United States v. Robert Eugene Mills and Richard Raymond Pierce

641 F.2d 785 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert Eugene MILLS and Richard Raymond Pierce, Defendants-Appellees. No. 80-1540. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 5, 1981. Decided April 6, 1981. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 25, 1981. As amended July 7, 1981. Richard Drooyan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Charles Diamond, O'Melveny & Myers, M. Randall Oppenheimer, Los Angeles, Cal., Edwin Saul, Encino, Cal., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before WRIGHT and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and EAST, Senior United States District Judge. * EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: 1 On the government's appeal, two issues are presented: (1) was it error to dismiss two murder indictments for Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations, and (2) if so, should we direct the district court to vacate its order which compelled the government to produce statements of witnesses which it would not call at trial? We conclude: the dismissal of the indictments is reversed and the district court is directed to vacate the discovery order. I.…

On the government’s appeal, two issues are presented: (1) was it error to dismiss two murder indictments for Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations, and (2) if so, should we direct the district court to vacate its order which compelled the government to produce statements of witnesses which it would not call at trial? We conclude: the dismissal of the indictments is reversed and the district court is directed to vacate the discovery order.

I. FACTS

At oral argument we were told that inmates at the Federal Corrections Institution at Lompoc, California, committed at least 14 homicides in 1980. Thomas Hall, an inmate, was stabbed to death on August 22, 1979 and the appellees, Mills and Pierce, were believed to be implicated. Along with other inmates, they were questioned and given physical examinations by prison officials and FBI personnel.

On August 23, 1979, prison officials committed Mills and Pierce to the Administrative Detention Unit (ADU). Normal prison policy would have had them returned to the general inmate population or transferred to another institution within a few months. This was not done and they remained in segregation until they were arraigned on April 21,…

concurring specially:

I concur in the majority opinion. I must add that the facts of this case are unquestionably troubling. The conduct here creates a visceral reaction that this must be some kind of constitutional violation. The trial court’s decision is thus understandable, and I regret that the law requires reversal.

Today’s result must not be read, however, as suggesting that due process stops at the jailhouse door. The government cannot brazenly disregard prisoners’ constitutional rights when preparing a criminal case against an inmate.

It is important to note that the instant appeal involves dismissal of the indictment by the lower court. In my view, defendants’ strongest arguments are those alleging that their isolation wrongfully precluded them from engaging in the activities necessary to prepare an effective defense. Such a due process claim goes to the heart of a defendant’s constitutionally protected right to defend himself at trial. The defendants’ claims would thus be appropriately raised at trial. Our decision today, which reviews only the dismissal of the indictment, does not foreclose defendants from doing so.