United States Ninth Circuit

Defendant's conviction of importation of methamphetamine is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not violate Miranda by admitting the defendant's post-arrest statement that he feared for his family's safety, where the statement, an explanation for why he refused to talk to the arresting agent, was voluntary and arguably inconsistent with his trial testimony, and where the prosecution used the statement only as impeachment during rebuttal; 2) the district court did not err in admitting a special agent's expert testimony that drug trafficking organizations do not use unknowing drug couriers; and 3) the prosecutor's statement during closing argument that it was the jury’s "duty" to say the defendant is guilty did not amount to error, where that statement came immediately after the prosecutor's statement that the government has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/06/2013
• Published 08/06/2013

Judges

• GRABER

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel