United States v. Juan Diaz

MEMORANDUM

1. The district court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying Diaz’s request for new counsel. The district court pressed Diaz to explain his reasons for changing counsel, even though his request came on the eve of trial, see United States v. Franklin, 321 F.3d 1231, 1238-39 (9th Cir.2003), and there was no evidence of intractable conflict between Diaz and his lawyer, see United States v. Adelzo-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 772, 779-780 (9th Cir.2001).

2. Because David Navarro used knowledge gained from firsthand experience to decode the Black Angels’ conversations, he properly testified as a lay witness. See United States v. Gadson, 763 F.3d 1189, 1209-10 (9th Cir.2014).

3. Viewed cumulatively, the alleged hearsay statements were harmless. Taped conversations between Diaz and then-kingpin Juan Gil established that Diaz was a Black Angels member with significant responsibility. And Navarro’s testimony directly connected Diaz to drug sales, assaults and stabbings and the collection of extortion payments. Excluding the hearsay statements might have meant excluding a single murder or drug sale, but other testimony indisputably connected Diaz to the Black Angels’ criminal…