Nguyen

MEMORANDUM **

Vu Nguyen appeals from his conviction after a jury trial for crimes relating to the *702 robbery of a Las Vegas jewelry store and a homicide committed during the robbery by his co-conspirator, Duong. We affirm. 1

1. “No evidence” testimony: We assume without deciding that Agent Wirth’s testimony that he had developed “no evidence” to link anyone other than Nguyen and Duong to the crime was admitted in error. As Nguyen’s defense was that some different associate of Duong’s was the second perpetrator, the harmlessness question is close. We are satisfied, however, that the evidence of Nguyen’s guilt was sufficiently strong to render any error harmless.

Two cooperating witnesses placed Nguyen in Las Vegas with Duong on the day of the crime. The testimony of several other cooperating witnesses linked Nguyen to the crime by implication—by, for example, reporting Nguyen’s comments about the stolen watches or Duong’s statements implicating Nguyen. Most significantly, although many of the cooperators’ stories had changed from earlier interviews with law enforcement, cell phone records corroborated much of the trial testimony about their whereabouts, actions, and…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

The admission of detective Wirth’s testimony was error and it was not harmless. No eye witness or physical evidence tied Nguyen to the crime or the crime scene. The only reliable evidence from which inferences could be drawn were the cell phone records that only proved that the known robber-shooter and Nguyen communicated frequently before the robbery and after the robbery but not during the robbery. Wirth’s testimony suggested that no one other than Nguyen could have committed the robbery, which could have *706 tipped the scale in the jury’s mind. Without it, it is probable that the jury would not have convicted.