United States v. Arlyn Castro

542 F. App'x 599
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 17, 2013
Docket19-71493
StatusUnpublished

This text of 542 F. App'x 599 (United States v. Arlyn Castro) 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. Arlyn Castro, 542 F. App'x 599 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Arlyn Castro, Defendant-Appellant, appeals his jury conviction for abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5), for touching the genitalia of his then-four-year-old daughter, T.C. During the government’s case-in-chief, two doctors were permitted to testify as to their ultimate diagnoses of child sexual abuse. On appeal, Castro argues, inter alia, that the district court erred in allowing this testimony. Because defense counsel failed to object at trial to the admission of this testimony, we review for plain error. United States v. Crawford, 239 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir.2001).

Both parties agree that admission of the doctors’ testimony as to their diagnoses of sexual abuse was plain error, and that we should remand for a new trial. We agree. We have previously held that admission of expert testimony that a child victim was credible was reversible error. United States v. Binder, 769 F.2d 595, 602 (9th Cir.1985), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031, 1035 n. 1 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). Here, the doctors’ testimony as to their diagnoses was tantamount to testifying to the victim’s credibility. Failure to recognize the inadmissibility of such testimony was a clear error, usurping the jury’s factfinding function and seriously affecting the fairness of Castro’s trial. See United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 130 S.Ct. 2159, 2164, 176 L.Ed.2d 1012 (2010).

Because we remand for a new trial, we do not reach Castro’s remaining issues on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

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

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

Related

United States v. Mark Kevin Binder
769 F.2d 595 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)
United States v. Gloria Ann Morales
108 F.3d 1031 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Jane Crawford
239 F.3d 1086 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Marcus
176 L. Ed. 2d 1012 (Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
542 F. App'x 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-arlyn-castro-ca9-2013.