United States v. Wells, No. 14-30146 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's convictions for two counts of First Degree Murder, two counts of Murder of a Federal Employee, and two counts of Use of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence Resulting in Death. The panel held that the government overstepped in moving to excuse second defense counsel; the district court erred in allowing the government to use criminal profile testimony as substantive evidence of guilt; the district court erred in admitting other act evidence; the district court was not required to declare a mistrial upon elicitation of prejudicial testimony; the district court properly excluded evidence of third party culpability; and the panel reassigned the case to preserve the appearance of justice. Accordingly, the panel remanded for a new trial after being reassigned.
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel reversed convictions for two counts of First Degree Murder, two counts of Murder of a Federal Employee, and two counts of Use of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence Resulting in Death; and remanded for a new trial. The panel disapproved of the Government’s interference in the status of the defendant’s representation, but held that the magistrate judge’s removal of the defendant’s second court-appointed attorney following the Government’s decision not to seek the death penalty did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The panel wrote that the magistrate judge was within his discretion to find that the federal public defender’s continued representation afforded the defendant adequate representation under the Criminal Justice Act. The panel held that the district court erred in allowing the Government to use criminal profile testimony as substantive evidence of guilt, and that the error is reversible. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that testimonial excerpts admitted by the district court were improper character evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1). The panel held that the district court erred in admitting a 2003 incident that was neither inextricably intertwined nor permissible motive evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2).
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.