United States v. Lewis

798 F.2d 1250, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 36776
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 2, 1986
DocketNo. 85-5045
StatusPublished
Cited by49 cases

This text of 798 F.2d 1250 (United States v. Lewis) 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. Lewis, 798 F.2d 1250, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 36776 (9th Cir. 1986).

Opinion

ORDER

The opinion published at 787 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir.1986) is amended as follows:

On page 1322, first column, second paragraph, the second sentence, “We agree that, a per se rule is inappropriate but recognize that the danger that the jury’s perception of the defendant will be adversely affected by the evidence of the prior crimes is so strong as to create a presumption favoring severance.” is deleted and replaced with,

We agree that a per se rule is inappropriate but recognize that there is “a high risk of undue prejudice whenever, as in this case, joinder of counts allows evidence of other crimes to be introduced in a trial of charges with respect to which the evidence would otherwise be inadmissible.” Daniels, 770 F.2d at 1116. [U.S. v. Daniels, 770 F.2d 1111 (D.C.Cir.1985)].

On page 1323, column two at the end of the partial paragraph at the top of the page that ends “... killing charge.” just before Part III, add a new footnote 6:

In its petition for rehearing, the government claims for the first time that Lewis waived the severance issue by failing to renew his motion to sever at the close of the evidence. Because the government failed to raise this question in its brief or at oral argument, we decline to address it.

Renumber remaining footnotes accordingly.

The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc has been circulated to the full court along with panel's proposed amendments herein contained. No member of the court has called for an en banc vote. The panel has voted to deny the request for rehearing. The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied.

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

Related

United States v. Kielan Franklin
18 F.4th 1105 (Ninth Circuit, 2021)
United States v. Jacob Drummondo-Farias
622 F. App'x 616 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Juan MacIas
789 F.3d 1011 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Curtis Tichenor
593 F. App'x 636 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Jerome Owings
587 F. App'x 376 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Ngo v. Giurbino
651 F.3d 1112 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Bennett
621 F.3d 1131 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Norita
708 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (Northern Mariana Islands, 2010)
Hung Viet Vu v. Richard Kirkland
363 F. App'x 439 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Jacobo Castillo
496 F.3d 947 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Castillo
Ninth Circuit, 2007
United States v. Carlos Javier Lopez
477 F.3d 1110 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Domingo Jacobo Castillo
464 F.3d 988 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Tabish v. State
72 P.3d 584 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2003)
United States v. Juan Garcia-Lopez
309 F.3d 1121 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Flowers v. Rice
20 F. App'x 691 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Sarkisian
197 F.3d 966 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
Lisle v. State
941 P.2d 459 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
798 F.2d 1250, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 36776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lewis-ca9-1986.