United States v. Leal-Del Carmen

6 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Governmental Misconduct

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    ” Chief Judge Kozinski joined this dissent.United States v. Leal-Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2012)Deporting a potentially exculpatory witness prior to providing the defense an opportunity to interview the witness violates the defendant’s right to compulsory process and to due process. The defendant, however, is required to show that the government acted in bad faith, a showing that was, in fact, made in this case, because the government had interviewed the witness prior to deporting him.

  2. Jury Instructions - Missing Witness

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    United States v. Leal-Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2012)Deporting a potentially exculpatory witness prior to providing the defense an opportunity to interview the witness violates the defendant’s right to compulsory process and to due process. The defendant, however, is required to show that the government acted in bad faith, a showing that was, in fact, made in this case, because the government had interviewed the witness prior to deporting him.

  3. Evidence - Defendant's Right To Present Exculpatory Evidence

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    The Court also noted that the state rule also permitted such evidence of prior false allegations if the defendant provided pretrial notice, a rule that the Court held was properly enforced in the state courts.United States v. Carmen, 697 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2012)Deporting a potentially exculpatory witness prior to providing the defense an opportunity to interview the witness violates the defendant’s right to compulsory process and to due process. The defendant, however, is required to show that the government acted in bad faith, a showing that was, in fact, made in this case.

  4. Evidence - Rule 804(b)(5) – Forfeiture by Wrongdoing

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    The letter was no admissible under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule, because the defendant did not kill the victim to prevent her from being a witness in a case.United States v. Leal-Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2012)Deporting a potentially exculpatory witness prior to providing the defense an opportunity to interview the witness violates the defendant’s right to compulsory process and to due process. The defendant, however, is required to show that the government acted in bad faith, a showing that was, in fact, made in this case, because the government had interviewed the witness prior to deporting him.

  5. Compulsory Process

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    United States v. Carmen, 697 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2012)Deporting a potentially exculpatory witness prior to providing the defense an opportunity to interview the witness violates the defendant’s right to compulsory process and to due process. The defendant, however, is required to show that the government acted in bad faith, a showing that was, in fact, made in this case.

  6. Forfeiture by wrongdoing

    Law Office of Phillip CavePhillip D. CaveSeptember 21, 2012

    The Mil. R. Evid. contains the same language.For an example of a case in which the government forfeited its right to object to the defendant’s admission of hearsay from a declarant whom the government rendered unavailable, consider the recent opinion of the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Leal-Del Carmen, 2012 WL 4040253 (9th Cir. 2012).Prof. Miller concludes:Because the court thus found that the government caused Garcia-Garcia to be unavailable for trial and had the intent to render her unavailable for trial, it concluded that forfeiture by wrongdoing applied: "Because the government was responsible for rendering Garcia–Garcia unavailable as a witness, admission of the videotape would prevent it from benefiting from its own wrongdoing."