United States v. Padilla
639 F.3d 892
9th Cir.2011Background
- Padilla was convicted in a second trial of conspiracy to import marijuana, importation of marijuana, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
- His first trial ended in mistrial; the second trial resulted in conviction.
- Padilla challenged the district court’s Carter instruction at closing, arguing reversal was required; the court gave preliminary Carter admonitions.
- Before trial, Padilla requested a Carter instruction; the court issued a preliminary instruction with the gist of Carter and later reused earlier trial instructions.
- Padilla did not object to the final jury instructions; the issue on appeal is whether the preliminary Carter instruction sufficed and whether a second instruction at the close of evidence was required.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the instructions given were sufficient and the timing did not amount to plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the preliminary Carter instruction sufficient to negate adverse inferences? | Padilla | Padilla | Yes; sufficient to minimize adverse inferences. |
| Did the failure to give a second Carter instruction at the close of evidence constitute plain error? | Padilla | Padilla | No; no plain error given timing and defense’s failure to request. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Castaneda, 94 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.1996) (sufficiency of Carter-style instruction; no error where jury told defendant need not testify.)
- United States v. Soto, 519 F.3d 927 (9th Cir.2008) (harmless error review for Carter instruction timing.)
- Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 (1981) (no-adverse-inference instruction required when properly requested.)
- United States v. Lopez-Alvarez, 970 F.2d 583 (9th Cir.1992) (form of instruction may vary; not required to use exact words.)
- United States v. Ladd, 877 F.2d 1083 (1st Cir.1989) (instruction not to consider defendant’s failure to testify sufficient.)
- United States v. Russo, 796 F.2d 1443 (11th Cir.1986) (instruction prohibiting consideration of non-testimony adequate.)