United States v. Terry Christensen

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Chief District Judge CHRISTENSEN

ORDER

The opinion filed August 25, 2015 is hereby amended as follows: The last paragraph on page 41 through the last paragraph on page 43 of the slip opinion should be removed and replaced with the following:

With this amendment, the petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc filed by Appellant Kevin Kachikian on November 12, 2015 is DENIED. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. Kachikian may file a new petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc from the amended opinion.

The petitions for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc filed by Appellants Terry Christensen and Mark Arneson on November 13, 2015 are DENIED. The full court has been advised of Christensen and Arneson’s petitions for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained from either Christensen or Arneson.

Appellant Terry…

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 806-15. The district court *825 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…

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.…