Opinion ID: 783023
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasonable Inferences from the Evidence Supported the Defense Theory.

Text: 29 A district court certainly retains the power to preclude closing arguments on defense theories that are not supported by the evidence. 13 That is not what happened here. The physical evidence, expert testimony, testimony from the Government's eyewitnesses, and permissible inference from that evidence all supported the defense theory. 30 Very limited physical evidence existed at the scene. However, defense counsel focused on the one piece of physical evidence highlighted in his opening statement: the shell casing. The shell casing was 114 feet from the cabin. The Government's firearms expert testified that the casing ejected to the right, traveling approximately five to ten feet. Thus, the jury could infer that the shooter fired the gun from the area five to ten feet to the left of where the police found the shell casing. 14 31 The Government's eyewitness testimony also supported the defense theory. Calarruda testified that he was near the location of the shell casing when the gun went off. 15 Meanwhile, Tapaoan testified that Miguel and Jose were forty feet from the cabin, more than sixty feet from the shell casing. This testimony, combined with the physical evidence and the testimony from the Government's firearms expert, alone permits an inference that Calarruda was the gunman. 16 32 Thus, we must disagree with the district court. The evidence supported the defense theory that Calarruda was the gunman. Accordingly, the court should have allowed defense counsel to argue the defense theory in closing. 17 The district court's order to counsel not to argue this theory and its instruction to the jury that no evidence supported it prevented defense counsel from fram[ing] and giv[ing] content to the core of [the] defense. 18 33