United States v. Hugo Cruz-Garcia, AKA Jose Montes-Ramirez

Opinion by Judge KOZINSKI; Concurrence by Judge GRABER.

Did the district court abuse its discretion by excluding details of the prosecution’s star witness’s prior crimes?

*953 Facts

Defendant Hugo Cruz-Garda and his brother-in-law, Juan Carlos Meza-Castro, were driving together on a highway outside Reno, Nevada, when they were pulled over for weaving. Suspicious of their nervous behavior and defendant’s inability to produce a valid driver’s license, the highway patrol trooper asked to search the car. Defendant consented to the search, which turned up over one hundred grams of heroin on the floor of the back seat, hidden in the pocket of Meza-Castro’s jacket. It was later discovered that Meza-Castro had previously been convicted of selling heroin and cocaine to an undercover narcotics agent on six separate occasions, and was on probation at the time of the incident. Defendant had no prior drug-related convictions.

Both men were charged. Meza-Castro pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic heroin. During his plea hearing, he told the district court that he “bought [the heroin] and brought it” to Nevada after meeting some “guy” in a restaurant who offered him the drugs. He never…

specially concurring:

Although I agree that Defendant’s conviction must be reversed, I reach that conclusion on a narrower ground.

The district court’s error was in failing to apply Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) at all. As the majority recognizes, the court confusingly mentioned Rule 404(b) in passing but failed to analyze Defendant’s proposed evidence under that rule, including its incorporated requirement for Rule 403 balancing. 1 Had the district court done so, it might have found the evidence admissible. And, had the court found the evidence admissible, the outcome of the trial might have been affected for the reasons explained by the majority.

However, in my view it is premature, and potentially unjustified, to decide that the evidence would have been admissible for sure after a full Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 analysis. Typically, when we conclude that a district court used an incorrect Rule 404(b)/Rule 403 analysis, or none at all, we remand for the district court to consider the matter in the first instance using the correct analysis. See, e.g., Blind-Doan v. Sanders, 291 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir.2002) (when a district court excluded evidence under Rules 404(b) and 415…

344 F.3d 951 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugo Cruz-Garcia, aka Jose Montes-Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-10275. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 14, 2003 — San Francisco, California. Filed September 17, 2003. Michael K. Powell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Reno, Nevada, argued for the defendant-appellant. Franny Forsman joined him on the briefs. Craig S. Denney, Assistant United States Attorney, Reno, Nevada, argued for the plaintiff-appellee. Daniel G. Bogden joined him on the briefs. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; David Warner Hagen, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-01-00114-DWH/RAM. Before: Alex Kozinski, Susan P. Graber and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Kozinski; Concurrence by Judge Graber. KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge. 1 Did the district court abuse its discretion by excluding details of the prosecution's star witness's prior crimes? Facts 2 Defendant Hugo Cruz-Garcia and his brother-in-law, Juan Carlos Meza-Castro, were driving together on a highway outside Reno, Nevada, when they were pulled over for weaving. Suspicious of their…