United States v. Juan, No. 11-10539 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction and sentence for felony and misdemeanor assault. Defendant challenged his conviction on due-process grounds, claiming his constitutional rights were violated where the prosecution "threatened" one of its own witnesses with possible perjury charges, allegedly causing the witness to change her previous exculpatory trial testimony to be inculpatory. The court rejected the due-process challenge because defendant failed to meet his evidentiary burden. The court also held that defendant's claim of sentencing error failed because it relied on a misunderstanding of the court's opinion in United States v. Waknine.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a conviction and sentence for assault in a case in which the defendant claimed that his right to due process was violated where the prosecution threatened one of its own witnesses, the defendant’s wife, with possible perjury charges, allegedly causing her to change her previously exculpatory trial testimony to be inculpatory. The panel wrote that the government’s substantial interference with the testimony of its own witness, even if the wrongful interference does not drive the witness off the stand, can in certain circumstances violate the defendant’s right to due process. Without expressing judgment as to whether the prosecutor’s conduct here was warranted, the panel held that the defendant’s claim would fail in any event because he can point to no evidence that proves that the allegedly threatening statements – which the defendant concedes were directed solely to the district judge – were ever communicated to the witness. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that the district court committed procedural error at sentencing when it explained the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) reasons supporting its chosen sentence immediately after imposing sentence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.