United States v. Doe, No. 11-10067 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, and possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. On appeal, defendant raised numerous claims. The court held that the district court was correct in ruling that Dixon v. United States applied to defendant's public authority defense and subsequently affirmed the district court with respect to all alleged errors regarding defendant's assertion of the public authority defense. The district court did not deprive defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it prevented him from arguing an incorrect burden of proof to the jury during his closing argument. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying certain discovery requests as overbroad and immaterial; however, the record was unclear as to what, if anything, would have been produced if those requests had been granted and what effect, if any, the production would have had on the outcome of defendant's trial. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's conviction and remanded for further proceedings. The court agreed with defendant that his sentencing hearing contained several procedural violations. If defendant's conviction is reinstated, his sentence must be vacated and he must be resentenced.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court in part and reversed in part, vacated convictions on drug charges, and remanded for further proceedings in a case in which the defendant alleged errors relating to the public authority defense, Sixth Amendment violations, discovery violations, and procedural errors at sentencing. The panel that the district court was correct in applying Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), to the defendant’s public authority defense, and thus that the district court’s determination that the defendant bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence was proper. For that reason, the panel held that the defendant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel when the district court prohibited him from arguing a different burden and standard of proof during closing arguments. The panel held that the district court did err when it failed to instruct the jury at all on the proper burden and standard of proof for the public authority defense, but that the error was not plain. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in denying two discovery requests as overbroad and immaterial. Because the record is unclear as to what would have been produced if those requests had been granted and what effect the production would have had on the outcome of the trial, the panel vacated the conviction and remanded for either an evidentiary hearing or in camera review to further address the discovery and Brady issues. The panel held that the sentencing hearing contained numerous procedural violations: the district judge failed to accurately state the Sentencing Guidelines range at the onset, never gave the parties the opportunity to argue for a sentence they believe is appropriate, and failed to adequately address the defendant’s objections to the presentence report, as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B). The panel held that the cumulative effect of the violations amounted to plain error, requiring that the sentence be vacated.
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.