T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. P A T R I C K J E D I D Y A L A V E R D U R E , J r ., D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 30035 D . C . N o. 4: 11 -c r- 00 06 0-S E H -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na S a m E . H a ddon, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry4, 2013

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: F IS H E R , G O U L D , an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D e f e nda ntP a tr i c k L a ve r dur e , J r . , w a s c onvi c t e d f ol l ow i ng aj urytr i a l of th r e e c o u n ts o f

s e x u a l ab u s e u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 3 ( o f f e n s e s c o m m itte d w ith in I ndi a n c ountry ) , i nc l udi ng the f ol l ow i ng: a ggr a va t e d s e xua l abus e of ape r s on un der 12 year s of a ge un der 18 U . S . C . § 2 24 1(c) (C ou ntI) ; se xu al abuse of a 

# FI LED FEB 12 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

p e r s o n i n c ap ab l e o f

ap p r a i s i n g th e n a tu r e o f th e c o n d u c tu n d e r§ 2 2 4 2 ( 2 ) ( A) (C ou ntII ); and abu si ve se xu al cont ac tw i th a pers on un der 12 year s of a ge un der § 2 2 4 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( c ) ( C o u n t I I I ) . O n ap p e a l, h e c h a lle n g e s th e a d m is s io n o f o th e r - a c ts e vi de nc e , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s pr ohi bi t i on of anyt e s t i m onyr e l a t e d t o apol y gr aph e x a m in a tio n , th e s u f

f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e s u p p o rtin g C o u n t I I I , a n d h is se nt ence . T he go vernm entconcedes thatL aver du re ’ s c on vi ct i on on C ou ntII w as n o t s u p p o rte d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1291. 1. B e c aus e w e ha ve pr e vi ous l yhe l d tha tF e de r a l R ul e s of E vi de nc e 413 a nd 41 4 are const i tut i on al and d o n otvi ol at e adefe nd ant ’ s due proces s r i gh t s, equal prot ec t i on ri gh t s, or the ri gh tt o a fa i r tri al and the pres um pt i on of i nn ocence, U ni te d State s v . L eM

ay , 2 6 0 F . 3 d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 2 7

– 2 8 , 1 0 3 0

– 3 1 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) , we r e j e c tL a ve r dur e ’ s c ha l l e nge t o thos e rul e s . A nd the r e w a s no abus e of di s c r e t i on r e l a t e d t o R ul e 403 ba l a nc i ng be c aus e , i n a dm i tt i ng the othe r - a c t s e vi de nc e , the d i s tr i c tc o u rts a t i s f

i e d i t s d u tyb yp r o p e r l ya n a l y z i n g e a c h f a c t o rf r o m L eM ay . I d. a t 1 0 2 7

– 2 8 . 2. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otpl ai nl y e rri n p rohi bi t i ng any pol ygraph -r el at ed te s tim o n y . U

n ite d S ta te s v . G o n z a lez -Ap a r ic io , 663 F . 3d 419, 428 ( 9th C i r . 2011) (s t at i ng the st andard for pl ai n err or re vi ew ). L aver du re never al ert ed the di stri ct3

courtt o the theory of r el evance he now advances on appeal . E ven i f there w as error, i tw as no tpl ai n and i tw as harm l es s. Indeed, atar gu m entdefe nse c ou nsel r e pr e s e nt e d tha tL a ve r dur e ’ s t e s t i m onyaboutthe c i r c um s t a nc e s of hi s c onf e s s i on w oul d ha ve be e n e s s e nt i a l l ythe s a m e e ve n i f he ha d be e n a l l ow e d t o r e f e rt o the pol y gr aph. 3 . S uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e s upport s L a ve r dur e ’ s c onvi c t i on on C ountI I I . T a ki ng a ll th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p r o s e c u tio n , a r a t i ona l tr i e rof

f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound hi m gui l tyof

the c ha r ge d of

f e ns e be y ond a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. U

n ite d S ta te s v . N

e v ils , 59 8 F . 3d 11 58 , 11 64 (9th C i r. 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ) . M . S . ’ s t e s t i m onyc oupl e d w i th the t e s t i m onyof othe rvi c t i m s abus e d by L aver du re w hi l e s l ee pi ng al so al l ow s are as on abl e j ury t o con clud e thataf t er L a v e r d u r e ab u s e d M .S ., h e ab u s e d h e rs is te r , w h o w o k e u p a n d b e g a n to c ry . M . S . ’ s t e s t i m onya s ape r c i pi e ntw i tne s s pr ovi de d c orr obor a t i ng e vi de nc e of the c o r p u s de lic ti of the C ou ntII I off ense , and the F B I a gent s’ t es t i m on y w as c o rr o b o r a tin g e v id e n c e o f th e tru s tw o rth in e s s o f

L a v e r d u r e ’s c o n f

e s s io n . U

ni ted Stat es v. L op ez -A lvarez , 97 0 F . 2d 58 3, 59 1– 92 (9th C i r. 19 92 ). 4. I n l i ghtof

the gove rnm e nt ’ s c onc e s s i on tha tL a ve r dur e ’ s c onvi c t i on on C ountI I w a s nots upport e d bys ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , w e va c a t e hi s c onvi c t i on on4

th a tc o u n ta n d r e m a n d f o rr e s e n t e n c i n g . B e c au s e we r e m a n d f o rr e s e n t e n c i n g , we n e e d n o t a d d r e s s L a v e r d u r e ’s c h a lle n g e to h is s e n te n c e . W e A F F I R M L a v e r d u r e ’s c o n v ic tio n o n C o u n ts I a n d I I I , V A C A T E h is c o n v i c t i o n o n Co u n tI I , VA CATE hi s s e nt e nc e a nd R E M A N D f orr e s e nt e nc i ng on C ou nt s I and III .