Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cr-00591/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cr-00591-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nathan Charlton
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATHAN CHARLTON,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cr-00591-VC-1 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW 

TRIAL AND RENEWED MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL

Re: Dkt. No. 97

The motion for a new trial, brought on the ground that the Court should have granted the 

defendant's eve-of-trial request for a continuance, is denied for the following reasons: (i) the 

defense had ample opportunity in the months leading up to trial to have its own DNA testing 

conducted if it suspected the test results could be exculpatory; (ii) the defense has made no 

plausible showing that the report from the government's DNA analysis (obtained on the eve of trial

but excluded on the ground that the government also unduly delayed in obtaining it) was 

potentially exculpatory; (iii) if the government's analysis were potentially exculpatory, the defense 

could have called to government's analyst to the stand to establish that; and (iv) in any event, as 

discussed below, the evidence that the defendant knowingly possessed the gun was overwhelming, 

effectively eliminating any realistic possibility that the defendant was prejudiced by the denial of 

his request for a continuance.

The renewed motion for a judgment of acquittal is also denied. Any failure by Agent 

Garza to rule out the theoretical possibility that the gun was a counterfeit manufactured in 

California does not lead to a conclusion that his testimony was insufficient to allow the jury to 

conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun was not a counterfeit and therefore came from 

out of state. The defendant's theory that the gun was a counterfeit (or even that it could have been 

Case 3:13-cr-00591-VC Document 106 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

a counterfeit) was speculative, unsupported by any evidence. And the evidence was sufficient to 

allow a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed the 

gun, because: (i) the officers saw the defendant carry the gym bag into the house; (ii) shortly 

thereafter, the officers entered the house found the gun in that bag; (iii) the defendant exhibited 

consciousness of guilt when he gave a false identity to the officers who came to the door; and (iv) 

the defendant had previously told his brother he possessed a gun.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2015

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cr-00591-VC Document 106 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 2