United States v. Flores, No. 14-50027 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed her conviction and sentence for importation of marijuana. The court concluded that, although the government misstated the law by erroneously telling the jury that it could convict her based on her admission of carrying Marijuana to Mexico on the date of her arrest, such misstatements did not substantially prejudice her and do not warrant reversal. The court also concluded that defendant failed to show that she suffered prejudice from vouching; highlighting the weakness of a defense, characterizing it as incredible, and noting the defendant’s failure to produce evidence is not improper, particularly where the government correctly states the burden of proof; the prosecutor's comments on defendant's demeanor were permissible because she testified; and there was no cumulative error warranting reversal of her conviction and sentence. Finally, the court rejected her claims of evidentiary errors and upheld the district court's obstruction of justice enhancement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Court Description: Criminal Law. Affirming a conviction and sentence for importation of marijuana, the panel found merit in the defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct, but held that the misconduct does not rise to the level of plain error. The panel held that the government misstated the law by telling the jury it could convict the defendant based on her admission to carrying marijuana to Mexico on the date of her arrest, and misstated the defendant’s testimony thereby making an unsupported factual claim, but that the misstatements did not substantially prejudice her. The panel held that the government’s improper vouching for a witness did not substantially prejudice the defendant. The panel rejected the defendant’s contentions that the government improperly shifted and undermined the burden of proof. The panel rejected the defendant’s arguments that the prosecutor’s statements about the defendant were improper. Reviewing for plain error, the panel concluded that the prosecution’s improper statements, whether viewed individually or cumulatively, do not warrant reversal. The panel rejected the defendant’s arguments that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained from her Facebook account and that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of her personal drug use at trial. UNITED STATES V. FLORES 3 The panel held that the district court did not err in applying an obstruction of justice enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on the defendant’s efforts to have content from her Facebook account deleted. Dissenting, Judge Pregerson wrote that the Assistant U.S. Attorney’s serious violations of the rules of permissible questioning and argument do not warrant invocation of the plain error rule.
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.