United States v. Matus-Zayas
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17653
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Appellant Matus-Zayas challenged admission of videotaped deposition testimony of detained material witnesses under 18 U.S.C. § 3144 after their pretrial deposition and release.
- Five material witnesses were detained; three depositions were taken and videotaped, subsequent release followed.
- District court allowed deposition under Rule 15(a) and § 3144 due to supposed exceptional circumstances.
- Depositions were used at trial alongside other government evidence, including witness testimony and an interview with Matus-Zayas.
- Convictions were for conspiracy, transportation, and harboring illegal aliens; sentence imposed concurrently with multiple counts.
- On appeal, no new arguments about unavailability were raised; court reviews for plain error on the newly raised issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3144 is facially valid despite Confrontation Clause concerns. | Matus-Zayas argues § 3144 facially violates Sixth Amendment rights. | Ninth Circuit has rejected facial invalidity in similar contexts. | Facial challenge rejected; statute compatible with Constitution. |
| Whether the magistrate complied with § 3144 in detaining and ordering depositions. | Matus-Zayas contends magistrate erred in detention/ordering depositions. | Government showed impracticability of subpoena; magistrate followed Torres-Ruiz. | No plain error; magistrate acted in accordance with § 3144. |
| Whether the district court properly admitted deposition testimony without evidence of witness unavailability. | Admission violated Confrontation Clause due to lack of unavailability proof. | Deposition testimony admissible under § 3144 with proper safeguards. | Plain error occurred; but relief denied because error did not substantially affect fairness. |
| Whether Rule 15 and General Order 05-34 compliance was proper. | Argues procedural defects under Rule 15(a)(2) and General Order. | Magistrate relied on Rule 15(a)(1) and General Order; no error. | No plain error; harmless as to substantial rights; General Order compliance affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Provencio v. United States, 554 F.2d 361 (9th Cir. 1977) (unavailability proof required for deposition use; preserved testimony)
- Vasquez-Ramirez v. United States, 629 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir. 1980) (plain error for deposition without unavailability proof)
- Santos-Pinon v. United States, 146 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 1998) (unavailability requirement applies post § 1324(d))
- Torres-Ruiz v. United States Dist. Court, 120 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 1997) (adopted rule favoring deposition and release when testimony can be secured by deposition)
- Hammons v. United States, 558 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard (fairness, integrity, public reputation))
- Forn v. Hornung, 343 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2003) (unavailability determination tied to Confrontation Clause)