United States v. Justin Gladding
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24655
9th Cir.2014Background
- Justin Paul Gladding pled guilty to receipt/distribution of child pornography; electronic storage devices were seized and a forfeiture order made contraband items final.
- Gladding sought return of thousands of noncontraband personal files (family photos, emails) intermingled with contraband on the seized devices via Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).
- The district court directed parties to resolve which noncontraband files to return but later denied Gladding’s Rule 41(g) motion after the government represented segregation would be nearly impossible and costly; the court relied on the government’s representations without requiring evidence.
- On appeal, while the appeal was pending, the government granted Gladding’s expert access and many noncontraband files were copied, though Gladding contends other noncontraband files remain.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo, found the district court erred in placing the burden on Gladding (rather than the government) after plea, and remanded for the court to apply the correct burden and, if needed, receive evidence on segregation costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gladding) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gladding is entitled to return of noncontraband files intermingled with contraband after guilty plea | Files are noncontraband and excluded from forfeiture; presumptive right to return once government no longer needs them | Segregation is costly/difficult; government may retain files if legitimate and reasonable reasons exist | Remanded: defendant presumptively entitled; government bears burden to show legitimate, reasonable reason to retain |
| Burden of proof on Rule 41(g) motion filed after plea | Gladding contends government must justify retention | Government implicitly argued difficulty excuses return without formal proof | Court erred in effectively requiring Gladding to prove; government must carry burden once property not needed for evidence |
| Whether government’s oral representations suffice as evidence of cost/difficulty | Gladding argued representations insufficient; needed admissible evidence | Government relied on counsel representations about infeasibility | Representations alone insufficient; district court must receive evidentiary support and may hold hearing |
| Appropriate remedies if segregation is burdensome | Gladding sought copies or return of files | Government suggested impracticality; proposed alternatives | Court may order alternatives (e.g., allow defendant’s expert to segregate at defendant’s cost, provide printed directory, or other measures) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harrell, 530 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review and evidentiary receipt on Rule 41(g) issues)
- United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1987) (burden allocation on Rule 41(g) before and after indictment/plea)
- United States v. Kriesel, 720 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2013) (presumptive grant of Rule 41(g) when government no longer needs property; legitimate reason standard)
- United States v. Kaczynski, 416 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2005) (government bears burden to show legitimate reason to retain property)
- Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1993) (Rule 41(g) favors compromise and reasonableness balancing)
- United States v. Fitzen, 80 F.3d 387 (9th Cir. 1996) (government can defeat Rule 41(g) by showing property is subject to forfeiture)
- United States v. Bainbridge, 746 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2014) (weight given to Advisory Committee notes in interpreting Rule 41)