Opinion ID: 761821
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: In camera debriefing report

Text: 34 The transcript of the sentencing hearing leaves unresolved whether the court relied on the in camera debriefing report when it stated that the government did not act arbitrarily or in bad faith by refusing to file a § 5K1.1 motion. The report's description of Mikaelian's statements at the debriefing interviews was the only detailed document upon which the district court could base its assessment whether Mikaelian had cooperated, and thus judge the government's good or bad faith in failing to make a motion for downward departure. The court recognized the obvious relevance of the in camera document when it asked how do I determine if there is or is not or was or was not bad faith without some assessment of the nature of the cooperation and the nature of the arguments of the Government as to why that is not sufficient for the government to make the motion? The court found that Mikaelian did not show that the government was arbitrary in failing to make the motion for downward departure. Yet while the court stated that the document was irrelevant to a possible motion for upward departure, it did not state whether it otherwise relied on the in camera document, for example in its determination that there was no bad faith. 35 The government concedes that because it filed the debriefing report with the sentencing court, defendant's counsel should properly have been afforded access to that document, and has agreed to disclose the report to the defense subject to a protective order on remand. Such disclosure is appropriate. [I]t is improper for the prosecution to make, or for the court to receive from the prosecution, an ex parte communication bearing on the sentence. United States v. Alverson, 666 F.2d 341, 349 (9th Cir.1982) (quotations omitted). In this case, [u]nder all the circumstances, we cannot say with any certainty that the sentencing judge could avoid being influenced by the ex parte submission. United States v. Reese, 775 F.2d 1066, 1077 (9th Cir.1985). 36 We therefore hold that on remand, the debriefing report must be furnished to Mikaelian, subject to a protective order if the district court deems it advisable. We also do not preclude the government from requesting necessary and appropriate redaction prior to the report's release. The district court should make a factual finding whether the government acted in bad faith in not filing a substantial assistance motion, explicitly considering whether the debriefing report sheds light on the issue.