United States v. Sepulveda-Barraza
645 F.3d 1066
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Sepulveda-Barraza is stopped at a Nogales port of entry; 11 cocaine packages are found in his vehicle.
- Indicted on importation of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- First trial ended in a mistrial; defense planned to introduce expert testimony on blind mules.
- Government sought to introduce expert testimony on drug-trafficking organizations and courier control; value of drugs.
- District court admitted the testimony under Murillo, and trial proceeded with both sides’ experts.
- Jury convicted Sepulveda-Barraza; he received 120 months’ imprisonment and 60 months’ supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review and preservation | Sepulveda-Barraza argues preservation and abuse standards apply. | Barraza contends objection preserved and abuse review standard applies. | Abuse-of-discretion review applied; preservation satisfied. |
| Per se rule against unknowing-courier testimony (Vallejo) | Vallejo prohibits general structure of drug organizations testimony. | Vallejo should bar such testimony in all non-complex cases. | No per se rule; admissibility depends on case-by-case relevance under Rule 403. |
| Admission of Bortfeld's testimony | Testimony relevant to knowledge and modus operandi; not unfairly prejudicial. | Testimony could imply knowledge of organization; prejudicial. | Testimony admissible; relevant, probative, not unduly prejudicial; defense opened door. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vallejo, 237 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2001) (per se exclusion of expert structure testimony not supported; case-by-case balancing required)
- Murillo, 255 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2001) (admissibility of unknowing courier testimony in non-conspiracy cases)
- Pineda-Torres, 287 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 2002) (limited drug-structure testimony admissible when defense opens door)
- Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225 (9th Cir. 1997) (case-by-case admissibility under Rule 403)
- Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (case-by-case, broad deference to district court under Rule 403 (en banc))
- Vallejo (additional context), 237 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussed for its prejudicial implications)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (reliability and Daubert standard for expert testimony)
- Ramirez-Robles, 386 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 403 balancing in evaluating expert testimony)
- Valencia-Amezcua, 278 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2002) (reaffirms case-by-case approach to expert admissibility)
- Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2002) (admissibility depends on relevance and probative value)
- McGowan, 274 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2001) (discusses admissibility of courier-modi operandi testimony)