United States of America v. Lori Irish

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LORI IRISH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10112
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00117-RLH-PAL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 12, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, WALLACE and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Lori Irish appeals her conviction, alleging that the government failed to turn
over, on a timely basis, relevant information concerning her medical care provider
FILED
FEB 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
and that the district court should have reopened the trial or granted a new trial. We
affirm.
The materials in question were irrelevant to the theory of Irish’s defense:
that the doctor prescribed medication that exacerbated Irish’s condition, prevented
her from forming the requisite mens rea, or otherwise caused her to commit crimes.
Nor could any of the materials be used to impeach the doctor. None of the evidence
was admissible to show a character for untruthfulness under Federal Rules of
Evidence 608 and 609, and regardless, Irish’s theory was that the doctor was
incompetent, not untruthful. The circumstances that led to the Memorandum of
Agreement were far too removed from Irish’s case to suggest any possibility of
bias. The materials included nothing that contradicted the doctor’s testimony,
revealed a prior inconsistent statement, or demonstrated a failure of perception or
recollection. See generally 27 Charles Alan Wright & Victor James Gold, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 6092 (2d ed. 2009) (describing methods of
impeachment).
Because the material was neither exculpatory nor impeaching, the
government did not violate its duty to disclose. See United States v. Bagley, 473
U.S. 667, 676 (1985).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --