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 by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

Th e H o n o r ab l e M a rkL. W o l f , Se n i o rD i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rth e U . S. ** D i s tr i c tC our tf

orthe D i s tr i c tof

M a s s a c hus e tt s , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 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. J A M A H Y A RK PA ZU A H BRI G G S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 50058 D . C . N o. 3: 11 -c r- 00 60 6-JA H -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

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 S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . H ous t on, 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 8, 2013 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: W A R D L A W and G O U L D , C i rc ui tJudg es , and W O L F , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. ** Ja m ah B ri gg s app ea l s hi s c on vi ct i on for c on spi ra cyt o b ri ng an undoc um e nt e d a l i e n i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 371 a nd f

or 

# FI LED APR25 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

transpo rt i ng an un do cum ent ed al i en w i thi n the U ni t ed S t at es i n v i ol at i on of 8 U. S . C . § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i ) . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we r e ve r s e B r i ggs ’ s c onvi c t i on, va c a t e hi s s e nt e nc e , a nd r e m a nd. T h e g o v e rn m e n t c o n c e d e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to a d m it in to e vi de nc e de pos i t i on t e s t i m ony by the a l i e n w hom B r i ggs w a s a c c us e d of sm ug gl i ng , w i tho utfi rs tm aki ng the predi ca t e f i nd i ng thatthe w i tness w as u n a v a ilab le , v io la te d th e C o n f r o n ta tio n C lau s e a n d th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f E v id e n c e . T hi s e rr or w as no t“ harm l es s bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt , ” U ni te d State s v . P e naG ut i errez , 222 F . 3d 1080, 1089 ( 9th C i r . 2000) , be c aus e the de pos i t i on t e s t i m ony w as the m osti ncri m i nat i ng evi dence of B ri gg s’ s i nv ol vem enti n the al l eged c o n s p ir a c y a n d th e o n ly c o n c r e te e v id e n c e th a t th e p e r s o n w h o B r ig g s a lle g e d ly he l pe d t o s m uggl e w a s undoc um e nt e d. T hus , “ i ti s m or e l i ke l y tha n nottha tthe error a ff ec t ed the verdi ct , ” U

ni te d State s v . M

ar gue t- P i l lado , 560 F . 3d 1078, 1086 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) , w a rr a n tin g r e v e r s a l o f B r ig g s ’s c o n v ic tio n . W e a l s o c onc l ude tha t , on the r e c or d de ve l ope d i n the di s tr i c tc our t , the g o v e rn m e n t f

a ile d to m e e t its b u r d e n to p r o v e th a t “u n d e rth e to ta lity o f th e f a c ts a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s know n t o the a rr e s t i ng of f i c e r [ s ] , aprude ntpe r s on w oul d ha ve concl ud ed thatthere w as a f ai r probabi l i ty that[B ri gg s] had com m i tt ed a c ri m e” at th e tim e o f

h is a rr e s t. U

ni te d State s v . Str uc km an , 60 3 F . 3d 73 1, 73 9 (9th C i r.3

2010) . T he gove rnm e ntw a s r e qui r e d t o m a ke apr obabl e c aus e s how i ng be f or e the f ru its o f th e s e a r c h in c id e n t to B r ig g s ’s a rr e s t w e r e in tr o d u c e d a t tr ia l. Se e id. B ut th e g o v ern m en tad d u ced n o ev i d en ce co n cern i n g th e t i m i n g o f B ri g g s’ s arrestv i sa- vi s the arre st s of hi s c o-defendant s, even tho ug h any ac t i on s t aken by them af t er B r ig g s w a s a rr e s te d c le a r ly c o u ld n o t h a v e c o n tr ib u te d to a n y f in d in g o f p r o b ab le c au s e f o rB r ig g s ’s a rr e s t. M o r e o v e r , th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t p r o v e h o w , if a t a ll, th e o f f ic e r s ’ e x p e r ie n c e c o n tr ib u te d to a n yp r o b ab le c au s e d e te rm in a tio n . W h ile the a rr e s t i ng of

f i c e r s ’ “ tr a i ni ng a nd e xpe r i e nc e a r e f a c t or s t o be c ons i de r e d” i n the p r o b ab le c au s e a n a ly s is , “it is in c u m b e n t u p o n th e a rr e s tin g o rs e a r c h in g o f f ic e rto e x p la in th e n a tu r e o f

h is e x p e r tis e o re x p e r ie n c e a n d h o w it b e a r s u p o n th e f a c ts w hi ch prom pt ed the offi ce r t o arr es tor se ar ch. ” U ni ted Stat es v. C ervant es , 703 F . 3d 11 35 , 11 39 –4 0 (9th C i r. 20 12 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). N or w as the evi dence a d d u c e d a t tr ia l c o n c e rn in g th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f B r ig g s ’s a rr e s t s u f

f ic ie n t toD e s pi t e ourc onc l us i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n c onc l udi ng tha tthe 1 gove rnm e ntha d m e ti t s pr obabl e c aus e bur de n, w e s e e no r e a s on w hy the go vernm entw ou l d b e barre d from se eki ng t o i ntrodu ce the evi dence obt ai ned in c id e n t to B r ig g s ’s a rr e s t in a n y r e - tr ia l. B r ig g s c o u ld , o f c o u r s e , m o v e o n c e a g a in t o s uppr e s s the e vi de nc e . W e s ugge s ttha ti f s uc h ac i r c um s t a nc e w e r e t o pr e s e nt i t se l f, i n l i gh tof ou r c on cl usi on thatthe re cord evi dence i n the fi rs ttri al w as i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h pr obabl e c aus e , a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng t o de t e rm i ne pr obabl e c aus e w oul d be appr opr i a t e . A ts uc h he a r i ng, both pa r t i e s w oul d be pe rm i tt e d t o of

f e ra ny r e l e va nte vi de nc e a dm i s s i bl e unde rthe F e de r a l R ul e s of E vi dence. 4 c om pe ns a t e f

orthe s e de f

i c i e nc i e s . T hus , w e r e ve r s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of B ri g g s’ s m o t i o n t o su p p ress. 1

RE V E RS E D A ND RE MAND E D.