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 * ex cep tas p ro v i d ed b y 9 TH C IR . R. 36- 3.

* * T he H onor abl e M y r on H . B r i ght , S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s C i r c ui tJ udge f orthe E i ghth C i r c ui t , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 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. M A RC M I LLES, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 10119 D . C . N o. 1: 08 -C R -001 62 -H G -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 o rth e D is tr ic t o f

H a w a ii H e l e n G i l l m or , 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 a nua ry12, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia Be f o r e : BR I GH T, H A W K IN S , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. ** A p p el l an tM arc M i l l es ch al l en g es h i s co n v i ct i o n an d sen t en ce o f 1 6 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t a f

te rtr ia l b y ju ry f

o rth e f t o f g o v e rn m e n t f

u n d s a n d c o n s p ir a c yto st ea l go vernm entfund s i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 64 1, 37 1. O n app ea l , M i l l es 

# FI LED JAN 26 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSM i l l e s di d notr e ne w hi s m ot i on f ora c qui tt a l a tthe c l os e of tr i a l a nd 1 th e p a rtie s d is p u te w h e th e rw e r e v ie w h is c la im d e n o v o o rf o rp la in e rr o r . C om par e U ni te d State s v . Cr uz , 554 F . 3d 840, 844 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( r e vi e w i ng s uf f i c i e nc y c ha l l e nge f

orpl a i n e rr orbe c aus e the de f e nda ntdi d notr e ne w m ot i on f o ra c q u itta l) w i th Es qui v e l- O r tega , 48 4 F . 3d at12 25 (r evi ew i ng suff i ci ency c h a lle n g e d e n o v o b e c au s e r e n e w in g m o tio n f o ra c q u itta l w o u ld h a v e b e e n “e m p ty r i tua l ” ) . B e c aus e M i l l e s c a nnotpr e va i l unde rde novo r e vi e w , w e ne e d notr e s ol ve th is d is p u te . 2 c ont e nds ( 1) the e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o pr ove he s pe c i f i c a l l yi nt e nde d a nd c ons pi r e d t o s t e a l gove rnm e ntf unds ; ( 2) the j uryf

a i l e d t o a de qua t e l yc ons i de rthe e v i d e n c e ; a n d ( 3 ) p r e

j u d i c e f r o m p r o s e c u t o r i a l mi s c o n d u c t . W e a f f i rm. I. M i l l e s c ha l l e nge s the s uf f i c i e nc yof

the e vi de nc e , a r gui ng the r e w a s no s h o w in g h e p o s s e s s e d th e r e q u is ite in te n t to s te a l f u n d s , n o rth a t h e c o n s p ir e d to st eal fu n d s. I n r e vi e w i ng the s uf

f i c i e nc yof

the e vi de nc e , thi s c ourte xa m i ne s the evi dence i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the conv i ct i on and asks w hether ara t i on al ju ry c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e d e f

e n d a n t g u iltyb e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. U ni ted State s v . Es qui v e l- O r tega , 484 F . 3d 1221, 1224 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . W e a s s um e the 1 j ury dre w re as on abl e i nfer ence s, re sol ved evi dent i ary c on fl i ct s, and d et erm i ned w itn e s s c r e d ib ilityin m a n n e r s w h ic h s u p p o rt th e v e r d ic t. U ni ted Stat es v. Krano vi ch , 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 1 0 7 , 1 1 1 2 - 1 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) .3

A pp l yi ng thi s s t andard, am pl e e vi dence s up po rt s the j ury’ s ver di ct . K ar l R e y e s , M i l l e s ’ s c oc ons pi r a t or , t e s t i f i e d tha tove rape r i od of s e ve r a l y e a r s he r e c e i ve d gove rnm e ntpa y w i thoutw orki ng the hour s s how n on hi s t i m e c a r ds a nd thathe shar ed on e- hal f of the proceeds w i th M i l l es . R ey es st at ed he gave M i l l es hal f “ [b] ec ause thatw as ou r – thatw as ou r pl an fr om the begi nn i ng . ” O ther w i tness es t es t i fi ed thatM i l l es al t er ed and si gn ed R ey es ’ s t i m e c ar ds and t es t i fi ed th a t th e y n e v e rm e t o rs a w R e y e s d u r in g th e p e r io d s h e s u p p o s e d lyw o rk e d . H a vi ng thor oughl y r e vi e w e d the r e c or d, w e c onc l ude ar a t i ona l j uryc oul d ha ve f o u n d M ille s g u iltyb e y o n d r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. II . M ille s n e x t a r g u e s th a t th e ju ryf a ile d to d is c h a r g e its d u tyb e c au s e it r e tu rn e d av e r d ic t in alittle o v e rth irtym in u te s . T h is a r g u m e n t is w ith o u t m e r it. See U ni te d State s v . A nde rs on , 561 F . 2d 1301, 1303 ( 9th C i r . 1977) ( “ T he r e i s no e s tab lis h e d ru le th a t a n y s p e c if ie d tim e is r e q u ir e d to r e a c h u n a n im ity . D ef endant ’ s argum enti s atw o-edged sw ord. T he j ury m ayhave tho ug htthere w as n o t e v e n as h a d o w o f

d o u b t a s to g u ilt.” ) .W e not e thatatoral ar gu m entthe go vernm entas sure d u s thatre m edi al 2 a c tio n h a s b e e n ta k e n to e n s u r e th a t th e c o n d u c t d e s c r ib e d w ill n o t h ap p e n a g a in in th e tr ia l o f

c a s e s in th e f

e d e r a l c o u rts o f

H a w a ii. 4 II I. M i l l es ar gu es thatprosec ut ori al m i sc on du ctdepri ved h i m a f ai r tri al . T here i s n o d o u b tth e p ro secu t o rs act ed i m p ro p erl y. 2 A f t e ranoon r e c e s s on the f ourth da yof

tr i a l , de f e ns e c ouns e l f

ound a do cum entthatcont ai ned q uest i on s and answ er s f or a gov ernm entw i tness , M r. B e r gm a nn, w ho ha d t e s t i f i e d e a r l i e rtha tm orni ng. D e f e ns e c ouns e l br oughtthe doc um e ntt o the c ourt ’ s a tt e nt i on. T he pr os e c ut or s a dm i tt e d gi vi ng B e r gm a nn a c opy of the doc um e ntappr oxi m a t e l ythi rtym i nut e s be f or e he t e s t i f

i e d. U pon i nq ui ryby the di stri ctcourt , the prosecut ors r es po nd ed thatno other w i tness w as gi ve n as i m i l a rdoc um e nt . D e f e ns e c ouns e l m ove d t o s tr i ke B e r gm a nn’ s t e s t i m ony o r al t ern at i v el y fo r a m i stri al . In fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s o n th i s m o t i o n , d efen se c ouns e l s ugge s t e d tha tha d s he know n of the doc um e nt ’ s e xi s t e nc e , s he w oul d ha ve c r os s - e xa m i ne d B e r gm a nn di f f e r e nt l y . T he di s tr i c tc ourts ugge s t e d r e c a l l i ng B e r g m a n n f

o ra d d itio n a l c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n . D e f e n s e c o u n s e l s ta te d s h e w is h e d to exam i ne B er gm ann abo utthe preparat i on proces s and t o i m peac h h i m . N o further r e q u e s t w a s m a d e f

o ram is tr ia l a n d B e r g m a n n w a s r e c a lle d a n d e x a m in e d .5

T he part i es agre e the un derl yi ng cond uctw as i m prop er , bu tdi sput e w hether M ille s s u f

f e r e d p r e ju d ic e . G e n e r a lly , “p r o s e c u to r ia l m is c o n d u c t in v ite s r e v e r s a l if itap p ea rs m o re p ro b ab le th an n o t th at th e a ll eg ed m isco n d u ct af fe cted th e ju ry ’s verdi ct . ” U

ni te d State s v . Si m tob , 9 0 1 F .2 d 7 9 9 , 8 0 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ; se e U ni ted Stat es v . Say akhom , 186 F . 3d 928, 945 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( hol di ng de f e nda ntdi d not s how tha tthe a l l e ge d c oa c hi ng m a t e r i a l l ya f f e c t e d the out c om e of

the tr i a l a nd s t a t i ng “ [ c ] r os s - e xa m i na t i on a nd a r gum e nta r e the pr i m a ryt ool s f ora ddr e s s i ng i m prop erw i tness coac hi ng ”) . T ho ug h h i gh l y i m prop er , the prosec ut ors’ m i sc on du ctdi d n otdeny M i l l es h is r ig h t to af

a irtr ia l. Se e Sm i th v . P hi l l i ps , 455 U . S . 209, 219 ( 1982) ( “ [ T ] he to u c h s to n e o f

d u e p r o c e s s a n a ly s is in c a s e s o f a lle g e d p r o s e c u to r ia l m is c o n d u c t is th e f a irn e s s o f

th e tr ia l, n o t th e c u lp ab ilityo f th e p r o s e c u to r .” ) . F ir s t, n o th in g in th e r e c o r d s u g g e s ts p r o s e c u to r s p r o v id e d a n yo th e rw itn e s s w ith a“s c r ip t.” I n f a c t, th e p ro secu t o rs d en i ed so d o i n g w h en ask ed b y th e d i stri ctco u rt . S eco n d , d efen se coun se l agre ed t o the re m edy of a dd i t i on al cr oss- exam i nat i on and exam i ned B e r g m a n n r e g a r d in g th e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n h is te s tim o n ya n d th e d o c u m e n t. T hi r d, B e r gm a nn’ s t e s t i m ony l a r ge l yc orr e s ponds w i th as t a t e m e nthe m a de t o the g o v e rn m e n t in 2 0 0 6 . F in a lly , th e r e w a s s ub s ta n tia l e v id e n c e o f M ille s ’s g u ilt6

w ith o u t B e r g m a n n ’s te s tim o n y . W e th u s c o n c lu d e th e p r o s e c u to r s ’ m is c o n d u c t d id n o t p r e ju d ic e M ille s . AF F I RME D.