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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. W ILB E R T TSOSIE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-10229

D.C . No. 3:10-c r-08204-NVW -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ne il V. W ake , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

15, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, Distric t Judge
. ** W ilbe rt Tsosie a

ppe a ls his jury

c onvic tion for m

urde ring his girlfrie nd, Lore na M artin, a t the i r hom e on the Nava

jo India n R e se rva t ion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291 a nd a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED
JUN 27 2013 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de s igna tion.1. M otion fora Continuanc e

The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it de nie d Tsosie ’ s m otion for a c ontinua

nc e . Se e Unite d State

s v . Riv e ra-Gue rre r o , 426 F.3d 1130, 1138 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ A distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of a c ontinua nc e is re vie we d for a

n a buse of disc re tion.” ). In re vie wing the de nia l of a c ontinua nc e we we igh four fa c tors: (1)

“ the e xte nt of a

ppe lla n t’ s dilige nc e in his e fforts to re a dy his de fe nse prior to the date se t for he a

ring” ; (2) “ how like ly

it is tha t the ne e d for a

c ontinua nc e c o uld have be e n m e t if the c ontinua

nc e ha d be e n gra

n te d” ; (3) “ the e xte nt to whic h gran ting thec ontinua

n c e would ha

ve inc onve nie nc e d the c ourt a nd the opposing pa rty , inc luding its witne sse s” ; a nd (4) “ the e xte nt to whic h the a ppe lla nt m ight have suffe re d ha

rm a s a re sult of thedistric t c ourt’ s de n ia l.” Id. a t 1138-39 (quotingUnite d State

s v . Fly n t , 756 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th C ir. 1985)). Thre e fa c tors we igh a ga inst Tsosie . First, the ne e d for a c ontinua nc e wa s a dire c t re sult of his lac k of dilige nc e , a s he wa ite d until we e ks be fore the firm tria l date to vie w the Gove rnm e n t’ s e vide nc e . Se c ond, the c ontinua nc e would ha

ve signific antly inc onve nie nc e d the distric t c ourt. Third, it is unc le ar whe the r Tsosie
a c tua lly suffe re d any pre judic e . The re c ord did not indic a te that a DNA a na ly sis of blood, ha ir, a

nd fibe rs on M artin’ s ja c ke t would ha ve provide d a

ny probat ive

2e vide nc e , a

nd a ny pote n tia l pre

j udic e wa s at le a st pa

rtly m itiga te d at tria l whe n Tsosie a dm itte d photos of the ja c ke t a nd e lic ite d te stim ony

a bout the ja c ke t. The de nia l of the c ontinua nc e a l so did not de

prive Tsosie of his
c onstitutiona

l right to pre se n t

a c om ple te de fe nse . Although c rim ina l de fe n da nts have a c onstitutiona

l right to “ a

m e aningful opportunity

to pre se nt a

c om ple te de fe nse ,” Unite d State

s v . Ste v e r , 603 F.3d 747, 755 (9th C ir. 2010) (c i tation
om i tte d), tha

t right is “ subje c t to re a sona ble re s tric tions, suc h a s e vide n tia ry and proc e d ura l rule s,” Mose

s v . Pay ne , 555 F.3d 742, 757 (9th C ir. 2009) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion om itte d). The de nia l of the c ontinua nc e wa s a pe rm issiblee xe rc ise of the distric t c ourt’ s disc re tion to m ana ge its doc ke t. M ore ove r, the DNA a

na l y sis Tsosie

sought wa s not ne c e ssa

rily c ruc ia l to his de fe nse . C

f. Unite d State

s v . Lope z-Alv are z , 970 F.2d 583, 588 (9th C ir. 1992) (stating tha

t the e xc l u sion of e vide nc e ba se d on a va lid a p plic a tion of he a

rsay rule s
m ay none the le ss a

m ount to a c o nstitutiona

l viola tion if the“ e vide nc e [wa s] suffic i e ntly

re lia ble and c ruc ia l to the de fe nse ” ). The probative va lue of the DNA
ana ly sis wa s unknown, a

nd Tsosieargue d a

bout the ja c ke t at

tria l. 2. E xc lusion of B a r km an’s T e stim ony as a Disc ove r y Sanc tion The distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it e xc lude d W e ave r B arkm an’ s te stim ony
re ga rding the W B 1 blood sa

m ple a s a disc o v e ry sa

nc tion. Although R

ule 316(d)(2)(C ) of the Fe de ra l R ule s of C rim ina l Proc e dure sta te s tha t a distric t c ourt
m ay “ prohibit [a

pa rty who fa ils to c om

ply with R ule 16] from

introduc ing the undisc lose d e vide nc e ,” unde r Unite d State s v . Finle y , 301 F.3d, 1000, 1018 (9th C ir. 2002), “ [e ] xc lusion is a n a ppropria te re m e dy for a

disc o ve ry rule viola

tion only whe re the om ission wa s willful a nd m otiva te d by a de sire to obta in a

ta c tic a l
a dva nta ge .” (inte rna l quota

tion m arks, c ita

tion, a nd e m pha sis om itte d ). The re c ord did not de m onstra

te tha t Tsosie ’ s disc ove ry

rule viola

t ion wa s willful a

n d
m otiva t e d by a de sire to obta in a

ta c tic a l a dva

nta g e . The e xc l usion is not reve rsible e rror, howe ve r, be c a use it wa s ha

rm le ss be y ond a re a sona

b le doubt, if tha

t is the a pplic a b le sta nda rd. Se e Unite d State

s v . Boulw are , 384 F.3d 794, 808 (9th C ir. 2004). TheGove rnm e nt’ s c a s e a ga inst Tsosie wa s strong. Pa

rtic ula rly signific ant wa s the te stim ony of Tsosie ’ s ne ighbor that Tsosie c h ange d his shoe s a fte r be ing a c c use d of c a using M artin’ s injurie s. The shoe s Tsosie a lle ge dly ha d be e n we aring we re found, with blood on a t le a st one shoe , outsidethe house the ne xt da y . Othe r e vide nc e a lso supporte d the Gove rnm e nt’ s c a se . Tsosie , on the othe r ha

nd, la c ke d e vide nc e in support of his de fe nse , a nd B arkm an’ s te stim ony

a bout the W B 1 sa

m ple would not ha

ve tippe d the sc a l e s in his fa vor. Eve n a c c e pting B arkm an’ s opinion tha t the se c ond pe rson’ s DNA wa s 4not Tsosie ’ s (whic h the DNA a na ly sis re port did not itse l f sa y ), a ll tha t B arkm an’ s te stim ony would ha ve c onc lusive l y

e sta blishe d wa s the pre s e nc e of som e one e lse in Tsosieand M artin’ s hom e som e tim e be fore the W B 1 sa m ple wa s c o lle c te d,
m ore tha n a y e ar a fte r M artin wa s kille d. B ut the re wa s no dispute tha t othe r pe ople ha d be e n in the hom e be fore an d a fte r the c rim e , inc luding the Ge o rge brothe rs, la

w e nforc e m e n t, a

nd pe ople who c le ane d the house a fte r M artin’ s de a t h. The re wa s no indic ation tha t the se c ond pe rson’ s DNA c am e from blood a s oppose d to c e llula

r m a te ria l suc h a s skin. Tha t the se c ond pe rson’ s DNA wa s de te c te d at the sa m e pla c e a s the blood sa

m ple wa s not shown to be

signific ant. B e c a use we c onc lude tha

t the e rror wa s ha

rm le ss be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt,
e ve n if we a ssum e tha

t the e rror a m ounte d to a

viola tion of Tsosie ’ s c onstitutiona l right to pre se nt a

c om ple te de fe nse , the c onvic tion should be a ffirm e d. Se e Ste v e r , 603 F.3d a

t 757 (“ A viola

tion of theright to pre se nt a de fe nse re quire s re ve rsa l of a guilty ve rdic t unle ss the Gove rnm e nt c onvinc e s us tha t the e rror wa s ha

rm le ss be y ond a re a sona

b le doubt.” ). AFFIRM E D.

5