Skip to content
Name: U.S. v. Orduno
Case #: 99-10443
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 12/14/2000
Subsequent History: None

Where the district court found a violation of Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, ordered production of a “free talk” report, and granted a two-month continuance to afford appellants ample time to prepare for the suppression motion, the government’s actions could not have affected the outcome of the hearing, and appellants’ due process rights were adequately protected. The district court’s refusal to dismiss as a sanction was therefore affirmed. Issues of vindictive prosecution, and quantity of marijuana for purposes of sentencing, were not summarized. Judge Noonan dissented, finding appellants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trailer.