United States v. Israel Araiza

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50432
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00130-R-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ISRAEL ARAIZA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 1, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Israel Araiza argues that the district court erred in taking a partial verdict.
The taking of a partial verdict is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Ross, 626 F.2d 77, 81 (9th Cir. 1980). The jury had been deliberating for
less than two hours, there was no indication that the jury was deadlocked with
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
respect to any of the counts, and neither party requested a partial verdict–indeed,
defense counsel objected to the taking of the partial verdict. Under these
circumstances, there was insufficient justification to take a partial verdict.
Because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it took
the partial verdict, we need not address Araiza’s other arguments.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2