Court Opinion

ID: 2964773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:53.351042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:44.714217
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 96-1716
                                   UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                              JOSE I. ARIAS PLACENCIO,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
                   [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                ____________________
            Francisco Serrano-Walker on brief for appellant.
            Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles and Jacabed
       Rodriguez-Coss,  Assistant  United  States  Attorneys,  on  brief  for
       appellee.  
                                ____________________
                                    June 6, 1997
                                ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs  and
            record, we conclude that defendant's contentions of error  do
            not merit a new trial.  
                 The  district court's  acted  within its  discretion  in
            refusing 
                    the 
                        jury's request to hear again the testimony of the
            two main witnesses.   See United States v. Akitoye, 923  F.2d
            221, 226 (1st Cir. 1991).  
                 The district court also  acted within its discretion  in
            refusing 
                    defendant's 
                               late request for an additional instruction
            on ignorance  of the  law, particularly  as the  instructions
            regarding  the elements  of  the offenses,  "knowingly,"  and
            "willfully" adequately  addressed  the issue  of  defendant's
            knowledge of the currency reporting requirement.  See  United
            States v. Vazquez, 53 F.3d 1216, 1221-22 (11th Cir. 1995). 
                 And,  on  de  novo  review,  we  cannot  say  that   the
            prosecutor's inappropriate remark during rebuttal argument so
            affected 
                    the 
                        verdict 
                               as 
                                  to warrant a new trial, considering the
            brevity of the remark, the district court's response, and the
            context of the proceedings as a whole.  See United States  v.
            Procopio, 88 F.3d 21, 32 (1st Cir. 1996). 
                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                                         -2-