(PC) Baldwin v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

facts present an insufficient basis to imply bias, we find no plain error. Rodriguez, 891 F.3d at 805; see also C.B. v. Cty of Sonora, 769 F.3d 1005, 1018 (9th Cir.

2014) (en banc). 2. Baldwin also claims the district court suggested to the jury that Baldwin is untruthful by inadequately explaining why it struck Baldwin’s unsworn testimony

while allowing defendants to use it for impeachment purposes. Again, we review for plain error as Baldwin failed to raise a timely objection to the district court’s explanation. Crowley, 883 F.3d at 748.

Any error in the district court’s explanation did not affect Baldwin’s substantial rights for three reasons: (1) defendants never impeached Baldwin with his unsworn testimony; (2) the district court, at the end of trial, instructed the jury to

“disregard” the unsworn testimony and “start[] with a clean slate”; and (3) Baldwin testified consistently with the unsworn testimony. As Baldwin was not prejudiced by the district court’s explanation, we find no plain error. See Claiborne, 934 F.3d at 899 (quotations and citations omitted).

3. Finally, Baldwin claims the district court erred in instructing the jury to defer to the…