United States v. Juan Meraz
663 F. App'x 580
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Meraz was convicted by a jury of importing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960; the information did not allege drug quantity that would trigger a 10-year mandatory minimum.
- At trial the government introduced excerpts of two jail calls between Meraz and family as admissions by a party-opponent; the court excluded excerpts from two other calls in which Meraz denied guilt.
- Meraz argued the government’s excerpts were misleading and sought to admit the excluded calls under Federal Rule of Evidence 106 (completeness); the court denied that request.
- Meraz also contended the prosecutor disparaged defense counsel in rebuttal closing (calling the defense theory a “fantasy”); he lodged a contemporaneous objection to one remark.
- At sentencing the court applied a two-level Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) for methamphetamine but did not apply any statutory mandatory minimum; the court varied downward and imposed 70 months’ custody and five years’ supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of Rule 106 (completeness) to admit additional jail calls | Meraz: government excerpts were misleading; full calls must be admitted to avoid distortion | Government: introduced admissible party-opponent admissions; additional calls were non-self-inculpatory hearsay | District court did not abuse discretion; excerpts not misleading and Rule 106 does not compel admission of otherwise inadmissible hearsay |
| Hearsay status of excluded calls | Meraz: excluded statements necessary to complete context and rebut government excerpts | Government: excluded statements were hearsay and not admissible as party admissions | Excluded calls were inadmissible hearsay (non-self-inculpatory) and properly excluded |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal closing | Meraz: prosecutor disparaged defense counsel and attacked counsel’s integrity (called defense a “fantasy”) | Government: comments attacked strength of defense, pointed to facts undermining theory | Remarks were disrespectful but did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct; no reversible error |
| Right to jury finding under Alleyne/Apprendi for drug-type/quantity facts | Meraz preserved challenge that government must prove knowledge of drug type/quantity or jury must find quantity facts | Government: did not charge quantity triggering mandatory minimum; quantity used only in Guidelines calculation and judge varied sentence | Court rejected Alleyne/Apprendi challenge; knowledge of type/quantity not required here and Guidelines factfinding did not implicate mandatory minimums |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for Rule of Completeness review and sentencing factfinding)
- United States v. Collicott, 92 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 106 does not compel admission of otherwise inadmissible hearsay)
- United States v. Ortega, 203 F.3d 675 (9th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing party-opponent admissions from hearsay)
- Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (1994) (limits on admission of certain co-conspirator and non-admission statements)
- United States v. Ruiz, 710 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2013) (standards for reviewing alleged prosecutorial misconduct)
- United States v. Wright, 625 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 2010) (preservation and standard for prosecutorial-misconduct review)
- United States v. Nobari, 574 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (permitted attacks on the strength of the defense distinct from attacking counsel’s integrity)
- United States v. Sanchez, 176 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 1999) (example of prosecutorial misconduct where counsel’s integrity was attacked)
- United States v. Jefferson, 791 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding government need not prove defendant’s knowledge of drug type or quantity under §§ 952 and 960)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory-minimum facts must be found by jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing prescribed range must be submitted to jury)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (sentencing factfinding and advisory Guidelines framework)