United States v. Albert Dupuy, United States of America v. Christie Buzard, United States of America v. Juan Antonio Tercero

Good Law
760 F.2d 1492·17 Fed. R. Serv. 1530·1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 31285
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 22, 1985C.A. 83-1213, 83-1227 and 83-1214California14,115 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Jameson, J.

Appellants Albert Dupuy, Christie Buzard, and Antonio Tercero were indicted, with 20 others, in a 24-count indictment charging all defendants with conspiracy, and each appellant with substantive offenses, in the importation and distribution of marijuana and cocaine. Dupuy was convicted on six counts, Buzard on five counts, and Tercero on four, counts. .

I. Factual Background and Proceedings Below

The indictment resulted from an agreement between appellants and others to transport approximately 18,000 pounds of high-quality marijuana, valued at 11 million dollars, from Central Mexico to Northern Mexico for distribution in the United States. The facts encompass a three-month period from July 31, 1980 to October 23, 1980. The facts relevant to this appeal will be presented in detail in discussing each contention of the respective parties.

The Government’s case rested primarily on the testimony of an informant, Larry Jackson, who had been an active participant in the conspiracy. Jackson testified that he had made a career of marijuana trafficking for nine years, beginning in 1971. He began to cooperate with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) sometime after the conclusion of…

concurrence Opinion

Ferguson, J.

concurring:

I concur in the opinion of the majority and I write only to clarify the limited nature of the opinion's holding regarding the defendants’ Brady claim. Unfortunately, much of the language contained in the discussion of the Brady issue not only outstrips the facts and disposition of this claim, it also conflicts with the disposition of this case. With the limited holding of the court properly defined, I concur in the disposition of the Brady claim.

The prosecutor engaged in pretrial discussions with the codefendants of the appellants and promised to conceal the occurrence and contents of the meeting. The prosecutor took some notes of her conversations with these codefendants, however, and one week into the trial she turned the notes over to the district court. As the district court observed, and the majority opinion recognizes, the “prosecutor considered her notes Brady material.” Majority Opinion, supra, at 1502. Instead of disclosing the material to the defense, however, the prosecutor submitted her notes to the district court. The court sealed the notes and failed to review their contents. The court chose instead to refer the defendants to alternate means of…

Opinion

760 F.2d 1492 17 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1530 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert DUPUY, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christie BUZARD, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Antonio TERCERO, Defendant-Appellant. C.A. Nos. 83-1213, 83-1227 and 83-1214. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 2, 1984. Decided May 22, 1985. 1 Daphne Budge, Asst. U.S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee. 2 William G. Walker, Stomploy & Even, P.C., Tucson, Ariz., Stephen A. Gerst, Michael J. Cohen, Cohen, Gerst, Groseclose & Meissner, Phoenix, Ariz., Walter B. Nash, III, Tucson, Ariz., for defendant-appellant. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. 4 Before FERGUSON and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge. JAMESON, District Judge: 5 Appellants Albert Dupuy, Christie Buzard, and Antonio Tercero were indicted, with 20 others, in a 24-count indictment charging all defendants with conspiracy, and each appellant with substantive offenses, in the importation and distribution of marijuana and cocaine. Dupuy was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.