443 F. App'x 259
9th Cir.2011Background
- Nolan was convicted in a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- The district court denied Nolan’s mid-trial motion to suppress statements.
- The government admitted portions of Nolan’s post-arrest confession during rebuttal to counter his justification defense.
- The district court excluded various defense evidence on grounds of irrelevance, hearsay, prejudice, time, and juror confusion.
- The district court excluded expert testimony about Nolan’s mental state due to failure to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2 notification requirements.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding no constitutional violation and no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mid-trial request for counsel was unequivocal. | Nolan argues it was a clear request for counsel. | Nolan contends it should be treated as a request for counsel. | Not an unequivocal request; suppression denied. |
| Whether admitting Nolan’s post-arrest confession during rebuttal was proper. | Confession addressed alleged justification for the arrest. | Rebuttal evidence is within the court’s discretion. | Proper under evidentiary discretion. |
| Whether the district court properly excluded defense evidence. | Evidence was probative of the defense and credibility. | Exclusions were warranted for relevance, hearsay, prejudice, or confusion. | Exclusions within the court’s discretion. |
| Whether excluding expert testimony under Rule 12.2 was proper. | Nolan complied; expert needed. | Noncompliance barred expert testimony. | Proper under Rule 12.2(d)(1)(A). |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (unambiguous request for counsel required)
- Anderson v. Terhune, 516 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc addressing counsel request standards)
- Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Burket for counsel request standards)
- Burket v. Angelone, 208 F.3d 172 (4th Cir. 2000) (counsel request standards cited in context)
- United States v. McCollum, 732 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1984) (broad discretion to admit rebuttal/surrebuttal evidence)
- United States v. Wofford, 122 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 1997) (relevance and evidentiary exclusions standards)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (constitutional limits on exclusion of evidence under Rule 403)