United States v. Johnnie T. Warren

Opinion by Judge FARRIS; Concurrence by Judge RYMER.

Johnnie T. Warren appeals his conviction for first degree murder. 18 U.S.C. § 1111 . He argues that the district court erred by employing the blind strike method of jury selection, admitting irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, refusing to submit his theory of defense instruction; and improperly instructing the jury that it could infer malice aforethought through his use of a knife. We affirm.

I.

We summarized the background facts in United States v. Warren, 984 F.2d 325 (9th Cir.1993) (Warren I):

Id. at 327 .

A jury convicted Warren of first degree murder, attempted murder, and assault with a deadly weapon. “The court sentenced Warren to life without parole for the murder *894 of Canady, 20 years for the attempted murder of Watson, and five years for assault with a deadly weapon.” Id. Warren appealed. Holding that the district court responded inadequately to questions from the jury about premeditation and second degree murder, we reversed the conviction for murder, but upheld the convictions and sentences for attempted murder and assault. Id. at 329-31 .

After a second trial on the murder charge, a jury found Warren…

concurring:

While I agree that it was not reversible error to give the permissive inference instruction on malice in this case, I must say that inference instructions in general are a bad idea. There is normally no need for the court to pick out one of several inferences that may be drawn from circumstantial evidence in order for that possible inference to be considered by the jury. Inferences can be argued without benefit of an instruction; indeed, inferences are more appropriately argued by counsel than accentuated by the court. Further, because they are a detour from the law which applies to the case, inference instructions tend to take the focus away from the elements that must be proved. In this way they do a disservice to the goal of clear, concise and comprehensible statements of the law for laypersons on the jury. Balanced inference instructions are also difficult to craft. And, as this case demonstrates, inference instructions create a minefield on appeal. For all these reasons, as a practical matter it seems to me both unnecessary and unwise for inference instructions to be requested, or given.

25 F.3d 890 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnnie T. WARREN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-10384. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 9, 1994. Decided June 7, 1994. Rustam A. Barbee, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Honolulu, HI, for defendant-appellant. Edward H. Kubo, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, HI, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Before: FARRIS, BEEZER, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge FARRIS; Concurrence by Judge RYMER. FARRIS, Circuit Judge: 1 Johnnie T. Warren appeals his conviction for first degree murder. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1111 . He argues that the district court erred by employing the blind strike method of jury selection, admitting irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, refusing to submit his theory of defense instruction, and improperly instructing the jury that it could infer malice aforethought through his use of a knife. We affirm. I. 2 We summarized the background facts in United States v. Warren, 984 F.2d 325 (9th Cir.1993) (Warren I ): 3 On January 5, 1991, 19-year-old Johnnie Warren and a group of his friends were drinking beer at the…