Opinion ID: 677661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: quaill's testimony

Text: 21 Appellants object to our considering Quaill's testimony for any purpose. Quaill's testimony was relevant, in part, to count 3 (a.k.a. Quaill count) which charged the Beltrans with distributing marijuana in December 1988. The jury acquitted Vidal of that charge. The jury was hung with regard to Arturo and the Government subsequently dismissed the charge against Arturo. Thus, appellants argue, Quaill's testimony is not properly considered in order to sustain the counts against them. We disagree. 22 Appellants cite United States v. Seley, 957 F.2d 717 (9th Cir.1992), in support of their position. Seley is inapposite. Unlike this case, Seley involved an issue of collateral estoppel and whether evidence related to charges for which a defendant was acquitted could be used upon retrial. Id. at 720-21 ([W]hen an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.). This case does not involve retrial where the Government is seeking to introduce evidence related to charges for which appellants were acquitted. Appellants cite no other authority in support of their position. 23 We have held that admission of evidence related to counts for which a defendant was not convicted should be reviewed for prejudice. See United States v. Rubio, 727 F.2d 786, 798 (9th Cir.1983) (firearms admitted as evidence on RICO counts for which defendant not convicted constituted minimal prejudice, if any). We find no prejudice here because, even disregarding the Quaill testimony, there is sufficient evidence with which to sustain the appellants' convictions. 24