Opinion ID: 698194
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of the Discovery Motion

Text: 19 We review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision to order discovery. United States v. Armstrong, 48 F.3d 1508, 1512 (9th Cir.1995) (en banc). 20 In Armstrong, we adopted the colorable basis test for determining whether a defendant has made an adequate showing in seeking discovery on a selective prosecution charge. The colorable basis test is met by 'some evidence tending to show the essential elements of the claim.'  Armstrong, 48 F.3d at 1512 (quoting United States v. Heidecke, 900 F.2d 1155, 1159 (7th Cir.1990)). To succeed in a claim of selective prosecution, the defendant must show both that the prosecutorial selection had a discriminatory effect, and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. Id. at 1513. 21 In Armstrong, the defendants offered statistical evidence in support of their claim that the United States Attorney's Office had singled out black defendants in charging crack cocaine cases in Los Angeles. The district court in Armstrong had granted the defendants' discovery motion, and the en banc court in Armstrong then upheld the district court's order, finding that the defendants had met the colorable basis test. 22 Here, Sanchez presented no evidence of either discriminatory purpose or effect in support of his motion for discovery. Sanchez offered only the declaration of defense counsel that he was informed based on information with which counsel is familiar from numerous other cases that this was one of many cases involving a deliberate, systematic practice by law enforcement officer at LAX of conducting unlawful stops and searches. This is insufficient support for a selective prosecution discovery request. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez's discovery motion because he failed to meet the colorable basis test set out in Armstrong. 23 Sanchez contends that his discovery motion was also a request for materials relevant to his suppression motion, and not just for discovery related to a selective prosecution claim. In his motion for discovery, Sanchez stated that the items requested were necessary to prepare a motion to suppress evidence, because the suppression hearing would turn on the question of the officer's conduct as part of a pattern of conduct at LAX. 24 To obtain discovery under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant must make a prima facie showing of materiality. United States v. Mandel, 914 F.2d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir.1990). Here, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery of the voluminous materials requested because Sanchez failed to explain, beyond the most cursory showing, why these materials were relevant to his suppression claim.