## 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. 07

- 3675 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v . C AL VI N B RUCE, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.

____________ A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07 C R 57

—Jo hn C. Sh abaz, Judge

.

____________ A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 19, 2008

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 18, 2008

____________ Befo re P OSNER, R IPPLE a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e . Cal vi n B ruce w as charg ed by i nd i ctm ent with one count o fp os ses si on with i ntent to dist rib u te fi fty gr am s o r m or e o fco cai ne bas e ( cra ck c o c a i ne ) i n v i o l a t i o n o f2 1 U. S
. C. § 84 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. He e nt e r e d a pl eao fno t g ui l ty, b utwas c o nv i ct ed a fte r a j ur y t r i al

. The di st r i ctc o ur t se nt en ce d hi m t o 3 60 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t f ol l owed by 10 ye ar s o fsuperv i sed r el eas e. M r. Bruce2 N o. 07

- 3675 appe al s bo thhi s co nv i ction and hi s se nt en ce . F o r the reaso ns s etf o r thi n thi s o pi ni o n, we affi r m M r . Br uc e’s convi cti on a nd r em and thi s case f orr ese ntenci ng i n l i ght o f th e S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n i n K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , ___ U
. S. ____, 128 S. Ct
. 558 (2007).

I B AC KGR OUND A . Facts On the after noon o fM ar ch 28, 200 7, Calv i n Bruce was a pas se ng eri n a c artha t was s to pped byo ffi ce r s o fthe Dane County ( W i sco nsi n) N ar cot i cs a nd Gang Task For ce. Dur i ngthe s to p, the p oli ce di sc o ve r ed ano ut st an di ng w ar ra nt f orM r. Bruce’ s a rr estand tookhi m i nto custo dy. M r. Bruce used hi s ce l l phone t o cal l hi s g i rl f ri end, End ia M atthew s, wh o drove to the scene ofthe tr affi c st op. A fter M att he ws a r r i v e d, the p o l i c e l e a r ne d tha ts he was on pro bati on a nd had dri ven t o th e scene on a r evo ked dri ver ’ s l i cense. The pol i ce di d not a rr esther, but ask ed f or co ns en t to s ea r chhe r h o us e. M at th ews c o ns en te d. The po l i ce o bt aine d th e k ey s to the ho us e f r o m M r . Br uce , who w as then t ake n to a pol i ce s tat i on f orquesti oni ng. M adis on Pol i ce Detecti ve Doro thy Ri etz l er, Offi cer Denise M ar kham and Officer J aso n Baum gar t went to M atthew s’ house to co nd uct the se ar ch and to i nter vi ew M at th ews . At the ho us e, the y f o und $ 2, 58 0 inc as h i n a j acke t be l ongi ng to M r. Bruce. They a l so fo und a bag c o n t a i n i n gc r a c kc o c a i n e a n d p e pp e r i n th e e n g i n e c o mpa r t me n t o f a v a n p a r k e d i n th e g a r a g e . O the r dr ugN o. 07

- 3675 3 parapher nal i a were fou n d t h ro u ghout the ho use. Ma t th e ws d e n i e d a n y k n o wl e d g e a b o u t th e d r u g s o r t he m oney . A fterco m ple ti ng the se ar c h , t he pol i ce o ffi cer s went to the s tat i on t o i nter vi ew M r. Bruce. Dete c tiv e Ri etz l erl ed the inter vi ew , portio n s o fwh i ch al so w er e a tte nd ed by Offi cer s M ar kham and Baum gar t. Be for e the i nter vi ew bega n, De tect ive Rietzler turn ed on an aud io record er. M r. Br uce i ni ti al l y de ni ed a ny kno wl edg e ab o utthe dr ug s an d th e m o ne y . Ev en tu al l y , ho wev er, he a dm itte d tha t th e m one y belonged to him and also ad m itted th at th ere w ere “abo ut two ounc es ” of cra ck i n the van. R. 75 at 26. Detective Rietzler offered M r. B ruc e “a ch an ce to he lp [him ]self” bywor k i ng wi th po l i ce to i nc r i m i na te “ th e bi gfi sh ”

— that i s, o therdrug deal er s who sol d l ar geram ounts ofdrugs. R. 75 a t 20 , 2 1. M r . Br uce a g r ee d t o a ssi stthe po l i ce a nd be g anb y t el l i ngthe m the na m e an d l o ca ti o n o fo ne o fthe deal er s fro m wh om he b ought drugs. Detect i ve Rie tzl er th en tur ne d o ffthe a udi o r ec o r derb utc o nt i nue d the i nter vi ew f ortwenty m or e m i nutes. Mr
. B r u c e wa s r e l e a s e d f r o m c u s t o d y a ft e r th e i n t e r v i e w. H e ul ti m ate l y f ai l ed to m ake g oo d on hi s pro m i se of coo perat i on, however, and, in A pri l 20 07, he was i nd i cted i n the U ni ted Stat es Dist ri ct Cour t f orthe W est er n Dis tr i ct ofW i sco nsi n on o ne co unt ofposs ess i on with i ntent to dist ribut e 5 0 g ra m s o r m or e o fa m i xture orsubst ance conta i ni ng co cai ne bas e ( cra c k c oca i ne) i n vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C
. § 841(a)( 1).4 N o. 07

- 3675 B. Tr i al M r. Bruce’ s j ury tr i alwas hel d i n A ugust 2 007. A t a pre tr i alhear i ng, M r. Bruce al l ege d that Detecti ve Rie tzl erhad vio lat ed W isc on sin law by c o n tin u in g t o in te rro ga te h im after turni ng off the audio re cor der. W i sco ns in Statute § 9 68 .07 3 p ro vid es , in rele va n t p ar t: “Itis t h e p olic y of th is state to m ake an aud io or aud io an d visual record ing of a custo diali nter ro gat i on o fa perso n suspecte d ofco m m i tti ng a f el ony unle ss . . . go od c au se i s s how n. ” W i s. S tat
. § 96 8. 07 3( 2)
. M r . Br uce r eque st ed a j ur y i ns tr uct i o n s ta ting that the l aw requi re s reco rdi ng ofinte rr oga ti ons by pol i ce and i nstr ucti ng the j ury that “u nrec or ded o ra l st ate m ents m ade b y a de f en dan t o uto fc o urt to a l aw e nf o r ce m en t o ffi ce r s ho ul d b e vi ewe d w ith ca ut i o n. ” R. 60 a t 2. The dist ri ct cour t decl i ned to gi ve the propos ed inst ructi on because i t a gr eed w i th the pros ecuti on that any v i ol ati on o f st ate l aw by the pol i ce was i rr el evantto M r. Bruce’ s gu ilt o r i n n o c e n c e u n d e r fe d e r a l l a w. A t t ri al, the Gover nm ent pr ese nt e d the r eco ver ed m oney, th e c ra c k coc ain e fou n d in th e va n, th e d ru g p ar ap h er n alia foun d i n th e hou se an d garage, an d m aila d d ressed to M r. Bruce atM atthew s’ address

. Detecti ve Rie tzl er, Offi cer M ar kham and Offi cer Baum gar t tes ti fi ed about the record ed pa rt of th e int e r v ie w , portion s of w hich w ere pla yed for the j ury. Detect i ve Rie tzl erand Offi cer M arkh am testifie d that, after the record er w as tu rned off, M r. Bruce conti nue d to be re l axed and coo perat i ve. They al so tes ti fi ed that M r. Bruce dated and i ni ti al ed a photo o f an o th erde al erf r o m w ho m he ha d purc ha se d cr ac ki n the past. Thi s photo was adm i tte d as e vi dence.N o. 07

- 3675 5 M r . Br uce ’ s co uns elw as per m i tt ed t o cr o ss - ex ami ne the o ffi c e r s a b o u t th e c o n t e n t o f th e i n t e r v i e w a n d th e c i r c u msta nces surr ound in g it, i ncl ud i ng the f act that Detecti ve Rie tzl erhad sto pp ed the re cor ding. H i s co unsel was not, how eve r, al low ed to m enti on the W i sco nsi n sta tute re gar ding the r eco rdi ng o fcusto diali nter ro gat i ons. A t the end of th e trial, the cou rt gave a m od el j ury i nstr ucti on i nstea d ofM r. Bruce’ s pro posed i nstr ucti on o n th e record in g of interrogation s. T he j ury co nv icted M r. Bruce o n the sol e co unt ofthe i nd i ctm ent.

C. S e nt e nc i ng M r. Bru ce w as sen ten ced on O ctob er 31, 2007
. T he cou rt deter m i ned that M r. Bruce’ s past cri m i nal re cor d quali fi ed hi m as a car eero ff ender und er Se cti on 4B1. 1 o fthe U ni ted States Sente nc ing G uid eli n e s . A ccord ingly, the cou rt ca l cul ated his ba se o ff en se l ev elunde r b o ththe dr ug qu an tity table Gu ide lin e , § 2D 1.1( c), and the ca reer offend er G u id e line, § 4B1

. 1(b). Th e cou rt found that M r. Bruce’ s o ff ense, i ncl ud i ng r el evantcond uct, invo l ved 3. 28 ki l ogr am s o fcr ack coca i ne, r esul ti ng i n a b ase o ff ense l eve l of38 under Sect i on 2D 1. 1( c)
. M r. B ruce’ s base off ense l eve l unde r S ec ti o n 4 B1. 1(b) was 3 7 be ca us e th e m ax i m um st atutory s en te nc e f o r hi s o ff en se was l i f e i n pr i so n. Because the drug quanti ty tabl e’ s offense l eve l o f38 was the hi ghero fthe tw o, the cour t use d thi s la tte r off ense l eve l to de te r m i ne M r . Br uce ’ s se nt en ci ngr an g e unde r the G uid eli ne s. T he cou rt also d eterm ine d that M r. Bru ce’s p riorconv ictions p laced him i n C rim inal H istory Cat egory6 N o. 07

- 3675 VI
. The Guidel i nes s entenci ng r ange f orl evel 38 i n Categor y VIi s 3 60 m onths to l i f e. M r. Bruce’ s co unsel poi nted out to the c ourtthat amende d Gui del i ne s wer e ex pec te d t o t ak e eff ec t th e ne xt day ( N ove m ber1, 2007) that w oul d reduce the o ff ense l eve l f orso m eone i n M r. Bruce’ s posi ti on f ro m 38 to 36. Counsel ac k no wl edg ed, ho wev e r, th a tth i s r e d u c t i o n wo ul d ha ve no eff ect on M r. Bruce’ s s entenci ng r ange because he then w oul d be s entence d at the car eer off ender offense l eve l o f 37, wh i ch al so presc ribes a r ange of3 60 m on th s t o l i f e f or offen d ers in C r im inal H istory Cat egory V I
. Th e cou rt sente nced M r. Bruce to 360 m onths’ im p ris onm ent, to be f ol l owed by 10 ye ar s o fsuperv i sed r el eas e. The next day, the 2007S entenci ng Guidel i nes t oo k e ff ect. The new Guidel i nes r educed the S ecti on 2 D1. 1 o ff ense l eve l by tw o l eve l s f oral l cr ack off enses . The U ni ted S tat es Se n te n c in g C om m iss ion su b se q u en tly d ec id ed th at th is re du cti on s houl d be r etr oac ti ve. M r. Bruce ti m el y a pp eal ed hi s co nvi cti on a nd se ntence.

II DI S C US S I ON M r. Bruce subm i ts that the di stri ct c ourt ’ s e xcl usi on o f any m enti on of the W i sco nsi n re cor ding sta tute viol ate d h i s r i g h tt o a f a i r t r i a l

. H e a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a tth e S u p r e me Cou r t’ s dec i si o n i n K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , ___ U
. S.

____, 12 8 S
. Ct. 55 8 ( 2007 ) , enti tl es hi m to a r em an d fo r r es en te nc i ng . W e co ns i derthe se a r g um en ts i n tur n.N o. 07

- 3675 7

T he requ ested instru ction read as follow s: 1 The l aw re qui re s l aw en f or c em en toffi c er s , when que s t i oning a p erso n w ho m ay b e cha rg ed w ith a cr im e, to reco rd all oral st a te m en ts m ade b y that person. The f ail ure ofa l aw en f or c em en toffi c er t o f ol l ow t hi s l aw re sults i n l es s thana ful l an d ac c ur at e re c or d ofthe actual st at em en tm ade by the de f e n da n t, a n d de n i e s a d e f e n da n tth e a b i l i t y t o p r es en t rec orded evidence that m ay be f avorab le to his or her cas e. Y ou hav e hear d ev idence that the def endan t m ade a st atem en tt o l aw en f or c em en toffi c er s a fter the y s t oppe d t he rec ording d evice
. Y ou are the ex cl usi ve j ud ge as to w hether the defe nd ant m ade the s tat em ent, and as t o w h a t w as ac t ual l y s ai d. I fyou fi nd thatthe d efen dantdi d notm ake s uc h a s t a t e m e nt a ft e r the r e c or di ng de vi c e wa s s t op pe d, you m us tdi s re gar d t he e v id enc e ofthe s t at em en tan d not co n sid er it fo r a n y p u rp o se . I fyou fi nd thatthe defen dantdi d m ake a s t at em en taft er the re c or di ng de vi c e was s t oppe d, you m us tv i ew the s t at em en t as reporte d w ith cautio n, because unrecorded oral s tat em ents m ade b y a defe nd ant ou t ofcourt to a law enfor cem en toffi c er s houl d be vi ewed wi t h c aut i on. R
. 60 at 2. A . J uryI nstructi on M r. Bruce’ s fi rs t ba si s f orap peal is thathe was depri ved ofthe ri ght t o a f ai r tr i alby the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r efusalto g i ve hi s pr o po se d j ur y i ns tru cti o n, whi chs ta te d tha t th e po l i ce vi o l at ed W i sc o ns i n l aw by f ai l i ng to r ec o r d the enti re ty ofhi s i nter ro gat i on. The di str i ct c ourtins tead 1 gave a m odel j ury i nstr ucti on that di re cted the j uror s t o con sid e r a llof th e evide nc e w he n w eighing M r. Bru ce’s8 N o. 07

- 3675

The c our tga ve t he f ol l owin g i ns t ru c t i on: 2 You have r ec ei ved e vi denc e ofs t at em en t s m ade by the d efend a nt to D etectiv e D or oth y R ietzler an d D en ise M a r kh a m . Yo u mus tde c i de wha t we i gh t, i f a ny , y ou be l i e ve the statem en ts de serv e. In m ak ing this d ecision yo u sho u ld c ons i der al l m at t er s i n e vi denc e havi ng t o do with the st atem ents and the ci rcum st ances u n d er which the s tat em ents have been m ade. R. 89 at 15 6 ( quo t i ng Pat t er n Cri m i nal Fe der al J ur y I ns t ru c t i ons fo r t h e S ev en th C ir cu it § 3.0 2 ). state m en ts to th e p oli ce. M r. Bru ce su bm its that th e cou rt’s 2 re fusalto gi ve hi s i nstr ucti on hi nd er ed his ab i l i ty to p r e s e n th i s th e o r y o fd e f e n s e , w h i c h w a s l a c ko fp r o o f

. We re vi ew de nov o a di str i ct c ou rt ’ s deci si on notto gi ve a re q u es te d j u ry ins tr u c tio n . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pr ude, 48 9 F. 3d 87 3, 88 2 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). M r. B ru c e c on te n d s t h at h e w a s e n tit led to h av e h is propos ed i nstr ucti on r ead to the j ury because i t s ati sfi ed the f our re quir em ents that w e hav e s et f orth f ori nstr uctio n s o n a d efe n d an t’s th eo ry of d efe n se . W e h av e s aid : A defendant i s e nti tl ed to a j ury i nstr ucti on a s t o hi s o r he r pa r ticul arthe o r y o fde f en se pr o vi ded: ( 1) the in s t r u c t i o n r e p r e s e n t s a n a c c u r a t e s t a t e me n to fth e l a w; ( 2) the i nstr ucti on r efl ects a theo rythati s s up port ed by the e vi dence; ( 3) the i nstr ucti on re fl ects a theo rywh i ch i s no t a l re ady parto f t h e charg e; and ( 4) the f ai l ure to in c lu d e t h e in st ru c tio n w ou ld d en y t h e a p p ella n t a fair tr ial. U nited Sta tes v. E berha rt, 46 7 F
. 3d 6 59 , 666 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( quoti ng U nited S t a t e s v. B uc hm eier, 25 5 F
. 3d 415, 42 6 ( 7thN o. 07

- 3675 9 Cir
. 20 01) )
. M r. Bruce subm i ts that hi s propose d i nstr uctio n sati sfi ed each ofthes e r equi re m ents and that there

f or e i t was er ro r f orthe cour t t o re fuse t o gi ve i t. M r . Br uce ’ s th eo r y o fde f en se was tha t t he Go ve r nm en t c o u l d n o t p r o v e i t s c a s e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t
. We agr ee tha t he wa s e nt i t l e d t o ha v e the j ur y i ns t r uc t e d on th is t h eo ry , an d in fa c t th e j u ry w as so ins tr u c te d . Sp ec ifical l y, the cour t i nstr ucted the j ury that M r. B ruce w as en titl ed to a presu m p tion of inn ocen ce th a t “is not overcom e un less fro m a llthe evid en ce in th e case you are co nv i nc ed be y o nd a r ea so nabl e do ubttha t th e defen dan t i s guil ty as charg ed. ” R. 89 at 159. Rega rdi ng the r el i abi l i ty ofM r. Bruce’ s unre cor ded st ate m ents

— th e sub j ect of M r. Bruce’ s propos ed i nstr ucti on

— the j ury w as i nstr ucted that it m us t d ecid e w ha t w eight, i f an y, to give them

. Th e j ury cl ea r l y was i ns tr uct ed th atthe Go ve r nm en t ha d the bur deno fpr o o fa nd tha t i t m us t ac qui t M r . Br uce i fthe Gover nm ent f ai l ed to pre sent enough pr oof t o m eeti ts bur den

. M r. Bruce w as not, how eve r, enti tl ed to an i nstr ucti on o f hi s own choos i ng. “W e defe r to the substa ntial disc re ti on ofthe dist ri ct courtforthe speci fi c w or ding ofthe i nstr ucti o ns , a nd i n rej ec tinga pro po se d i ns tr uct i o n, s o l o nga s th e es se n tia l p oin ts are c o v er ed by th e in st ru c tio n s g ive n .” U nit ed S ta tes v. Scott, 19 F. 3d 1238 , 12 45 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( i nter nalquotat i ons om i tte d). M r. Bruce ar gues, i n ess ence, that the W i sco nsi n sta te l aw co ncer ni ng the r eco rdi ng o f i nter ro gat i ons w as an “e sse nti alpoi nt” that was not cove re d by the i nstr ucti on the co urt gave . W e di sag re e. A ssum i ng tha t Dete cti ve Rie tzl ervio late d stat e l aw by10 N o. 07

- 3675 tu rni ng off the re cor der, that vi ol ati on w as i rr el evan t in th i s f ederalc as e. F ede r all aw, no t st at e l aw, g o ve r ns the ad m iss ibilit y of e vid en c e in fed er al c rim in al t ria ls, see, e.g., U nited Sta tes v. Wild erness , 160 F.3d 1173 , 1175 (7th Cir. 1998 ) , and ther e i s no federa l r equi re m ent that cr i m i nal i nter r o g a t i o ns be re cor ded

. M r. Bruce never thel ess subm i ts th at th e p u rp or te d vio l a t i o n w as rele va n t h er e b ec au se it cast s doubt on the rel i abi l i ty ofhi s unre cor ded st ate m ents. H o wev er, a ny r el ev ance the abs en ce o fa r ec o r di ngmight have ste m s from the f act that Detecti ve Rie tzl erchos e t o sto p re cor ding the inter vi ew

— o f whi c h the j ur y wa s ma de aw are

— not f ro m t h e p resence orabs ence ofa sta te l aw gov er ni ng r eco rdi ngs. M r . Br uce po i nt s to o ur de ci si o n in U ni ted Sta te s v. Wild erness , 16 0 F
. 3d 1173 ( 7th Cir
. 1998 ) , i n w hi ch w e wrot e that “[ a] l though federa l co urts do notenf or ce s tat e r ule s f orev i dence ga ther i ng, a sta te l aw m ay i denti fy f acto rs that aff ec t a co nfes si o n’ s vo lun ta r i ne ss a nd r el i ab i l i tya nd ther ef or e m att erunder federa l l aw . ” Id. at 1176
. H ow ever, Wild erness doe s notb ea r o n the c i r cumst an ce s be f o r e us to day

. The i ss ue i n tha t case was the a dm i ss ibi l i tyo fthe defen d an t’ s co nfes si o n a t hi s f ede r alc arj ac k i ngt r i al

. The defen dan t was unde r the a g e o fe i g ht ee n whe n h e co nf ess ed. U nd erI nd i ana s tat e la w , h i s conf ess i on w oul d have been i nadm i ssibl e be cause i t was m ade outs i de the presen ce o fa pa r en t or a n a tt o r ne y . F ede r all aw i m po se s no su chl i m i ta ti o n, ho wev er, a nd the r efore we affi r m ed th e adm i ssi on ofthe confess i on i n W i l derness ’ federa l cr i m i nal tr i al

. A s M r. Bruce poi nts ou t, we did note thatst ate evi dence l aw s m ay have som e r el evance i n the conte xt o f confess i ons, and w e e xplai ned how the sta te l aw m i ght b eN o. 07

- 3675 11

r el ev an t in W i l der ne ss ’ c as e: “ I t i s ea si ert o o ve rbe arthe w il l of a j uv en ile than of a p aren t or attorney , so i n m argi nal cas es

— w hen i t ap p ea rs the offi cero r age nt has att em pted to tak e a dvantage o fthe suspect’ s y outh o r m entalsho rt com i ngs

— l ack ofpare ntalo r l ega l advi ce coul d ti p the ba l ance a ga in st adm i ssi on. ” Id. I n other w or ds, st ate l aw m i ght ind i cate f acto rs to wh i ch a f edera l j udg es ho ul d pa y res pec tful a tt en ti o n whe n de ci di ng w hethera confess i on i s a dm i ssibl e. But Wild erness does not sa y, or e ve n im p ly, th at fed er al juries m us t b e a ll owed to c o nsider th e ex i st en ce o fa s ta te l aw i n de te r m i ni ng how m uch w ei ght t o gi ve to a co nfe ssi on that has bee n a dmi t t e d.

B. Cr oss- Examinat i on M r. B ru c e a lso su b m its th at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in p re ve n tin g h im from m en tio n in g t h e s ta te law d u rin g h is cro ss- exam i nati on o fDetect i ve Rie tzl er . W e re vi ew a tr i al cour t’ s lim i tat i on o fcr oss - exam i nati on f orabuse o f di sc r et i o n. U nite d State s v. N ee ly, 980 F. 2d 1074 , 108 0 (7 th Cir
. 19 92) . A s w e hav e e xplai ned, the sta te l aw was i rr el evanti n thi s fe deralcri m i nal case. D efendants are not enti tl ed to cr oss - exam i ne w i tness es on i rr el evantm att er s. U ni t e d Sta tes v. Jac ks on , 54 0 F
. 3d 578, 59 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( “A di st r i ctj udg e ha s wi de di sc r et i o n t o i m p ose r ea so nabl e l i m i ts on cr oss - exam i nati on, and m ay do so bas ed on c on c er n s a b ou t, inte r alia , p rej udi ce , c o nfus i o n o fthe iss u es , or q u es tio n in g t h at is on ly m ar gin a l ly re lev an t.” ( ci tat i on o m i tte d))

. N otabl y, M r. Bruce w as f re e t o

— an d d id

— fu lly and fr eel y c ro ss- exam i ne Detec ti ve Rie tzl er12 N o. 07

- 3675

W e a l s o no t e tha tit i s f a r fr om c l e a r whe t he r De t e c t i ve 3 Rie t zl er ac t ual l y vi ol at ed th e l aw i n th e fi rs tp l ac e. The l ang uage ofthe s t atut e des c ribes r ec or di ng a s a “pol i c y” rathe r t hana m an d ate. W is. Sta t. § 968.07 3(2). A rg u ab ly the W i scon sin l eg i s l atur e knows ho w to r equi re r ec or di ng o fi nt er rogat i ons w h en it w a n ts t o , a n d it d id n o t d o so h er e. S ee, e.g ., W is. Stat. § 93 8. 19 5( 2) ( a) ( “A l aw en f or c em en tag en c y sh a ll m ak e an au d io or audio and vi s ual rec or di ng ofany c us t odi al i nt er ro gat i on of a ju v en ile th a t is co n d u ct ed a t a p l a ce o f d et en tio n . . . . ” ( em phasis add ed))

. W is consi n’ s ow n courts app ear t o be unclear o n th is q u es tio n . Compa r e St a t e v. Towns e nd , 746 N
. W
. 2d 493, 494 ( W is
. Ct. Ap p. 2008) ( “W is consi n law .

. . p re se n tl y encourages el ec tr o n ic re co r d i n g o f cu sto d ia l in te rv ie w s.” ) w ith Sta t e v. Ste f an , 756 N
. W
. 2d 809 ( W is
. Ct. Ap p. 2008) ( [ T]he legi sl ature enact ed legis lat ion m and ati ng the r ecording ofcus todial int errogat ions
. ”)
. Bu t even if the st atute do es im po se a g en eral r e c o r d ing requ irem en t, the statu te also in clu d es six specific ci rc u m sta n ce s to w h ic h th e p o lic y d o es n o t a p p ly , seeW is. Stat. §§ 97 2
. 1 1 5 ( 2 ) ( a ) ( 1 )

- ( 6 ) , a s we l l a s a g e n e r a l e x c e p t i o n f o r “g ood cau se.” M r. Bru c e ’s p osition w ou ld requ ire the jud g e eithe r to hol d a m i ni

- t ri al onthe al l eg ed s t ate law v iola t i on, or t o a l l ow the p a r t i e s to sub m it sufficient ev id en ce to a llow the ju ry to we i ghwhe t her there was s uc h a vi ol a t i on . W e do n otbe l i e ve that the court was obli gated to go s o f ar afie ld f rom the ce ntral i ss u e s i n th e c a se . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e h o l d th a tth e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s rej ect ion ofM r. Bruce’ s prop osed i nst ructi on w as prop er. about her deci si on to turn of fthe re cor der, and to ar gue t o the j ury that thi s deci si on r endered M r. Bruce’ s co nfe ssi on unrel i abl e. The di str i ct c ourt did notabuse i ts disc re ti on by p r e v e n t i n gh i m fr o m a l s o me n t i o n i n gth e s t a t e l a w. 3N o. 07

- 3675 13

18 U.S
. C. § 3553( a) d ir ec ts the courts to im pose s ente nces 4 “suffic ie nt, but no longer than neces sar y”: (A) to reflec t t h e s erio u sness of the o ffen se, to p ro m ote re s pec tf or t he l aw, and t o pro vi de j us tpuni s hm en tf or the of f ense ; (B) to afford ad equ ate d eterr en ce to cr im ina l con d u ct; ( C) to pr ot ec tthe publ i c fro m fur t he r c ri m es ofthe defen dant; an d ( D) t o pr ovi de the defendantwith n ee ded e duca t i ona l or vocational tr aini ng, m edical c a re, or other c orrec ti onal tr eatm ent in the m osteff ect ive m anner. Id

. C. S e nt e nc i ng On D ecem ber10, 2 007

— roug hly a m ont h after M r. Br uce ’ s se nt en ci ng

— the S up re m e Cour t o f the U ni ted S ta te s an no unc ed i ts dec i si o n i n K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes ,

___ U. S
. ____, 12 8 S
. Ct
. 5 58 ( 20 07 )
. I n Kim b r ough , th e C ou rt hel d that a d i str i ct courtm ay sente nce cracko ff enders to a te r m b el o w the Gui del i ne s r an g e i fi t be l i ev es tha t th e dispar i ty between the Gu i del i nes s entence f ora gi ven amoun t o fcr ac kand the s en te nc e f o r a n e qui va l en t amoun t ofp owd ercocai ne (o ften r efer re d to as the “ 100: 1 r ati o” or th e “100:1 d ispa rity”) lead s to sen ten ces for crack offen d ers that f ai l to “a ccom pli sh the pu rpos es of sente nci ng setf or th i n 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a)
. ” Id

. at56 5. Pri orto Kim b r ough , we 4 had hel d tha t di st r i ctc o ur ts c o ul d no t depa r t f r o m the G uid eli ne s bas ed on a d isagreem en t w ith th e 100:1 d ispa rity
. See U nited Sta tes v. M iller, 4 50 F.3d 270, 273-76 (7th C ir. 20 06 ), abrogated b y Kim b r ough , 12 8 S
. Ct. a t 574- 75
. Thu s, the14 N o. 07

- 3675 d istri ct cou rt c ou ld not h ave kn ow n w he n it sente nc ed M r. B ru c e th at it co u ld im p os e a be low -gu id elin e s en te n c e if it d isa gr ee d w ith th e ap p lica tio n of th e 1 00 :1 d isp ar ity in h is case . M r. Bruce subm i ts that hi s case shoul d be r em anded for resen ten cing in li gh t of Kim b r ough

. The c en tr alque st i o n ino ur r ev i ew o fM r . Br uce ’ s se ntence i s whether he adequatel y r ai sed the cra ck- pow der di s pa r i t y i s s ue wi th the t r i a l c o ur ta ts e nt e nc i ng . I fh e di d, then o ur r evi ew i s f orabuse o fdi scr eti on, and w e hav e h eld in s u c h ca se s t h at th e d efe n d an t i s e n t i tle d to a fu ll re m an d fo r res en te n c in g. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cl ant on , 53 8 F. 3d 6 5 2 , 6 5 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. I f M r . Br uc e di d no tadequatel y r ai se th e issue, however, then our re vi ew i s f or pla i n er ro r. U nd er pla i n er ro r re vi ew , M r. Bruce w oul d be en ti tl ed o nl y t o a l i m i te d r emand f o r pur po se s o fde te r m i ni ng wh etherthe dist ri ct c ou rtwould be i ncl i ned to resen ten ce h im i n li gh t of K im bro ugh

. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Taylo r, 520 F.3d 746 ( 7th Cir. 2008). U p on ex am ination of the record , w e con clud e tha t M r. B ru c e ra ise d th e c ra c k iss u e s u fficie n tly to m er it a fu ll re m and and res entenci ng. I t i s t rue that M r. Bruce did not ci te speci fi cal ly th e 100: 1 di spari ty as a ba si s f orthe tr i al cou rt to gi ve h im a shorter sen ten ce. To d o so, how ever, w oul d have be en frui tles s und erthe l aw o fthe Se venth Ci r cui t atthe t i m e. Re co g ni zingthi s, we ha ve h eld ina si m i l arcas e that e xpli ci t m enti on o fthe dispar i ty is n ot a p re re q u isit e t o re se n te n c in g. See U nite d State s v. P adilla , 52 0 F
. 3d 76 6, 7 74 ( 7th Ci r . 20 08 )
. The defen dan t i n P adilla , l i ke M r . Br uce , was s en te nc ed un d er S ec ti o n 2 D1. 1’ s dr ug quanti ty t ables f ora cra ck off ense. Padi l l a di sputedN o. 07

- 3675 15 whethe r the dr ug s he po ss es se d qua l i fi ed as c r ac k, b uthe di d no t as kthe co ur t t o co ns i derthe a ppr o pr i at en es s o fthe 10 0: 1 di spa r i tyi n det er m i ni nghi s se nt en ce . Not i ngtha t he “[ woul d no t] ha ve s to o d on so und l eg alf o o tingi n s o do i ng pri orto Kim b r ough , ” we he l d tha t thi s o mi s s i o n wa s not f atalto hi s r equest f orr ese ntenci ng: P ad illa d id co n te st be for e t h e d i s t r ict co u rtan d ag ain on a pp ealwh etherthe drug s in questi on were cra ck. W e ca n pres um e that Padi l l a’ s pri m ar y purpose in disputi ng the drug type w as to avo i d the hars h eff ects ofthe cra ck sente nci ng di spari ty, si nce no othe r l ogi cal i nf e r e n c e e x i s t s . I n s o d o i n g, P a d i l l a p r e s e r v e d t he iss u e, how eve r obli quely, of w he th er th e d istri ct cou rt co ul d c o ns i der th e 10 0: 1 se nt en ci ngdi spa r i tyi n s en tenci ng. Id. ( em phasi s a d d ed). The sa m e a pp ro ach i s a pp ro pri ate h er e. A l though M r. Bruce’ s co unsel di d not s peci fi cal ly m en ti o n the c r ac k

- po wder di spa r i ty at th e se nt en ci ng hear i ng, he di d in vi te the c ourt ’ s a tte nti on t o the pl anned change i n the 2007Guidel i nes that reduced cra ck sente nces byt wo levels

. Co uns elt o l d the c o ur t: “ [ I ] t m ak es no diff e r e nc e t o the s e nt e nc i ng r a ng e b ut I do wa nt to preser ve the c ra ck i ssue si m ply to al l ow furtherr evi ew i fthat bec om es ne cess ary.” R
. 102 at 2-3. A s the Sup rem e C ou rt r ec o g ni ze d i n Kim b r ough , the 20 07 am en d m en t w as a p art ofthe Se ntenci ng Com m i ssi on’ s o ngoing eff or ts to “am el i or at[ e] ” the 10 0: 1 di spari ty by bri ngi ng cr ack sente nces cl ose r to sente nces f orpow der c oca i ne. 12 8 S
. Ct. at 569. I n li gh t of t h is , i t is clear to us th at M r. Bru ce’s pu rpos e i n m enti oni ng the cra ck sente nci ng i ssue w as “to16 N o. 07

- 3675

The Gover nm en tar gue s thatou r d ec i s i on i n U ni t ed Sta t es v. 5 Thom as , 520 F. 3d 729, 737 ( 7th Cir

. 2007) , es tablis h es t hat M r. Bru ce w aived his ri ght to argue f or a K i m b ro ugh r e m a nd by f ail ing to m a k e thatargum ent befor e the dis tr ic t c ourt. In Thom as , how ever, w e decl ined to c onsi der a K i m bro ugh r em and because the defe nd ant never asked f or one, ei ther befor e the t ri al court or on app eal

. B ec a u se M r. Bruce expli ci tl y asked f or a K i m bro ugh re m a n d in h is a p p el la t e b ri ef, Thom as is inap p osite here. av oid th e ha rs h effe c ts of th e cra c k sen te n c e d i s p ar ity ,” P adilla , 5 20 F
. 3d at7 74
. Co ns eque nt l y , we ho l d tha t he ade qua te l y pr es er ve d the i ss ue b efo r e th e di st r i ctc o ur t an d i s no w enti tl ed to a fullr em and fo r re sente nci ng. 5 The Gov ernm en t su bmi ts tha t a r emand f o r r es en te nc i ng i s i napp ro p ria te here

. The 20 07 am endm ent t o the Gui del i n e s d e c r e a s e d th e o ff e n s e l e v e l f o r Mr
. B r u c e ’ s c r i me f ro m l eve l 3 8 t o l eve l 36
. The Gover nm ent a rg ues that, be ca us e th e Comm i ss i o n h as de cl ar ed th e am en dm en t re tr oac ti ve, M r. Bruce’ s new sente nce would be bas ed on th e c ar ee r offe n d er G u id elin e le ve l of 37, w h ich w ou ld th enb e hi g he r tha n the o ff en se l ev elpr es cr ibe d b y the d ru g q u an tit y t ab le. Fo r an o f fen d er in M r. B ru c e’s cr im inal hi sto rycat ego ry, the Gu i del i nes ra nge f or off ense l eve l 37 i s the sa m e a s the r ange f orl eve l 38: 36 0 m onths to l i f e. The Go ve r nm en t co nt en ds th atM r . Bru ce ca n de r i ve no benefi t fro m a re m and because hi s o ff ense l eve l o n re sente nci ng would be the s am e. The Gover nm ent a l so su bm its that h e w ou ld n ot be eli gible for a d ep artu re base d on the 100: 1 di spari ty because we have h eld that Kim b r ough do es no t appl y t o s en te nc es i m po se d unde r theN o. 07

- 3675 17

c ar ee r offe n d er G u id elin e, U .S.S.G . § 4B 1.1 (b ). Se eU nited State s v. H arris , 53 6 F.3d 79 8, 81 2-1 3 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); Clan t on , 538 F. 3d at 660. T h e G ov e r n m en t’s p re m ise th at M r. B ru c e n ec es sa rily w ill b e re se n te n c ed u n d er t h e c ar ee r offe n d er G u id elin e is n ot se lf-ev id en t. W h en M r. B ru c e is res en te n c e d , h is off ense l eve l and Gu i de li nes r ange w i l l be deter m i ned by the Gui del i nes in eff ect at the ti m e of hi s or i gi nal se ntencing. 18 U
. S. C
. § 3742(g)(1) ; U nited S ta tes v. Ta nn er, 544 F. 3d 79 3, 7 97( 7th Ci r . 20 08 )
. W hi l e i t i s tr ue th at th e S en te nc i ng Comm i ss i o n made the 2 00 7 amendment s r et r o ac ti ve , the deci si on t o apply th e r etr oac ti vi ty i n any i nd i vi du alcas e l i es w i thi n the sound disc re ti on o f t h e di str i ct c ourt
. 18 U .S.C . § 35 82 (c )(2) ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ll oyd, 398 F. 3d 978, 97 9 ( 7th C ir. 20 05) ( Se cti on 3 582( c) ( 2) “per m i ts” the dist ri ct cour t t o re du ce a defendant’s se ntence “w hen the Se ntenci ng Com m i ssi on has re du ced the appli cabl e Guidel i nes ra nge and m ade the change re tr oac ti ve. ”)
. W e have no w ay of kn ow in g w h et h er th e d ist ric t c ou rtw ill d ec id e t o a p p ly th e 2 0 0 7a m e n d m e n t s re t r o a c t iv e ly w h e n itres en ten ces M r. Bruce. I t i s the pro vi nce o f the di str i ct c ourtto deter m i ne, i n the fi r sti ns ta nc e, the pr o perGuid eli nes r an g e an d the appropri ate sente nce f or M r. Bruce. Ou r tas k at th is s tage i s m er el y t o deci de w hetherM r. Bruce’ s o ri gi na l se ntence w as i m posed er ro neousl y. W e co ncl ud e that i t was.18 N o. 07

- 3675 Conclusi on For the f or ego i ng re aso ns, M r. Bruce’ s convi ctio n is affir m ed , bu t h i s s en te n c e is va c at ed an d h is c as e is re m an d ed to th e d ist ric t c ou rtfor re se n te n c in g. A FF I R MED in p ar t, V ACA T ED a nd R EMA NDE D in pa rt

12- 18- 08