United States v. Byron Prince

MEMORANDUM

Byron Prince appeals from his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the judgment of the district court. In a separate opin ion issued concurrently, we affirm the district court’s ruling that Prince’s prior conviction for attempted robbery in California was a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

I. Extrinsic Evidence

Allowing the jurors to handle a gun and holster introduced during the trial did not constitute the introduction of extrinsic evidence. A jury may carefully examine all evidence presented at trial. See United States v. Rincon, 28 F.3d 921, 926-27 (9th Cir.1994). Even if this was extrinsic evidence, its introduction did not create a reasonable possibility of a different verdict. See Rincon, 28 F.3d at 926 . The evidence against Prince was strong and the defense’s own theory of the case assumed the gun fit into the holster. Further, the government presented uncontro-verted testimony that the gun fit into the holster, and the jury could likely see that the gun and holster fit together. The district court did not err by allowing the…