Case ID: f-appx_449/html/0671-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Israel ARAIZA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-50432.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Sept. 1, 2011.
    Filed Sept. 9, 2011.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Max Shiner, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    James H. Locklin, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Israel Araiza argues that the district court erred in taking a partial verdict. The taking of a partial verdict is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Ross, 626 F.2d 77, 81 (9th Cir.1980). The jury had been deliberating for less than two hours, there was no indication that the jury was deadlocked with respect to any of the counts, and neither party requested a partial verdict-indeed, defense counsel objected to the taking of the partial verdict. Under these circumstances, there was insufficient justification to take a partial verdict.

Because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it took the partial verdict, we need not address Araiza’s other arguments.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.