Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-97-50118/USCOURTS-ca9-97-50118-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Garen Zakarian
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION F I L E D 

 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 06, 1998

 

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CATHY A.CATTERSON, CLERK

 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) No. 97-50118

Plaintiff-Appellee, )

) D.C. No. CR-96-00279-SVW-1

v. )

) MEMORANDUM1

GAREN ZAKARIAN, )

)

Defendant-Appellant. )

___________________________________)

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 10, 1998

Pasadena, California

Before: FLETCHER, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

Garen Zakarian appeals his conviction for robbery affecting

 

1

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this

circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case: 97-50118 08/06/1998 ID: 3504056 DktEntry: 36 Page: 1 of 6
commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, commission of physical

violence in furtherance of a plan to commit robbery affecting

commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, use of a firearm

equipped with a silencer during the robbery in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), possession of a firearm with an obliterated

serial number in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k), and possession

of a silencer without a serial number in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 

5861. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in

part and remand in part.

I

Zakarian contends that retrying him for violations of the

Hobbs Act violated his double jeopardy rights under Grady v.

Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990). However, he has waived this claim

since it was not raised in the district court.2 See United States

v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1457 (9th Cir. 1993). In any event,

the argument fails under the same offense test set forth in

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), which controls. 

 

2

In the district court, Zakarian argued that the federal trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause

because he had been tried in state court. He did not argue that his first federal trial barred his second

federal trial.

2

Case: 97-50118 08/06/1998 ID: 3504056 DktEntry: 36 Page: 2 of 6
See United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 704 (1993) (overruling

Grady v. Corbin). 

Zakarian's assertion that retrial on the Hobbs Act charges

violates the Double Jeopardy Clause because the first federal

jury's deadlock amounted to an "implied acquittal" also fails, as

he could have been convicted both for possession of a weapon and

Hobbs Act violations without any inconsistency at all. Cf. United

States v. McLaurin, 57 F.3d 823 (9th Cir. 1995).

II

Zakarian argues that because he was wrongfully tried for the

Hobbs Act violations, there was no predicate violent crime upon

which a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) could be based. As we 

disagree that he was wrongfully tried for Hobbs Act violations,

this contention lacks merit. 

III

Zakarian contends that the district court should not have

excluded evidence of alleged attempts to drive EconoTrans out of

3

Case: 97-50118 08/06/1998 ID: 3504056 DktEntry: 36 Page: 3 of 6
business, but we disagree. As the district court found, there was

no link between the proffered Armenian intrigue evidence and any

person Zakarian claimed was responsible for Mikailian's murder. 

Cf. United States v. Crosby, 75 F.3d 1343, 1345-47 (9th Cir. 1996)

(error to exclude evidence that tended to show that the victim's

spouse had the opportunity, ability, and motive to kill her). On

the other hand, Zakarian was able to introduce evidence to show

that Minoukian committed the crimes and framed him. He was,

therefore, permitted to present relevant evidence and was

precluded only from presenting confusing evidence that had no

tendency to prove that Minoukian did it. For this purpose it does

not matter that much of the excluded evidence was allowed in state

court proceedings where Zakarian was acquitted; our review is for

abuse of discretion under the Federal Rules, and we see none.

Zakarian also argues that since he was deprived of Anait's

testimony that would have been material and favorable, his defense

that someone else committed the crime became all the more

important. We can not see how this should have changed the

district court's analysis, for Anait's testimony was lost when she

decided to flee the country after she was mistakenly released from

4

Case: 97-50118 08/06/1998 ID: 3504056 DktEntry: 36 Page: 4 of 6
police custody. That decision does not transform the district 

court's decision to exclude irrelevant evidence into an abuse of

discretion.

IV

Zakarian faults the "on or about" instruction on the footing

that it essentially amended the indictment and resulted in

inconsistent verdicts because it allowed the jury to convict him

for possession and Hobbs Act violations on some date other than

October 5, 1994. Our review is for plain error as Zakarian did

not object to this instruction at trial, see United States v.

English, 92 F.3d 909, 914 (9th Cir. 1996), and there is none.

Nothing found by the first federal jury creates an

inconsistency. Failure to convict on the Hobbs Act charges of

robbery and physical violence does not mean that the jury

impliedly found that Zakarian did not possess the .380 Beretta on

or at the scene of the crime; it simply indicates that the jury

did not unanimously agree on a verdict (that he used it). Nor do

we understand how the instruction amended the indictment because

5

Case: 97-50118 08/06/1998 ID: 3504056 DktEntry: 36 Page: 5 of 6
the indictment itself charges that Zakarian committed various

crimes "[o]n or about" October 5.

V

Zakarian contends, and the government concedes, that the two

counts of the indictment charging Hobbs Act violations are

multiplicitous. Consequently, we remand for the district court to

vacate and stay the judgment of conviction on Count 2 or Count 3 

and to resentence, if necessary. See United States v. SanchezLopez, 879 F.2d 541, 549-50 (9th Cir. 1989); cf. United States v.

Nash, 115 F.3d 1431, 1438 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.

Ct. 1054 (1998). The stay shall become permanent upon the

completion of the sentence on the remaining count.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.

6

Case: 97-50118 08/06/1998 ID: 3504056 DktEntry: 36 Page: 6 of 6