Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05002/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05002-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Barnes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT 

FlLL.U l! 

U , .. ...i States Court qf Appea n1wu th c·rcu1t OF APPEALS Ten 1 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 16 1993 

OBERT L. HOECKER -------------- Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES BARNES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 92-5002 

(D.C. No. CR 91-50-2) 

(N. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and BRA'ITON,** Senior 

District Judge. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Barnes was convicted of being a member of a conspiracy to 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th cir. R. 36.3. 

** The Honorable Howard c. Bratton, Senior United States District 

Court Judge for the District of New Mexico, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 92-5002 Document: 010110170354 Date Filed: 02/16/1993 Page: 1 
manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. 1 Mr. Barnes appeals 

asserting evidentiary and instructional errors, prosecutorial 

misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative 

error. We affirm. 

The evidence reveals Mr. Barnes' principal role in the 

conspiracy was that of a distributor of the illegally manufactured 

methamphetamine. 

I 

Rule 404(b) Evidence 

Mr. Barnes asserts three Government witnesses gave Fed. R. 

Evid. 404(b) evidence and this evidence was not only improperly 

admitted but the trial court also failed to instruct concerning 

this evidence. The Government contends the evidence in question 

was not Rule 404(b) evidence. 

As no objections were raised to the testimony, and as no 

request for instructions were made, we will review this contention 

under the plain error standard of review. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); 

see United States v. Culpepper, 834 F.2d 879, 883 (10th Cir. 

1987) . 

Mr . Barnes directs our attention to the testimony of three 

1 See United States v. Youngpeter, F.2d (10th Cir. 

1993); United States v. Reynolds, No. 92-5000 (FeS:-18, 1993);and 

United States v. Glover, No. 92-5001 (Feb. 18, 1993). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5002 Document: 010110170354 Date Filed: 02/16/1993 Page: 2 
witnesses. The first is that of Mr. Don Sirmnons who testified he 

purchased methamphetamine from Mr. Barnes on three occasions 

during the Surmner and Fall of 1988 . Mr. Barnes asserts that "one 

could easily assume the drug that he received from Barnes 

would have come from" some source other than that charged. 

The flaw in Mr. Barnes' argument is the record fails to 

support it. The indictment charges the time frame of the 

conspiracy to be May 1986 through December 1989. Another witness 

(Mr. Scott) testified that some time in the Surmner of 1988 to 

October of 1988 he recommended to the ringleader of the conspiracy 

that Mr. Barnes be engaged as a distributor of the illegal drugs. 

A reasonable inference of this testimony is that Mr. Barnes began 

his services as a distributor for the conspiracy during this time 

frame. The fact that other evidence existed that would tend to 

show Mr. Barnes' involvement with the conspiracy began later was a 

question for the jury. There existed no evidence that would even 

suggest Mr. Barnes was a distributor of any drugs other than those 

manufactured by the conspiracy. 

The next alleged Rule 404(b) evidence was that of Ralph 

Thomas (the cook of the illegal drugs) who, in response to a 

question by Mr. Barnes' counsel concerning his immunity agreement, 

testified he was testifying on his own behalf "because I don't 

want to wind up getting killed when I get out." He was then asked 

if he was saying the Government was protecting him from being 

killed, and he responded "No," he was protecting himself by not 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-5002 Document: 010110170354 Date Filed: 02/16/1993 Page: 3 
coming back to Oklahoma when he got out of prison. A fair reading 

of this record shows this exchange cannot be attributed to the 

Government, nor does the answer indicate that the witness's fears 

were directed toward the defendant Mr. Barnes. Defense counsel, 

who was able and experienced, was not sufficiently disturbed to 

object or request any instructions concerning this exchange. The 

"evidence" was simply too tenuous to constitute valid Rule 404(b) 

evidence. 

The final evidence Mr. Barnes directs our attention to is 

that of Mr. Vestal. On direct examination, Mr. Vestal was 

describing Mr. Youngpeter's involvement in the conspiracy and was 

asked why Mr. Youngpeter was present on a particular occasion, and 

whether the ringleader (Mr . Glover) ever told r.im why Mr. 

Youngpeter was present. The witness replied: "Something to do 

with a stolen trailer or something like that, or to paint -- paint 

a car for him or something like that." Again this evidence does 

not appear to be directed toward Mr . Barnes and is too tenuous to 

constitute Rule 404(b) evidence. 

We hold the admission of the evidence complained of does not 

constitute plain error. 

II 

Prosecutorial Misconduct 

Mr. Barnes, for the first time, raises four 

prosecutorial misconduct; three instances 

-4-

allegations 

relate to 

of 

the 

Appellate Case: 92-5002 Document: 010110170354 Date Filed: 02/16/1993 Page: 4 
examination of witnesses and the fourth relates to closing 

argument. As no objections were raised in the trial court, we 

will review these assertions under the plain error standard of 

review. See United States v. Lonedog, 929 F.2d 568, 570 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 164 (1991). 

Mr. Barnes asserts the Government improperly vouched for and 

bolstered the credibility concerning three of its witnesses. 

The first incident relates to the testimony of the 

Government's witness, Rebecca Glover. During cross-examination by 

three defense counsel, much was made of the immunity agreement and 

the witness's credibility or lack thereof. 

examination, the following exchange occurred: 

Upon redirect 

Q. Has the Government ever asked you to do anything 

besides tell the truth? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Has your testimony here today been the truth? 

A. Yes, sir, it has. 

The second incident involved redirect examination of Mr . 

Johnny Glover, the ringleader of the conspiracy . Mr. Glover was 

subjected to strong cross-examination about his credibility. On 

redirect examination, the following exchange took place: 

Q. Do you understand that he was asking you whether or 

not you were so angry with Roy, because Roy wouldn't 

hire big time lawyers for you, that you would lie on the 

witness stand? 

A. I'm here to tell the truth and t~e truth only. 

Q. All right. That is, you don't have any anger or 

-5-

Appellate Case: 92-5002 Document: 010110170354 Date Filed: 02/16/1993 Page: 5 
animosity against Roy which would cause you to tell lies 

against him, do you? 

A. No, sir, I haven't . 

In both of these exchanges the defense opened the issue of 

the witnesses' credibility during cross-examination by making 

strong attacks on their credibility and the prosecution responded 

upon redirect . Neither exchange, however, involved any indication 

by the prosecution that it personally believed in the credihility 

of the witness or that it was otherwise trying to verify the 

truthfulness of the testimony. See United States v. Bowie, 892 

F.2d 1494, 1498 (10th Cir. 1990) . 

The third incident occurred during the cross-examination of 

one of Mr. Barnes' co-defendants, Mr. Roy Glover. The prosecutor 

asked Mr. Glover a series of questions concerning Mr. Glover's 

alleged attempts to assure that certain Government witnesses did 

not appear for the trial by being out of the area. Mr. Barnes' 

assertion that this exchange somehow involved one prosecutor's 

expression of opinion concerning the credibility of this witness 

is unfounded. 

The fourth and final assertion of prosecutorial misconduct 

occurred during closing. There the prosecutor stated the 

following concerning its witnesses: "View their testimony with 

caution, but view it with credibility, because their testimony is 

credible, because they were there, they saw it." 

-6-

Appellate Case: 92-5002 Document: 010110170354 Date Filed: 02/16/1993 Page: 6 
This case was vigorously and ably defended. The prosecutor's 

statement during closing argument was in direct response to the 

arguments of four defense counsel. The failure of the prosecution 

to respond could well have been taken by the jury as an admission 

the witnesses were lying. Defense counsel were not sufficiently 

disturbed at the time of the prosecution's closing argument to 

object. The prosecution expressed no opinion, but instead, simply 

argued the testimony should be believed as it was eyewitness 

testimony. Such argument does not amount to improper vouching. 

III 

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

Mr. Barnes contends trial counsel's failure to object to the 

evidence and arguments previously set forth amounts to ineffective 

assistance of counsel. 

Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 

(1984), the defendant must show both deficient performance by 

counsel and a reasonable probability that, but for the deficient 

performance, the trial result would have been different. While 

trial counsel's performance may not have been perfect -- none is 

we cannot hold under the facts of this case that trial 

counsel's omissions were not the result of reasonable professional 

judgment . 

-7-

Appellate Case: 92-5002 Document: 010110170354 Date Filed: 02/16/1993 Page: 7 
IV 

Cumulative Error 

Our previous discussion renders any analysis of this 

contention meaningless. 

V 

Failure to Instruct 

Mr. Barnes asserts the trial court's failure to instruct the 

jury concerning the permissible use of a co-defendant/coconspirators guilty plea is plain error. This assertion arises 

from the testimony of Mr. Johnny Glover who was the ringleader and 

Mr. Thomas who was the primary methamphetamine cook. 

testified as to Mr. Barnes' involvement in the conspiracy. 

Both 

Our discussion in United States v. Reynolds, No. 92-5000, 

(Feb. 18, 1993), is applicable here . 

does not constitute error. 

This failure to instruct 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

- 8-

Appellate Case: 92-5002 Document: 010110170354 Date Filed: 02/16/1993 Page: 8