United States v. Martha Solano, 694 F. App'x 581

Martha Solano was convicted of conspiracy to distribute, possession with intent to distribute, conspiracy to import, and importation of methamphetamine based on drugs found in a vehicle she drove.
Government presented circumstantial evidence of knowledge: ownership of multiple similar vehicles, frequent border crossings, limited reported income, leaving the vehicle in Mexico, and altered/firm seats consistent with hidden compartments.
Solano sought disclosure of a confidential source’s identity and asked the court to order the government to investigate certain individuals; the district court reviewed informant information in camera and denied disclosure and investigatory relief.
The district court instructed the jury on deliberate ignorance (willful blindness); Solano challenged that instruction and also moved for a new trial based on the confidential source’s potential testimony.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the in-camera material, considered whether disclosure or a new trial was required, and evaluated the propriety of the deliberate ignorance instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Solano)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether the confidential source’s identity must be disclosed	Source identity needed to impeach/witness testimony; disclosure required	Government argued Roviaro balancing favors nondisclosure; source not sole witness and gov didn’t rely on source at trial	Denial affirmed — district court properly applied Roviaro and reviewed material in camera
Whether court must order government to investigate certain individuals	Court should require affirmative investigation to produce exculpatory evidence	Brady does not force government to create evidence; no obligation to investigate absent existing material	Denial affirmed — no Brady duty to create exculpatory evidence
Whether deliberate ignorance instruction was proper	Jury could not find willful blindness if it rejected evidence of actual knowledge	Government argued circumstantial evidence supported either actual knowledge or deliberate ignorance; instruction appropriate under Heredia	Instruction upheld — consistent with Heredia; jury could infer deliberate ignorance from same circumstantial evidence
Whether a new trial was warranted based on source identity/testimony	New evidence (source) would likely lead to acquittal or materially change outcome	Even if source corroborated certain testimony, it would not undermine deliberate ignorance theory or probably produce acquittal	New trial denied — source identity/testimony would not probably result in acquittal

Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (balances defendant’s right to informant disclosure against government interest in secrecy)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory evidence)
United States v. Heredia, 483 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2007) (explains when deliberate ignorance instruction is appropriate given circumstantial evidence)
United States v. Jaramillo-Suarez, 950 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1991) (upholds nondisclosure where informant not sole witness and govt didn’t rely on informant at trial)
United States v. Sukumolachan, 610 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1980) (Brady does not require government to create exculpatory evidence)
United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817 (9th Cir. 1985) (discussion of limits on government investigatory obligations under Brady)
United States v. King, 735 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
United States v. Berry, 624 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2010) (new-trial standard: evidence must probably produce acquittal)