United States v. Paul Tanaka
707 F. App'x 448
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant former Undersheriff Tanaka was convicted of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503(a) and 371 and appealed those convictions.
- At trial Tanaka testified about his commitment to lawfulness and lack of tolerance for deputy misconduct, which opened the door to impeachment on credibility.
- On cross-examination the government introduced evidence and questioning about Tanaka’s alleged affiliation with a deputy clique called the “Vikings.”
- The district court instructed the jury to consider Vikings-related testimony only for intent and credibility. The prosecutor mistakenly referred to a “deputy gang” in closing.
- Tanaka also challenged admission of evidence about historic civil-rights abuses in L.A. County jails, denial of a subpoena for Sheriff Baca (to contradict an immunized witness), and certain jury instructions.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions, rejecting Tanaka’s challenges as waived, non-prejudicial, or foreclosed by precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Vikings evidence | Vikings evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under FRE 403 | Evidence was proper impeachment of Tanaka’s credibility after he vouched for his integrity | Admission was permissible; credibility opened the door; prosecutor’s “deputy gang” phrasing was error but not plain error |
| Admission of historic jail civil-rights evidence | Evidence prejudiced jury; denied fair trial | No contemporaneous objection; no showing of substantial rights affected | No plain error; claim fails |
| Denial of subpoena for Sheriff Baca (to contradict immunized witness) | Baca would have directly contradicted immunized witness and affected fairness | Tanaka failed to show direct contradiction or that denial distorted factfinding | Denial did not deprive Tanaka of a fair trial |
| Jury instructions (dual-purpose, public-authority, obstruction) | Instructions were improper and prejudicial | Instructions mirror those upheld in controlling Ninth Circuit precedent | Instructions were proper; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148 (1958) (opening-the-door doctrine for impeachment after a witness’s direct testimony)
- United States v. Mendoza-Prado, 314 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2002) (impeachment scope after witness testimony)
- United States v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2006) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)
- United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard requires effect on substantial rights)
- United States v. Straub, 538 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008) (standards for use of immunized-witness testimony and confrontation)
- United States v. Smith, 831 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2016) (upholding similar dual-purpose and related jury instructions)