United States v. Jose Carlos Chavez-Vernaza, AKA Jose Chavez, AKA "Pepe"

Chavez-Vernaza (Chavez) appeals from his convictions for engaging in various drug-related activities, including possession and distribution of cocaine, in violation of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. He argues that reversal is required because the district court failed to suppress financial records introduced against him at trial, refused to allow him to examine pre-sentence reports of government witnesses, denied his motion to seat Black jurors peremptorily challenged by the prosecutor, forbade cross-examination regarding the home addresses of government witnesses, overruled an objection to closing remarks of the prosecutor, and denied a new trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

I

In 1982, the Portland Police Bureau began an investigation of Chavez. The police believed that he was involved in an organization that acquired and distributed cocaine in the Pacific Northwest. During this investigation, state and local law enforcement agents in Oregon obtained evidence establishing Chavez’s involvement in wide-ranging illegal drug activities. Among the evidentiary items obtained by local officials were…

concurring in the result.

Although I agree with the result in Section II of the majority opinion, I would affirm on the statutory ground alone. As noted in part IIB of the opinion, Chavez did not allege that the prosecutor still had possession of the financial records. Thus, he did not meet his burden for disclosure under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(c). See United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040 1047-49 (9th Cir.1985).

I part company with the majority opinion in this respect: There is no evidence of any violation of state law. Perhaps such evidence would have come to light had the court granted the motion for disclosure. That, however, is purely a matter of speculation. Because there is no evidence that the state officers obtained the financial records in violation of state law, I cannot see any basis for deciding the question discussed in section IIA of the majority opinion — whether evidence obtained by state officers in violation of state law should be excluded in federal court. That question was not before us.

If I were to decide the exclusionary issue, however, I would adhere to our language in United States v. Henderson, 721 F.2d 662, 665 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (“federal…

844 F.2d 1368 25 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1034 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Carlos CHAVEZ-VERNAZA, aka Jose Chavez, aka "Pepe", Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 86-3178, 86-3187. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 9, 1987. Decided Dec. 28, 1987. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc May 5, 1988. John Henry Hingson, III, Oregon City, Or., for defendant-appellant. Kenneth C. Bauman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Before WRIGHT, WALLACE and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges. WALLACE, Circuit Judge: 1 Chavez-Vernaza (Chavez) appeals from his convictions for engaging in various drug-related activities, including possession and distribution of cocaine, in violation of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq. He argues that reversal is required because the district court failed to suppress financial records introduced against him at trial, refused to allow him to examine presentence reports of government witnesses, denied his motion to seat Black jurors peremptorily challenged by the…