Opinion ID: 149697
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal Using Supervisory Powers

Text: Our rejection of Struckman's outrageous conduct/due process claim does not end our inquiry into the denial of the motion to dismiss because of the manner in which Struckman was brought to the United States from Panama. Even if the [government's] conduct does not rise to the level of a due process violation, [a] court may nonetheless dismiss [an indictment with prejudice] under its supervisory powers. United States v. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2008) (internal quotations and brackets omitted). Courts may dismiss an indictment under their inherent supervisory powers (1) to implement a remedy for the violation of a recognized statutory or constitutional right; (2) to preserve judicial integrity by ensuring that a conviction rests on appropriate considerations validly before a jury; and (3) to deter future illegal conduct. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d at 763 (citing United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.1991)). [9] The defendant must demonstrate prejudice before the court may exercise its supervisory powers to dismiss an indictment. See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 255, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988); United States v. Ross, 372 F.3d 1097, 1110 (9th Cir.2004) (citing United States v. Tucker, 8 F.3d 673, 674-75 (9th Cir.1993) (en banc)); United States v. Rogers, 751 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1985). We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of Struckman's motion to dismiss based on the court's supervisory powers. Ross, 372 F.3d at 1109.