United States v. Kenneth Spangle

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Kenneth Lyle Spangle appeals the district court’s imposition of 262 months’ imprisonment following his conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a new trial without holding an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Saya, 247 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir.2001). Some factors suggested that an evidentiary hearing may have been warranted: The juror concededly lied to the court on a separate occasion, and the challenged relationship was close (the juror’s brother) and relevant to the trial (because the brother worked with the FBI’s case agent assigned to this case). But other factors weighed against an evi-dentiary hearing: The alleged misrepresentation was made in response to an ambiguous question; the same judge was present during voir dire and therefore could assess the credibility of the juror’s later explanation that he understood the question differently than Defendant’s lawyers intended; and, even had the juror disclosed the relationship, it likely would *765 not have provided a basis for a for-cause dismissal. See id. at…

dissenting:

I think the district court abused its discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. Until a hearing is held, I don’t think we can decide whether the district court properly denied Kenneth Spangle’s motion for a new trial.

None of the relevant facts are in dispute. During voir dire, defense counsel asked one of the prospective jurors, “Do you have any contacts in law enforcement?” The prospective juror answered, “No, I don’t.” He was eventually seated and became a member of the jury that convicted Spangle. After trial, the government learned that the juror had, at least potentially, lied during voir dire. The juror did have a “contact” in law enforcement — his own brother. Worse, the juror’s brother was an FBI agent who worked in the same FBI office as the case agent prosecuting Spangle’s case. The case agent had been seated at counsel’s table during trial, and at the outset of voir dire, one of the prosecutors introduced the case agent to the prospective jurors by stating her name and mentioning that she worked for the FBI.

The record is clear that the juror falsely answered a material question • during voir dire. Less clear is whether the juror…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

SEP 18 2015

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50559

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 8:12-cr-00194-JLS-

v.

MEMORANDUM*

KENNETH LYLE SPANGLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 1, 2015 Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Kenneth Lyle Spangle appeals the district court’s imposition of

262 months’ imprisonment following his conviction for bank robbery, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a

new trial without holding an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Saya, 247 F.3d

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 929, 934 (9th Cir. 2001). Some factors suggested that an evidentiary hearing may

have been…