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 a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th 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. HE NR I K J OH AN S E N, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 07- 50094 D . C . N o. C R - 05- 01002- J S L - 01 ME MOR AN DU M *

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. S T A N D B Y P A R T S , I N C ., D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 07- 50095 D . C . N o. C R - 05- 01002- J S L - 02

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J . S pe nc e rL e tt s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng 

# FI LED DE C 23 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he pa ne l una ni m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

*** T he H onor abl e S uz a nne B . C onl on, U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or the N or the rn D i s tr i c tof I l l i noi s , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

- 2- S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r11, 2009 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : HA L L a n d S I L VE R MAN, C i r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d C ON L ON , D i stri ct *** Judg e. H e n r ik J o h a n s e n ( “J o h a n s e n ” ) a n d S ta n d b y P a r ts , I n c . ( “S ta n d b y ” ) tim e ly appe a l f r om a j udgm e ntof

c onvi c t i on, e nt e r e d a f

t e ra f i ve - da y j ury tr i a l , on one c ountof c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tf r a ud i nvol vi ng a i r c r a f

tpa r t s i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 38( a ) ( 3) ( “ C ountO ne ” ) , a nd one c ountof f a l s i f y i ng orc onc e a l i ng a m a t e r i a l f

a c tc o n c e rn i n g a n a i r c r a f tp a r ti n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C . § 3 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( “ Co u n tTw o ” ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i r m. I. T h e la r g e b o d y o f

te s tim o n ia l a n d d o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l, the pr oc e dur a l e ve nt s of the c a s e , a nd the appl i c abl e l a w a r e w e l l know n t o the pa r t i e s . T hus , w e w i l l r e c i t e s uc h i nf or m a t i on onl y a s ne c e s s a ry t o ourdi s pos i t i on o f th e c la im s o f

e rr o rr a is e d in th is ap p e a l.- 3- II. Johansen and S t andb y ( col l ec t i vel y, “ defe nd ant s” ) f i rs tcont end thatthere w a s i ns uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s uppor tthe i rc onvi c t i ons . “ T he r e i s s uf f i c i e nt ev i d en ce t o su p p o rta co n v i ct i o n i f, ‘ v i ew i n g th e ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o st f a vor abl e t o the gove rnm e nt , a ny r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound the es se nt i al el em ent s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ’ ” U ni ted Stat es v. C o ro n a -V

erb era , 509 F . 3d 1105, 1117 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng Jack son v. V ir g in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ) . W e m u s t d r a w a ll r e a s o n ab le in f e r e n c e s in f a vorof the gove rnm e nt , a nd r e s ol ve a ny c onf l i c t s i n the e vi de nc e i n f a vorof the ju ry ’s v e r d ic t. I

d . A p p l y i n g th i s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w , w e r e

j e c td e f e n d a n t s ’ c l a i ms o f i n su ffi ci en cy o f th e ev i d en ce t o su p p o rtth ei r co n v i ct i o n s. A s t o C ou ntT w o, the evi dence pres ent ed attri al w as pl ai nl y s uffi ci entfor a r a tio n a l ju ry to f

in d th a t, a s a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t, th e “a s r e m o v e d ” b o lts s o ld t o A S I w er e not“ new , ” thatdefe nd ant s knew they w er e not“ new , ” a nd that defe nd ant s a ct ed w i th the i nt entt o d ef raud w hen they s ol d the bo l t s a s “ new . ” T hatevi dence i ncl ud ed the fol l ow i ng : do cum ent s s ho w i ng thatS t andb y purchas ed e i ghte ngi ne bol t s i n “ a s r e m ove d” c ondi t i on; t e s t i m ony a nd doc um e nt s s how i ng th a t J o h a n s e n in s p e c te d th e b o lts u p o n r e c e ip t a n d f o u n d s o m e o f

th e m to b e in

“ dam aged” condit i on ; t es t i m on y of a n F A A A vi at i on S af ety I nspect or st at i ng that- 4-

part s s ol d “ as re m ov ed” a re consi dere d t o b e i n “ used” c on di t i on ; t es t i m on y of a dm i tt e d c o- c ons pi r a t orD a ni e l B ooke r( “ B ooke r ” ) tha the w a s a uthor i z e d by the F A A t o i s s ue “ a i rw or thi ne s s c e r t i f i c a t e s ” ( F or m s 8130- 3) f ora i r c r a f tpa r t s , a nd of t e n di d s o f

orpa r t s s ol d by de f

e nda nt s w i thoute ve ri ns pe c t i ng the pa r t s a nd/ or re ce i vi ng re l evanttra ce abi l i ty docum ent at i on ; further t es t i m on y f rom B oo ker adm i tt i ng thathe prov i ded a F orm 81 30 -3 for the bo l t s s ol d t o A S I, ce rt i fy i ng them as “ new ” w i tho uthavi ng been prov i ded the do cum ent s s ho w i ng S t andb y purchas ed them “ as re m ov ed”; adm i ss i on s J oh anse n m ade t o an F B I a gentabou tho w he w as abl e t o obt a i n F or m s 8130- 3 f r om B ooke rc e r t i f

y i ng the pa r t s a s “ ne w ” w i thout B ooke rs e e i ng the pa r t , a nd hi s pr a c t i c e of a nd a l t e r i ng ( ordi r e c t i ng S t a ndby em pl oyee s t o al t er ) s ou rc e docum ent at i on for part s purchas ed i n “ re pai rabl e” or “ as r e m ove d” c ondi t i on, t o r e de s i gna t e the m a s “ ne w ” ; t e s t i m ony f r om the pr e s i de nt of A S I s t a t i ng tha tde f

e nda nt s di d notpr ovi de the s our c e doc um e nt a t i on s how i ng the bol t s w e r e pur c ha s e d by S t a ndby i n “ a s r e m ove d” c ondi t i on, butr a the ra c opy o f th e d o c u m e n t th a t w a s m o d if ie d b y J o h a n s e n to s ta te th a t th e y w e r e “n e w ” ; do cum ent s a nd further t es t i m on y by A S I’ s pre si dentshow i ng thathe re qu es t ed

“ ne w ” bol t s f

orr e s a l e t o a c us t om e r , w i th f ul l tr a c e abi l i ty a nd F or m 8130- 3, a nd tha tthe c us t om e rha d r e turne d the bol t s t o A S I a nd de m a nde d a r e f und be c a us e the b o lts w e r e n o t “n e w .” T h is a n d o th e re v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d w a s s u f f ic ie n t to- 5-

supp ortdefe nd ant s’ conv i ct i on s of f al si fy i ng or conceal i ng a m at er i al fa ct c o n c e rn in g a n a ir c r a f

t p a r t. See 1 8 U. S . C . § 3 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A) A s t o the c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge d i n C ountO ne , the r e w a s a m pl e e vi de nc e of in te r lo c k in g e v e n ts s u f

f ic ie n t to d e m o n s tr a te th a t d e f e n d a n ts a g r e e d w ith B o o k e rto ca rry outthe charged obje ct i ves, and thatthey, B oo ker, or other c o-conspi ra t ors know i ngl y f

a l s i f i e d m a t e r i a l f

a c t s , m a de m a t e r i a l l y f

r a udul e ntr e pr e s e nt a t i ons , or prepare d m at er i al l y f

al se do cum ent s c on ce rni ng ai rc ra ftpart s s ol d t o A S I a nd at le a s t o n e o th e rc u s to m e r , M id w a y T r a d in g C o m p a n y . See W h i te v. U n i ted S ta tes, 39 4 F . 2d 49 , 53 (9th C i r. 19 68 ). M oreover, the j ury c ou l d rea sonabl y i nferthat b o th d e f e n d a n t s a n d Bo o k e r— w h o a d mi tt e d l y s u p p l i e d n u me r o u s f a l s e Fo r ms 8 1 3 0 - 3 f o rp a r ts s o ld b y d e f

e n d a n ts w ith o u t s e e in g th e p a r ts o rtr a c e ab ility doc um e nt a t i on r e qui r e d t o i s s ue va l i d c e r t i f i c a t i ons — kne w the c e r t i f i c a t i ons B o o k e ris s u e d f

o rth e b o lts a n d o th e ra ir c r a f t p a r ts w e r e f

a ls e . T h e ju ry a ls o c o u ld r e a s onabl y i nf

e rde f e nda nt s ’ know l e dge of

the unl a w f

ul obj e c t i ve s of

the c o n s p ir a c y f

r o m B o o k e r ’s te s tim o n y th a t J o h a n s e n th r e a te n e d to r e p o r t B o o k e rto the F A A i f

B ooke rdi d notc ont i nue pr ovi di ng de f e nda nt s w i th f

r a udul e nt ce rt i fi ca t i on s. T hi s a nd other e vi dence pres ent ed attri al w as adequat e t o sho w at l ea stt ac i tagre em entbetw ee n d ef endant s a nd B oo ker t o k no w i ng l y s el l ai rc ra ft pa r t s us i ng m a t e r i a l l y f

a l s e doc um e nt s a nd, thus , a c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tf r a ud- 6-

i nv ol vi ng ai rc ra ftpart s i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 3 8(a) (3). III. D e f e nda nt s ne xtc ont e nd tha tthe y w e r e pr e j udi c e d by the m i s c onduc tof g o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s e s w h o m e t a ju r o rin th e b a ro f a h o te l w h e r e th e y w e r e a ll be i ng hous e d dur i ng tr i a l , a tt e m pt e d t o e nga ge he ri n c onve r s a t i on, of f e r e d t o buy he rdr i nks , a nd m a de a di s pa r a gi ng c om m e ntaboutthe de f e nda nt s . R e l y i ng on M at tox v. U

ni ted Stat es , 1 4 6 U .S . 1 4 0 , 1 5 0 ( 1 8 9 2 ) , R em m erv. U ni ted Stat es , 347 U .S . 2 2 7 , 2 2 9 - 3 0 ( 1 9 5 4 ) , a n d m o r e r e c e n t N in th C ir c u it ju ry ta m p e r in g c a s e s , se e e. g. , U ni ted States v. D utke l , 1 9 2 F .3 d 8 9 3 , 8 9 4 - 9 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) , d e f e n d a n ts a r gue tha tthe e nc ount e ri n the hot e l ba rw a s pr e s um pt i ve l y pr e j udi c i a l , a nd tha tthe g o v e rn m e n t f

a ile d to m a k e a s u f

f ic ie n tly s tr o n g s h o w in g to r e b u t th e p r e s u m p tio n . D e f e n d a n ts f u r th e rc o n te n d th a t b y r e f u s in g to d e c la r e a m is tr ia l b a s e d o n th is in c id e n t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n a n d v io la te d th e irS ix th A m endm entri gh t s t o a fa i r tri al by an i m part i al j ury. W e di sa gree . A ss um i ng w i tho utdeci di ng thatthe M at tox-R em m erpres um pt i on w as tr i gge r e d i n thi s c a s e , the i s s ue i s w he the rthe pr os e c ut i on ha s s how n the r e w a s no r e a s onabl e pos s i bi l i ty tha tthe una uthor i z e d c om m uni c a t i on be tw e e n the g o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s e s a n d th e ju r o rin f lu e n c e d th e v e r d ic t. See Cal i endo v. W ar de n, C al . Me n’s C olony , 365 F . 3d 691, 696 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( c i t i ng D u tke l, 192- 7-

F . 3d a t899) . W e be l i e ve the pr os e c ut i on m e ti t s bur de n i n the c i r c um s t a nc e s of thi s c a s e . T he j ur or ’ s e nc ount e rw i th the gove rnm e ntw i tne s s e s oc c urr e d on the ni ghtof the thi r d da y of

tr i a l , a nd w a s pr om pt l y r e por t e d t o the tr i a l j udge the fol l ow i ng m orni ng , before the j ury r ec on vened for the fourth d ay of tri al . A ft er b e in g q u e s tio n e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a n d c o u n s e l, th e ju r o rw a s im m e d ia te ly re m ov ed for c ause and repl ac ed by an al t ernat e. T he j uror sa i d she had form ed ne ga t i ve i m pr e s s i ons aboutboth the gove rnm e ntw i tne s s e s a nd the de f e nda nt s , a nd tha ts he di d notbe l i e ve s he c oul d be f a i ra nd i m pa r t i a l , buttha ts he ha d not d is c u s s e d th e in c id e n t o rs h a r e d h e rim p r e s s io n s w ith a n y o f th e o th e rju r o r s . T here w as , m oreover, no i nd i ca t i on thatother j urors had been expo se d t o si m i l ar m i s c onduc tby the gove rnm e ntw i tne s s e s , a nd the pr os e c ut ort ook pr om ptc ur a t i ve a c t i on t o pr e ve ntf

ur the rm i s c onduc tby a dm oni s hi ng hi s w i tne s s e s nott o ha ve a ny c o n ta c t w ith ju r o r s . I n th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , w e b e lie v e th e r e w a s n o r e a s o n ab le pos s i bi l i ty tha tthe una uthor i z e d c om m uni c a t i on be tw e e n the gove rnm e nt w i tn esses an d th e j u ro r i n fl u en ced th e v erd i ct . A cco rd i n g l y, w e rej ectd efen d an t s’ c l a i m tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o or de ra m i s tr i a l ba s e d on thi s j ur ori nc i de nt d ep ri v ed th em o f th ei r ri g h t s t o a fai r tri al b efo re an i m p art i al j u ry. I V. F i na l l y , de f

e nda nt s c ont e nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d pl a i n e rr orby- 8-

fai l i n g p ro p erl y t o q u est i o n a j u ro r ab o u th er p ri o r rel at i o n sh i p w i th th e d efen d an t s, a n d th e r e b y d e p r iv e d th e m o f th e irr ig h t to a f

a irtr ia l b e f

o r e a n im p a r tia l ju ry . W e re j ec tthi s c l ai m of error. T he di stri ctcourt ’ s voi r di re m ustbe re as on abl y s uffi ci entt o t es tthe j urors f o rb ia s a n d p a r tia lity . U ni te d State s v . P ay ne , 94 4 F . 2d 14 58 , 14 74 (9th C i r. 19 91 ). T hatst andard w as sa t i sf i ed here. T he di stri ctcourt ’ s voi r di re w as s uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h tha tthe pr os pe c t i ve j ur orha d he a r d of the de f e nda nt s a nd k n e w th e y h a d b e e n c lie n ts o f h e re m p lo y e rin c o n n e c tio n w ith a r e a l e s ta te tr a ns a c t i on, buttha ts he di d notr e c a l l a ny s pe c i f i c de a l i ngs w i th the m . B a s e d on the j uror’ s r es po nses , there w as no i nd i ca t i on of bi as , and thu s no rea son for further i nqui ry a ttha tpoi nt . T he que s t i oni ng w a s a l s o s uf f i c i e ntt o a l e r tde f

e nda nt s t o a ny n e e d to a s k a d d itio n a l q u e s tio n s , y e t d e f e n d a n ts f a ile d to r e q u e s t s u p p le m e n ta l v o ir di r e a nd di d notque s t i on he rthe m s e l ve s — e ve n though the y w e r e i n a uni que pos i t i on t o know the f

a c t s c onc e rni ng a ny r e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n the m s e l ve s a nd the j ur ororhe re m pl oy e r . N ordi d de f e nda nt s obj e c tt o the j ur orbe i ng s e a t e d. D e f e nda nt s s ugge s t , how e ve r , tha tthe j ur or ’ s pot e nt i a l “ bi a s ” w a s not r e ve a l e d unt i l a f

t e rthe j ury ha d c om pl e t e d i t s de l i be r a t i ons , w he n the f or e pe r s on s e nta not e t o the tr i a l j udge , a s ki ng tha tthe j ur or s notbe pol l e d i ndi vi dua l l y about the i rve r di c tbe c a us e “ one of the j ur or s know s the de f e nda nt s . ” U pon r e c e i vi ng- 9-

th is n o te f

r o m th e ju ry , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in te r v ie w e d th e ju r o rab o u t h e rr e la tio n s h ip t o d ef endant s. T he courtthen g ave defe nd ant s a n o pp ortun i ty t o ask addi t i on al que s t i ons , a nd the y di d s o unt i l the y ha d no f ur the rque s t i ons . D e f

e nda nt s c l a i m the court ’ s i nq ui ry w as i nadequ at e, bu tdo no ti dent i fy any a dd i t i on al i ss ue the court s houl d ha ve a ddr e s s e d. D e f e nda nt s ’ c ont e nt i on tha ta ddi t i ona l i nqui ry w oul d ha ve r e ve a l e d gr ounds t o chal l enge the j uror for cause i s l i kew i se base l es s. A l tho ug h the j uror’ s r es po nses t o the court ’ s a nd the part i es ’ qu es t i on s w er e r eport ed as “ i naud i bl e, ” the re cord show s that , af

t eri nt ervi ew i ng the j uror, the defendant s di d n otse ek t o rem ov e her , and d i d n otcl ai m she had gi ven fal se or decept i ve answ er s duri ng vo i r di re or that sh e co u l d n o tb e i m p art i al d u e t o h er p ri o r co n t actw i th d efen d an t s. Iti s al so appa r e ntf

r om the e xc ha nge be tw e e n the di s tr i c tc our ta nd c ouns e l r e ga r di ng the ju r o r ’s r e s p o n s e s th a t s h e h a d o n ly lim ite d p r o f e s s io n a l c o n ta c t w ith d e f e n d a n ts , d id notknow de f

e nda nt s pe r s ona l l y , di d notc om m uni c a t e w i th he re m pl oy e rabout d e f e n d a n ts d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f th e tr ia l, b e lie v e d s h e w a s f a ira n d im p a r tia l, a n d if she had any bi as atal l , i tw as i n favor of defendant s. In addi t i on , the re cord i nd i ca t es thatthe on l y c om m un i ca t i on the j uror had w i th h erfe l l ow j urors abo uther c ont a c t s w i th de f

e nda nt s be f

or e the y r e a c he d the i runa ni m ous ve r di c tw a s w ha ts he s a id in o p e n c o u r t d u r in g v o ird ir e .- 10-

I n s um , w e f

i nd no e rr or— pl a i n orothe rw i s e — i n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s ha ndl i ng of voi rdi r e . N ordoe s the r e c or d r e ve a l a ny bi a s orpa r t i a l i ty on the pa r tof the j ur or i n q uest i on . A cc ordi ng l y, w e r ej ec tdefe nd ant s’ cl ai m thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of the i rm ot i on f

orm i s tr i a l ba s e d on thi s i nc i de ntde pr i ve d the m of the i rr i ghtt o a fai r tri al b efo re an i m p art i al j u ry. V. F or al l the foregoi ng re as on s, the j ud gm entof conv i ct i on as t o eac h d efen d an t , i n cl u d i n g th e sen t en ce i m p o sed , i s AF F I RME D.