People v. Aguilera

Summary

In 2017, E.G. was threatened with federal prosecution and agreed to become an informant for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). E.G. worked with defendant Mario Aguilera in an effort to smuggle 200 kilograms of marijuana from Mexico, but once E.G. became an informant, the DEA told him to abandon the deal. As a result, 200 kilograms of marijuana deteriorated, and Aguilera demanded E.G. pay for the loss. Thereafter, E.G was approached by Aguilera, and Jesus Castaneda, the individual who provided the marijuana in Tijuana for E.G to pick up, and other defendants. Castaneda demanded payment and threatened to kidnap E.G. and take him to Mexico. The men robbed E.G., taking several vehicles and boats. E.G. reported the incident to the DEA and defendants were arrested and charged with robbery, carjacking, and other offenses. The prosecutor requested information about the benefits E.G. received in exchange for not being prosecuted, but the DEA refused. Defendants then moved for dismissal alleging their confrontation rights were violated. The court agreed and dismissed all of defendants' charges. The People appealed.

Reversed. The criminal due process rights of an accused includes the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Chambers v. Mississippi. However, "more than the mere absence of testimony is necessary to establish a violation." United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal. A defendant claiming his confrontational rights were violated must establish that he was deprived of the opportunity to present material and that the deprivation was arbitrary or disproportionate to any legitimate purpose." People v. Bryant. However, the prosecution will not be penalized if, information possessed by another agency, which has no connection to the prosecution of criminal charges against the defendants, is not possessed by the prosecution, and the prosecutor does not have the duty to disclose such material. People v. Parham. Here, defendants did not contend the DEA was part of the prosecution in this case, thus the prosecution was not obligated nor could provide information about a separate federal entity unrelated to the charges. Therefore, while the trial court was rightly concerned with defendants' ability to obtain a fair trial, no general due process violation occurred here. The dismissals were reversed.

— Ebony Randolph