In US v. Pablo, No. 09-2091, the court affirmed defendant's rape and assault convictions where 1) the admission of a witness's testimony as it related to a DNA report did not constitute plain error; 2) the prosecution did not actively discourage defendant's two witnesses from testifying through threats of prosecution; and 3) there was insufficient evidence that the victim's injuries were caused by persons other than defendant.
As the court wrote: "This appeal arises out of Jonathan Pablo's conviction by a jury for vaginal rape, kidnapping, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and carjacking. Pablo was tried with a codefendant, Isaac Gordo, whom the jury convicted on similar counts. Here, we are faced only with Pablo's appeal, and he raises three challenges to his convictions: (1) that the district court deprived him of his confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment by admitting testimony of a DNA expert, Kortney Snider, when that expert relied on reports prepared by analysts not called to testify and conveyed the contents of those reports to the jury; (2) that the prosecutor and district court impermissibly interfered with his right to present a defense by raising the specter of self-incrimination to dissuade two defense witnesses, Zachary and Alzado Gordo, from testifying; and (3) that the district court erred by excluding certain evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 412."