Court Opinion

ID: 9499755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:56:53.100484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:42.523870
License: Public Domain

McKEOWN, Circuit Judge,
with whom PREGERSON, KOZINSKI, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges, join,
concurring:
All fifteen judges on the en banc court agree on one undisputed fact and on the single reason to remand this case: the district judge did not read all of the pornographic stories admitted into evidence to weigh their probative value against the potential for unfair prejudice. Nothing more needs to be said.
Instead of simply stopping at deciding the case, the majority goes on at length about whether to overrule Guam v. Shymanovitz, 157 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir.1998), which has nothing to do with the failure to review the evidence, and speculates about how the Federal Rules of Evidence might play out on remand. The bulk of the majority’s discourse is dicta. See United States v. Henderson, 961 F.2d 880, 882 (9th Cir.1992) (defining dicta as language that is “unnecessary to [the court’s] holding”). Once the case goes back to the district court, we don’t know how it will be resolved. Maybe there will be a plea. Or, if there is a retrial, we don’t know what evidence the prosecutor will offer or how the district court will rule. Indeed, after this appeal, the prosecution may well reevaluate the need or admissibility of these salacious stories. Nonetheless, the majority offers a far-ranging discourse on Rules 401, 403, and 404, among other matters.
The case can be resolved on a simple principle. I see no reason to go further. Not surprisingly, the breadth of the majority’s opinion prompted Judge Kleinfeld’s thoughtful concurrence, which expresses concerns that I share.