United States v. Marco Venegas-Reynoso

Good Law
524 F. App'x 373
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 17, 201311-10536California1,232 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Marco Venegas-Reynoso (“Reynoso”) appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute and importation of cocaine into the United States. At trial, the primary issue before the jury was whether Reynoso knew the vehicle he drove into the United States had a large amount of cocaine hidden within it or whether he was simply an unknowing drug courier, commonly referred to as a “blind mule.” Rey-noso contends the district court erred in (1) admitting the government’s expert witness testimony on the “structure and operations of drug trafficking organizations” in contravention of our holding in United States v. Vallejo, 237 F.3d 1008 , opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 246 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir.2001); (2) admitting the government’s expert witness testimony on the nonuse of blind mules by drug traffickers over Reynoso’s Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) objection; (3) denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence of a criminal complaint involving a blind mule scheme (the Chavez complaint); and (4) failing to find that the government committed a Brady violation warranting a new trial by not disclosing the Chavez complaint. We have jurisdiction…

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.