United States v. Matilda Jim
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Matilda Jim appeals her conviction and 51-month sentence for assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(a)(3). Jim argues that her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when one of the government’s witnesses referred to the substance of statements made at the scene of the assault by witnesses who did not appear at trial. This testimony, Jim argues, violated her Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against her and her due process right to a trial free from government vouching. Finally, Jim contends that the district court erred in increasing her base offense score by six levels due to the severity of the victim’s injuries. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Jim’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims rely on the same inference from Officer Piel’s testimony. Officer Piel testified that he spoke with witnesses at the scene and included their statements in his police report. Jim claims that this testimony indicated: (1) that Officer Piel interviewed witnesses in addition to the four who testified at trial, and (2) that the additional witnesses named Jim as the aggressor in the fight.