Opinion ID: 684820
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: alleged misrepresentation by the prosecution

Text: 16 Abedi alleges that the prosecution knew or should have known Selitey was not, in fact, in the Jordanian military at the time of the second trial. He claims that representations to the trial court that Selitey could not leave Jordan because he was in the military are prosecutorial misconduct requiring a new trial. 17 The allegation was raised for the first time in this appeal and therefore is not properly before this court. Contrary to Abedi's argument, it does not qualify under the miscarriage of justice exception of United States v. Kimbal, 896 F.2d 1218 (9th Cir.1990) because it is substantively frivolous. 18 The prosecution did represent to the trial court its belief that Selitey was in the Jordanian military. Other evidence, which the magistrate found credible, suggested that Selitey has never been in the military. The magistrate believed the most likely scenario was that Selitey was faking his supposed induction because he was simply very unwilling to go back to California at that time. In the magistrate's findings, however, there is no suggestion of bad faith on the part of the prosecution. Furthermore, nothing in the case turns on whether Selitey was in the military. As the court below pointed out, it is not of dispositive importance to find that Selitey was, or was not, in the Jordanian army in order to finally determine the issue of unavailability. E.R. 0176. Thus, any misstatement regarding Selitey's status would necessarily have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.