USA V. JAN HEGER, No. 11-50473 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 24 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-50473 D.C. No. 8:11-cr-00019-JST-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JAN MORTEN HEGER, AKA Stan Morton Heger, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine Staton Tucker, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 10, 2013** Pasadena, California Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Appellant Jan Morton Heger, who was convicted of making a false statement on a passport application and using a passport obtained by false statements, both in * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, appeals the district court s denial of his motions for a mistrial and for a new trial. Regardless of the district court s pretrial in limine ruling, it was within the district court s discretion to admit testimony regarding the duration of Heger s departure from the United States. See United States v. Bensimon, 172 F.3d 1121, 1127 (9th Cir. 1999) ( [A] ruling on a motion in limine is essentially a preliminary opinion that falls entirely within the discretion of the district court. The district court may change its ruling at trial . . . ) (citation omitted). Indeed, the district court expressly reserved the right to reconsider its ruling. The testimony was relevant to prove Heger s intent to make a false statement on his passport application and thereby flee the country, and any prejudice was outweighed by the evidence s probative value. Because the admission of testimony regarding the duration of Heger s departure was the sole basis for Heger s motions for a mistrial and a new trial, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions. See Alaska RentA-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 709 F.3d 872, 884 (9th Cir. 2013) ( [We] reverse only if the record contains no evidence in support of the verdict or if the district court made a mistake of law. ) (footnote reference and internal quotation marks omitted). Page 2 of 3 AFFIRMED. Page 3 of 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.