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 ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. KEVIN LEE DAVIS, AKA Slow, AKA Ye llow Dude , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-16575

D.C . Nos. 4:05-c v-03756-DLJ

4:98-c r-40082-DLJ-3 M EM O R ANDUM * AND OR

DER

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia D. Lowe ll Je nse n, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm i tte d June 11, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , GR AB ER , a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. Ke vin Da vis a ppe a ls thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion for postc onvic tion re lie f pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2255. Thesole issueon a ppe a l is whe the r the a dm ission of the

sta te m e nt of Sa

ndy M e d ina wa s ha rm l e ss e rror. Davis’ s tria l 

# FIL ED JUN 25 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.took pla c e be fore the Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision in C raw ford v . W ashington , 541 U.S. 36 (2004). M e dina ’ s a rre st pre c ipita

te d Da v is’ s prose c ution, a

nd he r re fusa l to te stify wa s une xpe c te d. He r state m e nt to polic e wa s re a d to thejury towa rd the e nd of theprose c ution’ s c a se , a nd theprose c utor did re fe r to it repe ate d ly during c losing a n d re butta l. The a

p plic a ble ha rm le s s e rror sta

nda rd is whe the r the e rror ha d a substa ntia l a nd injurious e ffe c t

or influe nc e in de te rm ining thejury ’ s ve rdic t. Bre c ht v . Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 637–38 (1993); Unite d State s v . Montalvo , 331 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th C ir. 2003) (pe r c uriam ). W e have sa id tha

t the fa c tors we a

pply in de te rm i ning whe the r a C onfronta

tion C la use viola tion sa tisfie s tha t sta nda rd are : the im

porta n c e of the te stim ony in thegove rnm e nt’ s c a se ; whe the r the te stim ony wa s c um ulative ; the pre s e nc e or a

bse nc e of e vide nc e c orroborating or c o ntra d ic ting thete stim ony ; the e xte nt of c ross-e x am ination pe rm itte d; a n d the ove ra l l stre ngth of the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se . W

he lc he l v . W ashington , 232 F.3d 1197, 1206 (9th C ir. 2000) (c iting De law arev . Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986)). He re , the e vide nc e a ga inst Da vis wa s ove rwhe lm ing. It inc lude d pa ge r c ode s, re c orde d te le phone c onve rsations, e xpe rt te stim ony , c o-c onspira tor te stim ony , surve illa

nc e , a nd phy sic a l e vide nc e . While it wa s c onve nie nt for the gove rnm e nt to pla c e som e e m pha sis on M e dina ’ s sta

te m e nt whe n it a

ppe are d tha

t 2it wa s prope rly a dm issible , the sta

te m e nt a dde d little to thegove rnm e nt’ s c a se . It m e re ly provide d c o nc ise c o rroboration for wha t the gove rnm e nt ha d prove d ove r the c ourse of the two-m onth trial. Davis ha s a l s o m ove d to strikeVolum e VI of the gove rnm e nt’ s e xc e rpts of re c o rd. Volum e VI c onsists of the tra nsc ripts of interc e pte d phonec a lls be twe e n Davis a nd his c o-c onspira

tors. Da vis points out tha

t only the ta

pe s the m se lve s, not the t ran sc ripts, we re a d

m itte d into e vide nc e . The tra nsc ripts we re pa

rt of the re c o rd on dire c t a

ppe a l, a nd Da vis ha s ne ve r c onte nde d tha t the re wa s a

ny ina c c ura c y . The m o tion to strike is the re fore de n ie d. The judgm e nt of thedistric t c ourt is A FFIRM E D , a nd Da vis’ s m o tion to strike is DE NIE D .

3