United States v. Jose Muniz-Jaquez
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11675
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Muniz-Jaquez, a deported alien, was found in the United States near Copper Canyon, California, with four others.
- Defense sought discovery of Border Patrol dispatch tapes prior to and during trial for forms of defense and impeachment.
- District court produced some materials but did not produce dispatch tapes, and denied the motion as untimely and speculative without listening to tapes.
- Agent Woodford testified about location and that he called for backup immediately after spotting the group, with his report stating the immediate border-area location.
- The jury (bench trial) convicted Muniz-Jaquez of being a deported alien found in the United States; the district court sentenced him to 70 months.
- On appeal, Muniz-Jaquez argued Rule 16 required production of the tapes; the district court did not listen to them and deemed the materiality speculative; the panel vacated and remanded for production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 16 discovery abuse of discretion | Muniz-Jaquez's materials were material to defense; tapes could affect reliability and impeachment | District court deemed the tapes non-material and potentially untimely to produce | Abuse of discretion; remand for production |
| Materiality under Rule 16 | Tapes would illuminate official restraint and location, aiding defense | Materiality speculative without listening to tapes | Materiality shown; court erred by excluding evidence |
| Effect of failure to listen to tapes on ruling | Court cannot assess materiality without hearing tapes | Decision based on incomplete record | Error; remand for production and further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2003) (crucial for discovery of certification or reliability materials in defense)
- United States v. Stever, 603 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2010) (Rule 16 discovery requires materiality showing and relevant defense development)
- United States v. Mandel, 914 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir. 1990) (Rule 16 permits discovery relevant to development of a possible defense)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (criminal justice system favoring plea and discovery relevance in defense strategy)
- United States v. Bobadilla-Lopez, 954 F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1992) (Jencks Act not applicable to the tapes in dispute)