Narrative Opinion Summary
In a recent appellate decision, the court affirmed the conviction and 33-month sentence of the defendant for marijuana importation and possession with intent to distribute. The defendant's appeal raised several issues, including the admission of expert testimony, the grand jury's instruction, and the constitutionality of drug statutes under Apprendi v. New Jersey. The appellate court reviewed the admission of expert testimony for plain error due to the lack of a trial objection, despite a pretrial motion to exclude it, and found no error, as the issue was not preserved for appeal. Furthermore, the court dismissed the defendant's argument regarding improper grand jury instruction, citing established case law upholding its constitutionality. The claim of the indictment's unconstitutionality of drug statutes was also rejected based on prior legal precedents. Additionally, the court denied the defendant's request for an en banc review of two cases. The court's ruling was designated as unpublished and is not to be cited in future cases within the Ninth Circuit, adhering to Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admissibility of Expert Testimonysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court evaluated the admission of expert testimony for plain error, as the defendant did not object during the trial, despite a pretrial motion to exclude.
Reasoning: The appellate court reviewed the admission of Agent Bernard’s expert testimony for plain error due to Duarte's lack of objection at trial, despite her pretrial motion to exclude such testimony.
Constitutionality of Drug Statutessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant's claim that the indictment should be dismissed based on the unconstitutionality of drug statutes under Apprendi was rejected due to prior rulings.
Reasoning: Additionally, she contended that the indictment should have been dismissed because the drug statutes are facially unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey. This assertion was similarly rejected based on prior rulings.
Denial of En Banc Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The request for an en banc hearing was denied, reaffirming the decisions in two relevant cases.
Reasoning: Duarte's request for en banc review of two relevant cases was denied.
Grand Jury Instructionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant's argument that the grand jury was improperly instructed was dismissed based on existing case law that upholds the constitutionality of the instructions.
Reasoning: Duarte also argued that the district court improperly instructed the grand jury, a claim deemed foreclosed by established case law confirming the constitutionality of the instructions in question.
Non-Citability of Unpublished Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is marked unpublished and cannot be cited in future cases within the circuit, according to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The court's disposition is designated as unpublished and is not to be cited in future cases within the circuit, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Preservation of Objections for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court stated that an issue is preserved for appeal only when a definitive ruling on admissibility is made, which did not occur in this case.
Reasoning: It concluded that the district court did not err in admitting the testimony, referencing precedent that indicates failure to object preserves the issue for appeal only when a definitive ruling on admissibility is made.