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 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. DA MI E N Z E P E DA , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10131 D . C . N o. 2: 08 -c r- 01 32 9-R O S -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

A r i z ona R os l y n O . S i l ve r , C hi e f 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 J ul y 17, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , P A E Z , an d W A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. In a ni ne-c ou nti nd i ctm ent , the go vernm entchar ged D ef endantD am i en Z e p e d a( “Z e p e d a ” ) w ith , in te ra lia , c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i ta s s aul t , a s s aul tw i th a 

# FI LED JAN 18 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he ni ne c ount s i nc l ude d: ( 1) c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i ta s s aul tw i th a 1 da nge r ous w e apon a nd a s s aul tr e s ul t i ng i n s e r i ous bodi l y i nj ury , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § § 1 1 5 3 , 3 7 1 , an d 2 ; (2 ) assau l tresu l t i n g i n seri o u s b o d i l y i n j u ry ag ai n st D al l as P et er s, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 11 53 , 11 3(a) (6) a nd 2; (3) use of a f i r e a rm d u r i n g ac r i me o f v i o l e n c e a s c h a r g e d i n c o u n t2 , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. §§ 92 4(c) (1)( A ) and 2; (4), (6), (8) a ss aul tw i th a dang er ou s w eapo n agai nstD al l as P e t e r s , S t e pha ni e A vi l e s , a nd J a ne D oe , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 1153, 11 3(a) (3), and 2 ; and, (5), (7), (9) use of a f i re arm du ri ng the cr i m es of vi ol ence c h a r g e d in c o u n ts 4 , 6 , a n d 8 , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) a n d 2 . In an op i ni on fi l ed concurrent l y w i th thi s M em orandu m , w e r ever se d 2 Z e p e d a ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s u n d e rc o u n t s 2 th r o u g h 9 o f th e I n d i c tm e n t . He r e , we a d d r e s s o n ly Z e p e d a ’s c o n s p ir a c y c o n v ic tio n , u n d e rc o u n t 1 o f th e I n d ic tm e n t. 2 deadl y w eapo n, and u se of a f i re arm du ri ng a c ri m e of vi ol ence . F ol l ow i ng a j ury 1 tr i a l , he w a s c onvi c t e d of a l l ni ne c ount s . O n appe a l , he a r gue s tha tnum e r ous errors attri al w arrantre vers al of hi s c on spi ra cyconv i ct i on , and thatthere w as in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to c o n v ic t h im o f c o n s p ir a c y b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. W e 2 h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d w e a f f i rm. Z epeda ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n fai l i ng t o g i ve a vol un t ary i nt ox i ca t i on i nstruct i on attri al . W e di sa gree . B ec ause Z epeda nei ther pres ent ed n o r r elied u p o n a v o lu n tary in to x icatio n th eo ry o f d ef en se , th e d istrict co u rt’s fai l u re t o i n stru ctth e j u ry o n th atth eo ry s u a s p o n te w as no tpl ai n err or. See U ni ted State s v . B e ar , 4 3 9 F .3 d 5 6 5 , 5 6 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ; U ni te d State s v . Span , 970 F . 2d 57 3, 57 8 (9th C i r. 19 92 ).3

Z epeda nextar gu es thatthe prosec ut or com m i tt ed m i sc on du ctw hen q u es ti o n in g h is b ro th erM atth ew Z ep ed a ( “M atth ew ”) re g ar d in g M atth ew ’s ob l i gat i on s t o t es t i fytruthful l y pursuantt o h i s pl eaagre em ent , and thatthe di stri ct c ourte rr e d i n de ny i ng Z e pe da ’ s m ot i on f oram i s tr i a l on thi s ba s i s . T he g o v er n m en t co n ce d es th at th e p ro se cu to r’s “p er ju ry ” o b jectio n d u rin g M atth ew ’s te s tim o n y w a s im p r o p e r . A ny error r es ul t i ng fr om thati m prop erobj ec t i on w as harm l es s, ho w ever . F i rs t , the di stri ctcourtgave a prom ptand p ropo rt i on al c u r a tiv e in s tru c tio n . See U ni ted Stat es v. N

ec oechea , 9 8 6 F .2 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 8 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ; U

ni ted Stat es v. P arks , 28 5 F . 3d 11 33 , 11 41 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). S e c ond, M a tthe w ’ s t e s t i m ony f

a vor e d the gove rnm e nta nd i t s di s c r e di t i ng f a vor e d the d ef en se , sin ce th e d ef

en se re li ed h ea v il y o n th e th eo ry th at th e g o v er n m en t’ s w i tne s s e s w e r e l y i ng. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng Z e pe da ’ s m i s tr i a l m ot i on. I n a ddi t i on, the pr os e c ut or ’ s pr e - tr i a l a dm oni t i ons tha tM a tthe w s houl d not c o m m it p e r

ju ry w e r e n o t m is c o n d u c t. M a tth e w ’s c o n te m p o r a n e o u s le tte rto Z e pe dar e ve a l s tha tthe pr os e c ut ordi d notus e c oe r c i ve ori nt i m i da t i ng t a c t i c s , but s o u g h t to a s s u r e M a tth e w ’s a d h e r e n c e to th e c o n d itio n s o f h is p le aa g r e e m e n t. See U ni ted Stat es v. V

avag es , 1 5 1 F .3 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 8 9 - 9 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) .4

Z e pe dane xta r gue s tha tthe pr os e c ut orm i s s t a t e d the e vi de nc e dur i ng c l os i ng ar gu m entand caused the j ury f al se l y t o i nfera c on spi ra t ori al agre em entbetw ee n h im a n d h is b r o th e r s . I t is “n o t m is c o n d u c t f o rth e p r o s e c u to rto a r g u e r e a s o n ab le i nfer ence s bas ed on the re cord. ” U ni ted States v. Y

ou ng er , 398 F . 3d 1179, 1190 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . H ow e ve r , the prosec ut or’ s s t at em entdu ri ng cl osi ng ar gu m entthatZ epeda t ol d h i s brother Je re m y Z epeda (“ Je re m y” ) thatthey w er e goi ng t o “ do som e di rt , ” w hen i n fac t th e r e w a s n o te s tim o n y to th a t e f f e c t, w a s im p r o p e r . N on ethel es s, no prej ud i ci al pl ai n err or re sul t ed i n l i gh tof the am pl e a dd i t i on alevi dence fr om w hi ch the j urors c o u ld h a v e in f

e rr e d ac o n s p ir a to r ia l a g r e e m e n t. Se e U ni te d State s v . Sul l i v an , 522 F . 3d 96 7, 98 2 (9th C i r. 20 08 ); cf . U n i ted S ta tes v. B lu ef

o rd , 312 F . 3d 962, 968- 73 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). Z epeda further a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n fai l i ng t o con du ctan ev id en ti ar y h ea rin g w h en th e p ro se cu to r a lerted h erth at a ju ro r w as as leep . “ A si ng l e j uror’ s s l um ber . . . i s notper s e pl ai n err or. ” U ni te d State s v . O lano , 62 F .3 d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 9 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). Z ep ed a f ailed to d em o n stra te th at th e ju ro r’s i na tt e nt i on “ de pr i ve d hi m of hi s r i ghtt o a n i m pa r t i a l j ury a nd, m or e ge ne r a l l y , t o a fa i r tri al ” bec ause the re cord ref l ec t s thatthe j uror w as as l ee p d uri ng key te s tim o n y th a t in c r im in a te d h im . I d. ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks5

om i tt ed). T he j ur or ’ s i na tt e nt i on the r e f or e , i f a ny thi ng, w a s ha rm f

ul t o the g o v e rn m e n t. A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t p la in ly e rrin f a ilin g to i nv es t i gat e f

urther. F i nal l y, Z epeda ar gu es thati nsuffi ci entevi dence s up po rt ed hi s c on spi ra cy c o n v ic tio n . W e d is a g r e e . Z e p e d ate s tif ie d th a t h e w a n te d to h a v e h is b r o th e r s w ith hi m on the ni ghtof

the c r i m e ; J e r e m y t e s t i f i e d tha tZ e pe daw a s c a rry i ng aha ndgun and a sa w ed off s ho t gu n, and that“ they w er e s up po se d t o g i ve m e the shot gu n”; J e r e m y te s tif

ie d th a t h e s a w Z e p e d ah a n d M a tth e w th e s h o tg u n b e f o r e w a lk in g to th e d o o ro f

th e v ic tim s ’ h o u s e ; a n d , M a tth e w te s tif ie d th a t Z e p e d ain s tru c te d h im o n h o w to lo a d th e s h o tg u n , a n d to ld h im to f ir e as h o t if

s o m e th in g h ap p e n e d . D r a w i ng a l l i nf

e r e nc e s i n the gove rnm e nt ’ s f a vor , ar e a s onabl e j ur orc oul d ha ve i nf e rr e d ac ons pi r a t or i a l a gr e e m e ntf r om the s e f

a c t s , a nd f

ound Z e pe dagui l ty of c o n s p ir a c y b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. See U ni te d State s v . Es qui v e l

- O r tega , 484 F .3 d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ; s e e a ls o J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 443 U . S . 307, 319 ( 1979) ( not i ng tha ti ti s “ the r e s pons i bi l i ty of the tr i e rof

f a c tf a i r l y t o r e s ol ve c o n f lic ts in th e te s tim o n y , to w e ig h th e e v id e n c e , a n d to d r a w r e a s o n ab le in f e r e n c e s f r o m b a s ic f

a c ts to u ltim a te f

a c ts ” ) ; U n ite d Sta te s v . Sa n c h ez -M

a ta , 925 F . 2d 11 66 , 11 67 (9th C i r. 19 91 ) ( st at i ng that“ on l y asl i gh tconn ec t i on i s nec es sary t o sup po rta c on vi ct i on of kn ow i ng part i ci pat i on ” i n a conspi ra cy ).6

W e de c l i ne t o r e vi e w Z e pe da ’ s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m on d ir e c t ap p e a l b e c au s e th e r e c o r d is in s u f f ic ie n tly d e v e lo p e d . See U ni ted Stat es v. McKe nna , 32 7 F . 3d 83 0, 84 5 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). I n lig h t o f

o u rc o n c lu s io n s , c u m u la tiv e e rr o rd o e s n o t w a rr a n t r e v e r s a l. See N ec oechea , 986 F . 2d a t1282. AF F I R ME D.