Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

US v. Rodriguez, No. 07-1316

By FindLaw Staff on September 22, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Defendant's capital conviction for kidnapping a victim and transporting her across state lines, resulting in death, is affirmed where: 1) a district court need not consider public opinion polls when ruling on change-of-venue motions; 2) the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that certain jurors' statements, in context, did not establish actual prejudice; 3) the district court did not clearly err by accepting the government's race-neutral reasons for striking certain jurors; 4) the district court did not err in refusing to exclude a pathologist's testimony under Daubert because many pathologists shared the government pathologist's view of the reliability of the test performed; 5) the victim-impact testimony given in the penalty phase was neither quantitatively nor qualitatively overwhelming; and 6) the prosecution's closing argument did not improperly imply that defendant was required to prove a nexus between his mitigation evidence and his offense.

Read US v. Rodriguez, No. 07-1316

Appellate Information

Submitted: February 12, 2009

Filed: September 22, 2009


Opinion by Judge Benton

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard