United States v. Mala Shorty, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25352

Shorty was arrested in 2010 after federal agents found twelve firearms, ammunition, and a gun safe at his home in Flagstaff, Arizona.
He was charged with seven felonies and waived his right to a jury trial, opting for a bench trial.
The district court conducted an oral colloquy before accepting the waiver but did not provide a written waiver.
At trial, Smallcanyon purchased firearms for Shorty and falsely stated she was the actual buyer on Form 4473s at two stores.
ATF later connected the firearms to Shorty after a third transaction and a search of his home.
The district court denied Shorty’s Rule 29 motion; he was convicted on all aiding-and-abetting counts and felon-in-possession counts; the court sentenced him to 33 months and three years of supervised release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury-trial waiver was knowing and intelligent.	Shorty contends the oral waiver was not knowingly intelligent.	Government argues waiver was valid despite lack of written form.	Waiver invalid; requires reversal and remand.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support aiding-and-abetting convictions.	Shorty claims no proof he knew of the need to lie or instructed lies.	Government argues Shorty aided and actively participated.	There was sufficient evidence; retrial permitted on those counts.

United States v. Christensen, 18 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 1994) (necessity of in-depth colloquy when mental state questions arise)
United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 113 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (language barrier requires in-depth colloquy before waiver)
United States v. Cochran, 770 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1985) (colloquy should cover four Cochran facts to ensure knowing waiver)
United States v. Leja, 448 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2006) (prior counsel assurances not controlling; defendant’s ability to understand matter)