United States of America v. Stephanie Rodriguez-Verdugo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEPHANIE RODRIGUEZ-VERDUGO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10455
D.C. No.
2:16-cr-01308-DJH-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2019**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: CLIFTON, IKUTA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Stephanie Rodriguez-Verdugo appeals her conviction relating to possession
with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
FILED
MAR 08 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

The district court did not abuse its discretion by holding that Claudia
Rodriguez’s testimony regarding a series of out-of-court statements made by
Rodriguez-Verdugo’s unavailable co-defendant, Nidia Cadena-Verdugo, was not
admissible as statements against interest under Rule 804(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Evidence. The statements were not “supported by corroborating circumstances
that clearly indicate[d] [their] trustworthiness,” United States v. Gadson, 763 F.3d
1189, 1200 (9th Cir. 2014), but were exculpatory statements made by a family
member, which “are not considered to be highly reliable,” LaGrand v. Stewart, 133
F.3d 1253, 1268 (9th Cir. 1998). Moreover, the timing of the statements—Cadena-
Verdugo spoke to Claudia Rodriguez on the eve of trial—indicates that the
statements are less trustworthy. See United States v. Oropeza, 564 F.2d 316, 325
(9th Cir. 1977). Finally, because Cadena-Verdugo was a fugitive in Mexico at the
time that she made the statements to Claudia Rodriguez, the chances of Cadena-
Verdugo suffering adverse consequences as a result of her admissions were slim,
and therefore we discount the “extent to which the declaration is really against the
declarant’s penal interest.” Id. at 325; see also United States v. Fowlie, 24 F.3d
1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 1994).
The district court’s exclusion of Claudia Rodriguez’s testimony regarding
Cadena-Verdugo’s statements was not plain error that violated Rodriguez-
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Verdugo’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, because the statements did not bear
“persuasive assurances of trustworthiness” and were not “critical to the defense.”
Gadson, 763 F.3d at 1201 (citing Chia v. Camdra, 360 F.3d 997, 1003 (9th Cir.
2004)). Cadena-Verdugo’s out-of-court statements lacked persuasive assurances of
trustworthiness because no corroborating evidence supported them, Cadena-
Verdugo was not available for cross-examination, and the statements were not made
spontaneously but rather delivered on the eve of trial. Further, Claudia Rodriguez’s
testimony about Cadena-Verdugo’s statements was not critical to the defense
because Rodriguez-Verdugo was able to testify to her own alleged lack of
knowledge at trial and did so.1
AFFIRMED.
1 Because Rodriguez-Verdugo withdrew her appeal of the district court’s
application of a two-level sentencing enhancement, we do not consider these
arguments.
3

-- 3 of 3 --