74 0


Cervantes testified that Matta was present when the Camarena kidnapping was discussed at the attorney’s house. The second basis was testimony from FBI forensics specialist Michael Malone that hair and fiber evidence tied Matta to the house where Camarena was held. That this act of kidnapping occurred is not disputed by the government. There is dispute as to how Matta was treated by his kidnappers and that treatment is not considered further here. Kidnapping in itself is a violent attack upon a human person-a sudden invasion of personal security, a brutal deprivation of personal liberty.

United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 541 (9th Cir.1988), cert. The district court also did not abuse its discretion despite the defects in chain of custody. The prosecution must introduce sufficient proof so that a reasonable juror could find that tapes are in substantially the same condition as when they were seized, and may admit the tapes if there cast of my celebrity dream wedding is a reasonable probability the tapes have not been changed in important respects. United States v. Harrington, 923 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir.), cert. 164, 116 L.Ed.2d 128 (citing Gallego v. United States, 276 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir.1960)). Furthermore, a defect in the chain of custody goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence introduced.

The government also presented testimony by Hector Barona, a drug smuggler who entered into the witness protection program. Barona testified that James Acosta, who told him that he worked for Jose Campo/El Negro/Negro Jose, recruited him to import cocaine. Barona testified, and his pilots confirmed, that he imported two shipments of cocaine in May 1981 and July 1981, and, pursuant to Acosta’s directions, delivered the cocaine to Dario Zapata-Serna. Telephone toll records show multiple calls from Barona’s phone to Zapata-Serna’s phone during July 1981. Telephone toll records also show a phone call from the Van Nuys apartment complex to Zapata-Serna’s phone. The conspirators’ drug ledgers show that the Van Nuys conspirators flew to New York and picked up cocaine from Zapata-Serna.

We should not accept that jurisdiction except for one fact. The probative value of the tapes was not outweighed by their prejudicial nature. The tapes were submitted as evidence not only to show what was said but also to rebut the defendants’ assertion that Camarena’s injuries could have occurred after his death, and to show the intent and motive of Camarena’s kidnappers.

In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we decide, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Aichele, 941 F.2d 761 (9th Cir.1991). Thus, much as we may want to dismiss this case through an exercise of our supervisory powers, to do so would be unwarranted. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise such powers.6 In retaining jurisdiction of this case, we now turn to the specifics of Matta-Ballesteros’s appeals. The only way we could exercise our supervisory powers in this particular case is if the defendant could demonstrate governmental misconduct “of the most shocking and outrageous kind,” so as to warrant dismissal.

United States v. Joetzki, 952 F.2d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir.1991). The evidence of prejudice must demonstrate that Matta-Ballesteros was denied a fair trial. The DEA also believed that Matta was behind the kidnapping of a DEA agent in Mexico, Enrique Camarena, who was subsequently tortured and murdered. At the time of Camarena’s murder, Matta Ballesteros, a native of Honduras, was 40 years old and a major link between Colombia’s Medellin cartel and members of Mexican drug cartels. He was particularly linked to a cartel in Guadalajara that specialized in marijuana.

242, , 11 L.Ed.2d 186 ; Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 n. None of these cases stand for the proposition that there is collateral estoppel effect as to the litigation of similar jurisdictional issues in unrelated cases. That is the issue before this court. This court has inherent supervisory powers to dismiss prosecutions in order to deter illegal conduct. See United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 505, 103 S.Ct.

On February 12, 1985, five days after Camarena disappeared, Matta Ballesteros was seen checking out of a hotel in Guadalajara. On April 29, 1985, Colombian police detained him in Cartagena, Colombia on unrelated drug charges. He was taken to Bogota where DEA agents questioned him. He denied involvement in Camarena’s murder. Agents reported, however, that he admitted some knowledge of the abduction, but declined to say anything further because he feared he would be killed if he talked.

We review the constitutionality of pretrial identification procedures de novo. United States v. Love, 746 F.2d 477, 478 (9th Cir.1984); see also United States v. Nash, 946 F.2d 679, 681 (9th Cir.1991). To determine whether an identification procedure is so impermissibly tainted as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of mistaken identification and thereby a violation of due process, we review the totality of the circumstances. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct.

If confirmation were wanted of the common view that humankind has of kidnapping it is furnished by Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which affirms that no one “shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” G.A.Res. GAOR Resolutions at 71, U.N.Doc. United Nations Security Council Resolution 579 lumps “acts of abduction” with “acts of hostage-taking” as “manifestations of international terrorism” and “ondemns unequivocally all acts of hostage-taking and abduction.” S.C.Res.