Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Michael Lustig

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided July 29, 2016No. 14-50549Published

1ConcurrenceWatford, Circuit Judge

I join the court’s opinion but write separately to highlight one aspect of the court’s reasoning that I cannot fully embrace. The court holds that, even though we are reversing in part the district court’s denial of Lustig’s motion to suppress, he’s not automatically entitled to withdraw his guilty plea. Instead, the court concludes that we must engage in “harmless error review” to determine whether the district court’s partially erroneous denial of the motion “contributed to [Lustig’s] decision to plead guilty.” Maj. op. at 1087, 1090.

I do not think Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. Barbara Eunice Carrasco, United States of America v. Barbara Eunice Carrasco and German Rivera-JiminezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  2. United States v. Stephen G. BundyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2004
  3. United States v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  4. United States v. Molina-GomezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2015
  5. United States v. Jeronimo Botello-RosalesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API