United States v. Demauriae Nolan

MEMORANDUM

Demauriae Nolan appeals his jury conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court properly denied Nolan’s mid-trial motion to suppress. In context, his mid-interview statement that “I guess I have to, you know, get a lawyer or something because we’re not coming to an understanding here” was not an unequivocal request for counsel. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459, 462 , 114 S.Ct. 2350 , 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994); see also Anderson v. Terhune, 516 F.3d 781, 788 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1071 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Burket v. Angelone, 208 F.3d 172, 198 (4th Cir.2000)).

The district court did not abuse its broad discretion in permitting the govern ment to introduce portions of Nolan’s post-arrest confession during the rebuttal phase of trial, as the confession tended to counter much of the evidence that Nolan offered in support of his justification defense. See United States v. McCollum, 732 F.2d 1419, 1426 (9th Cir.1984) (“A trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude rebuttal or surrebuttal…