US v. Espinoza, No. 16-50033 (1-22-18)(Paez w/Berzon & Christen). 

The 9th reverses a conviction due to the court's error in precluding third-party culpability evidence.  The court used the standard of whether substantial evidence existed tending to directly connect the person with the actual commission of the offense. Rather, under US v. Armstrong, 621 F.2d 951 (9th Cir. 1980), the standard articulated is:  "Fundamental standards of relevancy, subject to the discretion of the court to exclude cumulative evidence and to insure orderly presentation of a case, require the admission of testimony which tends to prove that a person other than the defendant committed the crime that is charged."

Here, the defendant argued a "blind mule" defense.  She always said she was innocent. She had evidence that cast suspicion on a next door neighbor in Mexico.  The court should have allowed the evidence and it was not harmless.

Congrats to Michael Marks, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Cal S (San Diego).

The decision is here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/01/22/16-50033.pdf