United States v. Bibo-Rodriguez
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
922 F.2d 1398 (1991)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Eduardo Bibo-Rodriguez (defendant) and his truck were searched upon entering the United States at the Mexico border. Customs agents found cocaine hidden in the truck’s roof panel but permitted Bibo-Rodriguez to continue with his task of dropping off the drugs. Law enforcement continued to surveil the truck and eventually arrested four individuals who picked it up. A warrant was then issued for Bibo-Rodriguez’s arrest. A few months later, while Bibo-Rodriguez was still at large, he was arrested for possession with intent to sell marijuana. After his arrest, he admitted to an officer that he regularly brought drugs from Mexico to the United States. Bibo-Rodriguez was charged with importing the cocaine from the truck. At trial, the prosecution (plaintiff) sought to introduce Bibo-Rodriguez’s statement to the officer under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) (Rule 404(b)) to show that Bibo-Rodriguez knew that he was transporting cocaine in the truck. Bibo-Rodriguez argued that Rule 404(b) permitted the introduction of prior acts to prove knowledge but not subsequent acts to prove knowledge. The district court disagreed and allowed the evidence. Bibo-Rodriguez was convicted, and he appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boochever, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.