639 F.3d 892
9th Cir.2011Background
- Padilla was charged with conspiracy to import marijuana, importation of marijuana, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana; first trial ended in mistrial, second trial resulted in conviction.
- Padilla's counsel requested a Carter instruction; the district court gave a preliminary Carter admonition, then the final instructions followed the prior trial’s wording.
- The court reiterated the defendant has no burden to testify and the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- At the end of the trial, the court stated it would use the same instructions as the first trial with some substitutions and additions, and defense did not object to the final instructions.
- Padilla appeals asserting the district court failed to give a Carter admonition at the close of evidence, arguing reversal is required; appellate panel denies relief but considers sufficiency and timing of Carter instruction.
- The panel amends its order denying rehearing; the court ultimately affirms the conviction and denies petitions for rehearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the preliminary Carter instruction was sufficient under Carter | Padilla asserts the preliminary instruction was not sufficient | Padilla argues the court should have given a separate Carter instruction at close of evidence | Preliminary instruction sufficient; no need for duplicate instruction |
| Whether the failure to issue a second Carter instruction at trial end constitutes plain error | Padilla contends failure to give second Carter instruction at close of evidence was plain error | No reversible error; timing acceptable given circumstances | Not plain error; timing acceptable and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1981) (no-adverse-inference instruction required when properly requested)
- Castaneda v. United States, 94 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 1996) (instruction sufficiency to convey no inference from failure to testify)
- Soto v. United States, 519 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2008) (harmless error analysis for Carter instruction timing)
- Lopez-Alvarez v. United States, 970 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1992) (courts may choose form of instruction; no required exact phrasing)
- Ladd v. United States, 877 F.2d 1083 (1st Cir. 1989) (no need for identical words; must inform jurors not to draw adverse inferences)
- Russo v. United States, 796 F.2d 1443 (11th Cir. 1986) (instruction should prohibit considering defendant's non-testimony)