United States v. Broderick

── United States v. Broderick ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-5919 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 5:22-cr-00251-EJD-1 v. MEMORANDUM* BRIAN BRODERICK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 24, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: GOULD, NGUYEN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Appellant Brian Broderick challenges his conviction for transmitting a communication containing a threat to injure in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). “We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.” United States v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Perez, 962 F.3d 420, 434 (9th Cir. 2020). When “considering a challenge to a conviction based on sufficiency of the evidence,” we view all evidence presented at trial “in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” presuming “that the trier of fact resolved” all conflicting inferences “in favor of the prosecution,” and deferring to that resolution. United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1164 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). And we will uphold the conviction if “this evidence, so viewed, is adequate to allow ‘any rational trier of fact [to find] the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). But in criminal threat cases, we also “conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the facts as found by the jury establish the core constitutional fact” as to whether the defendant’s speech constituted a true threat. United States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058, 1070 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (“We will consider the undisputed facts as true, and construe the historical facts, the findings on the statutory elements, and all credibility determinations in favor of the prevailing party.”). Applying these standards, we AFFIRM Broderick’s conviction. 1. Broderick waived the issue of whether it was proper to exclude Dr. Greene’s testimony based on Broderick’s refusal to submit to a psychiatric assessment by a government expert. “An appellate court will not consider issues not 2 24-5919 properly raised before the district court,” and “[t]he ‘withdrawal of an objection is tantamount to a waiver of an issue for appeal.’” CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Slaven v. Am. Trading Transp. Co., 146 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 1998)). Here, Broderick timely provided notice of his intent to introduce Dr. Greene’s expert testimony under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 12.2(b). The prosecution then moved for an order allowing a “mental health professional designated by the government [to] conduct an examination of defendant Brian Broderick and provide a report of the examination to the Court and the parties” under Rule 12.2(c)(1)(B). But before