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. R OB ER T D. THOR SON,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-30100

D.C . No. 2:16-c r-00277-R SM -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R ic ardo S. M artine z , C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 6, 2018 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R , M c KEOW

N, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt R obe rt D. Thorson a

ppe a ls his c o nvic tion, a fte r a jury tria l, for produc ing a

nd posse s sing c hild pornogra phy in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2251(a ), (e ) and 18 U.S.C . § 2252(a )(4)(B ), (b)(2). W e have jurisdic t ion pursua nt to 28 

# FIL ED DEC 11 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).U.S.C . § 1291, a nd “ [w] e re vie w de novo whe the r any prose c utoria l m i sc onduc t
oc c urre d.” Unite d State

s v . Flore s , 802 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th C ir. 2015). W e a ffirm Thorson’ s c onvic tions. 1. Thorson c onte nds tha t the prose c utor did not ha ve a good fa ith ba sis to im pe a c h Thorson’ s te stim ony a bout his a lle ge dly e xc ulpa t ory tattoo. Howe ve r, substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord shows a good fa ith ba sis to suspe c t tha t Thorson obta ine d his ta

ttoo a fte r his a

rre st, inc luding: (1) prior to the tria l in fe de ra l c ourt, the p rose c utor kne w tha

t Thorson re siste d

the sta t e c o urt’ s orde r that his ge nita ls be photogra phe d; (2) during pre tria l c onfe re n c e , de fe nse c o unse l sta te d tha t he ha d no inte ntion of offe ring proof re ga rding the phy sic a l c ha

ra c te ristic s of Thorson’ s ge nita ls; (3) be fore the prose c utor c ross-e xam ine d Thorson, hele arne d tha t Thorson ha d a

rgue d to the sta

te judge that the orde re d

photogra phy would “ c om

pe l
m e to providee vide nc e a ga inst m y se lf” ; (4) be fore the prose c utor c ross-e xam ine d Thorson, he obta ine d the re le v ant photogra p hs a nd be lie v e d tha

t a c om pa rison of the s e photogra

p hs a ga inst the vide o in que s tion showe d tha t, with thee xc e ption of the t a ttoo, theim a g e s we re a lm ost c e rta i nly of the sa m e pe rson; a

nd (5) the prose c utor kne w tha

t inm a te s a

re c a pa b le of obta ining a

tattoo whilein c ustody , e ve n whe n a prisone r is house d in SHU. 2. Thorson ne xt a

rgue s tha t the prose c utor viola

te d his Fifth Am e ndm e nt
2right to re m a in sile nt by disc ussing his re s ista

nc e to the sta

te c ourt’ s orde r that his ge nita ls be photogra

phe d. B ut Thorson did not re m a in sile nt; he wrote to the sta te
c ourt a nd c om pla i ne d tha

t the orde r wa s “ an unc onstitutiona l orde r to c om

p e l m e to provide e vide nc e a ga inst m y se lf” and the n

te stifie d in his fe de ra l tria l , inc o nsiste ntly , tha

t he ha d a n e xone ra ting ta

ttoo tha t prove d it wa s not him

in the vide o. If a de fe nda

nt te stifie d to fa c ts inc onsiste nt with post-a rre st sta te m e nts, the prose c utor m ay q

u e stion thede fe nda

nt a bout tha t inc onsiste nc y

to show tha

t the de fe nda n t is not c re dible
. Ande rson v . C harle s , 447 U.S. 404, 408–09 (1980) (pe r c uriam ); Unite d State

s v . Mak hlouta , 790 F.2d 1400, 1404–05 (9th C i r. 1986). B e c a use Thorson’ s sta

te m e nts to thesta

te c ourt we re inc onsiste nt with his te stim ony during his fe de ra l tria l, the prose c utor wa s e ntitle d to a rgue tha t Thorson’ s e arlie r state m e nts c a l le d into que stion thebe lie va bility of his te stim ony a bout the a ge of his ta

ttoo. Theprose c utor’ s c ross-e xam ination of Thorson a nd the
c losing a rgum e nt we re prope rly

foc use d on Thorson’ s c re dibility and did not
am ount to a sse rtions tha

t Thorson’ s re sista

nc e to the orde r wa s substa ntive
e vide nc e of his guilt. Se e Ande rson , 447 U.S. a t 408 (noting tha

t c rosse xam ination c annot “be bifurc a te d so ne at ly ” and c ourts should look to “ [t] he quote d c o lloquy , ta

k e n a s a whole ” ). 3. Thorson simi la

rly c onte nds tha

t the prose c utor viola

te d his Sixth
3Am e ndm e nt right to c ounse l a nd right to pre se nt a

de fe nse by

arguing tha

t his

“ c o unse l’ s re sista

nc e to the sta

te c ourt orde r im

plie d guilt.”As disc usse d , the prose c utor ne ve r argue d tha t Thorson’ s opposition wa s substa ntive e vide nc e of his guilt; the prose c utor m e re ly argue d tha

t Thorson’ s obje c tions we re inc onsiste nt with his te stim ony

c la im ing to ha

ve an e xone ra ting ta

ttoo. AFFIRM E D.

4