## 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

- 2207 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. A LA N L. S I MMONS, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07- CR-30

—L ynnA delm an, Judge .
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 25, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 11, 2009

Befo re F LA UM, W I L L I A MS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. A l an S i m m ons w as convi cted on three federa l char ges : co nspir acy, ar m ed bank robber y, a n d u s e o fa fi r e a r m d u r i n ga c r i me o fv i o l e n c e . He app e a l s the c o nv i c t i o n a nd h i s s e nt e nc e , a nd a r g ue s tha t im p ro p er c o n d u c t b y g ov er n m en t p ro se c u to rs sh ou ld h a v e l e d th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tt o g r a n ta mi s t r i a l

. We disa gr ee and affi rm hi s co nvi cti on a nd se ntence.2 N o. 08

- 2207 I . B a c kg r o und Ala n S i m m o ns was c o nv i ct ed o fb eingthe mast er m i nd be hi nd a C ed arbur g, W i sc o ns i n b an kr o bb ery . Hi s f r i en d A ntoni o M ann and cousi n M ar k Cam pbel l actu ally robbed the ban k, but S i m m ons w as i n phone co ntact w i th the m thr oughout the he i st. The sc hem e was hatc hed byM ann, who se g i r l f r i en d J ac k i e S ch m i d t w o r k ed atthe bank. S chm i dt had described the bank i n detai l, i ts secur i ty pr ec auti ons ( orl ack ther eof ) and re l ate d that r o bb i ngthe b an kwoul d b e ea sy . M ann r el ay ed th e i nf o r mat i o n t o S i mm o ns , wh o h o o k e d h i m up wi th Ca mpb ell, but o nl y a fter“inter vi ew i ng” tw o othe r potenti alaccom pli ces, nei thero fwh om panned out f orthi s ba nk j ob. Si m m ons , M a nn, a nd Ca mpb e l l a l l t o o k a fi r s t c r a c kat th e ba nko n De ce m be r 2 9, 2 00 4, wheni t was c l o se d ( ac tu
al l y , th i s wa s mo r e o fa b u r g l a r y th a n a r o b b e r y ) , u s i ng a dupl i ca te k eytha t M ann h ad m ade fr o m S chm idt’s ke y rin g. M an n an d C am p b ell w en t t o t h e b an k w h ile Sim m on s, co n tin u ou sly m on ito rin g M an n an d C am p b ell th r o u g h c e l l p h o n e c a l l s , ac t e d a s a l o o k o u tfr o m a nearbyi ce c r ea m s ta nd (br i ng i nga l o nga g i r l f r i en d who te st i fi ed att r ial to hi s pr es en ce a t th e st an d dur i ng th e t im e o f th is a tt em p t a n d w h o w as ap p ar en tly u n aw ar e o fwh at w as tak i ng pl ace at the b ank w h ile s he b o ughth e r da ught e r i c e c r e a m a nd S i mm o ns wait ed in th e c ar ). B u t t h is p lan w a s a d i s as te r: first, M an n fell th r o ug h s o m e i ce i nt o a cr ee kwhenhe t r i ed to s ne akup t o the b a nk, a nd the n, the k e y di dn ’ t wo r k

. S o , the wo ul dbe thi eve s r etr eat ed, M ann to ge t into som e drycl othe s an d the thre e of them to devi se a new pla n. Forth eirN o. 08

- 2207 3

seco nd eff or t they deci de d to ta ke Schm i dt fro m her apa r tmenti n the e ar l y mor ni nga nd t ak e he r t o the bank, with S i m m ons aga i n ser vi ng as the l oo kout

. By the w ay, the degre e o fS c hm i dt’s co m pli ci ty, i fany, i n the c r i m e is ati ss ue . The g o ve r nm en t sa y s th e evi dence showed sh e w as abducted; S i m m ons ar gues that she w as an acc om pli ce. In any eve nt, S i m m ons did not m ake it t o the s cene ofthi s s eco nd at tem pt ( he st aye d hom e t o wa t c h hi s k i ds ) , b utdi d p a r t i c i pa t e i n a s e ri es o fpho ne c al l s wi thM ann o ve r th e c o ur se o fthe mor ni ng oft he r obbe ry, duri ng the ti m e that M ann ass um ed Si m m ons’ s l oo koutd u ti es. The new plan invol ved h a v i n gS ch m i dt o p e n th e d o o r t o th e b a n kh e r s e l f

. At thi s point, S i m m ons ar gues, the robber y deve l oped b e y o nd the pl a n he ha d l a i d o ut a nd t o whi c h he had a g r e e d. W hat M ann and Cam pbel l te sti fi ed to attr i alwas that C am p bell w en t to Schm idt’s ap artm en t at 3:30 a. m . w eari ng a m a s ka nd c a r r y i nga n un l o a de d gun . He wa s s up posed to ta ke her to the b ank t o open t h e d oo r at that p oint, but Schm i dt i nfo rm ed Cam pbel l thattheywould have to w ai t unti l l ate r th at m or ni ng so a co- w or ker co u l d g i v e th e m a n a d d i t i o n a l c o d e th a t wo u l d o pen t he vaul t. Cam pbel l wait ed i n Schm i dt’s apar tm ent for m or e t h an th re e h ou rs , an d th en d ro ve w i th Sc h m id t in her carto the bank. M ann, w ho w as unaw ar e ofthe change o fpl an, a ppar en tly c i r cl ed th e ne i g hb o r ho o d f o r abo ut thr e e h o ur s b e f o r e a r r i v i nga tthe ban ka nd s e e i ngCa mpbell’ s car th ere. Sch m idt l et C am p bell into th e ban k w he re they w ai ted near the va ultunti l S chm i dt’s co - w or ker M ar l ene Kaste n ar ri ved. C am pbel l threat ened K ast en with4 N o. 08

- 2207 the u nl o a de d guna nd s he g a v e h i m t he v a ul t c o de

. Ca mpbell op en ed th e vau lt, grabb ed $177, 000, an d t h e n le ft K ast en and Sc hm i dt at th e ba nk with a warni ng notto cal l the pol i ce foratl eas t five m in u tes as he fl ed w i th M ann. M ann and Cam pbel l divi ded the m oney and ga ve Si m m ons $30, 000 as part ofhi s t ake i n the robber y. E ve nt ua ll y M an n an d Ca m p bell got cau gh t and w ere c h ar ge d w ith ba n k ro b b er y. D es p ite th eir p r om ise s in re c or d ed p h on e c on ve rs at ion s fr om j ail th at th ey w ou ld n otsn itc h (M an n d ire c t l y to Sim m on s a n d C am p b ell thro ugh an inte rm edi ar y) , theyfl i pp ed and tes ti fi ed ag ain stSim m on s a t h is t ria l.

II. P roc ed u ral H is tory Si m m ons w as charg ed w i th thr ee coun ts : co nspir acy, 18 U .S. C. § 3 71, ar m ed bank robber y, 18 U
. S. C. § 2 113, a nd u s e o fa fi r e a r m d u r i n ga c r i me o fv i o l e n c e , 1 8 U
. S
. C. § 9 24( c) ( 1) ( A )
. A s no te d , M ann and Cam pbel l te sti fi ed at hi s t ri al, pro vi ding the m ostdam ni ng ev i dence ag ai nst hi m . Thei r tes ti m ony w as c orrobor ate d by a n engi neer fro m Sp rin t w h o re p or te d on th e hig h vo lu m e of ca lls betw ee n S i m m o ns a nd M ann dur i ngthe t i m e o fthe robber y, cal l s which a l l owed the engi ne er to pro vi de a pi npo i ntm ap of M ann’ s tr av el s o ve r the c o ur se o fthe m or ni ng o fthe robber y. A t the end ofthe tr i al, the pros ecuto r dis pla yed a chart, sum m ar i zin g th e g ove rnm ent’ s ca se, to the j ury w i th photog ra phs ofall t hree r obbe rs , i ncl ud i ng a picture of Sim m ons w ith th e top pa rt of his bright oran ge j ailshirt visibl e. D efense cou ns el obj ecte d and asked f or aN o. 08

- 2207 5

m ist ria l, b u t t h e d ist ric t c ou rtins te ad im p licit ly ove rr ule d the m i str i alm oti on a nd o rder ed the pros ecuto r t o p r o c e e d a ft e r r e mo v i n gth e c h a r tfr o m th e j u r y ’ s v i e w. Als o r el ev an t to the de fend an t’ s appe ali s th e pr o se cut o r ’ s s t a t e men tdu r i ngc l o s i nga r g ume nt, wh e n s he s a i d, “My o nl y j o b he r e i s no t to de fen d Anto ni o M ann, b ut to co m p elhi m to te l l yo u w hat happened. ” S he al so conceded that Cam pbel l ’ s cre dibi l i ty w as c om prom i sed but thathe “ ple d gui l ty” and “cam e c l ean. ” Defense counseldi d not obj ect at tr i alto thes e s tat em ents. S i m m o ns was c o nv i cted on a l l thr ee c o unt s an d s en te nc ed to 6 0 m o nths on th e con spi r ac y c o unta nd 96 m onths on the ar m ed robber y charg e, to be se rv ed co nc ur r en tly, al o ng wi th an addi ti o na l 84 m o nths on th e use o fa fi re ar m co un t to be ser ved co nsecuti vel y, so that hi s t ota l se ntence ofi ncarc er ati on a dd ed up to 180 m onths. H i s a pp eal chal l enges the suffi ci ency of the evi dence on th e r o bb erya nd fi r ea r m c ha rge s, the a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe abducti on guidel i ne to hi s s entence , and the dist ri ct cour t’ s deci si on notto g ra n t a m i str i alf orei therthe use of th e p h ot og ra p h o r the pr ose cutor ’ s a l l ege d ly i m propervo uching du ring cl osing ar gum ent.

II I. A n alysis A . S u ffici ency of th e e vid en c e th at a telle r’s life w as p u t in jeo p ard y d u rin g th e ro b b ery Bec au se S i m mo n s wa s ch a r g e d s pec i fi ca l l y unde r the “ i nj eopar dy” pro ng o f18 U
. S. C. § 2 113( d), the pros ecuti on6 N o. 08

- 2207

w as re quir ed to pro ve beyon d a doubt thatther e was ana ctua l r i skc r ea te d b y the r o bb er ’ s us e o fa da ng er o us we a p o n . 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 2 1 1 3 ( d ) ( p u n i s h i n ga n y o n e wh o “in c o m m i tt i ng. . . [ a ba nkr o bb ery ] , as sa ul ts a ny pe r so n, orputs i n j eopar dy the l i fe o fany perso n by the use o f a d an ge ro u s w e a p on or d ev ice
. . . .”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sm ith , 103 F. 3d 600, 60 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96)
. The “in-j eopar dy” pr o ngi s di st i nc t f r o m the “ as sa ul t” pr o vi si o n o fthe sam e s u b se c tio n, wh i ch r equi re s o nl y that the te l l erhad a r eas onabl e fearo fi m m i nent bo dil y inj u ry . S m ith , 10 3 F
. 3d at6 05
. I n Sm ith we re m ar ked thatther e m ay be l i tt l e pr ac ti ca l di ff er en ce i n c ha r g i ngthe de fen dan t unde r e i th erthe a ss au l t o r i n-j eo par dy prongs o fthe o ffe ns e , b ut o ur ho l di ng i n tha t c a s e r e qu i re s us to con side r the a ct i o ns o fa de fen dan t ch ar g ed wi thput ting i n j eopar dy fro m an obj ecti ve sta nd poi nt r atherthan fro m th e p er sp ec tiv e o f th e t elle r. Id. ( “[ W ] e no w think th e f o cus ofthe ‘pu t i n j eo par dy’ ana l y si s s ho ul d be o n the ac tu alr i skc r ea te d b y the r o bb er ’ s us e o fa da ng er o us w eapon. ”)
. S i m m ons’ s con victi on her e depends on whe the r a r ati o na l j ur y c o ul d h a v e f o un d, o n thi s r e c o r d, thath i s c o - c o ns pi r a t o r, Ca mpb e l l, c r e a t e d a n o bj e c t i ve ri sk to the t el l er ’ s l i fe w h en he threa tened herwith a n u n loa d ed gu n . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. M oore , 5 72 F. 3d 334, 337 (7th Cir. 2009). Si m m ons ar gues that no o ne was actual l y in any obj ecti ve danger f ro m the robber y a nd any coll ate ra l danger that m ay att ach to thr eat eni ng a vi cti m with a n unload ed g un wa s ab se nthe r e. I nv o l vem en t o fl aw e nf o r ce m en t w as h igh ly u n like ly, h e a rg u es , b ec au se of th e e ar ly m orning hou r ofthe robb ery. Sim il arly, no cu stom ersN o. 08

- 2207 7

w ere in the ba nk becau se th e robbery occ urred before th e b an k op en ed . Th er efo re , Sim m on s a rg u es , th er e is in su fficie n t e vid en c e u p on w h ich a ra tio n al jur y c ou ld convi ct hi m o fpl aci ng a tel l er ’ s l i fe in j eopar dy. I n Sm ith we noted that the defendant i n that case “ m ight h a v e h a d a n a r g u me n th a d h e u s e d a n u n l o a d e d g un, whi chwoul d ha ve b ee n phys i ca l l y i nc apabl e o fi nfl i ct i ng harm

. ” Sm ith , 103 F.3d at 605 (em p ha sis i n th e ori ginal). Bu t, we al so chara c teri zed thatar gum ent a s “ w eak

. ” Id. W e a l so ment i o ne d i n Sm ith , whe n di s c us s i ng ho w to apply the in-j eopar dy prongo fthe i nquir y, that ot h er circ u its h a ve fou n d th at an u n loa d ed h an d gu n is a danger ous weapon beca use “ i t cr eat es an i m m edi ate danger that a vi ol ent r esponse wil l ensue. ” Id. ( ci ting M cL a ug h l i n v . U nited Sta tes , 4 76 U. S
. 1 6, 1 8 ( 19 86 ) )
. “ Any u se of a d an ge ro u s w ea p o n t h at qu alifie s a s a n as sa u lt (by creating reas ona ble fear in v ic tim s) w ou ld th erefore al m ostal w ays p u t l i ves i n j eopar dy i fo nl y b ecause o f th e ris k of a vio len t re sp on se .” Id. Thi s ca se, of co ur se , woul d b e si m pl eri fthe de fen dan t w er e s i m plychar ged und er the ass aul t pr ovi si on o f § 2113 ( d), w hi ch car ri es the e xact s am e penal ty. But, ev en so, we thi nk the evid en ce was s uffi ci ent t o convi ct S i m m o ns o n th e i n-j eo par dy pr o vi si o n. The F i r st an d N i nth Ci r cui ts ha ve f ound tha t th e us e o ff ak e g uns pl ac ed l i ve s i n j eopard y b eca us e o fthe r i sko fa v i o l en t re sp on se by law en for c em en t. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Be ns on , 918 F. 2d 1, 3 ( 1st Cir
. 1990 ) ( fi nd i ng defe nd ant’ s s tat em en t t h at t h e b u l ge in h is jac ke t w as a gu n p u t liv es in j eo p ar d y); U nited Sta tes v. M a r t i n ez-J im enez , 86 4 F
. 2d 664,8 N o. 08

- 2207 666-67 (9th Cir. 1989) (find ing tha t d efend a nt ’s use of a toy gun pu t l i ves i n j eopar dy). W e fi nd thei r an al yse s persuas i ve. T h e d efendant poi nts o ut thatthe robber i es co ns i der ed bytho se c o ur ts o cc ur r ed dur i ngda y l i g ht hours and there f or e the ri sk of l aw enf or cem ent in vo l vem ent was g reate r. H owever, ther e ce rt ai nl y was a ri sk of l aw e nf o r ce m en t in vo l ve m en t he r e; s i m pl y b ec au se the pol i ce di d n ot s h ow up does no t m ean there was no r i sk ofthem doi ng so . A doptingthe vie w thatthe potenti al vio len t re ac tio n of th e v ict im or law en f o r c e m en t is en o ug h t o meetthe i n-j eo par dy r equi r emen t, we fi nd th at su c h a p ot en tia l ex ist ed in t h is c as e. C am p b ell h eld M arlene K a s t e n at gun p oint in the ba nk a l ittl e before 7:0 0 a .m . Th er e w as a ris k t h at th is s itu at ion co u ld have provo ked a desperat e r es ponse fro m Kasten o r at tr ac te d t h e a tt en tio n of th e p olic e. W e t h er efo re h old that suffi ci ent e vi dence exis te d fo r a j ury to fi nd that Kas te n’ s l i fe was i n j eo par dy when Campbe l l po i nt ed th e gu n ath er , eve n th ou gh th e g u n w as em p ty , an d h is c o nv i c t i o n o n the a r med b a nkr o b b e r y c o un ti s a ffi r med

.
B . F ore s ee ab ility o f th e u s e o f a firea rm in th e ro b b ery Of c ours e, S i m m ons, the subj ect ofo ur a pp ea l, w as not atthe s ce ne of the c o m pl et ed r o bb ery . None th el es s he c an be liab le a s a co n sp i r a t o r . Su c h co n sp ira c y liab ility is depend en t, tho ugh, o n hi s a ctualkno w l edge o fhi s co con sp irator ’s actions or w he th er those actions w ere re as on ab ly for es ee ab le. P ink erton v. U nited Sta tes , 32 8 U
. S. 64 0, 64 7-4 8 (1 94 6). Sim m on s a rg u es th at th er e w as ins u ffic ien t e v i d e n c e for a rat ion al jur y t o fin d th at h e c ou ldN o. 08

- 2207 9 ha ve f o r es ee n tha t th e r obb ery woul d ha ve i nv o l ve d the us e o fa fi r ea r m . S i m m o ns b as es thi s ar g um en t o n the i dea tha t J ac k i e S ch m idt, M ann’ s g i r l f r i en d, was a wi l l i ng p ar tic ip an t in t h e b an k h eis t. (T h is a rg u m en t w ill su r f ac e ag ain, i n the c o nt ex t o fs en te nc i ng . ) S i m m o ns ar g ue s th at a g un woul d no t be ne ede d i n th e robbery because , acc or ding to the pl an, no one w as su p p osed to b e i n the b a nka nd S c hmi dtwa s n o tb e i ngc o e r c e d. The go ver nm ent points o ut thatthe evi dence showed th atthe fi r stf ai l ed a tt empt i nv o l ve d the use o fa g un, a nd that Si m m ons acte d as a l oo koutduri ng thi s e vent. S i m m o ns ’ s j o b was t o a l er t M ann t o a ny o ne e nt er i ngthe bank so M ann could “ lay them dow n” and “ta pe them u p .” W e a gr ee w ith th e g ov er n m en t t h at th e jur y c ou ld infer fr o m th at te st i m o ny th at th e us e o f a g un was a p art ofthe plo t a l l al ong. Furtherm or e, S i m m ons w as i nvol ved i n the re f or m u lati on o f the pl a n, thi s t i me t o g r ab S c hmi dt a nd t a k e he r to the b ank; hi s abse n c e from hi s l oo koutpostwas due to an unexpected w rinkl e with hi s c hi l dcare ar ra ngem ents ( at leas t unexpected t o hi s co - conspi ra tor s)
. Evi dence th at Sim m on s h ad ac tu al k n o w l e d ge of th e g u n u se d in the seco nd robber y i ncl ud ed the f act that he w as i n repea te d c o nt ac t wi thM ann, who pr o vi ded th e g un, thro ughout the r obbe ry, i ncl ud i ng afterthe or igin al pl an o fgr ab b i n gS c h mi d ta t3 : 3 0 a . m. h a d c h a n g e d t o d r i v i ng her to the b ank l ate r in the m or ni ng. The sa m e gun w as used i n both the at tem pt and the s uccess ful robber y. M ann i nfo rm ed Si m m ons ov erthe phone at the e xact m om ent Cam pbel l ente re d the ba nk.10 N o. 08

- 2207 Th e j ur y a l s o h e a r d e v i de nc e at tr i a l tha tS c hmi dt was abducte d fr o m he r ho us e, a nd was no t a wi l l i ng pa r t i c i pa nti n the ro b b e r y . Ka s t e n t e s t i fi e d tha tS c hmi dt appeared “s ha k en ” an d fum bl ed whi l e en te r i ngi n the vaul t co de. Cam pbel l, S i m m ons’ s co- conspi ra tor, te sti fi ed that Schm i dt w as shake n, and that he and M ann had or i gi nal l y pl anned to “st eal ” the ke y t o th e b an k fro m S ch m i dt’ s k eyr i ngwi th o uthe r knowl edg e. And M ann te s t i f ied th at th e p lan w as for C am p b ell to “a b d u c t” h is g i r l f r i e nd

. Other tes ti m ony, as S i m m ons poi nts o ut , t en ds to sho w so m et h in g les s t h an co er c ion , bu t t h e r e w as am p le e vidence on both si des o fthe i ssue . A nd S chm i dt did not t e s t i fy . T h e j u r y wa s e n t i t l e d t o cho o se b e t we e n t wo c r e dib l e v e r s i o ns o fthe f a c t s a nd c o nc l ud e tha tS c hmi dt w as n otin o n t h e p lot

. S e eUn i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 55 3 F.3d 1073 , 1080 (7th Cir. ) cert. denied 129 S. Ct
. 2452 (2009). I fso , i t w as rat i onalf orthe j ury to i nfe r, gi ven the use ofthe gun i n the or i gi na l p l an, thata gun w oul d be use d t o ab du c th e r . Ore ven ifthe j ur y b e l i e v e d tha tS c hmi dt w as a wi l l i ngc o - pa r t i c i pa nt, the y we r e e nt i t l e d t o i nf er th at th e p lotinv olv ed th e u se o f t h e gu n in sid e t h e b an k. It w as certa i nl y handy in com pel l i ng Kasten’ s co m pli ance w i th co m m ands. The co nvi cti on o n the fi re ar m co unt, the r e f o r e , mus ta l s o s t a nd

.
C. Pr osec utor’ s use o ft he m ug shot Si m m ons ar gues that the di str i ct c ourtab u se d i ts discr et i o n in de ny i nghi s r eque stf o r a mis tr i ala fter th e gov er nm ent di spl aye d a dem onst ra ti ve chartduri ng fi nalN o. 08

- 2207 11

ar g um en t th atpi ctur ed S im m ons i n j ai l c l o th es . At the outse t, w e shoul d no te that w e r evi ew the j ud ge’ s deci si on for an ab u se of d isc re tio n . See U nited S t a t e s v . Ch eska , 202 F.3d 947, 953 (7th C ir. 2000). W e ha v e , i n l i mi t e d c i r c ums t a nc e s , a pp r o v e d the u s e o f m ug s ho t s a t t r i a l, b ut the us e mus t b e j us ti f i ed by th e g o ve r nm en t’ s “d emon st r ab l e ne ed to i nt r o duce the photog ra phs. ” U ni t e d S t a tes v. Cas t al di, 54 7 F
. 3d 699, 70 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. T he g o ve r nm en t co nc ede s th ati t ha d no dem onst rabl e need fo r the use o fS i m m ons’ s m ug sho t and i t e rr ed i n showing i t t o the j ury. The tr i alco urt agr eed afte r de fen dan t’ s o bj ec ti o n a nd o r der ed the g o ve r nm en t no t to us e th e pho togra ph; the g o ve r nm en t m ade no furtheruse orm enti on o fi t. But, the tr i al c ou rtdi d not concl ud e th at the prej ud i ce e ngendere d by the photo

gr aph’s use r equ ired a m i str i al

. Thi s deci si on was not an a b u s e of d iscretion. I t is not clear from the record ho w l o ngthe o ffen di ngphoto was o n di spl ayt o the j uror s, but i t doe s no t a pp earto have be en b ef or e them f or an extended peri od of ti m e. I t w oul d hav e req u ire d a r ea l di s c e r n i n gj u r o r t o h a v e b e e n ab l e t o i d e n t i fy t he p h ot o a s a m u g s h otan yw ay . I t w a s a “ h ea d an d sh ou ld er s” sho t o fS i m m ons, di spl aying o nl y the neck l i ne o f an o ra nge s hi rt, bu t c on tained no date o r othe r m ar k i ng s i den ti fy i ng th e cl o th i ng o r th e pho to as com i ng fro m th e ja i l . Sim m on s p os its th at a p h ot o of C am p b ell in a sim il ar shirt w as also on th e d em ons trative ch art and that w hen he and M ann tes ti fi ed, they w er e b oth wea ri ngs i m i l aro r an g e j ai l o ut fi ts
. Ofc o ur se , f o l k s who ar e re gu lar ly a ro u n d th e c rim i n al jus tic e p ro c es s w ou ld probabl y r eco gni ze the di stincti ve col oro fev en a port i on12 N o. 08

- 2207

o f th i s j ai l g arb, but i t i s do ubt ful th at a m embe r of th e g en e r a l p u b l i c wo u l d b e s o i n s i g h t fu l

. An d i t wa s no secret that Sim m ons and his cohorts had been arre ste d

— he was o n t r i alf o r b an kr o bb ery c ha r g es. But eve n ass um i ng tha t t h e j u ryundersto od thi s photo to ha ve be en o ne o f S i m m o ns i n j ai l at ti r e, th e cou rt’s d ecision to com p lete the fi na l argu m en ts w as no t error. A de c i s i o n t o de c l a r e a mi s t r i a l wo ul d hav e b e e n a ppropri ate i fthe bri efgl i m pse o fthe phot ograph depri ved th e d efe n d an t o f a fair tria l. U nited Sta tes v. D a nfo rd, 43 5 F
. 3d 68 6, 6 86 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. The t r i alc o ur t w as i n a bett erposi ti on t o j ud ge the e rr or ’ s e ffect than we ar e. C hesk a, 202 F.3 d a t 9 53. S i nce the tr i alj ud ge cor re cted th e error i m m ed iately, the h ar m w as ne gli gible. Furth erm or e, the gov er nm ent points o ut thatS i m m ons’ s cou n sel al l ud ed to hi s cl i ent’ s pastcr i m i nal hi sto ryi n or der t o expla i n the pu rchas es Sim m ons m ade afterthe robber y. W h ile th e u se of m u g s h ot s is d isf av or ed an d u su ally im p er m iss ible , th er e is n o r u le re q u irin g a n au to m at ic m ist ria l ba se d on th eir u se . Se eCas t al di, 547 F. 3d at 704- 05. T h e d ec isio n to p ro c ee d w as ap p ro p ria te ly m ad e w ith in the tr i al j ud ge’ s disc re ti on. W e do, how eve r, em p hasi ze that the use o fthe m ug sho t was i m properand note that an ea sy w ay to ensure tha t a n i ssue l i ke thi s doe s no t ar i se i s f orthe parti es to shar e thei r dem onst ra ti ve ex h ibit s w it h e a c h ot h er be for e t h ey are u se d . Th is w ill al l o w al l pa r ti es t o a vo i d b oth p oten ti alpr ej udi ce a nd ne edl es s l i ti g at i o n.N o. 08

- 2207 13 D. I mpr o pe rVo uc hi ng T he st an dar d o f r ev i ew o n th i s cl ai m i s pl ain error, be ca us e d efen se c o uns eldi d no t o bj ec t att r i alt o the p ro se c u to r’s clo sin g s ta te m en t. See Fed

. R. Crim
. P. 52(b). To o rdera new tr i al, we m ust fi nd thatther e was er ro r th at is p lain th at affe c ts su b st an tia l righ ts
. Johns on v. U nited Sta tes , 5 20 U
. S
. 4 61 , 4 67( 19 97 )
. F ur th er m o r e, the er ro r m ust hav e s er i ou sl y a ffecte d the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, or p u b lic re p u ta tio n of th e jud icia l p ro c ee d in gs . Id. Th e quest i o nab l e s t a t e men t s the p r o s e c ut o r ma de w er e t h es e: “M y on l y job h er e is n otto d efe n d A n to n io M a nn, bu t t o c o mpe l h i m t o t e l l y o u wha th a pp e ne d” and “[ Cam pbel l ] l i ed to the pol i ce too wh en he w as ar r es te d .

. . . Buto nc e he pl ed g ui l ty he c ame c l ea n, he tol d what happ ened. ” The questi on i s w hether the prosec ut o r ac ted a s a so r t o fc ha r ac te r wi tn es s f o r M ann a nd Cam p b ell ei therbyst ati ng tha t i t was herper sonal opi n ion t h at the tw o robber s were bei ng truthfulo r by im p lyin g t h a t s h e h ad kn ow led ge of re as on s fo r th eir tr u th fu ln es s t o w h ich th e jur y w as n otp riv y. Si m m ons argues that the pro secuto r i nvoke d the power ofhero ffi ce t o bol ste r M ann’s cr ed ibi l i ty. I nstea d of j ud gi ng hi s dem eanorand w eig hi ng the ev i dence aga i nst c or robor ati ng detai l s, the ju rywas encour age d to trus t M ann, the a r g um en t g o es , b ecau se th e g o ve r nm en t law yer b eli eved h e w as telling the tru th

. Si m m ons ’s o the r ar g ume nti s tha tthe p r o s e c ut o r, b y i nv o k i ngCa mpbel l ’ s pl ea deal, i m pli ed the gov er nm ent had co m p elle d Cam pbe l l t o b e h o ne s t
. R e du c e d t o the b a s i c t e r ms, Sim m on s’s arg u m en t is t h a t t h e p ro se c u to r im p ro p er ly14 N o. 08

- 2207 connect ed the j ury’ s t rusto fthe tw o w i tness es w i th i ts tr ust o fthe U ni ted S tat es. W e h av e re fu se d to find err or w h er e a p ro se c u to r to ld th e jur y t h at gu ilty p eo p le d on ’t p lea d gu ilty , U nited St at e s v. Rob i ns on , 8 F. 3d 398, 41 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93 ) , wh er e a pr o se cut o r c ha r ac te r i zed de fen dan t’ s te st i m o ny a s “the m ostr i dicul ous thi ng I ’ ve e verhear d,” U ni t e d S t at e s v. D ella R o se, 40 3 F
. 3d 891, 90 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) , o r w here a p ro secuto r sai d “w e found the gun. ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Joy , 1 9 2 F
. 3 d 7 6 1 , 7 6 8

- 7 0 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 )
. S i mmo n s c l a i ms thi s ca se i s m or e l i ke U nite d State s v. D iLore to , 88 8 F
. 2d 99 6, 99 8-9 9 (3 d C ir. 19 89 ), w h e re th e T h ird C irc u it r e v e r s e d f o r a n e w t r i a l a ft e r th e p r o s e c u t o r s a i d , “ We d on’t take l iars. W e d on’t p ut l iars on t he st an d

. W e d on’t d o tha t.” Bu t, at th e tim e of D iLore to , pro secuto ri aler ro r ofthat n atur e w as gr ounds per sef or a m istri al. Th e Th ird C irc u it h as sin c e a b an d on ed th at ap p r o a c h

. See U nited State s v. Z ehr bach , 4 7 F
. 3 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 6 4 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 5 )
. The Thir d C i rcui t no w adop ts a s tandard har m l ess er ro r an aly sis to im p ro p er p ro se c u to ria l st at em en ts th at is m or e a kin to ou r ap p ro ac h, se e U nite d Sta te s v . M orris , 49 8 F .3 d 6 3 4 , 638 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ), bu t d id n otov er ru le th e unde r l y i ngpr i nc ipl e th atthe v o uch i ngi n D iLore to w as im p ro p er , Z ehr bach , 47F. 3d at 1264
. The que st ion, then, i s whether the pr ose cutor ’ s s tat em ents l ent the go ver nm ent’ s wei ght t o the witn ess es’ tes ti m ony and i ftheydi d, w hetherthater ro r w as outw eig h e d by th e e n tir e c on te x t o f th e re c or d

. SeeM orris , 49 8 F
. 3d at6 38
. Her e, we ca n di spo se o fthi s i ss ue l o o k i ngN o. 08

- 2207 15

Ou r p rev ious c as es s ee m t o i ndi c at e thatwe m us tal ways 1 determ ine w hether the p rose cutors ’ stat em ents w ere im prop er, bu t we choose to heed the Suprem e Court’ s w arning that ri gi d t wo- s t ep pro t oc ol s c an s om et i m es l ea d t o “ bad deci sionm a k in g .” SeePearso n v. C al l ahan , 12 9 S
. Ct
. 808, 820 ( 20 09 )
. W he n, as i n thi s c as e, the c as e c an be ea s i ly di s pos ed o fi n the s ec ond pro ng o f the an al ys i s , we thi nk thatunn ec es s ar i l y c ons i der i ng th e fir st p ro n g c a n d o m o re h a rm th a n g o o d

. Id. ( not i ng the lim ited p rece d e n t ial v alu e, the aw k w ard p osition of a p arty s e e ki ng r e vi e w, the t e nd e nc y ofthe s e c on d s t e p t o c ol orpe r c e pt i ons ofthe fi rs t, an d the was t e ofj udi c ial r es our c es whena co u rt d ec id es an issu e u n n ec es sa ry to th e o u tc o m e o f a c a se ). o nl y a t th e se co nd pa r t o fthe a na l y si s. Ev eni fthe pr o se cu- 1 to r im p ro p er ly b ols te re d M an n ’s an d C am p b ell’s t es tim ony , the rec o r d show s tha t the re w as su bsta nt ialcorrobor ating ev i dence: phone r eco rds f ro m the m or ni ng o f th e ro b b er y, ce ll p h on e re c or d s a n d co rro b or at i n g te st im ony f ro m a w i tness about the bot ched fi rs t att em pt, Sim m on s’s p os t-r ob b er y s p en d in g s p re e (w ith n o legit im at e s ou rc e o f th e la rg e c as h ou tl a y s ) , an d rec or d ed j ail c ell p h on e c on ve rs at ion s in w h ich M an n a n d C am p b ell vowed n o tt o s ni t c h. T he p r o s e c ut o r ’ s p a s s i ngc o mm e nts i n ar gum ent w ere s m al l i n com pari son w i th the l ar ger m o sa i c o fe vi den ce ar r ay ed ag ains t S i m m o ns . The d ist ric t c o u r t, ac c or d in gly , d id n otab u se its d isc re tio n in f ai l i ng sua spo nte to ord er a m ist ria l.

E . I mpo s i t i o n o ft he Abd uc t i o n Gu i de l i ne Fin ally , Sim m o n s a rg u es th at be for e c h oo sin g t o a p p ly U. S
. S en te nc i ngGui del i ne § 2B3. 1(b) ( 4) ( A) ( appl y i ng16 N o. 08

- 2207 abducti on e nhancem ent i f“a ny per son w as abducted to f ac i l i ta te c o m m i ssi o n o fthe o ffen se ”) t o hi s se nt en ce , the dist ri ct c ou rt s h oul d have m ade a speci fi c fi nd i ng tha t the abductio n ofS chm i dt w as f or ese eabl e t o Si m m ons. S i m m o ns , a s no te d, c o ul d o nl y b e se nt en ce d f or the f o r e s e e a b l e c o nd uc t o f hi s c o - c o ns pi r a t o r s . U
. S. S
. G. § 1B1
. 3( a) ( 1) ( B) ( A defen dan t’ s off ens e l ev el, f o r s en ten cing p u r p o ses, shall be d eterm ined on th e basis of, “in th e c as e of a j oin tly u n d er ta ke n cr im in al a c tiv ity
. . . all re aso nabl y f or ese eabl e acts and o m i ssi ons of othe rs in fur th er an ce o fthe [j o i ntunde r ta k i ng ]
. ”)
. W e r ev i ew the adequacy o fa dist rict court’ s fi nd i ngs deno vo . U nited St at e s v. Thom ps on , 286 F.3d 950 , 957 (7th C ir. 2002). A t sen ten c in g, Sim m ons cha ll en ged J ackie Sch m idt’s role in the robbery an d argue d that she w as a con sp irator. I fshe w as, he a rgued, ther e co uld be n o ap pli cati on o f the abductio n gui del i ne. The di str i ct c ourtf ound that the abduct ion d i d take pl ace. A s the di str i ct c ourtnot ed a tse nte nc i ng, “ the s t r o ng e s te v i de nc e tha tS c hmi dt w as not i n on the plan a t th e t i m e that s he was abducted i s the ti m i ng. ” In other w or ds, had Schm i dt bee n in vo lve d , C am p b ell w ou ld n oth a ve h ad to sitan d w ait at he r a par tmentf o r thr ee ho ur s, whi l e M ann dr o ve the str eet s o fCedarburg, to w ait f orS chm i dt’s co - w or ker to arr ive att h e b a n k. Sim m on s a rg u es n ow th at th is fin d in g is n otsu fficie n t b ec au se th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id not speci fi cal l y decl ar e that S chm i dt’s abd ucti on was “f or ese eabl e” to Si m m ons. Bu t, al l the evid en ce a t t ri alsho w ed that Si m m ons w as i nv o l ve d in the s ec o nd pl an, the o ne i n whi chtheN o. 08

- 2207 17

robber s a gr eed to abduct S chm i dt. Fi nd i ng tha t a n a c t ua l abduct i o n t o o kp l a c e n e c e s s a r i l y i nv o l v e d a fin d in g t h at s u c h an ab d u c tio n w as fore se ea b le, an d in f ac t, pl anne d b y S i m m o ns . The j udg e’ s r el i an ce o n the ti m i ngr einf o r ce s th i s po i nt
. The t i m i ngwas a p art o fthe or igin al p lan to w h ich M a n n , Sim m on s, an d C am p b ell h ad ag re ed . Re m em b er , Sim m on s w as u n ex p ec te d ly una va i l ab le at the a g r ee d- upo n t i m e to r o b th e ba nk because o fbaby

- si tting duti es. There f or e, i n add ition to su ppo r tingthe no ti on th at th e ab duct i o n t o o kpl ac e, the e v i de nc e o fthe b o t c he d t i mi nga l s o s up po r t s the n o t i on th atth e ab d u c t i o n wa s f o r e s e e a b l e t o S i mmo n s . The ap p li cation of th is enh an cem en t w as, therefore, prop er.

I V . Concl usio n F o r the f o r e g o i ngr e a s o ns, we A FFIRM the d efend an t’s convi cti on o n al l thr ee counts and his se ntence.

9- 11- 09