United States v. Roxanne Carpenter
923 F.3d 1172
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- In March 2017 Carpenter, Velazquez, Begay, and Meyers kidnapped Angel Gonzalez to turn him over to a Mexican cartel in exchange for 30 pounds of marijuana; Meyers and Begay pleaded guilty, Carpenter and Velazquez were tried and convicted of conspiracy to kidnap and kidnapping.
- Facts relevant to the appeal: missing marijuana at Carpenter’s house created a cartel bounty on Gonzalez; codefendants abducted Gonzalez, bound him in a trunk, and attempted to turn him over in Mexico; Carpenter was arrested at the border.
- Carpenter sought to file her pretrial offer of proof for a duress defense under seal (ex parte); the district court denied sealing and required public filing but allowed the duress defense at trial.
- The government moved to admit two categories of other-act evidence: (1) the February 2017 marijuana trafficking and subsequent disappearance and (2) the defendants’ methamphetamine use while waiting at Hall’s house. The district court admitted both.
- On appeal Carpenter argued the court abused its discretion by denying sealing of the duress proffer; Velazquez argued the court erred in admitting the other-act evidence (particularly methamphetamine use).
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held the common-law right of access attaches to duress proffers and Carpenter failed to show a compelling reason to seal; it also held admission of methamphetamine-use evidence was error under Rule 403 but that error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pretrial duress proffers may be sealed ex parte | Carpenter: sealing required to protect defense strategy and avoid forcing disclosure of testimony | Government/district court: proffers not historically secret; public has presumptive right of access absent compelling reason | Common-law right of access attaches to duress proffers; district court did not abuse discretion in denying seal (Carpenter failed to show compelling reason) |
| Whether evidence of missing marijuana (Feb. 2017) was admissible as other-act evidence | Velazquez: references to drug trafficking and implication he stole marijuana were prejudicial and irrelevant to charged offenses | Govt: necessary to provide context, motive, and explain bounty on Gonzalez; inextricably intertwined/background story | Admission upheld: evidence was necessary to provide coherent story and relevant to motive and duress timing |
| Whether codefendants’ methamphetamine use at Hall’s house was admissible as inextricably intertwined or under Rule 404(b) | Velazquez: drug use was not part of the offenses and was highly prejudicial | Govt: showed state of mind, lack of duress, and provided background | Court: meth use not inextricably intertwined and, though marginally probative on state of mind, should have been excluded under Rule 403; admission was error but harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vasquez-Landaver, 527 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2008) (requires prima facie pretrial showing to present duress defense)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (two-part "experience and logic" test for First Amendment access to criminal proceedings)
- Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210 (9th Cir. 1989) (documents traditionally kept secret are outside common-law right of access)
- Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (compelling reasons required to overcome presumption of access to judicial records)
- United States v. Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 1995) (defines when other-act evidence is inextricably intertwined or necessary to present a coherent story)
- United States v. Mayans, 17 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 1994) (four-part test for admitting prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Bailey, 696 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2012) (presumption of prejudice from improper evidence admission; harmless-error standard explained)