United States v. Ernest P. Lampert

983 F.2d 1079 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest P. LAMPERT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-10395. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 15, 1992. * Decided Dec. 18, 1992. Before GOODWIN, O'SCANNLAIN and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Lampert appeals his conviction for mail fraud on the ground that the district judge improperly referred to Lampert's failure to testify and thereby infringed his constitutional right to remain silent. We affirm. 3 The district judge's comment came in the course of an evidentiary ruling. On direct examination by defense counsel, Montie Day testified that he informed Lampert that the Internal Revenue Service could impose an assessment on Lampert's corporation. Defense counsel then sought to elicit from Day the reaction of Lampert: 4 Defense counsel: Do you know what Mr. Lampert did after that meeting? 5 Prosecutor: Objection to this as hearsay. 6…