Source: http://circuit9.blogspot.com/2020/02/case-o-week-go-big-or-go-home-collazo.html
Timestamp: 2020-06-04 03:38:13
Document Index: 225554732

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 846']

Ninth Circuit Blog: Case o' The Week: Go Big, or Go Home - Collazo E.B. Order with questions, and (Potential) Drug Mens Rea requirements
Looks like we’ve won the battle.
Collazo En Banc Court
Do we now have a shot at the war?
United States v. Robert Collazo, Nos. 16-50509 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2020) (Ord.).
Players: New questions from the en banc panel: CJ Thomas, Judges W. Fletcher, Callahan, M. Smith, Ikuta, Nguyen, Watford, Hurwitz, Miller, Bade and Bress.
Admirable en banc argument by SD Cal Defender alumnus Ben Coleman.
Facts: Last September the Ninth ordered the Collazo case to be reheard en banc. See overview of this en banc order here.
The Ninth resolved to sort-out the jury instructions for the “mess” of drug conspiracy mens rea requirements. On January 13 the case was argued before the en banc court. See video of en banc argument here.
Roughly two weeks after oral argument, the Court issued the following questions:
Issue(s): “1. How do United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (1975), and its progeny in this Circuit . . . apply to the government’s burden of proving that a defendant is guilty of conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 for agreeing to commit an offense under § 841(a), (b)? The parties should address whether the requisite intent for conspiracy under § 846 is the same as the requisite intent for distributing a controlled substance under § 841(a), (b). The parties should also address whether the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the scope of the defendant’s agreement for a § 846 and § 841(a), (b) offense includes a particular drug type and quantity. In connection with these issues, does the rule in Feola apply only to jurisdictional elements, or does it also apply to elements such as drug type and quantity?
2. Whether this Court should adopt Judge W. Fletcher’s position in United States v. Jefferson, 791 F.3d1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015) (W. Fletcher, J., concurring), as to both substantive drug offenses under § 841(a) and conspiracy offenses under § 846. See Jefferson, 791 F.3d at 1023 (“I do not believe the government can subject the defendant to escalating mandatory minimums . . . without proving that he knew which illegal drug he was importing.”).
3. Whether this Court should adopt the approach reflected in United States v. Gentry, 941 F.3d 767, 785–86, 794 (5th Cir. 2019) (requiring that defendant “knew or reasonably should have known that the scope of the conspiracy involved at least 50 grams of a mixture containing a detectable amount of meth”).
United States v. Callazo, No. 15-50509, Ord., Dkt. Entry 171 (emphasis and hyperlinks added).
Held: Awaiting the decision of the en banc court.
Of Note: Defense counsel Ben Coleman slugged away for his client in this argument. He was enthusiastic for Judge Fletcher’s much bigger goal of revising drug mens rea requirements, but appropriately focused on the narrow path to victory for his specific client: “conjunctive” jury instructions.
Ben was unfailingly diplomatic, but –well, watch the oral argument at around 24:20. He can’t resist gently noting the irony that it was the Ninth itself that created this mess nearly twenty years ago in Buckland. In Buckland, the Ninth avoided an Apprendi attack by (questionably) re-characterizing drug type and quantity as “material facts” and not “sentencing factors.” United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558,568 (9th Cir. 2002).
After the Ninth avoided serious Apprendi constitutional challenges to the drug statutes in Buckland, it never went on to finish the job. The Court never required that these newly-minted pseudo-elements for drug offenses also carry mens rea requirements. See United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir. 2002) (“the government need not prove that the defendant knew the type and amount of a controlled substance that he imported or possessed; the government need only show that the defendant knew that he imported or possessed some controlled substance.”) (emphasis in original).
In sum, the Callazo en banc court today reaps the chaos of Buckland seeds sown eighteen years ago.
Ben knows of what he speaks -- he and former San Diego AFD Steve Hubachek were two of the attorneys at the forefront of that bitter Buckland battle. Funny old world, to now watch Mr. Coleman (politely) addressing the downstream unintended consequences of the unfortunate Buckland decision, two decades after it was delivered.
How to Use: Spoiler alert: we won the battle (probably).
During the en banc argument, Judge M. Smith deftly boxed the government into conceding its case -- conjunctive instructions will likely be the e.b. court’s holding. (Such an admirable cross that it earned a chuckle from the Chief).
The far more interesting remaining issue that remains for the en banc Court is whether Judge Fletcher’s compelling Jefferson concurrence will prevail. [Ed. opinion: it should!].
Hon. Judge W. Fletcher
Read Judge Fletcher’s Jefferson concurrence and preserve these drug mens rea issues: this is a very hot topic, and (hopefully) a profoundly important legal development.
For Further Reading: Judge W. Fletcher’s must-read Jefferson concurrence is available here, at page 13.
For an overview of Judge Fletcher's concurrence, see blog entry here.
Screen shot of en banc court from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3jMm-P7GWY
Image of the Honorable Judge W. Fletcher from https://www.yahoo.com/news/scholars-liberal-reputation-9th-circuit-overblown-080453616.html
Image of, "as you sow so shall you reap" from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2emkEainUw
Labels: Apprendi, Conspiracy, Drug Sentencing, En Banc, Jury Instructions, Mandatory-minimum sentences, Mens Rea, W. Fletcher
posted by Steve Kalar at 2/02/2020 10:51:00 AM