United States v. Terry Christensen

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-50531 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046-

DSF-

TERRY CHRISTENSEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-50570 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046-

DSF-

ANTHONY PELLICANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50115 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046-

DSF-

MARK ARNESON,

Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50125 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046-

DSF-

RAYFORD EARL TURNER, AKA

Seal B, Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50128 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046-

DSF-

ABNER NICHERIE,

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50159 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046-

DSF-

KEVIN KACHIKIAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES V. CHRISTENSEN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50434 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C.…

Six defendants appeal their criminal convictions stemming from a widespread criminal enterprise offering illegal private investigation services in Southern California. *981 At the center of this criminal enterprise was Pellicano Investigative Agency, known as PIA. Defendant Anthony Pellicano operated PIA, ostensibly as a legitimate private investigation agency. But many of PIA’s investigation methods were, in fact, illegal. Pellicano bribed Los Angeles area police officers, such as Defendant Mark Arneson, for access to confidential law enforcement databases. He orchestrated wiretaps on investigative targets so he could overhear their conversations with friends, family, medical professionals, and legal counsel. He paid a telephone company employee, Defendant Rayford Turner, for the confidential technical information he needed for the wiretaps, and hired a software developer, Defendant Kevin Ka-chikian, to create custom software to record the conversations Pellicano overheard. At the height of PIA’s success, scores' of people retained PIA for its often illegal services. Most pertinent to this case, Defendant Terry Christensen, an attorney, hired PIA to assist in litigation…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Although I concur in most of the majority opinion, I dissent from the portion of the majority opinion affirming the dismissal of Juror 7 in the second trial involving defendants Christensen and Pellicano. Majority op. at 1010-19. The district court erred by dismissing Juror 7 based on a determination that Juror 7 was not credible and had lied to the court on an unrelated issue concerning his views on federal tax laws.

Shortly after one hour of deliberations following a 21-day trial, the district court received a confusing note in the handwriting of at least two, and perhaps three of the jurors, which led the court into protracted and tangential interviews of first, Juror 7, followed by interviews of Jurors 1 (the foreperson), 9, 3, 2, and 11, focused on the issue of whether Juror 7 had lied to the district court. At no point during the interview with Juror 7 did the court ask what would have been the most appropriate question, which was whether he could follow the law as instructed by the court. I would reverse because Juror 7’s statements regarding his views on the evidence demonstrate “a reasonable possibility that the impetus for…