U.S. v. CASTILLO Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Ninth Circuit affirmed Castillo’s drug convictions, holding that extrinsic evidence of a prior drug arrest was admissible to impeach his sweeping denials on direct examination, and a prior conviction was admissible under FRE 404(b).
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the distinction between impeachment by contradiction (permissible for specific falsehoods volunteered on direct) and FRE 608(b) (barring extrinsic evidence for general veracity attacks), and affirms FRE 404(b) application.
U.S. v. CASTILLO Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Jose Luis Castillo was convicted of marijuana importation and possession with intent to distribute. At trial, Castillo testified extensively on direct examination, portraying himself as an anti-drug advocate who had never used drugs and would not smuggle them “for a million dollars.” This testimony was often volunteered and non-responsive. Initially, the district court excluded evidence of Castillo’s May 1997 arrest for cocaine possession. However, after Castillo’s sweeping denials, the court reversed its ruling, admitting extrinsic evidence of the arrest to impeach Castillo’s specific testimony by contradiction. The court reasoned that Castillo had portrayed himself as a “paragon of virtue” and the arrest directly bore on his credibility. Additionally, evidence of Castillo’s 1995 conviction for marijuana possession (involving 240 pounds of marijuana where he appeared to be in charge) was admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove knowledge and absence of mistake regarding the charged offenses. Castillo was acquitted of charges related to an earlier (May 30, 1997) drug incident, but the district court considered these facts as relevant conduct for sentencing.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting extrinsic evidence of the defendant’s prior drug arrest for impeachment by contradiction after he made sweeping, volunteered denials of any drug involvement on direct examination, and by admitting evidence of a prior drug conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)?
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings. The admission Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla par
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting extrinsic evidence of the defendant’s prior drug arrest for impeachment by contradiction after he made sweeping, volunteered denials of any drug involvement on direct examination, and by admitting evidence of a prior drug conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)?
Conclusion
This case underscores that a defendant's broad, volunteered denials on direct examination Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute ir
Legal Rule
Impeachment by contradiction, which is distinct from Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit distinguished impeachment by contradiction from Federal Rule of Evidence Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi u
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Extrinsic evidence is admissible for impeachment by contradiction to rebut a