United States v. Jorge Negrete-Gonzales, United States of America v. Rogelio Mendoza-Barajas

Good Law
92 Daily Journal DAR 7391·966 F.2d 1277·1992 WL 114665·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 12153·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4625
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 2, 199290-30306, 90-30318California3,154 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wright, J.

The two defendants here may or may not have conspired to sell cocaine, but a trial rife with error denied them their fundamental right to make the government prove its case. The district court arbitrarily struck the testimony of the key defense witness, permitted the government’s ill-advised inquiry into the defendants’ post-arrest silence, and misinstructed the jury. We reverse and remand for a new trial, with the expectation that these errors will be corrected.

I

The two defendants, Rogelio Mendoza-Barajas (Mendoza) and Jorge Negrete-Gon-zalez (Negrete), were arrested together with Maria Medina-Barajas (Medina) following an undercover drug investigation. Medina pleaded guilty, and a jury convicted Mendoza and Negrete following a joint trial.

The investigation started when Lopez, a confidential informant, told the DEA that he could arrange to buy cocaine from Medina. With the DEA’s encouragement, he arranged a multi-kilogram transaction.

Medina met Lopez and undercover DEA agent Weeks at a grocery store parking lot. Medina arrived, driving Negrete’s car, accompanied by Mendoza. At Medina’s suggestion, Lopez and Weeks followed her to her home to complete the deal.

There,…

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.