United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Carlos Rene Cabrera, Defendant-appellant, 29 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 29 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 1994) Submitted July 18, 1994. *Decided July 21, 1994

Before: FARRIS, KOZINSKI, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Carlos Rene Cabrera appeals his convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1), 846, and aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Cabrena contends that the district court should have ordered a new trial because the government failed to disclose evidence that impeached the credibility of the confidential informant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reverse.

Cabrera and co-defendant Jose Martin Maya-Azua were jointly tried. On appeal, Maya-Azua raised the same arguments as Cabrera raises here regarding the materiality of the undisclosed evidence. We reversed Maya-Azua's convictions, holding that the "undisclosed evidence regarding the CI's credibility was material." United States v. Maya-Azua, No. 93-50008, unpublished memorandum disposition (9th Cir. July 1, 1994). Although the government's case against Cabrera included Agent Rios' testimony that Cabrera handed him the cocaine at the restaurant meeting, the undisclosed evidence would have impeached Agent Rios as well as the informant. When asked about the informant's prior arrests, Agent Rios mentioned only the two driving under the influence convictions and failed to mention the border incident even though the informant had been released into his custody. Therefore, our prior holding governs our decision here.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

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.