United States v. Santini
656 F.3d 1075
9th Cir.2011Background
- Santini attempted to cross the border on September 7, 2008; inspection revealed 28 kilograms of marijuana in his vehicle.
- Santini’s defense claimed another person planted the marijuana; he may have been manipulated due to a 2005 traumatic brain injury.
- Dr. Dean Delis testified Santini has permanent cognitive deficits from the brain injury affecting social perception.
- The government presented Dr. Mark Kalish, who relied in part on Santini’s rap sheet to argue prior law enforcement contacts.
- The district court allowed Kalish’s testimony about law enforcement contacts; the rap sheet itself was not admitted and its interpretation was contested.
- The court allowed Dr. Kalish’s testimony to be used to challenge the defense theory and influence the jury’s view of Santini’s culpability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior law enforcement contacts | Santini argued 404(b) and 703 permitted the evidence | Santini argued such evidence was improper and prejudicial | Abuse of discretion; evidence inadmissible |
| Harmlessness of the error | Dr. Kalish's testimony biased the jury about prior contacts | Error was harmless due to limiting instruction | Not harmless; error affected the verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cherer, 513 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admitting evidence; harmless-error doctrine)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (legality of Rule 404(b) evidence and similarity to charged conduct)
- United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2002) (four-part test for Rule 404(b) admissibility)
- United States v. Chang, 207 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2000) (expert testimony reliance on cross-field data; relevance to Rule 703)