FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAR 23, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 12 17 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 45 6- CR-5 -SLB-HGD UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us WALTER E. BRANNAN, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 2 3, 2 00 9) Befo re MAR CUS, KRAVITCH an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . MARC US, Cir cu itJu dg e: W al te r Bra nn anap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r th e Alaba m a st at e la w off en se s of in de cen t ex po su re an d p ub li c le wdn es s wh il e in th e Wheel er Nat io na l Wild li feRefu ge , an area u nd er t he juri sd ic ti on of the Uni te d S ta te s, al l i n v io la ti on of 5 0

C.F.R. § 27 .83 an d 1 6 U.S.C. § 66 8d d. Onap pe al , Bran na n c ha ll en ge s h is
co nv ic ti on forin de cen t ex po su re o n t he gro un ds th atth e ch arg in g i nf orm at io n was fau lt y be cau se itlef

t o utaness en ti al ele m en t o f th e cri m e, an d, m or e g en eral ly, he ch al le ng es bo th co nv ic ti on s o n t he gro un ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n b y

adm it ti ng ev id en ce o f Bra nn an ’s ot he r si m il ar ac ts un de r Fed . R. Evi d. 4 04 (b ). Afterth or ou gh rev ie w, we affi rm . I. The rel ev an t fa ct s an d p ro cedur al hi st ory are t he se . The Wheel er Nat io na l W il dl ife Refu ge is a fed eral pro pe rty loc at edin Alab am a th atis op ento th e ge ne ral publ ic . In t he su m m er o f 20 06 , Fed eral W il dl ife Offic ers co nduc te d a
co ve rt o pe rat io n t o i de nt ify andch arg e an y in di vi du al s en ga ge d i n i ll eg al sex ua l act iv ity in th e p ark , pu rs ua ntto 16 U.S.C. § 6 68 ddan d 5 0 C .F.R. § 2 7.8 3. Bas ed 1 up on co nduc t t ha t o ccu rredon Ju ly 20, 2 00 6 dur in g awalkin th e Wild li fe Re fu ge , Bran na n was ch arg edwit h two Al ab am a st at e la w vi ol at io ns on a fed eral
res erv at io n: Co un t On e al le ge d i nd ecen t ex po su re an d C ou ntTwo p ub li c
Under 16 U.S.C. § 668dd, the U.S. Fish and Wildl ife Servic e may administer the 1 National Wildli fe Ref

ug e lands a

nd water s “for

the bene fit of pre sent and futur e g ener ations of Americ ans.” 16 U .S.C. § 668dd(2). Pursuant to this authority , the Secr etar y of the I nterior promulg ated r egulations for the Wildli fe Ref ug e lands, including50 C.F.R. § 27.83, which prohibits visi tors from eng ag ing in a cts of “inde cenc y or disorder ly

conduct a s defined by

State or loca l laws ... on any

national wildlife re fug e.” 50 C.F .R. § 27.83 2le wdn es s. On the m orni ng of t ria l, b efo re v oi r di re h adco m m en ced , Bran na n 2 rai se d an i ss ue forth e fi rs t t im e reg ard in g t he su ffi ci en cy of C ou ntOne ( in de cen t
ex po su re). Bra nn anarg ue d t ha t al th ou gh th e Alaba m a in de cen t ex po su re s ta tu te di d n otm en ti on co ns en t, a l at er p ro vi si on of Al ab am a law in co rp or at edth e vi ct im ’s lac k o f co ns en t as aness en ti al ele m en t i nt o a ll cri m es ari si ng un de r th e
sa m e art ic le
. The c harg ing instrument, a n information filed by

the United States Attorney rea d this 2 way : COUNT ONE : [ 50 CFR 27.83 and Title 16 U.S.C. 668dd] The United States Attorne y char g es: That on or a

bout J uly 20, 2006, in L imestone County , within the Northern D istrict of Alaba ma, the def

endant, WAL TER E. BRANNAN, while on land ac quired for the use of the United States and unde r the c oncurr ent jurisdiction thereof, that is, the W heele r National Wi ldlife Refug e, did knowing ly commit the crime of inde cent e x posure, in that the de fenda nt, with intent to arouse and gratify

sexual desires of himself a nd of a pe rson other tha

n his spouse, did expose his genitals unde r circ umstances in which he knew his conduc t was likely to cause aff

ront and a larm in a public plac e, in violation of 50 C.F.R. 27.83 and Title 16, United States Code, Section 668dd. COUNT TWO: [50 C FR 27.83 and Title 16 U.S.C. 668dd] The United States Attorne y char g es: That on or a

bout J uly 20, 2006, in L imestone County , within the Northern D istrict of Alaba ma, the def

endant, WAL TER E. BRANNAN, while on land ac quired for the use of the United States and unde r the c oncurr ent jurisdiction thereof, that is, the W heele r National Wi ldlife Refug e, did knowing ly commit the crime of public le wdness, in that the def endant did expose his ge nitals in a public place and wa s rec kless about whethe r anothe r would be pr esent who would be off

ended a nd alar med by his act, in violation of 50 C.F.R. 27.83 and Title 16, United States Code, Section 668dd. 3Sp eci fic al ly, Tit le 13 A, Arti cl e 6 of the Alab am a Cri m in al Co de at

§ 1 3A- 6- 68 , pro vi de s t ha t: A pe rs on co m

m it s th e cri m e of in de cen t ex po su r e i f, wit h in te nt to aro us e or gr at ify se xu al de si re of hi m se lf or of an y pe rs on ot he r th an hi s sp ou se , he ex po se s hi s ge ni ta ls un de r ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch he kn ows hi s con du ct is li ke ly to cau se affr on t or al arm in an y publ ic pl ace or on th e pr iv at e pr em is es of an ot he r or so ne ar th eret o as to be se en fro m su ch pr iv at e p rem is es . Ala. Co de § 1 3A- 6- 68 . The l at er p ro vi si on , § 1 3A- 6- 70 , in tu rnsays th at : Whe th er or no t sp eci fic al ly st at ed , it is an el em en t of ev ery of fen se de fin ed i n t h i s art ic le
... th at th e se xu al act was co m m it te d wit ho ut co ns en t o f th e v ic ti m . Ala. Co de § 1 3A- 6- 70 . Becau se Co un t On e d idno t i nc lu de th is ele m en t o f no nco ns en t, Br an na n a rg ue d t ha t t he co un t fo r in de cen t ex po su re was de fect iv e. Not ab ly, ho wev er, Bra nn ansai d t ha t h e was no t as ki ng th e Gov ern m en t t o re fil e
anin fo rm at io n a ll eg in g the m is si ng ele m en t, n orth athe was try in g t o d el ay th e tri al , bu t tha t h e wou ldag ree t o a n a m en dm en t t o t he Co un t. No su ch am en dm en t
was m ad e. The co ll oq uy bet ween de fen se co un se l an d t he di st ric t co urt i nc lu de d t he fo ll owi ng ex ch an ge : Mr. Gard ne r: A n d i t ’s n o t c h a r g e d i n t h e i n f o r ma t i o n . Th a t el em en t is no t in th e in fo rma t i on , an d I to ld Dav id [Est es , Pro se cu to r].

4The Co urt: I se e wha t y ou ’re sa y in g. It was n’t pr op erl y ch arg ed
. Mr. Gard ne r: AndI’m no t t ry in g t o d od ge a tr ia l t od ay . In fa ct , I wou ld ag ree to an am en dm en t th at wou ld in cl ud e t h at , bu t I do th in k it cl earl y st at es he re it ’s a n el em en t. The Co urt: So y ou ’re no t as ki ng th em to supe rced e or to refi le

--

it ’s no t an ind ic tm en t -- bu t to refi le an in fo rm at io n al le gi ng th atele m en t? Mr. Gard ne r: No, I’m no t. The Co urt: I w i l l l o o k a t i t , a n d w e w i l l t a l k a t t h e c h a r g e

co nf eren ce. I do n’t wan t to s ay rig ht no w, un le ss y oualr ead y

kn ow t ha t you a gr ee t o i t. R2 at 7 -8 (em

ph as is ad de d)
. Afte r th e v oi r ex am in at io n was co m pl et edan d the jury was im pa ne le d a nd
swo rnbu t b efo re o pe ni ng st at em en ts co m m en ced , th e d is tri ctco urt co nduc te d a pr el im in ary ch arg in g c on fere nc e wit h c ou ns el , at wh ic h t im e Bra nn anag ai n ra is ed th e is su e o f co ns en t. The fol lo win g e xc ha ng e o ccu rredbe twee n the pro se cu to r (Mr . Est es ), de fen se co un se l (M r. Gardne r), an d t he di st ric t co urt: Mr. Es te s: I ha ve two arg um en t s . I t h i n k , f i r st , to fram e y ou r arg um en t an d m ak e su re I un de rs ta nd it , he ’s sa y in g be cau se I di d no t al le ge it in th e in fo rm at io n, th ere’s a p ro bl em ? The Co urt: N o . H e ’s sa y in g he ’s go in g to waiv e th atfor s u r e .

He’s g o i ng to waiv e th at ; rig ht ? W ere y ou sa y in g th at ? I’ m no t t ry in g t o p utword s i n you r m ou th
. 5Mr. Gardne r: I jus t sa y it ’s an el em en t. I’m no t go in g to as k fo r it to be di sm is se d o r us no t t o p ro ceedto da y . R2 , at 2 4- 25 (em

ph as is ad de d)
. Afte r a b rie f rec es s, t he pre li m in ary ch arg in g c on fere nc e res um ed , at wh ic h ti m e th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atitwou ldno t i nc lu de in it s ju ry in stru ct io ns th e v ic ti m ’s lac k o f co ns en t as anele m en t o f Co un t On e. At tha t p oi nt , th e co urt
as ke d wh ethe r ei th er p art y ha d a nyth in g e ls e to ad dr es s. Defe ns e co un se l s ai d,

“No.” Tri al co m

m en cedsh ortl y

th erea fte r. Not ab ly, atno ti m e b efo re o r du rin g tri al di d t he de fen dantm ov e to eit he r di sm is s t he ch arg in g i nf orm at io n o n t he gr ou ndth atth e ch arg e o m it te d a n e ss en ti al ele m en t, o r se eka co nt in ua nc e to gi ve th e p ro se cu ti on anop po rtu ni ty to ch an ge th e ch arg in g i ns tru m en t. The Gov ern m en t p res en te d a t t ria l, am on g o th ers , th e te st im on y of Da rro n Sp eeg le , who was aFed eral W il dl ife Offic er as si gn edto th e Wheel er Nat io na l W il dl ife Refu ge . He exp la in edth atin Ju ly of 20 06 cit iz en s es se nt ia ll y were de pr iv edacce ss to cert ai n a reas wit hi n t he W il dl ife Refu ge “be cau se of i ll eg al de vi an t s ex ua l ac ti vi ty.” In o rd er t o a dd res s t hi s p ro bl em , th e Offi cer a sk edforth e
as si st an ce o f ot he r Fed eral W il dl ife Offic ers to co nduc t a c ov ertop erat io n t o
su rv ei l, i de nt ify, andch arg e an y in di vi du al s wh o m ay

be en ga ge d i n i ll eg al
co nduc t.
6One of t he pa rti ci pa ti ng off ic ers , Greg Bla nk s, was ass ig ne d t o a ctina no nun ifo rm edcap aci ty as a m em be r of th e p ub li c, walk in g t he tra il s an d s it ti ng on th e pa rkbe nc he s. Bl an ks tes ti fie d t ha t o n J ul y 26 , 20 06 , he e nc ou nt eredth e d efen da nt Bran na n, wh o i ni ti al ly w al ke d b y Bla nk s as Bla nk s s aton a be nc h. So on th erea fte r, acco rd in g t o the Offic er, Bra nn anreturne d, ap pr oa ch edBla nk s, an d
sa idhe ll o. Br an na n t ol d B la nk s t ha t h e (Br an na n) ha d s pe ntth e m orni ng ha vi ng
se x wi th a fri en d andha d t ak enph ot og rap hs . Then th e d efen da nt , who st oo d t wo feetinfro ntof B la nk s, b eg anto rub hi s g ro in area , exp os edhi s er ectpe ni s, b eg an to m as tu rb at e, an d a sk edth e Offi cer i f he want edto en ga ge in sex . The Offi cer te st ifi edth athe th enid en ti fie d h im se lf a s a f ed eral off ic er, t oo k t he de fen dantto a pr oc es si ng area , andis su eda ci ta ti on to Bran na n. Offi cer B la nk s u na m bi gu ou sl y te st ifi edth atat n o t im e d idhe askth e d efen da ntto ex po se hi m se lf o r ot he rwis e
so li ci t Br an na n i n a ny way . At t he clo se of t he Gov ern m en t's cas e-i n- ch ie f, Bran na n m ov edfor jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al on Co un t On e (i nd ecen t ex po su re) a rg ui ng th atitdi d n ot al le ge a ne ces sary

ele m en t: th atth e actwas c omm it te d wi th ou t t he co ns en t o f th e vi ct im . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th atth e Gov ern m en t was
no t re qu ire d t o p ro ve th atth e v ic ti m di d n otgi ve co ns en t. No fur th er m ot io ns
were m ad e.
7The co urt t he n i ni ti at edst il l an ot he r pr el im in ary di sc us si on wit h c ou ns el

co nc ern in g t he pro po se d ju ry ch arg e. Bran nan o bjec te d t o t he in st ru ct io ns
co nc ern in g i nd ecen t ex po su re b ecau se th ey di d n otad dr es s t he m at te r of th e vi ct im ’s con se nt . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t ru le on th e o bjec ti on at t he ti m e. The de fen se th enpro ceed edto pre se ntev id en ce o f it s o wn. In hi s d efen se , Bran na n te st ifi edth athe was a t t he W il dl ife Refu ge to ex erci se an d t ak e p ic tu res of n atur e,
an d t ha t Offi cer B la nk s i ni ti at eda co nv ers at io n wi th hi m an d a sk edBran nan
se ve ral ti m es to ex po se hi m se lf, wh ic h t he de fen dantsai d h e d idon ly after h av in g be enask edto do so th ree t im es by the Offic er. Bas edon Bran na n’s t es ti m on y , th e Gov ern m en t s ou gh t p erm is si on to qu es ti on Bran nan abo uthi s fa m il ia rit y wit h t he W il dl ife Refu ge an d wh ethe r on fo uror f iv e o ccas io ns he ha d p rev io us ly vis it edth e Wild li fe Re fu ge wit h t he in te nt of en ga gi ng incau sa l s ex . The p ro se cu ti on arg ue d tha t t hi s i nq ui ry reb ut te d Bran na n’s t es ti m on y

th athe ha d o nl y

expo se d h im se lf a t Bl an ks ’ reque stan d t ha t itsh owe d p red is po si ti on . After h eari ng th e p ro fferou t o f th e p res en ce o f th e jury, th e d is tri ctco urt, o ve r th e d efen da nt ’s ob jecti on , all owe d the cro ss ex am in at io n. The Gov ern m en t el ic it edfro m Bran na n t ha t, b efo re the in ci de ntwit h Off ic er Bl an ks , he was aware t ha t t he W il dl ife Refu ge was apl ace t o g o t o h av e cas ua l

8se x, an d tha t o n fo ur or f iv e p rev io us oc cas io ns he ha d e ng ag edin sex ua l co nduc t atth e Wild li fe Re fu ge . At t he clo se of t he cas e, Bran na n d idno t re ne w hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al
. Dur in g afin al ch arg in g c on fere nc e, ne it he r si de ob jecte d t o t he co urt’s pr op os edjury in st ru ct io ns , whi ch in cl ud eda m od ifi edin st ru ct io n o n e nt rap m en t. 3 Not ab ly abs en t wer e an y

in st ru ct io ns on co ns en t. No r di d B ran na n ra is e an y fu rth er o bjec ti onto th e ch arg in g d oc um en t. The jury co nv ic te d t he de fen da nton bo th co un ts . There aft er, Bra nn anwas s en te nc edto 45 da y s i nc arce rat io n o n e ach
co un t t o ru n c on cu rren tl y . Thi s t im el y

ap pe al en su ed
. II.

The trial c ourt' s final jury char g e included a

modified instruction on entrapme nt with 3 which def ense c ounsel expli citly

agree d. The Court: I f you find on either or both of the counts -- how about this? I f you find on either or both of the cour

t that the g overnme nt has proved the defe ndant guilty beyond a rea sonable doubt, then you need to c onsider whe ther the defe ndant is entitled to the defe nse of e ntrapment, a nd then Iwould rea d the entra

pment char g e. Mr. Gar dner: Okay
. R3 at 51. 9W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of ach arg in g i ns tru m en t de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v. Pe nd erg raft , 29 7 F .3d11 98 , 12 04 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). The ch arg in g d oc um en t, whe th er an in fo rm at io n o r gr an d ju ry in di ct m en t, “ m

us t co nt ai n t he ele m en ts of th e o ffen se in te nd edto be ch arg ed , andsu ffi ci en tl y ap pr is e th e d efen da ntof wh at he m us t b e p rep aredto m eet ." Uni te d S ta te s v . Bob o, 3 44 F.3d10 76 , 10 83 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 )(quo ta ti on an d b rack et s o m it te d) . Whe n a n i nd ic tm en t d efec ti ve ly om it s
aness en ti al ele m en t, t he en su in g c on vi ct io n m us t b e rev ers ed . See i d. at10 85 -8 6; Uni te d S ta te s v . Adk in so n, 1 35 F.3d13 63 , 13 78 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ); Un it edSta te s v . Gay le , 96 7 F .2d48 3, 4 85 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ); Un it edSta te s v . Ita li an o, 8 37 F.2d 14 80 , 14 82 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). W e are pre cl ud ed , ho wev er, fro m rev ie win g a n i ss ue rai se d o n app eal if i t h as be enwaiv edth ro ug h the do ctrin e o f in vi te d e rro r. Uni te d St at es v. Lo ve , 44 9 F .3d11 54 , 11 57 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); Un it edSta te s v . Sil ve st ri, 40 9 F .3d13 11 , 13 37 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ); F or d e x. re l. Es ta te of F or d v . Garci a, 28 9 F.3 d 1 28 3, 1 29 3- 94 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ), cert . den ie d, 5 37 U.S. 11 47 (20 03 ). Mo reo ve r, we rev ie w th e ev id en ti ary ru li ng s o f th e tr ia l co urt o nl y fora cl ear ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Nov at on , 27 1 F .3d96 8, 1 00 5 (1 1t h C ir. 20 01 ). Andwhen we em pl oy the de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard“ we
m us t af firm un le ss we fin d tha t the di st ric t co urt h as m ad e a cl ear e rro r of

10jud gm en t, o r ha s ap pl ie d t he wron g l eg al st an dard .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Frazi er, 3 87

F.3 d 1 24 4, 1 25 9 (1 1t h C ir.2 00 4) (en ba nc ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. A. Inth e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t, “ [t]he do ctrin e o f in vi te d e rro r is im pl ic at edwhen a pa rty induc es or i nv it es th e d is tri ctco urt i nt o m ak in g a n e rro r.” Uni te d S ta te s v . St on e, 13 9 F .3d82 2, 8 38 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). “ Whe re a p art y in vi te s erro r, th e Co urt is pre cl ud edfro m

rev ie win g t ha t erro r on ap pe al .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Harri s, 4 43 F.3 d 8 22 , 82 3- 24 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); S il ve stri, 4 09 F.3dat 1 33 7; Fo rd , 28 9 F .3dat 12 94 . Thu s, i f a p art y

waiv es a pr oc edur al rig htor a gr ees to th e ad m is si bi li ty of cert ai n e vi de nc e, he can no t l at er co m pl ai n t ha t an y

res ul ti ng erro r is rev ers ib le
. See Harris , 44 3 F .3dat 8 24 (“ The factrem ai ns th at[de fen da nt ’s] co un se l wai ve d th e PSI a ndth atwaiv er i nv it edan y erro r th atm ay

ha ve ari se n h ere. Acco rd in gl y , th ere i s n o re ve rs ib le erro r.”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Jerni ga n, 3 41 F.3d12 73 , 12 89 -9 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (ho ld in g t ha t d efen da ntin vi te d e rro r by agre ei ng to all ow t ap ereco rd edst at em en t i nt o e vi de nc e; co urt ca nn otrev ie w th e im pr op rie ty of jury he ari ng th e tape ); Lo ve , 44 9 F .3dat 1 15 7 (h ol di ng th atde fen da ntin vi te d e rro r by
ex pr es sl y ackno wled gi ng th atth e co urt co ul d i m po se a se nt en ce o f supe rv is ed rel eas e; pre cl ud edfro m

cla im in g re su lt in g s en te nc e was in erro r); Uni te d S ta te s v . Pari kh , 85 8 F .2d68 8, 6 95 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ) (h ol di ng de fen se co un se l i nv it ederro r
11whe n h e as ke d g ov ern m en t wi tn es s t o re la y he ars ay ); Un it edSta te s v . Trujil lo , 71 4 F .2d10 2, 1 05 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ) (h ol di ng de fen se co un se l i nv it ederro r whe n h e to ldjury th atth e in di ct m en t was in su ffi ci en t; can no t ap pe al im pr op rie ty of pr os ecu to r’s res po nd in g c omm en t). The do ctrin e st em s fr om

th e co m m onsen se vi ew th atwher e a p art y in vi te s th e tr ia l co urt t o c omm iterro r, he can no t l at er cry fou l o n app eal . Sto ne , 13 9 F .3d at83 8 (“ Gen eral ly, anap pe ll at e co urt wi ll no t re vi ew anerro r in vi te d b y a de fen da nt , on th e rat io na le th atth e d efen da ntsh ou ldno t b en efi t fr om in tro du ci ng
erro r attri al wit h t he in te nt io n o f cre at in g g ro un ds forrev ers al on ap pe al .”). Afte r th or ou gh ly revi ewin g t hi s re co rdwe are co ns tra in edto co nc lu de th at Bran na n a ffi rm at iv el y

waiv edhi s ri gh t t o c ha ll en ge th e ch arg in g d oc um en t o n ap pe al be cau se he en co ur ag edth e d is tri ctco urt t o p ro ceedto tri al on th e al le ge dl y fau lt y co un t. In de ed , th e d efen da ntha d m ul ti pl e o pp ortu ni ti es to co rrec t the pe rcei ve d e rro r. Whe n B ran na n i ni ti al ly rais eda co nc ern reg ard in g t he om is si on , th e d is tri ctco urt i nq ui redwhethe r he was a sk in g t he Gov ern m en t t o s up erce de or refi le th e in fo rm at io n; he expl ic it ly said , “ No, I’m no t.” Mo reo ve r, he ad de d t ha t
ev enth ou gh he be li ev edth atCo un t On e la ck edaness en ti al ele m en t, h e was no t

“ tryin g t o d od ge a tr ia l t od ay .”

12Bran na n re it erat edth is vi ew aft er t he jury was im pa ne le d b utbe fo re t ria l be ga n. Th e d is tri ctco urt ag ai n a sk edth e d efen da ntwhet he r he was “ go in g t o waiv e” an y

ob jecti on to th e p ur

po rte d d efec t i n t he ch arg e an d t he de fen dant
un am bi gu ou sl y sai d: “ I’m

no t g oi ng to askforitto be di sm is se d o r us no t t o pr oc eedto da y .” Nor d idBran na n m ov e to di sm is s C ou ntOne a t an y ti m e dur in g th e p ro ceed in g. In de ed , kn owi ng th atth e co urt h adreject edhi s re qu es t fo r an in st ru ct io n abo utth e v ic ti m ’s lac k o f co ns en t, h e rai se d n o o bjec ti on to th e in fo rm at io n n orto th e in st ru ct io ns . Eve n wh enreadin a li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e d efen da nt , th is m us t
co ns ti tu te in vi te d e rro r. Noton ly didBran na n fa il to ob ject t o t he ch arg in g in st ru m en t n orm ov e to di sm is s i t, h e affi rm at iv el y en co ur ag edth e d is tri ctco urt t o try thi s ca se on th e v ery ch arg e h e th ou gh t d efec ti ve . Ind eed , he m ad e itcle ar th ro ug ho utth e p ro ceed in gs th athe want edno de la y in th e tr ia l. Hadhe ob

jecte d
an d m ov edto di sm is s, o r ha d h e ev enask edth e Gov ern m en t t o a m en d t he in fo rm at io n b efo re g oi ng forward , th e p ur po rte d d efec t co ul d h av e b een eas il y
co rrec te d. Si m

pl y pu t, t he de fen da ntcan no t u se th e tr ia l as a dry run on a ch arg in g i ns tru m en t h e b el ie ve d t o b e d efec ti ve , enc ou rag e th e tr ia l co urt t o g o fo rward , andon ly returnto th e is su e la te r on ap pe al aft er s us ta in in g a n

13un fav or ab le ou tc om e. Thi s i s i nv it ederro r an d i t b ars us fro m rev ie win g Bran na n’s fi rs t cl ai m

on ap pe al
. B. Bran na n a ls o s ay s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby adm it ti ng ev id en ce o f hi s pr io r se xu al act s i n the W il dl ife Refu ge , un de r Fed . R. Evi d. 4 04 (b ). W e are
un pe rs ua de d. Th e ev id en ce el ic it edon cro ss ex am in at io n was pl ai nl y rel ev an t, reb ut te d B ran na n’s cl ai m s o n d ire ctex am in at io n, b or e d ire ct ly on p red is po si ti on
an d a n e nt rap m en t d efen se , andwas n otso un fai rly preju di ci al as t o o ut weig h i ts pr ob at iv e v al ue . Und er Ru le 40 4( b) , evi de nc e o f pr io r cri m es , wron gs , or b adact s i s n ot ad m is si bl e to pro ve a de fen da nt ’s cha ract er i n o rd er t o s ho w con fo rm it y th erewi th , bu t m ay be adm is si bl e to sh ow m ot iv e, in te nt , pre pa rat io n, p la n, o r ab se nc e o f
m is ta ke or a cci de nt . Fed . R. Evi d. 4 04 (b ); Un it edSta te s v . Perez , 44 3 F .3d77 2, 77 9 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 6) ; Un it edSta te s v . Mat th ews , 43 1 F .3d12 96 , 13 10 -1 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). It i s b y

no w ho rn -b oo k l aw in th is Cir cu itth atto be adm is si bl e u nd er Ru le 40 4( b) , "[1 ] th e ev id en ce m us t b e rel ev an t t o an i ss ue ot he r th anth e de fen da nt 's c ha ract er; [2] th e actm us t b e es tabl is he d b y

su ffi ci en t p ro of

to pe rm it a jury fin di ng th atth e d efen da ntco m m it te d the ex tri ns ic act ; [a nd3] th e p ro ba ti ve
va lu e o f th e ev id en ce m

us t n otbe subs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh edby its un du e p reju di ce,
14an d t he ev id en ce m us t m eetth e o th er req ui rem en ts of Rul e 4 03 ." Ma tt he ws, 4 31 F.3 d a t 1 31 0- 13 11 (ci ta ti on om it te d) ; Un it edSta te s v . Cha ve z, 20 4 F .3d13 05 , 13 17 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ); Un it edSta te s v . Mil le r, 95 9 F .2d15 35 , 15 38 (11 th Cir
. 19 92 ). The di stric t co urt p la in ly didno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y all owi ng ev id en ce of Bran na n’s p rio r se xu al act s i n t he W il dl ife Refu ge . As we’ve n ot ed , on di rect
ex am in at io n B ran na n t es ti fie d a t l en gt h t ha t h e d idno t i ni ti at e an y im pr op er
co nt actwit h Off

ic er Bl an ks an d o nl y

ex po se d h im se lf a t Bl an ks ’ rep eat edreque st
. The di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly all owe d t he Gov ern m en t t o re bu t Br an na n’s t es ti m on y th athe wou ldno t o th erwi se ha ve en ga ge d i n i nd ecen t ex po su re o r publ ic lewd ne ss by est ab li sh in g t ha t Br an na n d idin de edha ve th e req ui si te in te nt , m ot iv e, or st at e of m in d t o v is itth e p arkforpu rp os es of e ng ag in g i n c as ua l s ex . The ev id en ce el ic it edon cro ss ex am in at io n u nd en iabl y ten de d t o re bu t Br an nan’s d ire ct te st im on y . Mo reo ve r, ev id en ce t ha t t he de fen da ntha d p rev io us ly eng ag edin sex ua l act s atth e Wild li fe Re fu ge wentdi rect ly to t he is su e o f whe th er h e was in du cedto
co m m itth e cri m e. “ Altho ug h t he go ve rn m en t n orm al ly m ay no t i nt ro du ce
ev id en ce o f a d efen da nt ’s pre di sp os it io n t o e ng ag e in cri m in al act iv it y , itm ay do
so on ce a d efen dantsubm it s ev id en ce wh ic h ra is es th e p os si bi li ty tha t h e was
15in du cedto co m m itth e cri m e,” u su al ly in t he co nt ex t o f anen trapm en t d efen se . Uni te d S ta te s v . W al th er, 8 67 F.2d13 34 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ); Un it edSta te s v . Ro pe r, 87 4 F .2d78 2, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). An en trapm en t d efen se ha s t wo b as ic el em en ts : “ (1 ) go ve rn m en t i nduc em en t o f th e cri m e, an d (2 ) la ckof p red is po si ti on
on th e p artof the de fen da nt .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ry an , 28 9 F .3d13 39 , 13 43 (11 th Ci r. 20 02 ). Int ro du ct io n o f ex tri ns ic ev id en ce i s a r el iabl e m etho d fo r sh owi ng th e cri m in al pre di sp os it io n n eces sa ry to reb utan y

all eg at io n o f en trapm en t. Un it ed St at es v. Sa li sb ury , 66 2 F .2d73 8, 7 41 (11 th Cir . 19 81 ). Here, t he de fen da nt ’s st rat eg y hi ng edon Bran na n’s t es ti m on y th atBla nk s
wro ng fu ll y

so li ci te d, en co ur ag ed , andco ns en te d t o B ran na n’s ac t, an d t ha t Bran na n wo ul d n otha ve ot he rwis e ex po se d h im se lf i n t he W il dl ife Refu ge . Evi de nc e th atBran na n h adpre vi ou sl y vi si te d t he W il dl ife Refu ge forcas ua l s ex te nd edto sh ow t ha t h e was no t u nwi tt in gl y in du cedin to act io n b y

th e im pr op er
co nduc t o f a fed eral ag en t. Alt ho ug h B ran na n d idno t as se rt aleg al en trapm en t de fen se du rin g t ria l, th e Gov ern m en t h adno way of kno win g wh ethe r co un se l 4 Duringthe final c harg ing c onfer ence , it was clea r B ranna n was not arguing le g al 4 entra pment, but defe nse counse l admitted that there w as potential for the ar gument that the office r had e ntrappe d Br annan: The Court: L et’s dec ide on the entr apment. You’ re not a ctually not leg ally arguing e ntrapment. Your s rea lly is going , in my

view, to the element that he didn’t aff ront or ala

rm. Are n’t you? It’s not so much entra

pment that he pulled it out. I t’s rea lly g oing to the 16wou ldass erten trapm en t as a de fen se un ti l the clo se of i ts cas e, an d p ro pe rly

pr ep aredforth e d efen se by elic it in g t es ti m on y of B ran na n’s p rio r se xu al act s i n
cas e en trapm en t was arg ue d a t t he en d o f th e cas e. Non ethe le ss , Bran na n’s te st im on y reg ard in g h is awaren es s o f th e Wild li fe Re fu ge as acas ua l s ex m eet in g
areaan d h is adm is si on th athe ha d p rev io us ly eng ag edin cas ua l s ex at t he W il dl ife

element that he was not af fronted or alar med. Mr. Gar dner: In terms of if it does c ome down to a swe aringcontest, my guy is more be lievable. That’s been my defe nse fr om the beg inning on this. Although I

do admit that David [Estes, the Prosecutor] could argue that some of the testimony just elicited would sugg est that the idea originated from the of fice r. The Court: The fir st offense is that he exposed his ge nitals with the

intent to gr atify

the sexual desire of himself or someone else. I don’t see you rea lly

arguing that not being me t. The second I don’t see that the offe nse wa s committed under circ umstances the de fenda nt knew his conduc t was likely to cause aff ront or ala

rm. In my view, your def

ense is, fr om how I ’ve he ard you try

the ca se, is this officer

wasn’t aff ronted or a larmed, a

nd he didn’t think any

body else wa s g oing to se e it. Mr. Gar dner: That’s it. The Court: Right? Mr. Gar dner: You’re absolutely rig ht. The Court: It’s not that he was entra pped in the sense of-- I ’m just trying to think if thi s is goingto be conf using to the jury
. R3 at 47-48 (e mphasis added)
. 17Refu ge pro pe rly add res se d B ran na n’s cl ai m th athe was i nduc edor e nt ic edin to act io n b y a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer. On t hi s re co rd , we can no t s ay th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s co ns id erab le di sc ret io n b y

adm it ti ng th e ev id en ce o f Bra nn an ’s pri orsex ua l ac ts . “ Far fr om be in g c um

ul at iv e o r of

m arg in al va lu e to th e Gov ern m en t’s ca se , th e Gov ern m en t’s n eedforth e ev id en ce was st ro ng ; i t m ay ha ve be ende te rm in at iv e o f th e is su e o f wil lfu ln es s” si nc e th e who le cas e rea ll y bo il eddo wn t o c om

pe ti ng te st im on y fro m Bran na n a ndBla nk s. Un it edSta te s v . Lam on s, 5 32 F.3d12 51 , 12 66 -6 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8)
. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

18