former Chief Judge Kozinski remained on en banc court after his term expired
How later courts described this case
- former Chief Judge Kozinski remained on en banc court after his term expired
- “[W]e must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses . . . .
- N.R. Smith, J., concurring
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Per Curiam Opinion; Concurrence by Judge KOZINSKI; Concurrence by Judge N.R. SMITH; Concurrence by Judge
REINHARDT; Concurrence by Judge W. FLETCHER; Dissent by Judge RAWLINSON
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
During a grand jury proceeding, defendant gave a rambling, non-responsive answer to a simple question. Because there is insufficient evidence that Statement C was material, defendant’s conviction for obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 is not supported by the record. Whatever section 1503’s scope may be in other circumstances, defendant’s conviction here must be reversed.
A reversal for insufficient evidence implicates defendant’s right under the Double Jeopardy Clause. See United States v. Preston, 751 F.3d 1008, 1028 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc) (citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978)). His conviction and sentence must therefore be vacated, and he may not be tried again on that count.
REVERSED.