Case Explained: USA V. HERNANDEZ-ZAMORA

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-17 Docket: 3:21-cr-00062-MAH-1 The Ninth Circuit affirmed Rolando Hernandez-Zamora’s conviction for cyberstalking in violation of a protective order under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261A(2)(A) and (B) and 2261(b)(6). The court reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings regarding the admission of Hernandez-Zamora’s two prior assault convictions for abuse of discretion, applying Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) and Rule 403. Regarding Rule 404(b)(2), the court held that the prior convictions were admissible to prove intent and mindset, rejecting the appellant’s arguments that the evidence was too remote in time or insufficiently similar to the charged offense. Citing *United States v. Johnson* and *United States v. Berckmann*, the panel determined that because the prior acts involved the same victim and occurred within a decade-long course of conduct, they were sufficiently similar to shed light on the defendant’s intent, regardless of the passage of time. Regarding Rule 403, the court found that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The panel noted that the evidence was directly connected to the elements of the crime and that the district court had issued an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury regarding the proper purpose of the prior convictions. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that the evidence was needlessly cumulative, finding it demonstrated a specific course of conduct rather than mere repetition. The practical consequence is that Hernandez-Zamora’s conviction stands, and he remains subject to the sentence imposed by the district court. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.