Opinion ID: 704816
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: verdugo's motions

Text: 9 This Court reviews de novo a district court's denial of motion to dismiss an indictment for outrageous governmental conduct. United States v. Smith, 924 F.2d 889, 897 (9th Cir.1991). An independent review of the facts presented by Verdugo's motion to dismiss reveals that the district court properly denied the motion. 10 The outrageous governmental conduct defense is a most narrow one. United States v. Stenberg, 803 F.2d 422, 429 (9th Cir.1986) (quoting United States v. Ryan, 548 F.2d 782, 789 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 939 (1976) and 430 U.S. 965 (1977)). It is only available when the government is so involved in the criminal endeavor that it shocks our sense of justice. Id. (quoting United States v. So, 755 F.2d 1350, 1353 (9th Cir.1985)). Examples of outrageous governmental conduct include situations where law enforcement agents employ unwarranted physical or mental coercion, where government agents engineer and direct the criminal enterprise from start to finish, or where the government manufactures a crime to obtain the defendant's conviction. Stenberg, 803 F.2d at 429. 11 Here, the outrageous conduct of which the government is accused is using Talamantes as a witness in a case in which he was a co-defendant, despite the fact that the government had decided ten years earlier that it would not call Inspector Talamantes as a witness in any criminal case initiated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California. The distinction between Talamantes' role as a testifying co-defendant and his role as government representative called to testify at a criminal trial is clear. The U.S. Attorney's Office's decision to call Talamantes to testify against Verdugo simply does not rise to the level of outrageous conduct, as such conduct has been defined by this Court. The district court properly denied Verdugo's motion to dismiss.
12 Verdugo sought to have the entire U.S. Attorney's Office recused pursuant to the advocate-witness rule, which prohibits an attorney from appearing as both a witness and an advocate in the same litigation. United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 552-53 (9th Cir.1985). The motion to recuse was premised on the defense's assertion that, if Talamantes testified, the defense would call Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Brosio to testify about the 1983 decision not to use then-Customs Agent Talamantes as a witness in criminal cases. Because Brosio was from the same office of the U.S. Attorney's Office involved in this case, Verdugo and his co-defendants argued that the advocate-witness rule precluded the entire office from prosecuting the case. 13 The district court denied the motion. We review a district court's denial of a motion for recusal for abuse of discretion. Id. at 552; United States v. Gordon, 974 F.2d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.1992). 14 The lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Brosio's participation as a witness in Verdugo's trial would not have required recusal of the entire U.S. Attorney's Office. As we noted in United States v. West, although testimony by a United States Attorney should not be encouraged, such persons are not disqualified as witnesses in cases in which they play no other role. 680 F.2d 652, 654 (9th Cir.1982) (citing United States v. Armedo-Sarmiento, 545 F.2d 785, 793 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 917 (1977)). Thus, in West the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to call a non-participating Assistant U.S. Attorney as a witness. Id. at 655. 15 Although West does not involve recusal, it does illustrate the parameters within which a non-participating Assistant U.S. Attorney may testify at a criminal trial. If the trial court in West did not abuse its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to call another attorney from her office to testify, the district court in this case most certainly did not abuse its discretion in refusing to recuse the entire U.S. Attorney's Office because the defense suggested that it might call a non-participating Assistant U.S. Attorney to the stand.