United States v. Richter

by
After a bench trial, Appellant was convicted for felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence that he possessed the firearm and that the district court erred by failing to call for closing arguments from the parties before rendering its guilty verdict. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction; and (2) waiver of the right to give a closing argument may be implicit and inferred from counsel’s conduct, and Appellant in this case implicitly waived his right to give a closing argument. View "United States v. Richter" on Justia Law