United States v. Lopez
2:23-cr-00055
D. Nev.Jun 17, 2025Background
- Defendant Eduardo "Edward" Lopez, represented by Mark Krotoski and others, moved for a mistrial, claiming government misconduct and procedural errors during trial.
- The court deemed that Krotoski knowingly misrepresented facts in filings and in communications with the court and opposing counsel.
- Key allegations against Krotoski included: falsely claiming an expert witness was "traveling" and thus unavailable, mischaracterizing the record regarding the admission of a document (exhibit 151), and misleading omissions about the reason for striking expert testimony.
- Krotoski also inserted bracketed material into transcript citations and made factual assertions unsupported by the record, further undermining his candor.
- The order to show cause was directed to Krotoski and his trial co-counsel, requiring them to explain why they should not be sanctioned for violating local and professional conduct rules, specifically regarding candor, truthfulness, and good faith in advocacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misrepresentation of admitted evidence (Exhibit 151) | Claimed unredacted doc introduced, rights violated | Asserted gov't admitted improper exhibit, grounds for mistrial | Record shows only redacted doc introduced; misrepresentation by defense |
| Counsel's candor regarding expert's unavailability | N/A | Claimed expert was "traveling" and unavailable per court order | Counsel's statement was a lie; failure to correct or explain misleading court |
| Omission of reasons for expert's exclusion in new trial motion | N/A | Argued exclusion was unwarranted and due to misunderstanding | Misleading omission; exclusion was due to counsel's conduct and misrepresentation |
| Professionalism and compliance with court orders | N/A | Counsel acted zealously and in defense's interest | Krotoski crossed line into sanctionable conduct; order to show cause issued |
Key Cases Cited
- Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 1999) (district courts can discipline attorneys and must provide notice/opportunity to be heard)
- Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2001) (inherent power to sanction attorney misconduct)
- Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1989) (sanctions for violations of court rules)
- Pac. Harbor Cap., Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2000) (written response opportunity satisfies due process in sanctions context)
- Toombs v. Leone, 777 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1985) (process for attorney discipline)
- Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians v. Ceiba Legal, LLP, 230 F. Supp. 3d 1146 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (unreasonable conduct and misrepresentations warrant sanctions)