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. DARR EN QUESADA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-10173

D.C . No. 3:11-c r-08088-JAT

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Jam e s A. Te ilborg, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 11, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd ZOUHAR

Y, Distric t Judge . ** Appe lla nt Da rre n Que sa da

a ppe a ls his c o nvic tions for onec ount of a busive se xua l c onta c t with a

m i nor, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1153, 2244(a )(5), a nd 

# FIL ED SEP 20 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he Honora

b le Ja c k Zouha

ry , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa t ion.2260(A), a

n d one c ount of a ggravate d se xua l a b use of a m inor, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1153, 2241(c ), 2260A, a nd 3559(e ). B e c a

use the gove rnm e nt’ s use of pe re m ptory strike s disc rim inate d a ga inst prospe c tive jurors on the ba sis of
m e m b e rship in a

prote c te d c la ss, the se c onvic tions c annot sta nd. Se e Batson v
. K e ntuc k y , 476 U.S. 79 (1986); K

e sse r v . C ambra , 465 F.3d 351 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba nc ). 1. The c om

pa rison be twe e n Juror 46 a

nd Juror 12 provide s substa ntia l re a s on to be l ie ve the ra c e -ne utra l e xpla nation for striking Juror 46 was pre te xtua l and thus did not sa

tisfy ste p thre e of the Batson inquiry . Se e Mille r-El v . Dre tk e , 545 U.S. 231 (2005). W

he n a ske d to providea

ne utra l re a son for striking Juror 46, the p rose c utor sa id she wa s c o nc e rne d tha t a juror with “ a

fam i ly m e m be r who ha d be e n c o nvic te d of a

c rim e and did som e tim e ,” “ m ay be bia se d a ga inst the gove rnm e nt.” B ut this c o nc e rn a pplie d with e qua l, if not gre ate r forc e , to Juror 12, whose two c hildre n both se rve d tim e for drug offe nse s a nd who took her se a t on the j ury without obje c tion. Give n the opportunity to que stion prospe c tive jurors, the p rose c utor’ s fa ilure to inquirefurthe r of Juror 46 re g arding his re l a tive who se rve d ja i l tim e for a

DUI offe nse (e . g., wa s the re lative c lose or dista nt; how doe s that c onvic tion bia s y ou, if a

t a l l, in this c a se ) furthe r indic a te s tha t this e xpla

nation wa s pre te xtua l. Id. a t

244. 2W ith re ga rd to the e xpla

nation tha t Juror 46 wa s like l y to know the witne s se s in the c a se , the gove rnm e nt ha s not e xpla i ne d why Juror 46’ s fa ilure to indic a te tha

t he kne wany

of the witne sse s whe n a ske d wa s insuffic ie nt. Though he ha d spe nt som e tim e on the R e se rvation a t issue , he live d a

nd worke d in a

“ c o m ple te ly diffe re nt pla c e ” on a

diffe re nt R e se rvation, m any m ile s a w ay . He re pre se nte d only

tha t he kne w a

“ fe w” m e m

be rs of the W hite rive r tribe . Furthe r, the re c ord doe s not support the prose c utor’ s de sc ription of Juror 46’ s re s ponse s to this lineof que stioning a s “ e va s ive ,” pa rtic ula rly a s no inquiry

wa s m a de a s to a

ny pe rc e ive d am

biguitie s . Fina lly , the prose c utor’ s sta te m e nt tha

t she e sse ntia lly

did not be lie v e Juror 46 ha s a tone of bia s , a

nd would se e m

to e x c lude any

pote ntia l juror with a c onne c tion to a

n India n re s e rvation for a c rim e c onc e rning a n inha b ita nt of tha t re se rvation. For the se re a sons, thea

ppe lla nt’ s c o nvic tions a

re re ve rse d. 2. The a ppe lla nt ra i se s se ve ra l a d d itiona l issue s, m o st of whic h we ne e d not re a c h in light of our de c i sion tha t the re wa s a

n e qua l prote c tion viola

t ion. As the issue will like ly

arise a g a in a

t a ne w tria l, we do, howe ve r, hold tha t the distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion in a llowing nurse Ka n dy C hintis to te stify

to M .C .’ s sta

te m e nt ide ntify ing “ M ousy .” It is c le a r from the re c o rd tha

t M .C .’ s 3sta

te m e nt wa s m a d e for, a

nd wa s re a sona

bly pe rtine n t to, m e dic a l dia gnosis or tre a tm e n t, a

nd wa s m e ant to de sc ribe the c a u se of he r disc om fort. The re fore the sta te m e nt wa s prope rly

a dm itte d a s a

n e xc e ption to the

rule a ga i nst he arsay . Fe d. R . Evid. 803(4); se e Unite d State s v . Yazzie , 59 F.3d 807, 812-13 (9th C ir. 1995); Unite d State s v . Ge orge , 960 F.2d 97, 99-100 (9th C i r. 1992). R EVER SED and REM ANDED.

4