Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD DOUGLAS LATKA, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM*
1. Latka's indictment was sufficient because “it contain[ed] the elements of the charged crime in adequate detail to inform [him] of the charge, and ․ enable[d] him to plead double jeopardy.” See United States v. Morlan, 756 F.2d 1442, 1444 (9th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted).
Further, the indictment wasn't “constructive[ly amended, which] occurs when the defendant is charged with one crime but, in effect, is tried for another crime.” United States v. Mancuso, 718 F.3d 780, 792 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted); see also Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 214–15 (1960) (holding that an indictment for moving sand was impermissibly amended when the conviction was for moving steel); United States v. Choy, 309 F.3d 602, 607–08 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that an indictment for bribing a public official was impermissibly amended when the conviction was for giving money to a private individual).
“The continuous nature of [Latka's offense] prevents the indictment from being duplicitous.” Mancuso, 718 F.3d at 792 (citation omitted). The trial court's unanimity instruction also remedied any possible duplicity. See United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2007).
2. The district court didn't violate Latka's right to confront Ellsworth because the excluded evidence wasn't relevant and the jury had “sufficient information to assess [Ellsworth's] ․ credibility[.]” United States v. Cazares, 788 F.3d 956, 983–84 (9th Cir. 2015).
3. A district court may, for good cause, remove “any jurors who are unable to perform or who are disqualified from performing their duties.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(c)(1); see Williams v. Cavazos, 646 F.3d 626, 652 (9th Cir. 2011), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013). The district court didn't abuse its discretion because it had good cause to remove Juror 9.
4. There being no individual errors, Latka's cumulative error claim fails.
AFFIRMED
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-50044
Decided: August 18, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)