Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

14-30146 - USA v. James Wells

Download Files


Document in Context
14-30146 - USA v. James Wells
December 19, 2017
PDF | More
FILED OPINION (A. WALLACE TASHIMA, JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN and DONALD E. WALTER) REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL AFTER BEING REASSIGNED. Opinion by Judge Walter; Concurrence by Judge Nguyen; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Tashima. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [10695184] [14-30146, 15-30036]--[Edited: Typo in opinion corrected. 01/02/2018 by RY]
January 11, 2018
PDF | More
Filed order and amended opinion (A. WALLACE TASHIMA, JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN and DONALD E. WALTER). The Opinion filed on December 19, 2017, is amended as follows: on slip opinion page 66, lines 12–22, replace the following text: “The defendant’s right to present evidence which may exonerate him, however, is not absolute and may have to ‘bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.’” Id. (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295 (1973)). This type of evidence is not admissible “if it simply affords a possible ground of suspicion against such person; rather, it must be coupled with substantial evidence tending to directly connect that person with the actual commission of the offense.” Perry v. Rushen, 713 F.2d 1447. 1449 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). with the following text: The admission of third-party culpability evidence is governed by “[f]undamental standards of relevancy, subject to the discretion of the court to exclude cumulative evidence and to insure orderly presentation of a case.” United States v. Armstrong, 621 F.2d 951, 953 (9th Cir. 1980). Wells’ proffered testimony, however, was not even minimally relevant. [10720902] [14-30146, 15-30036]