United States v. Victor Chacon

Victor Chacon appeals from his jury conviction for importing 1,451 pounds of marijuana into this country and possessing that controlled substance with intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 952(a), and 960(a)(1). The sole issue presented is whether the district court committed reversible error in denying appellant’s motion for production of a copy of the sealed trial transcript of a juvenile who was arrested and charged at the same time as Chacon, but tried separately. We affirm.

Background

When a pickup truck driven by appellant was stopped by law enforcement officers and the marijuana was discovered, the juvenile was in the passenger seat. The remainder of the contraband was found in a mobile home accompanying the pickup and carrying three adult passengers, one of whom was the juvenile’s uncle. Following trial as a juvenile before federal District Judge James A. Walsh, the boy was acquitted. Because federal law provides that

18 U.S.C. § 5038 (a), the trial transcript in question, as part of the record, was ordered sealed by the court. 1 After such sealing, release of the record is prohibited except in certain enumerated circumstances. See id. §…

concurring:

I agree that none of the testimony in the juvenile trial would have been helpful to the adult defendant, and therefore I concur in the judgment of the court. However, the holding that juvenile records sealed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5038 (Supp. V 1975) may be disclosed in proceedings that involve a “transaction” in which “the juvenile himself was involved” is unnecessary and also, I think, quite wrong.

The holding is unnecessary because it is now well settled that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the Constitution requires production of material that is needed to cross-examine, notwithstanding statutory provisions for nondisclosure of juvenile proceedings. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). It is true, as the majority opinion states, that we should avoid constitutional questions; but we break no new ground here by acknowledging that the defendant would have a constitutional right of access to the transcript if it would assist him in cross-examination. That issue is definitively settled. There is no reason to ignore Davis v. Alaska. The majority opinion does, however, break new ground in its disposition of the…

564 F.2d 1373 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor CHACON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 76-2864. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Nov. 28, 1977. Lars Pedersen (argued) of Schneider & Pedersen, Tucson, Ariz., for defendant-appellant. Ron Jennings, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before DUNIWAY, CHOY and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges. CHOY, Circuit Judge: 1 Victor Chacon appeals from his jury conviction for importing 1,451 pounds of marijuana into this country and possessing that controlled substance with intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 952(a), and 960(a)(1). The sole issue presented is whether the district court committed reversible error in denying appellant's motion for production of a copy of the sealed trial transcript of a juvenile who was arrested and charged at the same time as Chacon, but tried separately. We affirm. Background 2 When a pickup truck driven by appellant was stopped by law enforcement officers and the marijuana was discovered, the juvenile was in the passenger seat. The remainder of…