United States v. Andrew Hackett

facts that are necessary to make disclosed statements, whether mandatory or

volunteered, not misleading.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 504 (9th

Cir. 1992). By requiring the jury to find that the withheld facts were “necessary to

make other statements true,” the district court’s instruction satisfied Chiarella.

3 4. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting incriminating

text exchanges between Hackett and unindicted co-conspirator Millhouse, nor did it

plainly err by admitting the testimony of an FBI agent to authenticate that exchange.

See United States v. Baker, 58 F.4th 1109, 1124 (9th Cir. 2023) (standards of

review). Testimony from Agent Olmsted, Millhouse giving the phone to Olmsted,

forensic analysis of the phone, and information on the texts themselves established

“a prima facie showing” of the text messages’ authenticity. United States v. Tank,

200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Hackett’s

unpreserved argument that Agent Olmsted lacked personal knowledge of whether

the text messages involved Hackett fails because any error was not obvious or

prejudicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 103(a), (e).

5. The…