United States v. Agor
24-119
9th Cir.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Omar Agor, Jr., a bank agent, was convicted and sentenced for theft by a bank agent under 18 U.S.C. § 656.
- On appeal, Agor challenged his conviction and sentence, alleging multiple trial errors, including violations of his Sixth Amendment rights and evidentiary rulings.
- Agor specifically contested the district court’s limited courtroom closures, certain witness examinations, and prosecutor’s closing remarks.
- He also challenged the exclusion of exculpatory hearsay statements, the refusal of a requested jury instruction, admission of certain evidence, and the application of sentencing enhancements.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed these claims, applying varying standards of review depending on the nature of the alleged error.
- The conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Trial Right | Courtroom closures violated the Sixth Amendment public trial right | Closures were administrative/technical and did not implicate the right | No violation; closures were permissible and did not breach the public trial right |
| Prosecutor Conduct | Improper witness examination and closing argument constituted plain error | All questioning was proper or invited; remarks weren't prejudicial | No reversible error; strong evidence outweighed any isolated misconduct |
| Excluded Statements/Hearsay | Excluding exculpatory statements violated evidence rules & right to defense | Statements inadmissible as hearsay, unreliable, and cumulative | No abuse of discretion or constitutional error; exclusion was harmless |
| Sentencing Enhancement | Applying firearm/weapon enhancements was improper | Sufficient evidence of weapon possession/connection to offense | No abuse of discretion; enhancement and denial of downward adjustment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ivester, 316 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2003) (public trial right limitations for technical/administrative closures)
- United States v. Alcantara-Castillo, 788 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2015) (plain error standard for combined trial errors)
- United States v. Hegwood, 977 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1992) ("opening the door" doctrine for cross-examination subject matter)
- United States v. Vavages, 151 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 1998) (judicial duty to inquire into basis for witness’s Fifth Amendment privilege)
- United States v. Lynch, 903 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2018) (statement against penal interest must be genuinely adverse to declarant)