NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORF ULL -TEXT PUB LIC ATION Fi le Name: 08a 0765n.0 6 Fi led : Dec ember

17, 2008 Nos . 06- 5427/54 32/5433 /5480/ 5483 UN ITED STATES C OU RT O F APPEA LS FO R THE S IX TH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. HECTO R SAUL MENDEZ (06-542 7); JOSE AL VARADO BO RREGO (06-54 32); JOSE BE NCOMO-CASTI LLO (06-543 3); JOSE BE JARANO HERNANDEZ (06-548 0); JUAN VICTO R PEREZ (06-548 3); Defendant s- Appel lan ts. / On ap p e a l from the Uni ted S tates District Court for t he Middle District of Tennessee

BEF OR E: GU Y , RYAN and Mc KEAG UE , C ircui t J udg es. RY AN , C ircui t J udg e. In t his co nsol ida ted a ppeal , t h e d e fe n d a nts , Hector Saul Me ndez , J ose Al v arado Bo rreg o, J ose Benc omo-C ast il lo, Jo se Bej arano H er nandez , and Juan Victor Perez, challenge the ir conv ictions for consp iring to kidna p three person s, in
v iol ati on of

18 U. S.C . § 1201( c) ; kid napi ng three persons , i ncl udi ng a mi nor , i n v iol ati on of 18 U .S.C . §§ 1201( a) (1 ) and 1 2 0 1 (g); and brandi shi ng or bei ng pr inc ipa ls to the brandi shi ng of fire ar ms dur ing t h e ki dnapi ng , i n v iol ati on of 18 U .S.C . §§ 2 and 924( c) (1 )( A) (i i)

. W e w il l aff ir m. I. In 2004, Her nandezand Juan Cha v ez , a loc al dr ug deal er , eng ag ed i n a s er ies of dr ug transac ti ons, w hereby H er nandezw oul d ar ra ng e a del iv er y of marijua na and coc ain e(N os. 06- 5427/54 32/5433 /5480/ 5483) -2
-

to C hav ezthrough H e rn a n dez ’s M ex ic an c ontac ts. After tw o maj or

del iv er ies , C hav ez defaulted on p ay m e n t and ow ed th e M ex ic an deal ers o v er one mil li on dol lars. U nder pr ess ure from t he M ex ic an s uppl iers t o c oll ectfrom C hav ez , H er nandezco ncei v ed a
sc heme to ki dnap Cha v ez ’s mother , Ros a Cha v ez , hol d her ca pti v e, an d the n demand that Juan Cha v ezpay

a ra nsom for

her rele ase. H er nandezrecr uit ed th e oth er defendants to hel p hi m ex ecut e the pl an. On Au gust 7, 200 4, th e f iv e de fend ant s t rav eled f rom Dalto n, Ge orgia, to Rosa Chavez ’s hom e in Nashvill e, T enn essee . A ro u n d m id night, Borrego forced ope n Mrs. Cha v ez ’s frontdoor

and w ent i nsi de, fol low ed by Benc omo-C ast il lo, M endez , and Perez openl y disp lay ing firear ms. The defendants abduc ted t he th re e oc cupan ts of the home, Ro s a C havez, Eloy F lorez (Rosa’s boyfrien d), and Estep han y Marq uez (Juan Chavez ’s fourteen y ear

old niec e) , atg unpoi nt, ev entual ly dr iv ing them to a Super 8 M otel i n D alt on, Georg ia, and hol din g them as host ag es. On A u g u s t 9 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e p o l i c e a r r e s t e d a l l fi v e k i d n a p e rs b e fo r e a n y ra n s o m w as pai d. Follow ing a joint trial at w hich H erna nde z w as the only def end ant to testif y , the jury found each defendant g uil ty on a ll counts

. The di str ic t c our t s entenc ed eac h defendant to
ser v e betw een 324 - 408 months ’ impr is onment. II. T he d efend ant s argue an array of ev iden t ia ry

issues. W e revi ew a trial court’s
ev ide nti ar

y r uli ng s for

an a buse of dis creti on. Sommer v . D av is , 317 F .3d 6 86, 6 93 ( 6th Ci r. 2003)

. A.(N os. 06- 5427/54 32/5433 /5480/ 5483) -3
-

Fi rs t, all the defendants arg ue th at t he di str ic t cour t i mprop er ly

rest ri cte d the ir

“ ri g ht” to c ro ss -e x amine Ros a C hav ez , a g ov er nment w it ness , reg ardin g her ear li er i nv olv ement in her son Juan ’s drug traf f icking. Spe cif ically , the def end ant s w ished to i mp each Rosa’s
credi bil ity

by i ntroduci ng i nto ev ide nce tw o all eg edl y conflic ti ng “302 for ms,” or su mmari es of Ros a’s F BI i nter

v iews g enerated by

Ag ent B re tt Cur

ti s, cont ain ing st atements reg ardin g her recei v ing so me of her so n’s dr ug proceed s. In one o f t h e s ta tements, a M ay 2005 int er v iew , C urti s q uest ion ed Rosa about ev ents occur ri ng before the ki dnapi ng , and as to tho se events, she den ied prof iting from Juan ’s drug sales. T hen , in Octob er 200 5, Curtis q uest ion ed R osa about ev ents occur ri ng after the ki dnapi ng , and as to thos e ev ents , s he admit ted “ lau nder ing ” Juan’ s d ru g money
. The Co nfrontat ion C lau se of the Si xth A mendment of the C onst it uti on as sures defendants the r ig ht t o c onfront the w it ness es ag ain st them, but the ri g ht is not a bsol ute. See D ela w ar e v . Va n Arsdal l, 475 U. S. 6 73, 6 78- 80 (1 986)

. The tr ial jud g e retai ns “w ide lat it ude” i n i mposi ng l imi ts to c ro ss -e x aminat ion

. Id. at 67 9. Af ter allowi ng defense coun sel to question Curtis and Rosa o utside the pre sence of the j ur y , t he di str ic t c our

t c or re ctl y

dete rmi ned t hat R osa’ s s tatement s t o C urti s in the 302 forms w ere noti ncons is tent, one w it h the othe r, bec ause Ros a’s st atements as re corded i n the 302 forms co n ce rn e d her ac ti v ity at tw o di ff erent t imes

. Mo re ov er , t he district court prop erly

ex clude d the 3 02 forms beca use the y consiste d of

extrinsic ev iden ce of mat ters collate ral to the def end ant s’ kidna ping cases, w hich rend ered them inadm issible und er Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). T he co urt allowed unrestricte d cross-examina t io n of Rosa
conc er nin g her

kn ow led g e of the kid n a p ing ev ents and the d efendants w ere al low ed to attemptto impeac h R osa’s credi bil ity by i nq uir ing w hether

sh e k new

thatJu an’ s mone y(N os. 06- 5427/54 32/5433 /5480/ 5483) -4
-

w as bei ng der iv ed from d ru g traff ic ki ng ; s he respon ded, “Y es. ” S h e a d m itted t hat s he benefitt ed from h er

so n’s dr ug money , w hic h, acco rd ing to the d efendants, w as the “ cr ux of t h e a rg u me n t

. ” F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , w e c o n c l u d e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt d i d n o tabus e i ts dis creti on i n l imi ti ng R osa’ s c ro ss -e x aminat ion

. B. The cr ux

of Me ndez ’s defense w as that he w as compel led , und er duress , t o par ti ci pate in the k idn api ng
. He now clai ms that the dist ri ct cour t abused it s dis creti on by restricting, on hea rsayg roun ds, t he g ov er nm en t’ s d i rect examina tion o f Agent Frank O’Neill
conce rning M end ez’s post -arrest state me nts. Mend ez argues tha t Mend ez’s state me nts, had the cour

t not ex cl uded them, w oul d hav e est abl is hed his then ex is ti ng sta te of mind,
w hic h i n tur n ten ded t o prov e hi s duress defense, and shoul d hav e been admit ted u nder Fed. R . Ev id. 803. Inadmi ss ibl e hearsay

i ncl udes out- o f-co u rt statement s u sed in cour t t o prov e the tr uth o f the matt er

as ser ted a nd g enerall y , s uch sta tements are i nadmis si ble

. F ed. R . Ev id. 801, 802. But , und er

F ed. R . Ev id. 803( 3) , t here i s a n ex cept ion for s tatement s that tend to s how , c ircumstanti all y , t he dec larant’ s “ [t] hen ex is ti ng mental , emot ion al, or phy si cal condi ti on.” I n order

to be admi ss ib le u n der R ule 803( 3) , t he s tatementmusthav e been cont emporaneous w it h the dec larant’ s e x per ien ce of the menta l, emoti ona l, or phy si cal cond ition referred to w hen the de clarantdid nothave “an opp ortun ity to ref lect and possibly fabri cat e or

mis re presenthi s t houg hts .” U nit ed St ates v. L e Master , 54 F. 3d 1224 , 123 1 (6 th C ir . 199 5)

. Th e d i s t r i c tc o u rtc o r r e ctl y d e t e r mi n e d t h a tM e n d e z ’ s s t a t e me n t s d i d n o tq u a l i fy under the Fed. R . Ev id. 803( 3) ex cept ion

. Me ndezcl aims thatthe sta tements he made to(N os. 06- 5427/54 32/5433 /5480/ 5483) -5
-

T here is an old argume nt some ev iden ce law the orists f ind en thralling, to the ef fect * that at c ommon l aw , i n the r ig ht c ircums tanc es, an out- of-cou rtstatementtending to show the d ecl arant’ s t hen s tate of mind may be a dmis si ble , butnot as an “ e xce p ti o n ” to the hearsay r ule , bec ause suc h s tatement s a re not off ered “ for th e tr uth o f the matt er asserte d,” butonly to prove tha t the state me nt w as ma de, thus illum inatin g the declaran t’s thi nki ng or

“ sta te of mi nd.” Bu t F ed. R . Ev id. 803(3) , li ke the prov er bia l 800 pou nd g or il la, pr ecl udes suc h i nterest ing reason ing , by si mply pronounc ing then ex is ti ng st ate- of-mind sta tements to be an ex cept ion to the p ro hib it ion ag ain st hearsay
. O’Neill tw o days af

ter the kidnap ing sug gesting that he acted und er duress, ref lected his sta te of mi nd atthe ti me of the k idn api ng . Becau se Men dez ’s statement s w ere notmade cont emporaneous w it h the ki dnapi ng , buttw o day s l ater , and under pol ic e i nter ro g ati on, t h e d is t ri c tco u rtp ro p e rl y e xc lu d e d t h e st a t e m e n t s a s in a d m is s ib le h e a rs a y. * C. Finally , Hernan dez arg ues th at th e district court ab used it s discretion when it
ex cl uded hi s p ro ff er ed ev ide nce that his father had been ki d n aped i n M ex ic o, w hic h, he
arg ues, w oul d hav e s uppor ted h is duress defense. Her nandezso ug ht t o i ntroduce v ar iou s ty pes of ev ide nce (H er nandez ’s tes ti mony and H er nandez ’s father ’s and si ste r’ s v ide o- taped depos it ion s) to show thathi s father

had been k idn aped an d hel d for ra nsom i n M ex ic o and that, as a r e su lt , H er nandezw as “for ced” to kid n a p R o sa , Eloy , and Es tephany i n order to g et money

to pay the ra nsom demanded b y

hi s father ’s ki dnappers. W e c o nclud e the district court prope rly ex clude d the prof

fered ev iden ce be cause it was n ot shown t hata t the t ime He rnan dez kidn ape d his v ictims, he w as aware that his father had bee n k idn aped. T he res ultis that the p ro ff ered te sti mony by H er nandez ’s father and sister reg arding the fath er’s kidnap ing w as irrelev ant and inad missa ble. See Fed. R. Ev id. 402 and 602

.(N os. 06- 5427/54 32/5433 /5480/ 5483) -6
- III . Borrego, Be ncom o-Castillo, Herna nde z , and Perez also arg ue that the district court abuse d i ts dis creti on w hen i t refused to dec lare a mi str ial fo llow ing an a ll eg ed Br uton
v iol ati on. Br uton v . U nit ed St ates , 391 U .S. 123 ( 1968)

. W e rev iew

a di str ic t c our

t’ s deci si on not to g ra nt a mis tr ial for a n abus e of di sc re ti on. Zuer n v . Tate, 336 F. 3d 478, 485 (6 th C ir . 200 3)

. Br uton hol d s th a t in a j oin t t ri al, an o ut- of-cou rtst atement by one defendant inc ri minat ing a codefendant is ina dmis sabl e as to the c odefendant un der the Con frontat ion Cl ause of the Si xth A mendment. Br u to n , 3 9 1 U .S. at 13 5- 36. W e hav e hel d tha t “ the introd uction of

a . . . []def end ant ’s self-incriminat ing, extra-judicial state me nt, in a join t trial,
w here the [c o]defendant’ s n ame i s redact ed and a neut ra l ter m is su bst it ute d ,” does not off end Br uton or

the Si xth A mendment. U nit ed St ates v . Va si lak os, 508 F. 3d 401, 408 (6 th Ci r. 2007)

. Lik ew is e, t here i s n o v iol ati on w here a d is tr ic t cour t prov ide s a proper

l imi ti ng i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e j u r

y a ft e r t h e c o n fe s s i o n i s r e d a c t e d t o e l i mi n a t e n o t o n lythe codefendant ’s name, but any referenc e to hi s e x is tenc e. See R ic hardson v . M arsh, 481 U. S. 2 00, 2 08- 09 ( 1987)

. The defendants cl aim a Br uton v iol ati on oc cur re d dur ing tr ial w hen O ’N e i l l re c o u n t ed Me ndez ’s st atements duri ng his post -a rrestinter v iew , w hic h i ncl uded s ev eral re ferenc es to “ four ot her

peopl e” and “t he fiv e peopl e” i nv olv ed i n the ki dnapi ng
. O’Neill’s referen ces did no t facially incrimina te th e oth er cod e f e n d a n ts. O’Neill
me ntion ed n o spe cif ic nam es du ring his testim ony, and the district court im me diate ly provided a limiting instruction to the jury regarding O’Neill’s referen ces to th e “othe rs.” IV.(N os. 06- 5427/54 32/5433 /5480/ 5483) -7
-

The defendants ’ re maini ng as si g nments of er ro r are mani festl y w it hout meri t. V. T he d istrict court’s judgmen t is A FF IR ME D

.