## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2589 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . A LA N L . K LEBIG , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 06 C R 64

— Charle s N . Cleve rt, Jr. , Chief Ju dge
.
A RGUED O CT OB ER 30, 2009

— D ECIDED N OVE MBE R 2, 2009

O P I NI ON P UBLI SHED A PRI L 8, 2010

Befo re C UDAH Y, P OSNERa nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . A j u ry co n vic te d A la n L . K leb ig ofposs ess in g a n unreg i ste re d ri fl e a nd an unre gi ste re d si l encer, i n vi ol ati on o f26 U
. S. C . § § 5861( d) a nd 58 71. Kl e b i ga pp e a l e d b o th hi s c o nv i c t i o n a nd h i s s e nt e nc e . On N o ve m be r 2 , 2 00 9, sho r tl y a fte r we he ar d o r ala r g um en t i n thi s ca se , we i ss ue d a n Or der rev er singthe j udg m en t ofco nvi cti on a nd r em an d ing f ora new tr i al

. W e no ted that an o pini on w oul d fo l l ow our Or der. Thi s i s that o pi ni o n.2 N o. 08

- 2589 I. On O cto ber18 , 20 05, A l an Kleb i g had a pecu li arco l l ecti o n o f th i ng s i n h i s ho m e an d y ar d. I n a ddi ti o n t o the dozens ofsqui rr elta i l s a nd shi ny co m pact di scs that ado r ne d hi s f en ce a nd y ar d, hi s ho us e an d g ar ag e co ntai ned dozens ( i fnothund re ds) ofco ntai ners fi l l ed w ith ca us ti c ch emi ca l s an d o th eruni den ti fi ed su bs ta nc es . The w al l s a nd fl oo r i nsi de hi s g ar age w er e co ver ed w i th to ol s, cord s, cab les, can isters, and j us t plain j un k fr om every im aginab le category. E ven the rafters of the garage w ere fi l l ed w i th cl u tt er, i ncl ud i ng a w eb- f oo ted dol l thatwas suspended from the cei l i ng be am s byi ts head. H i s ba sem en t c on ta in ed a sim ilar co llec t i o n of ch em ica ls, to ols an d odd s- and-ends co ver i ng ev er y s hel f, ev er y i nch of wal l s pac e an d m o sto fthe fl o o r . Ev er y c o unte r to p a nd tabl eto p surf ace i n hi s ki tchen w as cro w ded w i th wh at can o nl y b e desc ribed a s s tuff

. H e was nota goo d housekeep er. H is li ving r oom an d bed room s w ere also in d isarra y. H i s ho m e co uld nothave bee n consi dered “guest re ady” unl ess the guest s were a hazm at tea m and a v an ful l o fM er ryMai ds

. Onh i s fr o ntdo o r, h e di s pl a y e d a sm al l but thre ate ni ng si gn t h at w ar ned vi si tor s that “N othing H er e I s W or th Dyi ng F or . ” He had i nstal l ed s e c u r i t y c a me r a s t o mo n i t o r h i s h o u s e a n d p r o p e r t y . An a v i d h u n t e r, h i s h o m e h e l d a l m o s tt w o d o z e n fi r e a r ms o fv a ri ou s ty pe s a nd s i z e s a s we l l a s a mm un i t i o n a nd a cr o ss bo w and ar r o ws. S o m e of th e g uns wer e st o r ed i n a cabi ne t an d a to o lbo x but m an y wer e st r ew n ar o und th e ho us e, b l endi ngi n s ea m l es sl y wi ththe r es t o fthe mes s . Ne a r the fr ontdo o r wa s a l o a de d s ho t g una nd aN o. 08

- 2589 3

A si l en c er i s c ons i der ed a “fi re ar m ” f or the pur pos es ofthe 1 sta tu te
. S ee26 U .S.C . § 5 8 4 5 (a )(7) (“ T h e t er m fire a rm m ea n s . . . any s il encer ( as defi ned i n se ct ion 921 of ti tl e 18 , U n ite d St ates Co de)”)

. Sec ti on 921, i n turn, def ines the te rm “fir earm s il encer ” as “a ny de vi c e f or s i l en c i ng, m uf fl i ng, or di m i ni s hi ng the re por tofa por t abl e fi re ar m , i nc l udi ng a ny c om bi nat i on of p a r t s , d e s i g n e d o r r e d e s i g n e d , a n d i n t e n d e d f o r u s e i n a s s e mbli ng o r f abr i c at i ng a fi re ar m s i l en c er or fi re ar m m uf fl er, an d a n y p a rt in te n d ed o n ly fo r u se in su ch as se m b ly o r fa b ri ca tio n .” A s w e have noted, K le big le gall y po ss es se d m ore than 2 t went y othe r guns . W e w ill re f er t o the r i fl e c har ge d i n the i ndi c t m en tas the s awed- offr i fl e or the c har ge d ri fl e or the u n r e g i s t e r e d r i fl e , i n o r d e r t o d i s t i n g u i s h i tfr o m th e fi r e a r ms he he l d l awful l y. cane that co uld be pulle d apart i nto “l i ke a S am urai sw or d type o fthi ng. ” Tr
. at28
. W e know thatthi s was the st at e o fKleb i g’ s ho m e o n O c t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 b e c a u s e, a th i s t r i a l f o r p o s s e s s i n gt wo unregi ste re d fi re ar m s, the gov er nm ent e nter ed i nto 1 ev i den ce wi tn es s testim o ny a nd a s er i es o fpho to g r aph s depicting Kle big’ s ho m e a nd ya rd. Kleb i g was char ged und erS ect ions 5861 ( d) a nd 58 71 w i th kno w i ngl y pos ses si ng a fi re ar m and a si l encerwh i ch w er e no t r egi ste re d t o hi m i n the N ati onal Fi re ar m s Regi str ati on and TransferReco rd. The unreg ist er ed fi re ar m was a . 22- ca l ibe r r i fl e wi tha s awe d- o ffb ar r el, a mis sings to ck, a nd tw o m aga zi nes o fam m unit i on t ap ed to gether. The to tal l ength of the s awe d- o ffr i fl e was thi r te eni nc he s an d the bar re l was approxi m ate l y s i x i nches l ong. T h is unregi s- 2 te r ed r i fl e w as fo und u nde r Kl eb i g ’ s be d, a l o ngwi tha4 N o. 08

- 2589

K leb ig w as alleg ed ly in v olv ed in a d ispu t e w i t h a n eld erly 3 ne igh b or . A cco rd ing to the W ater tow n P olice D ep artm en t, K leb ig b lam e d h is neig hb or f or rep or ting him to loca l officials f or various prop erty code violat ions
. The local building ins pector issued thirty -three tick ets t o K l eb ig, resu lting in fines in exc es s of$5000. The neighbor’ s hom e and yard w ere dam age d by unkn own s ubs t anc es that ha d be ens pra ye d or po ur e d o n he r h ou s e a nd l a wn. P ol i c e o f fic er s o bt a i ne d a w arr an t to searc h K leb ig’s hom e for ch em icals tha t cou ld cau se tha t kin d ofdam age . Tha ts ea rc h war ra nt, whi c h l ed t o the di s c ove ry ofthe unr eg i s t er ed fi re ar m s ati s s ue i n th e i ns t ant ca se , w a s th e su b jec t o f an ea rl ie r a p p ea l. S ee Un i te d S tat es v . K leb ig, 22 8 F ed . A p p x. 6 1 3 (7t h C ir . 20 0 7 ). Playb oy m agaz ine, as th e gov ernm en t inform ed the j ury i n openin g stat em ents, and as a g ove rnm ent witness he l p fu l l y r e mi n d e d th e j u r y d u r i n gt e s t i mo n y . T he si l en ce r c o ns i st ed o fa n o i l fi l te r t aped to th e e nd o fthe ba r r elo fa di f f er en t r i fl e th atwas l ea ni nga gai ns t th e w all in sid e h is b ed ro om c los et . B ot h t h e u n re gis te re d rifle and si l encerwere sei zed in a se ar ch ofKleb i g’ s ho m e o n an un related m atter. 3 The m ai n i ssue at the t ri alwas w heth er Klebi g knew that the fi re ar m under hi s be d posses se d the char acteri st i cs tha t r equi r ed i t to b e r eg i st er ed as a r i fl e an d w hetherhe intended to use the o i l fi l teras a sile n c er . N ot al l r i fl es ar e r equi re d to be r egi ste re d i n the N ati onal F i r ea r m s Re g i st r at i o n a nd Tra ns f erRec o r d (“ Re co r d”) b ut a “ ri fl e hav i ng a bar re l o r bar re l s o fl ess than 16 i nches i n l ength, ” o r a “ w eapon m ade fro m a ri fl e i fsuch w eapon a s m odi fi ed has an o ver al l l ength ofl ess thanN o. 08

- 2589 5 26 inc hes or a bar re l or bar re l s of l ess than 16 i nch es in length ” m us t be registered

. 26 U
. S. C
. §§ 5845(a)(3) an d ( 4). K l ebi g di d no t contes t the go ver nm ent’ s char acte ri zati on of the saw ed -off rifle as m eeting t h is de fi nition. Rath er, he c o nt en ded th athe d id not kno w i t was a r i fl e but th ou gh t it w as a m od ified p istol t h a t d id n ot requ ire r eg i st r at i o n. Kl eb i ga l so a r g ue d t ha t h e di d no t i nt en d t o u s e the o i l fi l t e r a s a s i l e nc e r b utr a the r a s a fl a s h s up p re ss or , a u se th at d oe s n ot req u ire reg ist ra tio n . See 26 U .S .C
. § 5845(a)(7)
. Be cau se of this defen se, K lebig’ s f ami l i ar i tywi thfi r ea r m s an d s i l en ce r s was a maj o r i ss ue at tria l. Befo re the j ury tr i albeg an, Kleb i g’ s a tto rneym ove d i n l im ineto excl ud e fro m ev i dence the si gn bo ast i ng, “N othi ng H er e I s W or th Dying For ” and a l so the pr ese nce ofa surve i l l ance s yst em i n K l ebi g’ s ho m e. Counsel al so soughtto excl ud e r efer ences to othe r i tem s s ei zed fro m K l ebig ’ s ho use i ncl ud i ng chem i cal s, o i l s, pre scr i pti on bot tl es, m ar ij uana, and syr i nges. H e a sked the co urt to prohibi t r efer ences to the r eas ons the sea rc h w ar ra nt was i ssued i n the fi rs t pla ce, and a ny m enti on of a n inves ti gation into d am age cau sed to his nex t d o o r neighb or’s ho m e. H e ar g ue d tha t no ne o fthi s ev i den ce was r el ev an t t o th e i s s u e o fwh e th er K l eb i gk n o wi n g l y p o s s e s s e d t wo fi re ar m s without having r egi ste re d them as r equi re d byl aw. I fthe cou rtde emed the e vi den ce r el ev an t, he ar gued i n the al ter nati ve that any pr obat i ve val ue was outwe i g he d b y the p r ej ud i c i a l e ff e c to fthi s e v i de nc e, and that thi s was i nadm i ssabl e cha ra cterev i dence. A t a h ea rin g on th e m ot ion , th e g ov er n m en t a gr ee d it woul d no t r efert o the i nv es ti g at i o n i nt o da m ag e to the6 N o. 08

- 2589 proper ty ofKleb i g’ s nei ghbor. The go ver nm ent a l so in d ica te d it w ou ld n ot in tr od u c e evid en c e of t h e m a r ij uana orsy ri nges f ou n d i n K l ebi g’ s ho m e, and agr eed i t woul d no t r efert o the r ea so ns the s ea r chw arran t was i ss ue d. The g o vern m en t ar g ue d, ho wev er, tha t th e si g n an d the s ur ve i l l an ce wer e r el ev an t be ca us e, l i k e th e saw ed -off rifle and t h e sil en cer, th ey w ere ant i-bu rglary dev i ce s. The g o ve r nm en t ch ar ac te r i ze d the s i g n a nd the s ecuri ty cam er as as “i nextri cabl y i nter tw i ned” w i th K lebig’ s p ossess ion of th e ch arged firearm s. T he saw ed -off r i fl e a nd the s i l e nc e r wo ul d b e i nt i mi da t i ngi t e ms tha t wo ul d d i s c o ur a g e b ur g l a r s , the g o v e r nme nta r g ue d, m uc h li ke th e sign an d th e su rveil lance system
. Th e cou rt ag r ee d and de ni ed th e m o ti o n i n l i m i neas to tho se i tem s. The cour t did not express l y add re ss the part of K l ebi g’ s m oti on r el ate d to chem i cal s. I n i ts o pen i ngs ta te m en t, the g o ve rnm entde sc r ibe d the ch ar g es a g ai ns t Kl eb i ga nd the n tur ne d to “t he he ar t an d th e m ea t o fth i s ca se . ” The g o ve r nm en t no te d tha t th e W atertow n P oli ce D ep artm en t exe c u t e d a search w arra nt o n K l ebi g’ s ho m e o n Octobe r 18, 20 05: They cam e t o hi s a dd re ss, a n d wh at did theyse e. They wentt o the doo r . They sa w two doub l e s te eldo o r s, a nd th ey saw d is k s o n the s i de o fhi s pr o per tys tr ungup w hi ch shi ned ligh t int o a nei ghbor ’ s ho use. They knock ed on the doorand m ade entr y. N ext t o the doo r bef or e g ai ni ng e n tr y they s aw a si gn th at rea d so m et h in g a l o n g t h e lin es of n ot h in g in th is house i s worth dyi ng f or o r n ot hi ng i n her e i s worth yo u r life, a sig n to th at effe c t.N o. 08

- 2589 7 T r. at16 . Th e p ro se c u to r als o m en tio n ed a loa d ed rifle n ex t t o t h e fro n t d oo r, a n d o th er r ifles , gu n s a n d am m u n it i o n s c a t t e r e d th r o u g h o u tth e h o u s e , i n th e l i v i n gr o o m, ki tch en and bedr oo m s. The go ver nm ent a l so described the pol i ce o f fi cer s fi nd i ng a ri fl e with an o i l fi l terta ped to th e en d o fthe b ar r eli n Kl eb i g ’s be dr o o m c l o se t. The o f fi c e r s a l s o s e a r c he d u nd e r Kl e b i g ’ s b e d: One offi cerpull ed out anothe r

— a h a nd g unf ro m unde r ne ath the de f en dan t’ s bed. Under ne ath the defe nd ant’ s bed w er e som e papers, a Pl ayboy m aga zi ne , a DVD, s o m e ty pe o fDVD ca se ; but th e ha ndg un t ha tthe y p ul l e d o utwa s n’ tthe o ne wi th the s c o pe that they saw i ni ti al l y. The y pul l ed o ut an o th er g un f r o m unde r ne ath the defen dan t’ s be d. And wha t was i t. I t was a g un wi tha sawed

- off bar re l, w i th a sco pe on i t, w i th tw o m aga zi nes t aped to th e bot tom o fi t. Reco gni zi ng tha t a s an i l l ega l weapon, theyse i zed that

. Tr. at18
. The o f fi cer s f ou n d o n Kleb i g’ s be droo m fl oo r an ot h er oil filter w it h w h a t a p p ea re d to be a b u lleth ole s h o to u to n o n e e n d

. I n th e s e c o n d a n d th i r d b e d r o o ms o fthe ho us e, the o ffi ce r s f o und a ddi tional fi r ea r m s an d “sur vei l l ance e quipm ent f orthe defe nd ant t o m on i tor th e o ut si de of h i s ho us e. The y f o und s o m ewhe r e i n the ne i g hb orhood thr o ug ho utthe ho us e, s o m ewhe r e i n the nei ghbor hood o f50 to 10 0 s quir re l ta i l s. ” Tr
. at19
. The go ver nm ent’ s fi rs t witness w as Detectiv e M i chael Bei sbi er, the W at ertown poli ce o ffi cerwh o conducted the s ear ch ofKleb i g’ s ho m e. A fterde sc rib ing hi s pos i ti on8 N o. 08

- 2589

an d e xpe r i en ce a nd e st ab l i sh in ghi s r o l e i n the s ea r ch, th e g o ve r nm en t ex pl o r ed th e par ti cul ar s o fthe s ea r ch : Q: A nd wh at did yo u obs er ve outsi de the house w hen y o u a r r i v e d? A: W e wal k ed up the

— l i k e th e fr o nts to o p to fr o nt do o r . I t’ s do ubl e steel doo r s th atl ea d i nt o the h ou se . A n d th er e’s a st ick er on th e d oo r t h a t sa id som ethi ng to the effect ofn othi ng i n thi s r esi dence is w orth d ying for. Q : Di d y o u a l s o o b s e r v e o b j e c t s s t r u n gu p a l o ng the defendant’s pro perty ? A : Yes. Q: W hat, i fanythi ng, di d you o bser ve? A: Pr obab ly5 0, 6 0 squi r r elt ai l s ha ng i ngthr o ug ho ut th e pr o per tya l o ngwi th th es e l i k e CDs ha ng i ng f ro m st ri ngs. Q: W e r e y o u abl e t o o b s e r v e the e ff e c ttha tthe CD s had hangi ng o n the str i ngs? A : I gues s Idi dn ’ t s ee w hat was o n them , no. Q: Do yo u know w hetheri t ca used a r efl ecti on o nto the ne i ghbor ’ s pro perty ? A : Yes, ye s. They were st rung up on the pr oper ty l i ne. Tr
. a t 23

- 24
. Af te r el i ci tinga g en er alde sc r i pti o n o fthe sea rch f ro m Detect i ve Bei sbi er, t he go ver nm ent e nter ed into evid en ce p hot ograp hs of t h e ou tsid e of K lebig’ s hou se , i ncl ud i ng photo s that depi cted, i n part, the outsi de ofthe fro n t doo r f ro m acr oss the w i dth ofthe dri ve-N o. 08

- 2589 9

I ndee d, ane xa m i nat i on ofthe phot os with a m agn i fyi ng 4 glas s reveal s the prese nce o f a s ti cker that i s a few i nches s q ua r e . An y wor ds o n t he s t i c ke r c ou l d h a ve be e n r e a d o nl y by a pe rs on s tan d ing on t he por c h, i m m edi at el y i n fro ntofthe d o o r . O n c r o ss -e x a m i n a t i o n o f D e t e c t i v e B e i sb i e r , K l e b i g ’s l awyer in tr oduc ed a c l os er vi ew ofthe door, butag ai n, no w ords w ere disc ernable on the s m all s ti cker. Ex. 1001. way . Usi ngtho se pho to s as a re f er en ce , the g o ve r nm en t ask ed, “An d describe t o the j ury w here the si gn w as or th e n ot ice th a t s a i d w or d s t o t h e e ffec t o f n ot h in g in h er e is w or th d yin g for .” T h e d et ec tiv e a n s w er ed , “It w as on th e d oo r. Y ou ca n ’t re ally se e it, bu t a s I rec all i t’ s o n the do o r . ” Tr
. a t 27
. The de te ct i ve a l so c o n- 4 fi r m ed th atthe CDs ha ng i ngfr o m s tr i ng s al o ngthe p rop erty li ne , w hich can be seen i n tw o ph o tos, w ere pr es en t o n the da y o fthe s ea r ch

. The go ver nm ent c onti nued to ente r i nto evi dence pho to g r aph s o fthe i nt er i o r o fKl eb i g ’ s ho m e, a sk i ng Detecti ve Bei sbi erto poi nt o u t for the j ury the l oca ti on offir ea rm s a nd am m unit i on he f ound in the l i vi ng r oo m and k itchen. A t thi s poi nt, Kleb i g’ s a tto rneyo bj ecte d to the pr ej ud i ci alnat u re of the t est i m ony poi nti ng o ut ea ch and ever y o ne o fthe l ega l l y o w n ed g u ns i n the hom e, e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e Kl e b i gh a d c o n c e d e d i n h i s o p e ni ng ar g um en t th athe po ss es sed a numbero fg uns tha t he p urc ha sed h im self an d also inh erited from his f ath er. Counsel poi nted out that the g ove rnm ent had been el i ci tingt es ti m o ny fr om D etec ti ve Be i sb i erfo r a ha l fho ur wi th o uta ddr es singa ny th i ngr el at ed to the mer i ts o fthe c a s e . A fte r in itia lly d ire c tin g t h e g ov er n m en t t o lim it10 N o. 08

- 2589 furtherte sti m ony to re l evantm att er s, the cour t r eve rs ed i tse l fand al l owed the tes ti m ony because Kleb i g had i m pli ed i n hi s o pening sta tem en t that he w as not an expertwith fi re ar m s. The go ver nm ent next l ed the w i tness thr ough a se ri es ofphoto gr aphs taken i n K l ebi g’ s r atherunti dy bedro om wher e th e o f fi cers f o und the s awe d- o ffr i fl e an d the l ong ri fl e w ith t h e atta ched oi l fi l ter
. U si ng the photo s a s a g uide, Detec ti ve Bei sbi erpointed out a dre sse r on w h ich h e fo u n d am m u n itio n, th e lon g rifle w ith t h e o il fi lter in th e closet, th e secon d oi l fi lter, and the saw ed -off ri fl e r eco ver ed f ro m under the be d. D et ec ti ve Bei sbi er tes ti fi ed that he sa w a fi re ar m under the be d, and w ar ned a fe l l ow offi certo r em ove i t ca re full y b ecause “[ n]i nety perce nt of hi s guns w er e l oaded. ” Tr. at 41. T h e o ther offi cer re m ove d a si l ver re vol ver, and then w en t b ack to re tr i eve the gun Detect i ve Bei sbi erhad see n f ro m hi s s i de o fthe b e d: I sai d there ’ s anothe r gun und er neath there , Dave, j ust be c ar eful ; a nd a s he s etthato ne do wn, he went bac k un d er. H e ha d to m ove som e item s from u n d erne ath the b ed; pa per s, a Pl aybo y, I th in k, o r t wo; a nd th enhe ha d t o r ea ch d ow n an d pul l the g un o ut, a nd th at ’ s th e o ne

— I s ai d to hi m the one Ise e has a sco pe o n i t
. . . . a nd i t wa s a . 2 2 r i fl e tha t di dn ’ t hav e a s t o c k o n it and that the en d of th e barrel w as cu t off ofi t. Tr. at41
. Detect i ve Bei sbi er t est i fi ed to then fi nd i ng a l oaded . 45- cal iberhandgun, a cr oss bow w i th a quiver of ar r o ws, . 12

- g au g e r o unds , a ppr o xi m at el y 1 000 BB g unN o. 08

- 2589 11

r o unds , a nd a c o nt ai ne r o f

. 45

- ca l ibe r s he ll s, all i n the m aster be d room . I n ad d iti on to th e ph otos, the saw ed -off r i fl e an d the l o ngr i fl e wi ththe o i l fi l te r t ape d t o the e nd we r e a l s o e nt e r e d int o e v i de nc e du r i ngDe tect i ve Bei sbi er ’ s t est i m ony. De t e c t i v e Be i s b i e r i de nt i fi e d p ho t o s o fthe n e xtb e dr o o m, w h e r e h e f o u n d s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l f i r e a r ms , s o me i n a g u n c a b i n e ta n d s o me l e a n i n ga g a i n s ta w a l l

. S o me w er e l oaded and s om e w er e not. The secon d bedroom al so conta i n ed a survei l l ance s yst em hoo ked up to a cam era m ou nt ed o u t s id e and point ing at th e front d oor. I n the thi rd b ed ro om , the detect i ve f ound anotherfi re ar m , i n a c ase , l eani ng ag ai nst a wall

. The r oo m al so c o n t a i n e d a c a me r a o n a t r i p o d f a c i n go u tth e wi n d o w. The prosecu to r ne xtl ed Det ec ti ve Be i sb i erthr o ug h a se r i es ofpho to g r aph s o fKl eb i g ’ s ba se m en t, whi chc o ntai ned a va st ar ray o fchem i cal s a nd to ol s, as wellas a mot o r c y c l e a nd a n umb e r o fi t e ms tha twe r e b o th o dd an d a lar m i ng i n appearance . Fo r exam ple , o ne photo port ra yed a s m al l pl ast i c co ol er, the type that a per son m i ght car ry t o a pi cni c, co ntai ni ng a pla sti c ba g o fm oto r o i l

. T r . a t5 4 ; Ex
. 2 6
. Another p o r t r a y e d a l a r g e s o da f ountai n cani ste r c on ver ted to “a l i ke w eed ea terspra yer gun. ” T r. a t 54; Ex. 27
. Yet anothe r depicte d a pl ast i c i ce cre am tub conta i ni ng a l i quor bot tle an d a j ug. Ex. 28
. Det ecti ve Be i sb i ert es ti fi ed, “ Tha t ar e, tho se a r e i n the l au ndr y r o o m o n the s helvi ng j us t ab o ve the was he r a nd dr ye r, the shel vi ng, thatar e bo ttl es ofIbel i eve to be a ci d. ” Tr
. a t 54
. Al th o ug h a few o fthe b o tt l es i n the base m ent were i d en ti fi abl e s ubstance s s uch as com m on12 N o. 08

- 2589 househol d cl eaner s a nd deter gents, the vastm aj or i ty of t he c o n t a i n e r s we r e u n ma r k e d o r h a d i l l e g ib l e l a b e l s . On som e con tainers, the wor ds “c au ti o n” and “corrosive” w ere vi sibl e, a nd many o fthe s he l ves h o l di ngthe b o tt l es a nd j ug s w ere p artly corrode d

. I n on e pictu re, the arm o f a pe r s o n we a r i nga wh i t e gl ov e c a n b e s e e n pu l l i ngc o r ds and cabl es back to re veal fi ve or si x pla sti c g al l on- si ze j ugs, ea c h filled w ith a b lac k s u b st an c e a n d h an d -lab ele d “o il.” Ex
. 33
. W hen K l ebi g’ s l aw yero bj ecte d to these p h ot os and ph oto s o fthe gar age i nter i oron r ele vance gr ounds, the g ove rnm en t conte nd ed that the pi cture s por tr aye d “al l so rt s o f thi ngs m echani cal ” a nd were re l evantto K l ebi g’ s t echni caland m echani calabi li ti es. Tr. at56
. A l though K l ebi g’ s co unsel as ser ted thathe ha d not ca l l ed i nt o que st i o n h i s cl i en t’ s m ec ha ni calabi l i ti es , the co ur t o ve r r ul ed th e o bj ec ti o n. The pho to s o fthe ga r ag e wer e equa l l y o dd. One pho to de pi ct ed a ful l l en g thmir r o r l ea ni nga g ai ns t th e o ut s i de o fthe gar a g e do o r, n e xtt o a l a r g e j uga nd a bucketo n sta i ned concr ete
. Ex. 37
. Detective Bei sbi er i n d i c a t e d t h a to n e o fth e c o n t a i n e r s h e l d o i l

. T r . a t5 8
. As w i th m ost o f the othe r conta i ners i n the gar age and base

m en t, the j ury w as l eft wond er i ng wh at w as i n the othe r o n e . F i v e p i c t u r e s o fth e g a r a g e i n t e r i o r r e v e a l e d t wo mot o r c y c l e s ( o r p a r t s o fmo t o r c y c l e s ) , s e v e r al m o r e s o da fou n ta in ca n i st er s, b u c ke ts an d j u gs co n ta in in g u n id en tifi ed l i quids a nd o thers u b sta nces, cab l es, co rds, to ol s, and crat es, as wellas a l ar ge num bero fo bj ects that si m plycannotbe i denti fi ed. Exs. 38

- 42. A s w e noted ea r l i er, a w eb

- f o o te d dol l w as sus pen ded f r o m the c ei l i ng byi ts he ad, a nd the r afte r s wer e al so fil led w i thj unk

. Ex.N o. 08

- 2589 13

O n c ro s s - ex am i nat i on, Det ec t i ve Bei s bi er t es t i fi ed thathe 5 f ound t wo han dguns l oc ke d i n a t oolbox i n the bas em en t
. The guns a re no tvi s i bl e i n the phot os ofthe bas em en tan d t he gov ernm ent did not as k D ete ct ive Beis bier on d ir ectex am inatio n to p o in t o u t th e l o ca tio n o f fire a rm s in th e b a se m en t. 38
. The a m o unto fc l ut te r was b r ea th ta k i ng . None o fthe photos f ro m the base m ent o r gar age depic ted fi rear m s o r amm uni ti o n. 5 Earl G riffi th, a fi re ar m s e xpert f ro m the Bu re au of Alc o ho l, To ba cc o a nd F i r ea r m s ( “ATF ”) t es ti fie d tha t he exam i n ed t he sa w ed-o ffr i fl e a nd i denti fi ed i t a s a Sq u ire s B in gh am .22-c alib er l o n g rifle, m an u fac tu re d in the Phil i pp i nes and s ol d b y K m ar t i n the U ni ted Sta te s. H e no te d tha t th e ba r r elhad be enc r ude l y c uto ff, the sto ck l ug had bee n re m ove d, an d t h e back re arsi ght ha d been re m ove d. A sco pe w as m ounted on th e t ri gge r m echani sm . Gri f fi th al so display ed f orthe j ury an i ntact S qui r es Bi ng ha m r i fl e th atha d not been m o di fi ed i n a ny way . H e c om p ar ed th e i nt ac t r i fl e to the o ne f o und und er K l ebi g’ s bed and desc ribed al l of the s im il ar i ti es an d allof th e d ifferenc es. I n d escribing th e saw ed -off ri fl e, he no ted thatthe f ro nt par t o fthe bar re l had bee n re m ove d and the fro nt si ght was r em ove d al ong w i th i t. He r e mar k e d: S ee the ma r k s wh e r e s o meo ne p r o b a b l y u s e d a p i pe cutterto ta ke i t o ff; as it g oes ar ound and yo u ti ghten it, goes aroun d and i t cam e off

. T r. at24 4. H e t es tifie d th at h e t es t-fir ed th e s aw ed -off rifle an d i t w as cap able of being fi red

. H e d escribed th e d iffer-14 N o. 08

- 2589

The r epo rtofa fi re ar m i s the so u nd i tm ake s on be i ng 6 fir ed. Tr. at 248- 49. en ce b etwee n a pi st o l and a sa wed- o ffr i fl e, a nd c o ncl ude d tha t Kl eb i g ’ s fi r ea r m was a r i fl e r ather tha n a pis tol

. Gri f fi th als o tes ti fi ed abo ut si l encer s a nd fl ash su ppr es so r s an d o pi ne d tha t th e o il fi l te r t ape d t o the l ong ri fl e f ound in K l ebi g’ s be droo m cl ose t fu n c tioned as a s i l encer . Gri f fi th ha d s ee n oi lfi l ter s e m plo yed f or t hi s pur p o s e t we n t y o r th i r t y t i me s i n h i s c a r e e r . He tes ted the l ong ri fl e wit h the oi l fi l terag ai nst a si m i l ar l o ngr i fl e wi th o uta fi l te r a nd no ted th at, o n a ve r ag e, the oil filte r re d u c ed th e rifle rep or t b y a p p ro x im at ely six de c ib e l s . Onc r o s s - e xa mi na t i o n, the de f e ns e que s t i o ne d

6 Gri f fi th abo ut pi c tu re s ofpi sto l s that bo re so m e physi calr ese m bl ance to the s aw ed-o ffr i fl e. A fterthi s cr oss - exam i nati on, the gov er nm ent info rm ed th e co ur t th ati t inten d ed t o i nt r o duce i nt o e vi den ce the fi re ar m s tha t K l ebi g l ega l l y pos ses sed and tur ned ove r to l aw e nf o r ce m en t o ffi ce r s when th es e ch ar g es w ere br o ug hta g ai ns t hi m . Tr
. a t 33 1; 3 68

- 69
. The g o ve r nm en t ar gu ed thatthe defe nse had put ati ssue K l ebi g’ s know le d g e o f firea rm s b y s u gg es tin g t h at th e s aw ed -off rifle re sem bl ed a num bero f pi sto l s that were not re quir ed to be r eg i st er ed. The g o ve r nm en t co nt en ded it was r el ev an t f orthe j ury to see exact l y what guns Kle bi g pos sessed and m ai ntai ned. Kleb i g’ s l aw ye r obj ecte d to the physi cal p r e s e n t a t i o n s o fth e g u n s , a r g u i n gth a tth e s a me pu rpos e co uld be acc om pli sh ed w i th photo gr aphs of Kl eb i g ’ s g uns . Tr
. a t 33 1- 32 ; 3 69

- 70
. He a ss er te d tha t th eN o. 08

- 2589 15 prej ud i ce o fsho w i ng the j ury tw enty- thre e a dd i ti onal g uns i ndi vi dual l y o r e ve n a s a g r o up f aro ut wei gh ed the proba ti ve val ue, es peci al l y b ecause the sam e g oalco uld be ac hi ev ed th r o ug h the i nt r o duct i o n of co l o r pho to g r aph s o fe ac h g un tha t the g overn m en t i ts el fpr o duce d. The cour t o ver rul ed the obj ecti on without co m m ent. The g o ve r nm en t th enc al l ed to the s ta nd S er g ea nt Kathe r i ne S el ck o f th e W at er to wn Po l i ce Depa r tment
. The pros ecuto r hand ed K l ebi g’ s guns to S gt. S el ck one at a ti m e, a sk i nghe r i n e ac h i ns ta nc e to i den ti fy the g un, a nd verify th ati t ca m e f r o m Kl eb i g . Thr o ug h thi s pr o ce ss , the go ve rn m en t in tr od u c ed a C oltT ro op er .357 rev olv er ; a Ruger
. 32 sin gl e s i x-s hot; a Davi s Ind ustr i es M odel

. 22, com m only called a D erringer; a Ru ger . 22-caliber revolver; a High St andard doubl e ni ne . 22- cal iberr evo lve r; a . 45- ca l ibe r Pe der so l i b l ac kpo wder ; a .50- ca l ibe r Co nne ct i cut Val l ey A rm s bl ack p ow der; a M oss ber g . 12- gauge sh ot gu n ; a .20-c alib er p elle t g u n ; a Ju ka r b lac k p ow d er ; a S m i tha nd W es so n 3 8 S pec i alr ev o l ve r ; a S m i tha nd W es so n . 17 7- ca l ibe r a i r g un; a Re pea ta i r Cr o sman ai r g un; a . 45- cal iberC ol t S er i es 70 sem i autom ati c handgun; a . 22- caliber Sears-Roeb uc k 282; a C r o s m an air gu n; a W estern Fiel d . 20- gauge shot gun; a Ruger M odel

. 22- cal iber ; a Rem i ngto n . 12- gauge sho tgun; a W es te rn A rm s doubl ebar re l ed shot gun; a Dais y BB pel l et gun; a .357- cal iber M ar l i n M odel 1 897; and a To pp erM odel

. 12- gauge sho tgun. Each ofthe tw enty-three guns w as l ai d on the fl oo r i n f ro n t of the witnes s bo x, as S gt. S el ck i denti fi ed th em , f or m i ng an ar c ar ound the witnes s bo x. Tr. 37 0- 86. The guns r em ai ned on the fl oo r w hi l e the co urt confer re d w i th c ou nseli n a s i debar that occupi ed thr ee pages of16 N o. 08

- 2589 tr i altr anscr i pt, atwh i ch ti m e the ju rors were re l eas ed f or l unch. Over the l unch br eak, K l ebi g’ s l aw ye r as ked the c ourtto r em ove the fi re ar m s: One l asti ssue, J ud ge. Can w e hav e the guns re m ove d f r o m the fl o o r a nd a r o und the wi tn es s tabl e o ve r the l u n c h h o u r a n d p u t s o me p l a c e e l s e ? R i g h t no w the r ec o r d s ho ul d r efl ec t th eya r e li ned up i n fr o nto fthe w itness box and aroun d the sid e on th e fl oor. The r e’ s ab o ut2 5 g uns l ai d o utthe r e as wel l a s th e gu ns that are

— T r. at40 5. T h e c ou rtint e r r u p t e d by st at in g, “T h ey w ill be a pp ro pri ate l y r em ove d and store d

. ” Tr
. at40 5. W hen the j ury re turned fro m l unch, the guns w er e no l onge r on th e fl oor. S o m e g uns r etur ne d t o the wi tn es s st an d dur i ngthe gov er nm ent’ s cr oss - exam inati on o fKleb i g, wh o tes ti fi ed o n h i s o wn be ha l f

. On di r ec t, Kl eb i gt es ti fi ed th athe own ed approxi m ate l y t w enty- fi ve guns, thathe ha d been an avi d hun tersi nce the ag e of six tee n w hen hi s f ather bega n tea chi ng hi m to hunt, a nd thathe ha d i nheri ted about hal fo fhi s fi re ar m s fro m hi s f ather

. Kleb i g a l so enj oye d tar getprac ti ce, r ead m aga zi ne s rel ate d to hunting and outdooract i vi ti es, and att ended gu n shows. H e exp lai ne d th at th e com p act d iscs han ging in his yard wer e m ea ntt o k ee p m i ce a nd s qui rrels o uto fhi s g ar den

. H e pl aced the s qui r r elt ai l s ar o und h i s y ar d a fte r r ea di ng i n a n o ut d oor m agaz i ne tha t bi r ds woul d us e th e fur to m ake nests. H e e xplai ned that he had a secur i ty sys tem in h i s ho m e be cause hi s workr equi re d him to be awayfr o m ho m e f r eque nt l y . He was e xpe r i m en tingN o. 08

- 2589 17

M ark D eB la re, the ori ginal ow ner ofthe s aw ed-offri fle , 7 tes ti fie d that he brok e the st ock hit ti ng a racc oon ov er the head w h e n h u n t i n g . A p p a r e n t l y , th e r a c c o o n c o n t i n u e d t o c l i mb o u t o f a t re e a fte r D eB la re “ u n lo a d ed th e c lip in to th e r a cc o o n .” Tr. at15 3. Af t er the at t ac k onthe ha rd- he ade d and un u sua lly res il ie nt r acc o o n , all thatrem ained ofthe ri fle w as the barrel “w ith a l it tl e bitofthe w ood on it
. ” Tr. at 153. D eBlare lat er sol d the broken rifle to Larry K le big, the def endan t’ s brother. A lt houghthe s t oc k was br ok e n, the ba r r e l wa s i nt a c twhe n Lar ry Kle bi g t ook possessi on. The r ec or d does no tr eve al who s awed offthe ba rr el aft er Lar ry Kle bi g t ook pos s es s i on of t he gun. w i th oil filt ers, he c l ai m ed, to se e i ftheywould suppress the fl ash o fhi s shot gun. H e i ntended t o hunt f or a t ro ubl eso m e r ac co o n o n hi s m o th er ’ s pr o per tya t ni g ht( r ac co o ns ar e no ctur na l ) and di d no t wantt o dr aw the a tt en ti o n o fpa ss i ngmot o r i st s. He t es ti fi ed th athe f o und the saw ed

- offr i fl e i n the base m ent o fhi s f ather ’ s ho m e a fter hi s f atherdi ed. H e thought i t wa s a p i sto l m i ssi ng i ts g r i p o r s tock. He kne w the b ar r elwas s awe d- o ffb ut as su m ed th athi s fath erha d s awe d i t o ffb ec au se the ti p had been dam age d. A fterfi ri ng the w ea pon a few 7 ti m es, he s topped usi ng i t be cause i t was i naccurat e a nd c l ums y t o h o l d. On cros s- exam i nati on, the gov er nm ent quest i oned K l ebi g about f our ofh i s p i sto l s and thr ee ofhi s l ong guns, c om p ar in g fe at u re s a n d as kin g h ow h e w ou ld h old them and oper ate them

. Tr. at45 1- 62. I t i s uncl earfro m th e record how m an y of th e gun s w ere visible to the j ury dur i ngthi s ex ch an g e, o r w he re the g uns wer e i n the18 N o. 08

- 2589

co ur tr o o m . Af te r handi ngK l eb i gf o ur pi st o l s, the g o ve r nm en t i n d i c a t e d i t wa s t u r n i n g th e d i s c u s s i o n t o l o ng g uns . At tha t po i nt, the c o ur t i nt er ve ne d a nd di r ec te d the gov er nm ent t o “r em ove wh at’ s up there, pl eas e. ” Tr
. at 453
. Af t e r qu e s t i o ni ng Kl e b i g a b o ut l o ng g un s , the go ver nm ent turned to the col l ecti on o ffi re ar m s a s a wh ol e: Q: There ar e a num bero ffi re ar m s here. Do y ou se e an y w ith a sa w ed off ba rre l? A : N ot that I can see , no. Q : A ll righ t. So n on e o f t h em h av e a sa w ed o ff ba rre l. A re any ofthem m i ssi ng a sto ck? A : I see the y pu t som e of th em back toge th er. Q : No
. I ’ m a s k i n gy o u do y o u s e e a n y o fy o u r fi r e a r ms that ar e m i ssi ng a sto ck? A : N o. Q: Do y o u s ee a ny o fy o ur f irearm s tha t ar e m i ss i ng a g r i p? A : N o. T r. at 460. Presu m ably, allof K lebig’ s firearm s w ere prese nt f orthi s l i ne o fquesti oni ng but the rec or d does not re vealhow they w er e di spl aye d. The go ver nm ent a l so q u es tio n ed K leb ig a b ou t h is c ro ss b ow an d arr ow s, h is su rv eilla n c e c am er as , an d t h e s i gn on h is d oo r “t h at sa id not hin g i n h ere is w orth you r l ife or w o r t h dy ing for, w or ds to thateff ect. ” Tr
. at46 4. Pr i o r t o the s ta r t o fc l o singa r g um en ts a nd o ut si de th e h ea rin g of t h e jur y, t h e g ov er n m en t t old th e c ou rtth at itN o. 08

- 2589 19

w i shed to ar gue t o the j u ry t hat the se cond oi l fi l ter f ound on Klebi g’ s be droo m fl oo r “fi t” the s aw ed-o ffr i fl e, an d tha t th e “mar k i ng s m at ch

. ” Tr
. a t 55 1- 53
. W he n the cour t a ske d the pro secuto r to clari fy the i nfe re nce that sh e wi sh ed th e j ur y t o dr aw fr om the de m o ns tr at i o n, sh e r epl i ed th at, ta k i ng th e sa wed- o ff r i fl e and the seco nd o i l fi l terto gether, “there ’ s a n al ter nati ve sugge stio n th at h e, in fac t, u se d th is a s a silen c er on th is par ti cul ar i te m . ” Tr
. at 55 2- 53
. Thi s i nfer en ce , she contended, was i n turn r elev ant t o K l ebi g’ s know l edge o f th e us e of oil filte rs as sile n c er s. K leb ig ob j ec t e d t o th is ar gum ent b ecause nothi ng i n the recor d ti ed thos e i te m s to g ethe r, a nd no th i ngi n the r ec o r d s uppo r te d the i nfere nce the go ver nm ent was at tem pti ng to draw, that K l ebi g had used the se cond oi l fi l teras a si l ence r on th e sa wed- o f fr i fl e. The c o ur t dec i ded to al l o w the a r g um ent. The go ver nm ent pr oce eded to dem onst ra te tw i ce ( once i n the fi rs t par t o fcl osi ng ar gum ents a n d o nce in r eb u tt al ) thatthe seco nd o i l fi l terfi t o n the bar re l o f th e saw ed -off rifle. Th e pros ecu tor also tol d t he j ury t ha t the m arkings on the ba rrel “m atch ed ” the oi l fi lter. The l as t th i ngthe j ur y s aw o r h eard w as th e se co nd dem onst ra ti on o ft h e s eco nd o i l fi l terbeing fi tte d onto th e sa wed- o f fr i fl e. Le ss th ana n h o ur a fte r e nt er i ng del ibe r at i o ns , the j ur y s en t o uta no te r eque sti ngthe sawed

- offr i fl e, the s ec on d oi l fi l ter, the l ong gun w i th th e o i l fi l te r t ape d t o the b ar r el, a nd the c l i p fr o m the sa wed

- o f fr i fl e , i n th a to r d e r . T h e c o u r ta r r a n g e d f o r t he j ur y t o e xa mi ne tho se i t e ms. T he j ur y l a t e r r e t ur ne d a verd ict find ing K lebig gu il ty o n b oth cou nt s. T he cou rt se nt en ce d Kl eb i gt o t wenty
- se ve n months ’ i m pr i so nm en t20 N o. 08

- 2589

o n e a c h c o un t, t o b e s e r v e d c o nc ur r e nt l y . Kl e b i ga pp e a l e d. As we n o t e d e a r l i e r, a ft e r h e a r i n go r a l a r g u me n t, we i ssued an o rderr eve rs in g the j ud gm ent o fco nvi cti on an d rem an d in g for a n ew tria l. W e in d ic a t e d t h at th is o p i n i o n wo u l d f o l l o w.

II. O n ap p ea l, K leb ig c h alle n ge s t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isi o n t o a l l o w ev i den ce r el at i ngt o the s ign on hi s f r o nt doorand hi s s urve i llan ce s yst em . H e a l so conte nd s that the c ourter re d i n allo w i ng ce rt ai n evi dence r el ati ng to h is le ga l p os se ss ion of ot h er firea rm s. Fin ally , K leb ig m ai n t a i n s th a tth e c o u r te r r e d i n p e r mi t t i n gth e g o v er nm en t to c o nduc t a demons tr at i on duringc l o singa r g um en ts tha t i nt r o du ced ne w, uns uppo r te d f ac ts i nt o the r ec o r d. Be ca us e we ar e r ev er singhi s co nv i ct i o n a nd re m an d in g fo r a n ew tria l, w e w ill no t a d d re ss h is c laim th at th e co ur t f ai l ed ade qua te l y to co ns i der hi s argu m en t that he wa s e nt i t l e d t o a s e nt e nc e o fp r o b a t i o n wi th com m unity c onfi nem ent.

A. W e r ev i ew e vi den ti ar y de ci si o ns f o r abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. U nite d State s v. Wes cott, 576 F. 3d 347, 355 ( 7th C ir . 2 0 09), cert. denied , 201 0 W L 59 66 00 (2 0 1 0); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M i l l b r ook, 5 53 F
. 3d 10 57, 1 06 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. S o m e o fthe evi dence adm i tte d i n thi s c ase f or ces us to r etur n to fi r stpr i nc i pl es . W i thcer ta i n e xc ept i o ns , a l l r el ev an t evi dence i s a dm i ssibl e, and evi de n ce which i s no tN o. 08

- 2589 21

r e l e v a n ti s n o ta d mi s s ib l e . F e d

. R
. E v i d

. 4 0 2
. “ ‘ R e l ev an t evi dence’ m eans evi dence havi ng any tendency to m ake th e ex i st en ce o fa ny f ac t th ati s o fc o ns eque nc e to the d et er m in at ion of th e a c tio n m or e p ro b ab le or les s p ro b ab le than i t would be witho ut the evi dence. ” Fed. R. Evi d. 401. See a lso H ud dlesto n v . U nited Sta tes , 485 U
. S. 681, 68 7 ( 1988 ) ( Rule s 40 1 and 40 2 e stabl i sh the br oad pri nci ple that re l evantev id ence

— evi dence thatm ake s the exi ste nce of a n y f a c t a t is su e m or e o r les s p ro b ab le

— is a d m iss ible unle ss the Rul es ofE vid ence provi de otherwis e)
. W i th re spect to th e cha rg e o fposs ess i ng an unregi ste re d shor tbar re l ed ri fl e, Kleb i g con c ed ed al l o fthe f acts o fco nsequence except w h et h er he knew thatthe fi re ar m was a ri fl e o r a w eapon m ade fro m a ri fl e. H e co nceded that th e sa wed- o f fr i fl e m etthe st atut o r y de fi ni ti o n, tha t he po ss es s e d i t, a n d th a ti twa s n o tr e g i s t e r e d

. He c o ntended that he tho ught the fi re ar m was a m od ified pis tolthatdi d not r equ i re r egi str ati on. H i s know l edge o fwheth erthi s fi r ea r m was a r i fl e o r a pi st o l was thus t he c e nt r a l f a c to fc o ns e qu e nc e fo r tha tc ha r g e . On the s i l encerchar ge, Kleb ig aga i n conce ded thathe pos

s es se d th e o i l fi l t e r a n d th a ti twa s n o tr e g i s t e r e d

. He cont ested onl y hi s know l edge that the o i l fi l terwas a si l encer and hi s i ntent to use i t as a devi ce f or sil enci ng, m uffl i ng, o r dim i ni shi ng the r epor t o fa port abl e fi re ar m . H e co ntended i nstea d that he was te sti ng the o i l fi l ter as a fl ash s up press or, a devi ce which i s not r equi re d to be r eg i st er ed, a nd tha t he di d no t i nt en d t o di m i ni shthe re porto fthe ri fl e a nd w as not aw ar e that the o i l fi l terev en had that e f f ect. A s with the sawed

- offr i fl e, the onl y f act of c onsequence w as K l ebi g’ s know l edge a nd i ntent w i th regard to the oilfil ter.22 N o. 08

- 2589 So we begi n by ask i ng ho w a str ange and rude si gn o n K l ebi g’ s doo r thre ate ni ng tha t “ N othi ng H er e I s W or th DyingFo r” m ak es it m or e o r l ess l i kel y that Kle bi g knew the fi re ar m was a m odi fi ed ri fle ra therthan a m odi fi ed p i s t o l . Sim ilar ly, w e m u st as k w h et h er th is s ign w ou ld hel p a j ury answ erthe q u est i on o fwh etherKleb i g knew ori ntended t o use the o i l fi l teras a si l encerr atherthan a fl as h su ppr es so r . I n ea ch i ns ta nc e, th e gover nm en t ur g ed th e co ur t be l o w an d a r g ue s to us o n a ppea l tha t th e si g n a nd s ur ve i l l an ce s y st em wer e admi ss ibl e unde r the “i ne xt r i cabl y i nt er twi ne d” do ct r i ne . Acco r di ngt o the gov er nm ent, thes e i tem s a re i nextri cably i nter tw i ned w i th the cr i m e o fkno w i ngl y pos ses si ng unregis ter ed fi re ar m s be cause they ar e pr obat i ve ofKleb i g’ s: secu rity c o n scious state of m ind , w hich m ad e it m ore pr o b a b l e tha n no ttha th e k no wi ng l y p o s s e s s e d a sa w ed-o f fr i fl e, and a l ong ri fl e with a s i l encer . Both i tem s, [ si c] have m enaci ng appear ances, a n d appear l i kel y t o deter a n intr ud eras the si gn was m eant to d o. T hu s, th is evi d en ce w as intertw ined w ith K lebig’ s knowing posse ssi on o fthes e i l l ega l fi re ar m s. Gover nm ent’ s B ri efat14
. But K l ebi g’ s pre occupati on with secur i ty concerns has nothi ng to do with hi s kn ow led ge that the s aw ed-o f fr i fl e w as a r i fl e r atherthan a pi sto l o r hi s i nt en t to us e th e o i l fi l te ra s a sil en ce r r athe r tha n a fl as h suppr es so r . Both l eg aland i l l eg alguns ar e m en ac i ng to a bur gl arand K l eb ig lega l l y pos ses sed a sm al l ar senal th a t w o u ld h av e s en t a n y b u rg lar p ac kin g. H is leg ally ow ne d fi r ea r m s wer e vi sibl e al l o ve r the ho us e, b utthe sa w ed -off rifle w as u n d e r h is b ed (alon g w ith a leg allyN o. 08

- 2589 23

Al t ho ug h i ti s t e m pt i ng t o a gr e e tha tthe i nt i m i dat i nga p- 8 p ear an ce of the sa w ed -offrifl e o r t he lon g gu n w ith th e oil fil ter w ou l d f r i g hte n a w ou ld -be b u rg lar, the issue her e is K le big’ s kn o w le dg e and inte nt about thes e i tem s. It em s that app ear s ub st anti all y identica l to the c harged ite m s here m ay b e ow ne d lega lly. Ind eed , the se v ery item s m ay b e le g ally p o s s e s s e d i fth e y a r e p r o p e r l y r e g i s t e r e d

. Wh e t h e r th e i t e ms w ould inti m idate a burg lar m akes it no m ore or le ss li kely that K le big knew t h e fi rearm w as a ri fle and w hether he i ntended to us e the oil fil ter as a s il encer . posse sse d pist ol ) and the l ong gun w i th the o i l fi l ter at ta ch ed w as i n h i s be dr o o m c l o se t. The g o ve r nm en t has be en unabl e t o explai n w hy se curi ty concerns m ake i t m or e l i kel y that a per son w ou ld kno w thata m odi fi ed g u n st ar te d ou t a s a rifle in st ea d of as a p ist ol. K leb ig d id no t den y tha t he kn ew the g un wa s i n h i s co l l ec ti o n; he denie d onl y know i ng t h at i t was a sawed

- offr i fl e i nstea d o fa s awe d -of f p is to l

. W e ar e ha r d- pr es se d t o dr aw a ny rational con ne ct ion betw een saw ed -off rifles, sil en cers an d bu rglars. A pers o n n o r m a ll y saw s offthe ba rrel of a gu n in o rd er to m ak e t h e g u n ea sie r to co n c ea l. A 8 si l encerm ake s i t l ess l i kel y that the s hot w oul d be he ar d. Butne i th er of th es e func ti o ns make s se ns e i n the con tex t of p rotectin g a hom e against b urglary. T he re i s g en er al l y no ne ed to c o nc ea l a g un fr o m a b ur glara nd i fthe r e wa s , Kl e b i ga dmi t t e dl y p oss ess e d ma nyh a nd

guns thatwould have been f area si erto co ncealand shoo t t ha n t he a wk wa r dl y c o nfi g ur e d s aw e d- o ffr i fl e . And a hom eowner har dly w an ts to m uffl e the so und o f the s hot w hen tak i ng ai m ata b u rg l ar . A hom eowner24 N o. 08

- 2589

The go v ernm ent als o twice took note ofthe “dou ble s tee l 9 door s ” o n Kl ebi g’ s ho us e as par tofhi s s ec ur ity-con s c i ous attitu d e. Alth ou g h th e reco rd d oe s n ot rev eal the fu ll com p osit i o n o f t h e d o o r s , t h e y a p p e a r f r o m t h e p h o t o g r a p h s t o b e t wo or di nar y stee l e nt ry door s i n a s i de-by- s i de c onfi gur at i on. Acc or di ng t o Con s um er R epo rt s , “S t ee l door s ac c ountf or abo ut halfthe m arket, com peti ng w ith fibergl ass and w ood

. ” S ee htt p:/ / w w w . consum erre port s.o rg /cr o /h o m e-g arden/hom ei m pro vem en t /har dw ar e- bui l di ng- s uppl i e s / do o r s - e n t r y / e n t r yd o o rs -1 0 0 4 /o v er v ie w /in d ex .h tm (la st v isi te d A p ri l 5 , 20 1 0 ). There is no e vidence i n the rec ord regarding w hether s tee l d oo rs are m or e secu re th an oth er ty p es. w ou ld w an t t h e b u rg lar to h ea r th e s h ot an d w ou ld l i k e l y wa nt ne i g hb o r s t o he a r the c o mm o t i o n a s w el l , so that they m i ght a l er t the pol i ce depar tm ent. The go ver nm ent’ s e xplanat i on s im p ly does no t m ake se ns e. I t do es no t ta k e m ucho fa s tr et ch t o im ag i ne the re al r e l e v a nc e o f t he s i g n a nd the s ur v e i l l a nc e s y s t e m to a j ur y . I n c o m bi nation wi thhi s l eg al l y o wned g uns , the

9 vast am ounts of cl utter, the squi rr el tai l s and co m p act d isk s h an gin g in th e y ar d , an d th e c o l l e c tio n of u n id en tifi ed buta ppar en tl y c au st i c chem ic al s, the s i g n a nd the su rveil lance cam eras m ake K lebig ap p ear to be a d an gero us a nd p e r ha ps unba l a nc e d ma n, a n o ddb a l l, p e r ha ps a s u rv iva listor a gu n n u t. T h e g o v e r n m en t e ve n sa w fit to tw ice m enti on the Pl aybo y m aga zi nes f ound un der K l ebi g’ s be d al ong w i th t h e sawed

- offr i fl e, ev i dence whi c h ha d n o r e l e v a nc e o r p ur po s e o the r tha n t o p e r ha ps em bar ra ss K l ebi g. Thi s i s a l l char acte r evi dence, wh i ch i s g en er al l y i na dm i ss ibl e f o r the pur po se o fpr o vi ngN o. 08

- 2589 25

a c t i o n i n c o nfo r mi t y wi th tha tc ha r a c t e r . F e d. R
. Ev i d. 40 4(a ); H udd l e s t on , 485 U .S. at 6 85 ; U nited S t a tes v. B o nn er, 30 2 F
. 3d 77 6, 7 81 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 2) ( g en er ale vi den ce o fthe d efend an t’s cha racter is i na d m issible i n crim inal cases). Rule 404(b) “g ener al ly prohibi ts the intro du cti on o f evi d en ce o fextr i nsi c ac ts that m i ght a dvers el y r efl ect on th e ac to r ’ s ch ar ac te r, unl ess th at ev i den ce b ea r s upo n a re l evanti ssue i n the case such a s m oti ve, o pp or tuni ty, o r knowle dge. ” H udd l e s t on , 48 5 U.S
. at 6 85 . Thi s e vi dence that K l ebi g p ost ed a threa teni ng si gn o n hi s doo r, fi l l ed hi s ho m e with sec uri ty ca m er as, and sto w ed adultm aga zi nes under hi s be d is w hol l y i rr el evantto wh ether K l ebi g knew the sawed

- offgun was a rifl e o r a pi sto l and w hetherhe intended to use the oi l fi l teras a si l encer or a flash su p p ressor. W e hav e cr i ti ci zed the “i nextri cabl y inter tw i ned” or “in tri cate l y r el ate d” doctr i ne ( as w e hav e ca l l ed i t a t ti m es i n other case s) as a vague theo ry t h at tem pts pro secut o r s to e xpand the e xc ept i o ns t o Rul e 40 4(b) b ey o nd th e p ro p er bo u n d ar ies of t h at ru le. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Edward s , 58 1 F .3d 60 4, 60 8 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ), ce r t
. den ied, 2 0 1 0 WL 25 08 38 (20 10 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 52 2 F
. 3d 731, 73 5 ( 7th C ir.), cert. denied , 1 29 S
. Ct
. 1 90 ( 2008)
. Rul e 40 4(b) c o nc er n s e vid en c e o f ot h er cr im es , w ro n gs , or ac ts : Evidence of othe r cri m es, wrongs, o r acts i s no t a dm i ss ib l e t o pr o v e the c ha r a c t e r o f a pe r s o n i n or der t o sh ow action in con form ity therew ith. I t m ay, how ever, be a dm i ssibl e f oro therpurposes , such a s p ro of o f m ot ive , op p or tu n ity , in te n t, p re p ar at ion , pla n, kn ow led ge , i denti ty, o r abse nce o fm i sta ke oracc i dent,26 N o. 08

- 2589 provi ded thatupon re quest by the accused, the pr ose c u tio n in a cr im in al c as e s h all p ro vid e re as on ab le not ice i n ad v a nc e of trial, or d uring tri al i f th e cou rt ex cus es pr et r i alnoti ce o n g o o d c au se s ho wn, o fthe gener alnatur e o fany such evi den c e it i ntends to in tr od u c e a t t ria l. F ed. R. Ev i d. 4 04 ( b)

. The g o ve r nm en t’ s ar g um en t ab o utthe si g n and the s ur ve i l l an ce s y st em i s r ea l l y a n a r g um en t th atthe se i te m s wer e r el ev an t to k no wl edg e an d i ntent, r eco gni zed exce pti ons to the inadm i ssibi l i ty of “o th era ct s” e vi den ce . Be ca us e kno wl edge a nd i nt en t ar e al l o wabl e us es o fo th era ct s ev idence , the r e i s no need to “s pread the f og of‘in ex tr i cabl y i nter tw i ned’ o ver them

. ” Taylo r, 5 2 2 F
. 3 d a t 735. As we h a v e j us tn o t e d, th ou gh , n eit h er th e sign n or th e sec u rit y sys te m in K l ebi g’ s ho m e s h in es any l i ght o n hi s know l edge o r i nt en t r eg ar di ngthe s awe d- o ffr i fl e an d s i l en ce r . The aim of R u le 4 04 (b ) “is sim p ly to ke ep fr o m t h e jur y e vidence thatth e d efend ant i s pro ne to co m m i t cr i m es or i s o ther w i se a ba d p erson. ” Taylo r, 52 2 F
. 3d at 735. Yet that see m s t o be e xactl y the use to w hi ch thi s e vi dence w as pu t. I f t hi s e v i de nc e ha d a ny s l i g ht r e l e v a nc e , i t wo ul d be o ut wei g he d b y the dang er o funf ai r pr ej udi ce a nd c o nfusio n of th e is su es . Fed . R. E vid . 403
. U nited S t at e s v. C o nn er, 583 F .3 d 10 11 , 102 5 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). “E vid en c e is unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci ali fi t i nduc es the j ur y t o de ci de th e case o n an i m properbas i s r atherthan on the ev i dence presen ted

. ” C o nn er, 583 F.3d at10 25
. See a lso O ld C hief v. U nited Sta tes , 519 U .S. 17 2, 1 8 0 ( 1 99 7) (e vid en c e isN o. 08

- 2589 27

So m e ofthe phot ogr aphs , whi c h di s pl aye d t he l oc at i on of 10 w e a p o n s i n th e h o u se , w e r e r e l e v a n tto th e i s s u e o f K l e b i g ’s fam iliarity an d com fort w ith firearm s. W i th a p p ro p riate ins tuct ions to the j u ry on the prop er us e ofthos e photos, the y w ou ld b e ad m issible. H ow ev er, som e oft h e p ho tos, espe cially t hos e ofthe b ase m en tan d gar age , s howed n o e vi denc e of fi re ar m s or am m uni t i on and s er ved no purpo s e othe r tha n to s how Kle bi g’ s pr odi gi ous c apa c i t y t o c olle c tve ry odd an d som eti m es dang erous looking cl utte r. O n rem a n d , t he court shoul d r e vi e w t he ph ot og r a ph s c a r e ful l y t o de t e r m i ne whi ch have r el eva nc e t o the i s s ues i n the c as e, and whic h, al t hough relev an t, b ear a risk o f u nd u e p reju d ic e t h a t ou tw eig hs th eir us eful ne s s i n h el pi ng the j ur y de c i de the i s s ues . I rr el eva nt phot os , e s p ecia l l y thos e whic h do nothi ng m or e t hanm ake (co n tin u ed ...) unfai rl y pr ej ud i ci alwh en i t has an undue tendency t o sugge st deci si on o n an i m proper basi s, com m onl y, tho ugh n ot n ec es sa rily, an em o t i on al on e); U ni t e d S t at e s v. R o gers , 587 F.3d 81 6, 82 2 (7 th C ir . 2 00 9) (s am e); U nited St at e s v. C o le m an , 17 9 F
. 3d 1056 , 10 62 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( re l evantev i dence m ay be consi dered unf ai rl y pr ej ud i ci al w hen i t has the capaci ty to l ure the f act- fi nd eri nto decl ar i ng g uil t o n a g ro und di ff er en t fro m pro ofspeci fi c to th e o ffen se ch ar ge d ). E vid en c e t h at K leb ig is o ve rly co nc erne d abo uts ec ur i ty, t o the po i nto fthr ea te ni ng vi si to r s atthe do o r wi th an om i no us s i g n, i nv i te s th e j ury to deci de the case bas ed on thei r f ear o r d isli ke of K l ebi g r atherthan on the r eali ssues i n th e ca se, nam el y, his kno w ledge and i nt en t. T he sam e i s t rue of th e surveil l an ce s y st em an d s o m e o fthe pho to g r aph s o fthe extensi ve cl utter presenti n K l ebi g’ s ho m e a nd ga ra ge. 1028 N o. 08

- 2589

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 10 K leb ig a p p ear to b e a stran g e o r d a n g ero u s m an , sho u ld be e x c l ude d. The cour t abused i ts discre tio n wh en i t co ncl ud ed that any o fthi s evi dence w as re l evantto the i ssue ofkno w l edge and i ntent. W e w i l l deferf ornow the i ssue ofwh ether th is e r r o r w as h ar m les s s o t h atw e m ay co n sid er all to ge th er an y e rro rs m ad e a t t ria l.

B. K leb ig a lso ch alle n ge d th e in tr o d u c tio n of ce rt ain ev id en c e re lat in g t o t h e g u n s h e le ga lly ow n ed . K leb ig concedes th at hi s o w ners hi p ofthes e weapons was re l evantto the i ssue ofhi s f am i l i ar i ty w i th fi re ar m s. H e puttha t i ss ue i nt o pl ayw he n a r g ui ngtha t he di d n o tk n o w th e s a we d

- o ffr i fl e wa s a r i fl e b u tth o ug ht th ati t was a pi stol, a nd whe n h e co nt en ded th athe w as usi ng the o i l fi l teras a fl ash su p p resso r and w as not a wa r e i two u l d a l s o r e d u c e t he re p o r to fth e g u n . He obj ects , however, to the am ount o fev i dence r elat i ng to t he l e g a l g un s , a nd the man ne r i n whi c h i t wa s p r e s e nt e d. I n part i cul ar, he c om pla i ns thatthe gov er nm ent l ed Detecti ve Bei sbi erthr ough a r oo m -by- ro om descr i pti on ofthe fi re ar m s a nd am m unit i on he f ound in the ho use, and fo l l owed up each of th ose i nstance s with a photo

g r aph, s o tha t Det ec ti ve Be i sb i erc o ul d po int ou t the l o c a t i o ns o f v a r i o us we a po ns a nd a mm un i t i o n he had j ust m enti oned. The go ver nm ent then i ntro du ced i nto evi dence ea ch ofthe l ega l l y o w ned fi re ar m s Kle big pos-N o. 08

- 2589 29

se ss ed, o ve r Kl eb i g ’ s obj ect i o n. Kl eb i ga r g ue d t o the dist ri ct cour t that photog ra phs of the guns w ould se rv e the s am e purpose o fd em onst ra ti ng Kle bi g’ s e xtensi ve ex p er ien c e w ith f i re ar m s w ith ou t t h e u n n ec es sa rily prej ud i ci aleff ect ofdi spl ayi ng appro xi m ate l y t w o dozen guns to the j u ry . W hen the l oca l pol i ce depar tm ent t oo k custo dy ofKleb i g’ s lega l l y o w ned guns, the offi cer s t oo k p h o t o g r a p h s o f e a c h g u n f o r i n v e n t o r y p u r p o s e s , a n d t he gov er nm ent pos se sse d ei ght- i nch-by

- el eve n-i nch col or pho t o s o fe a c h we a po n a s a r e s ul t
. T he c o ur to v e r r ul ed Kl eb i g ’ s o b j e c t i o n a n d h i s a l t e r n a t e s u g g e s t i o n wi th o ut co m m en t. As w e d es cr ibe d abo ve , the g o ve r nm en t th enl ed S ergean t S el ckthr o ug h the i nt r o duct i o n a nd i denti fi cati on o fapproxi m atel y t w enty- thre e fi re ar m s, l ayi ng ea ch on the fl oo r i n a n ar c ar ound the witnes s s t a nd a s the y we r e i de nt i fi e d. The po te nt i alpr ej ud i ce o fthi s ev i den ce was a ppar en t to the g o ve r nm en t. The pr o se cut o r s o ught t o r ea ss ur e th e j ury re peatedl y that the weapons had been re nd er ed sa f e f o r th e co ur tr o o m . N ea r th e be g i nni ng ofS er g ea nt S el ck ’ s te st i m o ny, the pr o se cut o r a sk ed he r t o c o nfi r m tha t co ur th o us e bui l di ngs ec ur i tyha d c l ea r ed th e w eapons b e f o r e the y c a me i nt o the b ui l di ng, a nd tha t they had al so been ex am ined and cl ear ed by the c ourt
r o o m b ai li f f

. Tr
. a t 37 2- 73
. Dur i ngc l o singa r g um en ts , the g o ve r nm en t sh o wed the jury the i nt ac t ve r si o n o fthe sawed

- offr i fl e, poi nti ng o ut the siz e of th e bo re hol e a t th e en d o f th e m uz zl e. I n do i ng so, th e g o ve r nm en t so ug ht to dem onst ra te th at the weapon’s fl ash would be co rr espondingl y s m al l, c alling i nto doubt Klebi g’ s cl ai m that he wa nt e d t o us e t he o i l fi l t e r a s a fl a s h s up pr e sso r. Tr. at30 N o. 08

- 2589 563. I n or der t o m ake herpoi nt thatthe bor e ho l e was sm al l, the pros ecu tor l i ter al l y a ske d the j ury to l oo k i nto t h e b a r r e l o fthe r i fl e . A c k n o wl e d g i n gth e j u r y ’ s d i s c o mf or t with the fi re ar m she w as dem onst ratin g, the g over nm ent a tto rneyas sure d the j ury that the fi re ar m was sa fe, te l l i n g jur or s, “I’m be in g s afe w ith th is fire ar m ,” “if anyo ne i s uncom f or tabl e le t m e know , ” and “Idon’ t m ean to m ak e a n y of y ou u n c om for ta b le.” T r. at56 3. Sh e f oll ow ed u p t he di spl ay ofthi s s i ngl e fi re ar m with a nother reassu ran ce: “A nd Iw ou ld say j us t for everyon e’s c om for t l eve l that these tag s re prese nt that the fi re ar m is secur e. S o I j ust wanted to m ake sur e you know that

. ” Id

. I n r es po ns e to Kl eb i g ’ s cl o sing ar g um en t, the g o ve r nm en t ag a i n m e n tio n ed th e s afe ty of th e fire ar m s a p p ea rin g in cour t: A nd j ust s o you know , bef or e these fi re ar m s co m e i nto co ur t, S pec i al A g en t H an dy f r o m ATF, o ve r the r e, he checks them ev er y day. H e has pl ast i c tabs on a ll o f t h e m. T h e y ’ r e a l l s a f e t y - c h e c k e d b e f o r e th e y c o me i n her e. CSO H i l l, wh o i s o verther e, check s them bef or e they com e i nto cour t. Those

— M r . K l eb i g ’ s g uns w er e al l i nspected by Speci al A gent H andy an d by M r. H illbef or e they c am e i n her e. S o, Im ean, j ust t o as su r e an y o ne i fthe y ha d tho ug ht

— They’ re al l sa f e. T r. at57 9. T h es e w er e a c kn ow led gm en ts th at p eo p le ge n e r a lly fear gu ns , and that the p hy sical presen ce of a l ar ge num bero fguns w oul d cause a j ury som e a nxie ty. Conceding that som e e vi dence abo ut the l ega l l y o w ned fire ar m s w as rele va n t t o t h e k ey iss u e in th e c a s e, K leb ig ar gued that the e vid ence shoul d have co m e i n thr oughN o. 08

- 2589 31 les s p rej u d icia l p h ot og ra p h s. T h e g o v er n m en t w ou ld st ill have been abl e to m ake i ts poi nt, K l ebi g conte nd s, th at he was f am i liar with fi re ar m s a nd co uld t el l a m odi fi ed ri fl e fro m a m odi fi ed pis tol

. A l though r el evantev i dence i s p re su m p tiv ely ad m iss ible u n d er Fe d . R. E vid . 402 , a cour t has t h e authori ty to excl ud e i t i fthe ri sks pose d by the intro du cti on o fthe evi dence si gni ficantl y o utw eig h its p ro b at ive w or th . Fed . R. E vid . 403 ; M i hai l ovi ch v. Laa ts ch , 35 9 F
. 3d 892, 906 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. Rule 40 3 pro vi des: A l though r el evant, ev i dence m ay be e xcl ud ed if i ts pr o ba ti ve v al ue i s su bs ta nt i al l y o ut wei g he d b y the danger ofunfa i r prejudice , co nfusi on o fthe i ssues , o r m i sl ea d i n gth e j u r y , o r b y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o fu n d ue del ay, waste o fti m e, o r needl ess pre senta ti on ofcum ula ti ve evi dence. “Rul e 40 3 th us c al l s upo n the di st r i ctc o ur t to wei g h the need f or a n d p ro bati ve val ue o fthe evi dence ag ai nst p o te n tia l ha rm th at its ad m iss ion m igh t c au se .” M ihailovich , 3 59 F. 3d at 906; A dvis or y Com m i tte e Note (1972). W e r eview a d i str i ct c ourt ’ s r uling under Rul e 4 03 f or ab u se of d isc re tio n . U nite d State s v. E ll is , 54 8 F
. 3d 539, 54 3 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. LeSh o re, 54 3 F
. 3d 935, 93 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. Kleb i g’ s f am i l i ar i ty w i th guns w as o n e o f th e k eyi ss ue s i n the c as e, g i ve n h i s defen se th at he m i sto ok the s aw ed-o ffr i fl e f ora pis toland he di d not in te n d to u se th e o il fi l t e r a s a sile n c er . Th at K leb ig own ed and perso nal l y m ai ntai ned a wide va ri etyo f hand guns and l ong guns was hi ghly re l evantto wh ether he cou l d te l l th e di ff er en ce be twe en th e two when a32 N o. 08

- 2589

w eapon had be en m odi fi ed a s w as the s aw ed-o ffr i fl e. Th e a pp e a r a nc e o f Kl e b i g ’ s ha nd g un s a nd l o ng guns was ther ef or e r el evan t. Kleb i g’ s co m f or t a nd f am i l i ar i ty w i th fi r earm s w as a l so r el ev an t, a nd s o the f ac t th athe st or ed loa d ed w ea p on s th ro u gh ou t his h om e w as fa ir gam e f orthe gov er nm ent t o ra i se. Tw o dozen g uns i n a c ourt ro om is u nd oubte dly an al ar m i ng si ght. The pro secuto r’ s r epeated assur ances th at th e w e a p o n s w ere not load ed and that allw ere ex am ined m ultiple tim es to verify tha t the y w ere secu re dem onst ra ted an a w ar eness thatj uror s w ou l d be a pp re hensi ve i n the prese nce o fthi s m uch w ea p on ry . To m ake th e p oin t t h at K leb ig w as ve ry fam iliar w ith f i r e ar m s, it was not n ece ss ar y t o l ayt wo do ze n g uns o uto n the fl oo r ar ound the w itn es s box. N orwas i t nec ess ar y t o re p ea t e vid en c e re ga rd in g K leb ig’s g u n o w n er sh ip m u ltip le ti m es. The co urt appeared t o gi ve litt l e co nsi derat i on to w hetherthe gov er nm ent c ould m ake the sam e poi nts w i th photo gr aphs ra therthan the a ctualguns, o r w i th p hot ograp hs of som e gun s and p hy sical spec im en s of a lim ite d n u m b er of th e g u n s. So m e o f th e g u n s w ou ld l i k e l y ma k e th e s a l i e n tp o i ntb e t t e r th a n o th e r s . We do no t mea n t o s ug g e s t tha t i t wa s no t a pp r o pr i a te to bri ng any o fthe guns i nto the c ourt ro om , but the di spl ay on the fl oo r ofguns f anned out a ro und t h e witness box ser ved no pu rpos e o therthan to em ph asi ze the s heer vol um e o fweaponry that K l ebi g o w ned. The eff ect was to displ ay hi s danger ousness r atherthan hi s know led ge or exp ertise w ith fi rearm s. B ecau se th e d istri ct cou rt al l owed the evi den ce without co m m ent, i t i s di ffi cul t t o ass ess the cour t’ s wei ghi ng o f t he nee d fo r and probat i veN o. 08

- 2589 33

va l ue o fthi s ev i den ce a g ai ns t th e dan g ero funf ai r preju

dice

. There w er e f ar l ess prej ud i ci al w ays to d isp l ay the guns and K l ebi g’ s f am i l iar ity w i th the m , and on re m an d, the c ourtsho uld m anage the prese ntati on o f th i s ev i den ce t o f o cus o n Kl eb i g ’ s k no wl edg e an d i nt en t r a the r tha n o n t he s he e r n umb e r o fg un s h e p o s s e s s e d.

C. K leb ig al so obj ects to the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o al l o w the go ve r nm en t to c o nduc t a demons tr at i o n dur i ng cl osi ng ar gum ent that had the eff ect of intro du ci ng new f acts int o the r ec o r d. Af te r the c l o se o ft es ti m o ny a nd pr i o r t o the s ta r t o fc los i nga r g um en ts , the g o ve r nm en t al er ted the co urt that it w ish ed to ar gue t o the j ury that the seco nd o i l fi l terf ound on Klebi g’ s be droo m fl oo r “fi t” the s aw ed-o f fr i fl e, and that the “ m ar ki ngs m atch. ” Tr
. at 55 1- 53
. K lebig o bj ec te d t o thi s ar g um en t be ca us e no th i ng i n the r ec o r d ti ed th o se i te m s to g ethe r, a nd no th i ngi n the re cor d s u p p orted the i nfe re nce the go ver nm ent was at te m p tin g t o d ra w , th at K leb ig h ad u se d th e s e c o n d oil fi l teras a si l encero n the sawed

- offri fl e. T he co urt deci ded to a l l o w the a r g um en t. In cl o sing, the g o ve r nm en t co nte n d ed th at th e p r im ar y iss u es w er e w h et h er K leb ig kn ew th at th e s aw ed -off rifle w as a m od ified r ifle r athe r tha n a modi fi ed pi st o l, a nd w he th er Kl eb i gi ntended t o u se the o i l fi l teras a si l enceras o pp ose d to a fl ash sup p ressor. I n q ue stioning the cred ibi li ty of Klebig’s c l a i m t h a t h e i n t e n d e d t o u s e th e o i l fi l t e r a s a fl a s h s up press or, the gov er nm ent a rg ued that the se c on d o i l fi l ter f ound on the fl oo r ofKleb i g’ s be droo m fi t o n the end of34 N o. 08

- 2589 the s aw ed

- offr i fl e. Kleb i g had t est i fi ed that he had tr i ed th e seco nd o i l fi l tero n the sam e l ong gun on which t he c ha r g e d o i l fi l t e r wa s mo un t e d. I n the e xc e r pt b elo w , E x h ibit N o. 1 w as th e lon g rifle w ith an oil fi l te r ta ped to th e en d o f th e ba r r el, Exhibi t N o . 2 wa s the sa w ed -off rifle , an d E x h ibit N o. 4 w as th e s ec on d oil fi lter r ecov ered from the be d room floor. N ow , I’m goin g t o show you som eth ing w ith regard to Ex hibi t No. 2, the sawed off ri fl e, and Ex hibi t No. 4. N ow , M r. K leb ig or t h e d efe n d an t t es tifie d th at co in c id en tally he had only use d E x hibit N o. 1 ten years p rior to ap p ro x im a t e ly O c to b er 16 th . So if his te st im ony i s t o be b el i eve d, on Octo ber16 th fo r the fi rs t ti m e i n ten yea rs he t ake s o ut Exhibi t No. 4 al ong w i th E x h ibit N o. 1, h e g o e s t o a qu ar ry , he te st s E x h ibit N o . 4 o n Exh ibi t N o . 1 , a nd the n he g o es a he ad an d tes ts Ex hibi t No. 1 as i t i s i n i ts enti re ty. A nd then i fhi s t est i m on y is t o be b el i eve d on that dat e, b ec au se he’ s t es tingtwo oi l f i l te r s, he ha s to b r i ng th e ta pe o utwi thhi m , he ha s to b r i ng the e qui pm en t n e c e s s a r y t o b o r e th e h o l e i n t o g e ti ti n a n d o u t
. He ha s to br i ng al l o f th at to th e qua r r y , i f his testim o ny is to be believed

. So that for th e fi rst tim e in ten years h e g oe s t o t h e q u ar ry . W ell, here’s a d em ons trat io n . E xh ibi t N o. 2 un d erne a t h hi s b e d, E xhib i tNo
. 4 o n the fl o o r o fh i s b e dro om . The m ar ki ngs fi t, the oi l fi l terfi ts. M embe r s o fthe j ur y , bas ed upo n the pro xi m i tyofthe oi l fi l terto thi s weapon w hi ch w as und er neath hi s be d the defendant i nd eed di d have the i ntent to useN o. 08

- 2589 35 Ex hib i tNo
. 1 a s a s i l e nc e r a nd , in fa ct, h a d a l r e a dy used i t a s a si l encerand, i n f act, had used, pote nti ally used Exh ibi t No. 4 on Exhibi t No. 2. I t fi ts. Tr. at56 1- 62. I n hi s cl osin g a rg um ent, Kleb i g c om pared tr anscri pts o fthe gov er nm ent’ s cl osi ng ar gum ent with the AT F a gent’ s t est i m ony. Kle bi g no ted thatthe gov er nm ent’ s o w n expertwitnes s had o pined t h at the m ar ks on the bar re l o fthe sawed -off r i fl e were probabl y c aused by a pipe cutter
. K l ebi g had no opportunity to cr ossex am in e t h e A T F e x p er t a b ou t t h e g ov er n m en t’s cla im th atthe mar k s w ere c ause d b y the o i l fi l te r f o und o n the fl oo r ra therth an by a pipe c utter
. Kleb i g was thus f or ced to a r g ue a g ai ns t th e demons tr ati o n wi th o utha vi nga ny o pp o r t un i t y t o t e s tthe g ove r nme nt ’ s c l a i m o n the s t a nd

. The r e i s no way t o k no w onthi s r ec o r d whether the ATF ex p ert w ou ld h ave ba c k e d u p the gove rnm en t’s theory ab ou t h ow th e m ar k s w e re cr ea te d on th e rifle ba rre l. Counsel had no o pp or tuni ty to cr os s- exam i ne the go ver nm ent’ s e xpert on th is p oint, and had no o pp or tuni ty to p u t h is c lien t b ac k on th e s ta n d to d en y or ex p lain thi s new evi dence. The go ver nm ent l ate r cl osed i ts re buttalar gum ent with a se co nd de m o ns tr at i o n, ai ded bys o m e o fthe pho to g r aph s ofKleb i g’ s be droo m thathad bee n ente re d i nto evi dence: W ha t y o u s ee fi r sti s th e fi r ea r m , Exhibi t N o . 1, i n the defe nd ant’ s cl ose t with hi s cl othe s. This i s a pi cture o f th e scene on Octo ber18 th. The next shotdocum ents w here Exhibi t No. 4 w as f ound. Ex hibi t No. 4, an o i l fi l t e r, w a s f o u n d i n th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s b e d r o o m. N ext pi cture , pl eas e. The next exhibi t docum ents th e Exhibi t N o . 2 after itwas pul l ed o utfr o m the36 N o. 08

- 2589 defe nd ant’ s be d

— un de r ne a th the de f e nd a nt ’ s b e d. N o w, I ’ m g o i ngt o s te p o utfr o m b eh i nd th e po di um f ora m i nute, and I ’ m go i ng to sp ea k loud l y. S peci al Age ntGr i f fi thdi d t es ti fy tha t he tho ug htthi s m i g ht ha ve b ee n s o m e vi ce g r i p o r s o m ethi ngl i k e th at, b ut th at ’s not incon sisten t w ith th e threa d m ark

— w ith it m at c h in g t h e t h r ea d m ar ks from th e o il fil te r. Y ou ’ll ha ve th e op p ortu nity to d o this yours elf

. Y ou take Ex hibit N o. 2 w ith E xh ibi t N o. 4, th ey w ere i n cl o s e p r o x i mi t y t o e a c h o th e r i n th e b e d r o o m, a nd you p u t th em on. I t’s a m atch

. Th e blue ink is w orn aw ay to fit the th read s of th is oi l fi lter. Th e sight he re i s g o ne . The r e woul d ha ve b ee n a s i g ht

— T h er e w ou ld have been a s i ght he re . If th er e was a si ght he re , y o u c o ul dn’ t putthe o i l fi l te r o n. The pr o xi m i tyo fExhibi t N o . 4 to Exhibi t N o . 2 i n the defe nd ant’ s b edro om , a m atch, i s i nconsi ste nt with h i s tes ti m ony that he used thi s as a tes t f orE x h ibit N o. 1. I t doe sn’ t work

. There ’ s a Lati n p h rase I l ear ned once, r es i psa l oqui tur, the th in g speaks f or i tse l f, and that’ s e xactl y what thi s doe s. M embe r s o fthe j ur y , al l yo u nee d to do i s l o o kt o the defe nd ant’ s t est i m ony i n conj uncti on with what yo u kn ow to b e tru e in th is cas e, an d y o u w ill

— an d there i s s uffi ci ent e vi dence t o fi nd the defe nd ant guil ty be y o nd a r ea so nabl e do ubto n Co unt O ne a nd Co unt Two. Tha nky o u. Tr. at59 9- 600. A s w e not ed abov e, th e last th ing th e j ur y sa w or heard w as thi s s eco nd dem on st ra tio n ofthe seco nd o i l fi l terN o. 08

- 2589 37 be i ngfi tt ed o nt o the s awe d- o ffr i fl e. Le ss tha n a n h o ur afterente ri ng del iber ati ons, the j ury sent out a no te r eque st i ngthe s awe d-offri fl e, the s ec o nd o i l fi l te r, the l o ngg un wi ththe o i l fi l te r t aped to the b ar r el, a nd the cli p from the saw ed -off rifle, i n th at ord er. Th e cou rt ar r an g ed f o r the j ur y t o e xa m i ne tho se i te m s, a nd the j ur y l at err etur ne d a v er di cto fgui l tyon bo thco unt s o fthe i ndi ct m en t. Kl eb i gc o nt en ds th at th e pr o se cut o r ’ s demonstr ati on a nd ar gum ent r el ati ng to the dem onst ra ti on w er e i m properand consti tuted p ro secuto ri alm i sco nd uct. I n r e v i e wi ng a c l a i m o fp r o s e c u t o r i a l mi s c o n d u c t, we co ns i derfi r stw he th erthe c ha l l en g ed r emar kb y the pr osecu to r was i m pr o per, a nd s ec o nd, whethe r i t pr ej ud ic ed th e d efe n d an t. Wes cott, 576 F.3d at35 5; U nited St at e s v. Se r

f l i ng, 5 0 4 F .3d 67 2, 67 7 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ), ce rt
. den ied, 1 28 S
. Ct
. 1 71 8 ( 20 08 )
. Kl eb i gar g ue s tha t the de m o nstrat i on a nd acc om panyi ng ar gum ent were i m proper be ca us e th eywer e no t ba se d o n ev i den ce i n the r ec o r d, b ut rath er cons titut e d new eviden ce. A lthou gh prose cu tors m ay not “i nfuse thei r cl osi ng ar gum ents w i th f acts that the c ourthas not adm i tte d i nto evi dence, theym ay ar g ue r ea so nabl e i nfer en ce s f r o m the evi den ce tha t th e j ury has see n and hear d.” U nited Sta tes v. Wa ldem er, 50 F. 3d 13 79 , 138 3 (7 th C ir. 19 95 ). See a lso U nite d State s v. D oyle, 77 1 F.2d 25 0 , 2 58 (7th C ir. 1985) (cl osing argu m en ts are lim ite d t o t h e fa c ts ev id en c e); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vargas , 58 3 F
. 2 d 3 8 0 , 3 8 5 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) ( c o u n s e l ma y ma k e ar g um en ts rea so n ab ly in fer re d from th e e vid en c e p re se n te d ). A t s om e poi nt, however, the i nfe re n c e aske d to be draw n w i l l be unreas onabl e e nough thatthe sugge s-38 N o. 08

- 2589 ti o n o fi t ca nno t be j us ti fi ed as a fai r c o m m en t o n the evid ence but i nstea d i s m or e a ki n to the prese ntati on of w h olly n ew ev id en c e t o t h e jur y, w h ich sh ou ld only be adm i tte d subj ect to cro ss- exam i nati on, to properi nstr ucti ons and to the r ule s o fev i dence. Va rgas , 583 F.2d at38 5. See a lso D oyle, 77 1 F
. 2d at 258 ( sam e)
. W hetheran i nfe re nce i s re aso nabl e w i l l, ofco urse , d ep en d on th e p ar tic u lar fac ts of th e c as e. Wa ldem er, 50 F. 3d at 1384 ( the t er m “r eas onabl e i nfe re nce” m us t be d efi ne d con tex tu all y). “W he th er th e evid en ce bears l o g i c a l a nd p r o xi mat e c o nn e c t i o n t o the p o i ntthe p r osec ut o r wi sh es t o pro ve a r e perha ps th e m o sto bv i o us c on sid e r a t i on s in d et er m in in g w h et h er th e in fer en c e is re aso nabl e. ” Wa ldem er, 50 F. 3d a t 1384. A notherf acto r to c o ns i deri s whethe r the pr ose cut o r make s th e ar g um en t sole ly to in flam e th e pa ss ion s of th e ju ry . Id . In Vargas , w e also deem ed rel evan t w he th er the p rosecu tor’s sta tem ent woul d have be en su b j ec t t o a co l or abl e o bj ectio n if in tr od u c ed d u rin g t h e t ria l. Va rgas , 58 3 F
. 2d at 385; Wa ldem er, 5 0 F
. 3d at1 38 4. I n Wa ldem er, we que sti oned th e u tilit y of t h is las t c on sid er at ion , bu t c on c l u d e d it cou ld p la y i nt o the ca lculus of w he th er the p rosecu tor’s st at em en t w as a re a s o n ab le in fer en c e. Wa ldem er, 50 F. 3d at 1384
. W ith th es e st an dar ds i n mi nd, we tu r n t o the pr o se cutor ’ s s tat em ents here

. I n part i cul ar, Kleb i g c onte nd s that the g ove rnm ent s tat ed new fac ts wh en the pro secuto r as se r te d, “T he m ar k i ng s fi t, ” an d “I t’ s a m at ch

. The bl ue i nk i s worn a w ay to fit the threa ds ofthi s o i l fi l ter
. ” Tr
. at 561- 62 and 599- 600. A dd i ti ona lly, the pros ecuto r i m pli edN o. 08

- 2589 39

Any d oubtthatthi s i nfer en c e was the on e t he pr os ec ut or 11 w i sh e d the ju ry to d raw m ay b e d ispe lled b y the p ro secu to r ’s argum ent to the court

. W hen the court as ked , “[ W ] hat i nf erenc e ar e y o u sug g esting sho u ld b e d raw n from w ha t yo u just d e m o n st r a t e d ? ” th e p r o se c u t o r a n sw e r e d , “ T h e d e fe n d a n t ’s knowl edge i s a t issu e, I thi nk that ’ s c l ea r f ro m hi s t es t i m ony an d all the ar g u m en ts, his kn ow led g e or his inten t to u se Exhibit N o. 1 [ the charged oil fi lt er att ached to the l ong gu n] as a s il encer as opp osed to a flas h hider or flas h supp res sor. H ere w e h a v e t h i s oil filt er th at w as loca ted on the floo r. Th is [pre sum ab ly th e saw ed -offrifl e] w as loca ted un d e r n e ath t he be d. I twas l oade d. The m ar ki ngs m at c h. The defen dant t es t i fi ed thathe us ed thi s [ t he s ec ond o i l fi l t er ] at t he qua rr y on Ex h i b i tNo
. 1 [ t h e l o n g g u n ]
. My argum en t i s th a t, y o u k n o w, i t wou l d b e , t a k e t h e s e t wo p i e c e s o f e v i de n c e a n d y ou put the m tog eth er, there’s an alt e r n a t iv e sug g estion tha t he, in f ac t, us ed thi s [ t he s ec ond oi l fi l t er ] as a s i l en c er on thi s par t i c ular item [ the saw ed -offrifl e]. I’ m no t say ing tha t there is tes ti m ony. I ’ m j ust sayi ng b ase d on the evidence i n the rec ord thatthat ’ s a f air i nf erenc e that the j ury can draw w h ic h goes to hi s k now le dg e ofthe use ofthe se s il encer s. ” The court repli ed, “Y ou m ay proceed.” Tr. at 552- 53. that K l ebi g had al re ady used t h e se c ond oi l fi l teras a si l encero n the sawed

- offr i fl e, and al so i m pli ed that because he ha d used the unchar ged o i l fi l teras a si l en ce r o n the s awe d- o ffr i fl e, i t was m ore l i k el y tha t he inten d ed to use th e ch arged oi l fi lter as a sil en c er: 11 “Mem be r s o fthe j ur y , b as ed upo n th e pr o xi m i tyo fthe oi l fi l terto thi s weapon w hi ch w as und er ne at h h i s be d th e defendant i nd eed di d have the i ntent to use Exhib it N o. 1 as a s i l encerand, i n f act, had al re ad y u sed i t a s a40 N o. 08

- 2589 sile n c er an d , in fac t, h ad u se d , po te n tia lly u s ed E x h ibit N o . 4 o n Exh ibi t N o . 2
. I t fi ts.” T r. at5 62
. I n e ff ec t, s he as ke d t h e j u ry t o in fer t h at K leb ig h ad u se d a d iffer en t o il fi lte r a s a silenc er on a d ifferent gu n (the saw ed -off rifle) , and that thi s m ade i t m or e l i kel y that he i nten d ed t o use t h e c h a r g ed o i l fi l t e r a s a s i l e n c e r o n th e l o n gg u n . An ar gum ent that a defendant is m or e li kel y t o be guil ty of t h e c h a r g e d c r i me b e c a u s e h e c o mmi t t e d th e s a me c r i me on a nothero ccas ion is a pro pensi ty ar gum ent, and as su c h, it w o u l d b e s u b j ec t t o a co lora b le ob j ec tio n h ad it co m e i n a s ev i den ce r athe r tha n a s ar g um en t i n c l o sing sta tem ents. Fe d. R. Evi d. 404(b)

. The pro secuto r al so ad d ed to the test im ony of th e gove r n m en t’s ow n ex p ert by cl ai m i n g th at the e xpert’ s t est i m ony w as not i nconsi ste n t w ith h er n ew th eo ry : “ S p e c i al A ge n t G riffit h d id tes ti fy that he th ou gh t thi s m i ght ha ve been som e v i ce g r i p o r s o m ethi ngl i k e th at, buttha t’ s no t i nc o ns i st en t w ith th e threa d m ark

— w i th i t m atchi ng the thr ead m ar ks f ro m the oi l fi l ter
. ” Tr
. at59 9- 600. The i ssue bef or e the j ury w as w he th er Kleb i g i ntended to us e the o i l fi l te r tha t was t ape d t o the b ar r elo fa l o ng gun as a s i l encerr atherthan as a fl ash s up press or . S eve ra l phy si ca l o bj ec ts r el ev an t to the pr o se cut o r ’ s ar g um ent ha d b ee n a dm i tt ed i nto ev i den ce , i nc l udi ngthe l o ngg un w ith th e o il fil te r ta p ed to th e b ar re l, th e s aw ed -off rifle an d th e se con d oi l fi lter f ou nd on th e fl oor ofK lebig’ s b e dr o o m. T he fi r s ti nfe r e nt i a l l e a p the p r o s e c ut o r ma de was tha t th e se co nd oil fi l te r made th e m ar k s o n the barr elo fthe s awe d- o ffr i fl e. S he ne xta ss er te d tha t th e m ar ks w er e a m at c h, th at th e o il fil te r fit, an d th at th is was e vi den ce Kl eb i gha d us ed th e se co nd o i l fi l te r o n theN o. 08

- 2589 41

T h e g overnm ent sought t o ass ure us atoral argum ent that 12 the prosecut or al ert ed the t ri al court t o this argum ent befor e m aki ng i tbe f or e t he j ur y, an d t hus di d note nga ge i n pr os ec ut or i al m i sc onduc ti n the us ual s en s e ofthatt er m . Al t hough i tw a s a d m i r a b l e th a tth e p r o se c u t o r so u g h tto g e tth e c o u r t ’s appr oval be f or e at t em pt i ng this unus ual c l os i ng a rg um en t dem onst rat ion, from the def endan t’ s perspect ive the effect was the s am e whethe r or no tthe pr os ec ut or ha d a wro ngful m oti ve in m aking the arg u m ent. Because al le gati ons ofprosec ut or i al m i s c onduc tare b ased onno t i ons ofdue pro c es s , the inquir y f ocu se s on the f air ness ofthe tr ial and no t the cul pabili ty ofthe prosec u to r. S ee U n i te d S tat es v. V el ez , 46 F. 3d 688, 6 9 1 (7t h C ir . 19 9 5 ). sawed

- offr i fl e. A ccor ding to the pr os ecuto r, Kleb i g was th er efo r e l y i n gwh e n h e s a i d h e h a d t r i e d o u tth e s ec o nd oi l fi l tero n the l ong g u n to wh i ch the charg ed oi l fi l ter was a tt ac he d. S he the n dr ew the final c o nne ct i o n, c o ntendi ng that K l ebi g had a l re ady used the seco nd oil fi l ter as a s ilen c er on th e s aw ed -off rifle , m ak in g it m or e like ly that he was usi ng th e c h ar ged o i l fi l teras a si l encero n th e l o ngg un. W e co nc l ude ea si l y th at i t was er r o r to al l o w the de m o nstr ati ons and accom panyi ng co m m entar y. Wes cott, 57 6 12 F. 3d at 355; Se r

f l i ng, 504 F.3d at 677. Th e govern m en t’s dem onst ra ti on a sse rt ed new f acts thatse em ed to co nfl i ct w ith th e t es tim on y of t h e g ov er n m en t’s ow n ex p er t. A nu m ber of l eap s w ere requ ired to travel fr om the ass erti o ns tha t th e se co nd o i l fi l te r fi t th e sa wed- o ffr i fl e to the concl usi on that the go ver nm ent s ought to prove , that K leb ig i ntended to use the char ged o i l fi l teras a si l encer42 N o. 08

- 2589 on the l ong gun. One oftho se l eaps i nvol ved pro pensi ty evi dence thatm ay be a dm i tte d, i fatal l, o nl y with proper l i mi t i ngi ns t r uc t i o ns . K l eb i gma y we l l h a v e r a i s e d a succes sful obj ecti on had the go vernm ent s ought to p rove thi s po i nta t tr i al

. I n a ddi ti o n, the g o ve r nm en t m uddi ed th e wat er s fur th erb y s ta tingtha t th e ATF a g en t h ad te st ified th e m ar ks w er e ca u se d b y “so m e v i c e grip or som ethi ng l i ke that” wh en the ag ent had i n f act sa id the m ar ks w er e l i kel y c aused by a pi pe cu tt er. Tr. at24 4. Ou r re vi ew o fthe re c or d fi nd s no r efer ence to a vi ce gr ip in t h e t ria l. The go ver nm ent a rgues that the pro secuto r w as si m plychar acte ri zi ng the appeara n c e ofadm i tte d i tem s, an d th at th e j ur y c o ul d e xa m i ne the e vi den ce a nd c o ncl ud e w hether the gov er nm ent’ s chara cter i zati on was cor re ct. Ci ti ng V

elez , the gov er nm ent m ai ntai ns that “whe n t he j ur y h a s the e v i de nc e i n i t s p o s s ess i on an d i s equ ipp ed to ascertain w he th er the gov ernm en t’s char ac te r i za ti o n i s ac cur at e, a s ta te m en t ch ar ac te r i zi ng that evi dence i s no t i m proper . ” V elez , 4 6 F.3d at69 2. In V e lez , a drug tr affi cki ng ca se, a scal e was adm i tte d i nto evi dence. Duri ng cl osi ng ar gum ents, the pros ecuto r sta ted to th e j ur y tha t th e sc al e ha d a “ whi te po wder r es i due o n i t
. ” 4 6 F
. 3 d a t6 9 1
. T h e c o u r tf o u n d th i s w a s n o ti mpr o perb ec au se th e j ur y c o ul d l o o ka t th e sc al e an d d e c i d e i fth e s t a t e me n twa s co r r e c tb a s e d o n i t s o wn o bs er va ti o n. Butthe pr o se cut o r i n Kl eb i g’s c ase went f ar be y o nd des cr ibi ng th e m ar k i ng s o n th e ba r r el of the sawed

- offr ifl e. S he st ate d that the m ar ki ngs fi t, that th ey w ere a m atch , and that the blu e ink w as w orn awayt o f i t th e th r ea ds o fthe s ec o nd o i lfi l te r . The fi t, theN o. 08

- 2589 43

m atch, the cause ofthe d isc olo ra ti on o n the bar re l w er e no t f acts thatthe j ury coul d si m plyco nfi rm by looki ng at the ev iden ce. Th e govern m en t’s ow n ex p ert had an enti re l y di f f er ent e xplan atio n f orhow the m ar ks wer e ca us ed an d whatthe y “ fi t” o r “ m at ch ed. ” The m ar k s wer e l i k el y made bya pi pe cu tt er, acc o r di ngt o the A TF a g e nt
. T he ma r k s ma y o r ma y n o th a v e b een c a u s e d b y o r b e e n c o n s i s t e n t wi th th e s e c o n d o i l fi l t e r . We ca nno t sa y b ec au se th i s ev i den ce was a l l o wed f o r the fi rst tim e in closi ng argu m en ts w he n there w as no opp ortuni ty t o t e s t i t
. Th i s v e r y s ubj e c t mat t e r o f the c a us e o f th e ma r k s h a d a l r e a d y b e e n th e t o p i c o fe x p e r tt e s t i mon y and w as not a r eadi l y o bser vabl e “ fac t” li ke the e xi ste nce ofwh i te pow der r esi du e o n a s cal e. W e next consi der whether K l ebig w as prej ud i ced by th i s er r o r, a nd w e c o nc l ude tha t he was . To a ss es s th e pr ej udi ce o fthe im p ro perde m o ns tr at i o n, we m us t co nsid er it inligh t o f th e w h ole tria l to d et er m in e if it depri ved Klebi g o fa f ai r tr ial. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Che s ka , 20 2 F. 3d 947, 95 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)
. I n ass es sin g the e ff ect of im p rop er rem a r k s o n th e fai rnes s of th e trial, a court sh ou ld co ns i derthe na tu r e an d s er i o us ne ss o fthe r emarks ; whethe r the r emar k s wer e i nv i te d b y the con d uc t of d efense cou ns el; w he th er the d istri ct cou rt suf fi ci ently in str ucted the j ury to disr ega rd the r em ar ks; w hethert he defense coul d counterthe i m properr em ar ks thro ugh re buttal ; and fi nal l y, wh etherthe w ei ght o f th e e vid e n c e w as ag ain st th e d efe n d an t. U nited Sta tes v. M cM ath , 5 5 9 F .3 d 65 7, 66 7 (7 th C ir.), cert. denied , 13 0 S. C t. 37 3 (2 00 9); S e r f l i ng, 5 04 F.3d at67 7; Che s ka , 20 2 F. 3d at 950.44 N o. 08

- 2589 This w as not a s i ngl e, o ff

- hand ed re m ar k, but ra ther a d em on st ra tio n an d co m m en ta ry th at oc c u rre d t w ice in the g ove rnm en t’s clo si ng ar gum ents. The i m pli cati on o f th e demons tr at i o n was tha t Kl eb i gl i ed ab o utt es ting the l o ngg unwi t h the o i l fi l t e r t o s e e i fi two ul d s uppres s th e gu n ’s fl ash be cause K l ebi g had al so used an o i l fi l ter on the sa w ed-o f fr i fl e, in th at c ase as a si l encer . W hen i t se nto uta no te t o the c o ur t du ri ngde l ibe r at i o ns , the j ur y s pec i fi ca l l y a sk ed to s ee th e sec o nd o i l fi l te r a nd the sa we d

- o f fr i fl e , a mo n go th e r th i n g s , a p p a r e n t l y t a k i ng th e p rosecu tor up on her su ggestion th at th e j urors cou ld th em selves rep eat th e d em ons tration. Th ere w ere n o c h a r g e s p e n d i n gr e l a t i n gt o th e s e c o n d o i l fi l t e r, a n d we ar e har d-pre sse d to expla i n w h y the j ury w anted to se e i t e xcept to r epeat the dem onst ra ti on. The dem onst ra ti on w as not i nvi ted by anythi ng tha t defense counselsa id dur i ngthe t r i al o r dur i ngc l o sings ta te m en ts
. Al th o ug h the j ury w a s instru cted that the argu m en ts of coun sel w ere n ot e v i d en c e, it is d ifficu lt t o kn ow h ow th e jur y w ou ld ha ve a p pl i ed th i s admoni ti o n t o the pr o se cut o r ’ s demonstr ati on a nd acc om panyi ng co m m entar y. Ofc o ur se , Kl eb i gha d no opp ort uni tyt o c r o ss - ex ami ne ATF Ag e n t Gr i f fi t h o n th e g o v e r n me n t ’ s c l a i ms th a tt he m ar k s o n the b ar r elo fthe s awe d- o ffr ifl e wer e “a matc h” w ith th e un ch arged oi l filter, that th e m arks w ere caused notby a pipe c utterbut by th e oil filte r, and that the o i l fi l terhad w or n away the blu e ink o n the bar re l to fi t the thr eads o fthe fi l ter
. Kleb i g had n o opportunity to ask th e govern m en t’s exp ert ifthe gov e rnm en t’s cl ai m was i n f ac t co ns i st en t wi thhi s te st i m o ny tha t th e m ar k s wer e ca us ed bya pi pe cut te r, a s th e g o ve r nm en tN o. 08

- 2589 45

as se r te d. W i th o utk no wi ng duri ngthe t r i altha t th e g o v e r nme nt wa s g o i ng t o a r g ue tha t Kl e b i g ha d a l r e a dy u se d th e s ec on d o i l filter on th e s aw ed -off rifle , K leb ig ha d n o o pp o r t un i t y t o e xp l a i n o r de nythi s a s ser ti on when he took the s ta nd i n h i s o wn defen se . Norwas he abl e t o obj ect to thi s a sse rt i on as i m properev i dence u n d er R u le 4 04 (b ) . If th e g ov er n m en t’s rem ar ks w ou ld have been subj ect to a co l or abl e o bj ecti on ifi ntro du ced as evi dence du ri ng the tr i al, “i t i s i m port ant to enfor ce c ar efu lly th e lim ita tio n th at th e in fer en c e b e re as on ab le not onl y to avo i d abri dgi ng the defendant’s r i ght t o cro ssex ami ne po ssibl y unt r ue t es ti m o ny b uta l so t o pr ev en t a par tyfr o m pr es en tingt o the j ur y i n closi nga r g um en t a f act that m i ght ha ve been rul ed i nadm i ssibl e a t t ri al ( oratl eas t s ubj ect to a lim i ti ng i nstr ucti on) si m plyby as se rt in g in clo s in g a rg u m en t t h at th e jur y c ou ld infe r it fro m th e e vid en c e t h at w as p re se n te d an d ad m itt ed .” Vargas , 58 3 F
. 2d at 385. A dem o ns tr at i o n suc h a s th e o ne c o nduc te d b y the pros ecuto r tw i ce in cl osi ng ar gum ents shoul d h ave bee n co nduc ted , if ata l l, wi tha wi tn es s o n the s ta nd who cou ld asse rt fr om first- ha nd kno w le d g e or by exp ert o pi ni o n tha t th e g o ve r nm en t’ s th eo r y was pl au sibl e. And K l ebi g s houl d have be en gi ve n a n opportunity t o tes t th atthe o r y thr o ug h c r o ss - ex ami na ti o n, a nd to pr es en t hi s o wn evi den ce o n the s ubj ec t. F i na l l y , i fthe g o ve r nm en t i nt en ded to a r g ue tha t Kl eb i ghad en g ag ed i n the sa m e co nduc t wi tha di ff er en t fi l te r a nd a d if fer en t g un than the fi l terand l ong gun char ged i n the i nd i ctm ent, K l ebi g s houl d have had the o pp or tuni ty to ch alleng e th i s as pr o pen si ty ev i den ce , an d r eque st a l i m iti ng i n-46 N o. 08

- 2589 st ru c tio n . Vargas , 58 3 F
. 2d at 386 ( th e n ee d f orcauti on i s parti cul ar l y preva l ent w hen the gov er nm ent’ s stat emen ti nv o l v e s e v i de nc e wh i c h, al tho ugh a r g uab l y a dm i ssibl e, i s s ubj ect to obj ecti ons und erR u les 403 and 404 , w hich i s r eco gni zed to be perhaps the m ostprej ud i ci al ki nd o fev i dence)

. The prej ud i ce t o K l ebi g has be en es tabl i s he d.

III. The r e wer e thus thr ee e r r o r s i n the t r i al

. F i r st, the cour t s houl d not hav e a l l owed the gover nm ent t o pla ce i n t o ev i d e n c e th e th r e a t e n i n gs i g n a n d s e c u r i t y s y s t e m, w hi ch together w i th o theri rr el evant, prej ud i ci alev i dence had th e effe c t o fi nvi ti ng the j ury to convi ct Kl ebi g b ase d on th e i r f e ar or d islik e o f h im . Sec on d , th e c ou rtsh ou ld h av e m or e c ar efu lly m an ag ed th e int ro d u c tio n of ev id en c e r e lat in g t o K leb ig’s ex te n siv e c olle c tio n of leg ally ow n ed guns, so thatthe prese ntati on would have f ocuse d on the re l evanti ssue ofKleb i g’ s know l edge o f and fa m i l i ar i ty w i th fi re ar m s ins tea d ofo n the sheer vo l um e o ffi r e po wer tha t K l eb i gpo ss es se d. F i na l l y , the co ur t sh o ul d no t ha ve a ll ow ed the t wo de m o ns tr at i o ns to tak e pl ace du ri n g cl osi ng ar gum ents, but ra ther sh ou ld h av e r eq u ire d th e g ov er n m en t t o e n te r th is e vidence, i fatal l, thr ough a witne ss w h o coul d be cr oss exam i ned. The eff ect ofal l o fthes e e rr or s was to cause th e j ur y t o s ee Kl eb i ga s ano dd m ana nd pe r ha ps a dan

ger ous o ne, and to deci de the case o n that basi s r ather th an o n th e i ss ue o f Kl eb i g ’ s k no wl edg e an d i nt en t related to the s aw ed-o ffr i fl e a nd the oi l fi l terta ped toN o. 08

- 2589 47 th e barrel ofthe long gu n. Th e errors, ta ken togeth er, w ere n ot h ar m les s. See U nited Sta te s v . B la nc ha rd, 54 2 F
. 3d 1133 , 1151 ( 7th Cir. 2008) (the test for h arm less error is w he th er, i n the m i nd o fthe aver age j uror, the pros ecuti on’ s ca se woul d ha ve b ee n s i g ni fi ca nt l y l es s per su as i ve ha d the im p ro p er ev i d e n c e be en ex c lu d ed ); U nited Sta tes v. E m ers on , 50 1 F
. 3d 80 4, 81 3 ( 7th Ci r . 20 07 ) ( sam e). S ee also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa nt os , 201 F.3 d 95 3, 96 5 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ) (in d ete rm i ni ng wh ethera convi cti on s houl d be uph eld despit e the pre sence oferr or, a cour t i s r equi re d to as se ss the ha r m do ne by the e r r o r s co ns i der ed i n the agg re gat e)
. W i thout the i m proper l y a dm i tte d evi dence, th e pr o se cut i o n’s ca se he r e woul d ha ve b ee n c o nsi derabl y weake r. The ev i dence on K l ebi g’ s know l edge o f th e na tu r e o fthe s awe d- o ffr i fl e an d hi s i nt en t to use th e filte r as a sile n c er w as n ot so st ro n g t h at w e c an be co n fiden t th atthe j ur y woul d ha ve c o nv i ct ed Kl eb i gi n the abs en ce of th ese errors. W e the refore r everse K lebig’ s co nv i ct i o n a nd r emand fo r a ne w tr i al, c o nduc te d c o nsi st en tl y wi ththi s o pi ni o n. R EVER S ED AND R EMAND ED .

4- 8- 10