04

- 55 54

- c r ( L) , 04

- 56 50

- c r (

CON) U
. S. v. Q ui no nes

1 UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT
A ugus tT er m , 2005 ( A r gued: M ay10, 2006 D eci ded: D ece m ber28, 2007)

Do c k e tNo s . 0 4
- 5 5 5 4
- c r ( L ) , 0 4
- 5 6 5 0
- c r ( CO N)
U NI TED S T A T E S OF A MERI CA , Appel l ee ,

— v . — A L AN Q UINO NES , D I EGO B. R OD R I GU EZ , D e fen da n ts-Ap

p e lla n ts , H ECTOR V EGA , D ef endant
.
B efor e: W INTE R , C AB RAN ES , and R AG GI , C i r cui tJudges
. I n a ca pi t al cas e tr i ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he Sout hern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k i n w hi ch the j ur yvot ed nott o i m pos e the dea t h penal t y , appel l ant s chal l enge (1) the em p an elm en t of an an o n ym o u s jury , (2) the rem o v al fo r ca u se o f ce rt ain ju rors oppos ed t o t he dea t h penal t ybas ed onl yon r es pons es t o a w r i t t en ques t i onnai r e and w i t hout f o llo w -u p o ra l v o ir d ire , (3 ) v a rio u s e v id e n tiary ru lin g s, (4 ) th e c o u rt’s id e n tific a tio n o f o n lyP re lim in a ryto tr ia l, th e d istric t co u rt d e c lar e d th e f e d e ra l d e a th p e n a lty 1 uncons t i tut i onal , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Q ui nones , 205 F. Supp. 2d 256 ( S. D
. N
. Y
. 2002) , but this co u rtrev erse d that ruli n g in U n it ed S tat es v . Q u ino n es, 31 3 F
. 3 d 4 9 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). 2 th re e R IC O e le m e n ts in its c h a rg e to th e ju ry, a n d (5 ) t h e im p o s itio n o f lif e s e n te n c e s . A F F I R MED .

D AV I D L. L E W IS , L e w is & F io re , L L P , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , fo r D e fen da n tAppel l antA l an Q ui nones . J EAN D. B ARR ETT , R u h n k e & B a rr e tt, M o n tc la ir , N e w J e rs e y , fo r D e fen da n tAppel l antD i ego B. R odr iguez . D AV I D M. R OD Y , A ssist an t U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne y(D av id B
. A n d ers, K arl M e tz n e r, A s s is ta n t U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e y s , on the br i ef ), f orM i chae l J
. G ar ci a, U ni t ed St at es A t t or neyfo r the Sout hern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f orAppel l ee .
R EEN A R AG GI , C i r cui t

Judge : D efe ndant s A l an Q ui nones and D avi d B
. R odr i guez appea l fr om j udgm ent s of
co n v ict ion en tered o n O ctob er 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , af ter a jurytr ial in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f N e w Y o rk (J e d S . R a k o f f , Judge ) at w h ich th e yw e re f o u n d g u ilty
o n su b stan ti v e a n d co n sp ir atorial co u n ts of rac k etee ri n g (“R IC O ”), see 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 6 2 (c), (d); sub stan ti v e a n d co n sp ir atorial co u n ts of d rug tr af

fick ing , see 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § § 8 4 1 (a)(1), ( b) ( 1) ( C ) & 846; and the murde rof conf i dent i al i nfor m antE ddi e Sant i ag o in relati on t o a
c o n ti n u ing d rug en terprise, see id. at§ 8 4 8 (e)(1)(A ). A l t hough t he gui l t yver di cton t he § 8 4 8 (e )(1 )(A ) c o u n t ex p o se d th e d e f e n d a n ts to th e d e a th p e n a lty , th e ju ryu lti m a tely 1D ef e n d a n t s h a d o r i g i n a l l y f a c e d t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y u n d e r t h r e e c a p i t a l c o u n t s : t he 2 § 848( e) ( 1) ( A ) char ge, as w el l as s ubs t ant i ve and cons pi r at or i al char ges of m ur deri n ai d of r a c k e t e e r i n g , s e e 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 9 5 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( a ) ( 5 )
. Def e n d a n t s we r e a c q u i t t e d o n t h e t wo c a p ita l r a c k e te e ri n g c h a rg e s . 3 deci ded aga i ns tthi s puni s hm ent . D efe ndant s ar e pr es ent l y i ncar cer at ed s er vi ng t er m s of l i fe 2 im p ri s o n m e n t. O n t hi s appea l , defe ndant s s eek r ever s al of thei rconvi ct i ons ora r emand for
r es ent enci ng on t he gr ounds t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t err ed i n ( 1) empanel i ng an anonym ous ju ry ; (2 ) re m o v in g c e rta in p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs f o r ca u se b a se d o n th e ir o p p o sitio n to th e d e a th penal t y as ex p r es s ed i n a w r i t t en ques t i onnai r e, w i t houtanyfol l ow - up or al voi rdi r e; ( 3) m aki ng var i ous evi dent i ary rul i ngs ; ( 4) char gi ng R I C O by r efe r ence to o n lyt hr ee
e l e me n t s ; a n d ( 5 ) i mp o s i n g l i f e s e n t e n c e s . F o rt h e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n , we
r ej ectt hes e ar gum ent s and af fi r m t he j udgm entof convi ct i on. I . Backg r ound A
. T he C r i m es of C onvi ct i on I n t he cour s e of a s even- w eek tr i al i nvol vi ng s event een w i t nes s es , i ncl udi ng s om e of t he def endant s ’ for m eracc om pl i ces , and more t han 200 phy s i cal exh ibi t s , t he pr os ecut i on
c o n v in c in g lye sta b lish e d d e f e n d a n ts’ p a rticip a tio n in a ra c k e tee rin g e n ter p rise p rim a rily f o c u se d o n th e d istrib u tio n o f c o c a in e a n d h e ro in . Q u in o n e s le d th e ill icit e n ter p rise w h ile R odr i guez s er ved as hi s chi ef l i eut enant . A ft erQ ui nones ’ s M ar ch 1999 arr es tfors el l i ng her oi n t o an under coverpol i ce of fi cer , defe ndant s r et al i at ed ag ains t Eddi e Sant i ago, t he4

confi dent i al i nfor m antw hom t heybl amed f or Q ui nones ’ s arr es t , by m ur der i ng Sant i ago and bur ni ng hi s body
. W e det ai l the tr ial evi dence onl yas nece s s aryt o ourdi s cus s i on of t he i s s u e s o n a p p e a l
. Vi e wed i n t h e l i g h t mos t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e g o v e r n me n t , s ee J acks on v. V i rgi nia, 44 3 U
. S
. 30 7, 31 8-19 (19 79 ), t he ev i den ce show ed the foll ow i ng fact s.

1. N ar cot i cs T r aff

i cki ng
a. D efe ndant s ’ C ocai ne O per at i on T hr ough t he t es t i m onyof drug confe der at es G l en W ei s s m an and Johnni e H edgepe t h, th e p ro se c u tio n e sta b lish e d th a t, i n th e late 1 9 9 0 s, d e f e n d a n ts re g u lar lyp ro c u re d w h o les a le q u a n tit ies o f

c o c a in e f

r o m s u p p liers in F lo rid a a n d N e w Y o rk f o r d istrib u tio n p rim a rilyin A l l ent ow n, Penns y l vani a. H edgepe t h r epor t ed mee t i n g Qui n o n e s a tv a r i o u s l ocat i ons i n N ew Y o rk w h ere Q u ino n es pu rch ase d k il o g ram q u an ti ti es of co ca ine fro m H ed g ep eth’s p artne r, J os eph Sapi a. W ei ssm an tes t i fi ed thathe a c c o m p a n ied Q uinones t o F l ori da to purchase
coca i ne fr om anothers our ce. W ei s s m an furt her stat ed that , betw een J anuaryand M ar ch 1 9 9 9 , h e tran sp o rt ed co ca ine o n ap p rox im atelyfiv e to sev en o cc asio n s fro m Q u ino n es’s B ro n x re s id e n c e to v a ri o u s lo c a tio n s in A lle n to w n .

b. D efe ndant s ’ H er oi n O per at i on D efe ndant s al s o di s t r i but ed her oi n, oper at i ng t hi s s i de of thei rbus i nes s , i n par t , out of the B r onx apart m entof Q ui nones ’ s gi r l fr i end, J anetSot o. M i l t on R i ver a a n d H ec tor V ega, t w o B ro n x drug d eal ers w ho procured h eroi n from t he d efen dan t s, t est i fi ed ag ai nst th e m a t tr ia l.5

R iv e ra sta ted th a t, by M a y1 9 9 9 , d e f e n d a n ts w e re ste a d ily su p p ly in g h im w ith m u lti
kil og ram qu anti t i es of h eroi n. W hil e R i vera ori ginal l ybo ug ht her oin di r e c t l yfr om Q ui no nes, Q uino n es e v en tuallyintr o d u ce d R ivera to R o d ri g u ez w h o , there af ter, d eli v ere d the d rugs and
c o llec ted p a ym e n t. Q u ino n es m aintaine d co n tact w ith R ivera to en su re tha t cus tom ers w ere
s at i s fi ed w i t h t he qual i t yof the her oi n s uppl i ed. V ega, w ho di s t r i but ed her oi n fr om t hr ee di ffe r ent B r onx l ocat i ons , t es t i fi ed that Q ui nones fi r s toffe r ed t o s uppl yhi m w i t h her oi n i n lat e 1 9 9 8 o r ea r l y1999 and i dent i fi ed Ja n e t S o to a s a p o in t o f c o n tac t. In A p ril 1 9 9 9 , af ter V e g a h a d a f

a lli n g o u t w ith h is
e sta bli shed sup pli er, he co ntact ed S oto w ho prom ptl ysupp l i ed h i m w i t h ten t o tw enty b u n d le s o f

h e ro in
. T h at sam e d ay , Q u ino n es v isite d V eg a to c h ec k that the d rug s w ere
s at i s fac t or y . Fr om M ayt hr ough A ugus t1999, Q ui nones – act i ng t hr ough R odr i guez a nd Sot o – r egul ar l ys uppl i ed V ega w i t h appr oxi m at el y s eventy - fi ve bundl es of her oi n a w eek.

2. T he M ur derof Eddi e Sant i ago
a. S anti ago ’s C oo perat i on L eads t o Q uinones’s A rr est I n M ar ch 1999, E ddi e Sant i ago , a p ai d i nfor m antof the N ew Y or k C i t yPol i ce D epart m ent , i nt r oduced Q ui nones t o an u nder coveroffi cerw ho, on M ar ch 18, 1999, and
a g a in o n M a rc h 2 6 , 1 9 9 9 , p u rc h a se d sm a ll q u a n tit ies o f h e ro in d ire c tlyf

ro m th e d e f

e n d a n t. A tt he conc l us i on of the l at t ert r ans act i on, pol i ce pl ace d Q u inone s underarr es t . Sant i ago,
w ho w as pr es entatt he t i m e of the arr es t , pr om pt l yvoi ced c oncern abouthi s safet yt o t he
u n d e rc o v e r o f

f ice r b e c a u se Q u in o n e s w o u ld n o w k n o w S a n tiag o w a s a n in f o rm a n t.6 b. Q ui nones ’ s Sear ch forSant i ago S anti ago ’s fears w ere not un w arr anted. Im m ediat el y aft er Q uinones secured rel ease on bai l , he bega n hunt i ng forSant iago
. H ec t orV ega t es t i fi ed t o a conve r s at i on i n M ar ch 1999 dur i ng w hi ch Q uino n es stat ed t hathe w as l ooki ng fora man nam ed “Eddi e, ” w ho Q u in o n e s b e lie v e d h a d s e t h im u p f o r a rr e s t. O vert he nextsev er al m ont hs , Q ui nones
re g u lar lya sk e d V e g a w h e th e r h e h a d e n c o u n ter e d a n y o n e n a m e d “ E d d ie” in h is nei ghbor hood. I n A pr i l 1999, Q ui nones al s o t r i ed t o l ocat e Sant i ago thr ough M i l t on R i ver a. Q ui nones t ol d R i ver a, “I am goi ng t o puthi s [i
. e. , Sant i ago’ s ] head i n a box. ” Tri al T r . at 5 2 9
. B yJ u n e 1 9 9 9 , Q u in o n e s h a d o b ta in e d a p h o t o g ra p h o f S a n tia g o . W hen Q ui nones sh o w e d th e p ictu re to V e g a , the latte r id e n tifie d S a n tiag o a s s o m e o n e w h o h a d tried to se ll h im h e ro in in a n o th e r u n d e rc o v e r t ra n s a c tio n . V ega r epor t ed t hat hi s cous i n L oui s M al ave knew Sant i ago, pr om pt i ng Q ui nones t o as k i f M al ave c oul d arr ange a m eet i ng w i t h Sant i ago beca us e Q ui nones “w ant ed t o gethi m . ” I d. at1411. Q ui nones fur t heras ked w hetherM al ave coul d be trus t ed t o “kee p hi s m out h s hut
. ” I d. V ega as s ur ed Q ui nones t hatM al ave, w ho had d o n e “ tim e in th e s ta te ,” w o u ld n o t “ o p e n h is m o u th .” Id
. O n Fr i day , J une 25, 1999, Q ui nones offe r ed M al ave $1, 000 t o “s et up” Sant i ago. I d. at870. M al ave a gr eed a nd at t empt ed t o arr ange a m eet i ng for t hat ni ght on T r emont A venue in th e B r o n x . W h e n S a n tiag o f a iled to k e e p th e a p p o in tm e n t, Q ui nones and M al ave p ro c e e d e d to f

o rm u la te a n a lte rn a tiv e p la n .7 c. T he A bduct i on and M ur derof Sant i ago ( 1) Sant i ago I s L ur ed t o G ut i err ez’ s A par t m ent P u rsu a n t to th a t p lan , o n S a tu rd a y , Ju n e 2 6 , M a lav e so licite d S a n tiag o ’s a ss ista n c e in helpi ng som e drug d eal ers coo k crack co cai ne. M eanw hil e, Q uinones arranged w i t h N i l sa G ut i err ez, a fr i end of J anetSot o’ s , t o us e herB r onx apart m enton S u n d ay , June 27. On Sundayaft ernoon, Q ui nones di r ect ed M al ave and R odr i guez t o pi ck up Sant i ago and br i ng h im to th e a p a rtm e n t. Q u in o n e s in stru c ted th e m e n to u se a sm a ll tw o -d o o r c a r re g iste re d to h is w ife, C arm en Q u ino n es, an d to m ak e su re S an ti ag o s a t in the re ar “ b ec au se h e d idn ’t
w a n t [ S a n tia g o ] t o g e t a w a y .” Id . a t 8 9 9
. I n exec ut i ng t hes e i ns t ruct i ons , M al ave i nt r oduced Rodri guez t o Sant i ago as “the guy t hathad the cr ack” t hatneede d t o be coo k ed
. Id. at900. W hen the thr ee men arr i ved at G uti err ez’s apart m ent for t his pu rport ed purpose, R od ri gu ez l ed San t i ago i nsi de, w h ile M a lav e lin g e re d in th e h a llw a y . A lm o st im m e d iate ly , M a lav e h e a rd “ a tu ss le,” a s if p e o p le

w er e “w r es t l i ng” i ns i de the apa r t m ent . I d. at903. H e s oon l eftt he s cene t o r epor tt o V ega
w h a t w a s h a p p e n in g . A boutt hi r t ym i nut es l at er , M al ave a nd V ega r etur ned t o G ut i err ez’ s apart m ent . V ega t es t i fi ed that , as s oon as he ent er ed t he apar t m ent , Q ui nones hugged hi m , w her eupon V ega
s aw a gr oggySant i ago l y i ng on the l i vi ng r oom fl oor , handcuf fed a nd hogt i ed, w i t h bl ood
run n ing fro m hi s m out h. V ega a l s o s aw R odr i guez i n t he r oom and a gun l y i ng on a s ofa. V e g a so o n lef

t th e a p a rtm e n t b u t, on a re tu rn trip late r th a t af ter n o o n , h e sa w Ja n e t S o to8

s cr eami ng atSant i ago thathe w as g et t i ng w hathe des er ved forbei ng a “r at . ” I d. at1443. R odr i guez a l s o t aunt ed Sant i ago bys pi t t i ng i n hi s fac e. M eanw hi l e, Q ui nones t hr eaten ed S a n tia g o , y e llin g , “ I b e a t o n e b o d yb e f o re a n d I’ ll b e a t yo u r b o d y .” Id
. W h il e h er apar t m entw as t hus bei ng us ed, N i l s a G ut i err ez s pentt he dayatSot o’s
r es i dence
. W hen, i n t he aft ernoon, G ut i err ez i ndi cat ed t hat s he w i s hed t o r etur n t o herhom e, S o to told h er sh e co u ld n o t d o so b ec au se “ the g u ythat sn it ch ed o n A lan” w as in G u ti errez ’s
a p a rt m e n t. I d . a t 1 9 1 0
. ( 2) T h e R em o v al of S an ti ag o ’s B o d y an d Q u ino n es’s A dm i s s i ons t o M ur der L at eron Sundayni ght , V ega s aw R odr i guez a nd Sot o carr y i ng w hatappea r ed t o be
a w eed tr i m m er and a can of gas ol i ne i nt o G ut i err ez’ s apart m entbui l di ng. G ut i err ez t es t i fi ed th a t, e a rl ie r t h a t d a y , s h e h a d s e e n S o to a n d R o d ri g u e z w ith th e s e s a m e ite m s . St i l l l at ert hatni ght , G ut i err ez obs er ved C ar m en Q ui nones ’ s carand a m i ni van parked out s i de G ut i err ez’ s apart m entbui l di ng. Fr om t he s t r eet , G ut i err ez s aw Q ui nones pus hi ng a
s h o p p in g c a rt o u t o f

h e r b u ild in g a n d lo a d in g th e b u n d le d c o n te n ts in to th e v a n . G ut i errez test i fi ed that , w hen Q ui nones and R odr i guez a r r i ved atSot o’ s apart m ent
s o m e tim e la te r, Q u in o n e s h a p p ily a n n o u n c e d th a t th e yh a d “ b u rn e d th e g u y .” Id . a t 1 9 3 9
. H e t ol d G ut i err ez tha t he had us ed hercomfort erand s hoppi ng carti n t he pr oces s and prom i sed t o rei m bu rs e her f or these i t em s. G ut i err ez f ur t herr eca l l ed Q ui nones br aggi ng t hatO th e r tria l ev id e n c e sh o w e d th a t “L e f ty ” w a s a f

o rm e r p a rtn e r o f Q u in o n e s w h o , in 3 1997, had t es t i fi ed aga i ns tt he def endanti n a N ew Y or k St at e cr i m i nal t r i al i n w hi ch Q ui nones w as acqui t t ed. M ilto n R iv e ra te s tif ie d to Q u in o n e s d is p a ra g in g “ L e f ty” a s a “ ra t.” Id . a t 4 5 8
. T h e d istric t co u r t in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t V e g a ’s te stim o n yw ith re sp e c t to 4 “C hupaca br a” w as r ece i ved onl yagai ns tQ ui nones and onl yas t o Q ui nones ’ s s t at e of mi nd att he t i m e of the al l eged a ct s r es pect i ng Sant i ago. 9 “i f i tw oul d have be en Left yhe w oul d have s cr eamed. ” I d. at1940. 3 H ect orV ega t es t i fi ed that , s oon aft ert hes e eve nt s , w hen he t ol d Q u ino n es tha tone
o f V e g a ’s w o rk e rs, “ C h u p a c a b ra ,” w a s c o o p e ra tin g w ith th e p o lice , Q u in o n e s o f f e re d to k ill the w o rke r, s t at i ng t hat“he gotr i d of one s ni t ch al r eadyand he w oul d l i ke t o getr i d of anotherone. ” I d. at1493. 4 ( 3) T he D i s coveryof Sant i ago’ s B ur ned B ody O n J une 28, 1999, t he cha r r ed dea d body of E ddi e Sant i ago w as found i n a vac antl ot in th e B ro n x . R e m n a n ts of a c o m f o rte r re m a in e d a ro u n d th e b o d y , w h ich w a s h o g tied , w ith d u c t tap e c o v e rin g th e n o se a n d m o u th
. A m e d ica l e x a m in e r de ter m in e d th e c a u se o f d e a th to b e a s p h y x ia tio n .

3. V er di ctand Sent enci ng A tt he conc l us i on of t he pros ecut i on’ s cas e, t he defenda nt s el ect ed not t o pr es entany evi dence
. O n J ul y27, 2004, t he j ur y found t hem gui l t y of fi ve of the s even c ount s char ged, i ncl udi ng t he ca pi t al char ge of murde ri n fur t her ance of a c ont i nu ing crim inal drug
e n te rp ri s e . A tt he ens ui ng penal t yphas e, t he j ur y , aft erhear i ng fr om t hr ee pr os ecut i on w i t nes s esT he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d bot h defe ndant s t o t er m s of l i fe i m pr i s onm enton eac h 5 of the r acke t eer i ng count s as w el l as t he capi t al § 848( e) ( 1) ( A ) char ge and t o a t er m of t en y ears ’ i m pri sonm ent on t he § 84 6 ch arge. Ital so sent enced Q uinon e s to tw entyy ears ’ i m pr i s onm enton a s epar at e § 848( b) ( 1) ( C ) count . A l l s ent ence s forbot h defe ndant s run c o n c u r r e n t l y. 10 a n d f o rt y -f o u r d e f e n s e w itn e s s e s , u n a n im o u s ly v o te d n o t to im p o s e th e d e a th p e n a lty. O n Sept ember 27, 2004, t he di s t ri ct cour ts ent ence d eac h defe ndant , pr i nci pal l y , t o l i fe im p riso n m e n t. 5 I I . D i s cus s i on A
. T he D i s tr i ctC our tA ct ed W i t hi n I t s D i s cr et i on i n E m panel i ng an A nonym ous Ju ry D e f e n d a n ts s u b m it th a t th e d is tr ic t co u rt e rr e d in e m p a n e lin g a n a n o n ym o u s ju ry. W e
ar e notper s uaded. I ti s w el l s et t l ed that , “‘ w h en g enui nel ycal l ed forand w hen pr oper l yus ed,
a n o n ym o u s ju rie s d o n o t in f rin g e a d e f

e n d a n t’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts.’” U n ited S tate s v . T h a i, 29 F. 3d 785, 800- 01 ( 2d C i r . 1994) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. V ar i o, 943 F. 2d 236, 239 ( 2d C ir
. 1 9 9 1 )); see also U n it ed S tat es v . T u ti n o , 8 8 3 F
. 2 d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 3 2 -33 (2d C ir
. 1 9 8 9 ). In
r evi ew i ng an anonym ous j ur y chal l enge, w e “bal ance t he defenda nt ’ s i nt er es ti n conduct i ng
m eaningfu l vo i r di re and i n m ai ntai ning t he p res um pti on of inno cence , against[t he jur y ’s ] i nt er es t i n r emai ni ng fr ee fr om r eal or t hr eat ened vi ol ence and t he publ i c i nt er es ti n havi ng t he j ur yr endera fa i r and i m par t i al ver di ct . ” U ni t ed St at es v. A m us o, 21 F. 3d 1251, 1264 ( 2d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ).11

W her e w e fi nd evi dence t o s uppor tt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on t hatt he j ur yneede d pr ot ect i on, and w her e the courtt ook r eas onabl e pr eca ut i ons t o m i ni m i ze a ny pr ej udi ce t o t he defe ndantand t o ens ur e the pr ot ect i on of the def endant ’ s fundament al r i ght s , “the dec i s i on t o empanel an anonym ous jury is r evi ew ed onl yforabus e of di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. T h a i , 2 9 F
. 3 d a t8 0 1 ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . P a c c i o n e , 9 4 9 F
. 2 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 9 2 ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 9 1 )
. We have i dent i fi ed str ong r eas ons t o bel i eve t hata j ur yneede d pr ot ect i on i n s i tuat i ons w her e the governm entdemonst r at ed a de fenda nt ’ s w i l l i ngnes s t o t amper w i t h t he j udi ci al pr oces s . See,
e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. G ot t i , 459 F. 3d 296, 345- 46 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ; U ni t ed St at es v. A ul i ci no, 44 F. 3d 1102, 1116 ( 2 d C ir
. 1995) ; U ni t ed St at es v. T hai , 29 F. 3d at801; U ni t ed St at es v. A m us o, 21 F. 3d at 1264- 65; U ni t ed St at es v. Pacci one, 949 F. 2d at 1192. I n r evi ew i ng s uch
ev iden ce , w e a re n o t l im it ed to the fa cts av ail ab le at the t im e of ac tual em p an elm en t; rathe r,
w e maycons i deranyr el evantevi dence i n t he re cor d. See U ni t ed S t at es v. W ong, 40 F. 3d 1 3 4 7 , 1 3 7 6 -77 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ); see also U n it ed S tat es v . D eL u ca , 1 3 7 F
. 3 d 2 4 , 3 1 (1st C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ). D efe ndant s s ubm it that ther e w as no bas i s fort he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatt hey pos ed a s ubs t ant i al r i s k t o t he j udi ci al pr oces s . T he r ecor d i s plai n ly to the contr ary . T he in d ictm e n t sp e c if

ica llyc h a rg e d d e f

e n d a n ts w ith m u rd e rin g a c o n f id e n tial in f

o rm a n t in
r et al i at i on forhi s cooper at i on w i t h l aw enfor cem en t au thor i t i es . I ndeed, t r i al evi dence sh o w e d th e d e f

e n d a n ts’ d o g g e d d e ter m in a tio n in p u rsu in g th is h o m icid a l o b jec tiv e , b o th d ire c tly a n d th ro u g h v a rio u s c o n f e d e ra tes . A lth o u g h d e f

e n d a n ts a ss e rt th a t th e ir c o n d u c t d id12

n o t ac tu a llyth re a ten th e ju d icia l p ro c e ss , se e R o d rig u e z B r. a t 1 0 -1 1 (d e sc rib in g d e f e n d a n ts
as “l ow - l evel drug deal er s ” w ho ki l l ed Sant i ago bec aus e he “ s ol d Q ui nones t o nar cot i cs det ect i ves fo r $ 5 0 0 and nothi ng m or e”) , w e di s agr ee. T he murde rof Eddi e Sant i ago t hr eat ened the j udi ci al pr oces s b o t h byel i m i nat i ng a w i t nes s w ho coul d have pr ovi ded i ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence agai ns tdefe ndant s and bys endi ng a pow er ful l y fr i ght eni ng m es s age t o o t hers of t he terri ble consequ ences aw ai t i ng any on e w ho coo p e ra ted in def end ants ’ p ro se c u tio n . U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e d istric t c o u rt a c ted w e ll w ith in its d isc re tio n in
con cl ud i ng t hat t he defen dan t s po sed a subst anti al ri sk t o the i ntegr i t y of the j ud i ci al process
w arr ant i ng empanel m entof an a nonym ous j ur y . See U ni t ed St at es v. G ot t i , 459 F. 3d at345- 4 6 (ho lding that d istri ct co u rtd id n o t abu se i ts d is c re tion in em p an eli n g an o n ym o u s jury
w her e def

endant s w er e al l eged m ember s of pow er ful or gani zed cr i m e fa m i l yand i ndi ct m ent charg ed them w i t h w i t nes s t amper i ng) ; U ni t ed St at es v. T hai , 29 F. 3d at801 ( hol di ng anonym ous j ur yw as w arr ant ed w her e t her e w as evi dence , i nt eral i a, of def endant s ’ act s of i nti m idation t ow ar ds t hei rcr i m e vi ct i m s , i ncl udi ng at t empt s t o ki l l cert ai n vi ct i m s , and
m ur derof i ndi vi dual w ho r efus ed t o w i t hdr aw compl ai nt s t o pol i ce)
. I ndeed, t hatconcl us i on f in d s f u rth e r su p p o rt in trial e v id e n c e in d ica tin g Q u in o n e s’s e x p re ss e d w ill in g n e ss to k ill
o th e r p e rso n s w h o m h e p e rc e iv e d to b e “ sn itch e s.” T ria l T r. at 1 4 9 3 ( o f f e rin g to k ill i nfor m ant“C hupaca br a” a nd boas t i ng t hat “he got r i de of one sni t ch [Sant i ago] al r eadyand he w oul d l i ke t o getr i de of a not herone”) ; s ee i d. at1940 (hy p o thes izi ng t hatcooper at orA s di s cus s ed i nfr a at37- 38, t hes e s t at ement s w er e r ece i ved i nt o evi dence att r i al for 6 r el evant r eas ons ot her t han Q ui nones ’ s pr opens i t y for vi ol ence . A cour t , how ever , m ay appr opr i at el ycons i dera defe ndant ’ s pr opens i t y t o t hr eat en w i t nes s es orot herw i s e t o t amper w i t h t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e n e e d f o ra n a n o n ym o u s j u r y. 13 “L ef ty ” w o u ld n o t hav e b ee n ab le t o tolerate tortu re Q u ino n es h ad inf li cted o n S an ti ag o ). 6 T w o ot hergr ounds ci t ed byt he governm en t– t he s er i ous nes s of the cr i m e and the l i kel i hood of pr e- t r i al publ i ci t y– r ei nfor ce the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o empanel an anonym ous j ur y . See U ni t ed St at es v. Per s i co, 832 F. 2d 705, 717 ( 2d C i r . 1987) ( uphol di ng anonym ous j ur yi n l i ghtof def endant ’ s hi s t or yof vi ol ence and obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce t ogether
w i t h r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of publ i ci t y ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. T hom as , 757 F. 2d 1359, 1364- 65 ( 2d C i r . 1985) ( uphol di ng anony m o u s jur yw her e def endant s w er e al l eged t o have p a rticip a ted in se v e ra l “‘ m o b -sty le’ k ill in g s” a n d to h a v e m a d e p a st a ttem p ts to in ter f e re w ith j udi ci al pr oces s ) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. V ar i o, 943 F. 2d at240 ( not i ng t hat“[p] r etr i al p u b licitym a ym ili tate in f a v o r o f a n a n o n ym o u s ju ryb e c a u se it ca n e n h a n c e th e p o ss ib ili ty t hat j urors ’ nam es w ou l d becom e pu bli c and t hu s expo se them t o int i m i dati on bydefe nd ants ’ f ri e n d s o r e n e m ie s , o r h a r a s s m e n t b yth e p u b lic ” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d )) . W e need nother e dec i de w hethert hes e gr ounds w oul d, byt hemselve s, h av e s uppor t ed the
c h a llen g e d d e c isio n . S e e id . at 2 4 1 (c o n c lu d in g th a t ev id e n c e lin k in g d e f e n d a n t to

“ o rg a n ize d c rim e ” d o e s n o t, b yitse lf , w a rra n t an o n ym o u s ju ry ); U n ited S tate s v . M a n so o ri, 304 F. 3d 635, 651 ( 7t h C i r . 2002) ( conclud ing t hatchar ges expos i ng defe ndantt o l engthy p ri s o n te rm s d o n o t, b yth e m s e lv e s , s u p p o rt a n o n ym o u s ju ry).14

D efe ndant s do notcont end thatt he di s t r i ct co u rt fa i l ed t o t ake a dequat e pr ocedur al p r e c a u t i o n s t o e n s u r e t h a tt h e y w e r e n o t p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e s e l e c t i o n o f a n a n o n ym o u s j u r y,
norw oul d t he r ecor d s uppor ts uch an a r gum ent . T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s voi rdi r e w as
s uffi ci ent l ydet ai l ed t o compensa t e for j ur y anonym i t y , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. A ul i ci no, 44 F. 3d
a t 1 1 1 6 , an d th e c o u rt c o u c h e d its ju ry in stru c tio n re g a rd in g a n o n ym ity in su c h a w a ya s to avoi d i nt i m at i ng t hatdefe ndant s pos ed anyr i s k t o per s ons orto the jud i ci al pr oces s , s ee U nit ed S t at es v. P a c c io n e , 949 F
. 2d at11 92
. O n thi s r ecord, w e rej ectdefe nd ants ’
a n o n ym o u s ju ryc h a llen g e a s w ith o u t m e rit. B
. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s R emoval for C aus e of Pros pect i ve J ur or s O ppos ed t o t he Dea t h Pe n a l t y Ba s e d So l e l y o n Re s p o n s e s t o a Que s t i o n n a i r e D oes N ot W arr ant R eversal of D efen dan t s’ C on vict i on s A lth o u g h th e ju ryd e c id e d n o t to im p o se th e d e a th p e n a lty , d e f e n d a n ts a p p e a l th e ir convi ct i ons on t he gr ound that the r emoval forcaus e of c er t ai n j ur or s oppos ed t o capi t al puni s hm en t v i ol at ed thei rSi xt h A m endment r i ghtt o t r i al bya fa i rand i m par t i al j ur y . See U
. S. C ons t . amend V I ; W i t her s poon v. I l l i noi s , 391 U
. S. 510 ( 1968) ( hol di ng t hat , i n capi t al
c a se s, S ix th A m e n d m e n t p ro h ib its sy ste m a tic r e m o v a l o f v e n ire p e rso n s o p p o se d to d e a th pen a l t y )
. Sp e c i f

i c a l l y , d e f

e n d a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d b y r e l y i ng onl y on p rosp ec ti v e juro rs’ resp o n ses t o a w ri tt en q u esti o n n aire to d eterm ine w h ethe r a p erso n ’s oppos i t i on t o t he dea t h pena lt y w oul d, i n fac t , “pr eventors ubs t ant i al l yi m pai rt he per for m ance of hi s dut i es as a j ur or i n acc or dance w i t h [the cour t ’ s ] i ns t ruct i ons and [the j ur or ’ s ] oath. ” W ai nw r i ghtv. W i t t , 469 U
. S. 412, 424 ( 1985) ( i nt ernal quot ati on m ar ks15

om i t t ed)
. D efe ndant s s ubm i tt hator al i nqu iryi s es s ent i al t o anyr emoval forcaus e under W itt- W ith e rs p o o n . A tt he out s et , w e com m en d the p r act i ce of s om e or al exami nat i on of pr os pect i ve j ur or s i n capi t al cas es pr el i m i nary t o any r emoval for caus e base d on t hei rvi ew s aboutt he d ea th p en alt y . A t a m inim u m , o ral ex am ination p erm it s a tri al co u rtto as sess an ind ividu al’s
re sp o n se s in lig h t o f

d e m e a n o r, a n im p o rta n t f a c to r in c o m m a n d in g a p p e llate d e f e re n c e to th e u lti m a te W itt -W ith e r s p o o n d e ter m in a tio n . S e e g e n e ra llyU ttec h t v . B ro w n , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2218, 2223 ( 2007) ( col l ect i ng cas es and not i ng need t o defe rt o t r i al cour ti n j ur ys el ect i on “bec aus e s o m uch maytur n on a pot ent i al j ur or ’ s demeanor ”) ; cf. M u’ M i n v. V i r gi ni a, 500 U
. S. 415, 425 ( 1991) ( obs er vi ng t hat w ri t t en ans w er s t o ques t i onnai r e “w oul d notgi ve
couns el ort he court any expos ur e t o t he demeanor of t he j ur or i n t he cour s e of ans w er i ng t he cont entques t i ons ”)
. W e ar e notconvi nced, how ever , t hator al exami nat i on i s a c o n s t i tut i onal p re re q u isite to e v e ryf

o r - c a u se re m o v a l p u rsu a n t to W itt -W ith e rsp o o n . M o re im p o rta n t, even i f def

endant s coul d demonst r at e that , on t he part i cul arfac t s of thi s cas e, fur t heror al i nqui r y w as nece s s ary t o s uppor t t he chal l enged r emoval s , t heyw oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o t he
r el i ef theys eek on thi s appea l : r ever s al of thei rconvi ct i ons . A W i t t - W i t her s poon err or p re c lu d e s im p o sitio n o f th e d e a th p e n a lty , a p u n ish m e n t alre a d yre jec ted b yth e ju ryin d e f e n d a n ts’ c a se . It d o e s n o t w a rra n t r e v e rsa l o f th e u n d e rly in g c o n v ictio n . T o e x p lain th is concl us i on, w e begi n w i t h a r evi ew of the ques t i onnai r e pr oces s that is the s ubj ectof d e f e n d a n ts ’ c h a lle n g e .16 1. T he Q uest i on nair e Inquiryi n thi s C ase T o fa cil it ate the ex am ination o f the h u n d red s o f p erso n s su m m o n ed fo r po ssible jury
s er vi ce i n t hi s capi t al cas e, t he di s t r i ctcour templ oy ed a que s t i onnai r e s ubm i t t ed j oi nt l yby th e p a rt ie s . O f the fi ve ques t i ons pos ed t o pr os pect i ve j ur or s , t he fi r s t , i nqui r i ng as t o t he per s onal har ds hi p of s er vi ce, i s nother e ati s s ue. A cco rdin g ly , w e focus at t ent i on on t he
rem ainin g fo u r. Q u e stio n 2 a sk e d ju ro rs to u se a sc a le o f 1 to 7 to in d ica te h o w stro n g lyth e yg e n e ra lly favor ed oroppos ed the dea t h penal t y , w i t h 1 i ndi cat i ng “s t r ongl yoppos e” a nd 7 i ndi cat i ng “s t r ongl yfavor
. ” Q ues t i onnai r e at2. Q ues t i on 3 s ol i ci t ed s i m i l ari nfor m at i on bya s ki ng j ur or s t o chec k one of the fol l ow i ng cho i ces:
9 Favor t he death penal t yi n everycas e w her e s om eone ha s comm i t t ed an inten ti o n al m u rde r 9 Favort he dea t h penal t yi n m os tbutnotal l i nt ent i onal m ur dercas es 9 F a v o r th e d e a th p e n a ltyin so m e in ten tio n a l m u r d e r c a s e s b u t n o t all i nt ent i onal m ur dercas es 9 O ppos e the dea t h penal t yi n m os tbutnotal l i nt ent i onal m ur dercas es 9 O ppos e the deat h penal t y i n every cas e even w her e som eone ha s been i nt ent i onal l ym ur der ed I d. Q u e s t i o n 4 a s k e d p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s whe t h e ra p e r s o n who c o mmi t t e d i n t ent i onal
m u r d e ri n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n v o l v i n g p a r t i c u l a ra g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o r s s h o u l d “ n e c e s s a r i l y”
r ece i ve the dea t h penal t y . T he j ur or s w er e aske d t o i ndi cat e “Y es ” or “ N o” as t o eac h of t he fol l ow i ng fac t or s : ( a) “[t ] or tur e of the vi ct i m , ” ( b) “[k] i l l i ng of a w it n ess , ” ( c) “[a ] drug17

cons pi r acy , ” ( d) “[p] aym entorpr om i s e of pa ym ent , ” ( e) “[o] bs t ruct i on of j us t i ce, ” ( f) “[a ] defe ndantw i t h a pr i orm ur derconvi ct i on, ” and ( g) “[a ] defe ndan t w it h a pri orr ecor d of vi ol ence ot hert han murde r . ” I d. Fi nal l y , Q ues t i on 5 as ked fors i m i l ar“Y es ” or“N o” r es pons es t o w hethert he fol l ow i ng m i t i gat i ng fac t s “coul d
. . . s uppor ta s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm enti ns t ead of t he death penal t yfora per s on w ho comm i t s an i nt ent i onal m ur derof a pol i ce i nfor m ant ”: ( a) “[t ] he per s on h ad an abus i ve, negl ect ful orchaot i c chi l dhood, ” ( b) “[t ] he per s on had a
m e n ta l illn e s s o r e m o tio n a l d is tu rb a n c e ,” (c ) “ [ t] h e p e rs o n h a s b e lo w n o rm a l in te llig e n c e ,” ( d) “[t ] he murde rw as comm i t t ed underdur es s , ” ( e) “[o] t her s equal l ygui l t yw i l l notbe p u n ish e d b yd e a th ,” a n d (f ) “ [ t]h e v ictim h im se lf

e n g a g e d in c rim in a l co n d u c t lea d in g to h is d e a th .” I n pr opos i ng t hes e ques t i ons t o t he cour t , couns el for R odr i guez r epr es ent ed thatt hey
w o u ld b e h e lp f

u l in id e n ti f

yin g ju ro rs w ith v iew s s o e x tre m e th a t th e yc o u ld b e re a d ily
excus ed forcaus e: M S . B ARR ETT : . . . [T]he yar e hel pful i n t er m [s ] of, fori ns t ance w eedi ng out th [ o se ] j urors w ho answ er ei t her t he very t op , I w i l l nev er i m po se t he d e a th p e n a ltyu n d e r a n yc irc u m sta n c e s o r a t th e v e ry b o tto m , I b e liev e th a t th e d e a th p en alt ysh o u ld b e im p o sed in all case s -- C OURT : Th e o n l yf

o rc a u s e e x c l u s i o n s a r e th o s e t wo[ ?] M S . B ARR ETT : E x a c t l y. T r . of C onfer ence at33 ( M ay13, 2004). C o u n s e l f o r Q u in o n e s, h o w e v e r, in d ica ted th a t,
e v e n in su c h c irc u m sta n c e s, in d iv id u a l q u e st i on i ng w ou l d b e ap p ro p ria te “ b e c a u se ju ro rs w ill18

ch ec k 7 [(stron g lyfa v o r)] w h en theym ea n 1 [(stron g lyo p p o se)]. ” Id. at 3 5
. S u ch an erro r, i f one ha d occurr ed, w oul d have be en at l eas t par t i al l y corr ect ed by t he fac tt hatt he di s t r i ct
cour ti ndi cat ed thatextr eme ans w er s on bot h ends of t he s pectrum ( i
. e. , t hos e w ho chec ked 1 and thos e w ho chec ked 7) w oul d r es ul ti n r emoval of j ur or s . T he r i sk o f an er r oneous
rem o v al fo r ca u se w as m inim al be ca u se o n lyjuro rs w h o p rov ided eq u all yex tr em e a n sw ers t o al l four ques t i ons w er e excus ed for caus e on t he bas i s of thei rques t i onnai r e r es pons es . See
e. g. , T r . of C onfer ence at27 ( J une 15, 2004) ( no ti n g w it h respe ctt o j ur or s w ho expr es s ed
s uppor tfordeath penal t yt hatcourt w o u ld aut om at i cal l yexcus e onl yt hos e j ur or s w ho
r es pond ed to ea ch of the ques t i ons aboutt he dea t h penal t yas fol l ow s : “w ho ans w er [ed] ques t i on N o. 2 w i t h a 7 [i
. e. , “s t r ongl yfavor ” the dea t h penal t y ] , w ho ans w er [ed] ques t i on N o. 3 w i t h t he t op chec k [i
. e. , w oul d “[f ] avort he dea t h penal t yi n everycas e w her e s om eone has comm i t t ed an i nt ent i onal m ur der ”] , w ho ans w er [ed] “y es ” t o al l par t s of N o. 4 [i
. e. , t hat
everys peci fi ed aggr avat i ng fac t orw oul d “nec es s ar i l y ” w arr antt he death penal t y ] , and w ho
a n sw e r[ e d ] “ n o ” to e a c h p a rt o f N o . 5 [ i.e., th a t n o m it ig a tin g f a c to r “ c o u ld ” su p p o rt a
se n ten c e o f

lif e im p r is o n m e n t ra th e r th a n d e a th ].”) . A ju ro r w h o se a n sw e rs w e re a t all equi vocal ori ncons i s t entw oul d have be en br oughti n forfur t herques t i oni ng.

2. T he U s e of Q ues t i onnai r es i n t he V oirD i re P rocess A l t hough t he C ons t i tut i on m akes no m ent i on of v o irdi r e, t he l aw r ecogni zes t he i m por t an tr o l e t h i s p r o c e s s p l a y s i n e n s u r i n g t h e f a i ra n d i mpa r t i a l c r i mi n a l j u r yma n dat ed byt he Si xt h A m endment
. See M or gan v. I l l i noi s , 504 U
. S. 719, 729 ( 1992) ( obs er vi ng t hat19

“ p a rt o f th e g u a ra n tee o f

a d e f e n d a n t’s rig h t to a n im p a rtial ju ry is a n a d e q u a te v o ir d ire to i den t i fyun qu al i fi ed jur ors”)
. V oirdir e helps the tr ial courtand t he p art i es i den t i fyt ho se per s ons w ho, forvar i ous r eas ons , cannoteval uat e the ev i dence i m par t i al l yorfol l ow t he
c o u rt ’s l eg al i n stru cti o n s. S ee R o sales-L o p ez v . U n it ed S tat es, 45 1 U
. S
. 1 8 2 , 1 8 8 (19 8 1 ); U ni t ed St at es v. St ew ar t , 433 F. 3d 273, 303 ( 2d C i r . 2006)
. T hatbei ng s ai d, i thas l ong been t he rul e t hat “j udges have been accor ded ampl e di s cr et i on i n det er m i ni ng how bes tt o conduct t he v oirdir e, ” R osal es- L op ez v. U nit ed S t at es, 45 1 U
. S
. at18 9; s ee U nit ed S t at es v. L aw es, 2 9 2 F .3 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 8 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); a c c o rd F e d . R . C rim . P . 2 4 (a ) (d e sc rib in g c o u rt’s a u th o rity t o exami ne pr os pect i ve j ur or s orper m i t par t i es t o do s o) , and that“an a ppel l at e courtw i l l not in te rf e re w ith th e m a n n e r i n w h ic h it h a s b e e n c o n d u c te d a b s e n t a c le a r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n ,” U n it ed S tat es v . S alam eh , 1 5 2 F
. 3 d 8 8 , 1 2 1 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted);
s ee ge ner al l yZ er vos v. V er i zon N ew Y or k, I nc. , 252 F. 3d 163, 169 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( obs er vi ng th a t, w h e n m a tters a re lef t to d istric t co u rt d isc re tio n , law d o e s n o t re q u ire it t o f o llo w sin g le p ro c e d u re o r to re a c h p a rticu lar d e c isio n ; r a th e r, d isc re tio n e m p o w e rs c o u rt to a c t w ith in p e rm is s ib le ra n g e o f

c h o ic e s ). A ppl y i ng t hes e pr i nci pl es t o t hi s cas e, w e obs er ve att he out s ett hat a d ist r i ctj udge do es not abuse his dis cret i on si m plyby usi ng a w ri t t en qu est i on nair e i n t he vo i r di re pr ocess. A l t hough voi rdi r e or dinaril y cont empl at es s eei ng t he j ur or s and hea r i ng t hem spea k, s ee gener al l yC ar di nal v. G or czyk, 81 F. 3d 18, 20 ( 2d C i r . 1996) ( r efe r enci ng a def endant ’ s r i ghtB uts ee D avi d M el l i nkoff, T he L anguage of t he L aw , 101- 02, 106 ( 1963) ( obs er vi ng 7 t hat “ v o i rd i r e ” d e r i v e s f r o m O l d Fr e n c h , whe r e i tme a n s s i mpl y“ t o s p e a k t h e t ru t h , ” a nd n o ti n g “c o n fu sion resu lt s if the term is j u d g ed b ythe s tand ard s o f m o d ern F ren ch ”). 20 t o “s ee a nd hear ” pr os pect i ve j ur or s dur i ng voi r di r e) , anycour t - s uper vi s ed exa m i nat i on of 7 p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs is re a so n a b lyu n d e rsto o d to b e p a rt o f v o ir d ire . D istric t co u rts ro u tin e ly empl oyques t i onnai r es t o fac i l i t at e voi rdi r e i n a number of ci r cumst ance s , e. g. , w her e a l ar ge
num ber of pr os pect i ve j ur or s m us t be s cr eene d, s ee, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. R ahman, 189 F. 3d 88 , 12 1 (2d C i r. 19 99 ) ( app rovi ng cou rt ’s use of com prehen si ve q uest i on nair e i n case i nvol vi ng over500 pr os pect i ve jurors ) ; w her e an a nonym ous j ur yi s t o be empanel ed, s ee,
e . g . , U n i t e d S t a t e s v . T h a i , 2 9 F
. 3 d a t 8 0 1 ; w h e r e t h e r e h a s b e e n e x t e n s i v e p r e - t r i a l p u b l i c i t y,
s ee, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. St ew ar t , 433 F. 3d at 303; orw her e the dea t h penal t yi s s ought , s ee,
e. g. , U n it ed St at es v. W i l s on, 493 F. Supp. 2d 537, 544 ( E
. D
. N
. Y
. 2007) ( obs er vi ng, i n a capi t al cas e, t hat “[ n ]ea rl y 600 pot ent i al j ur or s came t o t hi s cour t r oom t o fi l l out56- page ques t i onnai r es pr epar ed by t he par t i es and by t he cour t ”) ; s ee al s o U ni t ed S t at es v. M cV ei gh, 1 5 3 F
. 3 d 1 1 6 6 , 1 1 8 1 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e u se o f su c h a p roc ed u re a s a p reli m inary
s cr eeni ng t ool fal l s w el l w i t hi n t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s br oad di s cr et i on i n conduct i ng voi rdi r e. S ee g en era ll yU n it ed S tat es v . R ah m an , 1 8 9 F
. 3 d at 12 1 -2 2 (ho lding , w h ere d istri ct co u rt
re m o v e d so m e p o ten tial ju ro rs f o r c a u se b a se d o n r e s p o n se s to q u e stio n n a ire s w h ile
c o n d u c tin g o ra l v o ir d ire o f re m a in in g v e n ir e p e rso n s, th a t co u rt’s “ v o ir d ire sk ill f u lly b a lan c e d th e d if

f icu lt t a sk o f

q u e stio n in g su c h a lar g e ju ry p o o l w ith th e d e f e n d a n ts’ rig h t to i nqui r e i nt o t he sens i t i ve i s s ues t hat m i ght ar i s e i n t he cas e”) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. C ont r er as , 108I n appr ovi ng t he us e of que s t i on n aires as partof voi rdi r e, w e do nothol d t hat 8 dis t ri ctj ud ges are eve r o b lig at ed to m ake u se of t his proced ure i n sel ect i ng j uri es. S ee U nit ed Stat es v. S al am eh, 15 2 F. 3d at 12 0-21 ( ho l ding di stri ct cou rt did no ta bu se di s cr et i on i n decl i ni ng to u se d ef ens e ques t i onnai r e w her e voi rdi r e w as t hor ough and p ro b in g ). 21 F .3 d 1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 9 -7 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (sa n c tio n in g re m o v a l o f p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs f o r c a u se in
non- capi t al cas es bas ed on ques t i onnai r e r es pons es ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Par adi es , 98 F. 3d 1266, 1 2 7 7 -81 (11 th C ir
. 1 9 9 6 ) (sam e). 8

3. R emoval s forC aus e B as ed on Q ues t i onnai r e R es pons es D efe ndant s s ubm i tt hata di s t r i ctcour tnevert hel es s abus es i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tr el i es onl yon ques t i onnai r e r es pons es i n r emovi ng a pros pect i ve j ur orforcaus e, par t i cul ar l yi n a capi t al cas e. W e ar e notconvi nced. A s a cor ol l aryt o t he Si xt h A m endment r i ght t o t r i al bya fa i rand i m par t i al j ur y , t he Supr eme C our thas rul ed thatpr os pect i ve j ur or s m aybe r emoved “forcaus e” onl yon “narr ow l ys peci fi ed, pr ovabl e, and l egal ly co g n izabl e bas [es ] of part i al i t y . ” Sw ai n v. A laba m a, 3 8 0 U
. S
. 2 0 2 , 2 2 0 (19 6 5 ); see U n it ed S tat es v. T o rres, 1 2 8 F
. 3 d 3 8 , 4 3 (2 d C ir. 1997) ( “[T] he ca t egoryof cha l l enges forcaus e i s l i m i t ed. ”)
. I n a ca pi t al cas e, r emoval for
caus e bas ed on a per s on’ s vi ew s aboutt he dea t h penal t yi s w arr ant ed onl yw her e i tcan be det erm i ned that“the j ur or ’ s vi ew s w oul d ‘ pr eventors ubs t ant i al l yi m pai rt he per for m ance of hi s dut i es as a j ur ori n acc or dance w i t h hi s i ns t ruct i ons and h is o ath.’” W ai nw r i ghtv. W i t t , 469 U
. S
. at 4 2 4 ( quot i ng A dams v. T exas , 448 U
. S. 38, 45 ( 1980) ) ; cf. W i t her s poon
v. I l l i noi s , 391 U
. S. at522 ( hol di ng t hatoppos i t i on t o t he death penal t yi s notenough, by22

its e lf , to s u p p o rtre m o v a l f

o r c a u s e ). W h il e t hes e s t andar ds nece s s ar i l ydel i neat e the boundar i es w i t hi n w hi ch a di s t r i ct
cou rt maye xe r c i s e i t s r e mova l di s c r e t i on , “ t he Cons t i tut i on l a y s do w n n o p a r t i c ul a rt est s”
orpr ocedur es for det er m i ni ng w hen t hes e s t andar ds ar e s at i s fi ed. U ni t ed St at es v. W ood, 2 9 9 U
. S
. 1 2 3 , 1 4 5 -46 (19 3 6 ); ac co rd U n it ed S tat es v . H ay n es, 39 8 F .2 d 9 8 0 , 9 8 3 (2d C ir
. 1 9 6 8 ) ( o b s e r v i n g t h a tt h e r e i s n o “ r i g i d f o r mu l a ” f

o rd e t e r mi n i n g i mp a r t i a l i t y )
. T h u s , we i dent i fyno gener al Si xt h A m endment pr os cr i pt i on on t he r emoval of j ur or s forcaus e bas ed
on qu est i on nair e res po nses. D efen dan t s nev ertheles s i nv i t e us t o hold t hat, i n cap i t al cases,
s om e or al ques t i oni ng i s cons t i tut i onal l ynece s s aryt o a W i t t - W i t her s poon det er m i nat i on of p a rt ia lity w a rr a n tin g re m o v a l. W e d e c lin e th is in v ita tio n . Pr el i m i naryt o expl ai ni ng our concl us i on, w e observe t hat t hi s cas e appear s t o pr es ent
a r a r e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l p r a c t i c e o f d i s tr i c t c o u r t s i n t h i s c i r c u i t , whi c h , i n s el ect i ng
c a p ital ju rie s, h a v e ro u tin e lye m p lo y e d so m e o ra l v o ir d ire in re so lv in g d isp u ted W itt
W i t h e r s p o o n c h a l l e n g e s . T h e p r a c t i c e i s c o m m e n d a b l e . T h e b l u n t n e s s o rh e s i t a n c y, confi dence or di s comfortdi s pl ay ed bypr os pect i ve j ur or s as t heyr es pond t o ques t i ons about t he pos s i bi l i t yof r etur ni ng a ca p it al ver di ctoft en r evea l s as m uch aboutbi as as t he ac tual
an sw ers g iven
. M ind fu l of this fac t, the S u p rem e C o u rt , in v irtuallyev ery ca p it al vo ird ir e
cas e fr om W i t tt hr ough U t t echt , has emphasi zed a tr ia l cour t ’ s oppor tuni t yt o obs er ve de mea no ri n a c c or di ng de fe r e nc e t o r e mova l de c i s i on s . Se e , e . g. , U t t e c htv. Br own, 12 7 S. C t . at22 24 (“D eference t o the t ri al cou rt i s app ropri at e becau se i t i s i n a p osi t i on t o assess23

t he demanor of t he veni r e. ”) ; D ar den v. W ai nw r i ght , 477 U
. S. 168, 178 ( 1986) ( not i ng t r i al
co u rt ’s rem o v al de cisi o n w as “ u n d o u b tedly ” a ided “b yit s ass essm en t of the p o tential juro r’s demeanor ”) ; W ai n w ri g h t v. W i t t , 469 U
. S. at426, 428 ( not i ng t r i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ng of bi as “i s bas ed upon det er m i nat i ons of demeanor and cr edi bi l i t y t hat ar e pecul i ar l y w i t hi n a tr i al j udge’ s pr ovince ” and “t hi s i s w hydefe r ence m us tbe pai d t o t he tr i al j udge w ho s ees and h e a rs th e ju ro r” ). T h u s, sim p lyto m ax im ize the irclaim o n o u r de fe ren ce , d istri ct co u rt s are
w e ll a d v i s e d t o e m p lo ys o m e o ra l v o ird ir e in m a k in g W itt- W ith e rs p o o n d e c is io n s . H ow evers t r ongl yw e r ecomm end s om e or al voi rdi r e i n capi t al cas es , w e do not
c on c l ud e t ha t t he pr oc e du r e i s c on s t i tut i on a l l y mand a t e d. Cf. M u’ M i n v . V i r gi ni a , 50 0 U. S. at425- 26 ( “To be cons t i tut i onal l ycompel l ed .
. . it is n otenough thats uch [voi rdi r e] ques t i ons m i ghtbe hel pful
. R ather , t he tr i al cour t ’ s fai l ur e t o as k t hes e ques t i ons m us tr ender th e d e f e n d a n t’s tria l f

u n d a m e n tall y u n f

a ir .” ). A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s m a d e c lea r, in capi t al cas es , no l es s t han i n non- capi t al cas es , t he C ons t i tut i on does notdi ct at e a pa r t i cul ar voi rdi r e pr oces s ; i tdemands onl yt hatt he pr oces s be “a dequat e . . . t o i dent i fyunqual i fi ed j u r o r s . ” M o r g a n v . I l l i n o i s , 5 0 4 U. S. a t 7 2 9 ( “ Th e Con s t i tu t i o n . . . d o e s n o t d i c t at e a cat echi s m forvoi rdi r e, butonl yt hatt he def endantbe af

for ded an i m par t i al j ur y . ”)
. T o be
a d e q u a te , v o ird ir e n e e d n o t e s t a b lis h ju ro r p a rt ia lity w ith “ u n m is ta k a b le c la ri ty.” W ai nw r i ghtv. W i t t , 469 U
. S. at424 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)
. R ather , i tm us tbe
su f f icie n t to p e rm it a tria l ju d g e to f o rm “ a d e f

in ite im p re ss io n th a t a p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r w o u ld be unabl e t o fai t hful l yand i m par t i al l yappl yt he l aw . ” I d. at426.24

W h ethe r qu esti o n n aire resp o n ses, w ith o u t m o re, can co n v eythe im p ression necessary t o r emoval forcaus e admi t s no eas y ans w er appl i cabl e t o al l cas es . J ur orpar t i al i t ycan, aft er al l , t ake va r i ous for m s : actual , i m pl i ed, ori nfe rred
. See U ni t ed St at es v. T or r es , 128 F. 3d at43
. A ctual bi as i s “b i as i n fac t , ” i d. , gen eral l yevidenced by“exp res s proof, ” such a s a j ur or ’ s admi s s i on t o “a s t at e of mi nd pr ej udi ci al t o a p arty ’s int er es t . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Ha y n e s , 3 9 8 F
. 2 d a t9 8 4
. I mp l i e d b i a s i s “ b i a s c o n c l u s i v e l yp r e s u me d a s a ma t t e ro f l a w” f ro m c irc u m sta n c e s in w h ich a n a v e ra g e p e rso n in th e p o sitio n o f th e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r w o u ld be pr ej udi ced. U ni t ed St at es v. T or r es , 128 F. 3d at45. Infe r r ed bi as exi s t s “w hen a j ur or di s cl os es a fa ctt hatbes peaks a r i s k of part i al i t ys uffi ci ent l y s i gni fi cantt o w arr antgr ant i ng the tri al j u d g e discretion to exc u se th e j u ror fo r ca u se, b u t n o t so g rea t as t o m ak e m an d atory
a p re su m p tio n o f

b ias .” Id . at 4 7 . A s th e f lu id it y o f

th e se c a teg o rie s s u g g e sts , so m e f a c ts
m ayr evea l j ur orpar t i al i t ym or e obvi ous l yt han other s . W hi l e bl untacknow l edgment of bi as
m aysu p p o rtrem o v al w ith o u t fu rth er inq u iry , the m o re a m b igu o u s a p rosp ec ti v e juro r’s
r es pons es , t he more us eful demeanor , and thus or al i nqui ry , become i n al l ow i ng a tr i al j udge t o i dent i fypar t i al i t yw arr ant i ng r emoval forcaus e. See gene r al l yU t t echtv. B row n, 127 S. C t . at2223 ( r ecogni zi ng i m por t ance of de m eanori n al l ow i ng t r i al cour tt o r es ol ve
a m b ig u ity in p ro s p e c tiv e ju ro r’ s re s p o n s e s ). I n t he non- capi t al cont ext , w e w oul d be l oath t o concl u d e tha ta tr i al j udge had vi ol at ed the Si xt h A m endment orexce eded hi s di s cr et i on w hen, w ith o u t o ral i nqui r y , he
r e m o v e d f

o rc a u s e a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r w h o , o n a w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n n a i r e , d e m o n s t r a t e d b i a s b y,M or gan’ s r efe r ence t o “aut om at i c” deci s i onm aki ng der i ves fr om W i t her s poon. See 9 W i t her s poon v. I l l i noi s , 391 U
. S. at 522 n. 21. A l t hough W i t tdi s pens ed w i t h t hi s s t andar d, i tdi d s o beca us e i tw as i nadequa t e t o i dent i fyal l per s ons oppos ed t o t he dea t h penal t yw ho m i ghtpr oper l ybe r emoved forcaus e: “[I ] t does notm ake s ens e t o r equi r e s i m pl yt hata j ur or not ‘ aut om at i cal l y ’ vot e agai ns t t he death penal t y ; w hetherornota veni r eman m i ghtvot e for 25 e. g. , r evea l i ng t hat he w as t he defe ndant ’ s br ot her or t he pr os ecut or ’ s uncl e, s t at i ng t hathe t houghtal l per s ons of t he defenda nt ’ s ethni ci t y w er e cr i m i nal s , or pr onounci ng t hathe had
a l r e a d y c o n c l u d e d f

r o m t h e n a tu r e o f t h e c h a r g e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t m u s t b e g u i l t y. I r r evoca bl e bi as w oul d be s o evi dent fr om t hes e w r i t t en r es pons es as t o r enders uper fl uous fur t heror al i nqui r yaboutt he j ur or ’ s ab il it y t o fol l ow l egal i ns t ruct i ons and t o s er ve im p a rtially . S e e g e n e ra lly U n ited S tate s v . T o rre s, 1 2 8 F .3 d a t 4 7 (o b se rv in g th a t, o n c e f a c ts
ar e el i ci t ed perm it ti ng fi ndi ng of bi as , “j ur or ’ s s t at ement s as t o hi s orherabi l i t yt o be im p a rt ia l b e c o m e ir re le v a n t” ). T he s ame l ogi c appl i es i n capi tal case s . See gene r al l yU ni t ed St at es v. M oor e, 149 F .3 d 7 7 3 , 7 8 0 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (u p h o ld in g re m o v a l o f ju ro r w h o in d ica ted th a t h e w o u ld
co n side r de ath pe n alt y o n ly if d ef en d an t had m u rde red 1 0 0 p eo p le, n o tw ith stan d ing juro r’s
as s ur ance t hathe coul d fol l ow rul e of l aw )
. T he Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed thatw hen
a p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r in d ica tes th a t h e w ill “ a u to m a tica llyv o te” f o r o r a g a in st th e d e a th p e n a lty

“ in e v e ryc a se ,” th a t is su f f icie n t to c o n c lu d e th a t th e p e rso n “ w ill f a il i n g o o d f

a ith to
c o n sid e r th e e v id e n c e o f a g g ra v a tin g a n d m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s a s th e [ re lev a n t le g a l] i ns t ruct i ons r equi r e hi m t o do, ” and t o s uppor t hi s r emoval forcaus e. M or gan v. I l l i noi s , 504 U
. S. at729, 733. T her e i s no r eas on t o t hi nk t hatanydi ffe r entconcl us i on obt ai ns w hen 9death undercert ai n per s onal s t andar ds , t he St at e s t i l l m aypr oper l ychal l enge thatveni r eman

i f he r efus es t o fol l ow t he s t atut or y sch em e and t rut hful l yans w ert he ques t i ons putbyt he t ri al j ud ge. ” W a i nwr i gh tv. W i t t , 46 9 U. S. a t42 2- 24
. The c on c l us i on t o d r a w fr om t hese devel opm ent s , as M or gan expl ai ns , i s t hat , i f a j ur orw oul d aut om at i cal l yvot e aga i nstt he death penal t yi n everyi nt ent i onal m ur dercas e, i tnece s s ar i l yfol l ow s t hathe w oul d be se rio u slyim p a ire d in th e g o o d f a ith p e rf o rm a n c e o f ju ry se rv ice a n d , the re f o re , rem o v a b le f o r c a u s e . S e e M o rg a n v . Il lin o is , 5 0 4 U
. S . a t 7 3 3 ; W a in w ri g h t v . W itt, 4 6 9 U .S . a t 4 2 4
. 26 s uch i r r evoca bl e part i al i t yi s el i ci t ed i n r es pons e t o a ques t i onnai r e r athert han t o or al
e x a m in a tio n .

4. D efe ndant s D emonst r at e N o E r r orW arr ant i ng R el i ef
a. D efe r ent i al R evi ew of R emoval D eci s i ons T he fa ctt hat , even i n capi t al cas es , w e do notcat egor i cal l yr ej ec t the pos s i bi l i t yof
r emoval s for caus e base d on ques t i onnai r e re s pons es , does notr es ol ve the i s s ue of w hether t he q uest i on nair e res po nses i n thi s case w ere s uff i ci ent t o sup po rtt he ch al l eng ed rem ov al s. I n a r g u i n g t h a t t h e y we r e n o t , d e f e n d a n t s u r g e u s t o a p p l y d e n o v o r e v i e w. At t h e o u t s e t , we
no t e a c i r c u i ts p l i ta s t o t h e d e g r e e o f a p p e l l a t e d e f

e r e n c e p r o p e r l ya c c o r d e d r e moval deci s i ons m ade w i t houtor al i nqui r yi n capi t al cas es . C om par e U ni t ed St at es v. C hanthadar a, 2 3 0 F .3 d 1 2 3 7 , 1 2 6 9 -7 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (a p p ly in g d e n o v o re v iew in c a p ital c a se to
r e m o v a l s f

o rc a u s e b a s e d s o l e l y o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e s ) , w i t h U n i t e d S t a t e s v . P u r k e y, 4 2 8 F .3 d 7 3 8 , 7 5 0 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (re v iew in g re m o v a ls f o r ca u se in c a p ital c a se b a se d so lely on ques t i onnai r e r es pons es onl yforabus e of di s cr et i on, obs er vi ng t hat“[o] t herr eas ons , s uch
a s re sp e c t f

o r th e tr ial p ro c e ss , the e x p e rtise d e v e lo p e d b ytrial ju d g e s, a n d th e d e sire to27

cons er ve j udi ci al r es our ces ” m ade de novo r evi ew i nappr opr i at e)
. W hi l e our cour t has not pr evi ous l yaddr es s ed thi s questi o n , w e ar e di s i ncl i ned t o adopta dual s t andar d of r emoval
r evi ew i n capi t al cas es dependi ng on w hetherj ur or bi as m ani fes t s i t s el f or al l yori n w r i t i ng. T he fa ctt hati tm aybe ea s i erforus t o concl u d e that there has been no a bus e of di s cr et i on
w hen a tr i al cour t ' s r emoval deci s i ons ar e i nfor m ed bydemeanori s i ns uffi ci ent t o per s uade
u s t h a tb i a s f

i n d i n g s b a s e d o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e s a r e s u b j e c tt o d e n o v o r e v i e w. A s t he Supr eme C our tobs er ved i n W ai nw r i ghtv. W i t t , t he i dent i fi cat i on of j ur orbi as i s a fa ctual fi ndi ng “conc erni ng t h e veni r eman’ s s t at e of mi nd” thati s deci dedl yt he

“ p ro v in c e ” o f th e trial j u d g e .” W a in w rig h t v . W itt , 4 6 9 U .S . at 4 2 8 . T h e C o u rt h a s e x p re ss ly i ns t ruct ed “a ppel l at e court s . . . nott o deci de” s uch ques t i ons of fa ct“de novo, ” M ai ne v. T ay l or , 477 U
. S. 131, 145 ( 1986) , and w e s ee no r eas on t o cr eat e an e xcept i on t o t hi s rul e for bi as fi ndi ngs bas ed on w r i t t en r es pons es t o ques t i onnai r es . A l t hough W i t temphasi zed the val ue of c r edi bi l i t yand demeanoras s es s m ent s i n t he s el ect i on of a c api t al j ur y , 469 U
. S. at 428, t hos e w er e nott he exc l us i ve r eas ons foracc or di ng defe r ence t o t he tr i al cour t ’ s r emoval d e c isio n s. T h e C o u rt c ited w ith a p p ro v a l J u d g e H ig g in b o th a m ’s s p e c ial c o n c u rre n c e in O ’B ry an v . E st el l e, 71 4 F
. 2d 36 5, 39 2 (5t h C i r. 19 83 ), w hich “art full y d iscu sses t ho se fac t o rs, i n addi t i on t o t he tr i al cour t ' s advant age of havi ng s een a nd hear d t he j ur or , w hi ch di ct at e def

er ence t o t he tr i al j udge’ s deci s i on undert hes e ci r cumst ance s . ” W ai nw r i ghtv. W it t , 46 9 U
. S
. at 42 8 n. 10 ; see O ’B ry an v. E st el l e, 71 4 F. 2d at 39 6 ( i den t i fy i ng fact ors to in c lu d e f in a litya s w e ll as “ th e v a lu e s o f c o m itya n d o f

re sp e c t f

o r tria l co u rt in teg rityw ith28

i t s s om et i m e s uper i oroppor tuni t yforacc ur at e dec i s i onm aki ng”)
. W e not e thatJ udge H ig g in b o th a m , in d isc u ss in g a d is trict c o u rt’s d e c isio n -m a k in g c o m p e ten c y , im p licitly acknow l edged thatr emoval deci s i ons w oul d noti nvol ve or al exami nat i on i n everyi ns t ance : A t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on t o s us t ai n a cha l l enge f orcaus e bec aus e the veni r eman w o u ld a u to m a tic a llyv o te a g a in st th e d e a th p e n a ltyso m e tim e s p re se n ts q u e stio n s o f f

a c t in th e se n se th a t th e trial c o u rt m u st c h o o se f ro m p e rm iss ib le i nfer ence s . T hatchoi ce i s oft en ai ded bythe oppor tu ni t yt o obs er ve and s om et i m es cannotbe m ade w i t hout t hat oppor tuni t y . I f w e r eal l ym ean thatt he r evi ew i s w hol l y afr es h [i
. e. , de novo r evi ew ] , one can w onderi f w e ar e t el l i ng t he tr i al j udge nott o m ake the choi ce. O ’B rya n v . E s te lle ,7 1 4 F .2 d a t 3 9 3 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T hus , w hi l e the i m por t ance of d em ea n o r to a de t er m i nat i on of j ur orbi as cannotbe gai ns ai d, s ee, e. g. , U t t echtv. B r ow n, 127 S. C t . at2229, o ther com pel l i ng r eas ons j us t i fy appel l at e def

er ence t o a tr i al cour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs of bi as even w hen made on t he bas i s of ques t i onnai r e r es pons es . A s t he Supr eme C our thas expl ai ned: T he r at i onal e fordefe r ence . . . is n o t l i m i t ed t o t he s uper i or i t yof the tr i al j udge’ s pos i t i on t o m ake de t er m i nat i ons of cr edi bi l i t y . T he t r i al j udge’ s m aj or ro le is th e d e ter m in a tio n o f f a c t, an d w ith e x p e rie n c e in f u lf ill in g th a t ro le c o m e s e x p e rtise
. D u p lica tio n o f th e trial ju d g e ’s e f

f o rts in th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls w oul d veryl i kel yco n tr i but e onl ynegl i gi bl yt o t he ac cur acyof fa ct det er m i nat i on ata huge c os ti n di ver s i on of j udi ci al r es our ces . I n addi t i on, t he p a rties to a c a se o n a p p e a l h a v e a lre a d y b e e n f o rc e d to c o n c e n tra te th e ir ener gi es and r es our ces on per s uadi ng t he t r i al j udge thatt hei racc ountof the fa cts is t he corr ectone; r equi r i ng t hem t o per s uade thr ee mor e j udges att he a p p e lla te le v e l is re q u ir in g to o m u c h
. A nd erson v. C i t yof B es s emer C i t y , N
. C
. , 470 U
. S. 564, 574- 75 ( 1985)
. T hi s cour thas
s i m i l ar l yobs er ved thatt he def er ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew forfac tual fi ndi ngs bas ed on or al t es t i m onyand document aryevi dence i s gr ounded i n t he “be l i ef that d istr i ctcour t s have a29

g o o d d e a l o f

‘e x p e rt is e ’ w h e n it c o m e s to f a c t- f in d in g .” Z e rv o s v . V e ri z o n N e w Y o rk , In c ., 252 F. 3d 163, 168 ( 2d C i r . 2001)
. T he observat i on i s par t i cul ar l yapti n t he cont extof fa ctual fi ndi ngs m ade dur i ng j ur ys el ect i on, a pr oces s w i t h w hi ch t r i al j udges ar e i nt i m at el yfami l i ar
a n d in w h ich a p p e llate c o u rts h a v e n o o p p o rtu n ityto p a rticip a te. C f
. I llin o is v . A b b o tt & A s s oci at es , 460 U
. S. 557, 564 n. 8 ( not i ng s peci al defe r ence d u e t r i al j udge w ho “had
a c q u ir e d a u n iq u e f

a m ilia ri ty w ith ” th e s u p e rv is io n o f g ra n d ju ri e s ). I n s um , beca us e a fi ndi ng of j ur or bi as i s a factual det er m i nat i on uni quel yw i t hi n t he pr ovi nce of

t he tr i al cour t , s ee W ai nw r i ghtv. W i t t , 469 U
. S. at429; U t t echtv. B r ow n, 127 U
. S. at19 ( des cr i bi ng t r i al cour tas “i n a s uper i orpos i t i on t o det er m i ne the demeanorand qual i fi cat i ons of a pot ent i al j ur or ” (e m phas i s added) ) , w e conc l ude that , w hethert he fi ndi ng is m ad e on the ba sis o f w ri tt en resp o n ses t o a qu esti o n n aire, o ral resp o n ses t o in -c o u rt exami nat i on, ors om e combi nat i on of the tw o, i ti s pr oper l yr evi ew ed und er o u rpr ece dent f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . M o ra le s , 1 8 5 F .3 d 7 4 , 8 4 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). b. B i as E vi dence d byt he Q ues t i onnai r e R es pons es Ap p l y i n g t h i s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t o t h e c h a l l e n g e d r e mo v a l d e c i s i o n s i n t h i s c a s e , we focus fi r s ton t hr ee que s t i onnai r e i nqui r i es . E ach pe r s on w hos e r emov al i s her e ati s s ue des cr i bed hi m s el f, i n r es pons e t o ques t i on t w o, att he hi gh est-of fe red numer i cal l evel of
o p p o sitio n to th e d e a th p e n a lty . S e e su p ra a t P a rt II.B .1 . P re se n ted w ith a list o f p o ss ib le aggr avat i ng and mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s for i nt ent i onal m ur deratques t i ons fourand fi ve,
s ee i d. , eac h s uch per s on iden ti fi ed no aggr avat i ng fac t ort hatw oul d nece s s ar i l yw arr ant i m pos i t i on of the dea t h penal t y , buti dent i fi ed ea ch p os s i bl e mi t i gat i ng fac t oras one that30

c o u ld s u p p o rt a s e n te n c e o f lif e im p ri s o n m e n t in lie u o f th e d e a th p e n a lty. W h ile th e se th re e re sp o n se s p lain lyre v e a l stro n g o p p o sitio n to th e d e a th p e n a lty , it i s not c l e a rt h a t , b yt h e ms e l v e s , t h e ys u f f i c e t o s u p p o r tr e mov a l f o rc a u s e u n d e rSu p r eme C o u rt p re c e d e n t. In A d a m s v . T e x a s, th e S u p re m e C o u rt ru led th a t o p p o sitio n to th e d e a th penal t y , even w hen gr ounded i n r el i gi ous convi ct i on, does notbyi t s el f s uppor tr emoval for
caus e bec aus e s uch vi ew s m i ghti ndi cat e “onl yt hatt he pot ent i al l yl ethal cons equenc es of t hei r[s ent enci ng] deci s i on w oul d i nves t[thes e p r o s p e c t i v e j ur or s ’ ] del i ber at i ons w i t h gr eat er
s er i ous nes s and gr avi t yorw oul d i nvol ve them emot i onal l y . ” 448 U
. S. at49. Such r eas oni ng p re su m e s th a t a p e rso n w h o d id n o t th in k th a t an ylisted a g g ra v a tin g f a c to r n e c e ss a rily
wa r r a n t e d a d e a t h s e n t e n c e mi g h t , o n f u r t h e ri n q u i r y , i n d i c a t e a n a b i l i t yt o c o n c e i v e o f s o me
c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n w h i c h a n a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o rc o u l d p r o m p th i m t o v o t e f o rt h e d e a t h p e n a l t y. Si m i l ar l y , a per s on w ho t houghtt hatanyof a l i s tof m i t i gat i ng fac t or s coul d s up p o r ta l i fe
s ent ence r atherthan dea t h m i ght , upon fur t herques t i oni ng, i n d i c a t e th a tn o ta l l ci r cumst ance s in v o lv in g th e s e m itig a tin g f a c to rs w o u ld n e c e s s a ri ly su p p o rt th a t c o n c lu s io n . In th is c a se , h o w e v e r, th e d istric t c o u rt d id n o t re lyso lelyo n th e se th re e re sp o n se s in
r emovi ng cert ai n per s ons forcaus e. I t or der ed r emoval onl yi f, i n r es pons e t o ques t i on t hr ee,
se e su p ra a t P a rt II.B .1 , a p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r also in d ica ted o p p o sitio n to th e d e a th p e n a ltyin
e v e ryc a se o f

in ten tio n a l m u rd e r. T h is re sp o n se , v iew e d to g e th e r w ith th e o th e r th re e , is
cert ai nl ym or e i ndi cat i ve of a bs ol ut e oppos i t i on t o t he deat h penal t yt hatcoul d “pr eventor
s ubs t ant i al l yi m pai rt he per for m ance ” of a j ur or ’ s dut i es “i n acc or dance w i t h hi s i ns t ruct i ons and hi s oath. ” W ai nw r i ghtv. W i t t , 469 U
. S. at424; cf. M or gan v. I l l i noi s , 504 U
. S. at72931

( “A j u r o r who wi l l a u t o ma t i c a l l y v o t e f o r th e d e a t h p e n a l t y i n e v e r y c a s e wi l l f a i l i n good fai t h t o cons i der t he evi dence of aggr avat i ng and m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s as t he i ns t ruct i ons req u ir e h im to d o . ”). N ev erthe less, w e are reluc tant to rea ch that co n clus ion o n the re co rd befor e us , w hi ch fa i l s t o i ndi cat e w hat , i f any , pr el i m i naryi ns t ruct i ons w er e gi ven byt he d istric t co u rt to th e ju ryp a n e l ab o u t th e q u e stio n n a ire g e n e ra llyo r q u e stio n n u m b e r th re e in p a rticu lar a s it b o re o n th e o p e n m in d e d n e ss n e c e ss a ry f o r c a p ita l se rv ice . S e e g e n e ra lly D ar den v. W ai nw r i ght , 477 U
. S. at 178 ( not i ng t he r emoval deci s i on w as pr oper l yi nfor m ed b y j uror’ s pres ence through ou tprocess that “m ade the pu rpose and m eaning o f t he W itt inq u iryab so lutelyclea r”). W e h av e n o t pu rsu ed that p o int w ith the p arti es, ho w ev er, beca us e, as w e expl ai n i n t he next s ect i on, even i f defe ndant s had been abl e t o per s uade us t hat t he chal l eng ed r em ov al s w ere error , t hat w ou l d n ot ent i t l e t hem t o an yrel i ef i n thi s case in w h ic h th e ju ry d id n o t im p o s e th e d e a th p e n a lty.

c . A W

i t t - W i thers poon E r r orD oes N otSuppor tR ever s al of a C onvi ct i on T he l aw is c l eart hata W i t t - W i t her s poon err orpr ecl udes t he governm entfr om i m pos i ng t he dea t h penal t y . I tdoes not , how eve r, m an d at e r ever s al of the under l y i ng
co n v ict ion
. W ith ersp o o n it self m ak es th is po int. A t th e sa m e ti m e tha t the S u p rem e C o u rt t her ei n rul ed that“[n] o defe ndantcan c ons t i tut i onal l ybe pu t to d ea th att he hands of a t r i bunal ” fr om w hi ch per s ons w er e exc l uded s i m pl ybeca us e theyexpr es s ed s om e obj ect i on t o t he dea t h penal t y , W i t her s poon v. I l l i noi s , 391 U
. S. at522- 23, i tpoi nt edl yobs er ved that
s u c h a n e rr o r d o e s n o t “ a f f e c t th e v a lid ity o f

a n ys e n t e n c e o t h e r t h a n o n e o f d e a th [ o r]
. . .32

re n d e r in v a lid th e c o n v ic tio n , a s o p p o s e [ d ] to th e [ d e a th ] s e n te n c e , in th is o r a n yo th e r c a s e .” I d. at523 n. 21 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. T he C our tr ei t er at ed this d ist inction i n M or gan v. I l l i noi s , r ever s i ng a dea t h s ent ence bas ed on i nadequa t e voi r di r e, but not i ng t hatt hi s deci s i on had “no beari ng on t he v al i dity o f p e ti t i on er’ s conv i ct i on , ” 50 4 U
. S
. at73 9 n
. 11 ; see al so G r ay v. M i s s i s s i ppi , 481 U
. S. 648, 650, 668 ( 1987) ( obs er vi ng t hatW i t her s poon err orm eans “a de ath s ent ence i m pos ed by t he j ur y cannot s t and, ” and r ever s i ng j udgm entonl y“i ns ofar
as i ti m pos es th e d ea th s ent ence ”) ; A dams v. T exas , 448 U
. S. at51 ( obs er vi ng t hat W i t her s poon err or“di s ent i t l es t he St at e t o execu te a se nt ence of dea t h” and r ever s i ng j udgm ent“t o t he ext entt hati ts us t ai ns t he i m pos i t i on o f the dea t h penal t y ”) ; D avi s v. G eor gi a, 429 U
. S. 122, 123 ( 1976) ( hol di ng t hat , w her e veni r eman i s i m pr oper l yexcl uded fr om j ur yforoppos i t i on t o capi t al puni s hm ent , “s ubs equent l yi m pos ed dea t h penal t ycannot
s ta n d ” ). B um perv. N or t h C ar ol i na, 391 U
. S. 543 ( 1968), d ec ide d i n t he s ame y earas W i t her s poon, l ends fur t hers uppor tt o t hi s concl us i on. L i ke the def endant s i n t hi s cas e, B u m p e r w a s f

o u n d g u ilty o f

a c a p ital c rim e b u t, on th e ju ry ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n , se n ten c e d to l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . H e ar gued forr ever s al of hi s convi ct i on on t he gr ound t hatt he r emoval forcaus e of pr os pect i ve j ur or s oppos ed t o t he dea t h penal t yvi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o an i m par t i al j ur y . I n a si ngl e s ent ence , t he Supr eme C our tdi s m i s s ed the ar gum ent , not i ng t hat“[o] ur d ec isi o n in W ith ersp o o n d o e s n o t g o v ern the p rese n t case , b ec au se h ere the ju ryB um per’ s conv i ct i on w as, ho w ever, rever sed based on t he fa i l ure t o sup press 10 e v id e n c e p ro c u re d in a n u n la w f u l se a rc h
. B u m p e r v . N o rt h C a ro lin a , 3 9 1 U .S . a t 5 4 8 -5 1
.

33 r ecomm ended a s ent ence of l i fe i m p ri s onm ent . ” I d. at545. T he s ame r eas oni ng appl i es 10 i n t hi s cas e: even i f the def endant s coul d demonst r at e a W i t t - W i t her s poon err ori n t he
rem ov al for cause of cert ai n j urors , t heyw ou l d n ot be ent i t l ed to r eversal of thei r convict i on s.

d. D efe ndant s Fai l t o D emonst r at e O t herPr ej udi ce Suppor t i ng R ever s al T o th e e x ten t d e f

e n d a n ts a ttem p t to a v o id th is c o n c lu sio n b y f r a m in g a S ix th A m e n d m e n t c h all en g e to th eir co n v ict ion s in n o n -ca p it al t erm s, su ch an alt ern ati v e e ff o rt har dl yl i ght ens t hei rappel l at e bur den. W her e t he death penal t y i s not ati s s ue, a def endant
se e k in g re v e rsa l o f

h is c o n v ictio n b a se d o n a lleg e d d e f e c ts in ju ryse lec tio n m u st de m o n stra te
m o re than err or ; he mustes t abl i s h t he ac tual par t i al i t yof the j ur yt hatconvi ct ed hi m . See U n ited S tate s v . R u b in , 3 7 F .3 d 4 9 , 5 4 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (h o ld in g th a t, fo r d e f e n d a n t to p re v a il
on cl ai m t hatcour terr ed i n fai l i ng t o r emove cer t ai n j ur or s forcaus e, he must“es t abl i s h t hat t he j ur yt hateventual l yconvi ct ed hi m w as noti m par t i al ”) ; acc or d U ni t ed St at es v. M ar t i nezSal aza r , 528 U
. S. 304, 307 ( 2000) ( obs er vi ng t hat defe ndant “convi ct ed by a j ur yon w hi ch
n o b iased juro r sat . . . h as n o t b e e n d ep ri v ed o f a n yrule-b ase d o r co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t”). D efen dan t s subm i tt hat the err on eou s r em ov al for cause of a cat ego ry of p ers on s, i
. e. , t ho se
s t r ongl yoppos ed t o t he deat h penal t y , nece s s ar i l ym eans t hatt hei rgui l tw as adj udi cat ed by
a ju ry th a t w a s n o t im p a rt ia l. T h e a rg u m e n t is u n c o n v in c in g f o r s e v e ra l r e a s o n s . Fi r s t , t he fact t hat t he Supr eme C our thas neverr ever s ed a c onvi ct i on upon a fi ndi ngT h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s c lea rlyru led th a t a n o n -c a p ital d e f e n d a n t w h o is jo in tly 11 t r i ed w i t h a ca pi t al defe ndantby a deat h- qual i fi ed j ur ycannotm ake outa cl ai m of u n co n sti tuti o n al pa rt ial ity . S ee B u ch an an v . K en tuck y , 4 8 3 U
. S
. 4 0 2 , 4 1 9 -20 (19 8 7 ). 34 of a W i t t - W i t her s poon err or s t r ongl y i ndi cat es t hatt her e i s no m er i tt o t he cl ai m t hats uch an
e rro r n e c e ss a rilyp ro d u c e s a ju ryth a t is n o t im p a r ti a l in d e ter m in in g g u ilt . S e e g e n e ra lly L o ck h art v. M cC ree , 4 7 6 U
. S
. 1 6 2 , 1 8 3 (19 8 6 ) (“ [T ]he C o n sti tuti o n p resu p p o ses th at a jury
s el ect ed fr om a fa i rcr os s s ect i on of the comm uni t yis i m par t i al , r egar dl es s of the mi x of i ndi vi dual vi ew poi nt s ac tuallyr epr es ent ed on the j ur y , s o l ong as t he j ur or s can
cons ci ent i ous l yand pr oper l ycarr youtt hei rs w or n dut yt o app lyt he l aw t o t he fa ct s of t he p arti cu lar case
. ”). 11 Second, U ni t ed St at es v. Sal amone, 800 F. 2d 1216 ( 3d C i r . 1986) , t he s ol e ca s e ci t ed bydefe ndant s t o s uppor tt hei rar gum ent , i s rea d il y d is t i ngui s habl e. I n Sal amone, t he defe ndant s w er e cha r ged w i t h fi r earm s offe ns es . T he T hi r d C i r cui tconcl uded thatr emoval f o r c a u se o f

p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs b a se d o n g r o u p a f f ilia tio n , su c h a s th e N a tio n a l R if le A s s oci at i on, depr i ved the def end an t o f an i m par t i al j ur ybeca us e i tw as , i n es s ence , bas ed up o n an uns ubs t ant i at ed pr es um pt i on of bi as r es ul t i ng fr om connec t i on t o a part i cul ar
o r g a n i z a t i o n . S e e i d
. a t1 2 2 6
- 2 7
. W i t h o u td e c i d i n g wh e t he r w e w ou l d r e a c h t h e s a me concl us i on on s i m i l arfac t s , w e not e thatthe rem o v als i n t he i ns t antcas e w er e notbas ed
s i m pl yon bi as i nferr ed fr om gr oup aff i l i at i on oreven f

r om anygener al oppos i t i on t o t he d ea th p en alt y . R athe r, rem o v al w as b ase d o n sp ec ifi c v iew s ex p resse d b yind ividu al j u rors i ndi cat i ng s uch aut om at i c oppos i t i on to the d eath penal t yi n everycas e as t o s ugges tt hat par t i al i t ypr event ed oratl eas t s ubs t ant i al l y i m pai r ed t he par t i cul arj ur or ’ s abi l i t yt o r ender35

good fai t h s er vi ce c ons i s t entw i t h t he l aw . See W ai nw r i ght v. W i t t , 469 U
. S. at 424. Such ci r cumst ance s do notdemonst r at e thatdefen d ant s w er e convi ct ed bya part i al j ur y . See gener al l yL ock h ar tv. M cC r ee, 476 U
. S. at183- 86 ( r ej ect i ng ar gum entt hatpr oces s of q u ali fy ing a j u ry to con side r d ea th pen alt y p rod u ce s a biase d jury at the gu il t p h ase o f tri al);
se e a lso W a in w rig h t v . W itt, 4 6 9 U .S
. a t 4 2 3 (d e f in in g im p a rtial ju rya s o n e th a t “w ill
c o n sc ien tio u slya p p lyth e law a n d f in d th e f a c ts” a n d a d d in g th a t “w e d o n o t th in k , sim p ly beca us e a de fenda nti s bei ng t r i ed fora ca pi t al crime, t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o a l egal p re su m p tio n o r sta n d a rd th a t allo w s ju ro rs to b e se a ted w h o q u ite lik e lyw ill b e b ias e d in h is f a v o r” ). F in a lly , the v e rd icts re n d e re d b yth e ju ry d e m o n stra te its im p a rtiality
. T h e f a c t th a t, att he pena l t yphas e, t he j ur ydi d notvot e t o i m pos e the death penal t yconcl us i vel yr efut es d e f e n d a n t s ’ s u g g e s t i o n t h a ti twa s c o mp o s e d o f p e r s o n s “ u n c o mmo n l ywi l l i n g t o c o n d e mn a man t o di e. ” W i t her s poon v. I l l i noi s , 391 U
. S. at521. Fur t her, the fac tt hat , att he cul pabi l i t yphas e, t he j ur yvot ed t o acqui tdefe ndant s o n tw o of the mosts er i ous char ges demonst r at es t hatt he panel w as notpr edi s pos ed t o convi ct . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. Q amar , 671 F. 2d at732, 737 ( 2d C i r . 1982) ( obs er vi ng t hat acqui t t al s on cert ai n count s bel i e cl ai m t hat ju ry c o u ld n o t f

a ir ly ad ju d ic a te th e c a s e ). A cc o rdin g ly, w e re

ject th e d ef

en d an ts’ arg u m en t th at all eg ed erro rs i n the ju ry sel ect i on process r equ i re r eversal of thei r convict i on s.36

C
. T he C hal l enged Evi dent i aryR ul i ngs D efe ndant s fur t herur ge r ever s al on t he gr ound t hat t hei rconvi ct i ons w er e pr ocur ed t hr ough i nadmi s s i bl e evi dence
. Speci fi cal l y , t heycont end that( 1) e v iden ce t hatt heyhad pur chas ed coc ai ne fr om J os eph S api a s houl d have be en exc l uded pur s uantt o Fed. R
. E vi d. 4 0 4 ( b) , ( 2) evi dence t hatQ ui nones had thr eat ened t o ki l l i nfor m ant s ot hert han Sant i ago sh o u ld h av e b ee n ex clud ed p u rsua n t t o F ed
. R
. E v id. 40 3 an d 4 0 4 (b), ( 3 ) S an ti ag o ’s
s t at ement of conc ern aboutbei ng expos ed as an i n fo rm an tw as i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ay , and ( 4) cooper at i ng w i t nes s es s houl d not have been al l ow ed t o t es t i fyas t o t hei rexpec t at i ons t hat p ro s e c u tio n c o u n s e l w o u ld d is c o v e r i f th e ylie d a t tr ia l. W e re v iew a trial c o u rt’s e v id e n tiary ru lin g s d e f e re n tially , a n d w e w ill re v e rse o n ly fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . S ee U n it ed S tate s v . K h ali l, 2 1 4 F
. 3 d 1 1 1 , 1 2 2 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ); U n ited S tate s v . N ai m an, 21 1 F
. 3d 40 , 51 (2d C i r. 20 00 ). T o find such abu se, w e m ust concl ude thatt he cha l l enged e vi dent i aryrul i ngs w er e “a rbi t r ary an d ir rati onal
. ” U ni t ed St at es v. D hi ns a, 243 F. 3d 635, 649 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) ; U ni t ed S ta te s v . S a la m e h , 1 5 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 . T h a t is n o t th is c a s e .

1
. D e f

e n d a n ts’ C o c a in e P u rc h a se s f ro m S a p ia D efe ndant s s ubm i tt hatt es t i m oni al and r ecor ded evi dence of thei rcoca i ne pur chas es fr om J os eph Sapi a w as i m pr oper l y r ece i ved t o pr ove thei rpr opens i t yt o comm i tdrug cr i m es in v io la tio n o f

F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 4 (b ). W e d is a g re e . W hi l e R ul e 404( b) i dent i fi es var i ous r at i onal es – not abl yexcl udi ng pr opens i t y– for
w hi ch evi dence of bad a ct s ot hert han thos e cha r g ed in the i ndi ct m entm aybe admi t t ed atO th e r c rim e e v id e n c e is a d m iss ib le to p ro v e “ m o tiv e , o p p o rtu n ity , inte n t, 12 pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, i den ti t y , orabs ence of m i s t ake oracc i dent
. ” Fed. R
. E vi d. 4 0 4 (b). T h is s a m e n a rc o tics c o n sp ira c yw a s id e n tifie d a s R IC O p re d ica te a c t I(A ) in C o u n ts

13 O n e a n d T w o o f th e In d ictm e n t. P re d ica te a c t I(C ) to th e se c o u n ts c h a rg e d th e d e f e n d a n ts wi t h s u b s t a n t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n o rp o s s e s s i o n wi t h i n t e n t t o d i s t r i b u t e f i v e o r mo r e k i l o g r a ms o f c o c a in e . 37 t r i al , t he rul e has no bear i ng on t he admi s s i bi l i t y of ac t s t hatar e partof the cha r ged cr i m e. 12 See U ni t ed St at es v. C oncepc i on, 983 F. 2d 369, 392 ( 2d C i r . 1992) ( “A n actt hati s al l eged t o have be en done i n fur t her ance of the al l eged cons pi r acy. . . i s notan ‘ ot heract ’ w i t hi n t he
m eani ng of R ul e 404( b) ; r ather , it is p artof the veryactchar ged. ”)
. D efe ndant s ’ coca i ne pur chas es fr om Sapi a w er e cl ear l y par t of a c r i m e cha r ged i n t he i ndi ct m ent , s peci fi cal l y , t he narcot i cs consp i racyc h a rged i n C ou nt Fi ve, a st at ed o bject i ve o f w hich w as defen dan t s’ di s t r i but i on and pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e of f i ve orm or e ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne. 13 T h e S a p i a pu rchases, as act s i n fu rtherance o f t he ch arged co nspir acy , w ere obv i ou sly
r el evant t o pr oof of t he exi s t ence of t hat cons pi r acy . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. A l aga, 995 F. 2d 380, 382 ( 2d C i r . 1993) ( hol di ng t hatevi dence t hatdefe ndanti ni t i at ed and pa r t i ci pat ed in p u rc h a se o f o n e k ilo g ra m o f h e ro in su p p o rte d c o n v ictio n f o r c o n sp irin g to p o ss e ss h e ro in
w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s u se o f th e d isp u ted tes tim o n y i n it s s u m m a tio n w a s th u s e n tirely p ro p e r. N o d if

f e r e n t c o n c lu sio n is w a rra n ted b yth e f a c t th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t m ista k e n ly
r efe r ence d her oi n r ather t han coca i ne i n des cr i bi ng defe ndant s ’ drug deal i ng w i t h Sapi a. A
r evi ew of the s um m at i on, i n i t s ent i r ety , i ndi cat es t hat t he m i s s t at ement w as i nadvert entand38

n eit h er i nt ended norunder s t ood t o s ugges tt hatunchar ged evi dence demonst r at ed defe nd ants ’ pr op ensi t yt o co m m i tdrug cri m es. T hat conclusi on i s rei nfo rced bydefe nd ants ’ fai l u r e t o r a i s e a c o n t e mpo r a n e o u s o b j e c t i o n . Se e Uni t e d St a t e s v . W a l k e r , 1 9 1 F. 3 d 326, 3 3 7 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (o b se rv in g th a t, w h e re p r o s e c u to r’s m isc o n d u c t “d id n o t p ro m p t a cont empora neous obj ect i on, ” omi s s i on w as “an i ndi cat i on t hatt he i nci dent di d not aff ectt he tr ia l a tm o s p h e re in a m a n n e r d is a d v a n ta g e o u s to [ d e f e n d a n t] ” ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th is p a r t o f d e f e n d a n ts’ e v id e n tiary ch a llen g e is
w ith o u t m e rit.

2
. Q u in o n e s’s S tate m e n ts R e g a rd in g O th e r In f o rm a n ts
a. R ul e 404( b) D efe ndant s as s er tt hat t he di s t r i ct cour t err ed i n al l ow i ng t he j ur y t o hearevi dence of st at em ents at t ri bu t ed to Q uinones p urpo rt edlythreat ening t he li ves of t w o inform ants ,

“ L e f ty ” a n d “ C h u p a c a b ra .” D e f e n d a n ts s u b m it th a t th e sta tem e n ts “ se rv e d o n lyto d e mo n s t r a t e a . . . p r o p e n s i t y t o k i l l i n f o r ma n t s ” a n d , t h u s , we r e i n a d mi s s i b l e u n d e rF e d
. R. E v id . 4 0 4 (b ). Q u in o n e s B r. a t 9 , 4 0 -4 1
. W e have pr evi ous l yhel d t hat evi dence of uncha r ged cr i m i nal conducti s notevi dence
o f “ o th e r c r im e s, w ro n g s, o r a c ts” u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ) if th a t co n d u c t is “ in e x trica b ly i nt er t w i ned w i t h t he evi dence r egar di ng t he cha r ged off ens e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. T ow ne, 870 F .2 d 8 8 0 , 8 8 6 ( 2 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). In su c h c irc u m sta n c e s, th e u n c h a rg e d c rim e e v id e n c e is
nece s s aryt o “compl et e the s t or yof the cr i m e on tr i al , ” i d. , and, t hus , appr opr i at el yt r eat ed
as “partof the veryactchar ged, ” or , atl eas t , pr oof of t hat act , U ni t ed St at es v. C oncepc i on,39

983 F. 2d at392. T he r ecor d pl ai nl ydemonst r at es t hatt he cha l l enged s t at ement s cons t i tut ed i m por t ant p roo f o f th e c h arg ed crim es: they co n tai n ed Q u ino n es’s a d m issi o n s to the S an ti ag o m u rde r. I ndeed, t he s t at ement , “i f i thad bee n L efty , he w oul d have s cr eamed, ” makes no s ens e exc ept
as an admi s s i on t o t hat cr i m e. I t s m eani ng becomes cl earonl yi n l i ghtof evi dence s how i ng th a t Q u in o n e s h a d sp e n t th e b e tter p a rt o f th e d a ya b u s in g a b o u n d a n d g a g g e d E d d ie Sant i ago w ho, li k e “L efty , ” had i nfor m ed on Q ui nones t o t he pol i ce. Fur t her , w hen Q ui nones m ade the cha l leng ed stat ement , he had j us tannounce d t hathe had “ bur ned” S a n tiag o . In th is c o n tex t, th e sta tem e n t th a t “ [ ‘L e f ty ’] w o u ld h a v e sc re a m e d ,” is re a so n a b ly under s t ood as a boas tby Q ui nones t o t he par t i cul ar l y brut al w ay t hat he had ki l l ed Sant i ago, i nfl i ct i ng s o m uch pai n t hat , i f “Left y ” had been s ubj ect ed t o s i m i l ar abus e, he coul d nothave
en d u red i ts i l ent l y . W hen a s t at ement of hypot het i cal har m t o a thi r d per s on i s t hus in e x trica b lylin k e d w ith th e e v id e n c e o f f e re d to p ro v e th e c h a rg e d o f f e n se , itis a d m iss ib le
w i t houtr efe r ence t o R ul e 404( b)
. See U ni t ed St at es v. T ow ne, 870 F. 2d at886. T h e s a m e is tru e o f

Q u in o n e s ’s o f

f e r t o h e lp ri d V e g a o f

th e in f o rm a n t “ C h u p a c a b ra .” T he fa ctt hatQ ui nones phr as ed thi s hom i ci dal offe r w i t h s peci fi c r efe r ence t o havi ng “got
r i d of one s ni t ch al r eady , ” pe rm it ted t he j ur yt o concl ude thatQ ui nones w as – agai n – boas t i ng o f the Sant i ago murde r , i nextr i cabl yl i nki ng t he pr opos ed uncha r ged cr i m e t o t he char ged cr i m e. See i d. M or eover , t he boas t ful natur e of both s tat em en ts, w i t h Q ui nones
even a s s erti n g t hathe w oul d “l i ke t o getr i d of another[i nfor m ant ] , ” fa i r l ys uppor t ed an in f e re n c e th a t S a n ti a g o ’s d e a th w a s n o a c c id e n t, bu t ra th e r in ten tio n a l m u rd e r. It is w e ll40

e s t a bl i s he d th a ti n t e n ti s a p e r mi s s i b l e g r o u n d f o rt h e a d mi s s i o n o f

u n c h a r g e d c r i me evi dence
. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. Paul i no, 445 F. 3d 211, 221- 23 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( not i ng admi s s i bi l i t y of pr i or bad act s on i s s ue of i nt ent ) ; s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. L i vot i , 196 F. 3d 322, 326 (2d C i r . 1996) ( hol di ng t hatevi dence of def endantchoki ng anotherarr es t ee w as p ro p e rly a d m itt e d u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ) t o re b u t su g g e stio n th a t d e f e n d a n t h a d u n in ten tio n a lly
c h o k e d v ic tim o f

c h a rg e d c ri m e ). b. R ul e 403 Q ui nones a s s e r t s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t n e v e r t h e l e s s e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o e x c l u d e t he
c h a lle n g e d s ta te m e n ts a s u n d u ly p re ju d ic ia l u n d e r R u le 4 0 3
. Pur s uantt o R ul e 403, a tr i al j udge r et ai ns di s cr et i on t o excl ude pl ai nl yr el evant
e v id e n c e “ if

its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s u b sta n tia ll y o u tw e ig h e d b yth e d a n g e r o f u n f a ir p rejud ic e. ” Fed. R
. E vi d. 403; s ee H uddl es t on v. U ni t ed St at es , 485 U
. S. 681, 687- 88 ( 1988) ; U ni t ed St at es v. R ei fl er , 446 F. 3d 65, 91 ( 2d C i r . 2006)
. N o s tr i ct ers t andar d appl i es t o death t hr eat s . See U ni t ed St at es v. T r acy , 12 F. 3d 1186, 1195 ( 2d C i r . 1993) ( “Evi dence of thr eat s of dea t h i s s ubj ect ed to the s ame R ul e 403 bal anci ng t es tas ot herr el evant
e v id e n c e .”). W h ile “ th e g o v e rn m e n t m u st h a v e a n im p o rta n t p u rp o se f o r [ su c h ] e v id e n c e in
o rd e r to sa tisf

yth e R u le 4 0 3 b a lan c in g te s t[ ,] . . . d e a th th re a ts, ju st a s o th e r p o ten tially p re ju d ic ia l e v id e n c e , a re to b e ju d g e d b y th e n o rm a l p ro c e s s o f F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 3 b a la n c in g .” U nit ed Stat es v. Q am ar, 67 1 F. 2d 73 2, 73 6 ( 2d C i r. 19 82 ). In r eview i ng R ule 403 c hall eng es,
w e “ a c c o rd g re a t d e f

e re n c e ” to th e d istric t c o u rt’s a ss e ss m e n t o f th e “ re lev a n c ya n d u n f a ir pr ej udi ce of pr offe r ed evi dence , m i ndful t hati ts ees the w i t nes s es , t he part i es , t he j ur or s , and41

th e a tto rn e y s , a n d is th u s in a s u p e ri o r p o s itio n to e v a lu a te th e lik e ly im p a c t o f th e e v id e n c e .” U nit ed S t at es v. P auli no , 44 5 F
. 3d at 21 7 (i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed). A pp l y i ng t hese p ri n c ip le s to th is c a s e , w e id e n tif yn o a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . A s al r eadynot ed, t he chal l enged evi dence , cont ai ni ng Q ui nones ’ s admi s s i ons t o t he S anti ago m urder, w as hi gh l yprobati ve o f t he ch arged cap i t al cri m e s. T o t he ex t ent these
a d m iss io n s w e re m a d e in th e c o n tex t o f th re a ts to o th e r in f

o rm a n ts (h yp o th e tica llyw ith
r es pectt o “Left y ” and pr os pect i vel yw i t h res pectt o “C hupaca br a”) , t hes e thr eat s w er e no
m or e i nfl amm at or yt han the char ged murde ri t s el f. See gene r al l yU ni t ed St at es v. L i vot i , 196 F. 3d at326 ( r ej ect i ng R ul e 403 cha l l enge w her e other
- act evi dence “di d noti nvol ve conduc t
m o re in f lam m a to ryth a n th e c h a rg e d c rim e ” )
. T h e g o v e rn m e n t p lac e d n o u n d u e e m p h a sis
o n the thr eat s , and, w i t h r es pectt o t he one r el at i ng t o “C hupaca br a, ” the di s t r i ctcourt
m i ni m i zed a nypos s i bl e pr ej udi ce bycar eful l yi ns t ruct i ng t he j ur yt hatt hi s evi dence w as
r ece i ved onl yagai ns tQ ui nones and coul d be cons i der ed onl yas t o h is m ent al s t at e att he t i m e of Sant i ago’ s death. See U ni ted S tat es v. Q amar , 671 F. 2d at736- 37 ( not i ng t hat di s t r i ct cour t l i m i t ed pot ent i al pr ej udi ce fr om death t hr eatevi dence byi ns t ruct i ng j ur yt hat it c o u ld b e u s e d o n ly f

o r s p e c if ie d p u rp o s e s ). T he rel evan ce of

t he ch al l eng ed ev i d e n ce t o the charged c ri m es l ay s t o rest defe ndant s ’ ar gum entt hatdeath t hr eat s ar e admi ssible o n lyw hen the thr eati s di r ect ed
a g a in st th e w itn e ss w h o tes tifie s to it. In u p h o ld in g th e a d m iss ib ili tyo f e v id e n c e th a t a d ef en d an t th rea tene d a test ify ing w itn ess, s ee id. at7 3 6 , w e h av e e m p h asize d the w itn ess’s
r el at i o n s h i p t o t h e t h r e a t s i mpl y t o d e mon s t r a t e t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e o f t h a t e v i d e n c e, s ee42

U n ited S tate s v . T ra c y , 1 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 5 (“ [ E ]v id e n c e o f d e a th th r e a ts m a yb e e x tre m e ly p r o b a t i v e w h e n t h e t h r e a t s w e r e d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e w i t n e s s . . . . ” )
. T h u s , i n Qa ma r we ob ser ved t hat “the thr eatevidence w as useful t o ex plai n the dem eano r of U t t am [t he w i t ness agai ns tw hom t he thr eathad bee n di r ect ed] , w ho t es t i fi ed i n an al m os ti naudi bl e voi ce. ” 671 F .2 d a t 7 3 6 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). F u rth e r, b e c a u se “ th e th re a t w o u ld b e lik e ly to m a k e a las tin g im p re ss io n o n th o se p re se n t w h e n it w a s m a d e , [ it ex p lain e d ] U ttam ’s v iv id
r ecol l ect i on of t he event s s ur r oundi ng t he t hr eat . ” I d. W her e, as i n t hi s ca se, de ath t hr eat evi dence cons t i tut es a def endant’ s adm i s s i ons t o t he cha r ged cr i m es , t he r el evanc yof t he t h r e a ti s e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h o u tr e g a r d t o i t s b e a r i n g o n w i t n e s s c r e d i b i l i t y. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatt her e i s no m er i t i n defe ndant s ’ R ul e 404( b) and 403 chall eng es t o the adm i ssi on of Q uinones’s s t at em ents .

3. S anti ago ’s S t at em ent Foll ow i ng Q uinones’s A rr est D e f e n d a n ts f a u lt th e d istric t co u rt f

o r a llo w in g a n u n d e rc o v e r o f f ice r to tes tifyto o u tof- cour ts t at ement s m ade bySant i ago att he s cene of Q u ino n es’s ar r es t . Sant i ago us ed an expl et i ve t o expr es s t hathe w as now i n s er i ous t r oubl e, obs er vi ng t hatQ ui nones w as “goi ng to kn o w ” S an ti ag o w as resp o n sible fo r the arrest. T ri al T r. a t 2 6 4
. I n a d m itt in g th is t es t i m ony , t he di s t r i ct cour ti ns t ruct ed the j ur yt hatSant i ago’ s s t at ement s “w er e notoffe r ed fort hei rt rut h. T heyw er e off er ed forw hatM r . Sant i ago w as t hi nki ng, and onl yt hen t o t he ext entt hatt heym ayhave or m ay not have i nfl uence d hi s s ubs equentconduct
. ” I d. at264- 65. D efe ndant s s ubm i tt hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed bec aus e (1) Sant i ago’ s s t at e of m i nd w as not
re le v a n t to a n ym a ter ial iss u e in d isp u te, a n d (2 ) th e sta tem e n ts c o n stitu ted in a d m iss ib leT o t he ext ent defe ndant s r ai s ed addi t i onal chal l enges t o t hi s evi dence i n t he di s t r i ct 14 co u rt , arg u ing that it s ad m issi o n w as p rejud ici al, inco n sist en t w ith the g o v ern m en t’ s the o ry of the ca s e, and vi ol at i ve of their Si xt h A m endmentr i ghtt o confr ont at i on, s ee Tr i al T r . at 250- 51, beca us e thes e i s s ues ar e not pur s ued on appe al t o t hi s cour t , w e dee m t hem w ai ved. See U ni t ed St at es v . P ere ir a, 465 F
. 3d 515, 520 n. 5 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng ar gum entnot raised o n ap p ea l w aive d ). 43 hear s ay . N ei t herar gum enti s per s uas i ve.

14

a. R el evanc y A di s t r i ctcour thas “br oad di s cr et i on t o det er m i ne the r el evanc yof evi dence , ” U ni t ed St at es v. A m us o, 21 F. 3d 1251, 1263 ( 2d C i r . 1994) , and w e w i l l notr ever s e i t s rul i ng abs ent abus e of di s c r e t i o n i ndi cat i ve of a rbi t r ar i nes s ori r r at i onal i t y , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. R ei fl er , 446 F. 3d at 91; U ni t ed S t at es v. Sout hl and C orp. , 760 F. 2d 1366, 1375 ( 2d C i r . 1985) ( obs er vi ng t h a t“ [ p ] a r t i c u l a rd e f

e r e n c e ” i s a c c o r d e d “ ru l i n g o f t h e tr i a l j u d g e w i t h r e s p e c tt o r e l e v a n c y” beca us e j udge “ha s a fa m i l i ar i t yw i t h t he deve l opm entof the evi dence and the j ur y ’ s r eac t i on to it w h ich a n a p p e llate c o u rt c a n n o t eq u a l”) . D e f e n d a n ts c a n n o t m a k e su c h a sh o w in g in th is c a s e . T h e d istric t co u rt d e ter m in e d th a t S a n tiag o ’s s tate m e n t w a s re lev a n t b e c a u se h is f e a rf u l sta te o f m in d h e lp e d to e x p lain w h yh e m a d e h im se lf sc a rc e a f

ter Q u in o n e s’s a rre st. T hi s , i n tur n, expl ai ned w hyi tt ook defe ndant s m ont hs t o l ocat e Sant i ago and w hyt heyhad to d e v e lo p a ru se to lu re h im to h is d e a th . T h e d istric t co u rt v o ice d c o n c e rn th a t, ab se n t th is chai n of evi dence , t he j ur y m i ght have been i ncl i ned t o engage i n unw arr ant ed s pecul at i on
as t o w hy , i f Q ui nones w as benton r evenge , Sant i ago w as notm ur d ere d w i t hi n day s of Q ui nones ’ s r el eas e fr om cus t ody
. M i ndful t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s obs er vat i on of the t r i alR ul e 803( 3) pr ovi des t hat“[a ] s t at ement of the dec l ar ant ’ s t hen exi s t i ng stat e of 15 m i nd, emot i on, s ens at i on, orphy s i cal condi t i on ( s uch as i nt ent , pl an, m ot i ve, des i gn, m ent al fee l i ng, pai n, and bodi l yheal t h) , butnoti ncl udi ng a s t at ement of m emoryorbel i ef t o pr ove t he fa ctr emem ber ed orbel i eved unl es s i t r el at es t o t he exe cut i on, r evoca t i on, i dent i fi cat i on, ort er m s of dec l ar ant ’ s w i l l ” i s “notexcl uded by t he hear s ayrul e eve n t hough t he dec l ar ant is a v a ila b le a s a w itn e s s .” 44 pr ocee di ngs pl ace d i t“i n a super i or pos i t i on t o eval uat e t he l i kel y i m pact of t he evi dence ”
o n th e ju ry , w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t it s re lev a n c ya ss e ss m e n t w a s a rb itrar yo r ir r a ti o n a l. U ni t ed St at es v. Paul i no, 445 F. 3d at 217; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Sout hl and C orp. , 760 F. 2d at 1 3 7 5 . T h u s, w e re

jec t d e f e n d a n ts’ re lev a n c yc h a llen g e a s w ith o u t m e rit. b. R ul e 803( 3) E q u a lly u n a v a ili n g is d e f e n d a n ts’ c o n ten tio n th a t S a n tiag o ’s o u t-o f -c o u rt sta tem e n ts di d notqual i fyforadmi s s i on pur s uantt o F ed
. R
. E vi d. 803( 3)
. D efe ndant s s ubm i tt hat 15 R ul e 803( 3) cr eat es a hear s ay exce pt i on onl y for s t at ement s evi nci ng a dec l ar ant ’ s exi s t i ng
s t at e of m i nd and not for s t at ement s of m emory or bel i ef contr i but i ng t o t hats t at e of mi nd. D e f e n d a n ts a re c o rre c t th a t R u le 8 0 3 (3 ) do e s n o t p e rm it sta tem e n ts of m e m o ry o r b e lief to b e a d m itted f

o r th eir truth
. B u t w h ere , as i n this ca se, a d istri ct co u rtp lai n lyinstructs the jury that the o u t- o f-c o u rtstat em en ts can n o t be c o n side red fo r th eir truth , n o h e a rs a yco n ce rn
ar i s es r equi ri ng a rul e exc ept i on. See Fed. R
. E vi d. 801( c) ( defi ni ng hear s ayas an out - ofcou rt sta t em ent “offered i n ev i den ce t o p rove t he truth of t he m at t er as ser t ed”); see al so U n ite d S ta te s v . P a u lin o , 4 4 5 F .3 d a t 2 1 6 -1 7
. T h e d istri ct co u rtrea so n ab lyrec o g n ized that, reg ard less o f th e tr u th o f S an ti ag o ’s decl ar at i on aboutQ ui nones ’ s know l edge of Sant i ago’ s s t atus as an i nfor m ant , t he s t at ement45

w as admi s s i bl e bec aus e i tes t abl i s hed Sant i ago’ s t hen- fea r ful s t at e of m i nd, w hi ch expl ai ned Sant i ago’ s futur e ac t i ons and, i n tur n, t hos e of the def endant s . T hi s cour thas r ecogni zed that “the mer e ut t er ance of a s t at ement , w i t houtr egar d t o i t s t rut h, ” ma yc i r c um s t ant i al l yevi dence “the s t at e o f m ind of the dec l ar ant , ” and, as s uch, does notcons t i tut e “he ar s ay . ” Sm i t h v. D uncan, 411 F. 3d 340, 346 n. 4 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) ; s ee U ni t ed St at es v . Detr i c h , 8 6 5 F. 2 d 1 7 , 2 1 ( 2 d Ci r . 1 9 8 8 ) ( s a me )
. I n d e e d , we h a v e o b s e r ved t hat “[w ] hen a de cl ar at i on i s admi t t ed onl yt o pr ove a r el evants t at e of mi nd, i tdoes notappea r t o m at t er. . . w hetheradmi s s i bi l i t y i s pr edi cat ed on t he decl ar at i on not bei ng hear s ay. . . or
un der t he [R ule 803(3)] hearsayexcep t i on for declar at i on of st at es of m in d
. . . [bec ause
u ]nd er e ith er the o ry , a state o f m ind ca n b e p rov ed circu m stan ti all y b y stat em en ts w h ich a re
n o t in te n d e d to a s s e rt th e tru th o f th e f a c t b e in g p ro v e d .” U n ite d S ta te s v . S o u th la n d C o rp ., 760 F. 2d at 1376 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)
. I n U ni t ed St at es v. H arr i s , w e hel d t hat
o u t-o f -c o u rt sta tem e n ts, s u c h a s “ th e G o v e rn m e n t an d p e o p le w e re a f ter h im a n d try in g to
s ethi m up, ” and “M r . St ew ar d had br ought an agent t o hi m , ” w er e admi s s i bl e beca us e they
w ere offered “no t for t heir t ruth, bu t i nst ead as cir cum st anti al evidence of [t he d ecl arant ’s ]
s t at e of m i nd” w i t h r es pect t o “hi s know l edge” of St ew ar d’ s s t atus as a coope r at or . 733 F. 2d 994, 1004 ( 2d C i r . 1984)
. I n t hi s cas e, beca us e Sant i ago’ s s t at ement s as t o w hatQ ui nones had l i kel ydeduce d w er e notr ece i ved for t hei r t ruth, w e concl ude thatt he di s t r i ctcour tact ed
w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on i n al l ow i ng t hes e s t at ement s to b e co n side r ed byt he j ur yas ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of Sant i ago’ s s t at e of mi nd, w hi ch h elpe d to e xpl ai n hi s and the defe nd ants ’ future act i on s.46 c. H ar m l es s E r r or E ven i f w e had i dent ifi ed an yerr ori n t he admi s s i on of the cha l l enged Sant i ago
s t at ement , defe ndant s w oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o anyr el i ef on thi s appea l
. O t hert r i al evi dence , n o tab lyth e e y e w itn e ss a c c o u n ts o f H e c to r V e g a , L o u is M a lav e , a n d N ilsa G u tierr e z , as w e ll as Q u ino n es’s o w n ad m issi o n s, so o v erw h elm ing lyp rov ed d ef en d an t s ’ pr otrac ted s ea rch fo r, and eve ntual m ur derof, E ddi e Sant i ago as t o r endert he al l eged err or har m l es s . See U ni t ed St at es v. D ukagj i ni , 326 F. 3d 45, 61- 62 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng r ever s al r equi r ed i n cas e of
err oneous l yadmi t t ed evi dence onl yw hen err orh ad “s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous eff ector i nfl uence i n det er m i ni ng t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) ) ; s ee a l s o Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 52( a) ( “A nyerr or. . . t hatdoes notaff ects ubs t ant i al r i ght s m us tbe d isr eg ard ed
. ”).

4. C ooper at i ng W i t nes s es D e f e n d a n ts a ss e rt th a t th e d istric t co u rt im p e r m is s ib lya llo w e d th e g o v e rn m e n t to bol s t ert he t es t i m onyof var i ous w i t nes s es t es t i fy i ng pur s uant t o cooper at i on agr eement s by in q u irin g a s to th e ir e x p e c tatio n th a t p ro se c u to rs w o u ld f in d o u t if th e ylied a t trial. W h ile i t i s w el l
- s et t l ed t hat , “abs ent an at t ack on t he ver aci t y of a w i t nes s , no evi dence t o bol s t er hi s cr edi bi l i t yi s admi s s i bl e, ” U ni t ed St at es v. G ai nd, 31 F. 3d 73, 78 ( 2d C i r . 1994) ( i nt ernal q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d ) , o n c e s u c h a n a t t a c k h a s b e e n l a u n c h e d , a d i s t r i c t c o u r te n j o ys br oad di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng r ehabi l i t at i ve evi dence of cr edi bi l i t y , s ee i d. ; U ni t ed St at es v. C o s e n tin o , 8 4 4 F .2 d 3 0 , 3 3 (2 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). I n t hi s cas e, fr om openi ng s t at ement s t hr ough s um m at i on, defe ns e couns el ar gued not47

onl yt hatgovernm entw i t nes s es w er e l y i ng w hen theyi m pl i cat ed defe ndant s i n nar cot i cs t r aff i cki ng and i n t he murde rof Eddi e Sant i ago, butt hatthei rr el at i ons hi ps w i t h t he p ro se c u to rs p ro v id e d th e m w ith a p a rt ic u la r m o ti v e to d o so . In h is o p e n in g sta tem e n t, Q ui nones ’ s couns el s t at ed: [T]hos e w i t nes s es ar e l i kel yt o do or s ay anyt hi ng on t he w i t nes s s t and as l ong as t hey beli eve itpleas es the p rosecut ors. W hyw ou l d theydo t hat? B ecause th e y h a v e sig n e d th e se c o o p e ra tio n a g re e m e n ts . . . .T h e y sig n a g re e m e n ts w ith t he pr os ecut or s , pr os ecut or s w ho at t he end of t he dayw i l l deci de w hetheror nott hey w i l l w r i t e a l et t er t o t he s ent enci ng j udge fort hos e coope r at or s w hi ch w ill h e lp th o se c o o p e ra tin g w itn e ss e s g e t re d u c e d se n ten c e s o r o b tain th e ir fr eedom. So w ho do y ou t hi nk t hos e coope r at i ng w i t nes s es w antt o pl eas e? T ria l T r. a t 2 3 -2 4
. R o d rig u e z ’s c o u n se l s im ilarly u rg e d th e ju ry to “ [ k ]e e p in m in d w h a t a strong m oti vati on [t he co op erat i ng w i t nesses] hav e t o pl ease t he gov ernm ent and t o p l ease t hes e part i cul arpr os ecut or s beca us e i t ’ s t hes e par t i cul ar pr os ecut or s t hatar e thei rt i cketout
o f ja il.” Id . a t 3 5
. I n l i ghtof thi s at t ack, w hi ch w as pur s ued thr oughoutt r i al , i tw as w i t hi n the di s t r i ct
c o u rt’s d isc re tio n to a llo w th e g o v e r n m e n t to e licit f ro m th e w itn e ss e s n o t o n lyth e ir know l edge t hat t hey coul d be pr os ecut ed for per j ur y i f t hey l i ed att r i al , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Sm i t h, 778 F. 2d 925, 928 ( 2d C i r . 1985) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C os ent i no, 844 F. 2d at34; U ni t ed S tat es v . R icco , 5 4 9 F
. 2 d 2 6 4 , 2 7 4 (2d C ir
. 1 9 7 7 ), b u t th eir ex p ec tat ion that p rose cu tors
w oul d uncoverany s uch l i es . A cooper at i ng w i t nes s ’ s expec t at i on as t o how hi s t es t i m ony
w i l l be vi ew ed bypr os ecut or s ort he cour t , w hether r eal i s t i c or not and w hetherchar act er i zed
as fac toras opi ni on, i s r el evantt o demonst r at ing hi s m ot i ve t o l i e ort o t el l t he trut h and, thu s, m ayp rop erlyb e e x p lored b y the g o v ern m en t n o less than the d ef en se o n ce the w itn ess’sB e c a u se d e f e n d a n ts a ttac k e d th e c re d ib ili tyo f g o v e rn m e n t w it n e ss e s in th e ir 16 openi ng s t at ement s , t hei rchal l enge t o t he el i ci t at i on of thi s r ehabi l i t at i ve t es t i m onyon di r ect r at he r t h a n r e d i r e c t e x a mi n a t i o n i s u n a v a i l i n g . Se e Uni t e d St a t e s v . Gai n d , 3 1 F. 3 d at 78 ( hol di ng that , w her e w i t nes s ’ s cr edi bi l i t yhas been a t t acke d i n defe ns e openi ng, evi dence i ndi cat i ng cooper at i on agr eementcr eat es m ot i ve for w i t nes s t o t el l t rut h m aybe adduc ed on d ir ec t exa m ination ); U n it ed S tat es v . C o sen ti n o , 8 4 4 F
. 2 d at 3 3 (no ti n g that, w h ere w itn ess’s cr edi bi l i ty h as b een at t acke d i n openi ng s t at ement s , “the ‘ r ehabi l i t at i on’ s t age ha s al r eady b e e n re a c h e d o n d ir e c t” ); U n ite d S ta te s v . S m ith , 7 7 8 F .2 d a t 9 2 8
. 48 cr edi bi l i t yhas been puti n i s s ue. 16 In su m , w e c o n c lu d e th a t d e f e n d a n ts’ v a rio u s e v id e n tiary ch a lle n g e s a re u n if o rm ly
w ith o u t m e rit. D
. T he C hal l enged RICO C har ge D efe ndant s s ubm i tt hatt hei rr acke t eer i ng convi ct i ons m us tbe r ever s ed becaus e the di s t r i ctcour tl es s ened t h e g o v ernm ent ’ s bur den of pr oof i n char gi ng t hes e cr i m es by
r efe r ence t o onl yt hr ee e l ement s . W e ar e notper s uaded. T o se c u re re v e rsa l b a se d o n a f law e d ju ry in stru c tio n , a d e f e n d a n t m u st d e m o n stra te bot h err orand ens ui ng pr ej udi ce. See U ni t ed S t at es v. A i na- M ar s hal l , 336 F. 3d 167, 170 ( 2d C i r. 20 03 ); see al so U nit ed S t at es v. A m uso, 21 F
. 3d at 12 60 -61 (concl ud i ng t hat har m l ess
erro r i n juryinstruction d id n o t w arran t rev ersa l)
. W h il e w e rev iew a claim o f erro r in jury i n s t ru c t i o n s d e n o v o , s e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Qu a t t r o n e , 4 4 1 F
. 3 d 1 5 3 , 1 7 7 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , we
w il l r ev erse o n lyw h ere th e c h arg e, view ed as a w h o le, “e ith er f ail ed to inf

o rm the ju ry adequa t el y of t he l aw or m i s l ed t he j ur y about t he corr ect l egal rul e, ” U ni t ed St at es v. For d, 435 F. 3d 204, 209- 10 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. G ol ds t ei n, 442 F. 3d 777, 781 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Scarpa, 913 F. 2d 993, 1018 ( 2d C ir
. 1990) ( “O ft en i s ol at edM odern Feder al J ur yI ns t ruct i ons r ecomm ends t hatR I C O cons pi r acybe cha r ged 17 b yref ere n ce to f

o u r elem en ts. S ee L eo n ard B
. S an d , et al. , 1 M o d e rn F ed era l Jury I ns t ruct i ons : C r i m i nal , I ns t ruct i on 52- 28 ( 2003)
. I ti s unnece s s aryfo r u s t o di s cus s t he r eas ons fort hi s di s t i nct i on beca us e def endant s ’ char ge cha l l enge f o cu ses on s ubs t ant i ve R IC O a n d , in a n y e v e n t, th e re c o rd sh o w s tha t th e a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e ri t a s to b o th s u b s t a n t i v e a n d c o n s p i r a t o r i a l RI CO
. 49 s t at ement s t aken f

r om t he char ge, s eemi ngl ypr ej udi ci al on t hei rfac e, ar e nots o w hen vi ew ed in th e c o n te x t o f

th e e n tir e re c o rd o f

th e tr ia l.” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ))
. D efe ndant s ’ cl ai m fai l s at t he fi r s t s t ep of anal y s i s . T hey cannot es t abl i s h anyerr or i n t he as s i gnm entof the governm ent ’ s bur den of pr oof bec aus e the di s t r i ct court ’ s t hr eeel eme n t RI CO c h a r g e r e q u i r e d t h e j u r y t o ma k e t h e i d e n t i c a l f a c tu a l f i n d i n g s b ey ond a
r eas onabl e doubt as t he s t andar d fi ve- el ement s ubs t ant i ve R I C O char ge. A compar i s on of the c h all en g ed ch arg e w ith th e fiv e-e lem en t sub stan ti v e c h arg e re co m m en d ed in M o d ern F e d e ra l Ju ryIn stru c tio n s m a k e s th is p o in t. 17 T he cha l l enged c har ge i dent i fi ed as t he fi r s tR I C O el ement r equi r i ng pr oof bey ond
a re a s o n a b le d o u b t “ th a t a ra c k e te e ri n g e n te rp ri s e e x is te d th a t a f f e c te d in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e .” T r i al T r . at 2669. M odern Feder al J ur yI ns t ruct i ons char ges t he i dent i cal fac tual r equi r ement i n t w o el ement s : “Fi r s t , t hatan ent erpr i s e exi s t ed, ” and “Second, t hat t he ent erpr i s e af fec t ed interst ate o r fo reign c o m m e rc e.” S ee L eo n ard B
. S an d , et al. , 3 M o d ern F ed era l Jury In s tru c tio n s : C ri m in a l, I n s tru c tio n 5 2 -1 9 (2 0 0 3 ). T he cha l l enged c har ge i dent i fi ed t he s econd RICO el ement r equi r i ng pr oof bey ond
a r eas onabl e doubtas “thatt he d efendanty ou ar e cons i der i ng w as as s oci at ed w i t h t hat ent erpr i s e. ” Tri al T r . at2669. M odern Feder al J ur yI ns t ruct i ons s t at es t he s ame r equi r ement50

as i t s r ecomm ended t h ir d el ement : “Thi r d, t hatt he def endantw as as s oci at ed w i t h or
e m p lo y e d b yth e e n te rp ri s e .” In s tru c tio n 5 2 -1 9
. T he cha l l enged c h arge i dent i fi ed the thi r d R I C O el ement r equi r i ng pr oof bey ond a
r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t a s “ t h a to n o ra b o u tt h e d a t e s c h a r g e d t h e d e f e n d a n tu n l a w f

u l l y, i ntent i on al l y , and kn ow i ng l ypart i ci pated i n the con du ctof the a f f a i rs of the enterpri se t hr ough a patt ern of tw o orm or e s peci fi ed r acke t eer i ng act i vi t i es . ” Tri al T r . at2669. M od ern Fed eral JuryInstruct i on s st at es the sam e proof requi rem e n t i n tw o elem ents : “Four t h, t hat t he def

endantengage d i n a patt ern of r acke t eer i ng, ” and “ Fi fth, t hatt he defe ndantconduct ed orpar t i ci pat ed i n t he conduc tof the ent erpr i s e t hr ough t he patt ern of
ra c k e te e ri n g a c tiv ity.” In s tru c tio n 5 2 -1 9
. In sh o rt , this case is no t atall ak in t o U n it ed S tat es v. H o w ard , 5 0 6 F
. 2 d 1 1 3 1 (2d C ir
. 19 74 ), and U nit ed Stat es v. F i el ds, 46 6 F. 2d 11 9, 12 0 ( 2d C i r. 19 72 ), rel i ed on b ydefe nd ants . I n t hos e cas es , r ever s al w as r equi r ed not beca us e of t he num ber of el ement s as s i gned t o t he
r equi r ed fa ctual fi ndi ngs , butbeca us e the di s t r i ctcour t s compl et el yom i t t ed an e s s ent i al fac tual fi ndi ng fr om t he j ur y i ns t ruct i ons . See U ni t ed St at es v. H ow ar d, 506 F. 2d at1133- 34 ( r ever s i ng convi ct i on w her e cha r ge fa i l ed t o i ns t ructon need t o fin d tha tbank vi ct i m w as fede r al l yi ns ur ed and thatr o b b ery w as acc om pl i s hed thr ough for ce orvi ol ence ) ; U ni t ed S tate s v . F ield s, 4 6 6 F .2 d a t 1 2 0 (re v e rsin g c o n v ictio n w h e re c h a rg e f a iled a d e q u a telyto
e x p la in re q u is ite d e g re e o f k n o w le d g e ). C o u rts a n d c o m m e n tato rs h a v e lo n g d isa g re e d in a ss ig n in g a n u m b e r of e lem e n ts to the fa ctua l fin d ing s req u ir ed to sup p o rt a R IC O co n v ict ion
. W h il e so m e c ir cu itco u rt s ad h ere51

t o t he s ame fi ve el ement s r efe r enc ed i n M odern Feder al J ur yI ns t ruct i ons fors ubs t ant i ve R I C O char ges , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. K el t ner , 147 F. 3d 662, 668 ( 8t h C i r . 1998) ; U ni t ed St at es
v. T o, 14 4 F. 3d 73 7, 74 7 ( 11 t h C i r. 19 98 ), other s ar e i ncli ned t o ident i fyfou r R IC O el em ents , e ither by com bini ng t he ent erpr i se and i nter st at e com m erce requi rem ents i nto a sin g le el ement , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. R i char ds on, 167 F. 3d 621, 625 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1999) ; U ni t ed St at es
v. Par i s e, 159 F. 3d 790, 794 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Posa da- R i os , 158 F. 3d 832, 855 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Shi fm an, 124 F. 3d 31, 35 ( 1s tC i r . 1997) , orbycombi ni ng t he patt ern and conduc tr equi r ement s i nt o a s i ngl e el ement , s ee U n it ed S t at es v. Pal um bo B ro s., In c ., 1 4 5 F .3 d 8 5 0 , 8 7 7 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e N in th C irc u it, lik e th e d istric t co u rt in th is c a s e , m a k e s b o th th e se c o m b in a tio n s in d e lin e a tin g th re e R IC O e lem e n ts. S e e N in th C ir c u it P a tte rn J u ry In s tru c tio n s (C ri m in a l) § 8 .1 2 9
. A s M odern Feder al J ur y I ns t ruct i ons obs er ves , none of thes e al t ernat i ve form ul at i ons i s err oneous . I ns t ruct i on 52- 19, cmt . W hi l e the fi ve- el ement form u lat i on “pr efe r r ed” by M odern Feder al J ur y I ns t ruct i ons , i d. , and fol l ow ed by m any di s t r i ct cour t s i n t hi s ci r cui thas
m uch t o co m m en d i ti n expl ai ni ng t he part i cul ar l ycompl i cat ed cr i m e of r acke t eer i ng t o a j ur y , i ti s nots urpr i s i ng t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ti n t hi s cas e chos e to em pl oya thr ee- el ement
m o d el , s ee J ed S. R akoff & H ow ar d W
. G ol ds t ei n, R I C O : C i vi l and C r i m i nal L aw and S tr a te g y , § 1 0 .0 5 [ 4 ] ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( re c o m m e n d in g th re e -e le m e n t R IC O in s tru c tio n ). O urconce r n on appel l at e r evi ew of a R I C O char ge i s not , how ever , w i t h t he number of el ement s as s i gned t o t he re qui r ed fa ctual fi ndi ngs , butw i t h w hethert hos e el ement s , w hen
v iew ed as a w h o le, ad eq u atelyinstructed a jury as to all fac tual fin d ing s req u ir ed to su p p o rt52

convi ct i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. Q uat t r one, 441 F. 3d at177. J us tas a def endant“does not have the r i ghtt o di ct at e the pr eci s e l anguage of a j ur y i ns t ruct i on, ” U ni t ed St at es v. I m r an, 9 6 4 F
. 2 d 1 3 13, 1317 ( 2d C i r . 1992) ; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. St ant i ni , 85 F. 3d 9, 21 ( 2d C ir
. 1996) , he has no r i ghtt o deman d that req ui r ed fa ctual fi ndi ngs be s t at ed i n anypar t i cul ar
n u m b er o f e lem en ts, see g en era ll yU n it ed S tat es v . C o n w a y , 7 3 F
. 3 d 9 7 5 , 9 8 0 (10 th C ir
. 1995) ( “A t r i al j udge r et ai ns ext ens i ve di s cr et i on i n t ai l or i ng j ur yi ns t ruct i ons , pr ovi ded that t heycorr ect l ys t at e the l aw and fa i r l yand ade quat el ycovert he i s s ues pr es ent ed. ”) ; U ni t ed S tate s v . C a sto , 8 8 9 F .2 d 5 6 2 , 5 6 5 -6 6 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 9 ) (re jec tin g a rg u m e n t th a t in stru c tio n d id not“ade quat el ydel i neat e the el ement s of the cr i m e, ” not i ng t hat“fr ami ng of j ur yi ns t ruct i ons is a m att er w ith in the b roa d d iscreti o n o f th e tri al j u d g e” ). I n t hi s cas e, t he r ecor d s how s t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tnotonl y i ncl uded w i t hi n i t s t hr eeel ement for m ul at i on al l t he fa ctual fi ndi ngs nece s s aryt o s uppo rt a s ubs t ant i ve or
cons pi r at or i al R I C O convi ct i on, i t expl ai ned t he governm ent ’ s bur den of pr oof w i t h r es pect to tho se f

ind ing s in so m e d etail
. A s to the first elem en t, the d istri ct co u rtd ef ined the term

“ e n ter p rise ” a n d e x p lain e d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d to p ro v e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t b o th th e e x is te n c e o f

th e c h a rg e d e n te rp ri s e a n d its e f f e c t o n in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . W i t h r es pect t o t he s econd e l ement , t he courtexpl ai ned the nee d for pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat a d ef en d an t “no t on lyk n ew the e x ist en ce o f th e cri m inal en terprise, an d the ge n era l natu re
o f i t s a c t i v i t i e s , b u ta l s o t h a th e p u rp o s e l ya s s o c i a t e d h i ms e l f wi t h i ta n d p l a y e d s o me d iscreti o n aryrole, ho w ev er m o d est, in it s o p era ti o n , m an ag em en t, o r direction
. ” T ri al T r.
a t 2 6 6 9 -7 0
. A s to th e th ird e lem e n t, th e d istric t co u rt e x p lain e d th a t to e sta b lish th e re q u isiteI n char gi ng R I C O cons pi r acy , t he di s t r i ctcour tr efe r r ed the j ur yt o i t s i ns t ruct i ons 18 on s ubs t ant i ve r acke t eer i ng and cons pi r acygener al l y , expl ai ni ng t hat “w her e a c ons pi r acy is c o n c ern ed , the G o v ern m en t is n o t req u ir ed to pro v e th at the giv en d ef en d an t . . . s peci fi cal l yagr eed t o comm i t bot h s peci fi ed r acke t eer i ng act s ort hathe ac tual l ycomm i t t ed t w o s uch act s , but onl y t hat t he defenda nt unl aw ful l y , i nt ent i onal l y , and know i ngl yagr eed t o par t i ci pat e i n t he over al l r acke t eer i ng obj ect i ves of t h e en terpri s e and thatatl eas tone m ember o f

t h e c o n s p i r a c ya g r e e d t o c o mmi tt h e t wo s p e c i f i e d a c t s . ” Tr i a l Tr
. a t2 6 7 2
- 73. Th i s i s c o n s i s t e n twi t h t h e f a c tu a l f i n d i n g s o u t l i n e d i n t h e t yp i c a l f o u r - e l e me n tRI CO cons pi r acychar ge. See M odern Feder al J ur yI ns t ruct i ons atI ns t ruct i on 52- 32. 53 “patt ern” of r acke t eer i ng act i vi t ybey ond a re as onabl e doubt , t he governm enthad t o pr ove “atl eas tt w o s peci fi ed r acke t eer i ng act s t hat , r athert han bei ng i s ol at ed, ar e r el at ed [i n] t he
s ens e of ha vi ng t he s ame or s i m i l arpurpos es , r esu lt s, par t i ci pant s , vi ct i m s , orm ethods of
co m m issi o n an d that p o se a threa t of co n ti n u ed rac k etee ri n g ac ti v ityin tha t th eyw ere
c o m m itte d a s p a rt o f

th e e n te rp ri s e ’s o n g o i n g c ri m in a l p u rp o s e s .” Id . a t 2 6 7 0
. T h e c o u rt t hen expl ai ned thatt he governm entr el i ed on tw o act s t o es t abl i s h t hi s pat t ern, t he nar cot i cs
cons pi r acyand the Sant i ago murde r , t he el ement s of w hi ch had t o b e p rov ed bey ond a
re a so n a b le d o u b t. 18 W e c o n clud e th at thes e i n stru cti o n s, rea d as a w h o le, co rrectl yiden ti fied fo r th e jury t he fa ctual fi ndi ngs nece s s aryt o s uppor ta R I C O convi ct i on and i n no w ayl es s ened the governm ent ’ s bur den of pr oof. E
. C hal l enge t o D efe ndant s ’ L i fe Sent ence s B eca us e def

endant s conce ded i n t he di s t r i ctcour tt hatl i fe s ent ence s w er e mandat ed
o n th e d r u g c o u n t o f

c o n v ic tio n re la tin g to th e m u rd e r o f E d d ie S a n tia g o , w e re v iew th e ir appel l at e cha l l enge t o t hes e s ent ence s onl yforpl ain err or . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v.54

V illa f u e rt e , 5 0 2 F .3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 7 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ [ I] s s u e s n o t r a is e d in th e tr ia l c o u rt . . ., i ncl udi ng s ent enci ng i s s ues , ar e nor m al l ydeemed for fei t ed on appe al unl es s t heym eetour stan d ard fo r plain e rror. ”). T o d em o n str ate p lai n erro r, a d ef en d a n t m u st sho w (1) e rror, (2) tha t is p lai n at th e ti m e o f ap p ell ate rev iew , an d (3) tha t aff ec ts sub stan ti al ri g h ts. W h ere th e se c o n d iti o n s a re m e t, w e h a v e th e d isc re tio n to n o tice a f o rf e ited e rro r if

(4 ) it se rio u sly aff ect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , or publ i c re put at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . See U ni t ed St at es
v . O lano , 5 0 7 U
. S
. 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 (19 9 3 ); U n it ed S tat es v . R yb icki, 3 5 4 F
. 3 d 1 2 4 , 1 2 9 (2 d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ) ( e n b a n c ); U n ite d S ta te s v . T h o m a s , 2 7 4 F .3 d 6 5 5 , 6 6 7 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( e n b a n c ). T he err oras s er t ed bydefe ndant s i n t hi s cas e i s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s purp o r t ed mi s a p p r e h e n s i o n t h a ti twa s r e q u i r e d t o i mp o s e a l i fe s e nt e n c e b yb o t h 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 8 (e )(1 )(A ) a n d th e f e d e ra l S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s. D e f e n d a n ts su b m it th a t, be c a u se th is
err orm ay have r es ul t ed i n t he di s t r i ctcour ti m pos i ng a l ongers ent ence t han w as w arr ant ed byt he fa ct or s out l i ned i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) , a C r os byr emand is n ec essa r yt o det er m i ne
an yef fe ct on their su b stan ti al ri g h ts. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . C rosb y , 3 9 7 F
. 3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 9 (2d C ir
. 2005) ( pr ovi di ng r emand pr ocedur e t o det er m i ne ef fec tof s ent enci ng err oron s ubs t ant i al ri g h ts ). W e d is a g re e . C r os byobs er ved that , w hi l e a pr e- B ooker s ent ence m aybe err oneous i ns ofaras i tw as “im p o sed w i thoutan unde rst an d ing o f se n tenc ing law as su b seq u en tl yex p lai n ed ” b yB o o k er, “w e ca nnotknow w hethera corr ectper cept i on of l aw w oul d have p rod u ced a di ffe r ent
s ent ence . ” I d. at118. H er e, w e suff erfr om no s uch handi cap. T he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatt he
c h a l l e n g e d l i f

e s e n t e n c e s w e r e d i c t a t e d n o tb y a p e r c e i v e d G u i d e l i n e s m a n d a t e , b u tb y a55

tac tica l co n c e ss io n m a d e b yd e f e n d a n ts a t th e p e n a ltyp h a se . S p e c if ica lly , to s tre n g th e n th e ir
ar gum ent to the j ur yagai ns ti m pos i t i on of the dea t h penal t y , defe ndant s r epr es ent ed ( and
u rg e d th e c o u rt to c h a rg e ) th a t th e sin g le a ltern a tiv e se n ten c e w o u ld re q u ire th e d e f e n d a n ts t o s pend the r es tof thei rl i ves i n pr i s on. I n l i ghtof thi s conce s s i on, i thar dl y appea r s t hatan
aw ar enes s of the advi s or ynatur e of the G ui del i nes w oul d have r es ul t ed i n anyt hi ng l es s t han t he cha l l enged l i fe s ent ence s . W e need not , how ever , concl us i vel y r es ol ve thati s s ue. For
reas on s di scussed herei n, w e con cl ud e t hat defend ants ’ t act i cal decis i on att he p enaltyph ase t o conce de l i fe s ent ence s i f the j ur yr ej ect ed the dea t h penal t y p rec lud es them from now compl ai ni ng t hatt hos e sent ence s cons t i tut e pl ai n err or . T hus , r evi ew pur s uantt o C r os byfor plai n err or i n sentences i m po sed bef ore B oo ker w as decided i s no t avail able t o d efen dan t s. Id . at 1 1 6 (n o tin g th a t p ru d e n tial d o c trin e s o f p lain e rro r a n d h a rm les s e rro r a re a p p lied “ in the c u stom arym an n er” to d eterm i nat i on of w hetherr es ent enc ing is w arran ted u n d er B o o k er). T o expl ai n thi s concl u sion , ourdi s cus s i on pr ocee ds i n t he fol l ow i ng or der : ( 1) t he
re lev a n t sta tu te a n d G u id e lin e s d id n o t m a n d a te a life se n ten c e in th is c a se , (2 ) d e f e n d a n ts
ca n n o t con v incin g lyd em o n str ate the irli fe sen tenc es re su lt ed fr o m the d istri ct co u rt ’s
m isc o n stru c tio n o f

th e sta tu te a n d G u id e lin e s; (3 ) rath e r, th e c h a llen g e d se n ten c e s a p p e a r to der i ve fr om defe ndant s ’ t act i cal conce s s i on t o t he ca pi t al j ur yt hat , i f the dea t h penal t yw as not i m pos ed, t hey w oul d have t o s er ve t er m s of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent ; and ( 4) t h e pre cl us i ve ef fe ct of this co n ce ssion o n d ef

en d an ts’ claim that their li fe sen tenc es c o n sti tute p lai n erro r.J udi ci al di s cr et i on i n i m pos i ng a non- capi t al s ent ence under§ 848 w as r epea l ed by 19 t he U SA Pat r i otI m pr ovement an d R ea u thor i zat i on A ctof 2005, Pub. L
. N o. 109- 177, § 221( 2) , 120 St at . 192, 231 ( 2006)
. Sent enci ng for capi t al offe ns es under § 848, l i ke other 56 1. N ei t her21 U
. S. C
. § 848 N ort he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M andat ed Li fe S entences i n thi s C ase P rel i m i nari l y , w e recogn i ze t hat neither § 84 8 n or the S entenci ng G uidel i nes, pa r t i c ul a r l yw he n c on s t rue d a s a dv i s orya s r e qu i r e d b yU nit e d St a t e s v. Booke r , 54 3 U. S. 220, 245 ( 2005) , m andat ed the i m pos i t i on of l i fe s ent ence s i n t hi s cas e. A tt he t i m e of the cha l l enged s ent ence s , 21 U
. S. C
. § 848( e) ( 1) ( A ) pr ovi ded that per s ons found gui l t y of m ur der s r el at ed t o drug ent erpr i s es m i ght be s ent ence d t o “a t er m of i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch s hal l notbe l es s t han 20 y ears, an d w hi ch maybe up t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent , orm aybe s ent ence d t o death. ” W hi l e t h e st atut e w oul d have r equi r ed the di s t r i ctcour tt o fol low a jur yr ecomm endat i on t o s ent ence defe ndant s t o death, s ee i d. at § 848( l ) (“U p o n th e re c o m m e n d a tio n th a t th e se n ten c e o f d e a th b e im p o se d , the c o u rt sh a ll
s ent ence t he def

endantt o death. ”) , i n t he abs ence of s uch a r ecomm endat i on, i taff or ded a d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n s id e ra b le d is c re tio n to im p o s e a n yo th e r s e n te n c e “ a u th o ri z e d b yla w ,” id ., i
. e. , anys ent ence fr om t w entyy ear s ’ i ncar cer at i on t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent w i t hout par ol e. See al s o i d. at§ 848( p) ( not i ng t hat , i f courtdoes noti m pos e dea t h s ent ence , i t“mayi m pos e a
s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i t hout t he pos s i bi l i t yof par ol e” ( emphasi s added) ) ; U ni t ed S tat es v . C h an d ler, 9 9 6 F
. 2 d 1 0 7 3 , 1 0 8 4 -85 (11 th C ir
. 1 9 9 3 ) (h o lding that, u n d er § 8 4 8 , jury has “s ol e pow ert o r ecomm end a s ent ence of dea t h, ” buti f i tdoes notdo s o, “tr i al j udge has the re sp o n sibil ityto im p o se a sen tenc e o ther tha n d ea th”). 19fede r al capi t al cr i m es , i s now cover ed byt he Feder al D eath Penal t yA ct , 18 U
. S. C
. §§ 3591-

9 8 , w h ich m a k e s a ju ry re c o m m e n d a tio n o f life im p riso n m e n t b in d in g o n th e d istric t co u rt, se e id . at § 3 5 9 4 (“ U p o n a re c o m m e n d a tio n . . . tha t th e d e f e n d a n t s h o u ld b e s e n ten c e d to death orl i fe i m pr i s onm entw i t houtpos s i bi l i t yof r el eas e, t he courts hal l s ent ence t he d e f e n d a n t a c c o rd in g ly.” ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ))
. W h ile th is c o m m e n tar ysta tes th a t “d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re w o u ld n o t b e a p p ro p ria te 20 i n [a pr emedi t at ed murde r ] cas e, ” U
. S. S. G
. § 2A 1. 1, A pp. N ot e 2(A ) , t he observat i on i s not ab so lute, as ev iden ce d b y the fa ct that, ev en in case s inv o lving “a m an d atorystatu toryterm of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent ” – nott hen pr ovi ded fori n § 848 – t he G ui del i nes r ecog n ized one ci r cumst ance i n w hi ch dow nw ar d departur e w oul d be “pe r m is s i bl e, ” i
. e. , w hen the governm entm oved forcons idera ti o n b ase d o n the d ef en d an t’ s su b stan ti al assist ance pur s uant t o 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( e)
. See i d. 57 A tt he t i m e of de fenda nt s ’ s ent ence s , a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s exer ci s e of s t atut or ys ent enci ng di s cr et i o n w as ci r cumscr i bed byw hatw er e then under s t ood t o be mandat or ySent enci ng G u id e lin e s. S e e U n ited S tate s v . M in c e y , 3 8 0 F .3 d 1 0 2 , 1 0 5 -0 6 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (d e c lin in g to
cons t rue B l akel yv. W as hi ngt on, 542 U
. S. 296 ( 2004) , t o m andat e i nval i dat i on of fe der al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes i n t he abs ence of fur t her gui dance fr om t he Supr eme C our t ) , vaca t ed
s u b n o m. , Fe r r e l l v . Uni t e d St a t e s , 5 4 3 U. S. 1 1 1 3 ( 2 0 0 5 )
. Th e s e Gui d e l i n e s i d e n t i fi ed a
s i n g l e n o n - c a p i t a l p e n a l t yf o rp r e me d i t a t e d mu r d e r : l i f e i mp r i s o n me n t . S e e U. S
. S
. G. § 2A 1. 1, A pp . N o t e 2( A ) ( “I n t he ca s e of pr emedi t at ed ki l l i ng, l i fe i m pr i s onm enti s t he appr opr i at e s ent ence i f a s ent ence of deat h i s noti m pos ed. ”)
. W hi l e the G ui del i nes s cheme,
e v e n w h e n m a n d a to ry , af f o rd e d d istric t co u r ts so m e d isc re tio n to d e p a rt, i t stro n g ly d i s c o u r a g e d s u c h d e p a r tu r e s i n c a s e s o f p r e me d i t a t e d mu r d e r . S e e i d
. Af t e rt h e S u p r e me 20 C our t , i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ook er, r eca s tt he G ui del i nes as advi s or y , s ee 543 U
. S. at245, how ever , t hi s cour ti dent i fi ed pot ent i al pl ai n err oraff ect i ng su b st ant i al r i ght s i n a di s t r i ct58

cour t ’ s m andat or yap p li ca ti o n of G ui del i nes s ent ence s . See U ni t ed St at es v. C r os by , 397 F
. 3 d at 1 1 8 ( obs er vi ng t hat“s ent ence i m pos ed undera mi s t aken pe r cept i on of t he
r equi r ement s of l aw w i l l s at i s fypl ai n err oranal y s i s i f t he sent ence i m pos ed undera corr ect
u n d erstan d ing w o u ld h av e b ee n m aterial ly d iffe ren t” a n d o rde ri n g rem an d fo r distr ictco u rt to in d ic a te w h e th e r s u c h m a te ri a l d if f e re n c e w a s p re s e n t in c a s e ). 2. D efe ndant s’ C lai m t hatT hei rL i fe Sent ence s W er e a Pr oductof t he A l l eged Er r or W hi l e the di s t r i ctcour t pl ai nl y vi ew ed l i fe s ent ence s as r equi r ed on the ca pi t al count of convi ct i on, defe ndant s fai l t o s how t hat t hi s vi ew w as t he re s ul t of a mi s cons t ruct i on of § 8 4 8 ' s s e n t e n c i n g p r o v i s i o n o r o f a mi s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e Se n t e n c i n g Gui d e l i n e s as
m a n d a to ry. A car eful r evi ew of the s ent enci ng r ecor d s ugges t s t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tt houghtl i fe
s ent ence s w er e r equi r ed on the ca pi t al count fo r re as ons di s t i nctfr om anySent enci ng G ui del i nes m andat e. T he murde rG ui del i nes , aft er al l , pr ovi ded for l i fe se nt ence s on a t ot al of t hr ee count s of convi ct i on: t he t w o non- capi t al r acke t eer i ng count s ( forw h ich t he S a n tiag o m u rd e r w a s a p re d ic a te ) , as w e ll as th e c a p ital § 8 4 8 c o u n t. T h e d istric t co u rt, h o w e v e r, a p p e a rs to h a v e id e n tifie d so m e d isc re tio n w ith re sp e c t to th e ra c k e tee rin g c o u n ts t hatdi d notper t ai n t o t he ca pi t al count . C om par e Sent enci ng T r . at16 ( obs er vi ng t hat G u id e lin e lev e l o f

4 3 f o r ra c k e tee rin g c o u n ts is “ w h a t co m p e ls th e life ter m f o r th e [ se ] c o u n ts
w h ere th[ ere ] i s d iscreti o n ”) w ith id. at8 (st ati n g th a t § 8 4 8 co u n t “i s n o t a discre ti o n ary
m at t er ”)
. T hi s di s t i nct i on i m pl i es t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t under s t ood s om ethi ng ot her t han the59

G ui del i nes t o m andat e the cha l l enged l i fe s ent ence s on t he ca pi t al count . I ndeed, t hat concl us i on fi nds fur t hers uppor ti n t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s cus s i on of B l akel yv. W as hi ngt on, 542 U
. S. 296. W h il e the d is t r i ctcour texpr es s ed di s appoi nt m entt hatt hi s cour thad not
cons t rued B l akel yt o fr ee f eder al j udges fr om t he G ui del i nes , i tobs er ved thatB l akel ym ade
n o d if f e re n c e to th e re q u ir e d lif e s e n te n c e s o n th e § 8 4 8 c o u n t. S e e id . a t 7 ( “ O b v i o u s l y, t her e i s no, ei t hera B l akel yi s s ue orany ot her ki nd of i s s ue w i t h r es pect t o t he [§ 848] count
w h e re lif e im p ri s o n m e n t is re q u ir e d .” ). T o t he ext entdefe ndant s submi tt hatt he di s t r i ctcour tm us thave mi s cons t rued the
s ent enci ng pr ovi s i on of § 848 t o m andat e a l i fe s ent ence , w e do notl i ghtl yas s um e thatan exper i ence d di s t r i ct j udge has m i s r ead or m i s under s t ood a cr i m i nal s t atut e. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. Sw eene y , 90 F. 3d 55, 58 ( 2d C i r . 1996) ( appl y i ng pr es um pt i on t hats ent enci ng j udge i s know l edgea bl e about avai l abl e s ent enci ng opt i ons ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. R i ver s , 50 F. 3d 1126, 1 1 3 1 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (s a m e ). S u c h a n a ss u m p tio n o f e rro r is p a rticu lar lyu n w a rra n ted in th is
cas e bec aus e the r ecor d offe r s a more l i kel yexpl anat i on fort he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s conc lus i on t hati tw as r equi r ed t o i m pos e l i fe s ent ence s on t he § 848 count . Speci fi cal l y , i tappea r s t hat th e d e f e n d a n ts a g re e d to life im p riso n m e n t as th e o n lyp o ss ib le n o n -c a p ital se n ten c e to
s t r engthen thei rar gum entt o t he j ur y , att he pena l t yphas e of thi s cas e, t hatj us t i ce di d not d e m a n d th e ird e a th s .

3
. D ef

en d an ts’ S en tenc ing R ep rese n tat ion s to the Ju ry E ven bef or e j ur y s el ect i on, defe ndant s ur ged t he di s t r i ct court t o i ns t ructpr os pect i ve j ur or s t hat , on t he ca pi t al char ges , t her e w er e onl yt w o pos s i bl e s ent ence s , l i fe i m pr i s onm ent60

ordeath, and that , i f the j ur yr ej ect ed th e lat t er , t he courtw oul d be r equi r ed t o i m pos e the f o rm e r. In so f

a r a s s u c h a n in s tru c tio n c o rre c tlysta ted th e law u n d e r th e F e d e ra l D e a th P enalty A ct , see 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 35 94 , w hich app l i ed to t he cap i t al racket eeri ng charges against defe ndant s , t hei rpr e- t r i al r eques tfors uch an i ns t ruct i on m i ghtnot , byi t s el f, r eas onabl ybe
c o n stru e d a s a s e n ten c in g c o n c e ss io n u n d e r § 8 4 8 . M o re tellin g , h o w e v e r, is th e f a c t th a t,
even a ft ert he j uryacqui t t ed def endant s on t he ca p it al r acke t eer i ng count s , and af t er exper i ence d capi t al defe ns e couns el acknow l edged t hatt he dea t h penal t yw as t o be
c o n s id e re d o n ly u n d e r § 8 4 8 , defe ndant s cont i nued t o i ns i s t t hatt he j ur ybe cha r ged thatt he onl yt w o s en tenc ing pos s i bi l i t i es on t he ca pi t al countw er e l i fe i m pr i s onm entordeath. Pr es ent ed w i t h a pr opos ed ch arge t o t hi s eff ect , defe ndant s notonl yfai l ed t o obj ect , t hey
as ked the courtt o emphasi ze the al t ernat i ve l i fe s ent ence w oul d be w i t houtpos s i bi l i t yof par ol e. C ons i s t entw i t h t hes e def ens e r eques t s , att he pena l t yphas e t he di s t r i ctcour tfr amed th e “ u ltim a te q u e s tio n ” f o r j u ry r e s o lu tio n a s a c h o ic e b e tw e e n tw o s e n te n c in g o p tio n s , i.e ., “w hethera def

endants houl d be exec ut ed ori m pr i s on[ed] forl i fe w i thoutt he pos s i bi l i t yof
r el eas e. ” Tri al T r . at3985. T he courtexpl ai ned: [T]he r e ar e onl yt w o sen tenc es t hatar e l egal l ypos s i bl e under[the counti nvol vi ng m ur deri n connec t i on w i t h the n ar cot i cs t r aff i cki ng]
. O ne i s l i fe i m pr i s onm ent w i t houtr el eas e. I w antt o m ake y ou aw ar e thati n t he fe der al s y s t em t her e i s no par ol e. So l i fe i m pr i s onm entm eans exac t l yt hat , i m pr i s onm entforl i fe w i t houtany pos s i bi l i t yforr el eas e. T hati s t he s ent ence t hatw i l l b e impose d unl es s al l of y ou unani m ous l yfi nd bey ond a re as onabl e doubtt hatt he dea t h penal t ym us tbe i m pos ed. I n ot herw or ds t he def

aul tpos i t i on i n eff

ecti s l i fe i m pr i s onm ent w i t hout r el eas e and onl y i f eve r yone of y ou concl udes bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatdeath m us tbe i m pos ed, w i l l [i t ] be i m pos ed.61

T r i al T r . at2925, 3985. R ei nfo r c i n g t h e i n s t ru c t i o n t h a t“ t h e d e f a u l tp o s i t i o n i n e f

f e c ti s l i f e i mpr i s onm ent
w ith o u t r e le a s e ” w a s th e c o u rt ’s in s tru c tio n o n m itig a tin g f a c to rs . A m i t i gat i ng fac t ori s a fact or t hat favor s a puni s hm entof l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i t hout r el eas e r athert han the dea t h penal t y . . . . [A ] m i t i gat ing fa ctor i s a fa ctaboutt he defe ndant ’ s l i fe or char act er , or about ot her ci r cumst ance s t hat y ou fi nd r el evant , t hat w ou l d sug gestt hat a sent ence of li fe i n p ri son w i t ho ut anypo ssi bil i t yof rel ease i s a m or e appr opr i at e puni s hm entt han dea t h. I d. at3989, 3991 -92 (i den t i fy i ng as m i t i gati ng fact or: “L i fe i m pri sonm ent w i t ho ut r el ease is i tsel f a v erysev ere p u n ishm en t. ”). H a v in g su c c e ss f

u llyse c u re d th e se in stru c tio n s, d e f e n s e c o u n se l f

ra m e d th e ir
ar gum ent s agai ns t t he death penal t y by emphasi zi ng t he avai l abi l i t yof a s i ngl e non- capi t al
se n ten c e : li f

e im p riso n m e n t. “N o w , y o u r c h o ice is cle a r. It’s li f e im p riso n m e n t o r th e d e a th p e n a lty.” Id . a t 3 9 7 5
. M or eover , couns el emphasi zed t hatt he j ur y ’ s deci s i on betw een the t w o s ent ence s w oul d be “the fi nal one. ” I d. at3961 ( “Y ou ar e t he ul t i m at e det er m i ner s of

w h ethe r [th e de fe n d an t] w il l b e sen tenc ed to dea th or li v e ou t h is d ay s in a fe d era l pri so n . ”). In d e e d , w h en o n o n e o cc asio n d ef en se c o u n sel i n ad v erten tl yref ere n ce d a jury “r ecomm endat i on” of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent– a for m ul at i on t hat m i ghti m pl yt he pos s i bi l i t yof t he cour t i m pos i ng a l es s er s ent ence – he qui ckl ycorr ect ed hi m s el f t o ur ge j ur y“i m pos i t i on” of a l i fe s ent ence , s i g n ali ng t he fi nal i t yof thatdeci s i on. I d. at3959 (“ [ W ]e a sk y o u to unani m ous l y r ecomm end and – excus e m e – unani m ous l y i m pos e a l i fe s ent en ce w i t hout
re lea se .”). T h e sin g u lar a ltern a tiv e o f life im p riso n m e n t w a s th u s p lain lyc ritica l toB ycontr as t , t he fa i l u re ti m el yt o as s er ta cl ai m r es ul t s onl yi n for fei tur e of that 21 cl ai m , r athert han w aive r , t he l at t erof w hi ch r equi r es t he “i nt ent i onal r el i nqui s hm entor abandonmentof a know n r i ght
. ” U ni t ed Stat es v . O l ano, 507 U
. S. 725, 733 ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). 62 d e f e n d a n t s ’ a r g u m e n t s t o t h e j u r y t h a t j u s t i c e d i d n o t r e q u i r e i m p o s i t i o n o f t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y. See i d. at3940 ( as s ur i ng j ur yt hat“[s ] oci etyw i l l be pr ot ect ed” byl i fe s ent ence s for defe ndant s “bec aus e i t ’ s w i t hout r el eas e”; defe ndant s w i l l s pend the r es tof thei rl i ves “i n a cage , ” a puni s hm ent t hat s om e t hi nk i s “w or s e than the dea t h penal t y ”) ; s ee a l s o i d. at3960 ( cl os i ng s um m at i on bys t at i ng: “Fi nal l y , i t ’ s j us t i ce. L i fe i n pr i s on w i t houtr el eas e i s j us t i ce i n t hi s cas e. ”) ; i d. at3969 ( as s ur i ng j ur yt hat , i f dea t h penal t yi s noti m posed , “h e’l l s pend th e re s t o f

h is lif e in p ri s o n ” ). 4. D efe ndant s ’ T act i cal D eci s i on T o A gr ee t o M andat or yL i fe I m pr i s onm ent as t he O nl y A l t ernat i ve t o a D eath Sent ence W ai ves T hei rC l ai m of Pl ai n E r r or D efe ndant s havi ng t hus s ucce s s ful l yper s uaded the j ur yt hati tdi d notneed t o vot e for the d ea th p en alt y , w e d ec li n e to e n tert ain th e ir a p p e lla te claim that the d istri ct co u rt
comm i t t ed pl ai n err orbyi m pos i ng w hat i t t hus vi ew ed as a r equi r ed l i fe s ent ence . T he l aw i s w el l es t abl i s hed thati f, “as a t act i cal m at t er , ” a pa r t yr ai s es no obj ect i on t o a purpor t ed
e rr o r, s u c h in a c tio n “ c o n s titu te s a tru e ‘w a iv e r’ w h ic h w ill n e g a te e v e n p la in e rr o r r e v ie w .” 21 U ni t ed St at es v. K on Y u- L eung, 51 F. 3d 1116, 1122 ( 2d C i r . 1995) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C oonan, 938 F. 2d 1 5 5 3 , 1 5 61 ( 2d C i r . 1991) ( hol di ng t hat , w her e appe al at t empt s “t o evade t he
cons equenc es of an uns ucce s s ful t act i cal deci s i on . . . w e have no di ffi cul t yconcl udi ng t hat [appe l l ant ] has w ai ved r evi ew ” of c l ai m ) ; s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. K r ankel , 164 F. 3d 1046,T he governm entm akes es s ent ial l yt he s ame ar gum entbyr efe r ence t o j udi ci al 22 e sto p p e l. T h a t d o c trin e , h o w e v e r , a p p lies “ o n lyw h e n a trib u n a l in a p rio r se p a ra te proceedi ng has r el i ed on a pa r t y ’ s i ncons i s t entfac tual r epr es ent at i ons and r ender ed a f a v o ra b le d e c isio n .” A d ler v . P a tak i, 18 5 F .3 d 3 5 , 4 1 n .3 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (e m p h a sis in o ri g inal); see also O S R ec o v ery , Inc
. v . O n e G rou p e Int’l , 4 6 2 F
. 3 d 8 7 , 9 3 n . 3 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). A s a rul e, j udi ci al es t oppel does notappl yon di r ectappea l
. See A dl erv . P at aki , 185 F. 3d at 41 n. 3 ; s e e a l s o 1 8 B W r i g h t , M i l l e r& Coo p e r , Fe d e r a l Pr a c t i c e a n d Pr o c e d u r e § 4 477 ( “Ther e i s m uch t o be s ai d forr efus i ng to ap p ly ‘j u d i ci al es t oppel ’ w i t hi n t he cour s e of pr etr i al , t r i al , and appe al of a si n g l e ac t i on. ”)
. T r adi t i onal appel l at e r evi ew doctr i nes of for fei tur e, w ai ver , and pl ai n err orar e gene r al l yadequa t e t o addr es s a part y ’ s change of pos i t i on betw een the tr i al and appe l l at e court s . B eca us e thos e t ool s p ermi tus t o r ej ect d e f e n d a n t s ’ s e n t e n c i n g c h a l l e n g e , we d o n o t f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r t h e p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i on of j udi ci al es t oppel i n this c ri m ina l cas e. See gene r al l yU ni t ed St at es v. V el ez Car r er o, 140 F .3 d 3 2 7 , 3 3 0 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (d ra w in g a n a lo g ies b e tw e e n ju d icia l es to p p e l as it ap p lies in ci vi l cas es and w ai verpr i nci pl e appl i cabl e i n cr i m i nal cas es: “Ju stas t he compani on doctr i nes ofj udi ci al es t oppel and el ect i on of r emedi es pr ecl ude part i es i n ci vi l l i t i gat i on fr om as s er t i ng le gal orfac tual pos i t i ons i ncons i s t entw i t h t he pos i t i ons t hatt heyt ook i n pr i or pr ocee di ngs , s o, t oo, a cr i m i nal defe ndantor di nar i l ym us tr ai s e cl ai m s i n a t i m el yfas hi on, 63 1 0 5 3 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (n o tin g p a rticu lar re lu c tan c e to f in d p lain e rro r w h e n d e f e n d a n t f a ils to obj ectatt r i al “bec aus e of a t act i cal deci s i on”)
. A fi ndi ng of true w ai verappl i es w i t h even
m or e for ce w hen, as i n t hi s cas e, defe n d an t s notonl yfai l ed t o obj ectt o w hatt heynow des cr i be as err or , but t hey act i vel y s ol i ci t ed i t , i n or der t o pr ocur e a per cei v ed sen tenci ng b e n e f it. A s w e o b se rv e d in U n ited S tate s v . F e rg u so n , w h e n d e f e n d a n ts o b tain “ p re c ise ly
w hatt heyaff

i r m at i vel ys ought , i ti l l behooves [them] now t o compl ai n” of err or , 758 F. 2d 843, 852 ( 2d C i r . 1985) ( di s cus s i ng “i nvi t ed er r or ”) ; cf. C handl erv. U ni t ed St at es , 996 F. 2d 1 0 7 3 , 1 0 8 4 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (a p p ly in g “ in v ited e rro r” d o c trin e to d e f e n d a n t’s c laim th a t, i n § 848 cas e, di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n notper m i t t i ng j ur yto rec o m m end s ent ence ot hert han death, and conc l udi ng t he ar gum ent w as for ecl os ed bydefe ns e pos i t i on atconfe r ence s and in req u ested instruction s tha t r esp o n sibil ityfo r no n -de ath s en tenc e re sted w ith co u rt ). 22cons i s t entw i t h hi s pr i or pos i t i ons i n t he cas e, or s uffe r t he conse quence s . ” (i nt ernal ci t at i ons

o m itte d ))
. 64 W e hav e no do ub tt hat i tw as a t act i cal decis i on for defen dan t s, att he p enaltyph ase
o f t h i s c a s e , t o a g r e e t h a ta l i f e s e n t e n c e wa s t h e o n l ya l t e r n a t i v e t o d e a t h
. I n d e e d , t h e s a me
c o n c e ss io n w a s m a d e b y d e f e n d a n t T h o m a s P itera in th e f irst § 8 4 8 c a p ital c a se tried in th is circu itm o re tha n fiftee n y ea rs ag o . S ee g en era ll yU n it ed S tat es v. P it era , 5 F
. 3 d 6 2 4 (2d C ir
. 1993)
. I n vot i ng agai ns tt he dea t h penal t y , al l t w el ve j ur or s i dent i fi ed as a mi t i gat i ng fac t or “[t ] hat , i f not s ent ence d t o death, defe ndant w i l l s er ve a t er m of l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i t hout p a r o l e . ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . P i t e r a , No
. 9 0 CR 4 2 4 ( E
. D. N. Y. ) , S p e c i a l F i n d i n g s I I I
. 4 D,
r epr i nt ed i n S o ur cebook f orJ udges and C ouns el i n Feder al C api t al Pr os ecut i ons , Feder al D eath Penal t yR es our ce Counsel Project 1 3. A ( 1999)
. T he t act i cal val ue of s uch a
conce s s i on i s obvi ous . A s cour t s and com m ent at or s have obse r ved, “‘ t he soonerj ur or s t hi nk a d ef en d an t w il l be re lease d fro m p ri so n , the m o re li k elytheyar e to v o te f o r de ath . .
. . ’” P eo p le v. L aV all e, 3 N
. Y
. 3 d 8 8 , 1 1 7 , 7 8 3 N
. Y
. S
. 2 d 4 8 5 , (20 0 4 ) (qu o ti n g W il li am J. B o w ers & B enj ami n D
. St ei ner , D eath byD efa ul t : A n E m pi r i cal D emonst r at i on of Fal s e and For ced C h o ices in C ap it al S en tenc ing , 7 7 T ex . L
. R ev . 6 0 5 , 7 0 3 (19 9 9 )); see T h eo d o re E isen b erg & M ar t i n T
. W el l s , D eadl yC onfus i on: J ur orI ns t ruct i ons i n C api t al C as es , 79 C or nel l L
. R ev. 1 , 4 (1 9 9 3 ) ( n o ti n g in stu d yo f S o u th C a ro lin a c a p ital c a se s th a t “m isg u id e d f e a rs o f e a rly
re lea se g e n e ra te d e a th se n ten c e s” ). T h u s, w h ile § 8 4 8 m a y , ind e e d , af f o rd d istric t c o u rts
c o n s id e ra b le s e n te n c in g d is c re tio n w h e n a ju ry d o e s n o t i m p o s e t h e d e a th p e n a lty, a d e f e n d a n t m ig h t re a so n a b lyc o n c lu d e th a t h e c a n b e st a v o id a d e a th se n ten c e b ya g re e in g to65

life im p riso n m e n t as th e sin g le a ltern a tiv e p u n ish m e n t. Sent enci ng agr eement s are n o t unhe ar d of i n t he l aw . T he R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e per m i t par t i es , w i t h t he cons ent of t he cour t , t o agr ee t o a s peci fi c s ent ence as t he
a p p ro p ria te d isp o sitio n in a c a s e . S e e F e d . R . C rim P . 1 1 (c )(1 )(C ). W h a t o c c u rre d in th is
cas e mi ghtr eas onabl ybe vi ew ed as a var i at i on on t his t heme. B ot h defe ndant s and the g o v e rn m e n t a c k n o w led g e th a t th e y a c q u ies c e d in

– a n d , in th e c a se o f d e f e n d a n ts, a c tiv e ly
s ol i ci t ed – J udge R akoff’ s i ns t ruct i on t o t he j ur y t hat , i f t he dea t h penal t yw er e noti m pos ed, l i fe i m pr i s onm entw as t he onl y avai l abl e al t ernat i ve. D efe ndant s can ha r dl ycompl ai n t hat t he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d t hem i n acc or dance w i t h t hi s i nvi t ed j ur yr epr es ent at i on. D efe n d ant s nevert hel es s s ubm i tt hatt hei rs ent enci ng conce s s i on cannotbe bi ndi ng b ec ause i tw as m ade be for e U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U
. S. 220, ata t i m e w hen they under s t ood t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t w oul d have l i t t l e, i f any , di s cr et i on t o depart fr om t he l i fe sent ence m and at ed b yt he S entenci ng G uidel i nes. T he cal end ar do es no tsupp ortdefe nd ants ’
a rg u m e n t. A t th e tim e o f th e ir A u g u st 4, 20 0 4 se n ten c in g c o n c e ss io n to th e ju ry , d e f e n d a n ts had the bene fi tof both t he Supr eme C our t ’ s J une 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 d eci s i on i n B l akel yv. W as hi ngt on, 542 U
. S. 296, and J udge R akoff’ s J ul y21, 2004 deci s i on decl ar i ng t he fe der al G ui del i nes uncons t i tut i onal i n l i ghtof B l akel y , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. M arr er o, 325 F. Supp. 2d 453 ( S. D
. N
. Y
. 2004)
. See al s o U ni t ed St at es v. R os en, 409 F. 3d 535, 550 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( des cr i bi ng B l akel yas a “ha rbi nger ” of B o o k er). T hus , w e ar e notper s uaded that d ef en d an ts’ sen tenc ing co n ce ssion w as dictated b y an assu m p ti o n that the G u idelines w ereN o di ffe r entconcl us i on i s w arr ant ed byt he fa ct t hat , aft er t he j ur yver di ctbutpr i or 23 t o defe ndant s ’ S ep t ember 27, 2004 s ent enci ng, t hi s cour thad dec i ded U ni t ed St at es v. M i ncey , 380 F. 3d 102 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng t hat d ist ri ct c o ur t s i n t hi s ci r cui ts houl d not r e l yo n Bl a k e l yt o i n v a l i d a t e t h e f e d e r a l Gu i d e l i n e s a b s e n tc l e a r e rd i r e c t i o n f r o m th e S u p r e me C o u rt ). A s M ince yit self n o ted, see id. at1 0 3 , the likeliho o d that f u rt h e r S u p rem e C o u rt di r ect i on w oul d s o o n be fort hcomi ng w as appar entfr om t he fa ctt hatar gum enthad bee n s chedul ed i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ookerand U ni t ed St at es v. Fanfan, 542 U
. S. 956 ( 2004) , for O c to b e r 4 , 2 0 0 4
. 66 m a n d a t o r y. 23 I n anyevent , defe ndant s ’ ar gum enti s atodds w it h o u r h o l di ng i n U ni t ed St at es v. M or gan, 406 F. 3d 135 ( 2d C i r . 2005)
. I n M or gan, w e rul ed thata pr e- B ookerw ai verof
a p p e l l a t e r i g h t s b a r r e d d e f e n d a n t f r o m p u r s u i n g a Bo o k e r c h a l l e n g e t o h i s s e n t e n c e . T wo obs er vat i ons i nfor m ed ourconcl us i on: ( 1) t her e w as “no i ndi cat i on t hatt he part i es i nt ended fort he appe al w ai vernott o appl yt o i s s ues ar i s i ng aft er , as w el l as befor e, t he w ai ver , ” i d. at 137; and ( 2) t he w ai verw as ent er ed as par tof a “ pl ea a gr eementpr oces s ” thatper m i t t ed t he def endantand the governm ent “t o al l ocat e r i s k, t o obt ai n benef i t s , t o achi eve f

i nal i t yand to s a v e re s o u rc e s .” Id . T h e s a m e re a s o n in g a p p lie s w ith e v e n g re a te r f o rc e in th is c a s e . A s i n M or gan, t he r ecor d i n t hi s cas e offe r s no i ndi cat i on t hatdefe ndant s ’ s ent enci ng
r epr es ent at i on t o t he j ur y w as i n any w ay cont i ngent on futur e l egal devel opm ent s . T he
om i s s i on i s s ign ifi cantbeca us e, w hi l e M or gan mayhave ha d no r eas on t o s us pectt he i nval i di t yof the G ui del i nes , defe ndant s ’ s ent enci ng conce s s i on, as w e have j us ts how n, w as
m a d e a t a tim e w h e n th e iss u e w a s a t th e f o re f ro n t o f leg a l d e b a te. M o re im p o rta n t, i t is i m pos s i bl e t o over es t i m at e the bene fi tdefe ndant s der i ved fr om t hei rr epr es ent ati o n t o t he j ur y t hat t he onl y non- capi t al al t ernat i ve i n t hei r cas e w as l i fe i m pr i s onm ent ; t he ar gum entO urrul i ng r ender s unnece s s aryanyC r os byr emand on t he r emai ni ng count s of 24 c o n v ictio n , as a n yre se n ten c in g o n th o s e c o u n ts w o u ld n o t ch a n g e th e f a c t th a t d e f

e n d a n ts w ill s p e n d th e re s t o f

th e irliv e s im p ri s o n e d p u rs u a n t to th e § 8 4 8 c o n v ic tio n .

67 m a yw e ll h a v e s a v e d th e irliv e s . I n s um , beca us e def

endant s , i n s ucce s s ful l ya v o i d i n g th e d e ath penal t y , m ade a t act i cal deci s i on t o conce de t he si ngul ar non- capi t al al t ernat i ve of a l i fe s ent ence , w e conc l ude that t heycannotnow ar gue thatt he i m pos i t i on of s uch a s ent ence cons t i tut es pl ai n err or . See 24 U ni t ed St at es v. K on Y u- L eung, 51 F. 3d at1122; U ni t ed St at es v. Fer gus on, 758 F. 2d at852. I ndeed, i f w e w er e t o ent er t ai n an ar gum entt hataff o rde d d ef

en d ant s t he pos s i bi l i t yof a lesser se n tenc e th a n th e o n e th e juryw as to ld w o u ld b e re q u ir ed w h en itv o ted to sp are defe nd ants t he deat h penalty , t hat ruli ng , and no tt he ch al l eng ed li fe sentences, w ou l d rai se
conce r ns aboutt he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , and r eput e of the ca pi t al pr ocee di ng. I I I . C oncl usi on T o s um m ar i ze, w e conc l ude: ( 1 ) T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c t e d w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n e m p a n e l i n g a n a n o n ym o u s j u r y. ( 2) T he Si xt h A m endment does notnece s s ar i l ypr ecl ude r emoval s forcaus e bas ed
o n re sp o n se s to ju r y q u e stio n n a ire s a lth o u g h , in c a p ital c a se s, so m e o ra l q u e stio n in g is pr efe r r ed i n conduct i ng a W i t t - W i t her s poon i nqui r y . W e need not deci de i f the cha l l enged
re m o v a ls in th is c a s e , b a se d o n lyo n q u e stio n n a ire re sp o n se s, c o m p o rte d w ith W itt
W ith e rsp o o n b e c a u se , w h e re th e d e a th p e n a lty is no t im p o se d , d e f e n d a n ts a re n o t en tit led to rel i ef from t heircon vict i on s.68

( 3) N one of the cha l l enged e vi dent i aryrul i ngs demonst r at e abus e of di s cr et i on. (4) C h arg ing R IC O b y ref ere n ce to three elem en ts do es n o t r ed u ce the g o v ern m en t’ s b u rd e n o f

p ro o f w h e re , as in th is c a se , tho se e lem e n ts are d e f in e d f o r th e ju ryb yd e tailin g a ll fac tual fi ndi ngs nece s s aryt o s uppor tconvi ct i on. (5) W e d ec li n e to e n tert ain a p lai n erro r ch all en g e to life se n tenc es im p o sed b ef o re B ookerw her e def

endant s m ade the t act i cal deci s i on, att he pena l t yphas e of thi s capi t al cas e, t o r epr es ent t o t he j ur y ( bot h t hr ough t hei row n ar gum ent s and the i ns t ruct i ons t heys ought fr om t he court ) t hat , i f the j ur yvot ed aga i ns tt he dea t h penal t y , defe ndant s w oul d be r equi r ed t o s pend the r es tof thei rl i ves i n pr i s on. T h e j u d g me n t s o f

c o n v i c t i o n a r e h e r e b yAF F I RMED
.