United States v. Willie Woodard
697 F. App'x 915
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Willie Gene Woodard was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and eighteen counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
- Woodard represented himself at trial and sought CJA funds for a forensic accountant mid-trial (first trial) and about one month before his second trial.
- The district court denied the funding requests as untimely; both requests came more than two years after the court-extended expert disclosure deadline.
- The government presented substantial evidence that Woodard ran a Ponzi-like scheme, spent victims’ funds on personal expenses, and continued fraud after a co-conspirator’s arrest.
- Woodard argued the accountant was necessary to rebut his theory that he was a victim of a co-conspirator; the district court found no prejudice from denying funds given the strength of the evidence.
- Woodard also challenged portions of the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument (a Biblical analogy and a plea not to "become another victim"). The court held the statements did not undermine trial fairness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying CJA funds for a forensic accountant | Government: Denial proper because requests were untimely and expert not necessary given evidence | Woodard: Needed funds to prepare and present expert testimony to rebut government case and support defense theory | Denial affirmed: requests untimely; no prejudice shown given overwhelming evidence of guilt |
| Whether defendant suffered prejudice from lack of expert under CJA | Government: No prejudice; evidence of guilt overwhelming and defendant didn’t show how expert would help | Woodard: Expert could have challenged financial evidence and supported his victim-of-co-conspirator theory | Held for government: prejudice must be clear and convincing; Woodard failed to show it |
| Whether prosecutor’s Biblical analogy in rebuttal was improper | Government: Argument was a permissible rhetorical flourish, tied to defendant’s use of religion in scheme | Woodard: Analogy and plea to jurors not to “become another victim” were improper and prejudicial | Statements permissible or not plain-error: analogy allowed; plea not prejudicial given strength of case |
| Whether unobjected-to closing remarks warrant reversal under plain-error review | Government: Any impropriety was not so gross as to prejudice defendant and was neutralized by trial context | Woodard: Even without contemporaneous objection, comments affected fundamental fairness | Court applied plain-error standard and found no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pete, 819 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard for CJA expert funding and abuse-of-discretion review)
- United States v. Sanders, 459 F.2d 1001 (9th Cir. 1972) (purpose of CJA to equalize indigent and nonindigent defendants)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Lara, 421 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2005) (requirements for appointing expert under § 3006A)
- United States v. Labansat, 94 F.3d 527 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of expert not prejudicial where evidence of guilt is overwhelming)
- United States v. Chase, 499 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2007) (prejudice must be demonstrated clearly and convincingly)
- United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985) (prosecutorial misconduct reversal standard requires effect on fundamental fairness)
- United States v. Weatherspoon, 410 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (contextual review of prejudicial effect of prosecutor comments)
- United States v. Del Toro-Barboza, 673 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) (trial court discretion in closing argument; standards for reversible impropriety)
- United States v. Navarro, 608 F.3d 529 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards on closing-argument improprieties)
- United States v. Amlani, 111 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 1997) (permissible use of religious references in argument)
- Fields v. Woodford, 309 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (improper prosecutorial appeals to jurors’ sympathy not necessarily reversible)
- United States v. Lester, 749 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1984) (similar holding that broad prosecutorial statements were not sufficiently prejudicial)