The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

A drug detection dog at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry alerted to D's vehicle. Officers conducted a searchand found 91.4 kilograms of marijuana, hidden in a compartment behind the back seat. D and his friend were promptly arrested and interviewed separately. They both said D had borrowed the car so that they could drive from Los Angeles to Ensenada, Mexico. D, but not his friend, was charged with importation of marijuana. At trial, D told a convoluted tale that differed substantially from the story he had given the border agents immediately after his arrest. During cross-examination, the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) repeatedly attempted to impeach D by referring to a meeting between herself, Agent Baxter, D, and D's attorney. The AUSA made it clear that she had questioned D and that he had made certain statements inconsistent with his current testimony: 'You told us that you and your mother ran into Martha . . . You told us that four or five months before . . . That's what you told us last week . . . Don't you remember that I was shocked that you were saying it was four to five months before you got arrested?' D's attorney didn't object. The district judge didn't intervene. D was convicted and appealed. D argues that the prosecutor improperly vouched and violated the advocate-witness rule.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.