Opinion ID: 740746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refusal to Strike Testimony

Text: 7 For the purposes of this disposition, we assume without deciding that the district court accurately ruled that the government violated Fed.Rule.Crim P. 16(a)(1)(E). 8 When the court ruled that the government had violated the discovery rule, it offered Cruz-Oaxaca the option of a recess in order to obtain expert testimony of his own. Cruz-Oaxaca twice declined that invitation. The government now contends that any damage that was done by its violation of the rule was sufficiently remedied by the opportunity offered to Cruz-Oaxaca to secure his own expert. 9 Cruz-Oaxaca, on the other hand, argues that the harm he suffered was his lawyer's lack of preparation for the expert testimony and the resulting ineffective cross-examination of that witness. He suggests that he had no obligation to obtain an expert of his own, that further expert testimony would not have properly remedied his suffered harm, and that the only proper remedy was to strike the officer's testimony. 10 To reverse a conviction for a discovery violation, this court must find not only that the district court abused its discretion, but that the error prejudiced the defendant's substantial rights. United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1398 (9th Cir.1993) (as amended); United States v. Michaels, 796 F.2d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir.1986). Moreover, [a] district court has broad discretion to fashion remedies for the violation of its discovery orders. Baker, 10 F.3d at 1398 (quoting United States v. Spillone, 879 F.2d 514, 522 (9th Cir.1989). 11 Cruz-Oaxaca's substantial rights were not impaired by the district court's refusal to strike the officer's testimony. True, he may have been unable to cross-examine the police officer as effectively as if he had known ahead of time the content of the officer's testimony. Nonetheless, he had the opportunity to find an expert who would testify that the quantity of amphetamine he possessed was consistent with personal use. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine that Cruz-Oazaca was not prepared for the possibility that someone would suggest at trial that the amount of amphetamines he possessed indicated an intent to distribute them. He certainly knew that he had been charged with possession with intent to distribute. 12 In light of the opportunities it granted Cruz-Oaxaca to obtain an expert of his own, the district court did not violate the defendant's substantial rights by refusing to strike the police officer's expert testimony. 13 AFFIRMED.