United States v. Michael Ramirez
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8614
9th Cir.2013Background
- Ramirez and Bejaran were involved in a government sting for meth distribution; undercover agents conducted four controlled buys in one month with Bejaran as intermediary.
- Bejaran pled guilty and agreed to testify, but his testimony was not presented; the government used undercover and audiotaped evidence instead.
- Bejaran’s absence was not explained to the jury; Ramirez’s counsel discussed Bejaran’s absence during closing; the court later addressed the issue.
- Before closing arguments, Ramirez asked for a missing-witness instruction; the district court refused.
- The jury convicted Ramirez of distribution, possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to distribute meth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the missing-witness instruction was appropriate | Ramirez contends Bejaran’s absence justified the instruction | The government argues no two-part test warranted the instruction | No abuse of discretion; error on sua sponte instruction later deemed harmless |
| Whether the sua sponte instruction misstated limits on inferences | Ramirez could infer Bejaran’s potential testimony favored the defense | Court should not have blocked a plausible inference about government control | Sua sponte instruction was error but harmless regarding distribution/possession; not reversible for conspiracy |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy | Ramirez argues there was no agreement to distribute | The government showed Ramirez’s possession and sales; Bejaran’s involvement lacked proven common plan | Conspiracy conviction vacated; no proof of a prolonged, shared distribution plan with Bejaran |
| Whether sentencing enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) based on a prior drug conviction required a jury finding | Ramirez relies on Buckland to require jury finding for prior convictions | Apprendi excludes prior convictions from jury-found facts; Buckland limited to drug type/quantity | Buckland inapplicable to prior conviction; enhancement sustained; conspiracy vacatur did not affect rest of sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leal-Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2012) (two-part test for missing-witness instruction)
- United States v. Bautista, 509 F.2d 675 (9th Cir. 1975) (no abuse of discretion for missing-witness instruction?)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009 (en banc)) (standard for reviewing instructional decisions)
- United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir. 1993) (permissible inference when key witness unavailable)
- United States v. Stever, 603 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2010) (limits on inferences and evidentiary gaps)
- United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000) (right to defend against inference theories)
- United States v. Verduzco, 373 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2004) (harmless-error standard for instructional error)
- Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Co., 321 U.S. 29 (1944) (premise that juries draw inferences from evidence)
- Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2010) (illustrates speculative inferences in other contexts)
- Chawla v. Holder, 599 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (caution against improper speculation)