Pena
United States v. Pena
Opinion
lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
A) Pena’s Claim
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pena’s motion to sev *685 er his trial, because Pena and Torres did not present sufficiently “mutually antagonistic defenses.” See Zafiro v. United, States, 506 U.S. 534, 537-39 , 113 S.Ct. 933 , 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). Bianchi’s testimony regarding Torres and the period of time before Pena became involved in the conspiracy did not incriminate Pena. Moreover, speculation about how Torres’s testimony might have changed in a separate trial is not a basis for concluding that Pena was prejudiced by a joint trial. Finally, the district court issued a limiting instruction, which in this case was more than adequate to “cure any risk of prejudice.” Id. at 539 , 113 S.Ct. 933 .
B) Torres’s Claims
Even if the district court erred in admitting Deputy Peterson’s opinion testimony on the inferences he drew from the denominations of the currency found on Torres’s person, the error was harmless. See United States v. Seschillie, 310 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir.2002). Setting aside Deputy Peterson’s statement, there remained considerable evidence of Torres’s guilt. In particular, Torres lied about his identity…