United States v. Yepiz, No. 07-50051 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendants are alleged members or associates of a gang in Southern California called the Vineland Boys (VBS). Defendants were charged with crimes related to their membership or association with VBS. Manuel Yepiz, Jose Luis Mejia, Francisco Zambrano, Jesus Contreras, Mariano Meza, Sergio Mejia, Gilberto Carrasco, Rafael Yepiz, and Ernesto Mendez timely appealed their convictions and sentences. Defendants argue that the government violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose the full extent of the benefits a cooperating witness received at trial. In light of the disputed facts surrounding defendants’ Brady claim, the court remanded to the district court so that it may engage in the necessary fact-finding to ascertain whether the witness received benefits that were undisclosed to defendants at the time of trial, and if so, whether Brady was violated as to each convicted count. The court also found that the district court abused its discretion when it arbitrarily and without explanation rejected Yepiz’s April 2006 letter seeking to replace his retained counsel with court-appointed counsel. Given the defects in the district court’s handling of Yepiz’s requests, the court vacated Yepiz's conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court addressed the remaining issues in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition.
Court Description: Criminal Law. In appeals by nine defendants convicted of crimes arising out of their alleged membership or association with a Southern California gang, the panel remanded for fact- finding in connection with the defendants’ joint Brady claims, vacated Manuel Yepiz’s conviction due to defects in the district court’s handling of his requests for substitution of counsel, and remanded for a new trial in Yepiz’s case. On the joint claim that the government violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose the full extent of the benefits a cooperating witness received at trial, the panel rejected the government’s arguments that the defendants waived this claim, that the allegedly withheld information would have been cumulative, and that the record conclusively shows that the benefits were all earned after the trial. In light of disputed facts surrounding the Brady claim, the panel remanded to the district court so that it may engage in the necessary fact-finding to ascertain whether the witness received benefits that were undisclosed to the defendants at
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.