U.S. v. Henthorn
| Decision Date | 02 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-5299,88-5299 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Gene HENTHORN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Donald G. Henthorn, pro se.
Roger W. Haines, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; Howard B. Turrentine, District Judge.
Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT and HALL, Circuit Judges.
I.
Donald Gene Henthorn appeals his conviction following a jury trial for conspiring with 17 other individuals to import and possess cocaine with the intent to distribute, and for travel in interstate and foreign commerce in aid of racketeering enterprises. Henthorn claims, inter alia, that the district court erred in denying his discovery request for impeachment material contained in the testifying officers' personnel files. 1 We agree and remand to allow the district court to review the officers' personnel files in camera.
II.
In December of 1986, a federal grand jury indicted appellant, Donald Gene Henthorn, and seventeen others for conspiracy to import cocaine (21 U.S.C. Secs. 952, 960, 963) (count 1); conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1), 846) (count 2); conspiracy to transport monetary instruments of more than $10,000 to or from the United States (count 3) [Henthorn was not charged in this count]; and travel in interstate and foreign commerce in aid of racketeering enterprises (18 U.S.C. 1952(a)(3)) (count 4). Following his conviction by jury on all counts in which he was charged, Henthorn was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and five years probation.
Prior to trial, Henthorn's counsel moved the district court to order the prosecution "to produce the personnel files of all law enforcement witnesses whom it intends to call at the trial ... for evidence of perjurious conduct or other like dishonesty, in camera, to determine if those portions of the officers' personnel files ought to be made available to defense counsel for impeachment purposes." The government, in opposition to the motion, stated that it had no obligation to examine the personnel files absent a showing by the defendant that they contained information material to his defense. The district court denied Henthorn's discovery motion on the ground that defendant failed to make a showing of materiality, concluding that the defendant has the obligation of identifying a specific wrongdoing before receiving an in camera inspection of the files.
In United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir.1984), we set forth the procedure the prosecution must follow when confronted with a request by a defendant for the personnel files of testifying officers. We stated that the government must Id. at 1467-68. As we noted in Cadet, the government has a duty to examine personnel files upon a defendant's request for their production. See id. at 1467. Absent such an examination, it cannot ordinarily determine whether it is obligated to turn over the files.
The government is incorrect in its assertion that it is the defendant's burden to make an initial showing of materiality. The obligation to examine the files arises by virtue of the making of a demand for their production. However, following that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murray v. US Dept. of Justice, No. CV-91-0539.
...proposition that defense attorneys often seek the personnel folders of law enforcement witnesses, defendants cite United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29, 31 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that government has duty to examine personnel files of testifying law enforcement officers for "evidence of pe......
-
U.S. v. Driscoll
...discovery, I would again follow the lead of the Ninth Circuit. In a case on all fours with the instant case, United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir.1991), the Ninth Circuit held that a defendant seeking Brady materials for impeachment purposes is not required to make an initial sho......
-
US v. Bertoli
...defendant "offered nothing to rebut the Government's explicit representation" that no Brady material existed). In United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1588, 118 L.Ed.2d 306 (1992), the Ninth Circuit rejected the approach which requires......
-
United States v. McKee
...No. 39-5). Defendant has made the following eight motions: (1) motion for notice of intent to introduce evidence under FRE 404(b) ; (2) a Henthorn motion; (3) motion to strike surplusage from the indictment; (4) motion to use the Elko Division Master Jury Wheel; (5) motion to permit attorne......
-
Discovery
...to search the personnel files of its government-employed witnesses for exculpatory and impeaching material. [ United States v. Henthorn , 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1991).] The prosecutor’s Brady obligation to disclose exculpatory information continues after trial to evidence discovered while th......
-
Early Steps in the Case
...the personnel files of its agents for exculpatory evidence and to turn over any such evidence to the defense. United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9 th Cir. 1991). If the government is in doubt as to whether information is exculpatory, then the personnel files should be forwarded to the ......
-
Early steps in the case
...the personnel files of its agents for exculpatory evidence and to turn over any such evidence to the defense. United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9 th Cir. 1991). If the government is in doubt as to whether information is exculpatory, then the personnel files should be forwarded to the ......
-
Early steps in the case
...the personnel files of its agents for exculpatory evidence and to turn over any such evidence to the defense. United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9 th Cir. 1991). If the government is in doubt as to whether information is exculpatory, then the personnel files should be forwarded to the ......