Ahearn
United States v. Ahearn
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Erin Marie Ahearn (“Ahearn”) appeals her conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) & (b)(l)(B)(vii), 846; possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) & (b)(l)(B)(vii); conspiracy to import marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a), 960(a)(1) & (b)(2)(G), 963; and importation of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a), 960(a)(1) & (b)(2)(G). We affirm.
Ahearn contends that her Fifth Amendment rights were violated when the prosecutor asked questions of Agent Liles and Ahearn that impliedly referenced Ah-earn’s silence. See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). Even assuming that the prosecutor’s questions directed at Agent Liles violated Ah-earn’s Fifth Amendment rights, there was no Doyle violation insofar as “the district court promptly sustain[ed] a timely objection ..., instructed] the jury to disregard the question, and g[ave] a curative jury instruction.” United States v. Lopez, 500 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir.2007); see also Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 764 , 107 S.Ct. 3102 , 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (no Doyle violation in such a case).