United States v. Scott Brabson
687 F. App'x 572
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendants Scott Brabson and Jay Rosendahl pleaded guilty in 2005 to conspiracy, foreign travel to promote commercial bribery, and wire fraud; they later filed coram nobis petitions challenging those convictions.
- DOJ disclosure in unrelated ACLU litigation revealed the government had obtained mobile location data without a warrant in the criminal prosecution.
- Appellants argued the warrantless collection violated their Fourth Amendment rights and that the government’s failure to disclose the lack of a warrant violated Brady/Giglio.
- Appellants’ plea agreements contained broad waivers of affirmative defenses and Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims, and waived motions that were or could have been filed.
- The district court denied coram nobis relief; appellants appealed. The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether appellants established fundamental error or reasonable delay in bringing their claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless collection of mobile location data invalidates convictions entered on guilty pleas | Warrantless location-data collection violated Fourth Amendment rights | Guilty pleas foreclose Fourth Amendment challenges to the validity of the convictions | Rejected — convictions by guilty plea cannot be undone by alleged Fourth Amendment seizure (Haring) |
| Whether nondisclosure of lack of warrant violated Brady/Giglio and warrants coram nobis relief | Failure to disclose the absence of a warrant was exculpatory/impeaching and must be disclosed | Plea waivers relinquished Fourth/Fifth claims and motions; Ruiz permits upholding waivers despite nondisclosure | Rejected — broad plea waivers valid; nondisclosure does not overcome the waiver (Ruiz) |
| Whether other asserted errors (judicial bias, government collusion, improper searches, due process, discovery failures) warrant coram nobis | Various asserted procedural and constitutional errors entitle them to relief | Delay (ten years) was unreasonable; appellants did not show fundamental error on merits | Rejected — appellants failed to show reasonable delay or fundamental error (Riedl) |
| Whether the district court erred by denying evidentiary proceedings or was biased in coram nobis stage | Appellants sought further evidentiary development and alleged bias | District court properly exercised discretion to deny further proceedings; no bias shown | Rejected — no error in denying further proceedings and bias allegations unsupported (Taylor) |
Key Cases Cited
- Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of review and requirement to establish each coram nobis factor)
- United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2007) (coram nobis requires showing an error of the most fundamental character and reasonableness of delay)
- Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306 (1983) (guilty pleas preclude later Fourth Amendment challenges to conviction validity)
- United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (certain plea-related disclosure requirements do not invalidate broad waivers where plea is voluntary)
- United States v. Taylor, 648 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1981) (district court discretion regarding evidentiary proceedings in coram nobis context)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (nondisclosure of impeachment evidence violates due process if material)