132410P.pdf   02/04/2015  United States  v.  Geshik-O-Binese Martin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-2410
                          and No:  13-3221
                          and No:  14-1039
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Melloy and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court's comments 
   to the jury venire went beyond the topics previously identified to 
   counsel, and while they might be viewed as presumptively prejudicial, a 
   close examination of the comments shows they did not affect defendants' 
   ability to defend the charges and that any violation of Rule 43(a)(2) or 
   defendants' constitutional rights was harmless error; defendant Martin 
   knowingly and voluntarily stipulated to his Indian status under 18 U.S.C. 
   Sec. 1153, and the district court did not err in admitting the 
   stipulation; no error in denying severance motions; considered as a whole, 
   the government's closing argument was structured to rebut defendant 
   Martin's testimony and was not an improper comment on defendant Robinson's 
   silence; no error in refusing to give a lesser-included offense 
   instruction where defendant maintained complete innocence at trial; no 
   error in imposing a six-level enhancement to defendant Martin's offense 
   level for his infliction of permanent bodily injury under Guidelines Sec. 
   2B3.1(b)(3)(C).