United States v. Alexander Radford

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Alexander Radford

636 F. App'x 435

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 9, 2016

Docket15-10166

StatusUnpublished

This text of 636 F. App'x 435 (United States v. Alexander Radford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Alexander Radford, 636 F. App'x 435 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Alexander Radford appeals from his judgment of conviction after a jury trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He first contends that the district court should have granted a continuance to enable him *436 to obtain the Social Security records of the government’s principal witness in the hope that they would provide information that could be used for impeachment purposes. It is not disputed that the witness had a learning disability and was receiving Social Security benefits, but the contents of the records are unknown. To establish that the court abused its discretion in denying the continuance request, Radford must show that he was prejudiced by not having the records. United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 316-7 (9th Cir.1995). This he cannot do, because the records’ contents are unknown. What “[mjight have been discovered had a continuance been granted is inadequate to establish prejudice.” See United States v. Hernandez, 608 F.2d 741, 746 (9th Cir.1979).

Radford additionally contends that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the government could not use evidence of his silence to support an inference of guilt. We review de novo whether references to a defendant’s silence at trial violated his Constitutional rights. United States v. Bushyhead, 270 F.3d 905, 911 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm the district court. The only reference to Radford’s silence was the response of an officer, who, when asked about his connection to the case, said that he tried to question Rad-ford about the prior assault, “but he wouldn’t tell me anything.” The court sustained the immediate objection to that comment. There was no need for a jury instruction. As the district court observed, an instruction could have confused the jury. In sustaining the objection, the court had effectively prevented any use of Radford’s silence.

The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

Alexander Radford appeals from his judgment of conviction after a jury trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He first contends that the district court should have granted a continuance to enable him *436 to obtain the Social Security records of the government’s principal witness in the hope that they would provide information that could be used for impeachment purposes. It is not disputed that the witness had a learning disability and was receiving Social Security benefits, but the contents of the records are unknown. To establish that the court abused its discretion in denying the continuance request, Radford must show that he was prejudiced by not having the records. United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 316-7 (9th Cir.1995). This he cannot do, because the records’ contents are unknown. What “[mjight have been discovered had a continuance been granted is inadequate to establish prejudice.” See United States v. Hernandez, 608 F.2d 741, 746 (9th Cir.1979).

Radford additionally contends that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the government could not use evidence of his silence to support an inference of guilt. We review de novo whether references to a defendant’s silence at trial violated his Constitutional rights. United States v. Bushyhead, 270 F.3d 905, 911 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm the district court. The only reference to Radford’s silence was the response of an officer, who, when asked about his connection to the case, said that he tried to question Rad-ford about the prior assault, “but he wouldn’t tell me anything.” The court sustained the immediate objection to that comment. There was no need for a jury instruction. As the district court observed, an instruction could have confused the jury. In sustaining the objection, the court had effectively prevented any use of Radford’s silence.

The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

636 F. App'x 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-alexander-radford-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack