United States v. Cesar Gonzalez-Garcia

MEMORANDUM

1. We view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the prosecution” and then ask whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Even if the evidence Gonzalez introduced supported the inference that he was born in the United States, the jury could reasonably resolve competing inferences “in favor of the prosecution.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 .

This isn’t one of the “exceptional cases” where a new trial is called for because “the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.” United States v. Pimentel, 654 F.2d 538, 545 (9th Cir.1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). The government introduced several documents to establish Gonzalez’s alienage, including a Mexican birth certifícate and an amnesty application. The jury was entitled to credit this evidence over that introduced by Gonzalez.

2. Whether a juror was actually biased is a question of fact that we review for manifest error. Fields v. Brown, 503 F.3d 755, 767 (9th…