United States v. Song Chang Yuan

MEMORANDUM **

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion for a mistrial. Any harm engendered by the prosecution’s improper elicitation of Appellant’s custodial status was cured by the district court’s instructions admonishing the jury to disregard the Appellant’s custodial status. See United *773 States v, Saydkhom, 186 F.3d 928, 945-46 (9th Cir.1999).

2. Ample evidence, ranging from the testimony of the ship’s captain, to the testimony of the stowaways, supports the jury’s determination that Appellant violated 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a), which prohibits trafficking in aliens. See United States v. Johnson 357 F.3d 980, 984-985 (9th Cir. 2004) (denying relief where a rational jury could have found the element of the charged offense).

3. At oral argument, defense counsel conceded that withdrawal is an affirmative defense. The district court did not plainly err when it failed to sua sponte instruct the jury on that defense. Appellant’s failure to raise the issue during trial resulted in a waiver. See United States v. Lo, 231 F.3d 471, 480-81 (9th Cir.2000).

4. The district court did not err when it declined to give a duress instruction. “A…