United States v. Sanchez
659 F.3d 1252
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Sanchez was convicted of importation and possession of cocaine following a border seizure of 29 kilograms (64 pounds) concealed in his vehicle.
- Sanchez testified duress, claiming drug traffickers threatened his family in Mexico unless he transported the drugs.
- At trial, border agents and ICE testified about Sanchez’s interactions; Sanchez admitted knowledge of the drugs but claimed duress.
- Before closing, Sanchez sought surrebuttal on the duress defense; the district court denied that request.
- During closing rebuttal, the prosecutor made an inflammatory "send a memo" statement about future acquittals encouraging lawbreaking; the court did not issue a curative instruction.
- On appeal, Sanchez contends plain error due to the prosecutor’s improper remark; the Ninth Circuit reverses and remands for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 'send a memo' remark improper? | Sanchez | Sanchez | Improper argument; prejudicial under plain error |
| Did the court provide adequate curative instructions? | Sanchez | Sanchez | No adequate curative instruction to mitigate prejudice |
| Did the strength of the government's case affect prejudice assessment? | Sanchez | Sanchez | Weakened case increased prejudice from misconduct; reversal warranted |
| Should the conviction be reversed for plain error or remanded for new trial on surrebuttal claim? | Sanchez | Sanchez | Convictions reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nobari, 574 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (prosecutor may not inflame passions or appeal to societal concerns)
- United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1994) (plain error standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
- United States v. Bracy, 67 F.3d 1421 (9th Cir. 1995) (general curative instructions may not suffice in certain prejudicial contexts)
- United States v. Weatherspoon, 410 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (prejudice shown by improper statements and lack of adequate curative remedy)
- United States v. Carter, 236 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2001) (timing of improper comments (rebuttal) affects their impact)
- United States v. Amlani, 111 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 1997) (biblical reference in closing argument assessed for prejudice)
- Tan v. Runnels, 413 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005) (distinguishes cases where curative instructions suffice and where they do not)
- United States v. Ibarra-Pino, 657 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2011) (duress instructions not challenged in context; not controlling)