United States v. Paul Richter

Paul Joseph Richter appeals his conviction for felon in possession of a firearm that was rendered by the district court following a bench trial. He contends that there was insufficient evidence that he possessed the firearm and that the district court erred by failing to call for closing arguments from the parties before rendering its guilty verdict. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because there was sufficient evidence to support Richter’s conviction and since he implicitly waived his right to give a closing argument, we affirm his conviction.

Facts and Procedural History

Richter was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The superseding information, issued on August 30, 2013, reads as follows:

In pre-trial proceedings, Richter waived his right to a jury trial.

On the day of trial, the parties did not give opening statements. The government called four witnesses, two of whom are relevant here. Richter’s father, Jack, testified that the gun at issue had been stolen from his son several years earlier and that his son had re-discovered it at a pawnshop. After the sheriffs department retrieved the firearm from the pawnshop, the father…