Court Opinion

ID: 9477710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:29:23.439783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:00.493828
License: Public Domain

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Cuevas’ expert witness to testify, and therefore I dissent.
Cuevas was charged with violating narcotics and currency reporting laws. The district court found that the testimony of an expert witness proffered by Cuevas would be irrelevant to the issues in the case and would not help the jury reach a verdict. Given the facts at issue in the case, however, the testimony was clearly relevant and material to Cuevas’ defense. Thus the district court’s conclusion could only have been predicated on an assumption favoring the government, which resolved a key disputed fact. This violates foundational principles of our system of justice, grounded in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution: that the defendant has the right to present a defense to the charged offenses, and that the defendant has the right to present the testimony of favorable witnesses. Cuevas was denied these rights, and he is entitled to a new trial.
While the district court has broad discretion to determine whether evidence is relevant, that discretion “is limited by the [defendant’s] due process right to present a defense and his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.” United States v. Whitman, 771 F.2d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir.1985).
The right to offer the testimony of witnesses ... is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defense’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); see also Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1045, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) (“The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations. The right[ ] ... to call witnesses in one’s own behalf [has] long been recognized as essential to due process.”). Thus, “criminal defendants have ... the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt.” Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 107 S.Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (footnote and citations omitted).1
The narcotics conspiracy charge against Cuevas was based on allegations that he *1431made numerous currency transactions as part of a scheme to launder drug money. It must be remembered that currency exchange is not illegal per se. United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1986) (“money laundering itself is not a crime, and the mere fact that a person launders monies derived from narcotics activities does not make the launderer part of a conspiracy to violate the narcotics laws.”); cf. United States v. Orozco-Prada, 732 F.2d 1076, 1081 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 845, 105 S.Ct. 155, 83 L.Ed.2d 92 (1984).
Cuevas’ defense was that he was engaged in a legitimate currency exchange service for Colombian businesses. Cuevas sought to put before the jury the testimony of a witness, Professor Gerald Nickels-burg, with expertise in the currency controls of South American countries and the international transactions necessitated by those controls. This testimony was material to establishing Cuevas’ defense that the laundered funds had a non-narcotic origin. The district court, however, determined that the witness’ intended testimony was irrelevant.
The district court concluded that the testimony Nickelsburg would give was irrelevant because “this case involves only money transactions in the United States, the United Kingdom and Switzerland. There has been no evidence of any money transactions originating in any of the South American Latin American countries.” Aside from the inaccuracy of the judge’s latter statement,2 the location of the transactions is neither the only, nor the only significant, fact in this case. Proof that the money was derived from drug sales, and that the defendant had knowledge of that fact, were relevant to at least four counts in the indictment.3 Thus, it was the government’s theory that Cuevas knowingly exchanged currency derived from the sale of illicit drugs in the United States.4 Ergo, while the reporting violations may have occurred in the United States and Europe, the impetus for the currency transactions — since it would be indicative of Cuevas’ knowledge and intent as to the origin of the money — was unavoidably a central issue in the case.
The majority concludes that the expert witness proffered by Cuevas “could not have explained the necessity for transporting United States dollars to Europe.” At a minimum, this is a speculative conclusion since the witness was never given an opportunity to explain Colombian currency controls, which could render such transport a means of easing compliance with those controls. At a maximum, the conclusion is totally erroneous because defense counsel offered Nickelsburg to testify about legal activities with regard to the purchase of currencies, the access of South American businesses to United States currency within countries such as Colombia where currency controls exist, why those controls necessitate obtaining cash from companies *1432and locations outside of those countries, the manner in which U.S. currency can be obtained for those companies, as well as general business policies in Europe as they relate to South American countries and businesses.5 Thus, Nickelsburg could have provided a legitimate and non-criminal explanation for Cuevas’ currency exchange activities.6 By excluding Nickelsburg’s testimony, the district court deprived Cue-vas of his fundamental right to defend against the offenses alleged in his indictment.
While “some constitutional errors ... are so unimportant and insignificant that they may ... be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction,” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22, 87 S.Ct. 824, 827, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), the constitutional violations in this case are fundamental. I would reverse Cuevas’ conviction and remand for a new trial.

. We have previously recognized this right in holding that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of compulsory process for obtaining the testimony of favorable witnesses, "prevents the state from arbitrarily excluding such testimony." Perry v. Rushen, 713 F.2d 1447, 1450 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838, 105 S.Ct. 137, 83 L.Ed.2d 77 (1984).

. At least one witness, Patricia Villa, testified regarding currency transactions that originated in Colombia.

. The drug “connection” is arguably essential to all counts. The Swiss extradition order precludes prosecution on purely “fiscal” matters. This arguably would include offenses focused on currency exchange transactions lacking a tie to illicit narcotics activities.

. In supporting its decision, the majority often refers to Mr. Zawadski, allegedly a key operative in a complex scheme to launder money derived from the sale of cocaine in the United States. In this regard, the majority implies that Zawadski was Cuevas' "right-hand man”, acting at Cuevas’ direction. Such suggestions constituted an essential part of the government case that Cuevas had knowledge of and intent to further a criminal narcotics conspiracy. It is noteworthy, however, that Zawadski was not presented as a witness by the prosecution at Cuevas’ trial. In his own prosecution, Zawadski consistently maintained that he did not know that some of the money he transported came from drug sales. Thus the government was unable to show that Zawadski had ever stated or even implied that Cuevas had knowledge that any of the currency he exchanged had illicit origins. Moreover, none of the witnesses presented at trial testified that they had ever discussed with Cuevas or overheard him speak of the money having illicit origins. In fact, there was no direct evidence offered at trial that Cuevas had culpable knowledge or intent.

. In addition, the majority states that other than the expert witness, "Cuevas offered no credible evidence of another source — legal or illegal" for his activities, and implies that this is further evidence of his guilt. The majority thus finds significance in a dearth of evidence that there was a nonnarcotic source for the money exchanged under Cuevas’ direction. Cuevas attempted to present his defense — that he was engaged in a legitimate currency exchange service because Colombian currency restrictions encouraged such exchange, and that he understood the money he exchanged to have been proceeding from legitimate Colombian businesses — but was prevented from doing so by the district court.

. Establishing a specific criminal impetus for the currency transactions lies at the heart of the conspiracy offense. Nickelsburg was to have testified regarding one reason for the events and transactions that the government alleged to be part of a criminal conspiracy. However, the court did allow, over objection, testimony regarding a different explanation for the transactions from the government’s expert witness. The witness, DEA Agent Marcello, testified as to the common operations and methods of narcotics money laundering. The district court’s determination that Nickelsburg’s testimony was irrelevant could only have been made if it first assumed that that the origin of the funds and reason for their exchange had been established, i.e., that Cuevas was not engaged in legitimate currency exchange, but rather knowingly facilitated the laundering of money derived from drug sales in the United States. That the court in fact made such an assumption is supported by its allowing Marcello’s, but not Nickelsburg's, testimony.