United States v. Carlos Trevino
89 F.3d 187, 1996 WL 389331, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 17119 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To trigger an in camera examination of a government witness's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) for potential Brady material, an accused must plainly articulate how the information contained in the report will be both material and favorable to the defense, a higher standard than for other confidential government records.
Facts:
- Stephen Wilson began a marijuana distribution business in 1983 after his farming became unprofitable, trafficking large quantities of marijuana until 1992 or 1993.
- Wilson met Carlos Trevino in 1988 when Trevino accompanied Joe Munyos, a marijuana supplier, on a trip to North Carolina.
- Wilson initially hired Trevino, who spoke Spanish, to help oversee Mexican migrants working on Wilson's farm.
- Trevino eventually became Wilson's "right-hand man" in the drug business, coordinating marijuana transport runs from Texas to North Carolina.
- On January 1, 1991, Wilson fired Trevino after learning Trevino had skimmed $16,000 from a drug payment meant for supplier Freddy Gonzales.
- Other co-conspirators testified about their drug dealings with Trevino, including accompanying him on drug-buying trips and delivering drugs to him.
- Customs agent Michael Doherty testified that Trevino admitted his involvement in the marijuana business with Wilson during a telephone conversation, though he insisted Wilson was the mastermind.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 6, 1994, a grand jury indicted Carlos Trevino for conspiring to traffic marijuana and for traveling in interstate commerce in aid of racketeering.
- Prior to trial, Trevino requested that the district court release the presentence reports (PSRs) of seven eventual government witnesses who had previously entered into plea agreements.
- The district court obtained the PSRs and examined them in camera.
- The district court denied Trevino's request for disclosure of the PSRs.
- A jury subsequently found Trevino guilty of both charges.
- The district court sentenced Trevino to 151 months’ imprisonment.
- Trevino appealed his convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, maintaining that the district court's denial of his request for the PSRs warranted a new trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does due process, as interpreted under Brady v. Maryland, require a district court to conduct an in camera examination of a government witness's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) based on a defendant's request that merely makes "some plausible showing" that the report contains material and favorable evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - K.K. Hall
No, due process does not require a district court to conduct an in camera examination of a government witness's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) based merely on "some plausible showing" of materiality and favorability. While Brady v. Maryland requires the government to disclose favorable and material evidence, including impeachment evidence under Giglio v. United States, and Pennsylvania v. Ritchie permits in camera review for confidential materials upon a "plausible showing," PSRs are a special subcategory requiring greater protection due to significant policy concerns. These concerns include preventing a "chilling effect" on individuals providing information for the report and protecting the privacy interests of the defendant who is the subject of the report. Unlike the records in Ritchie, no federal law allows for facile disclosure of PSRs, and they may contain information that could result in harm if disclosed. The established practice of in camera review, as per United States v. Figurski, does not automatically justify a "fishing expedition" into PSRs. Therefore, as a prerequisite for in camera review, an accused must "plainly articulate how the information contained in the PSR will be both material and favorable to his defense." In this case, the district court exercised its discretion by conducting an in camera review based on Trevino's request and found no information warranting disclosure. The appellate court independently reviewed the PSRs and found no clear error in that decision, affirming Trevino's convictions.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Phillips
Yes, under existing circuit precedent in United States v. Figurski, due process requires a district court to conduct an in camera examination of a government witness's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) based on a request asserting the existence of such reports, and the majority's new rule requiring a higher showing is unnecessary and incorrect. Justice Phillips concurs in the judgment because the district court properly conducted the in camera review under the existing Figurski standard and found no material warranting disclosure, and the appellate court also found no error in that specific ruling. However, Justice Phillips dissents from Part II of the majority opinion, arguing that the new rule establishing a higher standard for obtaining in camera review of PSRs is unnecessary to decide this case and substantively wrong. He contends that Figurski clearly required an in camera review upon a simple request asserting the existence of PSRs, and did not leave the showing open. Furthermore, Pennsylvania v. Ritchie is distinguishable as it dealt with a different, highly sensitive type of material and did not purport to lay down a universally applicable constitutional rule for in camera review. Finally, the policy concern of protecting PSR confidentiality is already adequately addressed by the Figurski procedure of in camera judicial review, and the majority's new rule improperly extends this protection to prevent even judicial eyes from reviewing the material. If Figurski's rule is considered too burdensome, its reexamination should occur en banc, not by a panel dictum.
Analysis:
This case significantly modifies the standard for defendants seeking access to sensitive government documents, specifically Presentence Investigation Reports (PSRs) of cooperating witnesses. By requiring a more stringent showing than the general Brady/Ritchie standard, the Fourth Circuit balances a defendant's due process right to exculpatory or impeachment evidence against compelling public and private interests in PSR confidentiality. This ruling makes it harder for defendants to obtain in camera review of PSRs, potentially limiting a defense attorney's ability to uncover crucial impeachment material. Future cases will need to define what constitutes 'plainly articulating' materiality and favorability, potentially leading to increased litigation over the specificity of such requests.
