⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears argument in United States v. Walji. The defendant was convicted by a jury of federal sexual abuse offenses committed aboard an aircraft — the special aircraft jurisdiction that makes this a federal prosecution rather than a state one. The core legal issue is whether his convictions should be reversed due to prosecutorial misconduct—specifically, improper vouching and bolstering of witness credibility during the trial. The appellant argues that the prosecutor improperly used the testimony of a forensic interviewer and made improper statements during closing arguments that vouched for the complaining witness's credibility. Trial counsel did not object to the challenged conduct at trial; Walji's appellate counsel raised it afterward in a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied. That leaves a contested question of appellate review. In the Ninth Circuit an unpreserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct is reviewed for plain error, while the denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion; whether the new trial posture adds a further layer of deference on top of plain error is disputed. The panel must decide whether the prosecution erred and, if so, whether the error affected Walji's substantial rights and warrants a new trial.

United States v. Walji (No. 25-415) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 7, 2026.