T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. B E RNA R D B E AR D, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50316 D . C . N o. 2: 07- c r - 01215- S J O - 12 ME MOR AN DU M *

UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. D E M O N D L E E , A K A D -B o y, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50512 D . C . N o. 2: 07 -c r- 01 21 5-S JO -9

UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. N o. 11- 50187 D . C . N o. 2: 07 -c r- 01 26 8-O D W -3



# FI LED APR12 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

ROBE RT BE LL , D e f

e n d a n t, v. B E RNA R D B E AR D, M o v a n t - A p p e lla n t.

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S . J a m e s O t e r o, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng O t i s D . W r i ght , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 6, 2012 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , G O U L D , an d T A L L M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B ernard B eard (“ B eard”) and D em on d L ee (“ L ee ”) appeal thei r j ury c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s f orc ons pi r a c yt o di s tr i but e c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e s f r om L o s A n g e le s to S t. L o u is . B e a r d a ls o ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e rd e n y in g h is re qu es tt o o bt ai n sea l ed do cum ent s s ubj ec tt o a prot ec t i ve order i n the cr i m i nal c a s e a ga i ns tR obe rtB e l l ( “ B e l l ” ) . L e e a l s o appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l s of hi s m ot i ons t o s ubs t i tut e c ouns e l pr i ort o tr i a l . T hi s c ourtha s j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm.3

I. V i ew ed i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the go vernm ent , there w as suff i ci entevi dence for ara t i on al j ury t o fi nd thatB eard and L ee w er e m em bers of a si ng l e c on spi ra cy . T o est abl i sh a s i ng l e c on spi ra cy , “ the evi dence m ustshow that e a c h d e f e n d a n t k n e w , o rh a d r e a s o n to k n o w , th a t h is b e n e f its w e r e p r o b ab ly depend entup on the succ es s of the ent i re op er at i on . ” U ni te d State s v . D ur an , 189 F .3 d 1 0 7 1 , 1 0 8 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d a lte r a tio n o m itte d ) . H e r e , a m pl e e vi de nc e , i nc l udi ng r e c or de d t e l e phone c a l l s , w i tne s s t e s t i m ony , a nd phy s i c a l e vi de nc e , de m ons tr a t e s tha tboth L e e a nd B e a r d be ne f i tt e d f r om the ac t i vi t i es of the conspi ra t ors i n b oth L os A ng el es and S t . L ou i s. T he evi dence sh o w s th atB eard b en efi tt ed b y recei v i n g p aym en t s fro m th e d ru g tran sact i o n s, w hi l e L e e be ne f

i tt e d byc ontr i but i ng t o the pur c ha s e of the drugs a nd tr a ns port i ng th e d ru g s fro m L o s A n g el es t o S t . L o u i s. I I . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng B e a r d’ s m ot i on t o sev er h i s tri al fro m h i s co -d efen d an t s. B eard fa i l s t o art i cul at e any spec i fi c tri al r ig h t o f w h ic h h e w a s d e p r iv e d d u e to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to s e ve r , a nd the j uryi ns truc t i ons w e r e m or e tha n a de qua t e t o a m e l i or a t e a ny p r e ju d ic ia l e f

f e c ts o f ajo in t tr ia l. See U

ni ted Stat es v. V

asqu ez -V elasco , 15 F . 3d 83 3, 84 5– 46 (9th C i r. 19 93 ) ( es t abl i shi ng thata def endantm ustshow “ cl ear,4

m a n if e s t, o ru n d u e p r e

ju d ic e f r o m th e jo in t tr ia l, th a t it v io la te s o n e o f h is s u b s ta n tiv e r ig h ts ” ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d a lte r a tio n o m itte d ) . III. B e a r d’ s c ouns e l w a s notobj e c t i ve l yde f i c i e nti n s t i pul a t i ng t o apr i or fe l on y c on vi ct i on du ri ng B eard’ s bi furc at ed tri al on the fe l on -i n-po ss es si on of a f i r e a rm c ha r ge , a s i ti s c om m on tr i a l s tr a t e gyt o pr e ve ntthe j uryf r om he a r i ng e v id e n c e o f

a d d itio n a l c o n v ic tio n s . See O ld Chi ef v. U ni ted Stat es , 519 U . S . 172 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . I V . B eard w ai ved the ar gu m entthatthe go vernm ent ’ s e vi dence w as i ns uf f i c i e ntt o pr ove tha the s uf f e r e d apr i orf

e l onydrug c onvi c t i on f orpurpos e s of th e m a n d a to rym in im u m s e n te n c e , a s B e a r d d id n o t c h a lle n g e th e “f in a lity ” o f

h is s t a t e c o n v i c t i o n i n th e s e n t e n c i n g c o u rta n d th u s w a i v e d th i s a r g u me n t . 2 1 U . S. C. § 8 51 (b) ( “ [A ] ny chal l enge t o a pri or conv i ct i on w hi ch i s notm ade before se nt ence is im p o s e d m a yn o t th e r e a f te rb e r a is e d to a tta c kth e s e n te n c e .” ) . V. B e a r d w a s n o t d e n ie d d u e p r o c e s s a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yr e f

u s in g to r e le a s e s e a le d d o c u m e n ts p e rta in in g to B e ll’s c a s e . A l tho ug h B eard has aF i rs tA m endm entri gh tt o acc es s B el l ’ s r ec ords, the di stri ct c o u rt –a f

te rg iv in g B e a r d th e o p p o rtu n ityto o b je c t –f o u n d c o m p e llin g r e a s o n s to k e e p th e r e c o r d s e a le d . O r eg o n ia n P u b ’ gC o . v . U

n ite d S ta te s D is t. C t. , 920 F . 2d 1462, 1465–66 ( 9th C i r . 1990) . F urthe r , a l though B e a r d ha s ac om m on l a w r i ght5

to a c c e s s B e ll’s r e c o r d s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f o u n d s u f f ic ie n t c o u n te rv a ilin g in te r e s ts thatw ou l d b e harm ed by un se al i ng B el l ’ s r ec ords and B eard has notart i cul at ed a n yc o m p e llin g in te r e s t to o u tw e ig h th a t d e te rm in a tio n . I d. at14 67 (s t at i ng that u n d er th e co m m o n l aw ri g h to f access to j u d i ci al reco rd s, th e p arty seek i n g access m us tm a ke athr e s hol d s how i ng tha t“ ac om pe l l i ng i nt e r e s tw oul d be s e rve d by di sc l osure” ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed); U ni ted Stat es v. Kaczy nski , 1 5 4 F .3 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 1 ( 9 th C i r. 19 98 ) ( st at i ng thatup on m aki ng the thres ho l d sho w i ng , the di stri ctcourt ba l a nc e s the m ova nt ’ s “ a s s e rt e d ne e d a ga i ns ta nya s s e rt e d r e a s ons f or c o n f id e n tia lity ” ) . V I . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n b y d en yi n g L ee’ s req u est to s u b s titu te c o u n s e l. T h e c o u rt c o n d u c te d ad e ta ile d in q u iryin to e a c h o f h is m ot i on s and foun d thatL ee ’ s c on t ent i on s di d n otre sul ti n an i rr ec on ci l abl e c on fl i ct o rac o m p le te b r e a k d o w n in c o m m u n ic a tio n . See U n i ted S ta tes v. Men dezSa nchez , 5 6 3 F .3 d 9 3 5 , 9 4 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . T h e r e c o r d s h o w s th a t L e e a n d h is coun se l had som e produ ct i ve conv er sa t i on s, and thatcoun se l st at ed thathe w as ab le to v ig o r o u s lyr e p r e s e n t L e e a n d h e ld n o a n im o s ityto w a r d s L e e . F o r th e fo reg o i n g reaso n s, th e d i stri ctco u rti s A FFI R M ED .