United States v. Joshua Lucas
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20141
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- On Oct. 15, 2013, Joshua Lucas was arrested at a BART station; officers recovered two handguns and ammunition; Lucas pleaded guilty in California to being a felon in possession and received a short sentence.
- After Lucas completed his state sentence, a federal grand jury indicted him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for the same incident; federal prosecutors claimed a Petite waiver justified the successive prosecution.
- Defense sought discovery about coordination between federal and local authorities (policies, communications, cross-designations, Petite waiver) to develop a double jeopardy (Bartkus/Petite) defense alleging inter-sovereign collusion.
- The government refused broad production, represented it had no Brady material regarding collusion, and produced routine discovery (reports, witness statements, firearm analysis).
- The magistrate and district court denied the motion to compel and refused in camera review, concluding the defendant failed to make the required preliminary showing of materiality under Rule 16 and had no basis to rebut the government’s Brady representations.
- Lucas was convicted after a stipulated-testimony bench trial, appealed the discovery ruling, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 16 required disclosure of documents about federal–state coordination to develop a Bartkus/Petite double jeopardy defense | Lucas: the requested records are material to preparing a double jeopardy defense and meet Rule 16's prima facie materiality threshold | Gov: Lucas failed to show materiality or that the government possesses discoverable evidence; Zone controls and bars disclosure absent inter‑sovereign collusion | Denied — Lucas failed to make the required preliminary showing of materiality under Rule 16 (Zone governs) |
| Whether Brady required the government to produce or submit in camera files about inter‑sovereign collusion | Lucas: Brady (and Agurs) require disclosure or court review of any potentially exculpatory coordination evidence once specifically requested | Gov: Prosecutor represented no Brady material exists; prosecutor is initial arbiter of materiality and not obliged to allow defense searches or automatic in camera review | Denied — defendant’s speculation was insufficient to overcome government’s representation; no showing that Brady material was withheld |
| Whether remand for an evidentiary hearing into collusion was required | Lucas: factual anomalies (timing of federal writ, Trigger Lock reports, allegedly weak federal interest) justify evidentiary hearing | Gov: Proffered facts at most show cooperation; extraordinary burden to prove collusion warrants remand only with stronger evidence | Denied — proffered evidence showed ordinary cooperation, not collusion; no abuse of discretion in refusing remand |
| Whether the dual-sovereign doctrine’s Bartkus exception applies | Lucas: successive prosecution was a cover/sham for federal prosecution, implicating Bartkus/Petite exception | Gov: No domination or manipulation of state prosecutorial machinery; prosecution vindicated federal interests | Denied — record lacked evidence of the kind of domination/manipulation required under Bartkus and Ninth Circuit precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960) (articulates limits on successive state/federal prosecutions and DOJ Petite policy rationale)
- Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959) (discusses dual‑sovereignty and limits on double jeopardy challenges to successive prosecutions)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959) (announces narrow exception where one sovereign’s prosecution is a sham for the other)
- United States v. Zone, 403 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005) (requires prima facie showing of inter‑sovereign collusion to obtain Rule 16 discovery for a Bartkus/Petite defense)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (defines Brady materiality standard as a "reasonable probability" of a different outcome)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (prosecutor is initial arbiter of Brady materiality; defendant cannot rummage through files absent a basis)
- Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977) (no general constitutional right to discovery in criminal cases)