United States v. Doren Ward
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6152
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Ward was convicted on multiple counts including two counts of aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).
- Indictments separated former Count VI into two counts for Gerald Glen and Chris Hagler as victims.
- The government introduced testimony about additional victims (Brandts, Bitter, Franklin) to show Ward’s knowledge victims were real people.
- The district court declined to modify jury instructions to name specific victims, prompting defense objections that the instructions could convict for uncharged conduct.
- The jury convicted Ward on Counts VI and VII; on appeal, the panel held the district court constructively amended the indictment by allowing uncharged victims to support the verdict.
- The court reverses and remands for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instructions constructively amended the indictment | Ward argues instructions allowed conviction for uncharged conduct | Ward contends uncharged victims could not support Counts VI–VII | Yes, constructive amendment; reversal warranted |
| Whether Ward preserved the error for review | Ward objected at trial to potential uncharged-conduct conviction | Government contends no preserved Fifth Amendment objection | Objection preserved; review de novo or plain error as applicable; reversal nonetheless |
| Whether admitting testimony about extra victims affected rights | Evidence of additional victims was probative and not prejudicial | Testimony risked overstating the scope of charges | Courts focus on constructiveness; testimony contributed to the problem of uncharged-conduct conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960) (constructive amendment when jury is allowed broader conduct than indicted)
- United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370 (7th Cir. 1991) (grand jury indictment indispensable to charges; amendments require reversal)
- United States v. Von Stoll, 584 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1978) (distinguishes amendment vs. variance)
- United States v. Shipsey, 190 F.3d 1081 (6th Cir. 1999) (omitting indictment terms from jury instructions constructively amends)
- United States v. Hartz, 458 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2006) (verdict form vs. indictment alignment; constructive amendment assessment)
- United States v. Nixon, 694 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2012) (jury deliberation with indictment; plain-error analysis)