United States v. Solorio
669 F.3d 943
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Portillo-Rodriguez approached Solorio at a San Jose casino on May 5, 1999, indicating an interest in buying drugs.
- Portillo-Rodriguez gave Solorio a drug sample after meeting with Solorio and Jimenez; the sample tested presumptively positive for methamphetamine.
- DEA instructed Portillo-Rodriguez to arrange a five-pound meth deal, leading to a planned Costco meeting.
- During the June 3, 1999 meeting near Solorio's workplace, Solorio agreed to sell five pounds, contradicting earlier seven pounds.
- DEA units conducted a large undercover operation; arrest teams moved in after Portillo-Rodriguez signaled with “Lake Tahoe.”
- The drugs seized in the arrest weighed approximately 2,490 grams (about 5.5 pounds) and were later subjected to laboratory testing by Huntington.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpreter oaths required for Rule 604 translation | United States argues lack of oath did not prejudice Solorio | Solorio contends plain error from failed interpreter oaths | No plain error; error not prejudicial to substantial rights |
| Admissibility of present sense impressions by nontestifying agents | United States maintains present sense impressions properly admitted | Solorio contends Confrontation Clause violation | District court did not plainly err; statements admissible under governing standards |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to distribute 500+ grams | United States proves methamphetamine and weight via testing and corroborating conduct | Solorio challenges chain of custody and weight consistency | Sufficient evidence supports conviction beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Cumulative error analysis | United States | ||
| — | Solorio argues multiple errors aggregate | No cumulative error; single non-prejudicial error does not merit reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matus-Zayas, 655 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2011) (plain-error review for interpreter oath issues; qualifications matter)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements in confrontational analysis)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (ongoing emergency framework; primary purpose of interrogation)