eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2018-06

United States v. Rafael Parsadanyan ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                             FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 21 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        Nos. 14-50423
15-50004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. No.
v.                                              2:11-cr-00072-RGK-35
RAFAEL PARSADANYAN, AKA Raffi,
AKA Raffo,                                       MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   14-50434
Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No.
2:11-cr-00072-RGK-4
v.
ARMAN SHAROPETROSIAN, AKA
Dzi, AKA Horse,
Defendant-Appellant.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       Nos. 14-50516
15-50173
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. No.
v.                                             2:11-cr-00072-RGK-1
MHER DARBINYAN, AKA Capone,
AKA Caps, AKA Hollywood Mike, AKA
Little Mike, AKA Maher, AKA Mike,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 17, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge,* IKUTA, Circuit Judge, and GETTLEMAN,***
District Judge.
Rafael Parsadanyan, Arman Sharopetrosian, and Mher Darbinyan appeal
their convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
**
This case was submitted to a panel that included Judge Kozinski, who
retired. Following Judge Kozinski’s retirement, Chief Judge Thomas was drawn
by lot to replace Judge Kozinski. Ninth Circuit General Order 3.2.h. Chief Judge
Thomas has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to the oral argument.
***   The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
2
An Allen charge is impermissibly coercive when holdout jurors could
interpret the charge “as directed specifically at them.” United States v. Williams,
    547 F.3d 1187
    , 1205 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Ajiboye,
    961 F.2d 892
    , 894 (9th Cir. 1992)). Here, the holdout juror who sent a signed note to the
district court asking to be excused could reasonably feel targeted by the district
court’s “‘neutral form’ of the Allen charge.”
    Id. (quoting United 
    States v. Steele,
    298 F.3d 906
    , 911 (9th Cir. 2002)). Although the district court could not read the
signature on the note and so did not actually know the holdout juror’s identity, this
fact was not conveyed to the jury; therefore, it did not mitigate the Allen charge’s
coercive effect on the holdout juror. Nor are we aware of any basis for holding
that the coercive effect of an Allen charge in this context depends on whether the
holdout juror was voting for a conviction rather than an acquittal. Because the
holdout juror here self-identified to the court, and the court thereafter gave an Allen
charge, “reversal is necessary.”
    Williams, 547 F.3d at 1207 
    (quoting
    Ajiboye, 961 F.2d at 894
    ); United States v. Sae-Chua,
    725 F.2d 530
    , 531–32 (9th Cir. 1984).
Given our decision, we need not—and do not—reach any other issues
argued by the parties.
REVERSED.
3