The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-30251•United States of America v. Zachary Beck
11-30251Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 7, 2012
* 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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Josephine Staton Tucker, United States District Judge
for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ZACHARY BECK,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-30251
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05553-RJB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2012 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and TUCKER, District
Judge.***
FILED
DEC 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
Page 2 of 2
Defendant Zachary Beck appeals his conviction and his sentence after a
bench trial on the basis that his waiver of his jury-trial right was not knowing,
voluntary, or intelligent. Beck also appeals his conviction for conspiracy to violate
civil rights on the ground that the government failed to prove an agreement to
violate the victim’s civil rights. We affirm.
Beck’s jury-trial waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The district
court conducted an “in-depth” colloquy with Beck that adequately addressed the
four elements of his jury-trial right, including his right to personally participate in
jury selection. United States v. Christensen, 18 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 1994); see
United States v. Cochran, 770 F.2d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1985).
Sufficient evidence supported the district court’s conclusion that Beck
conspired to violate the victim’s civil rights, including strong circumstantial
evidence that Beck and his associates “acted with a common goal” in attacking the
victim. United States v. Corona-Verbera, 509 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.