United States v. Brugnara, No. 15-10509 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of wire fraud, mail fraud, false declaration before a court, escape, and contempt. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a new trial where defendant showed a lack of diligence by waiting to obtain the new evidence at issue; there was sufficient evidence to sustain defendant's mail fraud, wire fraud, and false declaration convictions; defendant was not deprived of a fair trial because prison officials disorganized his legal materials during trial when they moved him to a different location and because two jurors gave untruthful responses about their criminal history during voir dire; defendant's right to a fair trial was not violated where, under Faretta v. California, a trial court is permitted, but not required, to terminate an incorrigible pro se defendant's self-representation; the district court did not deny defendant a fair trial by allowing him to represent himself for the duration of the proceeding; and the district court did not err in denying defendant a competency hearing.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed convictions for wire fraud, mail fraud, false declaration before a court, escape, and contempt, in a case in which the defendant represented himself at trial. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered valuation evidence, where the defendant was not diligent in seeking the evidence. The panel held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for wire fraud, mail fraud, and false declaration. The panel held that prison officials did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to access legal materials, where there is no evidence that the defendant was denied any access, let alone reasonable access. The panel held that the defendant waived his contention that juror I.J.’s failure to truthfully answer a question about criminal history during voir dire deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Assuming without deciding that juror C.D. failed to answer honestly a material voir dire question, the panel held that C.D.’s presence did not violate the defendant’s right to an impartial jury because a truthful answer would not have provided a valid basis to challenge C.D. for cause. UNITED STATES V. BRUGNARA 3 The panel rejected the defendant’s arguments concerning his ability to represent himself. The panel held that under Faretta v. California, a trial court is permitted, but not required, to terminate an incorrigible pro se defendant’s self- representation. The panel concluded that the district court’s decision to allow the defendant to represent himself ultimately to his own detriment did not violate his right to a fair trial. The panel did not need to reach whether Indiana v. Edwards imposes a duty to terminate self-representation because the defendant has not shown that he suffers from severe mental illness to the point that he is not competent to conduct trial proceedings by himself. The panel held that the district court was not obligated to hold a competency hearing sua sponte at sentencing, where the defendant was capable of assisting in his own defense at sentencing, and did so. The panel held that the district court did not err in failing to hold a competency hearing sua sponte during trial, where a reasonable judge would not have found it necessary to doubt the defendant’s competency.
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.