United States v. Lionel Harris , 587 F. App'x 411 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 10 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10465
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:89-cr-00010-SI-4
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LIONEL SCOTT HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Lionel Scott Harris timely appeals his conviction in absentia. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to give the two
requested jury instructions. See United States v. Chastain, 84 F.3d 321, 323 (9th
Cir. 1996). A district court “has broad discretion” in formulating appropriate jury
instructions. United States v. Hayes, 794 F.2d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1986).
Additionally, a defendant is not entitled to a particularly worded instruction where
the instructions given, when viewed as a whole, adequately and correctly cover the
substance of the requested instruction. United States v. Solomon, 825 F.2d 1292,
1295 (9th Cir. 1987).
In light of the standard credibility instructions given, the court’s refusal to
give the requested Falsus In Uno, Falsus In Omnibus instruction1 was not an abuse
of discretion. See Hayes, 794 F.2d at 1351. Furthermore, it was not plain error to
refuse a no-adverse inference instruction because the jury was instructed that
Harris was presumed innocent and not required to testify, and Harris absconded
during his trial.
Under plain error review, Harris did not identify particularly egregious
statements by the prosecutor that seriously affected the “fairness, integrity or
1
1A Kevin F. O’Malley et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions §
15:06 (6th ed. 2008).
2
public reputation of [his] judicial proceedings.” United States v. Sanchez, 659 F.3d
1252, 1256 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3