United States v. Sepulveda-Barraza
2011 WL 2816645
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Sepulveda-Barraza stopped at Nogales port of entry; nervous demeanor; cocaine hidden in his car seats.
- Indicted on importation of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- First trial deadlocked; second trial defense sought expert on blind mules; government sought expert on couriers and drug value.
- District court admitted expert testimony relying on Murillo; defense did not object on direct examination; objection raised during redirect.
- Gov't expert testified on control of couriers and drug value; defense expert testified that use of unknowing couriers is rare.
- Jury convicted on both counts; sentence 120 months’ imprisonment and 60 months’ supervised release; appeal challenging admissibility of testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Bortfeld's testimony | Vallejo not a per se rule; case-by-case under Rule 403; testimony relevant and probative. | Vallejo creates per se exclusion of structure-of-organization testimony; testimony unfairly prejudicial. | Not an abuse; testimony admissible on case-by-case basis. |
| Preservation and standard of review for evidentiary ruling | District court correctly admitted evidence; preserved by in limine ruling. | Failure to renew objection at trial should bar appeal; per Rule 103(a) preservation rule. | Admission reviewed for abuse of discretion; preservation ultimately not fatal to appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murillo, 255 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2001) (admissibility of drug-trafficking operation testimony in non-conspiracy case)
- Vallejo, 237 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2001) (per se exclusion of expert structure testimony when not shown to be relevant)
- Pineda-Torres, 287 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 2002) (admission requires articulated relevance; not automatic)
- Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2002) (same relevance/probative consideration for expert drug-trafficking evidence)
- Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225 (9th Cir. 1997) (case-by-case application of Rule 403 balancing)
- Lim, 984 F.2d 331 (9th Cir. 1993) (evidence rule balancing framework)
- Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; case-by-case evaluation under Rule 403)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993) (reliability and relevance standards for expert testimony)