United States v. Muhammed Tillisy
697 F. App'x 910
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Muhammed Tillisy was convicted of making false representations to a federal agency, aggravated identity theft, impersonating a federal officer, mail fraud, and obtaining confidential phone records by fraud; he appealed his 84‑month sentence.
- The indictment included two sets of counts (counts 1–3 and counts 4–10) involving similar methods of impersonating federal officials to commit fraud, with overlapping physical locations and a six‑month gap between sets.
- Tillisy asserted diminished capacity and necessity defenses, and sought various jury instructions; he also advanced an insanity-related defense supported by expert testimony from Dr. Muscatel.
- The district court admitted Dr. Muscatel’s testimony without an explicit on-record reliability finding under Rule 702/Daubert, but the court excluded Tillisy’s proposed necessity instruction and limited some of his proposed diminished-capacity instructions.
- At sentencing, the court applied a 14‑level increase for intended loss based on the face value of fake judgments and a 2‑level enhancement for sophisticated means.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder of counts | Government: counts are of same or similar character; evidentiary overlap and modus operandi support joinder | Tillisy: counts targeted different victims and elements didn't fully overlap so joinder was prejudicial | Joinder proper under Rule 8(a); physical overlap, modus operandi, and timing supported joinder |
| Diminished‑capacity instructions | Tillisy: requested clarifying instructions for each offense to explain diminished capacity defense | Government: existing instructions sufficiently covered intent and allowed consideration of diminished capacity | No reversible error; overall instructions adequately covered diminished capacity theory |
| Necessity defense admission | Tillisy: believed illegal acts were necessary to avoid imminent harm and sought instruction | Government: evidence failed to satisfy all Perdomo‑Espana elements (no imminent harm, alternatives existed) | District court properly precluded necessity instruction; evidence insufficient under Perdomo‑Espana |
| Expert testimony admissibility (Rule 702/Daubert) | Tillisy: Dr. Muscatel’s testimony should have been excluded absent explicit reliability findings | Government: testimony admissible; no need for separate hearing | Court abused discretion by not making on‑record reliability findings, but error was harmless given overwhelming guilt evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565 (9th Cir.) (joinder/same or similar character analysis)
- United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir.) (treatment of proposed defense instructions and overall adequacy)
- United States v. Perdomo‑Espana, 522 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (four‑part necessity defense standard)
- Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457 (9th Cir.) (Rule 702 gatekeeping and harmless‑error analysis)
- Mukhtar v. Cal. State Univ., Hayward, 299 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.) (requirement that reliability determination be apparent on record)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (Sup. Ct.) (standards for expert admissibility)
- United States v. Augare, 800 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.) (application of sophisticated‑means enhancement)