United States v. Nilson Valencia-Riascos

Good Law
696 F.3d 938·2012 WL 4826968·89 Fed. R. Serv. 888·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21068
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 11, 201211-30307California1,837 words

Opinion

Opinion

Graber, J.

Defendant Nilson Herney Valeneia-Riascos appeals the district court’s denial of his requests to limit the courtroom presence of a law enforcement officer who was the prosecution’s main witness. Defendant argues that the district court abused its discretion and denied him due process by declining to exclude the officer from the courtroom, by allowing the officer to sit at the prosecution’s table, and by declining to require the officer to testify first.

We affirm. Federal Rule of Evidence 615 requires a district court to permit a designated officer to be present during trial. Any related decisions are discretionary. No abuse of discretion or due process violation occurred in this case.

Defendant was charged with assault on a federal officer by physical contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 . The events underlying the charge involved an altercation between Defendant and Shawn Miller, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agent. Miller’s work involved visiting local jails to establish the immigration status of individuals held in custody. Miller’s work brought him into contact with Defendant, who was in custody at the Franklin County Jail in Washington. At…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.