United States of America v. Desmond Boris Washington

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DESMOND BORIS WASHINGTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30146
D.C. No. 3:18-cr-00522-HZ-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 9, 2022**
Portland, Oregon
Before: GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges, and REISS,*** District Judge.
Appellant Desmond Washington (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction for
being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1),
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Christina Reiss, United States District Judge for the
District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 17 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
arguing that the district court committed prejudicial error with respect to two
evidentiary rulings. The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, so we recite
them here only when necessary. For the following reasons, we affirm.
1. Appellant argues that, under the Confrontation Clause, he should have been
allowed to introduce evidence that he had received two separate settlement payments
from the City of Portland for claims of police misconduct. Appellant sought to
introduce this evidence because it allegedly “showed bias, and explained cash at the
scene.” The district court did not err in concluding that evidence of Appellant’s
receipt of settlement payments from the City of Portland arising out of claims of
police misconduct was irrelevant to whether or not Appellant actually possessed the
seized handgun that he was convicted of possessing in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1).
2. A neighbor recorded the police executing a search warrant on Alexandria
Carter’s home, where Appellant was living. Appellant sought to introduce this video
into evidence. Appellant asserts that the district court erred in excluding this video,
arguing that the video: (a) establishes bias by the police officers who executed the
search warrant of Carter’s home, given the heavy armaments of the police unit that
was composed of approximately 15 officers, and (b) shows Appellant in a favorable
light as a compliant individual, as contrasted with the photographs submitted by the
Government of Appellant in his rap video portraying “the persona of a gangster.”

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The district court did not err in excluding this video. Permitting the jury to see that
the police who were executing the search warrant were heavily armed would likely
have confused the jury concerning the actual issues in the case and would have
created a trial within a trial, leading to undue delay. United States v. Sua, 307 F.3d
1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2002). All other relevant factual aspects of the excluded video
were presented to the jury via direct and cross-examination testimony of witnesses.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --