United States v. John Doe
705 F.3d 1134
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Doe was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute both drugs.
- He challenged errors in four categories: public authority defense, Sixth Amendment issues, discovery/Brady violations, and sentencing procedures.
- Lina public authority issue: Dixon applies, placing the burden on Doe to prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The district court instructed the jury without clarifying the burden, leading Doe to appeal the instruction as erroneous but not plain error.
- Discovery/Brady concerns related to Doe’s Rule 16 and Brady requests were denied as overbroad; the court ordered remand to address whether evidence would have changed the outcome.
- sentencing: multiple procedural defects at sentencing prompted the court to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing if convictions are reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof for public authority | Doe asserts Dixon requires defense proven beyond reasonable doubt. | Government argues Dixon places burden on defendant to prove defense by a preponderance. | Public authority burden rests on Doe; Dixon applies. |
| Effect of closing argument burden | Doe contends Sixth Amendment allows arguing government must disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. | Government should not be forced to prove burden shift in closing. | District court did not violate Sixth Amendment; instruction limiting burden was permissible. |
| Discovery and Brady violations | Requests Five and Six were necessary to show predisposition and entrapment defenses; district court abused discretion. | Requests were overbroad or immaterial; no prejudice shown. | Abuse of discretion; conviction vacated and remanded to adjudicate potential material disclosures. |
| Sentencing procedure and plain error | Multiple Rule 32 and Carty-guided steps were not followed, affecting reasonableness of sentence. | Any errors were procedural and not plainly reversible. | Cumulative sentencing defects amounted to plain error; sentence vacated and remanded. |
| Impact of unresolved issues on outcome | Remand will determine if discovery/Brady materials could alter verdict. | If materials do not affect outcome, conviction reinstated. | Remand required; if materials exist and probatively change outcome, new trial; otherwise reinstate conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 2006) (affirmative defenses and burden of proof for defenses with 'knowingly' mens rea)
- Jumah v. United States, 493 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2007) (public authority defense burden on defendant; supports Dixon extension)
- Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (Supreme Court 1977) (historical placement of burden for affirmative defenses)
- Reed v. United States, 575 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) (knowledge/intent elements in drug conspiracy under 'knowingly')
- Mason v. United States, 902 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirmative defenses negating element can exonerate conduct)
- Stever v. United States, 603 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2010) (materiality standard for Rule 16 discovery evidence)