Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Son V. TRAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-14
Citations: 706 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 16-30226
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Son V. TRAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 706
Pages: 406–407

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Son V. TRAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30226
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2017 Seattle, Washington
Filed December 14, 2017
Charlene Koski, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Vincent Thomas Lombardi, II, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Brent Aldrich Hart, Attorney, Law Office of Brent Hart, Seattle, WA, Kristen Virginia Murray, Attorney, Hart Jarvis Chang PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Son Tran ("Tran") appeals his conviction on multiple counts of drug distribution and conspiracy, following a nine-day jury trial. He contends the court erred by permitting Detective Brandon James ("James") to testify as both an ex pert and percipient witness without properly instructing the jury how to evaluate such "dual role" testimony. See United States v. Vera, 770 F.3d 1232, 1246 (9th Cir. 2014).
At trial, there was no objection to James's testimony on this basis and no request for a curative instruction; the alleged error is thus reviewed for plain error, and Tran bears the burden of establishing that any error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Even assuming James's testimony impermissibly mixed lay and expert opinions, and that the court erred by not giving the jury a specific instruction on the dual role testimony, Tran cannot establish that the alleged error was prejudicial. There was a plethora of other evidence supporting the convictions, including videos, wiretap recordings, surveillance photos, as well as testimony by both an informant and a co-defendant that largely duplicated the detective's testimony. See United States v. Torralba-Mendia, 784 F.3d 652, 661-62 (9th Cir. 2015). The error did not have a reasonable probability of affecting the outcome of the trial. Id. at 661.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.