T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. CH RI STO PH ER CRA M ER, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 50533 D . C . N o. 2: 10 -c r- 00 07 8-G A F -2 ME MOR AN DU M *

UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. R ON NI E L E E HO US T ON , AK A C o w b o y, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 50161 D . C . N o. 2: 10 -c r- 00 07 8-G A F -1

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G a ry A . F e e s s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng 

# FI LED MA Y28 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he H on orabl e D avi d A . E zr a, D i stri ctJudg e f or the U . S . D i stri ct ** C our tf orthe D i s tr i c tof

H a w a i i , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

- 2- A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y 7, 2013 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: P A E Z and IK U T A , C i rc ui tJudg es , and E Z R A , D i stri ctJudg e. ** C h r is to p h e rC r a m e ra n d R o n n ie L e e H o u s to n ( “D e f e n d a n ts ” ) ap p e a l th e ir conv i ct i on s f

or m ul t i pl e c ou nt s of a ss aul t . D ef endant s w er e c on vi ct ed of three coun t s r el at ed t o thei r a ss aul tof a f el l ow i nm at e, S cotty Just i ce , and H ou st on w as c o n v ic te d o f

tw o c o u n ts r e la te d to h is a s s au lt o f f e llo w in m a te , M ik a e l T h o m a s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. 1. C r a m e ra r g u e s th a t h e w a s d e n ie d a“m e a n in g f u l o p p o r tu n ity ” to re pres enthi m se l f w hen the di stri ctcourtsa i d thati tw ou l d d eny hi s m ot i on for a s ix - m o n th c o n tin u a n c e to p r e p a r e f o rtr ia l. U

ni te d State s v . Far i as , 618 F . 3d 1049 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . I n c ontr a s tt o the f a c tua l s c e na r i os pr e s e nt e d i n Far i as a nd A rm ant v. M arqu ez , 77 2 F . 2d 55 2 (9th C i r. 19 85 ), i n w hi ch defendant s w er e t ol d thatthey c oul d pr oc e e d p ro se butw oul d ha ve l e s s tha n 24- hour s t o pr e pa r e f ortr i a l , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n pr opos i ng t o l i m i tC r a m e r ’ s pr e pa r a t i on t o el even w ee ks. In the di stri ctcourt , C ra m erpres ent ed no pl ausi bl e argum entas t o w hy he w ou l d requi re m ore t i m e t o p re pare for tri al and there w as no evi dence- 3-

tha tC r a m e r ’ s c ouns e l w oul d obs truc tC r a m e r ’ s a tt e m ptt o pr oc e e d pro se. I ns t e a d, w h e n th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d as ix - m o n th c o n tin u a n c e , C r a m e rw ith d r e w h is r e q u e s t to r e p r e s e n t h im s e lf a n d n e v e ra g a in r a is e d th e is s u e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. 2. a . D e f e nda nt s ne xta r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d w he n i tgr a nt e d the g o v ern m en t ’ s i n l i m i ne m o tio n to p r e c lu d e D e f e n d a n ts f r o m p r e s e n tin g e v id e n c e to the j ury thatthey a ct ed i n sel f def ense w hen ass aul t i ng Just i ce . “ In order t o m ake a p r i m a - f a c i e c a s e o f

s e l f - d e f e n s e , ad e f

e n d a n tm u s tm a k e a n o f f e ro f p r o o f a s t o two e l e m e nt s : ( 1) ar e a s onabl e be l i e f tha tthe us e of

f or c e w a s ne c e s s a ry t o de f e nd hi m s e l f ora nothe ra ga i ns tthe i m m e di a t e us e of unl a w f ul f or c e a nd ( 2) the us e of no m ore f

orce than w as re as on abl y nec es saryi n the ci rc um st ance s. ” U ni ted Stat es v . B i ggs , 441 F . 3d 1069, 1071 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( c i t i ng U n i ted S ta tes v. Keiser, 57 F . 3d 84 7, 85 1 (9th C i r. 19 95 )) . I f ade f e nda ntc a nnotpr of

f e rl e ga l l y s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

e a c h e l e m e ntof an af fi rm at i ve defense , then h e i s notent i t l ed t o p re se ntevi dence i n sup po rtof that d e f e n s e a t tr ia l. U

ni ted Stat es v. B ai ley , 4 4 4 U .S . 3 9 4 , 4 1 5 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ; see a l so U ni ted S ta tes v. Sh a

p i ro , 66 9 F . 2d 59 3, 59 6 (9th C i r. 19 82 ). H er e, t aki ng D ef

endant s’ proffe re d evi dence as true, the di stri ctcourt d e te rm in e d th a t D e f

e n d a n ts f a ile d to m e e t th e irb u r d e n o f o f f e r in g le g a lly- 4-

s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s upportaf i ndi ng tha tthe y ha d a“ r e a s onabl e be l i e f tha tthe u s e o f f o r c e w a s n e c e s s a ry to d e f e n d [ th e m s e lv e s ] o ra n o th e ra g a in s t th e im m e d ia te use of unl aw ful forc e. ” B i ggs , 441 F . 3d a t1071. W e a gr e e . I n a ny e ve nt , the pr of f e r e d e vi de nc e pr ovi de d no s uppor tf oraf i ndi ng tha tD e f

e nda nt s us e d “ no m ore f orce than w as re as on abl y nec es saryi n the ci rc um st ance s. ” Id . T he vi deo r e c or di ng of

the e ve ntc l e a r l y s how s H ous t on appr oa c h J us t i c e f r om be hi nd a nd g a rr o te h im w h ile C r a m e rr e p e a te d ly s tab s J u s tic e . E v e n a f te rJ u s tic e h a d f

a lle n to the gr ound bl e e di ng, D e f e nda nt s c ont i nue d a tt a c ki ng J us t i c e unt i l c orr e c t i ons o ffi cers sh o tb u rst s o f p ep p er sp ray atD efen d an t s. W e h o ldth at th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t errw h en itg ra n ted th e g o v er n m en t’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne , f

i n d i n g th a tDe f

e n d a n t s ’ p r o f

f e r s f a i l e d a s am a tt e ro f

l a w. b. H ou st on addi t i on al l y argues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tl i m i t ed h is tr ia l te s tim o n y c o n c e rn in g h is c la im o f s e lf d e f e n s e in th e J u s tic e a s s au lt. A de f e nda nt ’ s abi l i ty t o putf

orth e vi de nc e of

a n a f f i rm a t i ve de f

e ns e m a y pr ope r l y be t e s t e d i n l i m i n e. Sh a

p i ro , 6 6 9 F .2 d a t 5 9 6 ( “I f th e e v id e n c e a s d e s c r ib e d in S h ap i ro ’ s o ffer o f p ro o f w as i n su ffi ci en tas a m att er o f l aw t o su p p o rta d u ress d e f e n s e th e tr ia l c o u rt w a s c o rr e c t in e x c lu d in g th a t e v id e n c e .” ) ; se e B ai ley , 444 U . S . at4 1 5 . B ecau se H o u st o n ’ s o ffer o f p ro o f reg ard i n g h i s cl ai m o f sel f d efen se w a s in s u f

f ic ie n t a s am a tte ro f

la w , th e tr ia l c o u r t d id n o t e rrin p r e c lu d in g h im- 5-

f r o m te s tif

y in g in s u p p o rt o f

th a t th e o ry . U

ni te d State s v . Mor e no , 102 F . 3d 994, 9 9 8 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). T h er ef o re , th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t errin li m it in g H o u sto n ’s t es t i m on y her e. c. H ou st on al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n l i m i t i ng the se l fdefe nse j ury i nstruct i on t o the T ho m as as saul t(e xcl ud i ng the Just i ce as saul t ). H ous t on poi nt s t o no s pe c i f i c e vi de nc e tha tw a s pr e s e nt e d t o the j ury tha tw e nt b e y o n d th e le g a lly in s u f f ic ie n t o f f e r s o f p r o o f . W e h o ld th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrw h e n it d id n o t g iv e as e lf - d e f e n s e in s tru c tio n r e la te d to th e J u s tic e a s s au lt. Se e U ni te d State s v . H

ous ton , 64 8 F . 3d 80 6, 81 6 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ce rt. deni ed , 132 S . C t . 17 27 (201 2). 3. D ef endant s nextar gu e thatthe di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tappo i nt ed c ouns e l t o s e ve r a l pot e nt i a l de f e ns e w i tne s s e s ( s pe c i f

i c a l l y J ohns on, S hul l , a nd W i ggi ns ) , the r e by de ny i ng D e f e nda nt s the i rr i ghtt o due pr oc e s s . T he r e i s no e v id e n c e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o rp r o s e c u tio n a c te d c o e r c iv e ly o rd id a n y th in g to

“ ‘ ef fe ct i vel y dr[ i ] ve th[e] w i tness [e s] off the st and. ’ ” U ni ted Stat es v. Jaeger , 538 F . 3d 1227, 1231 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng W eb b v. T exa s, 409 U . S . 95, 98 ( 1972) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( f

i r s ta l t e r a t i on i n Jaeger) a nd c i t i ng U ni ted Stat es v. V

avag es , 151 F .3 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 8 9 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ) .- 6-

H e r e , th e r e c o r d in d ic a te s th a t w itn e s s e s J o h n s o n , S h u ll a n d W ig g in s a ll f a c e d the pos s i bi l i ty of

i nc r i m i na t i ng the m s e l ve s w e r e the y t o t e s t i f y . T he g o v e rn m e n t p r o f

f e r e d , in te ra lia , thatJohn son h ad as saul t ed T ho m as i n t andem w ith H o u s to n . I n d e e d , T h o m a s u ltim a te ly te s tif ie d th a t J o h n s o n a s s au lte d h im w ith a“ r oc k i n as oc k” dur i ng the i nc i de nt . T he gove rnm e nta l s o pr of f e r e d tha tdur i ng th e J u s tic e a s s au lt, W ig g in s a n d S h u ll ap p e a r e d to h o ld J u s tic e ’s a tte n tio n w h ile H ous t on a nd C r a m e rs t a ge d the i ra tt a c k. S hul l ha d a l s o t ol d i nve s t i ga t or s tha the s m u g g le d in a n d p a s s e d ak n if e to J u s tic e p r io rto th e a s s au lt; a n d W ig g in s h a d to ld i nv es t i gat ors thathi s pri son g ang w as “ do i ng a l i tt l e hou se cl eani ng . ” T he other w i tne s s e s f

orw hom c ouns e l w a s appoi nt e d a l s o r a n the r i s k of i nc r i m i na t i ng them se l ves by t es t i fy i ng . T here fore , the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr w hen i tappo i nt ed co u n sel t o th ese p o t en t i al w i tn esses. 4 . H o u s to n n e x t a r g u e s th a t th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t h is c onvi c t i ons f

ora s s aul tw i th ada nge r ous w e apon, 18 U . S . C . § 113( a ) ( 3) , a nd a s s au lt c au s in g s e r io u s b o d ily in ju ry , id . ( a ) ( 6) . V i e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ght m ostfa vo rabl e t o the go vernm ent , the evi dence w as “ adequat e t o al l ow ‘ a[ ] r a t i ona l tr i e rof

f a c t[ t o f i nd] the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the c r i m e be y ond a re as on abl e dou bt . ’ ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . N

e v ils , 598 F . 3d 1158, 1164 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( e n ba nc ) ( quot i ng J

a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 443 U . S . 307, 319 ( 1979) ( s e c ond- 7-

a l t e r a t i on i n N

e v ils ). T ho m as t es t i fi ed thatH ou st on st abbed h i m m ul t i pl e t i m es a n d c h a s e d h im d o w n th e tie ra f te rT h o m a s h a d s tu m b le d o u t o f H o u s to n ’s c e ll on t o the grou nd and fre ed hi m se l f t o run aw ay . T he vi deo evi dence corr ob orat es T hom a s ’ s t e s t i m ony a nd s how s H ous t on s t abbi ng T hom a s w hi l e T hom a s i s on the g ro u n d an d ch asi n g T h o m as al o n g th e t i er an d d o w n a fl i g h to f st ai rs. 5 . D e f e n d a n ts f in a lly a r g u e th a t c u m u la tiv e e rr o rw a rr a n ts r e v e r s a l. T h is a r gum e ntf

a i l s be c aus e the r e w e r e no e rr or s . “ T he r e c a n be no c um ul a t i ve e rr or w hen a defendantfa i l s t o i dent i fym ore than o ne error. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . So lo r io , 66 9 F . 3d 94 3, 95 6 (9th C i r. ) ce rt. deni ed , 13 3 S . C t . 10 9 (20 12 ). AF F I RME D.