U.S. v. Gomez-Lopez, GOMEZ-LOPE

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: RYMER
• Citation: 62 F.3d 304
• Decision Date: 04 August 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-50548,GOMEZ-LOPE,D
• Parties: 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6177, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,560 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maximilianoefendant-Appellee.

Page 304

62 F.3d 304 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6177, 95 Daily Journal
D.A.R. 10,560 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Maximiliano GOMEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-50548. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 14, 1995.
Decided Aug. 4, 1995.

Warrington S. Parker and Edward J. Weiss, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellant.

Michael Garcia and Carlton F. Gunn, Deputy Federal Public Defenders, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before: LAY ^*, BRUNETTI, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

Page 305

RYMER, Circuit Judge:

Circuit-wide discovery of the criminal history and prior deportations of defendants prosecuted for illegal reentry by a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1326 was ordered by the district court before our decision in United States v. Armstrong, 48 F.3d 1508, 1512 (9th Cir.1995) (en banc). The government declined to comply, and Maximiliano Gomez-Lopez's indictment was dismissed. We have jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731, and we reverse dismissal of the indictment because the scope of the discovery ordered bears no relationship to the decision to prosecute Gomez-Lopez.

I

Gomez-Lopez was found in the United States after being deported three times and being convicted three times for committing felonies (selling marijuana, possessing heroin, and first degree burglary). Following indictment for illegal reentry by a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1326(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2), ¹ Gomez-Lopez sought discovery on his claim of selective prosecution.

His threshold showing included national data on defendants presented by the INS for prosecution under Sec. 1326, along with data showing a predominance of Latino surnames among those prosecuted within the Central District. The national data indicates that in 1988-93 a higher percentage of persons with Latino surnames who were presented for prosecution were prosecuted than persons with non-Latino surnames who were presented. Dr. Richard Berk, a sociologist, opined that the difference could not be explained by random variation, but that he could not determine whether the reason for the differential was race. Accordingly, Gomez-Lopez sought more information for each person presented for prosecution, including prior criminal record, prior deportations, age, gender, presence of other family members in the country, and nationality.

The Government opposed the selective prosecution motion on the ground that Gomez-Lopez had not made a colorable claim of selective prosecution that would entitle him to discovery, and argued further that, in the event discovery was ordered, it should be limited to the Central District of California because the decision to prosecute was made by the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for that district according to Sec. 1326 guidelines promulgated in that district. The government produced the guidelines themselves, together with evidence that the criteria for prosecution, including changes made to the guidelines in 1991 and 1993, were developed within the USAO for the Central District without consultation with any other USAO or with Department of Justice officials in Washington D.C. There was evidence that guidelines were adopted at the instigation of the district office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, that input was received from the INS at the district level, and that the USAO gave weight to those views. A local INS agent also testified that national INS officials "might" be consulted on policies and influence district decisions, but there is no evidence that any INS personnel were involved in crafting the guidelines. The decision whether to present a particular individual for prosecution is made locally by the district office of the INS, in consideration of the charging policy of the USAO for the Central District. Similarly, the decision to prosecute any particular individual presented for prosecution is made by the Central District USAO according to its

Page 306

guidelines. Individual Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) have discretion to prosecute persons who fall outside the guidelines or to decline to prosecute persons who fall within the guidelines. The government also submitted a list of all Sec. 1326 prosecutions in the Central District from...