United States v. Zaragoza-Moreira, No. 13-50506 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was indicted of importing heroin and methamphetamine. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment due to the government’s destruction of potentially useful evidence - video footage of a Port of Entry pedestrian line on the morning of Defendant’s arrest - that might have supported her claim of duress. The district court denied the motion. Defendant subsequently entered a conditional plea of guilty. Defendant appealed, arguing that the government’s failure to preserve the video footage violated her due process right to present a complete defense. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Defendant’s due process rights were violated because (1) a Homeland Security agent, whose probable cause statement omitted any reference to Defendant’s claims of duress, knew of the apparent exculpatory value of the of the video and acted in bad faith by failing to preserve it; and (2) Defendant was unable to find comparable evidence to support her defense of duress. Remanded with directions to dismiss the indictment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment charging importation of methamphetamine, in a case in which the defendant asserted that the government destroyed potentially useful evidence – video footage of a Port of Entry pedestrian line – that might have supported her claim of duress. The panel held that the defendant’s due process rights were violated because a Homeland Security agent, whose probable cause statement omitted any reference to the defendant’s claims of coercion or to her alleged conduct while waiting in the pedestrian line, knew of the potential usefulness of the video and acted in bad faith by failing to preserve it. The panel concluded that the defendant is unable to find comparable evidence to support her duress defense, and remanded with directions to dismiss the indictment.
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.