Canales-Fuentes

MEMORANDUM ***

Martin Antonio Canales-Fuentes (“Canales”) appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). We affirm.

1. Preclusion of a Defense. The district court’s limitation on Canales’s introduction of self-serving custodial statements did not preclude him from presenting a defense so as to violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. Canales testified at trial, telling the jury precisely the same story reflected in his custodial statements. The jury was not entirely “precluded ... from hearing material evidence of his innocence.” See Chia v. Cambra, 360 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir.2004). Moreover, Canales’s custodial statements were uncorroborated and lacked indicia of reliability. Compare Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 300 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); Chia, 360 F.3d at 1004-06 . Nor did the court err in precluding Canales from eliciting these statements on cross-examination of government witnesses. See United States v. Ortega, 203 F.3d 675, 682 (9th Cir.2000).

2. Prior Consistent Statements. We also reject Canales’s argument that his custodial statements were not hearsay because they…

concurring.

I concur in the result.