N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. KENNETH LYLE SPANGLE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50559

D.C . No. 8:12-c r-00194-JLS-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Jose phine L. Staton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 1, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , R AW L INSON, and WA TFORD, C i rc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt Ke nne th Ly le Spangle a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s im position of 262 m o nths’ im

prisonm e nt following his c onvic tion for ba nk robbe ry , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2113(a ). For the re a sons tha t follow, wea ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by de ny ing the m otion for a
ne w tria l without holding a n e vide ntia

ry he aring. Unite d

State s v. Sa

y a , 247 F.3d 

# FIL ED SEP 18 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.929, 934 (9th C ir. 2001). Som e fa c tors sugge ste d tha t an e vide ntia ry he aring m ay have be e n wa rra n te d: The juror c onc e de dly lie d to the c ourt on a

se pa ra t e oc c a sion, a

nd the c ha lle nge d re lationship wa s c lose (the juror’ s brothe r) and
re le va nt to thetria l (be c a

use the brothe r worke d with theFB I’ s c a se a ge nt a ssigne d to this c a se ). B ut othe r fa c tors we ighe d a g a i nst a n e vide ntia

ry he aring: The
a lle ge d m isre pre se ntation wa s m a de in re sponse to a n am biguous que stion; the
sam e judge wa s pre s e nt during voir dire and the re fore c ould a sse ss the c re dibility of the juror’ s la

te r e xpla nation tha t he unde rstood theque stion diffe re ntly tha n De fe nda nt’ s la wy e rs inte nde d; a

nd, e ve n ha d the juror disc lose d the re lationship, it like ly would not ha

v e provide d a

ba sis for a for-c a

use dism issa l . Se e id. a

t 935 (listing fa c tors re le va

n t to the de te rm ination whe the r to c onduc t a he a ring). Although a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring would ha

ve be e n pre fe ra

ble , we c annot c onc lude that the c ourt’ s we ighing of the fa c tors wa s a

n a buse of disc re tion. 2. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly he ld tha t De fe nda nt’ s 2004 c onvic tion for
m a iling thre a te ning c om

m unic a tions, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 876(c ),
c a te goric a lly

qua lifie s a s a

" c rim e of viole nc e " unde r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2(a )(1). Se c tion 876(c ) c rim ina liz e s the se nding of " any thre a t to kidna

p a ny pe rson or a

ny thre a t to injurethe pe rson of the a ddre sse e or of a nothe r." B y

its pla in te rm s, a

" thre a t to injurethe pe rson" of anothe r c a te goric a lly c onstitute s the " thre a te ne d use
2of phy sic a l forc e a ga inst thepe rson of a nothe r." U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2(a )(1); se e Unite d State s v. De La Fue nte , 353 F.3d 766, 770–71 (9th C ir. 2003) (holding tha t the " t hre a t to injure " prong of § 876(c ) c a te goric a l ly c onstitute s a

" thre a te ne d use of phy sic a l forc e " for purpose s of 18 U.S.C . § 16(a )). W e re a c h the sa

m e c onc l usion with re spe c t to the se nding of a thre a t to kidna p . The re m a

y be c irc um sta

nc e s in whic h a

kidna pping itse l f c an be
a c c om plishe d by

m e ans othe r tha

n forc e (for e xam

ple , by de c e it). Unite d State s v. She rbondy , 865 F.2d 996, 1009 (9th C ir. 1988). B ut we c onc lude tha t the re is no

" re a l istic proba

bility ," a s distinc t from

a " t he ore tic a l possibility ," Gonz a le s v. Due na s-Alva

re z , 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007), tha t a c om m unic a tion would thre a te n to kidna p a pe rson by

m e a ns othe r tha

n phy sic a l forc e . De fe nda

nt ha s not pointe d to a ny c a se in whic h a

pe rson wa s c onvic te d for se nding a thre a t to kidna

p som e one by

de c e it. Id. 3. The se nte nc e im

p o se d, at the low e nd of the Guide line s ra nge , wa s proc e d ura lly sound a

nd substa ntive ly re a sona b le
. AFFIRM E D.

3Unite d

State s v . Spangle , No. 13-50559 W ATFORD , C irc uit Judge , disse nting: I think thedistric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion by

de c lining to hold a

n e vide ntia ry he a ring. Until a

he aring is he ld, I don’ t think wec an de c i de whe the r the d istric t c o urt prope rly de nie d Ke nne th Spa

ngle ’ s m otion for a

ne w tria l
. None of the re le va

nt fa c ts a re in dispute . During voir dire , de fe nse c o unse l
a ske d one of the prospe c tive jurors, “ Do y ou ha ve any c onta c ts in la

w e nforc e m e nt? ” The prospe c tive juror a n swe re d, “

No, I don’ t.” He wa s e ve n tua lly
se a t e d a nd be c am e a

m e m be r of the jury

tha t c o nvic te d Spa

ngle . Afte r tria l, the gove rnm e nt le a

rne d tha t the juror ha d, at

le a st pote ntia lly , lie d during voir dire
. The juror did have a

“ c onta c t” in la

w e nforc e m e nt—

h is own brothe r. W o rse , the juror’ s brothe r wa s a

n FB I a ge n t who worke d in the sa m e FB I offic e a s the c a se a ge nt prose c uting Spa

ngle ’ s c a se . The c a se a g e n t ha d be e n se a te d at c ounse l’ s ta ble during tria l , a

nd at the outse t of voir dire , one of the prose c utors introduc e d the c a se a ge nt to theprospe c tive jurors by sta ting he r nam e an d m e ntioning tha t she worke d for the FB I. The re c ord is c le ar that

the juror fa lse ly

answe re d a

m at e ria l que stion during voir dire . Le ss c le ar is whe t he r the juror de libe ra te ly

lie d or sim

ply m isunde rstood what it m e ant to ha

ve a “ c onta c t” in la

we nforc e m e n t. If the juror ha d de libe ra te ly lie d, tha t of c ourse would c a ll into que stion his fitne ss to se rve , som e t hing tha t at 

# FIL ED SEP 18 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALSPa ge 2 of 6

the v e ry le a st would ne e d to be e xplore d furthe r a t a n e vide ntia

ry he aring. The
c ourt found no ne e d for a n e vide ntia

ry he aring, howe ve r, be c a

use it c onc l ude d tha

t the j uror’ s fa lse answe r wa s “ an hone st m ista ke .” B ut the c o urt did not ba se tha t
c onc lusion on a

n a sse ssm e nt of the juror’ s c andor a fte r que stioning the juror unde r oath, a s c ourts ty

pic a lly do in the se c irc um sta

nc e s. Se e , e . g. , Pric e v . K

rame r , 200 F.3d 1237, 1254–55 (9th C i r. 2000). The distric t c o urt inste a d re l ie d sole l y on the transc ript of the voir dire and a de fe nse inve stiga

tor’ s re p ort sum

m ariz ing the juror’ s e fforts, during a

post-tria l inte rvie w, to e xpla in his fa lse answe r. Ac c ording to the re p ort, the juror sta t e d tha t he re plie d “ no” whe n a ske d whe the r he ha d a ny c onta c ts in la

w e nforc e m e nt be c a

use he thought the

que s tion a ske d

only if he ha d
any c onta c t s tha

t w ould influenc e his de c ision as a juror . That se e m s like a dubious interpre tation of a fa i rly stra ightforwa

rd que stion, onetha

t a ske d , without qua lific a tion, whe the r the juror ha d any c onta c ts in la

w e nforc e m e nt. W ithout que stioning the

juror in pe rson, I don’ t think the distric t c o urt c ould pe rm issibly

c onc lude tha

t his fa lse answe r during voir direwa s a n “ hone st
m ista ke .” Tha t de te rm ination e sse ntia lly c a lls for a c re dibility

de te rm i nation, whic h is ha

rd to m ake on the ba sis of a c old re c ord e ve n whe n the re ’ s a ve rba tim transc ript of wha

t the witne ss sa id unde r oath in c ourt. Tha t’ s a ll the m ore true whe n, a s he re , a ll we have is a n inve stiga

tor’ s re p ort sum

m ariz ing wha

t the witne ssPa ge 3 of 6

sa id during a

n out-of-c ourt inte rvie w. I would c onc lude tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by

de c lining to hold a n e vide ntia

ry he aring e ve n if we kne w nothing more a bout this juror’ s trustworthine ss. B ut we do know m ore , a nd it re fle c ts poorly on the juror’ s ove ra ll
c re d ibility . On the se c ond da y of tria l, the juror a

rrive d la te , de spite the c ourt’ s stre ssing a

t the outse t how im

porta nt it wa s tha

t a ll jurors a

rrive on tim e . Whe n the
c ourt que stione d the juror a bout why he wa s la te , the juror told the

c ourt tha t his gran dm othe r ha d suffe re d a he a rt atta c k. He re ’ s the re le va n t portion of the i r e xc ha nge : THE C OUR T : All right. Mr. [re da c te d ] , it’ s 9:45. JUR OR : Ye ah. THE C OUR T : And y ou we re late this m orning, right? JUR OR : Ye s, m a ’ am . THE C OUR T : All right. Now, you didn’ t ha ve any m e e tings this m

orning. You don’ t ha

v e any kids to ta ke c are of. Is tha

t a ll c orre c t? JUR OR : Ye ah. Tha t’ s c orre c t. THE C OUR T : Oka

y . So c an y ou just te ll the c ourt why y ou we re late ? JUR OR : B e c a

u se m y grandm othe r ha d a he artPa ge 4 of 6 a tta c k. THE C OUR T : Your gra ndm othe r ha d a

he art atta c k this m orning? JUR OR : I ha d to go with m y da d up to Va

n Nuy s. THE C OUR T : Now, did y ou ha ve the phone num

be r for the c ourtroom ? JUR OR : Ye ah, but I didn’ t ha ve it with m e . THE C OUR T : Oka

y . So tha t ’ s the re a son y ou we re n’ t he re , is tha

t y our gra ndm othe r ha d a he art atta c k? JUR OR : Ye s, m a ’ am . THE C OUR T : Did y ou ta ke he r to the hospita l? JUR OR : No, we m e t with m y a unt a nd unc le up the re . THE C OUR T : Up whe re ? JUR OR : Van Nuy s. THE C OUR T : So y ou drove -- do y ou drive , y o urse lf? JUR OR : W e only -- m e and m

y da d sha re a c ar, so I ha d to drop him

off up the re . It c om e s a s no surprisetha t a ll of this wa s c o m

ple te l y m a de up. The juror
a dm itte d to the de fe nse inve stiga

tor a fte r tria l tha

t he ha d inde e d lie d to thePa ge 5 of 6

c ourt— he wa s la te be c a u s e he ha d se t his a la

rm c loc k for 8:00 p.m
. inste a d of 8:00
a .m . a nd ove rsle pt a s a

re sult. Give n the juror’ s de m o nstra te d willingne ss to lie in
c ourt (a nd sha m e le ssly a t tha

t), I think the

distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by
c re d iting thejuror’ s “ hone st m ista ke ” e xpla n a tion without holding a

n e vide n tia ry he aring a t whic h the juror c o u ld be que s tione d in pe rson. I am aware tha

t t he sta nda rd for granting a ne w tria l on the ba s is of a juror’ s fa lse voir dire re sponse s is a de m anding one , a s it should be . The de fe n da nt m ust show, for our purpose s, tha t the juror ga

ve a fa lse answe r to a

m ate ria l que s tion
and tha t “ a c orre c t re sponse would ha ve provide d a

va lid ba sis for a

c ha lle nge for
c a use .” Mc Donough Pow e r Equipme nt, Inc . v . Gre e nw ood , 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984). It’ s true , a s the gove rnm e nt a sse rts, tha t the juror would not ha

ve be e n subje c t to dism

issa l for c a

use sim ply be c a use his brothe r a

nd the c a se a ge nt worke d toge the r in the sa m e FB I offic e . Ye t , we would ne e d to know m ore a bout the c lose n e ss of the juror’ s re lationship with his brothe r, and pe rha

ps som e thing
a bout the c lose ne s s of the brothe r’ s re l a tionship with the c a se a ge nt, be fore we c ould de t e rm ine whe t

he r the juror wa s subje c t to dism issa l for c a

use . Those are pre c ise ly the sorts of follow-up que s tions de fe nse c ounse l would ha ve a ske d during voir dire ha d the juror give n a truthful re sponse to the que stion, “ Do y ou ha ve anyPa ge 6 of 6

c onta c ts in la

w e nforc e m e nt? ” As the re c ord c urre ntly sta n ds, we sim

ply don’ t know wha

t the juror’ s re sponse s would ha v e be e n, so we c an’ t sa

y , with a ny c onfide nc e , whe t

h e r the juror would or would not ha ve be e n subje c t to dism

issa l for c a use . Tha t’ s why an e vide ntia

ry he aring wa s re quire d be fore the distric t c ourt
c ould de ny

Spangle ’ s ne wtria l m otion. I would va c a te the orde r de ny ing a ne w tria l a

nd re m and for the e v ide ntia ry he aring tha

t should ha

ve be e n he ld in thefirst insta nc e .