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. AR TUR O R IVER

A -GALLEGOS, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50204

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-03814-JLS-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Ja nis L. Sa m m artino, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

10, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , C H R ISTEN, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s . 1. The prose c ution did not c om m it m isc onduc t by

sta ting during c losing
argum e nt tha

t the bloody

roc ks we re loc ate d furthe r up the tra il from whe re Arturo R ive ra -Ga lle gos first e nc ounte re d Age nt Jua n Am briz . R ive ra

c o nte nds tha

t the prose c ution c om

m itte d m isc onduc t by

m aking tha

t sta te m e nt without ha

ving a n 

# F IL ED J UN 06 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.Pa ge 2 of 2

a de quate e v ide ntia

ry ba sis for doing so. We disa gre e . A B orde r Pa trol a g e nt te stifie d at tria l tha

t the bloody roc ks we re loc ate d up the tra il from whe re Age nt Am brizfirst e nc o unte re d R i ve ra . Tha t te stim ony

provide d a de quate e vide ntia ry support for the prose c ution’ s argum e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Say e tsitty , 107 F.3d 1405, 1409 (9th C ir. 1997). 2. The prose c ution did not sa ndba g R ive ra by

ra i sing this a

rgum e nt for the first tim e during its re

butta l c losing a

rgum e nt. During R

ive ra ’ s c l osing a

rgum e nt, his c ounse l a

rgue d tha t the jury should re t

urn a not guilty

ve rdic t if it be lie ve d R ive ra ’ s a c c ount tha

t he turne d to run a

way a fte r se e ing Age nt Am

briz
. The prose c ution pe rm issibly re sponde d to tha t a rgum e nt during rebutta l by e xpla ining why the e vide nc e c ontra d i c te d R ive ra ’ s a c c ount. S e e Unite d State

s v . Bagle y , 772 F.2d 482, 494–95 (9th C ir. 1985). AFFIRM E D.USA v

A rturo R iv e ra -Galle

gos 15-50204 C HR ISTEN, disse nting. The m a jority de c ide s tha

t the prose c ution did not m issta te the e vide nc e or sa ndba g R ive ra

in re butta l c losing a

rgum e n t , c onc lusions tha

t se e m to m e to be
c ontra dic te d by t

he re c ord. B e c a

use I would hold tha

t the prose c ution m issta

te d the e vide n c e and e xc e e de d the sc ope of prope r re butta l , a nd be c a use the prose c ution did not m

e e t its burde n of showing tha t its mi sc onduc t wa s ha

rm le ss, I
re spe c tfully

disse nt. R ive ra and his c om

pa nions we re c onfronte d by borde r pat

rol a ge nts on a da rk de se rt tra il a s R i ve ra ’ s group a tte m pte d to ille ga lly e nte r the Unite d State s. R ive ra did not c onte st the gove rnm e n t’ s unla wful re e n try

c h arge , but he we nt to tria l on the gove rnm e nt’ s a lle gation tha t he a ssa ulte d a borde r patrol a ge nt on the night hewa s a

rre ste d. Ac c ording to the gove rnm e nt’ s witne sse s, borde r pat rol
a ge nts kne w tha

t R ive ra ’ s group wa s a

pproa c hing a

na rrow stre t c h of tra il a

nd the y hid, just off the

tra il in thede nse brush, wa iting to a rre st the group. At the

c hose n tim e , Age nts Gille spie and Am brizste ppe d

out onto the

tra i l, turne d on the ir fla shlights, a

nd holle re d for the group to stop. R i ve ra wa s first in the

single -file line of pe ople m aking the ir wa y through thede se rt, a

nd he te stifie d tha

t whe n the
a ge nts jum

p e d out, he pivote d i n pla c e to run ba c k the wa y he ha d c om e . B ut 

# F IL ED J UN 06 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

-1-be c a

use the re wa s a

pe rson wa lking c lose ly

be hind him , R ive ra c ra she d a lm ost im m e diate ly and la n d e d in a he a p. It is unc o nte ste d tha

t Age nt Am

b riz wound up on top of R

ive ra , a n d tha t in theproc e ss of be ing ha ndc uffe d, R ive ra ’ s he a d wa s c ut on som e roc ks. Photos ta k e n tha t night show R

ive ra with a c ut on his he a d. Anothe r shows som e blood on the tra i l. The a ge n t s’ te stim ony

sha rply c ontra dic t e d R ive ra ’ s ve rsion of e ve nts. Ac c ording to the m , R ive ra re sponde d to the a ge nts by rushing straight a

he a d a nd
a ssa ulting Age nt Am

b rizby c ha rging into him . Up until re butta l c losing
argum e nts, thec a se looke d like a c re dibility

battle . B ut the prose c utor m a de a sta te m e nt in re butta l c losing tha t the re wa s a lso phy sic a l e vide nc e supporting the gove rnm e nt’ s re c ita

tion of thefa c ts. Rive ra ’ s c ounse l obje c te d im m e d iate ly tha t the g ove rnm e nt’ s a

rgum e nt m issta

te d the e vide nc e and e xc e e de d the prope r sc ope of re b utta l. W

he the r any

suc h e vide n c e ha d be e n pre se n t e d to the jury hinge s on what Age nt Gille spie m e an t whe n he te stifie d tha t R ive ra ’ s blood wa s found on
roc k s “ up the tra il” from

whe re the a ge nts first c o nfronte d R ive ra and his
c om pa nions. The prose c ution a rgue s tha t Age nt Gille spie ’ s te s tim ony wa s c onsiste n t with thegove rnm e n t’ s the ory tha t R i ve ra c ha rge d forwa

rd, pushe d Age nt Am

brizba c k a

n unknown num

be r of ste ps, a

n d tha t the two la

nde d in a spot that wa s be hind

the pla c e whe re Age nt Am brizste p pe d out onto the tra il. -2-Unfortuna te ly , the tra

nsc ript is m

uddle d. What it shows is tha t va rious points of re fe re nc e and ge sture s we re use d by the witne sse s a s the y te s tifie d, a nd those ge sture s a

n d re fe re nc e s do not tra

nsla te ve ry we ll on a p pe a l. (“ Q. ‘ From whe re y ou a

n d Age n t Am

briz we re sta

nding, whe re is [the blood on the roc ks] loc ation in re lationship to whe re y ou we re sta

nding be fore y ou c am e out on the tra il? ’ A. ‘ I would sa

y a bout whe re M s. Stingle y

is.’ ” ). Our e x am ination of the tria l tra nsc ript doe s not a llow us to se e the ge sture s the witne sse s use d, but the distric t c o urt watc he d a ll the e vide nc e a s it wa s pre se nte d a nd it is signific ant, in
m y vie w, tha t the distric t

c ourt c om

m e nte d, “ I don’ t know how a ny body knows whe re any

body wa s. . . . W e don’ t know e xa c tly whe re e ve ry

b ody jum pe d out.” The c ourt wa s m indful tha t R ive ra and his c o m

p anions we re c onfronte d

by borde r patrol a ge nts in theda

rk, on a na rrow unlit tra il, a

nd tha t wha t a c tua lly tra nspire d
wa s like ly

le ss tha n c le ar to the pa

rtic ipa nts. As thedistric t c ourt obse rve d, “ This is pure and sim

ple c re dibility .” It is not unusua

l tha t a portion of a

tria l tra nsc ript is a

m biguous, a

nd the
am biguous pa ssa ge in this one is not wha

t prom pts m e to disse nt. I pa

rt from the
m a jority be c a use the prose c ution m a de a ve ry diffe re n t a

rgum e nt in thedistric t
c ourt from

the one pre se nte d on a

ppe a l, a n d I am pe rsua de d by

the gove rnm e nt’ s own c onte m

pora ne ous, in-c ourt c onc e ssions a b out wha t its e vide nc e did a

nd did -3-not show.

Shortly be fore c l osing a

rgum e nts, theprose c ution trie d to re c a ll Age nt Am briza s a re butta l w i tne ss spe c ific a lly be c a u se the gove rnm e n t wa

nte d to introduc e e vide nc e a

bout “ whe re [he ] c am e out on thetra il.” De fe n s e c ounse l obje c te d a

nd the pa rtie s disc usse d the issue at side ba r. The prose c ution a

rgue d tha t the e xa c t loc ation tha

t Age nt Am

brize nte re d the tra il wa s “ c ritic a l a n d im p orta nt” be c a use it “ de va sta

te s” R ive ra ’ s te stim ony

tha t he turne d a

round to he a d ba c k the
way he ha d c om e whe n he sa

w Age nt Am

brizste p onto thetra il. The prose c utor
wa s une quivoc a l in sta

ting tha t this e vide nc e wa s not y e t in there c o rd: “ W e didn’ t
sa y whe re e xa c tly it wa s tha

t [Age nt Am

briz ] c a m e out.” The distric t c ourt
a dm onishe d the prose c ution tha t it should ha

v e told the jury

“ e xa c tly whe re e ve ry body jum pe d out . . . the

first tim e ” Age n t

Gille spie took thewitne ss sta nd. The prose c ution re sponde d by ta king theposition tha

t it ha d not e lic ite d the te stim ony the first tim e Age nt Gille spie te stifie d be c a use “ [the loc ation of the blood on the

tra il] wa sn’ t re le va

nt the n;” i.e
. it wa s not re le va nt be c a use R ive ra

ha d not y e t te stifie d tha

t he turne d a

round in a

fa ile d atte m pt to run a

way from Age nt Am briz . The distric t c ourt wa s not pe rsua de d tha t R i ve ra ’ s te s tim o ny

wa s a surprise to the prose c ution, noting tha t R ive ra e xpla ine d

his ve rsion of e ve nts in a
re c o rde d sta

te m e nt he gave to the gove rnm e nt som e t im e shortly a fte r his a

rre st. -4-Ne ve rthe le ss, ove r de fe nse c ounse l’ s obje c tion, thedistric t c ourt offe re d to a llow

the p rose c ution to re ope n its c a se in c hie f so tha t Age nt Am

brizc ould put a

m ark
on a m a p to show where he first e nc ounte re d R ive ra . De spite its a rgum e nt tha

t this
e vide nc e wa s both c ritic a l a n d m issing from the re c ord, the prose c ution de c l ine d the c ourt’ s offe r an d

the la wy e rs proc e e de d to c losing a rgum e nts. In its re butta l c losing, the gove rnm e nt pre se nte d a

ske tc he d m a

p the prose c utor pre pa

re d a fte r the side ba

r but be fore c l osing a

rgum e nts. The prose c utor
use d the ske t c h to illustra

te an a rgum e nt a bout whe re the bloody

roc k s we re loc ate d in re l ation to whe re Age nt Am brizfirst steppe d out onto the tra il. De fe nse c ounse l im

m e diate ly obje c te d, c orre c tly

stre ssing tha

t this pa rt of the gove rnm e nt’ s re butta l a rgum e nt wa s not re sponsiveto R ive ra ’ s c losing a rgum e n t and m issta

te d the e vide n c e . The distric t c ourt a l lowe d the prose c ution to use the ske tc he d m a

p and a rgue to the jury

tha t R ive ra ’ s te stim o ny wa s “ not c onsiste nt with the phy s ic a l e v ide nc e .” B ut the c ourt instruc te d the jurors to re ly on the ir “ inde pe nde nt re c olle c tion of what we a ll he a

rd he re .” The distric t c ourt furthe r instruc te d the jurors tha t “ what the l awy e rs ha

ve sa i d . . . is not evide nc e . If the fa c t s a s y ou re m e m be r the m diffe r from the way the la wy e rs sta te the m , y our m e m ory of the m c ontrols.” Whe n R ive ra m ove d for a ne wtria l, the m otion wa s de nie d. The distric t c ourt c onc lude d -5-that

any prose c utoria l m i sc onduc t wa s ha rm le ss.

“ W e re vie w distric t c ourt de te rm inations re ga rding theprope r sc ope of
re butta l c losing a

rgum e nt for a

n a buse of disc re tion.” Unite d State s v . Gray , 876 F.2d 1411, 1417 (9th C ir. 1989). W e “ re vie w the re c ord denov o in orde r to de te rm i ne an e rror’ s ha

rm l e ssne ss.” Arizona v . Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279, 295 (1991). “ The gove rnm e nt be a rs the burde n of pe rsua sion with re s pe c t to proving that the e rror wa s ha

rm le ss.” Unite d State

s v . Mitc h e l l , 172 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th C ir. 1999). Having re vie w e d this re c ord, I find no pe rsua sive argum e nt tha t the prose c ution’ s re butta l re sponde d to a nything sa id by

de fe nse c ounse l during
c losing. De fe nse c ounse l’ s a sse rtion in c l osing tha t the de fe nda

n t told the

truth doe s not a llow theprose c ution to introduc e ne w a rgum e nts. S

e e Unite d State s v . Rubinson , 543 F.2d 951, 966 (2d C ir. 1976) (“ While the prose c ution in rebutta l
m ay e xpla in why

it ha s not prove n c e rta in fa c ts or re spond to the inte rpre tation whic h the de fe nse ha s pla c e d on its fa ilure to pre se n t e vide nc e , it m ay not use the de fe nse ’ s c om

m e nts to justify

the re fe re nc e to fa c ts or the a sse rtion of c la im s whic h it c ould ha

ve , but did not, introduc e at tria l unle ss de fe nse c ounse l’ s re m arks
a sse rt c olla

te ra l, e xc ulpa

tory a libis or de fe nse s whic h the gove rnm e nt would not have be e n e xpe c te d to ne gate pre viously .” ). On this re c ord, I c onc lude tha t the -6-gove rnm e nt he l d ba c k its blood-on-the -roc k s a rgum e nt for re butta l ra the r tha n pre s e nting it when R ive ra would ha ve ha d a fa i r opportunity

to re spond. Se e Unite d State s v . Malone

y , 699 F.3d 1130, 1150 (9th C ir. 2012) (Gilm an, J., disse nting), v ac ate d on re h’g e n banc , 755 F.3d 1044 (9th C ir. 2014). Unspoke n ge s ture s and inc om ple te se nte n c e s c an c a

u se proble m s on
a ppe lla te re vie w , but in this c a se we ne e d look no fa rthe r tha n the prose c ution’ s own a rgum e nts a

t side ba r to c onc lude tha

t the e xa c t loc ation whe re Age n t Am briz
e nte re d the tra il wa s not in e vide nc e . And without tha t re fe re nc e point, the de fe nse ha d no fa ir c ha

nc e to re spond to the prose c ution’ s a rgum e nt tha

t a photo of a bloody roc k c onstitute d

“ phy sic a l e vide n c e ” re futing Rive ra ’ s te s tim ony a bout whe re he m a de c onta c t with Age nt Am briz
. In c onc luding tha

t the de fe nda

nt wa s not give n a

fa i r c ha nc e to re spond to this a rgum e nt, I re ly

he av i ly on the distric t

c ourt’ s a nd la wy e rs’ c onte m

pora ne ous de sc ription of the

te stim ony

pre se nte d to the jury . And I c annot c onc lude tha t it is
m ore proba

ble tha n not tha t the prose c utor’ s be late d a rgum e nt ha d no m ate ria l
e ffe c t on the ve rdic t . As in other c a se s whe re we hav e de c line d to dismiss prose c utoria l m isc onduc t a s ha rm le ss, “ [t] his wa s a

c om pa rative ly c l ose c a s e tha

t boile d down to a

battle ove r c re dibility .” Unite d State s v . W e athe rspoon , 410 F.3d 1142, 1152 (9th C ir. 2005). Tha t the prose c ution fe lt the ne e d to use its ske tc he d -7-m a

p in re butta l re inforc e s tha t this wa s a

c lose c a se . Se e Unite d State s v . Alc a ntara-C

astillo , 788 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ T hat the supe rvising prose c utor a

t tria l— who, unlikeus, a c tua lly

obse rve d the c ritic a l te stim ony and the jury ’ s re sponse to the ke y witne sse s— fe lt m otiva

te d to ta ke this risk sugge sts he
m ay have ha d doubts a

b out the outc om e .” ). Abse nt a n a rgum e nt sprung upon the de fe nse in re butta l, the jury m ay have found Rive ra c re dible and a c quitte d him of
a ssa ulting a fe de ra l offic e r. “ Evide nc e m atte rs; c losing a rgum e nt m atte rs; sta te m e nts from

the prose c utor m atte r a

gre at de a l .” Unite d State s v . K ojay an , 8 F.3d 1315, 1323 (9th C ir. 1993). For thefore going re a sons, I re spe c tfully disse nt.

-8-