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. JEFFREY SPANIER ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-50128

D.C . No. 3:16-c r-01545-B EN-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 R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 12, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : IKUTA a

nd N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s , a nd M c NAM EE, ** Distric t Judge
. Je ffre y

Spanie r a ppe a ls his c onvic t ions for m a i l fra ud, wire fra

ud, se c uritie s fraud, a nd c onspira c y

to c om m it thosec rim e s. As thepa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the 

# FIL ED
JUL 30 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.

* * The Honora

ble Ste phe n M . M c Nam e e , Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.fa c t s, we do not re c o unt the m he re . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291,
and we a ffirm

in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a n d re m a n d for a ne w tria l. 1. W e a gre e with Spa

nie r that the distric t c ourt e rre d in fa iling to instruct the j ury on the om issions the o ry

of fra ud a n d the duty

to disc lose
. Whe n the gove rnm e nt ba s e s a

fra ud c ha rge on m ate ria l non-disc losure s, the tria l c ourt m ust instruc t the jury that a

non-disc losure c a

n only support a fra u d c ha rge whe n the de fe nda n t ha s a duty to disc lose the om itte d

inform ation. Unite d State s v . Shie lds , 844 F.3d 819, 822-23 (9th C ir. 2016). 1 Tha t rule is not lim

ite d to “p ure om issions”
c a se s, whe re the a lle gat i ons of fra ud a re only ba se d on non-disc losure s. S e e id. at 823. He re , the indic tm e nt, the distric t c ourt’ s sum m ary of the c a s e to the jury , the jury instruc tions, a

nd the e vide nc e pre se nte d at tria l show tha

t the gove rnm e nt’ s fraud c a se wa s ba s e d

on a ffirm ative m isre pre se ntat ions, ha lf-truths, and om issions.

1 The gove rnm e nt a

rgue s tha t we are bound by

anothe r pane l’ s pre vious ruling re je c ting Spa

nie r’ s c ha l le nge to the jury instruc tions. Se e Unite d State s v . Spanie r , 637 F. App’ x 998, 1000-01 (9th C ir. 2016). “Unde r the ‘ la w of the c a se ’ doc trine , a

c ourt is ordina

rily pre c lude d from

re e x a m i ning a n issue pre viously de c ide d by the sa

m e c ourt, or a highe r c ourt, in thesa m e c a se . ” Ric hardson v

. Unite d State s , 841 F.2d 993, 996 (9th C ir. 1988). Howe ve r, re e xam ination is pe rm itte d if “ c ontrolling a uthority ha s m a de a c ontra

ry de c ision of la

w a pplic a ble to suc h issue s.” Id. (quoting K i mball v . C

allahan , 590 F.2d 768, 771-72 (9th C ir. 1979)). W e c onc lude tha

t Shie l ds is suc h a

uthority
. 2Ac c ordingly , re vie wing d e nov o , Unite d

State s v . C he re r , 513 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th C ir. 2008), we c onc l u de that the distric t c ourt e rre d. Having de te rm i ne d tha

t the jury instruc tions we re in e rror, we c annot a ffirm unle ss it is “ c le ar be y ond a re a sona ble doubt tha

t a rationa l jury

would ha ve found the d e fe nda

nt guilty a bse nt the e rror.” Unite d

State s v . Grac idas-Ulibarry , 231 F.3d 1188, 1197 (9th C ir. 2000) (quoting N e de r v . Unite d State

s , 527 U.S. 1, 18 (1999)). W e c o n side r the outc om e of a pre vious tria l in our a sse ssm e nt of pre j udic e , a nd Spa nie r points to the

favora ble ve rdic t in his first tria l a s pe rsua sive
e vide nc e tha

t the instruc t iona l e rror wa s not ha rm le ss. S e e Unite d State s v . Thompson , 37 F.3d 450, 454 (9th C ir. 1994) (re a soning tha t a hung jury in a pre v ious tria l is pe rsua s ive e vide nc e tha t the distric t c ourt’ s e rror a ffe c te d the
ve rdic t in these c ond tria l, whe re the jury c onvic t e d). At Spa

nie r’ s first tria l, the distric t c o urt ga

ve a jury instruc tion on the

duty to disc lose , a

nd the jury

a c quitte d Spanie r on six c ounts a

nd de a dloc ke d on the re st. At Spa nie r’ s subse que nt tria ls, the e vide n c e pre se nte d wa s substa ntia lly the sa m e , y e t the distric t c ourt did not give the instruc tion on the duty to disc lose , a

nd Spa nie r wa s c onvic te d. 2 Ac c ordingly , we are not c onvinc e d tha t the instruc tiona l e rror wa s ha rm le s s

2 The gove rnm e nt a

rgue s tha t the te stim ony

of a ne w c oope ra ting witne ss le d to the diffe re nt re s ult a

t the subse que nt tria ls. B ut, tha t witne ss re p e ate dly

de nie d wrongdoing a

nd ne ve r finge re d Spa

nie r a s a pa rtic ipa nt in a fra udule nt sc he m e . 3be y ond a re a sona b le doubt. The re fore , we find the distric t c ourt c om m itte d
re ve rsible e rror by

not giving the

om ission instruc t ion a

nd va c ate Spanie r’ s
c onvic tions. 2. W e re je c t Spa nie r’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in re fusing to dism iss theindic tm e nt a s tim e -barre d be c a use the July

2016 indic tm e nt wa s not
re turne d within 60 da

y s of the date our m an date issue d in thepre vious a ppe a l. The
ne w indic tm e nt wa s re turne d within 60 da y s of the date the distric t c o urt m a de its pre j udic e de te rm ination. The re fore , re vie wing de nov o , Unite d State s v . Le o Sure C hie f , 438 F.3d 920, 922 (9th C ir. 2006), we c onc lude tha t the tolling provisions of 18 U.S.C . §§ 3288 a

nd 3289 a pplie d, a nd the July

2016 indic tm e nt wa s tim e ly
. Se e 18 U.S.C . §§ 3288, 3289 (pe rm itting the

gove rnm e n t to re t

urn a ne w indic tm e nt within six m

o nths of a dism issa l, or, in the e ve nt of a n a p pe a l, within sixty

da y s of the d ate the dism issa l be c om e s fina l). 3. W e a lso re

je c t Spa nie r’ s c onte ntion tha

t e ve n if the July

2016 indic tm e nt
wa s tim e l y unde r se c t ions 3288 a nd 3289, thegove rnm e nt c ould not re ly on tha t indic tm e nt to toll the

sta tute of lim ita

t ions for theOc tobe r 2016 indic tm e nt be c a use the O c tobe r 2016 indic tm e nt did not “ re late ba c k .” The gove rnm e nt m ay re ly on a prior indic tm e nt to toll cha rge s in a subse que nt indic tm e nt if the subse que nt indic tm e nt is re turne d while the prior indic tm e nt is pe n ding a nd the a lle g ations in
4the s ubse que nt indic tm e nt do not broade n or substa ntia lly am e nd the c h arge s in the prior indic tm e nt. Unite d State s v . Liu , 731 F.3d 982, 996 (9th C ir. 2013). “ The
c e ntra l c onc e rn in de te rm i ning whe the r the c ounts in a supe rse d ing indic tm e nt should betolle d ba s e d on simila r c ounts inc lude d in the e arlie r indic t m e nt is notic e .” Id. at 997. B oth the July

and Oc t obe r 2016 indic tm e nts de s c ribe the sa m e c onspira c y

to de fraud inve stors during the sa m e ge ne ra l tim e fram e . The a ddition of six ove rt
a c ts from July an d August 2011 sim

ply provide a d ditiona l de ta ils re ga rding the
a c tions tha

t Spa n i e r and his c oc onspira

t ors a lle ge d ly

took to pe rpe t

uate the fra

ud. Ac c ordingly , re vie wing d e nov o , Le o Sure

C hie f , 438 F.3d a

t 922, we c o nc lude tha

t the O c tobe r 2016 indic tm e nt did not broade n or substa ntia lly am e nd the c ha

rge s. 4. W e a lso re

je c t Spa nie r’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c o urt a

b use d its disc re tion in dism

i ssing theindic tm e nt without pre judic e a fte r we found a

Spe e dy Tria l Ac t viola

tion. The distric t c ourt c onside re d the re quisitefa c tors in 18 U.S.C
. § 3162(a )(2), and its c o nc l usions a re supporte d by

the re c ord. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in dism issing the indic tm e nt without pre j udic e . Se e Unite d State

s v . Le w is , 611 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th C ir. 2010); Unite d State s v . Me dina , 524 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th C ir. 2008). 5. W e a lso re

je c t Spa nie r’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c o urt e rre d in re fusing
5to give a

jury instruc t ion a

bout withdra

w a l from a c onspira c y . “ A de fe nda

n t is
e ntitle d to jury

instruc tions re fle c ting the the ory of de fe nse a s long a s the y are supporte d by the la

w a nd ha ve som e founda

tion in the

e vide n c e . ” Unite d State

s v . Lothian , 976 F.2d 1257, 1267 (9th C ir. 1992). “ T o withdra w from a c onspira c y

a de fe nda n t m ust e ithe r disa

vow the unla

wful goa l of the c o nspira c y , a ffirm ative ly
a c t to de fe at the purpose of the c onspira c y , or ta ke de finite , de c i sive , a

nd positive ste ps to show tha

t the de fe nda

nt’ s disa ssoc iation from

the c onspira c y

is suffic ie nt.” Id. at 1261 (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd a lte rations omi tte d). W e c onc lude tha t the d istric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it de n ie d the re que s te d jury instruc tion on the

grounds tha

t the re wa s no fa c tua l ba sis for the de fe nse . Se e id. at 1267; Unite d State

s v . Pe rdomo-Espana , 522 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C i r. 2008). 6. W e a lso re

je c t Spa nie r’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c o urt e rre d in re fusing to give a m ultiplec onspira c i e s jury

instruc tion. “ A de fe nda

nt is e ntitle d to a
m ultiplec onspira c ie s instruc tion ‘ whe re the indic tm e nt c h a rge s se ve ra l de fe nda

nts with one ove ra ll c onspira c y , but theproof at tria l indic ate s tha t a jury c ould
re a s ona bly c onc lude tha

t som e of the de fe nda

nts we re only

involve d in sepa

ra te
c onspira c ie s unre lat e d to theove ra ll c onspira c y c ha rge d in theindic t

m e nt.’ ” Unite d State s v . Torre s , 869 F.3d 1089, 1101 (9th C ir. 2017) (quoting Unite d State s v . Anguiano , 873 F.2d 1314, 1317 (9th C ir. 1989)) (e m p ha sis om itte d). “ [A]
6m

ultiplec onspira c ie s instruc tion is gene ra lly de signe d for tria ls involving m ultiple de fe nda n ts e nga ge d in m

ultiplec onspira c ie s, not for tria ls of lonede fe nda nts who
are w orrie d tha

t the jury m ay not a gre e upon thesa m e se t of fa c ts.” Anguiano , 873 F.2d at 1318. R e vie wing denov o , id. at 1317, wec onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt did not
e rr be c a use the gove rnm e n t a lle ge d one c ontinuing c onspira c y in whic h Spa

nie r
use d se ve ra l funding sourc e s, a nd no jury

c ould re a sona

bly c o nc lude that Spa

nie r
wa s only involve d

in a se pa ra te c onspira c y

unre l ate d to theove ra ll c onspira c y
c ha rge d in theindic t

m e nt. 7. W e a lso re

je c t Spa nie r’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c o urt c o m

m itte d struc tura l e rror whe n it a dm onishe d the jurors not to disc uss de libe ra tions with
c ounse l. Struc tura l e rrors inc lude , am ong othe r things, the de nia l of c ounse l of
one ’ s c hoic e , ra c ia l disc rim i nation in gra nd jury se le c tion, a

nd proc e e ding be fore a
c onflic te d or bia s e d judic ia l offic e r. Frost v . Van Boe ning , 757 F.3d 910, 915 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba

nc ), re v e r se d on othe r

grounds by

Gle b e v . Frost , 135 S. C t. 429 (2014). The s e rare ty

pe s of e rrors “ infe c t the e ntire tria l proc e ss” and re nde r it funda m e nta lly unfa i r, re quiring a

utom atic re ve rsa l of the c onvic tion. Se e Pe troc e lli v . Bak

e r , 869 F.3d 710, 732 (9th C ir. 2017) (c ita tion omitte d). R e vie wing denov o , Unite d State s v . W a te rs , 627 F.3d 345, 359 (9th C i r. 2010), we
7c onc lude tha t the distric t

c ourt’ s a dm onition did not rise to the le ve l of struc tura l
e rror. Ea c h pa

rty will be ar its own c o sts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, V A CAT E D and RE M A NDE D.

8