U.S. v. Molina, 09-10066.

Citation596 F.3d 1166
Decision Date08 March 2010
Docket NumberNo. 09-10066.,09-10066.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Antonio MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.
596 F.3d 1166
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jesus Antonio MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10066.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted January 15, 2010.
Filed March 8, 2010.

[596 F.3d 1167]

S. Jonathan Young, Williamson & Young, P.C., Tucson, AZ, for the appellant.

Michael D. Logalbo, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for the appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00480-FRZ-JJM-1.

Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, PROCTER HUG, JR. and RICHARD R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

HUG, Circuit Judge:


Jesus Antonio Molina ("defendant") appeals the district court's admission of hearsay statements pursuant to a stipulation and the denial of his request for an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). On March 7, 2008, the defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of transporting illegal aliens for profit in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (B)(i). Two of the aliens transported by the defendant were caught and detained by the government as material witnesses in order to testify against the defendant.

On March 20, 2008, the government sent the defendant a plea agreement and a written stipulation. The plea agreement provided that the defendant agreed to

596 F.3d 1168

plead guilty to transporting an illegal alien in violation of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (B)(i). The stipulation focused on the two material witnesses being held by the government. A letter accompanying the plea agreement and stipulation stated that "[t]he purpose of the stipulation is to protect the government in the event your client accepts the plea offer and then changes their[sic] mind after the witness is released." The stipulation provided (1) that the two named witnesses were aliens who entered the United States illegally and were found in a car; (2) that the "government may elicit hearsay testimony from the arresting agents regarding any statements made by the above-referenced material witnesses contained in the disclosure, and such testimony shall be admitted as substantive evidence in any hearing or trial ...;" and (3) that "the parties jointly move for the release of the above-named material witnesses to the Department of Homeland Security for return to their country of origin."

On March 24, 2008, the defendant, his attorney, and the Assistant United States Attorney handling the case all signed the stipulation, and it was filed that day. The next day, the two alien material witnesses were released by the government. On April 11, 2008, the defendant signed the plea agreement.

On July 23, 2008, the district court sentenced the defendant to 24 months imprisonment. After this sentence was announced, the defendant told the district court that he could not "do that much" and asserted a defense of duress, stating for the first time that he was forced to transport the illegal aliens because his life had been threatened. The district court stated that the defendant could have a coercion defense and vacated the plea agreement, guilty plea and sentence, and set the case for trial.

Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the hearsay statements of the material witnesses who had been released. On October 16, 2008, the district court denied the motion, holding that the hearsay statements were admissible pursuant to the signed stipulation. The district court stated that the defendant had obtained the advice of counsel prior to signing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • United States v. Zepeda
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 18 Enero 2013
    ...Wright, 625 F.3d 583, 607 (9th Cir. 2010). "The test regarding the validity of a stipulation is voluntariness." United States v. Molina, 596 F.3d 1166, 1168-69 (9th Cir. 2010). We have previously held that "'[s]tipulations freely and voluntarily entered into in criminal trials are as bindin......
  • United States v. Zepeda
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 18 Enero 2013
    ...v. Wright, 625 F.3d 583, 607 (9th Cir.2010). “The test regarding the validity of a stipulation is voluntariness.” United States v. Molina, 596 F.3d 1166, 1168–69 (9th Cir.2010). We have previously held that “ ‘[s]tipulations freely and voluntarily entered into in criminal trials are as bind......
  • United States v. Zepeda
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 19 Septiembre 2013
    ...v. Wright, 625 F.3d 583, 607 (9th Cir.2010). “The test regarding the validity of a stipulation is voluntariness.” United States v. Molina, 596 F.3d 1166, 1168–69 (9th Cir.2010). We have previously held that “ ‘[s]tipulations freely and voluntarily entered into in criminal trials are as bind......
  • United States v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 27 Noviembre 2017
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT