United States v. Ramiro Hernandez
14-10453
9th Cir.Oct 23, 2017Background
- Hernandez was convicted and sentenced to 300 months for (1) conspiracy to distribute ≥500g methamphetamine, (2) possession with intent to distribute ≥500g methamphetamine, and (3) attempt to possess with intent to distribute ≥500g methamphetamine.
- Key evidence: recorded phone calls between Hernandez and co-conspirators (Perez, Gouveia), phone records, witness testimony identifying Hernandez on recordings, and a witness taught by Hernandez how to hide drugs in vehicles.
- Two shipments (March and July 2006) shared unique similarities in concealment method and personnel; prosecution argued Hernandez participated in both.
- Cooperator Raymond Villagomez became unavailable to testify after threats; his out-of-court statements were admitted under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing rule.
- Law enforcement recorded controlled calls (Perez calling Hernandez at DEA direction); agents testified about instructions given to Perez.
- Hernandez challenged admission of statements (Confrontation Clause), sufficiency of the evidence, and alleged discovery/Brady violations; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Villagomez’s statements under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing (Confrontation Clause) | Villagomez’s statements were admissible because Hernandez caused witness unavailability by intimidation | Hernandez argued admission violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses | Court: No abuse of discretion; preponderance showed Hernandez intended to, and caused, Villagomez’s unavailability; Confrontation Clause not violated (Giles standard) |
| Admission of Perez’s recorded calls and agents’ testimony about instructions | Government: Calls not offered for truth of assertions; admissible for non-hearsay purposes; agents’ testimony explained law enforcement technique | Hernandez argued statements/testimony implicated Confrontation Clause and prejudiced jury | Court: Calls admissible for non-truth purpose; agents’ testimony permissible and did not imply Perez made incriminating ID of Hernandez |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions (Counts 1–3) | Government: phone records, recordings, witness ID, teaching of concealment method, Villagomez’s statements permit inference of agreement and substantial steps | Hernandez argued evidence insufficient to prove conspiracy, possession, or attempt beyond reasonable doubt | Court: Viewing evidence favorably to government, a rational juror could convict on all counts (Jackson standard) |
| Brady/discovery violations and failure to grant witness immunity | Hernandez claimed the government withheld material evidence and failed to secure immunity for witnesses, denying a fair trial | Government: no material evidence withheld; no showing of materiality or prejudice | Court: Claims meritless—no identified withheld evidence and no reasonable probability of a different outcome (Kyles standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing requires intent to prevent testimony)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause principles; testimonial statement rule and non-truth uses)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for evaluating sufficiency of the evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (materiality standard for Brady disclosures)
- United States v. Moe, 781 F.3d 1120 (elements for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute)
- United States v. Mincoff, 574 F.3d 1186 (attempt conviction requires intent and substantial step)
- United States v. Sanchez-Mata, 925 F.2d 1166 (theories supporting possession with intent to distribute convictions)
- United States v. Gouveia, [citation="468 F. App'x 793"] (admissibility of agent testimony about controlled-call instructions)