The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Angela Robinson Lome for importing methamphetamine into the United States. This decision, filed on November 4, 2026, affects Lome's future as she faces significant legal consequences for her actions. The ruling is important as it clarifies the standards for admitting expert testimony and the implications of comments made during trial.

Angela Robinson Lome was convicted of knowingly and intentionally importing methamphetamine, violating federal drug laws. The case originated in the Southern District of California, where Lome was tried and found guilty. The appeal raised two main issues: the admissibility of expert testimony and comments made by the prosecution regarding Lome's decision not to testify during the trial.

The dispute began when Lome challenged the district court's decision to allow testimony from a government automobile expert. She argued that the expert's testimony had not been properly disclosed as required by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. Additionally, Lome contended that the government improperly referenced her choice not to take the stand in its closing arguments, which she believed violated her rights under the Griffin v. California decision.

The appeal was reviewed by a panel of judges, including Circuit Judges R. Nelson and H.A. Thomas, and District Judge P. Casey Pitts, who was sitting by designation. The court examined the arguments presented by Lome and the government's responses, ultimately deciding to affirm the lower court's ruling.

The court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony. It stated, "Even assuming that the government failed to comply with Rule 16, Robinson Lome has not shown 'a likelihood that the verdict would have been different' if she had received a complete and timely Rule 16 disclosure." This indicates that the court found the expert's testimony to be relevant and that any potential failure to disclose did not impact the outcome of the case.

Regarding the comments made by the prosecution about Lome's decision not to testify, the court noted that Lome did not raise this argument during the trial. Therefore, the court reviewed it for plain error. The ruling stated, "Robinson Lome has not identified any error, let alone a plain one that affected her substantial rights." This means the court found that the prosecution's comments did not constitute a violation of her rights and were not intended to draw attention to her decision not to testify.

The impact of this ruling is significant for Lome, as it confirms her conviction and could lead to a lengthy prison sentence. The decision also reinforces the standards for admitting expert testimony in criminal cases, emphasizing that defendants must demonstrate how a failure to disclose information could have changed the trial's outcome.

This case sets a precedent for future appeals related to expert testimony and comments made during trials. It highlights the importance of timely disclosures and the need for defendants to raise objections during trial to preserve their rights for appeal.

Looking ahead, Lome has the option to appeal this decision to a higher court, although the likelihood of success is uncertain. There are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling directly, but it may influence similar cases involving drug importation and the admissibility of evidence in the Ninth Circuit.