Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sheila Marie Ritze was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for her role in the death of Tri Minh 'James' Dao and sentenced to 262 months in prison. On appeal, she challenged her post-arrest statements under Miranda, the admission of recorded workplace statements, the presence of the victim's mother during the jury's exhibit replay, the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of her Rule 33 new-trial motion, and the district court's sentencing rulings, including the denial of a minor-role reduction.
The prosecution was brought in the Central District of California before District Judge David O. Carter. A Ninth Circuit panel of Judges Michelle T. Friedland, Danielle J. Forrest, and Roopali H. Desai heard argument in Pasadena on June 24, 2026, and issued this unpublished memorandum disposition. Federal jurisdiction was upheld in a concurrently filed opinion, United States v. Le, No. 23-1814.
The Court’s Holding
The court upheld the district court's determination that Ritze knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived her Miranda rights before two interrogations. The waiver was knowing and intelligent because Ritze's cognitive abilities were 'very good,' corroborated by the defense expert, who saw no signs of alcohol impairment despite her elevated blood alcohol content. The roughly three-to-five-hour gap between warnings did not require fresh advisements: the interval was brief, Ritze remained in continuous custody, the subject matter was unchanged, and an agent reminded her that her rights were 'still in play.' Aggressive tactics during the second interrogation did not overbear her will given her ease of discussion and strategic, self-serving responses.
The court rejected Ritze's evidentiary challenges. Her recorded workplace statements were properly admitted under Rule 404(b)(2) as evidence of intent, knowledge, or lack of accident rather than propensity, and the district court acted within its discretion under Rule 403 because the statements bore directly on her knowledge of and alignment with Le's plan. Permitting Dao's mother to remain in the courtroom during the jury's in-court replay of two exhibits was not structural error: the replay, with the judge, counsel, and defendant present, was a stage of trial rather than private deliberation, and the victim's mother had a right to attend under 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
On sufficiency, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could find that Ritze possessed the requisite mens rea and that her conduct proximately caused Dao's death, which requires only that her conduct played a substantial part in bringing about the death. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 33 motion. The court also upheld the denial of a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) as an adequate, if implicit, comparative assessment of Ritze's culpability relative to Le's, and found that the district court adequately considered her mitigating evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Key Takeaways
- A three-to-five-hour gap between Miranda warnings and a second interrogation does not automatically require re-advisement when the suspect remains in continuous custody, the subject matter is unchanged, and agents remind the suspect that prior warnings remain in effect.
- Recorded workplace statements may be admitted under Rule 404(b)(2) as evidence of intent, knowledge, or lack of accident rather than prohibited propensity evidence when they bear directly on a central disputed issue.
- In-court replay of recorded evidence before the jury, with the judge, counsel, and defendant present, is a stage of trial rather than private deliberation, so victims' family members have a statutory right to attend.
- Proximate cause in a second-degree murder prosecution requires only that the defendant's conduct played a substantial part in bringing about the death, not proof that the victim would certainly have survived with rescue.
- A district court's sentencing analysis need not use precise terminology from controlling precedent so long as the record reflects an adequate, even implicit, comparative culpability assessment and genuine consideration of § 3553(a) mitigation.
Why It Matters
This disposition reinforces the Ninth Circuit's flexible, totality-of-the-circumstances approach to Miranda re-advisement, confirming that brief gaps between interrogations in continuous custody do not trigger per se re-warning requirements, and it draws a practical line between permissible Rule 404(b)(2) evidence and impermissible propensity evidence.
The decision also clarifies that in-court exhibit replays are public trial stages rather than private deliberative acts, preserving victims' statutory attendance rights, and it signals that district courts retain discretion in articulating sentencing reasoning so long as the record shows genuine engagement with the comparative culpability factors and § 3553(a) mitigation.