US v. Placencio
Case Date: 06/06/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1716
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1716 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. JOSE I. ARIAS PLACENCIO, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge] ____________________ Before Selya, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ____________________ Francisco Serrano-Walker on brief for appellant. Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles and Jacabed Rodriguez-Coss, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for appellee. ____________________ June 6, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we conclude that defendant's contentions of error do not merit a new trial. The district court's acted within its discretion in refusing the jury's request to hear again the testimony of the two main witnesses. See United States v. Akitoye, 923 F.2d 221, 226 (1st Cir. 1991). The district court also acted within its discretion in refusing defendant's late request for an additional instruction on ignorance of the law, particularly as the instructions regarding the elements of the offenses, "knowingly," and "willfully" adequately addressed the issue of defendant's knowledge of the currency reporting requirement. See United States v. Vazquez, 53 F.3d 1216, 1221-22 (11th Cir. 1995). And, on de novo review, we cannot say that the prosecutor's inappropriate remark during rebuttal argument so affected the verdict as to warrant a new trial, considering the brevity of the remark, the district court's response, and the context of the proceedings as a whole. See United States v. Procopio, 88 F.3d 21, 32 (1st Cir. 1996). Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. -2- |