2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
2-1-2011 

# U SA v . V ince nt C ar t e r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 10-1239

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . V inc e n t C a r t e r " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1866. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/1866T he H onor abl e R i char d G
. St earns , U ni t ed S t at es D i s t r i ct J udge fort he U ni t ed St at es * D i s t r i ctC our tof M as s achus et t s , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on 

### . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 10- 1239

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. VI NCENT C ARTE R, A ppel l ant

_____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 2- 07- cr - 00739- 001 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e C ynt hi a M
. R ufe
Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL
. A
. R
. 34. 1( a)

J anuary27, 2011 B e f o re : M c K E E , C hi ef

Judge , a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge , a n d S T E A R N S , D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: February1, 2011)
OP I NI ON
S T E A R N S , D is tr i ct

Judge. V in c e n t C a rte r ap p e a ls a d e c isio n o f th e D istric t C o u rt to a llo w th e in tro d u c tio n a t h isC ar t erw as acqui t t ed of pos s es s i ng t he fi r earm “i n fur t her ance of” a drug t r aff i cki ng 2 cr i m e. 2 t r i al of as pect s of hi s m ember s hi p i n t he B l oods , a vi ol ent s t r eet gang. H e al s o appea l s t he deni al of a m ot i on for a new t r i al bas ed on al l eged j ur or m i s conduct
. O n J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 9, C a rte r w a s c o n v icte d b ya ju ryin th e E a ste rn D is tr ic t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia o f p o ss e ss io n w ith i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne base , pos s es s i on of m ar i j uana, and bei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f ir ea rm . O n Sept ember 11, 2009, aft erdeny i ng t he mot i on fora new t r i al , t he D i s t r i ct

2 C our t( R ufe, J
. ) s ent ence d C ar t ert o ni nety -si x m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . T hi s t i m el yappea l f o llo w e d
. O n t he e v e n i n g o f

Se p t e mbe r2 , 2 0 0 7 , Ph i l a d e l p h i a p o l i c e o f f i c e r s Ty r eek C un ningham and S cottL aw rence go tou tof thei r p a t rol car and b egan w al king t ow ards a gr oup o f y o u n g m en l oi t er i ng on t he s t eps of 5238 C ather i ne St r eetand i n an adj oi ni ng al l eyw ay . T w o m en w er e s eat ed on t he st eps . A t hi r d m an exi t ed fr om t he al l eyw ay , l ooked i n t he di r ect i on of t he offi cer s , and t ur ned hi s back. T w o ot her m en l eftt he al l eyw ayand j o i n e d t h e g r o u p c o n g r e g a t i n g o n t h e s t e p s . T w o m e n a n d a w o m a n r e m a i n e d i n t h e a l l e y. O ffi cer C unni ngham obs er ved t he w om an st oop dow n and l i ft up a pi l e of c arpet s , w hi l e one of t he men, l at eri dent i fi ed byC u n n ing h am as C ar t er , s hoved a s m al l bl ack obj ect underneath. A ft err eques t i ng backup a nd s ecur i ng t he sce ne, O ffi cer L aw r ence r etr i eved a bl ack b o o k b ag fro m u ndert he pi l e of c arpet s . H e hel d t he bag up t o t he s even orei ghtper s ons
now as s embl ed on the s t eps and as ked w ho ow ned i t . W hen no one r es ponded, he opene dA fter co n d u cti n g a v o ird ir e, de fe n se c o u n sel d id n o t object t o S an tana ’s 3 q u a lific a tio n a s a n e x p e rt. 3 t he bag a nd found: ( 1) a B l oods m ember s hi p r os t erw i t h C ar t er ’ s name l i s t ed att he t op as t he “O Y G ” ( O r i gi nal Y oung G angs t er ) , and al s o byt he al i as es “B l a2kR um ” and “ D oe B oyR u”; (2 ) a n o te b o o k lis tin g “ O Y G , B la 2 k R u m ,” w ith a n “ a d d re s s ” o f “ 2 1 W e s t G a n g s ta A v e n u e ,” and the school of “H ar d K no2k l i fe” ; ( 3) a r ock of c r ack c ocai ne; ( 4) 20 packe t s of
m ar i j uana; ( 5) a load ed K el t ec 9mm handgun; and ( 6) fourcopi es of a manual des cr i bi ng B l oods r i tual s and the ec hel ons of t he B l ood s hi er ar chy
. T he manual and the gang r os t er b o th id e n tif

ie d C a rt e r w ith th e s ta te m e n t “ p a o y g is b la k ru m d o e b o yru .” A tt r i al , t he governm ent offe r ed t he cont ent s of t he bag, t ogetherw i t h t he t es t i m ony
o f C orpor al E dw i n Sant ana, an expe r ton t he B l oods and others t r eetgangs . Sant ana 3 t est i fi ed thatt he d ocu m ents fou nd i n the bag i den t i fi ed C art er by his birt h and st reetnam es. S a n tan a o p in e d th a t as th e “ O Y G ,” C a rte r w a s th e h ig h e st-ra n k in g m e m b e r o f th e B lo o d s in t he gang’ s Phi l adel phi a t err i t or y . A l t hough Sant ana di d notoffe ra di r ectopi ni on as t o t he
ow ner s hi p of t he book bag, he t es t i fi ed thatan O Y G w oul d l i kel ypos s es s m ul t i pl e copi es of th e g a n g m a n u a l to u s e in e d u c a tin g n e w in itia te s a b o u t g a n g c u s to m s a n d p ra c tic e s . A ft erdel i ber at i ons began, t he j ur y for eper s on s ent a not e t o J udge R ufe s t at i ng t hat J ur or#7 had ment i oned as ki ng herdaught era ques t i o n ab o u t the cas e. T he not e i nqui r ed
w hetherJ ur or#7' s conductamount ed t o “out s i de r es ear ch, ” an unde r t aki ng t he C our thad
s t r i ct l yforbi dden. J ur or#7 ( outof t he pr es ence of t he other j ur or s ) expl ai ned t o J udge R ufe t h a t s h e h a d b e e n s h o p p i n g wi t h h e r t e e n a g e d a u g h t e r whe n , i n a n e f f or t t o m ake4

conver s at i on, s he ca s ual l yas ked w hether2 gr ams of cr ack i s “a l ot . ” Ju ror #7 added, “I
w as n’ tas ki ng forherhel p, j us tl i ke t al ki ng i n j us tgener al conver s at i on. ” Tr. of J une 29, 2009, at16. J ur or#7 fur t hers t at ed thatherdau g h ter ha d r es ponded w i t h a s hrug and an inau d ible co m m en t th at sh e c o u ld n o t r ea ll y interpre t. W h en the C o u rtco n v en ed the e n ti re j ur yt o di s cus s t he not e, J ur or#1 s t at ed t hat J ur or #7 had t ol d ot herj ur or s t hatherdaught er had s ai d t hatt w o gr ams i s i n fac t“a l ot ” of c r ack. A ft er w ei ghi ng conce r ns aboutJ ur or#7' s for t hr i ght nes s , J udge R ufe de ci ded thatt he
s i ngl e ques t i on and ans w erdi d notamount t o pr ej udi ci al “out s i de r es ear ch. ” A ddr es s i ng t he jury , sh e ins tru cted , “N o , it ’s no t r ese arc h that y o u ca n relyo n , it ’s no t r ese arc h that’s offi ci al , and i tw oul d notbe r es ear ch underanygui s e . . . i n a courtof l aw . . . . I f [the daught er ’ s ans w er ] i s i nfl uenci ng anyof y ou, I w oul d need t o know aboutt hat now . ” Tr. of J une 29, 2009, at26. W hen no j ur orr epor t ed havi ng been i nfl uence d byt he r emar k, J udge R u fe ask ed them to co n ti n u e their d eli b era ti o n s, b u t stressed ag ain th at “a n y thing y o u h ea rd out s i de the court r oom i s notper m i t t ed, and notper m i t t ed t o be consi d ered. ” Id
. A ft er
r ej ect i ng t he governm ent ’ s s ugges t i on t hats he di s m i s s J ur or#7 forcaus e and a l low d eli b era ti o n s to c o n ti n u e w ith a juryo f e leve n , Ju d g e R u fe d en ied C arter’s m o ti o n fo r a
m is tr ia l. T w o h o u rs la te r, t h e ju ry re tu rn e d its g u ilty v e rd ic t. 1. T he R ul e 403 M ot i on i n L i m i ne Pr i ort o t r i al , C ar t erfi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne t o pr ecl ude the gove rnm entfr om i nt r oduci ng t he gang mem ber s hi p r os t er , t he not ebook, and the gang manual s t hatw er e found i n t he book bag. H e al s o obj ect ed t o t he i nt r oduct i on of t he drugs and the gun, ar gui ng t hat5

t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci ent t o es t abl i s h t hat t he bag w as hi s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the
m ot i on i n l i m i ne, butbarr ed the governm entfr om r efe r r i ng t o t he B l oods byname. J udge R ufe a l s o gave a l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on t hat had been j oi nt l y agr eed t o by t he par t i es , expl ai ni ng to the jury the p rop er u ses they co u ld m ak e o f the g an g -af fil iat ion ev iden ce an d the e x p ert te s tim o n y . W e r evi ew a D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on r egar di ng t he adm i s s i bi l i t y of evi dence foran
a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Ser af

i ni , 2 3 3 F
. 3 d 7 5 8 , 7 6 8 n . 1 4 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 0 )
. We
a p p lyth e sa m e sta n d a rd in re v iew in g a D istric t C o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e risk o f u n f a ir p re ju d ice d o e s n o t su b sta n tiallyo u tw e ig h th e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f o th e rw ise a d m iss ib le
e v id e n c e . S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . M

a th is , 2 6 4 F .3 d 3 2 1 , 3 2 6 -2 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). C ar t erfi r s tar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng t he ganga f f ili a tio n e v id e n c e b e c a u se o f its irre lev a n c e to a n yiss u e a t trial. T h e G o v e rn m e n t in sis ts t hatt he gang mat er i al s w er e pr oper l y admi t t ed t o r ebut C ar t er ’ s di s cl ai m erof ow ner s hi p of t he book bag a nd t o corr obor at e O ffi cerC unni ngham’s t es t i m onyt hathe had obs er ved C ar t er t hrus t i ng t he bag unde rt he s t ack of carpet s . W e agr ee. T he di s put ed evi dence w as pr obat i ve on t he i s s ues of ow ner s hi p and i dent i t y , bot h of w hi ch w er e es s ent i al el ement s of t he G o v e rn m e n t’ s c a s e . C ar t er ’ s s econd a r gum enti s t hatt he pr ej udi ci al im p ac t of t he gang- aff i l i at i on evi dence s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed i t s prob ati v e val ue. Feder al R ul e of Evi dence 403 provides: A lt h o u g h re lev a n t, ev id e n c e m a yb e e x c lu d e d if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s ubs t ant i al ly out w ei ghed byt he dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of t heJu d g e R u f e in stru c ted in re lev a n t p a rt: 4 T hi s C our tadmi t t ed thi s t es t i m onyand i ns t ruct ed y ou t o onl ycons i der i ton a l i m i t ed purpos e, as i tr el at es t o t he al l egat i ons her e t hat M r . C ar t erpos s es s ed t he fir earm and narcot i cs. Y ou hav e t o d et erm i ne those ult i m at e i ssues, w h e th e r h e d id p o s s e s s th e f ir e a rm a n d th e n a rc o tic s . T he evi dence t hatw as pr es ent ed r el at ed t o gang m ember s hi p or l eade r s hi p or anyt hi ng el s e r el at ed t o i t , can onl ybe cons i der ed byy ou fort hatr eas on and n o o ther.

. . . T he el emen t o f i nfor m at i on and t es t i m onyaboutt he gang ort he gangs w as onl yadmi t t ed forone purpos e onl y , and that ’ s t o relat e t o y ou t he G o v ern m en t’ s p o sit ion that the p o sses sion o f th e f ir ea rm an d the d rug s are r el at ed t o M r . C ar t er . So, keep thati n m i nd.
6 i s s ues , orm i s l eadi ng t he j ur y , orbycons i der at i ons of undue de lay , w as t e of t i m e, orneedl es s pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence
. W e have j oi ned otherC i r cui t s i n hol di ng t hatR ul e 403 cr eat es a pr es um pt i on of
a d m is s ib ility. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. U

ni ver s alR ehab. Ser vs . (

P A) , I nc. , 205 F. 3d 657, 664- 65 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ). E v id e n c e c a n n o t b e e x c lu d e d u n d e r R u le 4 0 3 m e re lyb e c a u se its u n f a irly pr ej udi ci al eff

ect i s gr eat er t han i t s pr obat i ve val ue. R ather , evi dence can be k e p t o u t o n lyif

its u n f a irlyp re ju d icia l ef

f e c t ‘su b sta n ti a llyo u tw e ig h [ s]’ its pr obat i ve val ue. . . . A s one exa m pl e, w hen evi dence i s hi ghl ypr obat i ve, even a la rg e ri s k o f

u n f a irp re ju d ic e m a yb e to le ra b le
. U nit ed S t ates v. C ross , 3 0 8 F .3 d 3 0 8 , 3 2 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). S o it is h e re . W e t ake fur t her comfort i n t he fact t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t t ook pai ns t o m i ni m i ze a ny
exce s s i vel ypr ej udi ci al eff ectbygi vi ng a for cef

ul l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on w i t h r es pectt o t he us es that the juro rs c o u ld m ak e o f th e g an g -relat ed ev iden ce an d C o rpo ral S an tana ’s ex p lana tory tes tim o n y . W h ile th e p o ten tially v o latile iss u e o f g a n g a f f ili a tio n w a s h a n d led im p e c c a b ly 4T r. o f

J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , a t 1 6 0 -6 1
. D ur i ng a hea r i ng on one of the m ul t i pl e m ot i ons i n l i m i ne r el at ed t o t he i nt r oduct i on 5 of evi dence of C ar t er ’ s m ember s hi p i n t he B l oods , J udge R ufe e m phat i cal l ycaut i oned the part i es: W e ar e notgoi ng t o have a tr ial aboutt he B l oods , . . . , i t ’ s nothow i tw as i ndi ct ed.
. . . So, keep i tnarr ow , keep i tfocus ed,
. . . I t ’ s abouti dent i fy i ng en o u g h ab o u t th is d ef

en d an t t o co n n ec t him to the co n tents o f th e b ag . . . . It does n’ teven mat t ert hatM r . C ar t eri s al l eged t o be the l eade r , exce ptfort he d o c u me n t s i n t h a tb a g whi c h l i n k h i m up t o t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e b a g , o k a y ? T r. o f S e p te m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 M o tio n H r’ g , a t 8 5
. 7 b yth e D istric t C o u rt, w e e m p h a siz e th a t g a n g -a f f ili a tio n e v id e n c e sh o u ld b e a d m itt e d o n ly 5

w h e n it i s s o lid lytied to so m e leg iti m a te p u r p o se o th e r th a n a sh o w in g o f a p ro p e n sityto
c r i m i n a l c o n d u c ts u c h a s o n e o rm o r e o f t h o s e s p e c i f

i e d i n R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) : m o t i v e , i d e n t i t y,
o p p o rt u n ity, a n d th e lik e . 2. J ur orM i s conduct C ar t ernext cl ai m s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi m a new t r i al beca us e of Juror#7 ' s al l eged m i scond uct. F ed. R
. C ri m . P
. 33 (a) provides for a new t ri al “i f t he int eres t
o f ju stic e s o r e q u ire s.” R e c o g n izin g th a t th e trial ju d g e is in th e b e st p o sitio n to e v a lu a te al l egat i ons of j ur orm i s conduct , w e r evi ew a D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nves t i gat i on of t he al l egat i ons
a n d its d e c is io n to d e n y a m o tio n f o r a m is tr ia l f

o r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . U n it ed S tat es v. R es ko , 3 F
. 3 d 6 8 4 , 6 8 8 , 6 9 0 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 3 ). W h er e j ur orm i s conductexpos es a j ur yt o extr aneous m at er i al , a new t r i al i s w arr ant ed
o n ly“if th e de fe n d an t li k ely su ff ere d ‘sub stan ti al pre

jud ice’ as a resu lto f th e jury ’s ex p o su re t o t he extr aneous i nfor m at i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Ll oyd , 2 6 9 F
. 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 8 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ).U n li k e so m e c o u rt s, w e d o n o t “m ec h an icall yap p lya p resu m p ti o n o f p rejud ic e every 6 t i m e a j ur yhas been e xpos ed t o extr aneous i nfor m at i on. ” Id . a t 7 7 7 n .9
. 8 A defe ndantbear s t he burden of demonstr at i ng t he l i kel i hood of s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce. U ni t ed Stat es v. U

r ban , 4 0 4 F. 3d 754, 777 ( 3d C i r . 2005)
. W e have i dent i fi ed s ever al 6 fac t or s as es peci al l yr el evantt o t he pr ej udi ce i nqui r y . T he (non- exhaus t i ve) l i s ti ncl udes : ( 1) th e n a tu re o f

th e in f o rm a tio n , Ll oyd , 2 6 9 F
. 3 d at 23 9 ; ( 2 ) t h e e x te n t o f th e jury ’s ex p o su re to th e e x tr a n e o u s in f

o rm a tio n , id
. at240; ( 3) t he t i m i ng of w hen the j ur yr ec ei ved the
e x tr a n e o u s in f

o r m a t io n , i d. at240- 41; ( 4) t he l ength of t he j ur y ’ s del i ber at i ons and the
s tr u c tu re o f

th e v e rd ic t, i d. at241; ( 5) anyi ns t ruct i ons gi ven byt he tr i al c o u rt li m it i ng t he j ur y ’ s cons i der at i on t o evi dence offe r ed at t r i al and w hi ch i ns truct i ons t he j ur yi s pr es um ed to h a v e f o llo w e d , id .; a n d (6 ) th e s tr e n g th o f th e e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g th e v e rd ic t, id
. at242. I n t h i s c a s e , we a r e s a t i s f i e d t h a tn o s u b s t a n t i a l p r e j u d i c e o c c u r r e d
. W e wi l l a s s u me t hatJ ur or#7 r epea t ed herdaught er ’ s ans w ert o atl eas t o n e of herfel l ow j ur or s , w ho t hen
m ade i tknow n t o t he for eper s on. W her e, as her e, t he for eper s on i m m edi at el ybr oughtt he
m at t ert o t he j udge’ s at t ent i on and expr es s ed the j ur y ’ s col l ect i ve con ce rn thatforbi dden
co n d u ct ha d o cc u rred , w e are co n v ince d that the ju ryp aid c are fu l at tention to Ju d g e R u fe ’s i ns t ruct i ons and fa i t hful l yfol l ow ed t hem. W e cr edi t , as di d J udge R ufe, t he j ur or s ’ negat i ve
re sp on se t o h er quest i on w hethert he inform at i on had i nfluenced anyj uror i n an yresp e c t. W e s ee no r eas on her e t o depart fr om our pr act i ce of defe r r i ng on del i cat e mat t er s i nvol vi ng al l egat i ons of j ur orm i s conductt o t he det er m i nat i on of a tr i al ju d g e w ho has conduct ed a
c o n s c ie n t i o u s a n d ta c tf

u l in v e s tig a tio n o f

th e f a c ts . See, e. g. , U

n itedS ta tes v . B o sc ia , 5739

F .2 d 8 2 7 , 8 3 0 -3 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ol em an , 8 0 5 F
. 2 d 4 7 4 , 4 8 1 -82 (3d
. C ir
. 1 9 8 6 ). F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.