United States v. Sepulveda-Barraza
634 F.3d 1075
9th Cir.2011Background
- Sepulveda-Barraza was stopped at a Nogales port of entry; eleven cocaine packages were found in his car.
- He was indicted on importation of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute.
- The first trial ended in a mistrial; defense sought to call Godtlibsen on blind mule evidence.
- The government sought to admit Bortfeld’s testimony on drug-trafficking organization structure, couriers, and drug value.
- District court admitted Bortfeld’s testimony following Murillo, and defense failed to object during direct examination; objection raised during redirect.
- Jury convicted Sepulveda-Barraza; district court imposed 120 months’ imprisonment and 60 months’ supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bortfeld’s testimony was properly admitted | Vallejo requires exclusion of such testimony as per se inadmissible | Testimony is admissible case-by-case if relevant and probative | No abuse; testimony admissible under case-by-case Rule 403 analysis |
| Whether Vallejo creates per se inadmissibility for unknown couriers in non-complex cases | Testimony about unwitting couriers is always inadmissible | No per se rule; admissible if relevant and probative | Not per se inadmissible; admissible where relevant and probative |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Murillo, 255 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2001) (admissibility of drug-trafficking operations testimony when relevant)
- United States v. Vallejo, 237 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2001) (per se risk of expert structure testimony; relevance required)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (case-by-case Rule 403 analysis; deference to district court)
- United States v. Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225 (9th Cir. 1997) (admissibility of expert testimony; relevance and prejudice considerations)
- United States v. Pinedar-Torres, 287 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 2002) (admission requires articulable theory of relevance)
- United States v. Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2002) (same theme of case-by-case admissibility)
- United States v. Lim, 984 F.2d 331 (9th Cir. 1993) (foundational considerations for evidence admissibility)