Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Angela Robinson Lome was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:24-CR-01645-JES-1) before District Judge James E. Simmons, Jr., of knowingly and intentionally importing methamphetamine into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. She appealed to the Ninth Circuit, raising two distinct arguments: first, that the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from the government's automobile expert regarding seat voids that had not been properly disclosed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16; and second, that the government improperly commented on her decision not to testify during closing argument, violating Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). The Ninth Circuit exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and the case was submitted to the panel on October 30, 2026.
The unanimous panel, consisting of Circuit Judges R. Nelson and H.A. Thomas and District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California sitting by designation, determined the case was suitable for decision without oral argument under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2). The court applied different standards of review to each claim: abuse of discretion for the Rule 16 evidentiary ruling with embedded legal claims reviewed de novo pursuant to United States v. Alahmedalabdaloklah, 94 F.4th 782, 837 (9th Cir. 2024), and plain error for the Griffin claim because Robinson Lome had not raised it in the district court, citing United States v. Sehnal, 930 F.2d 1420, 1425–26 (9th Cir. 1991).
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction. On the Rule 16 claim, the court assumed without deciding that the government failed to comply with its disclosure obligations but held that Robinson Lome failed to demonstrate a likelihood that the verdict would have been different had the government complied with the discovery rules, as required by United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002). She did not show that the expert's testimony about seat voids was erroneous or unreliable, nor did she explain what she would have done differently with timely disclosure. Moreover, the jury could have reasonably inferred even without the challenged testimony that Robinson Lome would have felt the methamphetamine concealed in the seat void, supporting the knowledge element of the offense.
On the Griffin claim, reviewed for plain error, the court held that the government's references to Robinson Lome's story in closing argument, when read in context, were not manifestly intended to call attention to her failure to testify, nor were they of such a character that a jury would naturally and necessarily take them to be a comment on the failure to testify, quoting Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 912 (9th Cir. 2006). Robinson Lome failed to identify any error, let alone a plain one affecting her substantial rights under United States v. Parlor, 2 F.4th 807, 816 (9th Cir. 2021). The court therefore affirmed the judgment of conviction in its entirety.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 16 discovery violation requires a showing that the verdict would likely have been different with proper disclosure; mere nondisclosure is insufficient for reversal.
- A defendant challenging expert testimony under Rule 16 must show the testimony was erroneous or unreliable and explain how earlier disclosure would have changed the defense strategy.
- Griffin claims raised for the first time on appeal are reviewed for plain error, requiring a clear or obvious error that affects substantial rights.
- Prosecutorial references to a defendant's story in closing argument do not violate Griffin when, in context, they address the defense theory rather than the defendant's silence.
- The jury may infer knowledge of contraband from physical circumstances such as the detectability of drugs in a vehicle seat void, even without expert testimony.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the high bar for obtaining reversal based on Rule 16 violations in the Ninth Circuit, emphasizing that defendants must show specific prejudice tied to the verdict rather than merely identifying a discovery error. It also clarifies that contextual analysis of closing arguments protects prosecutorial comments that target the defense narrative rather than the defendant's exercise of the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, consistent with precedent requiring manifest intent to comment on silence.
Although issued as an unpublished memorandum disposition not appropriate for publication under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, the ruling illustrates the court's consistent application of harmless-error and plain-error standards in federal drug importation cases. The affirmance demonstrates that convictions will be upheld where evidentiary challenges fail to demonstrate actual prejudice and where prosecutorial remarks do not constitute manifestly intended commentary on the defendant's decision not to testify.