SEMINAR 5 DQ 2
USA v Jeffrey Castellanos
This case shares similar issues with the case of Mr. McArthur: the appellant was charged with
manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine, there is an issues of curtilage and a question of
trespass by the government agents and, if so, conducted an illegal search.
The attorney for Mr. Castellanos was from the Federal Public Defenders office. After introduction, he
identified an intent to reserve 2 minutes and introduced three issues that he would be speaking on.
1. The recitation of facts was almost immediately interrupted by one of the judges who wanted a
clearer definition of the area that defense was identifying as “curtilage”. During the answer,
there was another question about whether or not all 4 tires were on the asphalt or partially off
or on the concrete. The defense was ready with both an answer as to how this was handled in
trial court and identified two segments of video, by the minute, for the judges to review as this
remained a contested issue at trial.
I thought that although the defense seemed at bit nervous, he was clearly ready for a question
like this. He was also able to move back into why, although this was a contested issue, there
was no question about where the government had been in relation to these areas.
2. The above was followed by a question on “standing” and what evidence was available to show
that the defendant was “at least an overnight guest” against someone who has permission to
park their truck in curtilage.
Again, defense was ready with three cases to support his position that Mr. Castellanos met the
criteria and that there was a declaration by the owner that Mr. Castellanos had permission to be
on the curtilage.
3. The judge interrupts the discussion of the cases to ask about a case that supports the
“unknown” type of authority that Mr. Castellanos was given by Mr. Garcia. In other words,
while Garcia gave permission for “use and access”, there was no time specified, is there a case
that give authority to his ability to assert standing on the question of trespass.
While the attorney did get interrupted for more questions during his answer, he was prepared
to discuss why the “Byrd” case (which we studied in evidence and had to do with the authority
given to a driver of a car v the owner) was analogous to the point that he was attempting to
make.
4. The judge then offers to give additional time for rebuttal as the questions took up most of the
7+ minutes of the argument and asks for additional information that would have given the
“reasonable” person some notice that stepping onto the “curtilage” would be considered a
trespass.
It seems that the defense then subtly corrected the judge as to what the “typical” question
would be. The judge’s eyebrows went up slightly and then he interrupts again to redirect the
answer—which he was given.
At that point, 12 minutes, 15 seconds into the full tape and about 8 minutes into the argument,
the judge stopped and moved to the government rebuttal.
5.
In the rebuttal, it seemed that the government was also arguing that the appellant had
sufficient standing. When he was asked if the declaration were enough to given Castellanos
exclusion authority, the government appeared unsure though I thought he might be attempting
to look like he was thinking and he “wallowed” a bit with a lot of shrugging of shoulders and
face making. However, on further questioning, the government indicated that they were not
“conceding” on whether or not this was curtilage…which was also the question that I had as the
government was speaking.
6. The government attorney seemed less sure of himself, stumbled around at bit, made faces,
looked uncomfortable (actually, he looked constipated, if I am honest) and I felt like the judge
was asking questions judge to enjoy this.
7. The government was then asked some questions about the curtilage, and then about “common
law trespass”. Since it seemed that this wasn’t going far, the judge countered with a
“hypothetical”. The idea was that somehow the analysis might change depending on how you
define or do not define curtilage with regard to this 4 foot piece of concrete that appeared to be
carved out of the asphalt alleyway. …and the time was called.
8. In rebuttal, unfortunately, the defense’ screen froze and when he came back, the court gave
him additional time.
I felt like the defense was less “flappable”, had cases ready, knew the potential negatives and had
prepared himself for several of the questions that were asked while the government presented much
like he hadn’t really prepared and hadn’t done this much.