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. ANTONIO NIC HOLAS SM ITH,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10127

D.C . No. 2:16-c r-00090-JAM -2

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 19, 2018 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS a n d HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s , a

nd EATON, * * Judge

. Appe lla nt Antonio Sm ith a

ppe a ls his co n v i c tion for fe lon in posse ssion of a fire a rm . W e ha ve jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm

. 

# F IL ED
NOV 07 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iate for public a tion 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.

* * Ri ch ar d K

. Eat o n , J u d g e o f t h e U n i te d Sta te s C o urt of Inte rna tio n al Tra de , sitting by

de signa tion.The re wa s no m isc onduc t during Offic e r M o ra le s’ s te stim o ny . M ora le s would

not a c k nowle dge tha t a pa

rtic ula r polic e re port wa s his, b u t the c onfusion a rose be c a use M ora l e s wa s pre se n te d with thre e diffe re nt ve rs i o n s of the re port. The pre j udic i a l sta

te m e nts to whic h Sm ith obje c ts— re fe re nc ing a ga

n g e nha nc e m e nt a

n d

e xpla ining M o ra le s’ s re a son for c onc e rn a fte r running the ve hic le pla te s

— we re m a de in pa ssing, re sponsive t o o pe n-e nde d ques t i o n s , a nd not e m pha siz e d by the gove rnm e nt i n a ny wa y . Thus, the re wa s no “ d e libe ra te de c e ption of the c ourt by the pre s e nta tion of fa lse e vide n c e ,” Unite d S tate s v . Endic o t t , 8 69 F.2d 452, 455 (9th C ir. 1989), or inte ntiona l e lic ita t ion of forbidde n m a t e ria l. The gove rnm e nt c o n c e de s tha t it m a de a m issta te m e nt during c l osing a rgum e nts by re fe re nc ing a n a lte rc a t ion not in the re c ord. H owe v e r, this wa s a n isola te d se nte nc e tha t w a s pa

rt of a la rge r hy pothe tic a l foc use d on Sm ith’ s flight f r om the sc e ne ; de fe nse c ounse l prom

ptly obje c te d a nd the co u r t s u s ta ine d the obje c t ion, i nstruc ting the j ury to disre ga

rd it. Any

e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. The distric t c ourt did n ot a buse its d isc re t ion b y d e n ying Sm i th’ s re que st for disc ove ry of a n inte rna l i n v es t i g at i on of M ora le s in a d iffe re nt c a se . W e ha ve
re vie we d the se a le d m a te ria ls provide d by t he gove rnm e n t, U

nite d State

s v . Stre it , 962

2F.2d 894, 900 (9th C ir. 1982 ) , a nd find no B rady 1 or Giglio 2 m a te ria l i n the re port. 3

The e ntire inc ide nt w a s d i ssim ila r from Sm ith’s cas e, a s it i nvolve d a foot c ha se , a n

a c tive c a rja c k ing with a vic tim inside , a nd the use of le tha l forc e . Sim i la rly , Sm ith’ s Co n f r o n ta tion C la

use rights w e re n ot viola

te d by the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision not t o

a llow Sm ith to que stion M ora le s a bout a c a se ha ving little re l e va

n c e to Sm ith’ s c a se

a nd whic h would ha ve c re a te d a ri s k of undue de la y a nd a tria l within a tria l. Sm ith

a lso h a d a m

ple opportunit

y t o cr oss-e xa m ine M ora le s a bout his re c olle c tion of the

e ve nts surroundi n g S m i t h’ s a rre st. Unite d State s v . C azare s , 788 F.3d 956, 983-84 (9th C ir. 2015). Nor wa s the re a n a

buse of its disc re tion i n e xc l uding Sm ith’ s propose d e xpe rt

on flight. Unite d S

t ate s v . Laurie nti , 611 F.3d 530, 547 (9th C ir. 2010). W e inte rpre t the c ou r t ’s o rde r a s (1) the disc re tiona ry de nia l of the m otion to a l low the te stim ony

a s untim e ly a n d ( 2) a se pa ra te ruling e x c luding the e xpe rt. T h e e xpe rt’ s proffe re d
te stim ony wa s ge ne ra l a nd spe c ulat i ve; she ha d no e x pe rie nc e with or opinion o n S m i th spe c ific a lly

. M ore ove r, e ve n if the re we re e rror, it w a s ha rm le s s, a s de fe nse

1 Brady v . Mary l

and , 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
2 Giglio v . Unite d State

s , 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
3 T he M otion to Subm it a Se a le d Doc u m en t U n d er Se a l a n d Ex Pa rte [Dkt. #41] is gra

nte d. 3c ounse l wa s pe rm itte d to a rgue e xte nsive l y t o t h e jury tha t t he re we re othe r re a sons for Sm ith to fle e be side s guilt, a nd t he jury wa s a lso prope rly instruc te d on the issue

. The distric t c ourt did n ot a buse i ts disc re tion b y pe rm itting te stim ony a bout the

na ture a nd c ha

ra c te ristic s of the we a

pon found in t

he ba g. Although t

he gove rnm e nt

a tte m pte d to que stion the e x pe rt a bout this irre le va

nt i nform a tion, e a c h t im e it trie d, the de fe n se obje c te d a n d the c our t s u sta ine d the obje c tion. C f. Gre e r v . Mille r , 483 U.S. 756, 766-67 (1987) (da nge r of pre

judic e from prose c utor’s i m p r ope r que stion

a m e liora te d by im m e d ia t e obje c tion a

nd c ura tive instruc tions). Eve n c onside re d c um

ulative l y , a ny e rrors we re not suffic ie ntly pre j udic ia l so

a s to re quire re v e rsa l

. S

ee U n it ed St ate

s v . Be rry , 6 27 F.2d 193, 2 00–01 (9th C ir. 1980). AFFIRM E D.

4