U.S. v. Garcia-Villalba (9th Cir. - Nov. 2, 2009)

Keeping with today's "light reading is good reading" theory, here's another opinion in which everything after the first couple of sentences is merely support for what you already know.

Though this one has a twist. Here, you aren't actually told how the opinion comes out at the outset.

Nonetheless, if you have even a little bit of knowledge, you still know where it's ending up. If only from the verbal and nonverbal clues.

I'll prove it. Here are the first two sentences of the opinion:

"We venture into the world of organized crime to evaluate the legality of a wiretap and a search of a stash house for illegal drugs. This case is about a wiretap that led to the takedown of a

sophisticated drug-trafficking organization. . . ."

So whatchathink? Are they reversing the conviction on the grounds of an illegal search? Or affirming?

I'll add one more sentence just in case you're unsure. A sentence that's not actually part of the formal opinion, but that nonetheless comes right before its text. Which reads:

"OPINION. O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:"

Any doubt which way this one ends up? I thought not.