United States v. Mark Gonzales

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50035
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00547-AJB-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARK LOUIS GONZALES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 9, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
1. Gonzales contends the district court erred by excluding his proposed
expert testimony. Although he offered conflicting rationales for admission of the
testimony below, Gonzales now argues that his expert would have testified that the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 2 of 3
effects of drug addiction or withdrawal tend to make addicts susceptible to
manipulation, supporting his claim that he was “duped” into transporting drugs.
Based on Gonzales’s explanation supporting admission of his expert’s
testimony to the district court, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding
that the evidence was insufficiently probative. See United States v. Amaral, 488
F.2d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 1973). As Gonzales points out, we have previously held
that a district court erred in excluding expert testimony about a defendant’s
diminished perceptive abilities where knowledge was an element of the crime. See
United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1993). But Gonzales failed to
adequately explain to the district court that he sought to put on expert testimony for
a Rahm-type purpose, and the district court was understandably confused by
Gonzales’s statements that the expert would address, among other things, whether
a heroin and methamphetamine addict would “be capable of telling the truth.” The
district court acted within its discretion in excluding the latter testimony.
2. Gonzales argues that he should have been allowed to examine the case
agent about a government memorandum regarding unrelated drug trafficking
incidents in which Mexican drug traffickers hired unwitting couriers through
newspaper ads. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
this evidence would be likely to confuse the issues, mislead the jury, and unduly
Page 3 of 3
delay the trial because the government would then seek to introduce contrary
evidence about drug trafficking operations. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting recordings and
transcripts of telephone conversations between Gonzales and an unidentified
woman. The woman’s statements were offered only to provide context for
Gonzales’s responses, not for the truth of what she said. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
The court made that point clear to the jury by issuing an appropriate limiting
instruction. See United States v. Whitman, 771 F.2d 1348, 1352 (9th Cir. 1985).
AFFIRMED.