United States v. Jarvis Juan
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 381
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Juan was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury on the Gila River Indian Reservation.
- C.J., Juan's wife, initially testified that Juan beat her and ran her over, but later recanted on the stand after government actions.
- The government sought to admit C.J.'s earlier statements, but the district court denied this and later had C.J. testify after counsel was appointed for her.
- During a pre-trial exchange, the government questioned and suggested C.J. was lying, and the district court appointed counsel for C.J. after asserting possible perjury.
- The district court sentenced Juan to 37 months and then explained the § 3553(a) reasons for the sentence at the same hearing.
- On appeal, Juan argues due process was violated by witness intimidation and that the sentencing explanation violated Waknine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did government threats to a witness violate due process? | Juan argues threats coerced C.J. and altered testimony. | Juan contends Webb extends to prosecution witnesses; causation not shown. | Conviction affirmed; no causation shown. |
| Was the sentencing procedure flawed under Waknine? | Juan claims error by explaining § 3553(a) factors after sentencing. | District court adequately explained reasons contemporaneously; Waknine not violated. | Sentence affirmed; no procedural error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1972) (due process limits on witness intimidation; right to present a defense)
- Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (U.S. 1982) (due process when testimony would be favorable and material)
- Vavages, 151 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 1998) (prosecution witness interference; due process; causation required)
- Jaeger, 538 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2008) ( Webb principles may extend to prosecution witnesses)
- Waknine, 543 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2008) (plain procedural error where § 3553(a) factors not addressed before sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (requirement that sentencing explanation promote reasonableness and review)
- Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567 (9th Cir. 2004) (warning about perjury does not alone violate due process)