N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. B R IAN H. JONES, Sr.,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-30237

D.C . No. 2:15-c r-00199-R

AJ-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R ic ha rd A. Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm itte d June 4, 2018 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : B YB EE a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s, a nd ANTOON, ** Distric t Judge
. 1. Suffic ie nc y

of the Evide nc e . The re wa s suffic ie nt e vide nc e to c onvic t Jone s of C ount 7, posse ssing a fire arm in furthe ranc e of a

c rim e of viole nc e . B e c a use Jone s did not move for a judgm e nt of a c quitta l, “ we re vie w unde r a m ore 

# FIL ED JUN 22 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble John Antoon II, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the M iddle Distric t

of Florida , sitting by

de s igna tion.rigorous sta

nda rd of re v ie w for pla in e rror to pre ve nt a ‘ m isc arria g e of justic e .’ ” Unite d State s v . Roston , 986 F.2d 1287, 1289 (9th C ir. 1993) (quoting Unite d State s v . C urtis , 568 F.2d 643, 647 (9th C ir. 1978)). First, the sta tute doe s not
re quire the Gove rnm e nt prove Jone s posse sse d a spe c ific fire arm , but, ra

the r, any fire arm . Se e 18 U.S.C . § 924(c )(1)(A) (re quiring tha t “ any pe rson who, during a nd in re lat ion to a

ny c rim e of viole nc e . . . sha l l, in a ddition to the punishm e nt provide d for suc h c rim e of viole nc e . . . (ii) if t hefire arm is bra

ndishe d , be
se nte nc e d to a

te rm of im

prisonm e nt of not le s s tha n 7 y e ars” (e m

pha sis a dde d)). The re fore , a

ny c la im the re wa s insuffic ie nt e vide nc e , be c a use the re wa s va

ry ing
e vide nc e a

b out the spe c ific m ode l a

nd ty pe of the pistol, is una

va i ling. Se c ond, W illia m s a ffirm ative l y te s tifie d tha t Jone s bra

ndishe d a fire arm during the De c e m b e r 25, 2015 a ssa

ults. The re fore , unde r the pla in e rror sta nda rd of re vie w, the re is no que s tion “ any

rationa l trie r of fa c t c ould ha v e found” tha

t Jone s posse s se d a

fire arm whe n he c om

m itte d the a ssa

ults c ha rge d in C ounts 5 a

nd 6. J ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

22. Se ve ring. Jone s’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by de ny ing his motion to seve r C o unts 1, 2, a nd 3 from C ounts 5, 6, a

nd 7 is wa ive d. 1

“ It is we ll se ttle d

tha t the m otion to seve r ‘ m

ust be re n e we d at the c lose of
e vide nc e or it is waive d.’ ” Unite d State s v . Alv are

z , 358 F.3d 1194, 1206 (9th C ir. 2004) (quoting Unite d State s v . Re stre po , 930 F.2d 705, 711 (9th C ir. 1991)). Jone s m ove d be fore tria l to se ve r but did not rene w his m otion a t the c lose of
e vide nc e . Furthe r, the re is no e vide nc e tha t Jone s “ dilige ntly

pursue d se ve ra

nc e or that re n e w ing the m otion would ha ve be e n an unne c e ssa

ry form a lity .” Unite d State s v . Sullivan , 522 F.3d 967, 1008 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting U nite d State

s v . De c oud, 456 F.3d 996, 1008 (9th C ir. 2006)). 3. Gra nd Jury Te stim o ny . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by
a dm itting M e dina ’ s gra

nd jury te stim ony . “ W e have e xpre ssly re c ogniz e d tha

t the founda tiona l pre re quisite s of [Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e ] 613(b) re quire only tha t the w itne ss be pe rm itte d- a t some point-to e xpla in or de ny

the prior inc onsiste nt sta te m e nt.” Unite d S

t ate s v . Young , 86 F.3d 944, 949 (9th C ir. 1996) (e m pha sis
a dde d); se e also Fe d. R . Evid. 613(b), Advisory C om m itte e Note (noting “no

1 The Gove rnm e nt a

rgue s tha t the c ounts we re prope rly joine d. Howe ve r, Jone s ha s ra i se d no suc h a rgum e nt on a

ppe a l. The re fore , a

ny argum e nt tha

t the c ounts we re im

prope rly joine d is a lso wa ive d. Gre e nw ood v . FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th C i r. 1994). 3spe c ific ation of a ny pa rtic u la r tim e or se q

ue nc e ” for providing the

witne ss the

“ opportunity

to e xpla in” ). Jone s ha d the opportunity to c ross e xam ine M e dina on the s tat e m e nts a fte r the introduc tion of thegrand jury te stim ony

an d did so. This
wa s suffic ie nt a

nd the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

a llowing M e d ina ’ s gra

nd jury te stim ony

to be a dm itte d. 4. State m e nts to M e dic a l Provide rs. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

a dm itting the

sta te m e nts M e dina

m a de to m e dic a l tre atm e nt provide rs. Whe re sta

te m e nts a re m a de for the purpose of m e dic a l dia gnosis or tre atm e n t, sta

te m e nts m a de to m e dic a l provide rs (ide ntify ing the a buse r) are
a dm issible
. Unite d State

s v . K ootsw ate w a , 885 F.3d 1209, 1212-13 (9th C ir. 2018) (holding “ [t] he de c la

rant’ s se lfish inte re st in obtaining a ppropria te m e dic a l c are re nde rs sta

te m e nts m a de for purpose s of dia gnosis or tre atm e nt inhe re ntly trustworthy ” ). B oth m e dic a l tre atm e nt provide rs te stifie d tha t knowing the

ide ntity of the atta c ke r and the c o ntours of theinc ide nt we re im p orta nt for M e dina ’ s tre atm e n t, a

nd Jone s provide d no c ontra ry e vide nc e . 5. State m e nt to La

w Enforc e m e nt. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

a dm itting M e dina ’ s sta

t e m e nt to la

w e nforc e m e nt a s a

n e xc ite d utte ran c e , be c a

use she “ wa s unde r the stre ss of e xc ite m e nt” of the e arlie r atta c k whe n she arrive d at the polic e sta tion. Fe d. R
. Evid. 803(2). R ule 803(2) e x c lude s
4from

the rule a ga inst he arsay

sta te m e nts “ re lating to a

sta rtling e ve nt or c o n dition,
m a de while the de c l arant wa s unde r the stre ss of e xc i te m e nt tha t it c a use d.” He re , M e d ina te stifie d tha

t Jone s a nd he r fought from

2:00 a .m . to 6:00 a .m ., Jone s forc e d he r to a c c om

pa ny him to try

and buy a

gun (a p proxim ate l y

7:30 a .m . to 8:30 or 9:00 a .m .), she le ft at he r first opportunity (a fte r Jone s pa sse d out), a nd she we nt stra ight to the

triba l polic e (arriving a

bout 9:00 a
. m .). 6. Im pe a c hm e nt with Prior Polic e R e port. Jone s wa ive d his a rgum e nt tha

t the d istric t c o urt im

p rope rly a llowe d the prose c ution to im pe a c h M e d i na

with he r prior re p ort to tribal polic e by fa iling to a

rgue the sta

te m e nts we re im

prope rly
a dm itte d unde r R u le 613(b). Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ [A] rgum e nts not ra i se d by a pa rty in its open i ng brie f are de e m e d wa ive d.” ). Jone s inste a d a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt a

b use d its disc re tion by

a llowing the sta te m e nts unde r R

ule 801(d)(1)(A). Howe ve r, the sta te m e nts we re not offe re d unde r R ule 801, ra

the r, the re c ord indic at e s the Gove rnm e nt proffe re d the sta te m e nts a s im

pe a c hm e nt e vide nc e . whic h would bea dm itte d unde r R ule 613(b). 7. C ross Exa

m i nat ion of R am os. Jone s a ba ndone d his a

rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c o urt im

prope rly lim ite d Jone s’ s c ross e xam ination of Ram os by not
arguing tha

t the distric t

c ourt a buse d its disc re tion unde r R ule 403. C

rimeJ ustic e & Am., Inc . v . Hone a , 876 F.3d 966, 978 (9th C ir. 2017) (“ Issue s ra ise d in a brie f
5whic h a

re not supporte d

by argum e nt a

re de e m e d a

ba ndone d” (quoting Le e r v . Murphy , 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th C ir. 1988))). R ule 609 provide s tha

t whe n

“ atta c king a

witne ss’ s c ha

ra c te r for truthfulne ss by

e v ide nc e of a

c rim ina l
c onvic tion: (1) for a

c rim e tha t, in thec onvic t ing jurisdic tion, wa s punisha ble by de ath or by

im prisonm e nt for m ore tha

n one y e ar, the e vide nc e (A) m ust be
a dm itte d , subje c t to R

ule 403.” Jone s note s tha

t the c onvic t ions a

re subje c t to a R ule 403 de t e rm ination, but only argue s tha

t the distric t

c o urt a b use d its disc re tion by not following the

m andat ory

“ m ust” la ngua ge in R

ule 609. 8. C ross Exa

m i nat ion of W illia

m s. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

lim iting W illia

m s’ s c ross e xam inat ion a

nd, in theproc e ss, did not infringe on Jone s ’ s “ funda m e nta l right to pre se nt a

de fe nse . ” U

nite d State

s v . Mc C ourt , 925 F.2d 1229, 1236 n.12 (9th C ir. 1991). Jone s doe s not spe c ific a lly
argue unde r what rule W illia m s ’ s triba l c ourt m i sde m e anor dom e stic viole n c e c onvic tions should ha

ve be e n a dm i tte d, a

nd a ffirm ative ly

sta te s tha t the y we re “ not offe re d unde r [R

ule ] 609.” The re fore , we c onstrue Jone s’ s a rgum e nt to betha

t the
c onvic tions should ha

ve be e n a dm i ssibleunde r R ule 404(b) a s substa

ntive
e vide nc e . Jone s proffe re d the e vide nc e to “ c orroborate [] M e dina ’ s te stim ony tha t she wa s fe arful of [W illia m s] , a nd tha t he wa s both thre ate ning a nd c o ntrolling of he r.” In othe r words, it wa s offe re d to prove that W illia m s ha d inde e d a c te d a
6c e rta in wa

y . Suc h e vide nc e is im

prope r unde r R

ule 404(b). Mc C

ourt , 925 F.2d a

t 1235-36 (holding “ [e ] vide n c e of ‘ o the r c rim e s, wrongs, or a c t s,’ no m atte r by whom offe re d, is not a dm issiblefor the purpose of proving prope nsity or c onform ing c onduc t ” (quoting Fe d. R . Evid. 404(b)). Re ga rdle ss, Jone s wa s a

ble to introduc e the fa c t tha

t W illia m s ha d be e n “phy sic a l” with M e dina in the pa st, a

nd W illia m s te stifie d

he ha d a dm itte d to thec onduc t “be c a use [he ] wa

nte d to sta

y out of ja il.” This wa s suffic i e nt for Jone s to a rgue tha t M e d ina ha d initially

provide d fa lse re ports be c a

u se she wa s a fra id of W i llia m s. 9. Vouc hing. First, it wa s not plain e rror for the prose c utor to sta te tha t she

“ th[ought] a ll the fa c ts show y o u he re tha t if y ou a g re e with wha

t [M e dina ] ha s te stifie d to, wha

t [W illia m s] ha s te stifie d to, a

bout wha t ha ppe n e d on C hristm a s Day , y ou will find tha

t the de fe nda

nt posse sse d a

fire arm in furthe ranc e of a

c rim e of viole nc e on C hristm a s Da y 2014.” Se e Unite d State

s v . Flore s , 802 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th C ir. 2015). The re wa s no indic ation of “ e xtra -re c o rd” knowle dge ; the prose c utor a

rgue d for the jury

to c onvic t

Jone s for C ount 7 by

re fe re nc ing the
e vide nc e supporting tha

t c ount. Id. at 1040 (quoting Unite d State s v . Ruiz , 710 F.3d 1077, 1085 (9th C ir. 2013)). Se c ond, it wa s not im prope r for the prose c utor to use the p hra se “ [M e d i na ] ’ s truth” to a rgue one ve rsion of M e dina ’ s te stim ony wa s true
and the othe r wa s not. Unite d State s v . N e c oe c he a , 986 F.2d 1273, 1279 (9th C ir.
71993) (holding it wa s prope r for a prose c utor to sta

te “ I subm it to y ou tha

t she ’ s te lling thetruth” ); Unite d State s v . Pre ston , 873 F.3d 829, 844 (9th C ir. 2017) (holding it wa s im

prope r for the prose c utor to re fe r to a witne ss’ s te s tim ony

a s “ the truth” ). Fina lly , e ve n if the p rose c utor im prope rly sta te d tha t she “ d[idn’ t] think [W i llia m s’ s] a m an who c ould orc he strate a sc he m e a s to wha

t he ’ s going to do
ne xt we e k , m

uc h le ss orc h e strate a sc he m e we re he dire c t s [M e dina ] , ” the distric t
c ourt c ure d the sta

te m e nt. Thus, a

ny e rror wa s ha

rm le s s. Flore

s , 802 F.3d a

t 1034. 10. DoubleJe o pa

rdy . The distric t c ourt did not err by de ny ing Jone s ’ s
m otion to dism

iss theindic tm e nt on double je opa rdy grounds. “ [U] nde r what is known a s the dua l -sove re ignty doc trine , a

singlea c t give s rise to distinc t offe nse s— a

nd thus m ay

subje c t a pe rson to suc c e ssive prose c utions— if it viola te s the l aws of se pa

rate sove re igns.” Pue rto Ric o v . Sanc h e z Valle , 136 S. C t. 1863, 1867 (2016). India

n tribe s ha

ve re ta ine d sove re ignty

to prose c ute the ir own
m e m b e rs. Unite d State

s v . W h e e le r , 435 U.S. 313, 329-30 (1978). The re fore ,

8be c a

use Jone s wa s initial ly

prose c ute d by

the triba l gove rnm e nt

unde r its sove re ign powe r, Jone s’ s right a ga inst double je opa rdy wa s not viola

te d. 2 AFFIRM E D.

2 While Jone s a lle ge s tha

t his tribeand the fe de ra l gove rnm e nt c ollude d in his two prose c ut ions, he ha s m e re ly highlighte d the fa c t tha

t the triba l prose c utor e nte re d a n a ppe aranc e in his fe d e ra l prose c ution. This falls fa r short of thety

pe of prose c utoria l “ c o m

m ande e r[ing] ” ne c e ssa

ry to ove rc om e the dua l-sove re ignty doc trine
. Se e Unite d State s v . Zone , 403 F.3d 1101, 1104-05 (9th C ir. 2005).

9