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. 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. RE NE SANCHEZ, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50019 D . C . N o. 8: 02 -c r- 00 12 4-A H S -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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A l i c e m a r i e H . S t ot l e r , S e ni orD 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 F e brua ry 1, 2010

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: K L E IN F E L D , W A R D L A W an d C A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R e n e S a n c h e z a g a in ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m e th a m p h e ta m in e a n d o th e rd ru g - r e la te d c r im e s . F o llo w in g h is pr i orappe a l , w e r e m a nde d hi s c a s e t o the di s tr i c tc our tt o r e c ons i de rhi s m ot i on f or ne w tr i a l pur s ua ntt o F e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 33. W e r e vi e w the



# FI LED MA Y14 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on f

orane w tr i a l f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on, a nd re vers e a nd re m and w i th i nstruct i on s f or the di stri ctcourtt o h ol d an evi dent i ary h e a r in g to d e te rm in e w h e th e rth e e v id e n c e o f p e r ju ry d u r in g S a n c h e z ’s f ir s t tr ia l is c r e d ib le . See U

ni te d State s v . Hi nk

s on , 58 5 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 59 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). M r. S anchez s ou gh ta new tri al on the grou nd thatnew evi dence, i n the form of a f f i da vi t s f r om thr e e i ndi vi dua l s i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe y w oul d of f e rt e s t i m ony di r e c t l y c ontr a di c t i ng the s w orn tr i a l t e s t i m ony of B ur e au of

N a r c ot i c E nf

or c e m e nt (“ B N E ”) i nform antE l i as F i erro, dem on strat es thatM r. F i erro com m i tt ed perj ury d u r i n g h i s tr i a l . I n o u rd i s p o s i t i o n f o l l o wi n g Mr . S a n c h e z ’ s p r i o rap p e a l , we di re ct ed the di stri ctcourtt o app l y the prop erl egal st andard, ho l di ng thathi s new tr i a l m ot i on s houl d be gr a nt e d i f the r e w a s “ ‘ ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha t , ha d the e vi de nc e be e n di s c l os e d t o the de f e ns e , the r e s ul tof

the pr oc e e di ng w oul d ha ve been di ff er ent . ’ ” U

ni ted Stat es v. Sa nchez , 266 F . A pp’ x 579, 582 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng U

n ite d S ta te s v . E n d ic o tt , 8 6 9 F .2 d 4 5 2 , 4 5 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . O n r e m a nd, the di s tr i c tc our ta s s um e d the truth of the ne w e vi de nc e a nd a ga i n de ni e d the ne w tr i a l m ot i on, f i ndi ng tha tthe “ i m pe a c hm e ntva l ue of the n e w ly - d is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e a n d M r . F ie rr o ’s im p o r ta n c e a s aw itn e s s o n ly addres se d the i nd ucem entpron g o f S anchez’ s e ntrapm entdefe nse” and l ef t u n d is tu rb e d th e e v id e n c e o f p r e d is p o s itio n .3

T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f

o c u s s o le ly o n th e r e m a in in g p r e d is p o s itio n e v id e n c e in is o la tio n w a s m is p la c e d . W h e th e rth e a lle g e d ly p e r ju r e d te s tim o n y w a s “m a te r ia l” t o M r. S anchez’ s pre di sposi t i on “ m ustbe j ud ged i n the cont extof the ent i re re cord. ” B ro w n v. B o rg , 951 F . 2d 1011, 1016–17 ( 9th C i r . 1991) . T he r e l e va nt q u e s tio n is n o t w h e th e r , e v e n w ith o u t M r . F ie rr o ’s a lle g e d p e r ju r e d te s tim o n y , a r a t i ona l f a c tf i nde rc oul d ha ve f

ound M r . S a nc he z w a s pr e di s pos e d t o c om m i tthe offe nses of conv i ct i on , bu tra ther w hether the re vel at i on thatM r. F i erro com m i tt ed p e r ju ry s u f f ic ie n tly u n d e rm in e s c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tc o m e o f th e tr ia l. E n d ic o tt , 86 9 F . 2d at45 5. A pp l yi ng the prop erst andard, w e c on cl ud e thatthe new evi dence of perj ured t es t i m on y c re at es a “ re as on abl e probabi l i ty that , had the evi dence been di sc l osed t o the defense , the re sul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . ” Sa nchez , 2 6 6 F . A p p ’x a t 5 8 2 . F i r s t , w i thoutF i e r o’ s t e s t i m ony , the r e i s ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha tthe j ury w oul d notha ve be e n pe r s ua de d be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubtabout pr e di s pos i t i on. M r . S a nc he z ’ s c onvi c t i ons f orpos s e s s i on of

r oughl y tw o gr a m s of coca i ne for s al e ( on ce i n 1 98 5 and agai n i n 1 98 9) ar e i nsuffi ci entt o est abl i sh M r. S a n c h e z ’s p r e d is p o s itio n to e n g a g e in th e in s ta n t d ru g tr a n s a c tio n . See Sherm an v. U ni ted Stat es , 3 5 6 U .S . 3 6 9 , 3 7 5 ( 1 9 5 8 ) ; U ni te d State s v . T

hom as , 134 F . 3d 975, 980 ( 9th C i r . 1998) . S i m i l a r l y , the r e c or di ng of M r . S a nc he z on the da y of the4

tra nsac t i on pu rport i ng t o sho w hi s e nthu si as t i c part i ci pat i on , w hi l e r el evant , do es notgo t o the c r i t i c a l que s t i on of M r . S a nc he z ’ s pr e di s pos i t i on pr i orto h is in te r a c tio n w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t in f o rm a n t. Se e U

ni te d State s v . P oe hlm an , 217 F . 3d 692, 703 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( “ [ T ] he r e l e va ntt i m e f r a m e f ora s s e s s i ng a d efen d an t ’ s d i sp o si t i o n co m es b efo re h e h as an y co n t actw i th G o v ern m en tag en t s, w hi c h i s doubt l e s s w hy i t ’ s c a l l e d p re di s pos i t i on. ” ) . T hi s e vi de nc e doe s not p r o v id e d e f

in itiv e c o rr o b o r a tio n o f

M r . S a n c h e z ’s p r e d is p o s itio n . C o m p a re E n d ic o tt , 86 9 F . 2d at45 6 (fi nd i ng “ defi ni t i ve corroborat i on ” of achal l enged w i tne s s ’ t e s t i m ony e xi s t e d w he r e e ve ry i nt e r a c t i on be tw e e n the de f e nda nta nd w i tness w as re corded). M or e f unda m e nt a l l y , how e ve r , a s t o the c r i t i c a l poi nti n the e ntr apm e nt a na l y s i s — the t i m e be f

or e the a l l e ge d i nduc e m e ntby G ove rnm e nta ge nt s — the G ov ernm entre l i es ent i re l y on M r. F i erro’ s t es t i m on y. T he new evi dence M r. S a nc he z s e e ks t o i ntr oduc e t e nds t o s how tha tM r . F i e rr o c om m i tt e d pe r j ury on the s ta n d b o th a s to w h a t tr a n s p ir e d d u r in g h is f ir s t m e e tin g w ith M r . S a n c h e z a n d to hi s c onduc tw hi l e e m pl oy e d by the B N E . I ta l s o bol s t e r s M r . S anc he z ’ s ve r s i on of event s by c orrobo ra t i ng hi s t es t i m on y thati tw as M r. F i erro— no tM r. S anchez— w ho sol d the drug s and sugg es t i ng thatM r. F i erro had o n o ther o c c a s i o n s a tt e mp t e d t o i n d u c e tr a n s a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g mu l t i p l e p o u n d s o f d ru g s . To5

f in d th a t M r . S a n c h e z w a s p r e d is p o s e d to e n g a g e in th e d ru g tr a n s a c tio n , th e ju ry in thi s c as e had t o h ave c re di t ed M r. F i erro’ s t es t i m on y and di sc re di t ed thatof M r. S anchez. T he qu es t i on of cr edi bi l i ty w entt o the heartof the j ury’ s anal ys i s of M r. S a nc he z ’ s e ntr apm e ntde f e ns e a nd, a s ar e s ul t , the ne w e vi de nc e unde rm i ne s the ve ry c or e of

M r . S a nc he z ’ s c onvi c t i on. T he t e s ti s notw he the r , w i thoutthe e vi de nc e tha tw oul d ha ve be e n i m pe a c he d, the r e s t i l l w oul d ha ve be e n s uf f i c i e nt evi dence und erthe J

ac obs on s ta n d a r d to s h o w p r e d is p o s itio n . J ac obs on v . U

. S. , 5 0 3 U .S . 5 4 0 , 5 4 9 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . I t is r a th e rw h e th e r“th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility tha t , ha d the e vi de nc e be e n di s c l os e d t o the de f e ns e , the r e s ul tof

the pr oc e e di ng w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

f e r e n t.” Sa nchez , 266 F . A pp’ x a t582. E vi de nc e tha tthe go vernm ent ’ s s t arw i tness l i ed un der oath abo utthe cr i t i ca l i ss ues i n the ca se do es in d e e d g iv e r is e to s u c h p r o b ab ility . G iv en th e c riti ca l i m p o rtan ce o f M r. F ierr o ’s testim o n y to th e G o v er n m en t’ s ca se and the re l at i vel y w ea k corrobo ra t i on of M r. S anchez’ s pre di sposi t i on , there e xi s t s ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha tha d the ne w e vi de nc e be e n di s c l os e d t o the d e f e n s e , th e o u tc o m e o f

th e tr ia l w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. See San chez , 2 6 6 F. Ap p ’ x a t5 8 2 . T h e r e f

o r e , th e d i s tr i c tj u d g e e rr e d b y c o n c l u d i n g o th e rwi s e , a n d we r e v e r s e th a t h o ld in g . H o w e v e r , n o ju d g e h a s y e t m a d e af a c tu a l f in d in g a s to w he the rthe ne w e vi de nc e i s i n f a c tc r e di bl e . A c c or di ngl y , w e r e m a nd t o the6

di stri ctj ud ge t o m ake afi nd i ng as t o w hether the new evi dence i s c re di bl e. If , af t er an evi dent i ary hea ri ng the di stri ctj ud ge concl ud es the new evi dence i s c re di bl e, S a n c h e z is e n title d to an e w tr ia l, a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld p r o c e e d a c c o r d in g ly . See Ja ra m i l lo v. S tew a rt , 34 0 F . 3d 87 7, 88 3– 84 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( ho l di ng i n h abea s a c tio n th a t ar e m a n d to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o ra n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g w a s ap p r o p r ia te t o w ei gh the cr edi bi l i ty of new l y di sc ov er ed evi dence). R E V E R S E D a n d R E M A N D E D w i th In stru cti o n s.