Opinion ID: 687340
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vindictive Prosecution and Outrageous Government Conduct

Text: 71 The Montoyas also contend that the district court should have dismissed the indictment because it was based on outrageous government conduct and vindictive prosecution due to the Government's dissatisfaction with Filiberto Montoya's immunized testimony. We disagree. 72 To establish a prima facie case of prosecutorial vindictiveness, a defendant must show either direct evidence of actual vindictiveness or facts that warrant an appearance of such. United States v. Sinigaglio, 942 F.2d 581, 584 (9th Cir.1991). Evidence indicating a realistic or reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness may give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness on the government's part. Garza-Juarez, 992 F.2d at 906. However, the Supreme Court has emphasized that this presumption must be supported, because at the pretrial stage,  'the prosecutor's assessment of the proper extent of prosecution may not have crystallized.'  Id. (quoting United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 381, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 2493, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982)). Once a presumption of vindictiveness has arisen, the burden shifts to the prosecution to show that independent reasons or intervening circumstances dispel the appearance of vindictiveness and justify its decisions. United States v. Hooton, 662 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1004, 102 S.Ct. 1640, 71 L.Ed.2d 873 (1982); see also Garza-Juarez, 992 F.2d at 906. 73 While most vindictive prosecution cases involve re-indictment of a defendant, the mere filing of an indictment can support a charge of vindictive prosecution. Hooton, 662 F.2d at 634. However, the Montoyas must still prove an improper prosecutorial motive through objective evidence before any presumption of vindictiveness attaches. See Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 380 n. 12, 102 S.Ct. at 2492 n. 12. Despite the fact that they were provided with numerous internal government documents, they were unable to prove improper motive. 74 As previously mentioned, the standard of review for claims of vindictive prosecution is unsettled in this circuit. See Garza-Juarez, 992 F.2d at 903. Even under the de novo standard of review, however, we conclude that the presumption of vindictiveness did not arise in this case. See Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 380 n. 12, 102 S.Ct. at 2492 n. 12; Jeffers v. Lewis, 38 F.3d 411, 418 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc) (Nor does the prosecutorial practice of threatening a defendant with increased charges if he does not plead guilty, and following through on that threat if the defendant insists on his right to stand trial, create a presumption of vindictive prosecution. (internal quotation and citation omitted)); cf. Garza-Juarez, 992 F.2d at 907 (presumption arose, but was rebutted). 75 Outrageous government conduct is not a defense, but rather a claim that government conduct in securing an indictment was so shocking to due process values that the indictment must be dismissed. See Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 96 S.Ct. 1646, 48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976); United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 1643, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973). Under the extremely high standard of this doctrine, an indictment should be dismissed only when the government's conduct is so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice. Garza-Juarez, 992 F.2d at 904 (internal quotation omitted); see also Solorio, 37 F.3d at 458. 76 Other than a reference to outrageous governmental conduct in a heading in their opening brief, the Montoyas do not develop this argument until their reply brief. In their reply brief, the Montoyas argue that the indictment of Rosario Montoya is a vindictive outrage, based on a letter to Filiberto Montoya from AUSA Weiner. The letter stated that [t]he government would be willing to accept a plea of guilty to one or more specific charges by Filiberto Montoya in return for a conclusion to the government's investigation and no charges being brought against his wife. 77 Issues not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief need not be considered by the court. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 979 F.2d 721, 726 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1645, 123 L.Ed.2d 267 (1993). While we decline to consider the argument in any detail, there is no evidence in this case that would satisfy the extremely high burden to establish a claim of outrageous government conduct. V.