Rodriguez

United States v. Rodriguez

Good Law
316 F. App'x 612
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 4, 2009No. 07-10383California1,024 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Rodriguez appeals his conviction arising out of his participation in a robbery of an armored truck. The government argued at trial that Rodriguez, an employee of Brinks, International (“Brinks”), conspired with Felix Carrasco and Manuel Lopez to rob the Brinks truck that he was driving while it was parked outside of a Bank of America building. The jury found him guilty on all three counts: conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery, and using a firearm in a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924 (c) & 1951. He appeals two of the district court’s evidentiary decisions and claims that the government violated his due process rights by failing to investigate one of their witnesses. We affirm his conviction.

I. Evidentiary Decisions

We review de novo the question of whether evidence falls within the scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), United States v. Montgomery, 384 F.3d 1050, 1061 (9th Cir.2004), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to admit or exclude hearsay evidence, see United States v. Yazzie, 59 F.3d 807, 812 (9th Cir.1995).

A. Frank Muniz’s Testimony

The district court did not err by allowing Frank Muniz to…

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.