In US v. Pablo, No. 09-2091, the court affirmed defendant's rape and assault convictions where 1) the admission of a witness's testimony as it related to a DNA report did not constitute plain error; 2) the prosecution did not actively discourage defendant's two witnesses from testifying through threats of prosecution; and 3) there was insufficient evidence that the victim's injuries were caused by persons other than defendant.
As the court wrote: "This appeal arises out of Jonathan Pablo's conviction by a jury for vaginal rape, kidnapping, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and carjacking. Pablo was tried with a codefendant, Isaac Gordo, whom the jury convicted on similar counts. Here, we are faced only with Pablo's appeal, and he raises three challenges to his convictions: (1) that the district court deprived him of his confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment by admitting testimony of a DNA expert, Kortney Snider, when that expert relied on reports prepared by analysts not called to testify and conveyed the contents of those reports to the jury; (2) that the prosecutor and district court impermissibly interfered with his right to present a defense by raising the specter of self-incrimination to dissuade two defense witnesses, Zachary and Alzado Gordo, from testifying; and (3) that the district court erred by excluding certain evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 412."
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.
By
Robyn Hagan Cain
| Last updated onMarch 21, 2019
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Secret Service agents were entitled to qualified immunity for arresting a man who expressed his disdain for Bush-era war...
By
Robyn Hagan Cain
| Last updated onMarch 21, 2019
Let's say your client made a little money as an investor in (what turned out to be) a Ponzi scheme. The scheme was revealed, and a court ordered your client --...
By
Gabriella Khorasanee, JD
| Last updated onMarch 21, 2019
It's going to be a busy week for SCOTUS with decisions expected in several cases, and on this dreary Monday, the Court did not disappoint. The order list was...
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Secret Service agents were entitled to qualified immunity for arresting a man who expressed his disdain for Bush-era war...
Let's say your client made a little money as an investor in (what turned out to be) a Ponzi scheme. The scheme was revealed, and a court ordered your client --...
It's going to be a busy week for SCOTUS with decisions expected in several cases, and on this dreary Monday, the Court did not disappoint. The order list was...
Need Help With a Legal Issue?
Contact a qualified attorney to find out your options for navigating the best path forward.