United States v. Nicholas Gonzales-Flores
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24875
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Gonzales-Flores was charged in Feb 2011 with methamphetamine distribution, illegal-alien status, and firearm offenses.
- Two days before trial, government disclosed three expert-witnesses; defense moved in limine to exclude due to Rule 16 timing.
- District court held a telephonic hearing on the motion; Gonzales-Flores did not attend or participate.
- District court declined continuance or exclusion, finding belated disclosure did not prejudice defense; warned it could reconsider if prejudice arose.
- Trial proceeded; jury convicted on most counts, but acquitted the methamphetamine with intent to distribute count; sentenced to 180 months and five years’ supervised release.
- Gonzales-Flores appealed asserting Rule 43 required his presence at the discovery-hearing; district court decision was challenged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 43 require presence at a discovery-violation hearing? | Gonzales-Flores argues presence mandated for such hearings. | Government argues hearing falls under Rule 43(b)(3) as a question of law, not requiring presence. | Rule 43(b)(3) exemption applies; no requirement for Gonzales-Flores to be present. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rolle, 204 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2000) (presence required for voir dire; supports Rule 43 presence interpretation)
- United States v. Camacho, 955 F.2d 950 (4th Cir. 1992) (jury impanelment includes voir dire; Rule 43 presence scope)
- United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861 (4th Cir. 1996) (voir dire scope; Rule 43 presence interpretation)
- United States v. Lawrence, 248 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2001) (right to be present at sentencing; interpret presence purpose)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987) (confronts presence as fair hearing requirement)
- United States v. Moe, 536 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2008) (pretrial hearings on motions may be exempt from presence)
- United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (1985) (right to be present; Rule 43 broader protection)
- United States v. Barth, 424 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2005) (trial-management; discretion on participation during exempt proceedings)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for forfeited claims)
- United States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749 (4th Cir. 2002) (sanctions and abuse of discretion standards in Rule 16 matters)