Opinion ID: 2809421
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deported Witnesses.

Text: Rivera-Paredes first appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the government violated his due process and compulsory process rights by deporting sixteen witnesses who had exculpatory information. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment on account of the prosecution’s failure to retain witnesses. United States v. Pena-Gutierrez, 222 F.3d 1080, 1085 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000). To prevail, Rivera-Paredes must demonstrate that the government acted in bad faith— specifically, that it deported the witnesses despite having “information suggesting that [they] could offer exculpatory evidence”—and that the deportations prejudiced his case. See United States v. Leal-Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2012). The scant record in this case frustrates our ability to evaluate whether the witnesses’ non-identifications tended to exculpate Rivera-Paredes, and thus whether the government acted in bad faith. No audio or video recordings were made, and all but one of the agents stated that they did not take notes, did not recall whether they took notes, or could not find any notes. Only one agent specifically averred that none of the individuals he interviewed (of which there were four) were 2 able to identify the driver. The other agents merely implied that those they interviewed could not identify the driver—by declaring that they had asked “whether the alien could identify the driver of the boat,” and that, “[i]f the alien answered yes,” the agent “would have recorded that information for consideration of retaining the alien as a material witness.” A photo line-up appears in the record, and one of the retained witnesses testified that he was shown the line-up, but it is unclear whether the line-up was shown to the deported witnesses. The government asserts that it was not, but Rivera-Paredes points to parts of the record suggesting the opposite. A non-identification is potentially exculpatory, depending on the content of the question and answer. For example, if one of the deported passengers told an agent that he sat near the driver and got a good look at him, but also said that the driver was not among those in a photo line-up containing Rivera-Paredes, those statements would have been exculpatory, but also perfectly consistent with the agents’ descriptions of the interviews. Alternatively, the deported alien might have been unable to identify the driver because he never saw the driver, which would be neutral information. This case brings into sharp relief that a defendant’s ability to demonstrate bad faith in connection with a witness deportation may depend on government records describing interview questions and answers in enough detail that any 3 exculpatory responses may be identified as such. Because the government possesses the information needed to demonstrate its own bad faith, the risk of gamesmanship is obvious. Spotty or ambiguous records like those here might suggest bad faith. One way for a district court to address this concern would be to grant a defendant’s request for an evidentiary hearing to clarify ambiguous government records. We note, however, that the interviews here occurred approximately two months before we emphasized in Leal-Del Carmen that the government has an obligation to refrain from deporting witnesses with potentially exculpatory testimony. It is also relevant that Rivera-Paredes did move for an evidentiary hearing in the district court to try to determine the significance of the deported witnesses’ non-identifications. The court denied that motion, and Rivera-Paredes has not appealed that denial. He instead attempts to meet his burden on the basis of the current record, which he cannot do because the record offers no indication that the deported witnesses’ non-identifications were of the exculpatory variety, and there is therefore no evidence that the government acted in bad faith. See Leal-Del Carmen, 697 F.3d at 969-70. In addition, any prejudice to RiveraParedes was substantially diminished by a stipulation at trial that the deported witnesses could not identify the driver of the boat. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment. 4