United States v. Rafael Guzman-Solis
666 F. App'x 628
9th Cir.2016Background
- Guzman-Solis was prosecuted for illegal reentry after deportation and faced supervised-release revocation; he appealed following conviction and revocation.
- An attorney-client meeting was recorded inadvertently by the government; Guzman-Solis sought a Kastigar hearing and related relief claiming prejudice and violation of rights.
- He also challenged the government’s acquisition of his medical records and sought dismissal of the indictment on due process and supervisory-power grounds.
- Guzman-Solis moved for judgment of acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence identifying him as the person who committed the charged offense.
- The district court denied the Kastigar hearing request, denied dismissal and supervisory relief, and denied the acquittal motion; the Ninth Circuit affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Kastigar hearing was required after an attorney-client meeting was recorded | Guzman-Solis argued the recording intruded on the attorney-client relationship and required a Kastigar hearing or burden shift to show no use of privileged content | Government said the recording was inadvertent, passive, and no prosecution team member learned privileged content, so no hearing or burden shift was required | District court did not err; no hearing required because intrusion was inadvertent and no affirmative government use occurred |
| Whether indictment should be dismissed for due process violations based on recordings and improper medical-records process | Guzman-Solis argued government conduct was so outrageous as to violate due process and mandate dismissal | Government argued conduct did not meet the extremely high standard of grossly shocking, outrageous behavior that absolutely bars prosecution; no substantial prejudice shown | Denial affirmed; conduct did not meet the high standard and no substantial prejudice shown |
| Whether the court should use supervisory powers to dismiss the indictment | Guzman-Solis urged dismissal under court’s supervisory authority due to government misconduct | Government argued any misconduct was not patently egregious and did not prejudice defendant | Court did not abuse its discretion refusing supervisory dismissal; misconduct not patently egregious and no shown prejudice |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to identify Guzman-Solis and require acquittal | Guzman-Solis argued no rational trier of fact could identify him beyond reasonable doubt | Government argued evidence, viewed favorably to prosecution with reasonable inferences, sufficed to identify defendant | Denial of acquittal affirmed; reasonable juror could find identity beyond reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Danielson, 325 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2003) (prima facie prejudice and affirmative government intrusion standard for attorney-client intrusion)
- United States v. Anderson, 79 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir. 1996) (Kastigar-related burden-shifting principles)
- United States v. Black, 733 F.3d 294 (9th Cir. 2013) (due process dismissal standard; review standards)
- United States v. Barrera-Moreno, 951 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1991) (‘‘grossly shocking’’ and ‘‘outrageous’’ government conduct standard)
- United States v. Restrepo, 930 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1991) (limits on due process dismissal for misconduct)
- United States v. Rogers, 751 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1985) (supervisory powers and dismissal for governmental misconduct)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States, 719 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1983) (prejudice requirement for dismissal based on governmental misconduct)
- United States v. Owen, 580 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1978) (prejudice threshold for dismissal)
- United States v. Alexander, 48 F.3d 1477 (9th Cir. 1995) (standard for reviewing denial of acquittal; identity sufficiency)
- United States v. Lucas, 963 F.2d 243 (9th Cir. 1992) (evidentiary standard for judgment of acquittal)
- United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 958 (9th Cir. 1977) (acquittal standard guidance)
- United States v. Leal, 509 F.2d 122 (9th Cir. 1975) (in-court identification not always required)
- United States v. Fern, 696 F.2d 1269 (11th Cir. 1983) (sufficient evidence can permit inference of identity)