Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Shayota

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 19, 2019

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joseph Shayota, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Adriana Shayota, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and Submitted February 14, 2019 San Francisco, California

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California D.C. Nos. 5:15-cr-00264-LHK-1, 5:15-cr-00264-LHK-2 Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

          Theodore Sampsell-Jones (argued), Sampsell-Jones Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Dennis P. Riordan and Donald M. Horgan, Riordan & Horgan, San Francisco, California; for Defendant-Appellant Joseph Shayota.

          John D. Cline (argued), Law Office of John D. Cline, San Francisco, California, for Defendant-Appellant Adriana Shayota.

          Jonas Lerman (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; J. Douglas Wilson, Chief, Appellate Division; United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

          Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.

         SUMMARY [*]

         Criminal Law

         The panel affirmed the district court's judgment in a case in which the panel was asked to decide whether prior civil deposition testimony of a witness, who has subsequently invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, may be introduced against defendants in a criminal trial without violating their Confrontation Clause right to confront the witnesses against them.

         At the defendants' trial, the district court admitted the civil deposition testimony of two individuals after they invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify. The district court concluded that their invocation of their Fifth Amendment privilege rendered them unavailable for purposes of the Confrontation Clause. The defendants argued that the government's inherent discretion to grant a witness immunity and thereby prevent him from invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege renders the witness effectively available to the government for testimony at trial. The panel did not need to resolve that issue because even if the district court erred by concluding that the witnesses were unavailable, the error was harmless because the outcome of the trial would not have changed had the depositions been excluded.

         The panel addressed other arguments in a memorandum disposition.

         Specially concurring, Judge O'Scannlain wrote separately to call attention to this court's precedent regarding the "unavailability" requirement of the Confrontation Clause. Observing that the right of confrontation is "most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding," Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 54 (2004), Judge O'Scannlain suggested that this court revisit its prior decisions to perform the historical analysis that Crawford demands.

          OPINION

          O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:

         We are asked to decide whether prior civil deposition testimony of a witness, who has subsequently invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, may be introduced against defendants in a criminal trial without violating their Confrontation Clause right to confront the witnesses against them.

         I

         At the time of the events giving rise to this case, defendants Joseph Shayota and his wife Adriana Shayota ran Baja Exporting, LLC ("Baja Exporting")-a California company that imported, exported, and distributed snacks and drinks to gas stations, convenience stores, and bodegas, both in the United States and abroad. In 2009, Baja Exporting contracted with Living Essentials, LLC and its related entities (collectively "Living Essentials") to sell the liquid dietary supplement 5-Hour Energy in Mexico.

         Unfortunately, the product did not sell well. The parties terminated their sales agreement in 2010, and Baja Exporting was left with excess bottles of Spanish-labeled 5-Hour Energy. Rather than dispose of the bottles, Baja Exporting tried to sell them in the United States, despite not having approval from Living Essentials to do so. When the product again failed to sell, the Shayotas and their associates relabeled the bottles in English and sold them without authorization from Living Essentials.

         By December 2011, Baja Exporting had sold the last of its 5-Hour Energy supply. Given the potential market in the United States, the Shayotas and their associates then conspired to create a counterfeit version of the drink, pass it ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.