United States V. Blackshire, No. 21-10230 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Lawrence Blackshire was convicted of various offenses arising from an assault on his girlfriend, C.S. After the government was unable to locate C.S. to testify at trial, the district court admitted statements she gave to police officers and a nurse. The central issue on appeal was whether the district court erred in finding that Blackshire forfeited his right to confront C.S. by causing her unavailability.
The district court found that Blackshire intentionally caused C.S.'s unavailability, based on recorded conversations where Blackshire discussed making "peace" with C.S. and telling her she could not be compelled to testify. Blackshire argued that the government failed to prove his conduct caused C.S.'s absence and that there was no wrongdoing because the recordings showed only that he made peace with C.S.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that Blackshire forfeited his right to confront C.S. by causing her unavailability and in admitting C.S.'s out-of-court statements. The court rejected Blackshire's arguments, holding that circumstantial evidence supports the inference that Blackshire caused C.S.'s absence. The court also held that Blackshire's past domestic violence against C.S. is relevant to determining whether Blackshire's actions were wrongful. Against the backdrop of past abuse, Blackshire's recorded statements can reasonably be interpreted as evidencing efforts to coerce, unduly influence, or pressure C.S. into not showing up in court.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed Lawrence Blackshire’s convictions and sentence for various offenses arising out of an assault on his girlfriend, C.S.
After the government could not locate C.S. to testify at trial, the district court admitted statements she gave to police officers and a nurse.
The panel held that the district court did not err in finding that Blackshire forfeited his right to confront C.S. by causing her unavailability and in admitting C.S.’s out-of-court statements. To admit C.S.’s statements under the forfeiture by wrongdoing rule, the government was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Blackshire intentionally and wrongfully caused C.S.’s unavailability. Blackshire conceded that the record supported an inference that he had the requisite intent, but contended (1) the government failed to prove that his conduct caused C.S.’s absence and (2) there was no wrongdoing because recordings relied upon by the district court show only that he made “peace” with C.S. and told her that she could not be compelled to testify. The panel rejected those arguments. The panel held that circumstantial evidence supports the inference that Blackshire caused C.S.’s absence. As to the wrongfulness requirement, the panel explained (1) the government did not need to show that Blackshire engaged in criminal wrongdoing that caused C.S.’s unavailability; and (2) Blackshire’s past domestic violence against C.S. is relevant to determining whether Blackshire’s actions were wrongful. Against the backdrop of past abuse, Blackshire’s recorded statements can reasonably be interpreted as evidencing efforts to coerce, unduly influence, or pressure C.S. into not showing up in court.
The panel held that Blackshire’s sufficiency-of-the- evidence challenge on a kidnapping charge, on which he was acquitted, is clearly moot; and that any variance of the kidnapping instruction in this case from United States v. Jackson, 24 F.4th 1308 (9th Cir. 2022), could not have prejudiced him on that charge. Any error in an unlawful imprisonment instruction was invited and cannot serve as the basis for reversal.
Affirming the district court’s application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 (2018) for obstruction of justice, the panel held that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Blackshire unlawfully influenced C.S.
Affirming the district court’s application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(4) (2018) for aggravated assault, the panel held that there was ample evidence from which the district court could have found strangulation, or attempted strangulation, by a preponderance of the evidence.
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.