FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 1, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 62 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 0- cr-6 03 20 -MGC- 1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, vers us W ILLIS KENDRICK, III, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen 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 forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 1 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s, an d HODGES, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * MARC US, Cir cu itJu dg e: Honora ble Wm. Terre ll Hodge s, United States District J udg e for the Middle District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation.W il li s Ken dr ic k II I ap pe al s fo ll owi ng hi s co nv ic ti on forali ensm ug gl in g fo r co m m erci al ga in , invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 4( a)(2 )(B) (ii ). Kend ric k a rg ue s th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby: (1) de nyin g h is m ot io n t o d is m is s t he in di ct m en t ba se d o n v in di ct iv e p ro se cu ti on ; (2 ) fai li ng to gra nta jud gm en t o f acqui tt al ba se d on in su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce; (3) gra nt in g t he go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n i n l im in e pr ecl ud in g Ken dr ic k fr om di sc us si ng th e ev en ts of h is pri ortri al be y on d a n ex cerp t o f hi s s worn t es ti m on y ; an d (4 ) de nyin g Ken dr ic k’s m ot io n i n l im in e se ek in g t o i nt ro du ce p orti on s o f th e p ro se cu to r’s cl os in g a rg um en t fr om Ken dr ic k’s p rio r tr ia l as anadm is si on of apa rty op po ne ntun de r Fed . R. Evi d. 80 1( d) (2 ). 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 . In Dec em

be r 20 10 , a fed eral grandjury si tt in g i n t he So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a in di ct edKend ric k o n on e co un t o f kn owi ng ly brin gi ng or a tt em pt in g t o b rin g a n a li enin to th e Uni te d St at es forth e p ur

po se of c omm erci al adva nt ag e an d p riv at e fi na nc ia l g ai n, i n vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 4( a)(2 )(B) (ii ). Pri orto th is in di ct m en t, a fe de ral gra nd jury hadch arg edKend ric k i n Jun e 2 01 0 wi thm ari juan a tr affi ck in g a ndfir earm of fen se s, i n v io la ti on of 4 6 U.S.C. § 70 50 3( a)(2 ) an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c); he was acqui tt edby a j ury

on all co un ts . Bot h s et s o f ch arg es aro se in co nn ect io n wi th an 2in ci de ntfro m May 28- 29 , 20 10 , when U.S. Coa stGuar d p ers on ne l b oard eda ve ss el th atKend ric k was pi lo ti ng lat e atni gh t o ff the co as t o f Fl or id a, an d di sc ov ereda fi rearm , 90 0 p ou nd s o f m ari juan a, an d apre vi ou sl y

de po rte d i ll eg al al ie n n am edRo be rt Ha rd in g. Dur in g t he fir sttri al on th e dru g a ndfir earm ch arg es , Kend ric k d en ie d kn owi ng ab ou t the m ari

juan a, whi chwas fo un d i n s ev eral hi dd enco m pa rtments , bu t ad m it te d t ha t h e h adgo ne to th e Bah am as to bri ng il le ga l al ie ns ba ckin to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r m on ey . He firs t t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adcal le d o ff the ali en sm ug gl in g d eal when he fou ndou t t ha t t he th ree p eo pl e h e was supp os edto bri ng ba ckonth e b oa t d idno t h av e p as sp orts . On cro ss -ex am in at io n, h owe ve r, he co nc ed edth athe ha d a gr eedto co m m itth e fed eral off

en se of a li ensm

ug gl in g i n ex ch an ge for$2 5,0 00 , andth athe kn ew th e p eo pl e h e p la nn edto tra ns po rt f ro m th e Bah am as to th e Uni te d S ta te s wer e il le ga l al ie ns . He lat er re tre at edfro m hi s earl ie r ad m is si on , andim pl ie d t ha t h e th ou gh t h e was be in g c om pe ns at edfor br in gi ng ba ckleg al ali en s. 1 The re levant portions of Ke ndrick’s te stimony duringhis first trial went this way : 1 Q: What happened when you arrived [in the B ahama s]?

. . . . A: . . . I[t old my

contac t there], “Well, if they don’t have any

kind of passport I ’m not takingthose guy s back.” 3Q: Why is that? Why

did you say

that? A: Be cause Iknow that that’s wr ongto do. I f they didn’t have a

ny passport that they was -- that was illeg al.

. . . . Q: You ar e tellingthis jury under oath that you committed a fe dera l crime of alien smug g ling. A: Yes, sir. Q: That you knowing ly in exchang e for

$25,000 agree d to smugg le illeg al aliens into the United States. A: Yes, sir. Q: You under stand that could g et you in a lot of trouble, right? A: Yes, sir. Q: So if ag ents came and a rre sted you, you would be okay with that? A: Idone wr ong .

. . . . Q: It is y our testimony that you had no idea

you wer e g oing to be bring ing back a n illega l alien? A: No. I

knew.

. . . . Q: . . . So you told the jury a sec ond ag o you wer e ver y conce rned a

bout abidingby

the law. A: Yes, sir. Q: And yet you did it any way ? A: Yes, sir. Q: And you knew you wer e g oing to be smugg ling a n alien bac k from the Ba hamas prior

to your depa

rture, didn’ t you. 4A: Yes, sir.

Q: Be cause they

wer e pay ing you, what, betwe en 25 and 30,000? A: Twenty-five, yes, sir. Q: And you knew these people we re not g oing to be leg al. A: Yes, sir. Q: So the testimony

about the whole, “ I

wanted to make sure e very body is leg al. I never would have br ought back somebody without papers,” that you testified to a moment ag o that wasn’t true . A: That’s not true. Q: So when you wer e testifying unde r oath a second a g o you wer e lying to this jury ? A: When Ig ot to Bimini if Mr. Harding had not had a

passport I

would not have br ought him back.

. . . . Q: Wait a second. So you want this jury to believe you wer e beingpaid $25,000 to bringback le g al people?

. . . . Q: . . . These pe ople wer e willing to pa y you $25,000 for a

trip that costs a hundred buc ks. A: Yes, sir. Q: And you’re telling this jury you had no idea

that you wer e g oing to be committing a c rime. A: Ikind of -- I

felt as though as somethingwas wr ongabout it. Q: But be cause you wer e g etting pa id $25,000 you figure, “ Well, I ’ll take him back a ny way .” A: Yes, sir. 5Inclo si ng arg um en t, the go ve rn m en t s ai d t ha t Ken dr ic k’s cl ai m th athe th ou gh t h e was ge tt in g $ 25 ,00 0 t o tran sp ort l eg al ali en s was no t cr ed ib le , andth at drug tra ffi ck in g m

us t h av e al so be enin vo lv ed . Fol lo win g a n a cqui tt al , th e go ve rn m en t b ro ug htth e p res en t al ie n s m ug gl in g c ha rg e b as ed , inpa rt, o n Ken dr ic k’s o wn t es ti m on y in th e fi rs t t ria l. Afte r pl ead in g n otgu il ty, Ken dr ic k m ov edto di sm is s, ar gu in g t ha t t he pr os ecu to r ha d v in di ct iv el y bro ug htne w cha rg es ag ai ns t h im in ord er t o re ta li at e fo r Ken dr ic k’s ac qu it ta l i n the earl ie r tr ia l o n d ru g a ndfir earm ch arg es ari si ng ou t of th e sa m e co nduc t. The go ve rn m en t re sp on de d t ha t, atth e ti m e o f th e o rig in al in di ct m en t, the re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o i nd ic t Ken dr ic k fo r th e al ie n sm ug gl in g c harg e, an d, i nd eed , itwas n otun ti l h is adm is si on s dur in g t he fir stcas e th atitha d asu ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary fo un da ti on to bri ng th e n ew ch arg e. The d is tri ct co urt re jecte d t he de fen da nt ’s m ot io n. The go ve rn m en t al so m ov edin li m in e to ba r th e d efen se fro m m en ti on in g th e p rev io us acqui tt al or t ria l, o r m ak in g a ny argu m en t re ga rd in g v in di ct iv e pr os ecu ti on . Kendric k o bjec te d, cl ai m in g t ha t t he jury ne ed edto ha ve a fu ll un de rs ta nd in g o f th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng hi s t es ti m on y inth e ear li er ca se . (Tra nscript of Ke ndrick’s te stimony at 18-19, 41-42, 44- 46).

6The co urt ag reedwith t he go ve rn m en t an d g ran te d the m ot io n. Ken dr ic k i n turn

fil eda m ot io n i n l im in e se ek in g t o i ntro du ce ex cerp ts of t he pro se cu to r’s cl os in g arg um en t fr om

th e fi rs t tria l; th e d is tri ctco urt d is ag reedan d d en ie d the m ot io n. At the ali ensm

ug gl in g t ria l, Imm ig rat io n a ndCu st om s En fo rcem en t (“ ICE”) Ag en t Ra fael Alb ue rn es readin to ev id en ce Ken dr ic k’s p orti on s o f swo rn te st im on y fro m th e fi rs t tria l. Inth attes ti m on y , am on g o th ers , Kend ric k a dm it te d to ag reei ng to sm

ug gl e th ree i ll eg al ali en s fr om Bim in i, Ba ha m as in to th e Uni te d St at es for$2 5,0 00 . Sev eral Co as t Gu ardoff ic ia ls als o t es ti fie d abo utth ei r in te rcep ti on of Ke nd ric k’s b oa t. At t he co nc lu si on of t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se , Ken dr ic k m ov edfora jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , cla im in g t ha t the go ve rn m en t h adno t pr ov enth atKend ric k kne w Hard in g was anil le ga l al ie n. Th e co urt re jecte d t he m ot io n. Inhi s d efen se , Kend ric k t es ti fie d t ha t i n Ap ril 20 10 , he m ettwo in di vi du al s who ask edhi m

to go to Bim in i an d p ic k up t hr ee p eo pl e fo r $2 5,0 00 . Kendric k sa idth at , when he arri ve d i n B im in i, h e d idno t t ak e th e th ree i nd iv idua ls on to th e bo atwith h im

be cau se th ey

di d n otpo ss es s p as sp orts . The d efen da ntad de d t ha t he was t he n t ol d t ha t Har di ng (who was n otpa rt o f th e o rig in al pl an ) ha d a pa ss po rt a ndjus t n eed edto ge t b ackto hi s fa m il y in th e Uni te d S ta te s. Ken dr ic k cl ai m edth athe di d n otex pe ctto be pa idfor th e la stm inut e arr an ge m en t 7co nc ern in g Har di ng . On cro ss -ex am in at io n, Ken dr ic k a dm it te d t ha t h e h addri ve n

th e b oa t t o t he Bah am as un de r th e co ve r of da rkne ss , andha d c he ck edHard in g’s pa ss po rt s o t ha t, i f cau gh t, Ken dr ic k c ou ldcla im he th ou gh t tha t Har di ng was le ga l. Hard in g t es ti fie d, fo r hi s p art , th athe ha d n ev er m etKend ric k b efo re the sm ug gl in g i nc id en t, tha t Ken dr ic k n ev er as ke d t o s ee Hard in g’s p as sp ort o r tr av el do cu m en ts , andth atHard in g p ai d a no th er m an , no t Ken dr ic k, t o b e smugg le d b ack in to th e Uni te d S ta te s. The reaf te r, th e jury fou ndKend ric k g ui lt y of the ali ensm

ug gl in g c ha rg e. Thi s t im el y

ap pe al fol lo wed . II. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on whet he r to di sm is s an in di ct m en t due to pro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, Un it edSta te s v . Jo rd an , 31 6 F.3 d 1 21 5, 1 24 8- 49 (11 thCir . 20 03 ), an d we h av e ap pl ie d t ha t s ta nd ardin a pr os ecu to ria l v in di ct iv en es s ca se , Uni te d S ta te s v . Barn er, 4 41 F.3d13 10 , 13 15 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Abu se -o f-d is cret io n re vi ew “ reco gn iz es th e ran ge of p os si bl e co nc lu si on s t he tri al jud ge m ay reac h,” Uni te d S ta te s v . Frazi er, 3 87 F.3d12 44 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (en ba nc ), an d we m us t af firm un le ss we de te rm in e th atth e di st ric t co urt m ad e a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t o r ap pl ie d a n i nc orrectleg al st an da rd , Uni te d S ta te s v . Abre u, 4 06 F.3d13 04 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). W e 8rev ie w “ de no vo th e le ga l que st io n o f whe th er a p res um pt io n o f vi nd ic ti ve ne ss ari se s fr om

th e fac ts of t he cas e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo ne s, 6 01 F.3d12 47 , 12 60 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . W e rev ie w de n ov o t he de ni al of am ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al ba se d on th e in su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Gari, 5 72 F.3d13 52 , 13 59 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . In d oi ng so , we vi ew th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t an d d raw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y de te rm in at io ns in fav orof t he jury’ s v erd ic t. Un it edSta te s v . Tay lo r, 48 0 F .3d10 25 , 10 26 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Fin al ly, we rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on a m ot io n i n l im in e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Tho m ps on , 25 F.3d15 58 , 15 63 (11 th Ci r. 19 94 ). Even if t he ev id en ce was adm it te d o r ex cl ud edim pr op erl y , we wil l n ot va cat e u nl es s the de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts were af fect ed . See Un it edSta te s v. Qu in n, 1 23 F.3d14 15 , 14 20 -2 1 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 7) . III. Fi rs t, we ar e u np ers ua de d b y Kend ric k’s cl ai m

th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us ed it s d is cret io n b y

de nyin g h is m ot io n t o d is m is s t he in di ct m en t b as edonvi nd ic ti ve pr os ecu ti on . Gener al ly, if apro se cu to r ha s p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th atth e de fen da ntco m

m it te d acri m e, “ th e co urts ha ve no au th or ity to in te rfer e wit h a pr os ecu to r’s de ci si on to pro se cu te .” Barn er, 4 41 F.3dat 1 31 5. Ho wev er, 9“ [r]ein di ct m en t v io la te s due pro ces s wh en ev er a p ro se cu to r ad ds ne w cha rg es

m erel y to ret al ia te ag ai ns t the de fen da ntfor ex erci si ng st atut ory

or c on st itut io na l rig ht s.” Un it edSta te s v . Spe nc e, 71 9 F .2d35 8, 3 61 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ) (p er cu ria m).

“ A pro se cu to r’s ch arg in g d eci si on do es no t i m po se anim

pr op er ‘pen al ty’ on a de fen da ntun le ss itres ul ts fro m th e d efen dant ’s exe rci se of apro te ct edleg al rig ht , as op po se d t o t he pro se cu to r’s no rm al ass es sm en t o f th e so ci al in te res ts to be vi nd ic at edby the pro se cu ti on .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tay lo r, 74 9 F .2d15 11 , 15 14 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) (pe r curia m) (ci ti ng Sp en ce, 7 19 F.2dat 3 64 ).

“ A pro se cu to r’s de ci si on to see k h ei gh te ne d c ha rg es aft er a d efen da nt su cces sf ul ly app eal s h is co nv ic ti on forth e sa m e co nduc t i s p res um edto be vi nd ic ti ve .” Barn er, 4 41 F.3dat 1 31 5- 16 . Howev er, the pro se cu ti on m ay reb ut th e p res um

pt io n b y est ab li sh in g re as on s fo r ad di ng th e n ew ch arg es ot he r th anto pu ni sh th e d efen da ntforex erci si ng hi s l eg al rig ht s. J on es , 60 1 F .3dat 1 26 0. Th is m ay in cl ud e sh owi ng th atitco ul d n otha ve pro ceed edpre vi ou sl y onth e ad di ti on al ch arg e. Id .; s ee al so Hardwickv. Do ol it tl e, 55 8 F .2d29 2, 3 01 (5t h C ir. 19 77 ) (n ot in g t ha t v in di ct iv en es s m ay be ne ga te d wh ere “ ev id en ce o f th e ad di ti on al cri m es m ay

no t h av e b een ob ta in edun ti l af te r th e fi rs t i nd ic tm en t o r

10in fo rm at io n [wa s] fil ed ”). Once th e p ro se cu ti onha s re bu tt edth e p res um pt io n, t he 2 bu rd enres ts on th e d efen dantto de m on strat e actua l p ro se cu to ria l v in di ct iv en es s, whi chess en ti al ly requ ire s a s ho win g t ha t t he pro se cu ti on ’s just ifi cat io n i s pr et ex tu al . Jo ne s, 6 01 F.3dat 1 26 1. W e h av e al so sai d t ha t ad di ng ne w cha rg es ba se d o n i nd ep en de ntact s,

“ ev enwher e th e se pa rat e act s t ha t p ro m pt edth e n ew ch arg es oc cu rredin th e sa m e ‘spr ee o f act iv ity ,’ ” d oe s n otcrea te a pr es um pt io n o f pr os ecu to ria l v in di ct iv en es s. Id . at 1 26 1 n .5 (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Und er the se cir cu m st an ces , th e d efen da nt m us t p ro ve actua l v in di ct iv en es s. Id .; s ee al so Tay lo r, 74 9 F .2dat 1 51 3. Whi le ou r cas e la w has foc us edon sec on d i nd ic tm en ts bro ug htaft er a de fen da ntha s s uc ces sf

ul ly app eal edhi s co nv ic ti on , sev eral of o ursi st er ci rcu it s ha ve ad dr es se d t he pre ci se is su e b efo re u s: sec on d i nd ic tm en ts bro ug htaft er acqui tt al s. Th ey

ha ve un ifo rm ly con cl ud edth atwhen th e g ov ern m en t b rin gs a se co ndfed eral in di ct m en t ag ai ns t a d efen da ntaft er h e was acqui tt edof d iff eren t of fen se s ar is in g o utof t he same inc id en t, the acqui tt al alo ne is in su ffi ci en t t o g iv e ris e to a pr es um

pt io n o f pr os ecu to ria l v in di ct iv en es s. In th e fi rs t o f th es e cas es , Uni te d S ta te s v . Esp os it o, 9 68 F.2d30 0 (3 d C ir. 1 99 2) , th e d efen da ntwas
In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 2 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit issued before October 1, 1981. 11acqui tt edof R ack et eer I nf lu en cedan d C orruptOrga ni zat io ns Act (“ RICO” ) ch arg es , andlat er i nd ic te d fo r of fen se s b as edon th e sa m e dru g t ran sa ct io ns th at fo rm eda ba si s fo r th e RIC O cha rg es . The Th irdCir cu ithe ldth atitwou ld“no t ap pl y a pr es um pt io n o f vi nd ic ti ve ne ss to a subs eque ntcri m in al cas e whe re the ba si s fo r th atcas e [was ] jus ti fie d b y th e ev id en ce an d [d id ] no t p utth e d efen da nt twi ce i n jeo pa rdy .” Id . at 3 06 . The co urt n ot edth atcrea ti ng a pr es um pt io n i n th es e ci rcu m st an ces wou ldbe “ ta nt am ou ntto m ak in g a n a cqui tt al a waiv er o f cri m in al li ab il it y

forco nduc t tha t ar os e fro m th e o pe rat iv e fac ts of t he fir st pr os ecu ti on .” Id . It d is ti ng ui sh edth e co m m en cem en t o f ne w cha rg es aft er a su cces sf ul ap pe al fro m

bri ng in g t he m

aft er an acqui tt al be cau se “ [n ]o de fen da nt wil l b e d et erre d fr om

ex erci si ng hi s ri gh t t o g o t o t ria l b ecau se of f ear tha t fo ll owi ng anacqui tt al th e p ro se cu ti onm ay bri ng ad di ti on al ou ts ta nd in g c harg es . Tho se ch arg es ex is t an d c anbe bro ug htev enif the de fen da ntis co nv ic te d.” Id. at 30 5. Rel y in g o n t he Thi rdCir cu it ’s ho ld in g i n Es po si to , th e Eig ht h C irc ui t -- in a cas e whe re the de fen da nt s h adpre vi ou sl y be enacqui tt edof p os se ss io n wi th in te nt to di st rib ut e co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es ch arg es , andwere l at er i nd ic te d fo r fi rearm an d ot he r ne w cha rg es -- li ke wis e co nc lu de d t ha t “ th e d efen da nt s’ acqui tt al s o n t he . . . ch arg es in th e fi rs t tria l d idno t i nv ol ve th e ex erci se of arig htby the de fen dant s 12whi chwou ldrai se a pr es um pt io n o f vi nd ic ti ve ne ss .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Rod ge rs , 18 F.3 d 1 42 5, 1 43 0 (8 th Cir . 19 94 ). Sim il arl y , th e Ten th Cir cu it , als o re lying on Esp os it o, h el d i n acas e in vo lv in g b an k fr au d t ha t an “ acqui tt al it se lf c an no t fo rm th e b as is fora ch arg e o f pr os ecu to ria l v in di ct iv en es s.” Un it edSta te s v . W al l, 3 7 F.3 d 1 44 3, 1 44 9 (1 0t h C ir. 1 99 4) . And , fin al ly, in Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo hn so n, 1 71 F.3 d 1 39 , 14 0- 41 (2dCir . 19 99 ) (p er cu ria m), whi ch in vo lv eda se co ndin di ct m en t fo r fi rearm

ch arg es aft er the de fen dantwas a cqui tt edon RICO ch arg es , th e Sec on d Ci rcu itjoi ne d t he Thi rd , Eig hth, an d Ten th Cir cu it s i n h ol di ng th at“ a n ew fed eral pr os ecu ti on fol lo win g an a cqui tt al on sep arat e fed eral ch arg es do es no t, wi th ou t m or e, gi ve ris e to a pr es um pt io n o f vi nd ic ti ve ne ss .” Ken dr ic k’s v io la ti on of 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4( a)(2 )(B) (ii ), rel at in g t o a li en sm ug gl in g, ca rri eda pe na lt y of t hr ee t o t eny ears ’ im

pr is on m en t. 8 U.S.C. § 13 24 (a)( 2) (B). His earl ie r ch arg e, kn owi ng ly andin te nt io na ll y po ss es si ng m ari juan a wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te whi le ab oa rda ve ss el , invi ol at io n o f 46 U.S.C. § 7 05 03 (a)( 2) , subjec te d h im to a gr eat er p en al ty of fi ve to forty y ears ’ im pr is on m en t. See 46 U.S.C. § 7 05 06 (a); 21 U.S.C. § 9 60 (b )(2 )(G). Si m il arl y , whe n the go ve rn m en t p rev io us ly charg edhi m with p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm du rin g a dru g t raff

ic ki ng off en se , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c), h e fac eda m in im um pe na lty of f iv e y ears ’ im

pr is on m en t. 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i ).

13Inth is cas e, th ere i s n o p res um pt io n o f vi nd ic ti ve ne ss . For s ta rte rs , th e se co ndin di ct m en t d idno t fo ll ow a s uc ces sf ul ap pe al by K en dr ic k n ordi d i t s eek he ig ht en edch arg es . See Ba rn er, 4 41 F.3dat 1 31 5- 16 ; co m pa re 8 U.S.C. § 13 24 (a)( 2) (B), wi th 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A)(i ), 21 U.S.C. § 9 60 (b )(2 )(G), an d 4 6 U.S.C. § 7 05 06 (a). Mo reo ve r, th e al ie n s m ug gl in g c ha rg e was ba se d o n a ct s in de pe nd en t o f th e dru g a ndweap on s o ffen se s ad jud ic at edin th e fi rs t t ria l, s o e ve n th ou gh th e al ie n s m

ug gl in g a ro se ou t o f th e sa m e “ sp ree o f act iv it y ,” we do no t pr es um e v in di ct iv en es s. See Jo ne s, 6 01 F.3dat 1 26 1 n .5; Tay lo r, 74 9 F .2dat 15 13 . There is no pre su m pt io n o f vi nd ic ti ve ne ss forst il l an ot he r rea so n: we ag ree wit h o ur si st er ci rcu it s t ha t b rin gi ng a se co ndin di ct m en t, s up po rte d b y ev id en ce, ag ai ns t a d efen da ntaft er an acqui tt al do es no t re su ltina pr es um pt io n o f vi nd ic ti ve ne ss . See J oh ns on , 17 1 F .3dat 1 41 ; Wall , 37 F.3dat 1 44 9; Ro dg ers , 18 F.3 d a t 1 43 0; Esp os it o, 9 68 F.2dat 3 04 , 30 6. 3 Bu t ev enif apre su m

pt io n o f vi nd ic ti ve ne ss so m eh ow ar os e as a m at te r of la w, th e g ov ern m en t re bu tt edth e p res um pt io n b y ex pl ai ni ng th atitdi d n otbri ng th e al ie n s m

ug gl in g c ha rg e to pu ni sh Kend ric k b ecau se itdi d n otha ve su ffi ci en t Although K endric k argues that re liance on E sposito and J ohnson is mis place d, beca use 3 they involved RI CO offe nses that ar e ver y differ ent from the c ase at hand, the holding s in those case s were not depende nt on the ty pe of of fense s involved, see Johnson, 171 F.3d at 141; Esposito, 968 F.2d at 304, 306. Nor ha s Kendric k challeng ed the holding s of the Eighth and Tenth Circuits, which did not involve RI CO charg es. 14ev id en ce atth e ti m e o f th e o rig in al in di ct m en t t o c ha rg e Ken dr ic k wi th kn owi ng ly

sm ug gl in g a n a li enfor

pro fit . See Jo ne s, 6 01 F.3dat 1 26 0; Hardwick , 55 8 F .2dat 30 1. Atth e ti m e o f th e o rig in al in di ct m en t, Hard in g h adno t i m pl ic at edKendric k, an d dur in g h is arre st , Kendric k h adadm it te d t ha t h e was sm ug gl in g d ru gs , no t al ie ns ; t hu s, p rio r to Kend ric k’s ad m is si on s ab ou t al ie n s m ug gl in g dur in g t he fir st tri al , th ere was pre ci ou s l it tl e ev id en ce o f Ken dr ic k’s kno wled ge of Ha rd in g’s imm ig rat io n s ta tu s, o r, fo r th atm at te r, of Kend ric k’s p rio r fi na nc ia l arran ge m en t t o sm ug gl e il le ga l al ie ns . Fu rth erm or e, Ken dr ic k h as no t o ffer edth e sl ig ht es t s hr edof e vi de nc e supp orti ng a cl ai m

of a ctua l p ro se cu to ria l v in di ct iv en es s. Ra th er, h e as se rts on ly atth e h ig he stord er o f ab st ract io n t ha t t he go ve rn m en t p ro se cu te d h im in th e se co ndtri al with e vi de nc e th atitha d p rev io us ly argu edwas fa ls e. The go ve rn m en t h adarg ue d a t the fir sttri al th atitdi d n otm ak e se ns e th atKend ric k wou ldbe pa id$2 5,0 00 to tra ns po rt l eg al ali en s. Th e p ro se cu to r al so cla im edin cl os in g a rg um en t tha t the $2 5,0 00 th atKend ric k was to rece iv e was forsm ug gl in g drug s i nt o t he co un try, notali en s. Ho wev er, atno ti m e d idth e p ro se cu to r arg ue th atKend ric k h adno t ag reedto sm ug gl e anil le ga l al ie n i nt o t he co un try, or th at th e d efen da ntdi d n otha ve so m e so rt o f fi na nc ia l m ot iv e fo r do in g s o.

15Mo reo ve r, th e p ro se cu to r ne ve r cl ai m edth atKend ric k’s en ti re t es ti m on y

was fal se , bu t ra th er, o nl y th atth e d efen dant ’s ver si on of t he ev en ts rel at in g t o t he tra ns po rta ti on of l eg al ali en s fo r a l arg e am ou ntof c as h s tra in edcredul it y . W e ad d th atin th e in di ct m en t fo r al ie n s m ug gl in g fo ll owi ng Kend ric k’s ac qu it ta l fo r th e drug an d fi rearm

off en se s, the go ve rn m en t d idno t ch arg e th atKend ric k was pa id $2 5,0 00 in ord er t o b rin g an i ll eg al ali enin to th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th e in di ct m en t on ly alle ge d t ha t Ken dr ic k kno win gl y bro ug htor a tt em

pt edto bri ng anil le ga l al ie n i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s fo r pr of it . In s ho rt, t he reco rdis ba rren of s up po rt f or th e cl ai m th atth e g ov ern m en t at te m pt edto pro se cu te Kend ric k wi thev id en ce tha t itkn ew to be fal se , or t ha t i t h adot he rwis e ev in cedactua l v in di ct iv en es s. Th e di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re jecti ng th e p ro se cu to ria l vi nd ic ti ve ne ss cla im . IV. W e al so candi sc ern no m eri t i n Ken dr ic k’s ar gu m en t t ha t the di stric t co urt erre d i n fa il in g t o g ran t a ju dg m en t o f acqui tt al ba se d o n i ns uf fic ie nc y of t he ev id en ce. Inrev ie win g asu ffi ci en cy cla im , th e u lt im at e que st io n i s wh ethe r a reas on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d h av e fo un d g ui ltbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Gari , 57 2 F .3dat 1 35 9. “ The tes t fo r su ffi ci en cy of e vi de nc e is id en ti cal reg ard le ss of whe th er the ev id en ce i s d ire ctor c irc um st an ti al , andno di st in ct io n i s t o b e m ad e 16be twee n the weig htgi ve n t o e it he r di rector c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce.” Un it ed

St at es v. Do e, 66 1 F .3d55 0, 5 60 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . After he ari ng th e d efen da nttes ti fy , th e jury is fr ee t o b el ie ve th e ex actop po si te of t ha t te st im on y . See Un it edSta te s v . Bro wn, 5 3 F .3d31 2, 3 14 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Inord er t o s us ta in a ch arg e th ata de fen dantis gu il ty of sm ug gl in g a n a li en fo r co m m erci al ga in , th e g ov ern m en t m us t p ro ve be y on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t th e d efen da nt : (1 ) kn owi ng ly bro ug htanali enin to th e Uni te d S ta te s; (2) kn ew or reck le ss ly dis reg ard edth e fac t tha t t he ali enha d n otrece iv edpri oroff ic ia l au th or iz at io n t o c om e to or e nt er the Uni te d S ta te s; an d (3 ) pa rti ci pa te d i n t he sm ug gl in g fo r th e p ur

po se of c omm erci al adva nt ag e o r pr iv at e fi na nc ia l g ai n. Uni te d S ta te s v . Dom in gu ez, 6 61 F.3d10 51 , 10 63 -6 4, 1 06 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) ; s ee al so 8 U.S.C. § 13 24 (a)( 2) (B)( ii ). As fo r th e fi rs t t wo el em en ts , “ a sp eci fic in te nt 4 to vi ol at e th e la w is no t re qu ire d,” an d t he de fen da ntne edno t kno w th atth e actis il le ga l o r wro ng . Dom in gu ez, 6 61 F.3dat 1 06 8- 69 . Rath er, “ ‘kno win gl y ’ m erel y requi res pro of

of kno wled ge of t he fact s t ha t co ns ti tu te th e o ffen se .” Id . at 1 06 8 (quo ta ti onom it te d) . “ To ac t wi th ‘ reck le ss di sr eg ard ’ m ean s t o b e aware of, b ut

In rele vant par

t, the statute provides for

criminal pena lties ag ainst an individual who, 4 “for the purpose of

commerc ial advanta g e or private fina ncial g ain,” “ knowingor in rec kless disreg ard of

the fa ct that an a lien has not rec eived prior offic ial authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, bring s to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoeve r, such a lien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) (2)( B) (ii). 17co ns ci ou sl y

an d c arel es sl y

ig no re, fac ts an d c irc um st an ces cle arl y in di cat in g t ha t th e p ers on tra ns po rte d was anali enwho ha d e nt eredor r em ai ne d i n t he Uni te d St at es in vi ol at io n o f la w.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Perez , 44 3 F .3d77 2, 7 81 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (em

ph as is om it te d) . As fo r th e th irdele m en t, the re n eedno t b e ev id en ce o f actua l p aym en t o r ev enanag reem en t t o p ay ; ra th er, i t i s s uf fic ie ntif the de fen da nt act edforth e p ur

po se of f in an ci al ga in . Dom in gu ez, 6 61 F.3dat 1 06 6. Viewe d i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, the ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o a ll ow t he jury to reas on ab ly findbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t Ken dr ic k kno win gl y

sm ug gl edanali enin to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r pr of it . As th e reco rdsh ows , th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r th e jury to c on cl ud e th atKend ric k kn ew orwas i n re ck le ss di sr eg ardof t he factth atHard in g d idno t h av e au th or iz at io n t o e nt er the Uni te d S ta te s. See id . at 1 06 3- 64 . Firs t, the jury was en ti tl edto rel y

on Kend ric k’s ad m is si on fro m hi s p rio r swo rntes ti m on y th athe kn ew th athe was “ go in g t o b e b rin gi ng ba ck anil le ga l al ie n.” Altho ug h Ken dr ic k te st ifi edth athe di d n otkn ow t ha t Har di ng was a n i ll eg al ali enan d t ha t Ken dr ic k’s pr io r te st im on y

refe rredto th ree o th er i nd iv idua ls who m he de ci de d n otto sm ug gl e in to th e Uni te d S ta te s, the jury co ul d h av e fo un d t ha t Ken dr ic k’s p rio r swo rntes ti m on y

was c red ib le , andth athi s t es ti m on y du rin g t he sec on d t ria l was no t; we are o bl ig edto vi ew cred ib il it y ch oi ces in fav orof t he jury’ s v erd ic t. See 18Tay lo r, 48 0 F .3dat 1 02 6. Mo reo ve r, whe n acri m in al de fen dantch oo se s t o t es ti fy

on hi s o wn b eh al f, hi s s ta te m en ts , if d is be li ev edby the jury, m ay be co ns id eredas subs ta nt iv e ev id en ce o f hi s g ui lt . Bro wn, 5 3 F .3dat 3 14 . Inth e se co ndpl ace, aCo as t Gu ardoff ic er t es ti fie d a t t he sec on d tria l t ha t at ni gh t Ken dr ic k fl edfro m he r ve ss el an d i gn or edhe r rep eat edha il s. In de ed , itwas no t u nt il an ot he r Co as t Gu ardcrew ab oa rda fas te r ve ss el ap pr oa ch edwith t he ir weap on s drawnth atKend ric k b ro ug hthi s v es se l t o ast op . The jury co ul d h av e dr awnth e rea so nabl e in fere nc e th atKend ric k wo ul d n otha ve fle d fr om th e Co as t Gua rdif h e d idno t b el ie ve th athe was d oi ng so m ethi ng il le ga l. Altho ug h Ken dr ic k d en ie d t ha t h e fl edfro m th e Co as t Gu ardve ss el , th e o ffi cer t es ti fie d t ha t he r ve ss el ’s nav ig at orli gh ts co ul d b e se enfro m si x m il es away , th e fl as hi ng bl ue li gh t co ul d b e se enfro m

at l eas t o ne m il e away, th e v es se l’s s ire n was ve ry lo ud , an d h er v es se l was , at t im es , alo ng si de Kend ric k’s v es se l o nl y ab ou t 8 00 y ard s away. Thi rd , si nc e Hard in g was no t a Un it edSta te s ci ti zen an d was be in g tra ns po rte d fr om

a fo rei gn co un try to t he Uni te d S ta te s o n abo atin th e m id dl e o f th e n ig ht , th e jury cou ldwell ha ve co nc lu de d t ha t, ev enif Ken dr ic k d idno t kno w fo r su re tha t Har di ng was a n i ll eg al ali en , he c on sc io us ly ign or edfact s t ha t cl earl y in di cat edth atHard in g was no t l eg al . See Per ez, 4 43 F.3dat 7 81 . Furt he rm or e, 19Ken dr ic k c la im edth athe ch eck edHard in g’s p as sp ort b efo re co m m en ci ng th e vo y ag e an d t ha t h e b el ie ve d Har di ng ’s po ss es si on of apa ss po rt m ad e Hard in g le ga l, b utHard in g t es ti fie d t ha t Ken dr ic k n ev er as ke d t o s ee h is pa ss po rt o r an y tra ve l d oc um en ts , andth e jury pla in ly w as en ti tl edto cred itHard in g’s t es ti m on y ov er Ken dr ic k’s. The re was als o s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce fo r th e jury to c on cl ud e th atKend ric k sm ug gl edHard in g i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s fo r pr of it . In Ken dr ic k’s p rio r te st im on y , he adm it te d t ha t h e h adag reedto be pa idto sm ug gl e anali enin to th e Uni te d St at es . Hardi ng als o t es ti fie d t ha t h e ag reedto pa y sm ug gl ers $5 ,00 0 t o b e tra ns po rte d t o t he Uni te d S ta te s, ev enth ou gh he di d n otpa y Kend ric k d ire ct ly. Whi le Kend ric k c la im edth athe ha d ach an ge of h eartab ou t t he fir stth ree a li en s, an d a gr eedto tak e Hard in g t o the Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t an y ex pe ct at io n o f pa ym en t, the jury was free no t t o b el ie ve th atKend ric k i nt en de d t o b rin g Har di ng in to th e Uni te d S ta te s i n t he de adof n ig htou t o f th e si m pl e g oo dn es s o f hi s h eart , es pe ci al ly con si de rin g t he ob vi ou s ri sk s as so ci at edwith t he ve ntur e. And , eve n i f th e jury bel ie ve d t ha t Har di ng was n otpa rt o f th e o rig in al de al , as Ken dr ic k co nt en ds , evi de nc e o f anactua l ag reem en t t o b e p ai d was no t n eces sa ry . Dom in gu ez, 6 61 F.3dat 1 06 6. Itis en ou gh if Ken dr ic k a ct ed“ fo r th e p ur po se of fin an ci al ga in .” See i d. In sh ort, o n t hi s re co rd , a reas on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d 20ha ve de te rm in edth atKend ric k kno win gl y sm ug gl edanil le ga l al ie n i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s fo r pr of

it . See Gari , 57 2 F .3dat 1 35 9.

V. W e are , li ke wis e, unpe rs ua de d b y Kendric k’s cl ai m

th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n g ran ti ng th e g ov ern m en t’s m ot io n i n l im in e p recl ud in g t he de fen da ntfro m

di sc us si ng th e ev en ts of h is pri ortri al , eve n t ho ug h afew ex cerp ts of Kend ric k’s t es ti m on y

fro m th e p rio r tr ia l (t he subs ta nc e o f whi ch we’ve se t o ut in foo tn ot e o ne ) were p res en te d t o t he jury. Und er Fe d. R. Ev id . 40 3, re le va nt ev id en ce m ay

be ex cl ud edif i ts pro ba ti ve va lu e is subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh edby the da ng er o f un fai r pr ejud ic e, co nf us in g t he is su es , m is le ad in g t he jury, un du e d el ay , was ti ng ti m e, orne ed le ss ly pres en ti ng cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce. “ It i s t he pro vi nc e o f th e tr ia l ju dg e to weig h a ny m at eri al it y ag ai ns t an y

pre jud ic e an d, unl es s t he jud ge ’s read in g i s ‘off

th e sc al e,’ his di sc ret io n i s n otab us ed .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sh el le y , 40 5 F .3d11 95 , 12 01 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Mo reo ve r, jud gm en ts of a cqui tt al are h ears ay , anddo no t fa ll withi n a ny ex cep ti on to th e ru le ag ai ns t the adm is si on of h ears ay ev id en ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Irv in , 78 7 F .2d15 06 , 15 16 -1 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) . In Irvi n, we co nc lu de d tha t a di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n g ran ti ng th e g ov ern m en t’s m ot io n i n li m in e, whi ch pre ve nt edth e d efen da ntfro m m en ti on in g, re ferr in g t o, o r so li ci ti ng 21in fo rm at io n abo utth e acqui tt al s o f hi s co -d efen da nt s i n apre vi ou s t ria l. Id . at

15 16 . After n ot in g t ha t a ju dg m en t o f acqui tt al is in adm is si bl e h ears ay , id ., we sa idth at , “ [e]ven if t he ev id en ce o f pr io r acqui tt al was o th erwi se adm is si bl e, it wou ldbe pro pe rly excl ud ab le un de r [Fed . R. Evi d. 4 03 ], be cau se it s p ro ba ti ve va lu e is ou twei gh edby the dang er o f un fai r pr ejud ic e, co nf us io n o f th e is su es , or m is le ad in g t he jury. ” Id . at 1 51 7. Here, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n. To be gi n, t he ev id en ce of Kend ric k’s p rio r acqui tt al was i na dm is si bl e h ears ay . See i d. at15 16 . Add it io na ll y , any dis cu ss io n o f th e m ari juan a an d fi rearm

off en se s o n wh ic h Ken dr ic k was acqui tt edm ay well ha ve on ly con fu se d t he jury, an d t hi s ri sk arg uabl y ou twei gh edan y

pro ba ti ve va lu e th atth e in fo rm at io n m ay ha ve ha d. Se e id . at 1 51 7; see als o Un it edSta te s v . Ly on s, 4 03 F.3d12 48 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (co nc lu di ng th atth e rel ev an ce o f th e d efen da nt ’s pri oracqui tt al was “ ex ceed in gl y m arg in al an d, g iv enth atitm ay ha ve co nf

us edth e jury, w e can fin d n o abu se of di sc ret io n i n t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to ex cl ud e th is ev id en ce”) . In thi s co nn ect io n, Ken dr ic k o nl y cla im s t ha t, h adhe be enall owe d t o d is cu ss th e m ari juan a cri m e dur in g the ali ensm ug gl in g c as e, he co ul d h av e arg ue d t ha t Hard in g was no t p artof t he ori gi na l d eal an d was on ly an aft ertho ug ht , whi ch wou ldha ve supp orte d h is cla im th athe di d n otsm

ug gl e Hard in g fo r pr of

it . The 22pr ob le m

with t he arg um en t i s tha t Ken dr ic k d idactua ll y tes ti fy at tria l tha t Hard in g was on ly an aft ertho ug htan d was no t p artof t he ori gi na l s m ug gl in g d eal . Mo reo ve r, anIm

m ig rat io n a ndCu st om s En fo rcem en t ag en t t es ti fie d t ha t Ken dr ic k sa idHard in g was jus t an aft ertho ug htan d n otpa rt o f th e o rig in al de al , and Ken dr ic k a dm it s i n h is bri ef o n app eal th athe an d t he ag en t g av e te st im on y to th at effe ctat t ria l. Whethe r th e o rig in al de al in vo lv edm ari juan a o r th e smugg li ng of th ree i nd iv idua ls ot he r th anHard in g, Ken dr ic k was st il l ab le to ass ert(an d d id ) th ro ug h t he tes ti m on y

of t wo wi tn es se s t ha t Har di ng was n otpa rt o f th e o rig in al de al . Thu s, ev enif t he di st ric t co urt h adim pr op erl y ex cl ud edth e ev id en ce rel at in g t o t he m ari

juan a o ffen se -- an d i t d idno t -- we do no t s ee h ow Ken dr ic k’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts were af fect ed . See Qu in n, 1 23 F.3dat 1 42 0- 21 . Fi na ll y , we are u np ers ua de d b y Kend ric k’s cl ai m

th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n i n l im in e b ecau se th e p ro se cu to r’s cl os in g a rg um en t i n t he fir sttri al was a n a dm is si on of apa rty op po ne ntun de r Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (d )(2 ). At th e o ut se t, we o bs erv e th at“ st at em en ts an d a rg um en ts of co un se l ar e n otev id en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Lop ez, 5 90 F.3d12 38 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Sm it h, 9 18 F.2d15 51 , 15 62 (11 th Cir . 19 90 )). In fact , th e d is tri ctco urt s o i ns tru ct edth e jury in t hi s ca se , ob se rv in g tha t “ wha t t he la wy ers say to youis no t ev id en ce, b utm erel y th ei r op po rtu ni ty to ex pl ai n wh at 23th ey

th in k h as be enpro ve n i n t hi s ca se .” See al so 11 th Cir . Patte rnJu ry In st ru ct io n 4 (“ [A]nyth in g t he lawyers s ay is no t ev id en ce an d i sn ’t bi nd in g o n y ou .”). Pu rs uantto Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (d )(2 )(A)-( B), a s ta te m en t b y a party op po ne nt is no t co ns id eredhe ars ay if i t “ was m ad e b y

th e p arty in anin di vi du al or rep res en ta ti ve cap aci ty,” or is a st at em en t t ha t “ th e p arty m an ife st edth atitad op te d orbe li ev edto be tru e.” InUni te d S ta te s v . DeLoac h, 3 4 F .3d10 01 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (p er cu ria m), we ad dr es se d t he de fen da nt ’s cla im th at , bas edonSeco nd Ci rcu itcas e la w, st at em en ts th e p ro se cu to r m ad e in clo si ng arg um en t i n apre vi ou s cas e ag ai ns t a c o- de fen da nt , whi ch were i nc on si st en t wi th all eg at io ns m ad e b y th e pr os ecu to r in a subs eque ntcas e ag ai ns t t he de fen da nt , sh ou ldha ve be en adm is si bl e in th e se co ndcas e as adm is si on s b y a pa rty op po ne ntun de r Ru le 80 1( d) (2 ). The d is tri ctco urt i n t ha t ca se ha d d en ie d a dm is si on of t he pro se cu to r’s st at em en ts , no ti ng th atanatt orne y ’s arg um en ts are n otev id en ce an d t ha t adm is si on of t he st at em en ts “ wou ldcrea te a subs ta nt ia l l ik el ih oo d o f jury co nf us io n u nd er [Fe d. R. Ev id . 40 3].” Id. at10 05 n.7 . W e o bs erv edth at , “ in th e Seco ndCir cu itanatt orne y ’s arg um en ts m ay be adm is si bl e, bu t adm is si bi li ty is ti gh tl y cir cu m sc rib ed .” Id . at 1 00 5. Th us , th e Sec on d C irc ui t re qu ire d t ha t, fo r st at em en ts li ke th es e to be adm is si bl e, th ey m us t b e: (1) “ as se rti on s o f fac t t ha t ar e 24th e equi va le ntof ates ti m on ia l s ta te m en t b y th e [cl ie nt ]”; an d (2 ) “ in co ns is te nt wit h s im il ar as se rti on s i n asubs eque nttri al .” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . W e n ot edin DeLoa ch , ho wev er, tha t the pro se cu to r’s st at em en ts th ere r el at edto advo cacy co nc ern in g t he cred ib il it y of the witne ss es an d i nv it at io ns forth e jury to draw in fere nc es , whi ch wou ldno t b e adm is si bl e ev enun de r th e Sec on d C irc ui t’s t es t. Id . at 1 00 5- 06 . W e al so de te rm in edth atth e p ro se cu to r’s co m m en ts in th e fi rs t tri al were n ot“ cl earl y

in co ns is te nt ” wit h t he ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he sec on d cas e, an d, s ig ni fic an tl y , were n otst at em en ts of f actequi va le ntto a te st im on ia l st at em en t b y

a cl ie nt . Id. at10 06 . Thu s, we co nc lu de d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y ex cl ud in g t he pro se cu to r’s co m m en ts , bec au se th e st at em en ts “ wou ldbe in adm is si bl e as adm is si on s o f a p arty op po ne ntev enun de r th e cas es rel ie d upo n b y

[th e d efen da nt ]. ” Id . Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y de te rm in edth atclo si ng arg um en t co m m en ts by cou ns el are n otev id en ce, s ee Lo pe z, 59 0 F .3dat 1 25 6, an d th eref or e, th atth e p ro se cu to r’s st at em en ts drawn fr om th e p rev io us tri al co ul d n ot be adm it te d a s ev id en ce i n t he sec on d t ria l as Kend ric k h adreque st ed . Butev en if we were t o c on si de r th e p os si bi li ty of adm it ti ng th e p ro se cu to r’s co m m en ts as st at em en ts of apa rty op po ne ntun de r th e Sec on d C irc ui t’s s ta nd ard-- whi ch we di d n otex pr es sl y

ad op t i n DeLo ach -- th e d is tri ctco urt s ti ll wou ldno t h av e ab us ed 25it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g t he adm is si on of t he pro se cu to r’s st at em en ts . In the fir st

pl ace, t he pro se cu to r’s co m m en t i n t he fir sttri al -- th atKend ric k’s ex pl an at io n th athe was t ran sp orti ng leg al ali en s fo r $2 5,0 00 di d n otm ak e se ns e -- wen t t o Ken dr ic k’s cr ed ib il it y

an d u nd erm in edth e d efen se ’s cas e, an d wo ul d n othave be enadm is si bl e ev enus in g t he Seco ndCir cu it ’s app ro ach . See DeLo ach , 34 F.3d at10 05 . Mor eo ve r, as we’ve al read y sai d, t he pro se cu to r’s arg um en ts in th e se co ndtri al were n otcle arl y in co ns is te ntwith h is st at em en ts in th e fi rs t o ne . See id . at 1 00 5- 06 . Fin al ly, th e o nl y st at em en t b y

th e p ro se cu to r th atco ul d e ve n po ss ib ly be co ns tru edas ast at em en t o f factwas t he pro se cu to r’s co m m en t t ha t

“ [t]he 25 to $3 0,0 00 is th e cu t [Ke nd ric k] ge ts for th e ri skhe ’s tak in g fo r sm ug gl in g t he dru gs in to th e co un try, notanali en .” Howev er, i n c on te xt , itis cl ear t ha t the pro se cu to r was in vi ti ng th e jury to draw the in fere nc e th atth e $2 5,0 00 was fo r sm

ug gl in g d ru gs , no t fo r jus t s m ug gl in g a li en s. See id . at 1 00 5. Mo reo ve r, if t he pro se cu to r du rin g t he fir sttri al actua ll y ha d e xp res se d h is

“pe rs on al be li ef o r op in io n a s t o t he tru th or f al si ty of an y

tes ti m on y

or e vi de nc e o r th e g ui ltof t he de fen da nt ” -- an d we d o n otbe li ev e h e d id-- Ken dr ic k s ho ul d h av e ob jecte d t o t he se pro se cu to ria l re m ark s (wh ic h h e d idno t), b ecau se pl ai nl y th ey wou ldha ve be enim

pr op er. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Lacay o, 7 58 F.2d15 59 , 15 65 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) (qu ot in g ABA St ds . forCri m . Ju st ic e 3 -5 .8(b ) (2 d e d. 1 98 0) ). 26Fi na ll y , eve n i f th e st at em en ts so m eh ow wer e co ns id eredto be ev id en ce, the

co urt wo ul d h av e p ro pe rly excl ud edth em un de r Ru le 40 3, b ecau se th ei r ad m is si on li ke ly w ou ldha ve op en edth e d oo r wid el y to anen ti rel y

ne w setof e vi de nc e an d hypo th es es to be dra wn fr om th e m ari juan a an d fi rearm

ch arg es , andli ke ly w ou ld ha ve co nf us edth e jury in t he pro ces s. Cf. Un it edSta te s v . Delg ad o, 9 03 F.2d 14 95 , 14 99 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). AFFIRMED.

27