial: list must be produced for defense to attempt interviews |
| 3) Whether the withheld witness list satisfies Rule 16 materiality / prejudice standard | Access could lead to information helpful to defense and possibly affect outcome | No specific showing of materiality or prejudice made | Remanded for district court to assess whether list would have led to information that might have altered the verdict |
| 4) Appropriate remedy if disclosure would have affected outcome | New trial if testimony could have affected verdict | Opposes new trial absent a showing of likely different result | District court must order new trial if it finds any disclosed witness testimony could have affected the outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Zaragoza–Moreira, 780 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard for finding bad faith vs. mistake in failure to preserve evidence)
- United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir. 1984) (both parties entitled to interview eyewitnesses)
- United States v. Stever, 603 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2010) (materiality under Rule 16 satisfied by facts showing government possession of information helpful to defense)
- United States v. Budziak, 697 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for assessing whether nondisclosure likely affected trial outcome and remedy)
VACATED in part and REMANDED with instructions: produce witness list and determine whether disclosure would have altered the verdict; order new trial if so.