T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel
. T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed under t he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R
. 36. 3. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju n e 29, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. BE N YAZ Z E N, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 2156 ( D
. C. N o. CR
- 03
- 20 57
- J P) (D . N .M .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e LU CE RO , C ir c u it J u d g e , Mc WI L L I A MS , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, and TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge.

B ya s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entfi l ed on A ugus t11, 2004, i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C o u rt f o r th e D istric t o f

N e w M e x ico , B e n Y a z z e n (th e d e f e n d a n t) w a s c h a rg e d w ith
s e v e n c o u n t s o f

a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a b u s e o f a c h i l d u n d e rtw e l v e ye a r s , i n I n d i a n C o u n tr y,
w i t hi n t he boundar i es of the N avaj o I ndi an r es ervat i on, i n N ew M exi co, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § § 2241( c) , 2246( 2) ( a) , 2246( 2) ( b) and 1153. T he ac t s w er e al l eged t o have
occurr ed betw een D ece m ber1, 1997, and Sept ember14, 1999. A j urytr i al w as hel d on- 2 -

Jan u ary2 7 an d 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , an d , af ter de li b era ti n g fo r ap p rox im atelytw o h o u rs, the ju ry fo u n d the d ef

en d an t gu il tyo n all sev en co u n ts. A p re-sen tenc e re p o rtset d ef en d an t’ s adj us t ed bas e off

ens e l evel at43, and, w i t h hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I I , the gui del i ne r ange f

ordefe ndant ’ s s ent ence w as m andat oryl i fe i m pr i s onm ent . T he di s t r i ct
c o u rt a c c e p ted th e re c o m m e n d a tio n in th e p re -se n ten c e re p o rt a n d se n ten c e d d e f e n d a n t to
s e v e n t e r m s o f

l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t , t o b e s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y- n o tc o n s e c u t i v e l y! Som e pr el i m i naryr emar ks m ays etthe pr es entcontr over s yi n focus
. A tthe out s et of the tr i al , t he di s tr i ctcour tas ked s om e ques t i ons of the ent i r e j urypanel as s i gned t o t he pr es entcas e. T he pr os pect i ve j ur or s had al r eadyfi l l ed outques t i onnai r es , and the di s tr i ct
cour tas ked gene r al ques t i ons putt o al l of the j ur or s , col l ect i vel y . I n t he cour s e ther eof, one pr os pect i ve j ur ors t at ed thats he had be en a j ur or“s ever al t i m es ” w i t h a “l otof them h a v in g to d o w ith a lc o h o lis m , s h o o tin g , tr e s p a s s in g , a n d s o f o rt h .” T he d i stri ctcou rt , i n respon se t o thatpart i cularcom m ent, spok e as foll ow s: C O U R T : L etm e as k y ou a fe w ques t i ons . Y ou have a l otof j u r ye x p e r i e n c e a n d o n e o f th e c a s e s i n c l u d e d a l c o h o l i s m. T here w i l lbe a l coh olism i n this case . C an you be f ai rand i m par t i al ? (E m p h asis ad d ed ). In re sp o n se to the f

o reg o ing stat em en t bythe c o u rt , the s am e p rosp ec ti v e juro r
w ith in e a rsh o t o f

th e o th e r p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs, s a id , “le t m e a p p ro a c h th e b e n c h o n th is
o n e , o k a y ? It d o e sn ’t h a v e a n yth in g to d o w ith th e c a se , b u t itd o e s h a v e to d o w ith
a lco h o lism .” T h e d istric t co u rt a sk e d if th e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r w o u ld lik e to “ c o m e u p to th e b e n c h ,” a n d s h e s a id “ y e s .”- 3 -

T h ere af ter, a b en ch co n fe ren ce o u t of the e arsh o t of

the o ther p rosp ec ti v e juro rs
ens ued, i nvol vi ng t he di s t r i ctcour t , t he pr os pect i ve j ur or , and both pr os ecut i on and defe ns e couns el
. T he tr ans cr i ptof w hatoccurr ed atthe benc h confe r ence , outof ea r s hot of the prospecti ve jur ors, reads as fol l ow s:

M S. A D R I A N [D efe ns e att orney ] : J udge, ther e’ s no al cohol i s m i nvol ved i n t hi s cas e, i n m ycas e. T H E C O U R T : I ’ ve l ooked atthe r ecor d. A nd have y ou s een hi s r ecor d? M S. A D R I A N : B uti thas nothi ng t o do w i t h t hi s cas e, though. T H E C O U R T : A ll righ t. P A N E L IS T : M yex -hu sb an d is an alco h o li c a n d w as v ery abus i ve. T hatm i ghtcol orm yj udgm entm or e than bei ng i n a cour t30 y ear s ago on a c as e. T H E C O U R T : Y ou t hi nk y ou w oul d be bett ers ervi ng on a ci vi l cas e? PA N E L I ST : Pr obabl y , i f i thas t o do w i t h dr i nki ng and s exual a b u s e . T H E C O U R T : I ’ l l puty ou on a ci vi l cas e. P A N E L I S T : O k a y. L at er , outof the pr es ence of the otherpr os pect i ve j ur or s , the fol l ow i ng addi t i onal col l oquybetw een the courtand couns el occurr ed:

T H E C O U R T : W h e n I lo o k e d a t th e P re trial S e rv ice s re p o rt I have on thi s fel l ow , I as s um ed thi s w oul d be typi cal of the I ndi an R es ervat i on cas es I getw i t h al cohol i nvol ved. I f he does n’ tt ake the s t and and t es t i fy , and thatm ayhappen a nd/ or i tm aynothappen, obvi ous l y , y ou ar e notgoi ng t o haveA n “el ephanti n t he r oom ” i s an Engl i s h i di om fora ques t i on orpr obl em t hat 1 v e ry o b v io u s ly sta n d s , b u t w h ic h is ig n o re d f o r t h e c o n v e n ie n c e o f

o n e o r t h e o th e r p a rt y . I tder i ves i t s s ym bol i c meani ng fr om the fa ctthatan el ephantw oul d i ndeed be cons pi cuous and r emar kabl e i n a s m al l r oom . T he i di om i s al s o occa s i onal l yi nvoked as “pi nk el ephanti n t he corner , ” pos s i bl yi n r efe r ence t o al cohol abus e, orforno other r eas on t han a pi nk el ephanti s m or e vi s i bl e than a norm al el ephant( notthatpi nk e le p h a n ts e x is t, o b v io u s ly). See W ik ip e d ia , th e F re e E n c y c lo p e d ia , at ht tp: // en. w i ki pedi a. or g/w i ki / Pi nk_el ephant(l ast v isi ted J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 ). - 4 - al cohol m ent i oned. I f he doe s t ake the s t and, he’ s goi ng t o go in to th e re c o rd w h ich is lo a d e d w ith a lco h o l. M S . A D R IA N : N o , Y o u r H o n o r. T h o s e a re m is d e m e a n o rs . A l cohol i s a mi s demeanor , and I don’ tthi nk that ’ s a s ubj ectof cro ss-ex am ination fo r pu rpo ses o f im p ea ch m en t, an d I do n ’t bel i eve thatanyof us ar e al l egi ng thatdur i ng anyof the event s t hatar e the s ubj ectof thi s cas e thatther e’ s anyal cohol i nvol ved. M R
. T O R R E S [Pros ecut i ng at t orney ] : T her e maybe one i ns t ance , and w e’ l l caut i on the y oung w i t nes s nott o r eal l yget i nt o t hat , butw her e s he i ndi cat ed thathe had be en dr i nki ng d u ri n g the c o u rse o f o n e o f th e ins tanc es. N o w , w e d o n ’t w antt o emphasi ze that , and w e w oul d not , under609, at t empt to im p e a c h h im w ith c o n v ictio n o f D U I o r a n yth in g lik e th a t. T H E C O U R T : I w ant ed t o m ake s ur e w e gotthaton t he r ecor d. M S
. A D R IA N : H e u sed to d ri n k
. M yco n ce rn, Y o u r H o n o r, i s , I j us tdon’ tw antt he j urys i t t i ng outther e thi nki ng he’ s an al cohol i c w hen that ’ s notgerm ane t o t he ca s e. So t hat ’ s the r eas on I w as conce r ned aboutas ki ng them aboutthei rfee l i ngs o f a lco h o l. THE COURT: Yo u wa n tme t o wa rn th e m o f th a td e s p i t e my co m m en ts w ith the ju ror e arli er? M R . T O R R E S : N o , jus t re -e m p h a sis o n it, th e p in k e lep h a n t. 1 M S. A D R I A N : T hank y ou.- 5 -

T her eaf t er , appar ent l yw i t houtanyfur t herpr obl em, a j uryw as exami ned and accep t ed b yt he p art i es, and sw orn as j urors . O n appea l , defe ndantr ai s es onl yone i s s ue, w hi ch i s the al l eged e r r orcomm i t t ed b yth e d istric t ju d g e d u rin g th e v o ir d ire e x a m in a tio n o f th e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs a ss ig n e d to th e c a s e w h e re in h e s ta te d th a t “ th e re w ill b e a lc o h o lis m in th is c a s e .” M o re s p e c if ic a lly,
cou nsel for the d efen dan tfram es the o nlyi ssue r ai sed i n thi s appea l as fol l ow s:

T he tr i al j ud ge tol d the j uryi n v oirdir e t hat the case i nvol ves al cohol i s m . T hi s i s err oneous , as ther e w as no evi dence t hatt he al l egat i ons of s exual abus e i n t hi s cas e had anyt hi ng t o do w i t h al cohol i s m ordr i nki ng. D efe ns e couns el i m m edi at el yobj ect ed t o t he j udge’ s r emar ks t o t he j ury . T he j ur or s hear d t he r emar k. I s ther e a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t ythat th is e rro r m ig h t h a v e c o n trib u ted to th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict, in depr i vat i on of M r . Y azz en’ s Fi fth A m endmentr i ghtt o due pr oces s and hi s Si xt h A m endmentr i ghtt o a fa i rtr i al byan i m p a r t i a l j u r y? In a n sw e r to th e q u e stio n th u s p o se d b yc o u n se l, ou r stu d yo f th e re c o rd lea d s u s to concl ude thatt her e w as “no r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y ” thatthe di s t r i ctcour tbyi t s s t at ement t o t he j ur ydur i ng voi rdi r e depr i ved the def endantof hi s Fi fth A m endmentr i ghtt o “due p ro c e s s ” o r h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to “ a n im p a rt ia l ju ry.” A tt r i al , no evi dence of al cohol i s m on t he partof the def endantw as i ntr oduced by t he governm ent . T he def endanthad a hi s t oryof al cohol abus e, butno evi dence of that
w as offe r ed byt he governm ent , even though the def endantdi d t es t i fyathi s tr i al and d e n ie d e v e r a b u s in g h is d a u g h te r, a n d th e re b yp la c e d in is s u e h is c re d ib ility. A s w e u n d e rsta n d it, th e d e f e n d a n t’s b a sic p o sitio n in th is a p p e a l is th a t, i n its- 6 -

pr el i m i naryques t i oni ng of the pr os pect i ve j ur or s , the di s t r i ctcour tvi ol at ed the defe ndant ’ s Fi fth A m endmentr i ghtt o “due pr oces s ” and hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o an

“ im p a rtial ju ry ” w h e n it state d to th e e n tire ju ryp a n e l th a t “th e re w ill b e a lco h o lism in t hi s cas e, ” w hen the trut h w as t hatther e w as no al cohol i s m i nvol ved i n t he ca s e, and the
cour tw as m i s t aken i n s ay i ng t her e w as , ci t i ng B u r to n v . J o h n s o n , 9 4 8 F .2 d 1 1 5 0 (1 0 th C i r . 1991)
. I n ot herw or ds , t he ent i r e pane l w as i r r evoca bl y“t ai nt ed” a nd a “c ur at i ve i n s t ru c t i o n ” wo u l d n o th a v e “ c u r e d ” th e p r o b l e m. T he governm ent ’ s pos i t i on i s thatthe def endantw ai ved anyr i ghtt o a cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on w hen hi s couns el , att r i al , al ong w i t h t he pr os ecut i ng at t orney , both s t at ed that
n e ith e r w a n ted a c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n b e c a u se su c h , in th e ir v iew , w o u ld sim p ly
exac erbat e anypr obl em. Such bei ng the ca s e, the governm entar gues thatthe def endant
w ai ved anyr i ghtt o a cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on and thatther efor e the mat t ercannotbe r ai s ed fort he fi r s tt i m e i n t hi s appea l
. I n t hus ar gui ng, the governm entr el i es on U ni t ed Stat es v. H a rdw e ll , 80 F
. 3d 14 71 (10t h C i r. 19 96 ). In that cas e, w e spok e as foll ow s:

T hi s ar gum enti s w i t houtm er i t . A defe ndantcannoti nvi t e a ru lin g a n d th e n h a v e it s e t a s id e o n a p p e a l. [ c ita tio n s o m itte d .] T h e issu e c an n o t be re v iew ed fo r plain e rror. E rrors tha t are w ai ved r athert han mer el yfor fei t ed thr ough fai l ur e t o obj ect a re n o t s u b

je c t to p la in e rr o r r e v ie w . See O l ano , 507 U
. S. at 732- 34. Id
. at1487. T he def endant ’ s r es pons e t o t he governm ent ’ s pos i t i on bas i cal l yi s thatthe defe ndant ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o an “i m par t i al j ury ” trum ps anypr ocedur al tr i al- 7 -

pr obl em. C as es ci t ed byt he def endanti n s uppor tof hi s pr opos i t i on ar e, i n t he mai n,
con cerned w i t h inst ances w herei n a judge has, i n eff ect , i f no ti n so m anyw ords, i ns t ruct ed the j ur yt hat , i n hi s vi ew , the def endanti s gui l t yof the cr i m e cha r ged. Such do es not fi tt he p res ent fact s. W e w oul d not e thatt he def endantneveras ked the di s t r i ctcour tt o di s char ge the enti re j urypan el and st artov er because of i t s m i sst at em ent that “there w i l l be alcoho l i sm in this ca se.” N o r did the d ef en d an t atan yti m e re q u est a m istri al ba sed o n the c o u rt ’s
m i s s t at ement . Fur t her , i n t hi s s ame gener al r egar d, i n i t s i ns t ruct i ons t o t he j ury , the di s t r i ctcour t , w i t houtobj ect i on, i ns t ruct ed the j ury , i nt eral i a, as fol l ow s : “Y ou m us tnot
re a d in to th e se in stru c tio n s o r a n yth in g I m a yh a v e sa id o r d o n e a s a n ysu g g e stio n a s to
w hatver di ctI t hi nk y ou s houl d r eturn. T hatver di cti s ent i r el ya mat t erup t o y ou, the ju ry. T h a t’ s m ym a n tr a , a s a ju d g e .” W e re c o g n iz e th e s e v e ri ty o f th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d p u rs u a n t to th e g u id e lin e s , i.e ., s even l i fe s ent ence s . A tt he s ame t i m e, w e mustr ecogni ze the enorm i t yof the s even offe ns es t hatt he def

endantcomm i t t ed aga i ns thi s daught er , forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed bya j ur yof hi s peer s . T he def endant ’ s tr i al m aynothave be en “pe r fec t , ” buti n ourvi ew i tw as “fa i r . ” “‘ A defe ndanti s ent i t l ed t o a fa i rtr i al butnota per fec tone’ forther e ar e no per fec tt r i al s . ” B r ow n v. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 1 1 U .S . 2 2 3 , 2 3 1 (1 9 7 3 ). See al s o, B r ut on v. U n ite d S ta te s , 391 U
. S. 123, 135 ( 1968) , and L u tw a k v . U n ite d S ta te s , 344 U
. S. 604, 619 (1 9 5 3 ).- 8 -

J udgm entaff

i r m ed. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT Ro b e r tH. M c W i l l i a ms Seni orC i r cui tJ udge