Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

Diaz v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Diaz v. United States
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: March 19, 2024
Decided: June 20, 2024.
Outcome
affirmed
Vote
6-3
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting
Neil Gorsuch • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

Diaz v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 20, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 19, 2024. In a 6-3 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that an expert’s testimony that most people in a group have a particular mental state is not an opinion about the defendant. Therefore, it does not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "In a prosecution for drug trafficking-where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs-does Rule 704(b) permit a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters?"[2]
  • The outcome: In a 6-3 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that an expert’s testimony that most people in a group have a particular mental state is not an opinion about the defendant. Therefore, it does not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b).[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:[3]

    Background

    Delilah Guadalupe Diaz, the petitioner traveled from Mexico to California on August 17, 2020. While crossing the border, agents heard a “crunch-like sound” when Diaz rolled down her car window.[4] The agents investigated the sound and found 27.98 kilos of methamphetamine in the car door's panels. Diaz claimed that she did not know the methamphetamine was hidden in the car and that the car belonged to her boyfriend.[5][6][4][7]

    Diaz was charged with importation of methamphetamine under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In order to prove that Diaz knew she was transporting methamphetamine, as the CSA requires, the government used the testimony of an expert witness who claimed that "narcotic traffickers do not entrust large and valuable quantities of narcotics to unknowing couriers."[4] Diaz attempted to have the expert witness testimony excluded from evidence, claiming that the evidence violated Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) by commenting on her knowledge. The evidence was allowed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and Diaz was found guilty.[6] The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling.[7][5]

    Controlled Substances Act

    21 U.S. Code § 960 states:[8]

    “ Any person who—

    (1)contrary to section 825, 952, 953, or 957 of this title, knowingly or intentionally imports or exports a controlled substance,

    (2)contrary to section 955 of this title, knowingly or intentionally brings or possesses on board a vessel, aircraft, or vehicle a controlled substance, or

    (3)contrary to section 959 of this title, manufactures, possesses with intent to distribute, or distributes a controlled substance,

    shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).[9]

    		”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ In a prosecution for drug trafficking-where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs-does Rule 704(b) permit a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters?

    [9]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[10]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[11]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that an expert’s testimony that most people in a group have a particular mental state is not an opinion about the defendant. Therefore, it does not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:[1]

    “ Rule 704(b) applies only to opinions about the defendant. Because Agent Flood did not express an opinion about whether Diaz herself knowingly transported methamphetamine, his testimony did not violate Rule 704(b). Agent Flood instead testified about the knowledge of most drug couriers. Specifically, he explained that ‘in most circumstances, the driver knows they are hired . . . to take the drugs from point A to point B.’ App. to Pet. for Cert. 15a. That opinion does not necessarily describe Diaz’s mental state. After all, Diaz may or may not be like most drug couriers. Diaz herself made this point at trial. [9] ”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Jackson wrote:[1]

    “ I join the Court’s opinion in full. Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) forbids expert witnesses in criminal trials from offering their ‘opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense.’ As the Court explains, Rule 704(b) is narrow. Against the backdrop of Federal Rules that authorize admission of all relevant evidence, it prohibits ‘only expert opinions . . . about a particular person (‘the defendant’) and a particular ultimate issue (whether the defendant has ‘a mental state or condition’ that is ‘an element of the crime charged or of a defense’).’ Ante, at 7. But, as narrow as it is, Rule 704(b) strikes a very important balance: It allows for potentially highly probative expert testimony to be submitted to the jury, while leaving ‘[t]he ultimate issue of [the defendant’s] mental state . . . to the jury’s judgment.’ Ante, at 9. 
    I write separately to emphasize that, as Congress designed it, Rule 704(b) is party agnostic. Neither the Government nor the defense can call an expert to offer her opinion about whether the defendant had or did not have a particular mental state at the time of the offense. See ante, at 7. But a corollary is also true. Both the Government and the defense are permitted, consistent with Rule 704(b), to elicit expert testimony ‘on the likelihood’ that the defendant had a particular mental state, ‘based on the defendant’s membership in a particular group.’ Brief for John Monahan et al. as Amici Curiae 1 (Evidence Professors Brief ). Indeed, the type of mental-state evidence that Rule 704(b) permits can prove essential not only for prosecutors, but for defendants as well.[9]
    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

    In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “ Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) prohibits an expert witness from offering an opinion ‘about whether the defendant did or did not have [the] mental state’ needed to convict her of a crime. ‘Those matters,’ the Rule instructs, ‘are for the trier of fact alone.’ Following the government’s lead, the Court today carves a new path around that command. There’s no Rule 704(b) problem, the Court holds, as long as the government’s expert limits himself to testifying that most people like the defendant have the mental state required to secure a conviction.

    The upshot? The government comes away with a powerful new tool in its pocket. Prosecutors can now put an expert on the stand—someone who apparently has the convenient ability to read minds—and let him hold forth on what ‘most’ people like the defendant think when they commit a legally proscribed act. Then, the government need do no more than urge the jury to find that the defendant is like ‘most’ people and convict. What authority exists for allowing that kind of charade in federal criminal trials is anybody’s guess, but certainly it cannot be found in Rule 704.[9]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2023-2024

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[12]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, "DIAZ v. UNITED STATES:CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT," June 20, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-14 DIAZ V. UNITED STATES: QUESTION PRESENTED," accessed November 20, 2023
    3. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Diaz v. United States," accessed November 20, 2023
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Supreme Court of the United States "Diaz v. United States, BRIEF FOR PETITIONER," June 30, 2023
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Oyez "Diaz v. United States," November 13, 2023
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Supreme Court of the United States "Diaz v. United States, BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION," September 28, 2023
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit "United States v. Diaz," December 8, 2022
    8. ↑ Cornell Law School "21 U.S. Code § 960 - Prohibited acts A," accessed February 21, 2024
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 19, 2024
    11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 19, 2024
    12. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Diaz_v._United_States&oldid=9589914"