NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL- TEXT P UBLICA TION File Name: 13 a03 27n. 06
No. 11 -562 3
UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FOR THE SIX TH CIRCUIT

UNITE D ST AT ES O F AMERICA,
Plaint if f -Appe llee,

v

. W ALT ER CART ER,
Def end ant -Appe llant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL FROM T HE UNIT ED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT FOR T HE EAS T ERN DIST RICT OF T ENNESSE E

Bef ore: DAUGHT REY, McKEAGUE, an d GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTRE Y, Circuit Judge. T h e district court sent ence d
def end ant W alter Carter to tw o concu rrent prison term s of 360 mo nth s upo n Ca rt er’s
convictions f or posse ssion w ith inten t to distribut e f iv e gr am s or mo re of cocain e base and
f or consp iracy to distribut e and to posse ss w ith inten t to distribut e bet we en f iv e and 50
gr am s of c ocain e base

. On app eal, the def end ant cont ests the den ial of his mo tion to
supp ress evidence gathere d during a search of him and of his residen ce, the den ial of his request f or disclosure of the iden tity of a conf iden tial inf orma nt, and the den ial of a mo tion
f or mistrial prem ised upo n a claim of a v iolation of Carter’s const itution al rig ht to conf ront
the w itnesse s against him

. W e f ind no rev ersible error in conn ection w ith the district court’s rulings and , th eref ore, af f irm th e jud gmen t.No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter

FACTUA L AND PROCEDURAL BA CKGROUND

Using a conf iden tial inf orma nt, Chatt ano oga narcot i c s offi c er Le e W ol ff or c hestrated
the purch ase of cocain e base by the inf orma nt on f ive s e p a ra te occasio ns bet w een Janu ary and April 200 9. On each occasio n, the conf iden tial inf orma nt w ould conclu de the
transa ction inside a re s id ence locate d at 460 3 Hig hlan d Avenue in Chatt ano oga, T enn essee

. Accordin g to W olf f , how ever, not all purch ases w ere mad e directly from the
def end ant

. T he inf orma nt’s f irst aut horized drug purch ase w as f rom Michael McCallie, w ith

w hom Carter once share d the Hig hlan d Avenue dup lex. T he secon d and f ourth purch ases

w ere f rom the def end ant directly, the third purch ase f rom Ken net h S m ith, and the f inal purch ase, at the direction of Carter, f rom an individual iden tif ied only as “Kip,” w ho han dled
the tran saction w hile Carte r ran a n e rrand t o a ne arby store.

Base d on the inf orma nt’s drug buys, as w ell as corrobo rating evidence obt aine d by
W olf f of recen t and cont inuing drug-traf f icking at the residen ce, the of f icer prep ared an af f idavit in supp ort of an app lication f or a w arrant to search the prem ises at 460 3 Hig hlan d
Avenue

. In t h a t a f

f id a v it, W olf

f ref eren ced a “John Doe Alias,” rathe r tha n any oth er

nam ed individual, in large part beca use the of f icer w as una w are of the true nam e of “Kip,”
the perso n w ho actu ally han ded the conf iden tial inf orma nt the cra c k c ocain e at the last
und ercover buy.

A state judge issued the requeste d w ar ra n t , d ire cting W olf f and any oth er law
enf orcem ent of

f icer to “search the prem ises lo c ate d at 460 3 Hig hlan d Avenue , - 2 -No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter Chatt ano oga , Ha milto n Coun ty, T enn essee , . . . includin g all perso ns, cont aine rs, out buildin gs and mo tor v ehicles f oun d w ithin the curtilage, f or the John Doe Alias and f or evidence of Cocaine , but not limited t o Co c aine .” On April 28, 200 9, W olf f and
app rox ima tely a dozen oth er of f icers executed the w arrant. Af ter knockin g on the doo r of
the buildin g at 460 3 Hig hla nd Avenue and iden tif y ing the mse lv es as police of f icers, the
of f icers “hea rd runn ing com ing f rom inside the hou se

. . . [ a n d ] f orce[d ] ent ry into the
residen ce.” Upon ent ering the dwell in g, W olf f obse rv ed Ken net h Sm ith in the bat hroo m atte mp ting to f lush drugs down the toilet. He thu s imm edia tely ran toward Sm ith to prevent
the de struction of

evidence

. Sully Bat ts, ano the r Chatt ano oga narco tics of f icer w ho participa ted in the execution
of the w arrant, obse rv ed Carter stan ding alon e in the liv ing room of the residen ce “between

a couch and a cof

f ee tab le.” Bat ts “g rabb ed [Carter], put him on the f loor, han dcuf f ed him , and

. . . m ig ht have don e a real quick p at-do w n.” Af ter ano the r det ective too k cont rol of
the def end ant , Bat ts ope ned a drawer of the cof f ee tab le nea r Carter and f oun d “a bag of

ma rijuana and a gun holste r.” Bat ts the n pla ced the def end ant und er arrest, and a subse quent, mo re tho rough search of Carter resulte d in the add itiona l conf iscation of $74 8
f rom him and the recovery of keys to the residen ce a nd to a vehicle pa rked o n th e stre et
in f ront of

46 03 Hig hlan d A v enu e.

Eventua lly , af

ter of f icers f oun d crack cocain e in the kitchen of the dup lex, Carter

w as charged in a supe rseding indictm ent w ith posse ssion w ith inten t to distribut e cocain e

- 3 -No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter base , consp iracy to distribut e and to posse ss w ith inten t to distribut e cocain e base , using
and ma intain ing prop erty f or the purp ose of di s tr ibutin g cocain e base , and ma king available

a buildin g f or the purp ose of storing and distribut ing cocain e base

. Prior to the beginnin g of his trial on tho se charges, the def end ant filed a mo tion to supp ress evidence obt aine d
pursu ant to the search of his perso n and of his v ehicle. A ma gistr ate judge recom me nde d
den ial of the m otion , an d th e d istrict court a dop ted tha t reco mm end ation

.

Carter also mo v ed pretrial to have the prose c u t io n d is close the iden tity of the

c o n f iden tial inf orma nt w ho allegedly purch ased crack cocain e f rom the def en d a n t , McCallie, Sm ith, and “Kip.” T he ma gistr ate judge also den ied tha t mo tion, conclu ding tha t
every f acto r to be consid ered w hen decid ing w het her to rev eal an inf orma nt’ s id ent ity

w eighed against su ch d isclosure.
On August 24, 201 0, Carter’s trial began i n the United Sta tes District Court f or the
East ern District of T enn essee at Chatt ano oga. Procee dings cont inue d throu gh August 27,
201 0, at w hich t ime the jury w as una ble to reach a v erdict and a mistrial w as decla red. 1
A new trial w as sched uled , and proce edin gs com me nced ane w on Octob er 12, 201 0. T he
prose cution again of

f ered testim ony f rom law enf orcem ent of f icers regarding the arrest of
the def end ant and also introd uced testim ony f rom Ken net h Sm ith and Michael McCallie regarding the drug-selling operat ions ru n b y tho se two individuals a nd Carter.

P r i o r t o s u b m i t t i n g t h e c a s e t o t h e j u r y , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e c o u n t o f t h e s u p e r s e d i n g 1 i n d i c t m e n t t h a t a l l e g e d t h a t C a r t e r m a n a g e d a n d c o n t r o l l e d a b u i l d i n g f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s t o r i n g a n d d i s t r i b u t i n g c o c a i n e b a s e

. - 4 -No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter At the close of the proo f s on Octob er 15, 201 0, the case w as again subm itted to a jury , w hich t his time returne d v erdicts on the three rema ining coun ts of the supe rseding
indictm ent

. T he jurors f oun d Carter guilty of posse ssion w ith inten t to distribut e at least f iv e
gr a m s of cocain e base and of consp iracy to distribut e and to posse ss w ith inten t t o distribut e bet w een f iv e and 50 gr am s of cocain e base

. T he jurors conclu ded , howev er, tha t
the prose cution f ailed to add uce suf f icient evidence tha t Carter knowingl y and inten tiona lly
used and ma intain ed prop erty f or the purp ose of distribut in g cocain e base and thu s acquitted him of

tha t cha rg e

Follow ing subm ission by the prob ation of f ice of a prese nte nce investig ation repo rt,
the district court sent ence d Carter to concu rrent prison term s of 360 mo nth s, to be f ollowed by an eight-y ear period of supe rv ised release

. T he def end ant the n f iled a time ly not ice of
app eal t hat brou ght this m atte r bef ore u s.

DISCUSSIO N

Denial of Motion to Suppres s

On app eal, def end ant Carter challen ges the district court’s den ial of his pre trial

mo tion to s u p press the f ruits of the search of his perso n. Altho ugh tha t search w as cond ucte d pursu ant to a judicially- issued w arrant, Carter a sserts th at t he w arrant lacked
suf f icient particu larity

. W e rev iew the den ial of a mo tion to supp ress und er a tw o-pron ged

- 5 -No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter stan dard

. F a ctua l f indings are rev iew ed f or clear error, w hile conclu sions of law receive
de novo revi ew. United Sta tes v. Gill , 68 5 F.3 d 6 06, 60 9 (6t h Cir. 20 12).

Ca rt e r’s only app ellate challen ge to the legitimacy of the w arrant involv es h is
cont ent ion tha t his perso n shou ld not h a ve b e e n s earch ed by police unle ss he w as

com mitt ing a crime at the tim e o f the sea rch or h e was nam ed specif ically in the w arrant

as a pe rson to be searched

. Beca use Carter was simply stand ing between a co uch and

a cof f ee tab le w hen the of

f icers f orced the ir w ay into the dup lex at 460 3 Hig hlan d Avenue , h o we ve r, and beca use the only nam e me ntion ed in the search w arrant w as “John Do e Alias,” the def end ant insists tha t the search of him and the area arou nd him w as imp rope r. Carter ma intain s tha t Detect iv e W olf f , the af f iant w ho prep ared the w arrant, knew him f rom

surv eillance and f rom a previous arrest and , thu s, ea s il y c ould have me ntion ed him by

nam e in the w arrant if

that docum ent had truly been inten ded to cover such a n int rusion.

Carter’s positio n not only ref lects a misu nde rst a n d in g of app licable Fourth
Am end me nt law , but also ignores the specif ic f acts of this case. As w e explained in Mays v. City of Dayto n :

T he specif icity required by the F o urth Am end me nt is not as to the perso n against w hom the e vid ence is to be used but rathe r as to the place to be search ed and the thing to be seized. W hen rev iew ing an app lication, courts mu st be ar in m ind t hat sea rch w arrants are directe d, not at perso ns, but at prop erty w here the re is prob able cause to be li e ve t hat instrum ent alities or evidence of

crime w ill be f oun d.

134 F.3d 80 9, 8 14 (6th Cir. 199 8) (citation s om itted ).
- 6 -No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter In t his case , th ere is n o d oub t th at W olf f ’s af f idavit estab lished suf

f icient p roba ble

cause to justif

y a se arch o f

the drug ho use w here nu me rous u nde rcov er buy s ha d ta ken place

. Moreover, the listing in the w arrant of “John Doe Alias” did not rend er imp rope r the
search of any oth er i ndividuals fo und i n the a partm ent at the tim e o f the execution of

the

w arrant. First, the app ellation “John Doe Alias” w as include d in the w arrant simp ly beca use W olf f and his conf iden tial inf orma nt w ere not aware of the com plete nam e of the individual
iden tif ied only as “Kip,” w ho w as directe d by Carter to consu mm ate the sale of crack
cocain e to the inf orma nt in Carter’s abse nce. Seco nd, and perh aps even mo re german e to the det ermin ation of the v alidity of the def end ant ’s challen ge is the simp le f act tha t the

w arrant specif ically aut horized W olf f and “any oth er law enf orcem ent of f icer” to search the
buildin g at 460 3 Hig hlan d Avenue , “ includin g all perso ns

. . . fou nd with in the curtilage , . . . f or evidence of Cocaine , but not limited to Cocaine .” (Emp hasis add ed. ) T hus, in recognition of the evide n c e p re s e n ted to the issuing judge tha t the buildin g at 460 3 Hig hlan d Avenue w as routin ely used to traf f ic illegal dru gs , t h e w arrant did inde ed
aut horize the search of Carter and of any oth er individuals f oun d w ithin the curtilage of the
buildin g.

In any event, the actu al search of the def end ant tha t rev eale d his p o ssession of $74 8 did not take place unt il Carter w as arrested by the aut horities. Once Bat ts f oun d the

ma rijua n a with in reach of the def end ant and , knowing tha t Carter had previously ma de drug sales f rom the locatio n at w hich he w as f oun d, prob able cause the n existed to arrest
the def end ant on drug-related charges. Moreover, once Ca rt er w as arrested , Bat ts w as - 7 -No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter justif ied in search ing him inciden t to tha t arrest. See , e.g

. Ariz ona v. Gan t , 556 U.S. 332 , 338 (200 9). T he def end ant ’s Fourth Am end me nt ch allenge is t hus w ithou t m erit.

Denial of Motion to Disc lose Identity of Confidential Informant

In a secon d app ellate issue, Carter cont end s tha t his ability to mo unt a def ense w as

com prom ised by the ref usal of the district court judge to com pel the gov ernm ent to disclose
the iden tity of the conf iden tial inf orma nt w ho ma de the und ercover buys of crack cocain e f rom the def end ant , and f rom McCallie, Sm ith, and “Kip.” Spe cif ically , Carter argues tha t

w ithou t tha t knowledge, he could not iden tif y “K ip ” a n d t h u s possib ly prove tha t it w as “Kip,” and no t t h e d e f end ant , w ho actu ally w as involv ed in the charged drug consp iracy

w ith K enn eth Sm ith.

“W e rev iew a district c o u rt ’s d e cision on the ma tter f or an abu se of discretion .”
United Sta tes v. Bea ls , 698 F.3d 248 , 269 (6th Cir. 201 2) (citing United Sta tes v. Jenkin s , 4 F.3d 133 8, 134 1 (6th Cir. 199 3)). Conse quently, w e w ill not overturn the district court’s
det ermin ation unle ss tha t court “app lies the incorrect legal stan dard , misa pplies the correct legal stan dard , or re li e s u p on clearly errone ous f indings of f act.” Deja Vu of Cincinna ti,
LLC v. Union Twp

. Bd. of Trs. , 411 F.3d 777 , 782 (6th Cir. 200 5) ( en ban c ) (citation

om itted ).

T he state d pu rp ose of the prose cution ’s priv ilege to w ithho ld disclosure of the
iden tity of an inf orma nt “is the f urthe rance and prote ction of the pub lic intere st in ef f ective

- 8 -No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter law enf orcem ent

. T he priv ilege recogniz es the obligation of citiz ens to com mu nicate the ir knowledge of the com mission of crimes to law -enf orcem ent of f icials and , by p re s e rv ing
the ir a non y mity, enco urages the m to perf orm tha t obligation .” Rov ia ro v

. Un ited Sta tes , 353 U.S. 5 3 , 5 9 (1 9 57). Nevertheless, the priv ilege is limited by th e basic requireme nts

o f f a irness. “W here the disclosure of an inf orme r’s iden tity, or of the cont ent s of his

com mu nicatio n, is re levant an d h elpf ul to the def ense of an accuse d, o r is essen tial to a f air det ermin ation of a cause , the pr ivilege mu st giv e w ay.” Id. at 60-6 1. T hus, in
det ermin ing w het her to direct or w ithho ld disclosure of an inf orma nt’s iden tity, a court mu st
consid er “the crime charged, t h e p ossible def ense s, the possib le significan ce of the
inf orme r’s testim ony, an d o the r relevant f acto rs.” Id. at 62.

An examina tion of tho se f acto rs in this case lead s u s to the conclu sion tha t the
district court did not abu se its discretion in declinin g t o c o m p e l t h e disclosure of the
inf orma nt’s iden tity. First, the district court received testim ony tha t the inf orma nt w as still providing assistan ce and in f o rm a t io n to the police and tha t rev elatio n of the inf orma nt’s
iden tity w ould com prom ise not only the saf ety of the inf orma nt but the integrity of ongoing investig ation s. Furthe rmore , the conf iden tial inf orma nt w as not a nece ssary w itness in the
trial of the c h a rg ed of f ense s of consp iracy , posse ssion w ith inten t to distribut e, and

ma inten ance of

a d rug hou se. T he def end ant w as tried only o n ch arges stem min g fro m evidence tha t w as obt aine d inside the dup lex at 460 3 Hig hlan d Avenue w hen the of f icers
executed the judicially issued search w arrant. T he inf orma nt’s role, on the oth er han d, w as

- 9 -No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter limited solely to his or her participa tion in earlier, individual drug buys w ith w hich Carter w as not cha rg ed.

T o the extent tha t Carter argues tha t the police could not have secure d tha t w arrant
to search the prem ises w ith o u t t h e t estim ony of the inf orma nt, the def end ant is simp ly
mista ken. W olf

f ’s af f idavit tha t w as prese nte d to the m a gi s t ra te judge w as, by itself , suf f icient t o just if

y issuan ce o f

a se arch warrant f or th e d rug hou se.

Add itiona lly , the unco v ering of “Kip’s” id e n t it y was not essen tial to Carter’s
prep aratio n of a def ense t o t h e c o nspiracy and posse ssion charges. T he reaso nab le
inf eren ces t h a t can be drawn f rom W olf f ’s testim ony during the supp ression hea ring
supp ort the conclu sion tha t Carter him self w as alread y aware of the iden tity of “Kip.” W hen arranging f or drug buys f rom the individuals in the residen ce at 460 3 Hig hlan d Avenue , the

c onf iden tial inf orma nt w ould , w ith the knowledge of W olf f , cont act the def end a n t b y c e ll pho ne. On the dat e tha t the inf orma nt received crack cocain e f rom “Kip,” Carter called the
inf orma nt back to tell him tha t “Kip,” rathe r tha n the def end ant or Ken net h Sm ith, w ould be
han dling the transa ction beca use Carter “had to run out to the store. ” Ind eed , as W olf f w as driv ing the i nf orma nt t o the drug hou se fo r the purchase , the narcotics of f icer saw Carter
and Sm ith in a v ehicle “abo ut a mile away .” It thu s app ears t hat Carter w as quite aware of Kip’s e x istence an d kn ew ex actly w ho he w as.
Finally , no testim ony f rom “Kip ” w as nee ded to esta blish Carter’s guilt of the
p o s session and consp iracy

. At trial, bot h Ken net h Sm ith and Michael McCallie tes t if ie d
- 10

-No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter abo ut the def end ant ’s posse ssion of certain cont rolled subst ance s and abo ut his role in
the drug-traf

f icking ope ration

. T hose w itnesse s w ere su b jected to v igorous crossexamina tion by d e f e n se coun sel, y et the jury chose to credit the testim ony of tho se
prose cution w itnesse s and conclu de tha t Carter w as inde ed respo nsible f or at least som e of the crimina l activities w ith which he w as ch arged.

A bala ncing of the v arious Roviaro f acto rs thu s supp orts the decision ma de by the

ma gistr ate judge to den y the def end ant ’s request f or disclosure of the inf orma nt’s iden tity.
In any event, even if w e w ould not have evaluate d tho se f acto rs exactly as the district court did, it is clear tha t the district court’s det ermin ation w as not so egregi ous or errone ous as to co nstitu te a n a buse of discretio n. T his issue is also w ithou t m erit.

Denial of Motion fo r Mistria l on Confrontation Clause Grounds

Carter also cont end s tha t the district court erred in f ailing to decla re a mistrial af ter
gov ernm ent w itness Ken net h Sm ith testif ied abo ut a le t t er he had w ritten to Carter tha t
ref eren ced prior drug sales Carter had ma de to the conf iden tial inf orma nt. Beca use tha t
inf orma nt did not tes t if y a t trial, and beca use the court had previously directe d the
prose cution not to delve into unch arged of f ense s Carter might have com mitt ed, the
def end ant insists tha t he w as unju stly dep riv ed of his rig ht to conf ront the w itnesse s against h im when tha t te stimo ny w as p ut b ef ore t he jury

.

- 11

-No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter W e rev iew a district court’s den ial of a mo tion f or a mistrial f or abu se of discretion

. United Sta tes v. Carroll , 26 F.3d 138 0, 138 3 (6th Cir. 1 9 9 4) (q uot ing United Sta tes v. Chambers , 944 F.2d 125 3, 126 3 (6 th Cir. 199 1)). T hus, again, w e w ill not overturn the
district court’s det ermin ation unle ss tha t court “app lies the incorrect legal stan dard , misa pplies the correct legal stan dard , or relies upo n clearly errone ous f indings of f act.” Deja V u o f Cincinn ati, L LC , 41 1 F.3 d a t 78 2.

In August 200 9, Sm ith han dwr ote a lette r to Carter in respo nse to correspo nde nce the def end ant had sent to Sm ith af ter the tw o m e n we re arrested

. T he bod y of Sm ith’s
lette r is as f ollows ( unco rrected):
Bro what’s up . I hop e you a re do ing ok. Bro f rist of all I am a real nigg er and yo u know tha t and y ou know I w ould never do any

thing to hurt y ou. Bro I don ’t no w hat ev ery one else is telling y ou but it’s like this. I know and y ou know tha t bitch as nigg er got us in this bullshit so don ’t put it on me

. Ask tha t b it c h , b e cause I don ’t giv e a f uck abo ut her eithe r. All I ca re ab out is how we are going to get our self out of this shit, now I got m y

pa per work ju st like y ou got y our and y ou know t hey didn ’t com e and buy shit f rom me 3 “ tim es .” So all I w as saying is if y ou take t h is c a s e I ’l l d o w hat ever “ to help you. ” T hat I w ould n’t let y ou go out like tha t a n d “ t h at’

s m y wo rd .” Bro I love y ou mo re tha n I love som e of the peo ple in my f am ily

. Hell y ou are my f am ily , bro and all I w as telling “G” w as to get w ord t o yo u and ask y ou to cut my loss, and if y ou could n’t do tha t w hat y ou w as going to do! Bro I w ill never tell any o n e o r s t and up in any one ’s court to tell on y ou. I don’t gi v e a fuck how mu ch time “ the y give m e ” and if you thin k I would th en y ou not the f riend I th ought y ou w as. Bro o ne mo re thing if y ou think this is all beca use of me tell me w hat y ou w ant me to do, an d I’ll do it

.

- 12

-No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter At trial, def ense coun sel introd uced the lette r into evidence and even had it project ed in its ent irety so tha t the jurors could read it as the atto rney cross -e xa m in ed

w itness Sm ith. T hrou ghout tha t cross-examina tion, def ense coun sel sought to tw ist the language of the lette r unn atu rally in orde r to obt ain an adm ission f rom Sm ith tha t the lette r dem onst rated tha t Sm ith believed tha t Carter w as inno cent of the charges against him

. Finally , af

ter Sm ith answered question s abo ut his prior incon sistent testim ony, the w itness
state d, “I spoke the truth tod ay.” Def ense coun sel the n com me nte d, “I agree w ith y ou on part of it. You did spea k the truth w hen you said W alter Ca rter didn ’t do an y thing.”

On redirect examina tion, the prose cuto r sought to correct any f alse imp ressions tha t
def ense coun sel’s question ing had lef t w ith the jury

. T hus, in orde r to e m p h a s ize t h at
Sm ith did not exonerat e the def end ant in his lette r or in his testim ony, the prose cuto r and
the w itness engaged in th e f ollowi ng question -and -answer colloquy :

Q Do you see w here m y red ma rk it says [“]now[”]? A Now , I got my pap erw ork just like y ou got y our pap erw ork, just like y ou got y ours. And , y ou know, the y don ’t com e – w ait a min ute

. And y ou know the y didn ’t com e to buy shit f rom me three time s, so all I w as saying w as, all I was sayi ng is if

you take the case , if

you take the case , I’ll do w hat ever to help you. Q Let ’s stop the re. So, is the re anyw here in this lette r w here y ou say if Mr. Carter did anything? A No. He sold, he – w hat I said w as I got my pap erw ork like he got his pap erw ork. Q W hat are y ou talking ab out “pap erw ork”? A Discov ery

.

- 13

-No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter Q And w hat are y ou saying in th at se nte nce? A I’m saying I read my discovery and I’m sure he got his discovery

. And I’m sure h e kn ow that h e m ade thre e sa les to an un derco v er of f icer agent

.

At tha t poin t in the proce edin gs, def ense coun sel obje cted and mo v ed f or a mistrial
beca use he w as una ble to question the abse nt, unkn own conf iden tial inf orma nt abo ut the
t h ree drug sales ref erred to by Sm ith. T he district court den ied the mo tion f or a m is t ri a l
and instruct ed the jury :

Lad ies and gentlem en, I w ant to instruct y ou tha t y ou shou ld disregard Mr. Sm ith’s last a n s we r to [the prose cuto r’s] last question

. You ma y not even reme mb er w hat it is by now, but to the extent y ou do, I’m going to orde r – I’m going to direct you to disregard Mr. Sm ith’s last answer.

T he district court’s ruling w as not in error. Contra ry to the def end ant ’s assertio n, the
state me nt ma de by Ken net h Sm ith abo ut the three drug sales w as not imp rope rly adm itted
hea rsay

. First, the state me nt w as not on e m ade by th e una v ailable inf orma nt of f ered to
prove the truth of the ma tter asserte d in the state me nt. See Fed. R. Evi d. 801 (c). Inste ad,
the state me nt w as simp ly an expression of

Sm ith’s own im pression of w hat Carter knew
abo ut t he def end ant ’s prior activities.

Add itiona lly , it w as def ense coun sel him self w ho introd uced to the jury t h e e n t ir e lette r, includ ing Sm ith’s statem ent that “they didn ’t come and buy shit f rom me 3 ‘ tim es .’”
Def ense coun sel’s ability to spin question s abo ut tha t lette r in s u c h a ma nne r as to
convince the jury tha t Sm ith inten ded to exonerat e Carte r of all w rongdoin g cann ot be

- 14

-No. 11-5623

United States v. Carter insulat ed f rom opp osing coun sel’s opp ortun ity to coun teract tha t imp lication by perm itting
Sm ith to explain tha t, in f act, Carter knew tha t he (Carter) had engaged in three prior drug
sales. See Fed. R. Evi d. 106 ; United Sta tes v. Seg ines , 17 F.3d 847 , 856 (6th Cir. 199 4) (“W hen one party has ope ned the doo r on an issue, by eliciting prejud icial or inad missible
testim ony, an opp one nt, in th e c o u rt ’s discretion , [m ay] in trodu ce evidence on the sam e issue to rebut any f alse impressio n that might have resulte d f rom the earlier adm ission.” (citation s an d int erna l quotat ion m arks om itted .))

Furthe rmore , af

ter den y ing t he mo tion f or a m is t ri a l, the district court directe d the jurors to disregard the allegedly imp rope r state me nt ma de by S m it h

. A rev iew ing court

mu st presu me tha t the j urors fo llow ed the distri ct court’s instructio ns. See , e.g

. , Zafiro v. United Sta tes , 506 U.S. 534 , 540 (199 3). Conse quently, no rev ersible error resulte d f rom the prose cution ’s redirect examina tion tha t w as inten ded solely to rebu t a f alse imp ression
lef t by def ense cou nsel’s cross-exam inatio n o f a ke y gov ernm ent w itness.

CONCLUSION

For the reaso ns se t ou t ab ove, w e A FFIRM the judgme nt o f the district co urt.

- 15

-