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 U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME RI CA , P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. XU J U N LEE , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50486 D . C . N o. 3: 08 -c r- 00 36 9-JL S -2 ME MORA ND UM *

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 S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a ni s L . S a m m a rt i no, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A ugus t5, 2010 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : KOZ I NS KI , C h ie f J u d g e , RE I NH AR DT a nd W AR DL AW , C ir c u it Ju d g es. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng L ee fund s t o h i re an e y e w itn e s s id e n tif

ic a tio n e x p e rt b e c au s e h e h a s n ’t s h o w n th a t “r e a s o n ab ly c om pe t e ntc ouns e l w oul d ha ve r e qui r e d” one . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L aba ns a t , 94 F . 3d 527, 530 ( 9th C i r . 1996) . F urthe r , the othe re vi de nc e of L e e ’ s know i ng 

# FI LED

SEP 14 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSpage 2

i nvol ve m e nti n the s m uggl i ng c ons pi r a c yw a s s ubs t a nt i a l : T he gove rnm e nt i ntr oduc e d e vi de nc e tha tL e e ( 1) w a s dr i vi ng i n t a nde m w i th the va n c a rry i ng the A sian alien s; (2 ) h ad a w alk ie-talk ie tu n ed to th e s am e c h an n el as th at o f th e v an ’s d r iv e r ; a n d ( 3 ) p o s s e s s e d tr a v e l d o c u m e n ts , f o r e ig n c u rr e n c ya n d o v e r$ 1 1 ,0 0 0 in U . S . curr ency . T here fore , L ee i sn’ tabl e t o sho w by cl ear and conv i nci ng evi dence tha the w a s pr e

j udi c e d. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z - L a r a , 421 F . 3d 932, 946–47 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rri n a l l ow i ng the gove rnm e nt to c o m m e n t o n L e e ’s r e q u e s t f o ra n e x p e rt b e c au s e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l r e n e w e d h is r e que s ti n the pr os e c ut or ’ s pr e s e nc e , e ve n a f t e rthe j udge r e m i nde d hi m tha tthe re qu es t“ w as of a c on fi dent i al nature. ” S e e M a s on v. A r i z ona , 504 F . 2d 1345, 1352 n. 7 ( 9th C i r . 1974) ( “ W e de c l i ne t o e va l ua t e thi s obj e c t i on be c aus e i tdoe s not appear . . . that[the defendant ] m ade any ef fortt o h ave these m ot i on s c on si dere d ex part e. ”) ; se e a l so 18 U . S . C . § 3 00 6A (e ). T h e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d eci si o n t o al l o w th e g o v ern m en tt o q u est i o n a w i tn ess a s t o w he the rL e e w a s a“ s na ke he a d” w a s notan abus e of di s c r e t i on be c aus e the t e rm w a s notunf

a i r l y pr e j udi c i a l . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G onz a l e z - F l or e s , 418 F . 3d 1093, 1098 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . L e e ’ s ow n a tt orne yus e d the t e rm t o que s t i on w i tness es before obj ec t i ng t o the go vernm ent ’ s use of the t erm . C f. U ni t ed S t at es v . A rch d al e, 2 2 9 F . 3 d 8 6 1 , 8 6 5 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) (fi n d i n g n o sh o w i n g o f “ m an i festpage 3

i nj ust i ce ” w here chal l enged t es t i m on y w as “ verysi m i l ar ” t o o ther, un chal l enged t e s t i m ony ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourta l s o di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n a l l ow i ng the go vernm entt o cross -e xam i ne L ee abou tan i l l i ci tm ee t i ng w i th a corrup tbo rder i ns pe c t or ’ s w i f

e be c aus e the t e s t i m ony w a s r e l e va ntt o w he the rL e e ’ s pa rt i c i pa t i on i n the sm ug gl i ng conspi ra cyw as kn ow i ng . A nd the go vernm ent ’ s quest i on s w er e

“ r e a s onabl y r e l a t e d” t o L e e ’ s t e s t i m ony on di r e c ttha the w a s a n unw i tt i ng part i ci pant . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. M i rand a- U ri art e, 64 9 F . 2d 13 45 , 13 53 (9th C i r. 19 81 ). T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n w h en itre fu se d to g iv e L ee ’s prop osed ac com pl i ce j ury i nstruct i on because the w i tness es “ coul d [no t ] have been i ndi c t e d f

orthe s a m e of

f e ns e ” a s L e e , a nd thus w e r e nota c c om pl i c e s . G ua m v. D e laR o s a , 6 4 4 F .2 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 0

– 6 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) . A n d th e c o u rt’s r e f u s a l to gi ve L e e ’ s pr e f

e rr e d e y e w i tne s s i de nt i f i c a t i on i ns truc t i on w a s n’ ta n abus e of di s c r e t i on be c aus e the j udge r e a d N i nth C i r c ui tM ode l C r i m i na l J uryI ns truc t i on 4. 14, w hi c h pr ope r l y i ns truc t e d the j uryaboute y e w i tne s s t e s t i m ony a nd the go vernm ent ’ s burden. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. S hi psey , 36 3 F . 3d 96 2, 96 8 (9th C i r. 2004) ( “ W he r e the i ns truc t i on a c tua l l ygi ve n w a s l e ga l l ys uf f i c i e nt , ade f

e nda nt cann otsucc es sf

ul l y c on t end thatdecl i ni ng t o u se hi s s peci fi c f orm ul at i on w as an abus e of di s c r e t i on. ” ) ; c f

. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ur a n, 59 F . 3d 938, 941 ( 9th C i r . 1995)page 4

( “I t is n o t r e v e r s ib le e rr o r. . . to r e je c t ad e f

e n d a n t’s p r o p o s e d in s tru c tio n o n h is theory of the ca se i f other i nstruct i on s, i n thei r e nt i re ty, adequat el y c ov erthat d e f e n s e th e o ry .” ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s r e s tr i c t i on of de f e ns e c ouns e l ’ s c l os i ng a r gum e ntw a s not a n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. T he tr i a l j udge i s “ gi ve n gr e a tl a t i tude ” t o c ontr ol c l os i ng a r gum e nt , H e rr i ng v. N e w Y ork, 422 U . S . 853, 862 ( 1975) , a nd r e f us i ng t o a l l ow de f e ns e c ouns e l t o a na l ogi z e c onvi c t i ng the de f e nda ntt o pul l i ng the pl ug on a l ove d one di dn’ tdi m i ni s h the gove rnm e nt ’ s bur de n of pr oof . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M e d in aC a s te n e d a , 5 1 1 F .3 d 1 2 4 6 , 1 2 4 9

– 5 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( “T h e ju ryis r e g u la r ly pres um ed t o acc eptthe l aw as st at ed by the court , no tas st at ed by coun se l . ” ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e s , 1 5 9 F .3 d 4 3 9 , 4 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ) ) . AF F I RME D.