N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. SELENE LUGO, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50271

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-03616-L-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M . Ja m e s Lore nz , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 8, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Se le ne Lugo a

ppe a ls he r c onvic tion for im p orting m e tha

m phe tam i ne in viola tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a nd 960. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. R e vie wing for pla in e rror, Unite d State s v . Sanc he

z , 659 F.3d 1252, 1256 (9th C ir. 2011), we re ve rse and re m and. 

# F IL ED MAY26 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Lugo a rgue s tha t the prose c utor m a de a

num be r of im prope r argum e nts during c losing a

n d re butta l a

rgum e nts. W e a gre e . First, the prose c utor not only
argue d fa c ts tha t we re not in e vide nc e , he use d the Tre a sury Enforc e m e nt C om m unic a tions Sy ste m

(“ TEC S” ) re c ords of Lugo’ s prior borde r c rossings a s prope n sity

e vide nc e a fte r a ssuring thedistric t c ourt in pre tria l proc e e d ings tha t the
e vide nc e wa s offe re d to prove dom inion a nd c o ntrol by

the de fe nda

nt ove r the c ar. De spite the fa c t tha

t the re wa s no e vide nc e that Lugo e ve r sm uggle d drugs on a

ny prior oc c a sion, theprose c utor re pe at e dly and e xte nsive ly

argue d tha

t the ve h ic le ’ s prior c rossings show tha

t Lugo ha d sm

uggle d drugs be fore . For e xam ple , the prose c utor a

rgue d tha t “ run[ning] drugs a c ross the borde r” wa s “ he r thing,” and

“ she wa s down for it”whe ne ve r the drug tra ffic ke rs “ ne e de d som e body

to bring a loa d a c ross,” tha

t she wa s not ne rvous be c a use she ha d gotte n a

way with
sm uggling drugs be fore , a

nd tha t she wa s fina lly

c a ught be c a use “ he r luc k

ran out.” In e sse nc e , the thrust of theprose c utor’ s use of the TEC S re c ords wa s tha t Lugo ha d sm

uggle d drugs be fore on num e rous oc c a sions, a nd tha t she a c t e d in
a c c orda nc e with tha

t prope nsity

on this pa

rtic u la r oc c a sion. Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 404(b); c f. Unite d State

s v . Ve ga , 188 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th C i r. 1999) (holding that prior borde r c rossings c an c onstitute 404(b) e vide n c e ).

2Se c ond, the prose c utor c om pounde d his im

prope r argum e nts c onc e rning the TEC S re c ords with a num b e r of othe r troubling c om m e nts. For e x am

p le , whe n arguing tha

t the jury should re je c t Lugo’ s de fe nse the ory
— i .e . , tha t she wa s a

n unwitting drug c ourie r—

the prose c utor sta

te d, “ Or is wha

t is m o re re a sona

ble is that this wa s a

loa d ve hic l e , a

nd the c om

pa rtm e nt wa s the re , a

nd she wa s luc ky

on those othe r oc c a s ions whe n she drove the c ar into theUnite d State s be c a u se the y too we re loa de d with drugs? Whic h is m o re re a sona ble for y ou to be lie ve ? ” The se sta te m e nts like ly

c a u se d jury c onfusion a

nd dilute d the gove rnm e nt’ s burde n of proof. C f. Este llev . Mc Guire , 502 U.S. 62, 69 (1991) (“ [T] he prose c ution m ust prove a ll the e le m e nts of a c rim ina l offe nse be y ond a re a sona ble doubt.” ); Unite d State s v . Ve lasque

z , 980 F.2d 1275, 1278-79 & n.1 (9th C ir. 1992) (upholding a distric t c o urt’ s instruc t ion tha t “ [p] roof be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt is proof tha

t le ave [s] y ou firm ly c o nvinc e d tha t the de fe nda

nt is guilty” ). Fina lly , the prose c utor twic e a sse rte d tha t the gove rnm e nt’ s e vide nc e wa s “ ove rwhe lm i ng,” de spite the fa c t tha

t the e vide nc e wa s, a s the distric t c ourt obse rve d, “ thin.” Eve n on pla in e rror re vie w, we c onc lude that the gove rnm e nt’ s im p rope r argum e nts pre

judic e d Lugo’ s tria l a

nd se riously

a ffe c te d the fa irne ss, inte grity , or public re puta

tion of theproc e e dings. Se e Sanc he z , 659 F.3d a

t 1256. The gove rnm e nt ha d

a “ thin” c irc um sta

ntia l e vide nc e c a se . At the tim e of he r arre st, 3Lugo wa s twe nty -two y e ars old a nd living a

t hom e with he r pare nts. She ha d no prior c onvic tions or a

rre sts. She m a de no inc rim inating sta te m e nts to la

w e nforc e m e nt a

b o ut he r knowle dge , a

nd a de fe nse e xpe rt te stifie d tha t the a lte re d
c om pa rtm e nt fe l t a

nd a ppe are d sim ila

r to a n ide ntic a l, non-a lte re d

ve hic l e of the
sam e m ake and m o de l. Lugo te stifie d, a nd the gove rnm e nt a

rgue s tha t the jury sim ply disbe lie ve d he r te stim ony . B ut the gove rnm e n t fa ils to a c knowle dge tha t it unfa irly p ut its thum

b on the sc a le by

insinua ting tha t Lugo wa s a

re pe a t offe nde r. A re pe a t offe nde r is le ss like l y to be be lie ve d, a

nd tha t’ s pre c ise ly

why prope nsity
e vide nc e
—

that she did it be fore and now she ’ s doing it aga i n— is prohibite d. The
c ourt fa ile d to issuec urative instruc tions, a nd the bulk of the prose c utor’ s prope n sity

argum e nts oc c urre d during re butta l c losing, further “ e nsuring tha t it wa s the l a st a rgum e nt the jury

he ard be fore going to the jury room to de l ibe ra t e .” Id. at 1261. Vie we d in c onte xt a nd in its entire ty , the gove rnm e nt’ s prose c utoria l
m isc o nduc t wa

rrants a re ve rsa l. W e are disturbe d t

hat, e ve n on a

p pe a l, the gove rnm e nt fa ils to re c ogniz e and
c onc e de e rror. Inste a d, the gove rnm e nt insists tha t the TEC S re c ords a lone support
an infe re nc e tha

t the p rior c rossings we re drug sm uggling runs. Not so. The
argum e nt wa s she e r spe c ulation, a nd we find the e rror partic ula rly se rious whe n the p rose c utor who trie d this c a se
— and pre sum a b l y his offic e
—

we re aware tha

t 4the re is a

n a lte rnative e xpla

nation for re p e at e d borde r c rossings, such a s the pra c tic e of “ burning thepla t e s” to re duc e suspic ion. Se e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Fitzge rald, No. 13-C R -1937-JLS, EC F No. 31, pp. 11-14 (S.D. C a l . De c . 9, 2013). The gove rnm e n t’ s fa ilure to re c ogniz e e rror is e ve n m ore troubling be c a use the gove rnm e nt re c e ntly re a ssure d this c ourt tha t it would c onduc t tra ining on the
a ppropria te bounda rie s of c losing a

rgum e n t. S

e e Unite d State

s v . Malone

y , 755 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ) (noting tha

t the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia a ssure d us tha

t its tra ining would “

re inforc e the princ iple tha t a l l Assista nt U.S. Attorne y s m

ust be aware of the rule s pe rta ining to c losing a rgum e nt
and m ust m ake e ve ry e ffort to sta y we ll within the se rule s ” ). RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

5