United States v. Nadunt Chibeast

MEMORANDUM *

Nadunt Chibeast appeals his jury conviction of one count of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Marijuana and Cocaine and one count of Conspiracy to Launder Money Instruments.

I

Chibeast argues that the government violated his constitutional rights by failing to disclose to him approximately one third of its discovery material until after his conviction. He also claims that his due process rights were violated by government policies that restricted his sleep and diet.

A

The government delivered six boxes of discovery to Chibeast on February 7, 2013, and sent additional discovery on February 15, 2013. Though the trial began on March 19, 2013, Chibeast did not receive the February 15 discovery until after his conviction on April 4, 2013.

On June 19, 2013, Chibeast filed a “Notice of New Boxes of Discovery Unknown to Me.” In the Notice, he stated that on June 12, 2013, he became aware of an additional three boxes of discovery which he had not been given the chance to review before trial. On June 26, 2013 and July 8, 2013, Chibeast made two additional filings related to the newly discovered materials. The district court did not rule on any of these…

concurring:

I agree that Chibeast’s notice to the district court is properly construed as a motion for new trial. I also agree that remand is appropriate to afford the district court an opportunity to decide whether the government’s alleged failure to timely disclose evidence to Chibeast warrants a new trial. I join fully in the court’s memorandum disposition but write separately to address what I believe to be the standard the district court should apply in reviewing Chibeast’s due process claim.

Were Chibeast asserting an ordinary new trial claim based on newly discovered evidence, he would be required to show that the newly discovered evidence demonstrates he “would probably be acquitted in a new trial.” United States v. Berry, 624 F.3d 1031, 1042 (9th Cir.2010).

Chibeast, however, appears to argue that the government’s failure to provide him with a significant portion of the discovery violated his due process right to present a complete defense. See Blue Br. at 20-21. A defendant’s claim that the government has prevented a defendant’s access to potentially material evidence is governed by a more “relaxed standard.” United States v. Doe, 705 F.3d 1134, 1153 (9th Cir.2013);…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 02 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10379

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-01243-SRB-

v.

MEMORANDUM*

NADUNT CHIBEAST, AKA Donald Williams, AKA Ronald Williams,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 11, 2014 San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Nadunt Chibeast appeals his jury conviction of one count of Conspiracy to

Possess with Intent to Distribute Marijuana and Cocaine and one count of

Conspiracy to Launder Money Instruments.

I

Chibeast argues that the government violated his constitutional rights by

failing to disclose to him approximately one third of its discovery material until

after his conviction. He also claims that his due process rights were…