United States v. Gabriel Orosco Hernandez, United States of America v. Gustavo M. Torres, United States of America v. Jose Isabel Landa

Good Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 8232·937 F.2d 1490·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 14118·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5365
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 9, 199189-30232, 89-30236 and 89-30248California2,327 words

Opinion

Opinion

Appellants Gabriel Hernandez, Gustavo Torres and Jose Landa appeal their conviction for trafficking in cocaine. They claim that because a fourth codefendant acted as a government informant throughout the planning stages of a joint defense, the United States invaded their attorney-client relationship and thus violated their Sixth Amendment rights. In addition, they appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized from a car. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Facts Relating to the Attorney-Client Privilege Issue

On March 6, 1989, Ernesto Barajas, Gabriel Hernandez, Gustavo Torres, and Jose Landa were arrested in Walla Walla, Washington for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The next day, agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) interviewed Barajas and obtained his cooperation in their ongoing investigation. On the afternoon of March 7, defendants had their initial appearance in court and Charles Baechler was appointed counsel to represent Barajas. On March 8, defendants were indicted by the grand jury.

Attorneys for the four defendants met after their appointment and agreed to conduct a joint defense. At that meeting, facts and…

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.