Two cases today.
First, in United States v. Read, --- F.3d ---, No. 17-10439 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court vacated the defendant's convictions for assault with a deadly
weapon with intent to bodily harm, and assault with a deadly
weapon resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 113(a). The case arose out of a prison stabbing.
The defendant was adamant that he did not want to pursue an insanity defense. His attorney and the district court overruled him.
On appeal, the Court held that, under McCoy v. Louisiana, 138
S. Ct. 1500 (2018), a district court commits reversible error
by permitting defense counsel to present a defense of
insanity over a competent defendant’s clear rejection of that
defense.
The case also has some other issues regarding the jurisdictional element of § 113(a), which prohibits assaults
“within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States.”
Second, in United States v. Haines, --- F.3d ---, No. 17-50059 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court affirmed the defendant's conviction for sex trafficking a minor. This was a pimping case. The alleged victim recanted and testified favorably to the defendant at trial. The defense wanted to ask her about prior prostitution but the government successfully kept it out under the rape shield rule in Fed. R. Evid. 412.
The Ninth finds no error. It rejected the defendant's contention that evidence of the victim's prior prostitution activities should have been admitted under
the exception in Rule 412(b)(1)(C) for “evidence whose
exclusion would violate [his] constitutional rights.”
The Court further held that the
applicability of Rule 412 should not depend on the alleged
victim’s desire to testify.
