Long
United States v. Long
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Robert Long appeals from his conviction on three counts of threatening a federal judge in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115 (a)(1)(B). We presume that the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and refer to them only as necessary in this disposition. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
1. Because U.S. Marshal Ron DeWitt’s testimony only described the facts surrounding the pre-indictment investigation of Long, it did not intrude upon the jury’s role of determining the existence of a threat. The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in allowing DeWitt to mention that he had “concerns” with Long after the interview in Seward. Moreover, given the numerous pleadings Long filed and the overall strength of the government’s case, any error in allowing these few statements from DeWitt did not affect the verdict. See United States v. Ramirez, 176 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 1999).
2. The district court properly concluded that the statement regarding McVeigh was “highly probative on the issue of whether a reasonable person would foresee that the judicial officers would understand the February Statements to be threats of serious harm.” Although the…