2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

6-30-2009 

# Gov VI v . D a vid M ott a

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-2693

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Go v VI v . D a vid M ott a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1110. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1110NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 2693

GOVE RN M E NT OF T HE VI RG I N I S L ANDS

v. DAVI D M OT T A, A ppel l ant

APPEAL FROM A J UD GM ENT O F THE D IS T R IC T C O U R T O F T H E V IR G IN IS L A N D S ,

AP P E L L AT E DI VI S I ON ( D

. C

. C r i m . N o. 04- cr - 00174- 001) C hi ef J udge: H onor abl e C ur t i s V

. G om ez D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e St anl eyS. B r ot m an S u p e rio r C o u rt Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le L e o n A . K e n d a ll

A r gued: A pr i l 23, 2009

B efor e: B A R R Y , H A R D I M A N , and C O W E N , C i r cui t J udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 30, 2009)

E r i c S. C hance l l or , E s q. ( A r gued) 2 1 1 1 C o m p a n yS tre e t, C h ristia n ste d , S t. C ro ix U SV I , 00820- 0000
C ouns el forA ppel l antM ot t a w as s ent ence d t o 15 y ear s on t he r obber ycount , fi ve 1 y e a rs ( c o n se c u tiv e ) o n th e p o s se ss io n o f a d e a d lyw e a p o n c o u n t, an d ten y ea rs (co n cu rren t) o n the att em p ted rap e c o u n t. M o tt a’s s ent ence i s not ati s s ue her e. -2- T i ffa nyV

. R obi ns on, E s q. ( A r gued) O ffi ce of A t t or neyG ener al of V i r gi n I s l ands D epar t m entof J us t i ce 34- 38 K r onpr i nds ens G ade, G E R S C om pl ex, 2nd Fl oor C h a rlo tte A m a lie St

. T hom as , V I 00802
C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui t J udge
A p p e l l a n t D a v i d M o t t a w a s c o n v i c t e d b y a j u r y o f r o b b e r y, pos s es s i on of a de adl yw eapon dur i ng a cr i m e o f vi ol ence , and at t empt ed r ape. T he convi ct i ons w er e aff i r m ed bya pane l of t he 1 A pp el l at e D i vis i on of the D i st ri ct C ou rtof t he V i rgi n Isl and s. M o tt a a p p ea ls t o this C o u rt , all eg ing err o r in the tri al co u rt ’s r e f u s a l t o a l l o w a n i mp e a c h me n t wi t n e s s t o t e s t i f y . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. Fac t ual Backg r ound
A t appr oxi m at el y10: 00 a. m . on t he m or ni ng of Sept ember 1 2, 20 01 , K i m U rgent w as readi ng m et ers as part of her j o b w ith th e V irg in Isla n d s W a ter a n d P o w e r A u th o rity

. A f ter sto p p in g to r ead a m et er , U r gentfel t a gun pr es s ed t o t he bac k of herneck. T ur ni ng ar ound, s he s aw t w o m en, w ho demanded herj ew el r yand m oney . Fr i ght ened, U r gent compl i ed. O ne m an t hen s ear ched he r c a r, a n d f

o u n d a c e ll p h o n e . A t th is p o in t, th e m e n se x u a lly as s aul ted U rgentand at t empt ed t o r ape he r , but t he at t empt w as a b o rte d b e c a u se h e r je a n s w e re to o tig h t to re m o v e , an d h e r c e ll phone r ang. U r gent t ol d t he m en t hat t he ca l l w as l i kel yfr om herF o r rea so n s u n d iscl o sed b y the reco rd, the M o tt a b roth ers 2
w e r e tried se p a ra tely . A lan , too , w a s c o n v icte d , an d h is c o n v ic tio n s w e re a f

f ir m e d b yth e A p p e lla te D iv is io n . See M ot t a v. G o v’t of V

. I. , 2004 W L 284846 7 ( A pp. D i v. D

. V

. I

. N ov. 30, 2 0 0 4 ). It d o e s n o t ap p e a r th a t A lan th e re a f ter a p p e a led h is c o n v ictio n s to th is C o u rt. -3- b o s s , wh o , i f

s h e d i d n o t a n s we r , wo u l d c o me l o o k i n g f o r h e r . At t hi s poi nt , t he men left t he s cene i n a w hi t e ca r , and U r gent cont act ed t he pol i ce. U r genti dent i fi ed M ot t a and hi s b roth er, A l an, as t he perpet r at or s . She fi r s t i dent i fi ed t hem, al bei t w i t h s om e hes i t at i on i n l i ght of di ffe r enthai r s t y l es , fr o m a book of a l ar ge number of p h o to g ra p h s m a in tain e d b y th e p o lice

. S h e a lso id e n tifie d M o tta in per s on, s eei ng hi m t w i ce a t a l ocal gas s t at i on and once ata s t r eet p a rty . F in a lly , U rg e n t m a d e a n in -c o u rt id e n tific a ti o n o f M o tta d u rin g trial. 2

A t t r i al , M ot t a put on an al i bi defe ns e, cl ai m i ng t hathe w as s cave ngi ng carpar t s fr om an abandoned vehi cl e on t he ot hers i de of t he i s l and att he t i m e of t he r obbery an d as s aul t

. T he gover nm entchal l enged thi s al i bi w i t h t he t es t i m ony of C el es t i na H or s for d, w ho s t at ed t hats he s aw M ot t a arr i ve at t he aba ndoned vehi cl e s hor t l y befor e 9: 00 a. m . , l eave s hor t l y t her eaf t erb etw een 9 :0 0 a .m . an d 9 :3 0 a .m ., a n d re tu rn a ro u n d 1 :3 0 p .m . T h is tes tim o n y , if b e liev e d b yth e ju ry , as c lea rlyit w a s, w h o lly under m i ned M ot t a’ s al i bi as i t i ndi cat ed t hathe w as not w her e he cl ai m ed t o be att he t i m e of t he cr i m e. H or s for d al s o t es t i fi ed t hat M ot t a arri v ed i n a w hi t e ca r , t he s ame col or as t he ca r U r gent test ifi ed h ad b ee n d ri v en b ythe m en w h o rob b ed an d assa u lt ed h er. O n cro ss e xami nat i on H or s for d expl i ci t l ydeni ed havi ng t ol d t he br ot her ’ s l aw y er , R enee D ow l i ng, a di ffe r ent t i m el i ne and thatt he c a r w a s b lu e , a s M o tta w o u ld la te r t e s tif yth a t it w a s . T o count erH or s for d’ s t es t i m ony , M ot t a s ought t o have D ow l i ng t es t i fyt o i m peac h H or s for d as t o her“des cr i pt i on of t he vehi cl e [a nd] t he i ndi vi dual s dr i vi ng . . . . ” A pp. at 141, but di d not seek t o i m peach her, as he no w say s he did, i n ter m s of t he p reci se-4- t i m el i ne of M ot t a’ s comi ng and goi ng. T he D i s t r i ctC our t r efus ed t o al l ow D ow l i ng t o t es t i fy , and M ot t a cl ai m s t hi s r ul i ng cons t i t ut es re v e rsib le e rro r. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r th is a p p e a l p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1

. D i s cus s i on A l t hough i t i s not al t oget her cl ear , i t appea r s t hati t w as t he gover nm ent ’ s pos i t i on befor e t he tri al cour t and bef or e t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on, and i t appea r s t o be t he governm ent ’ s pos i t i on b e f o re u s, th a t b e c a u se M o tta h a d a lre a d yim p e a c h e d o r c o u ld im p ea ch H or s for d i n w ay s i tdoes not i dent i fy , anyfur t her im p e a c h m e n t o f

h e r b yw h a t sh e p u rp o rte d lyto ld D o w lin g w o u ld have be en i nadmi s s i bl e cumulati ve evi dence

. E nough, i n ot her w o rds, w as e n o u g h

. Ind ee d , the tri al c o u rt ex clud ed D o w li n g ’s t es t i m ony as cumul at i ve al t hough i t di d not us e t hat w or d, di d not d o th e re q u isite F e d .R .E v id . 4 0 3 b a lan c in g , an d a s th e A p p e llate D iv is io n n o te d , “ d id n o t e x p la in w h y ” it w a s c u m u la tiv e . I d. at17. I t appea r s t hatt he t r i al cour t bel i eved thatbecaus e M ot t a had a t r ans cr i pt of H or s for d’ s t es t i m onyatt he br ot her’ s t r i al and her s t at ement t o t he pol i ce, no m or e w as neede d, al t hough t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatt he cour t knew how i f atal l H or sfor d coul d have b e e n im p e a c h e d w ith th o se m a ter ials . W h a t is c le a r , h o w e v e r, is t hat t he cour t w as conce r ned t hat“anotherl aw y eri n pr epar at i on for t r i al [coul d] come i n h ere t o di s cus s w hat

. . . di s cus s i on s he may or m aynot have [ had w i t h] t hatpar ti cu larw i t nes s . ” I d. at141. I ndeed, t he governm entw ar ned t he cour t t hat i t w oul d vi ol at e t he at t or neycl i entpr ivi l ege f or D ow l i ng t o t es t i fyabouther pr epar at i on fort r i al and her inv esti gat i on. T he cour t r es ponded t hat“w e ar e notget t i ng i nt o t hatcompl i cat ed as pect

. I f t hat ’ s w hat y ou ar e goi ng t o do, s he w i l l not t es t i fy

. ” I d. at 14 2. D efen se couns el p ersist ed: “W e fe el i t s houl d have be en al l ow ed as i m peac hm ent , ” i d. , b u t th e c o u rt m o v e d o n . T he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on fo und t hatbeca us e M ot t a had “ampl e oppor t uni t yt o chal l enge H or s for d’ s cr edi bi li t y , ” t he t r i al cour t di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n excl udi ng D ow l i ng’ s t es t i m ony a s c u m u la tiv e . I

d. at17. H ow ever , i t s i m i l ar l y fa i l ed t o des cr i be i n w hatw ayor even of w hatt hatt esti m onyw oul d have be enT he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on adde d , agai n w i t hout any 3 ex p lana ti o n o f it s o w n an d n o n e b y the tri al co u rt , that D o w li n g ’s tes tim o n y“ w a s lik e ly to c o n f u se th e iss u e s.” A p p . 1 8 . W e su re ly do not s ee thatas “l i kel y . ” W e have as s um ed, forpurpos es of ourdi s cus s i on, t hat 4 M o tta cla im e d a t trial t h a t D o w lin g w o u ld im p e a c h H o rsf o rd w ith r es pectt o t he t i m el i ne. A s not ed above , t hathe di d s o i s any t hi ng -5- cu m u lat ive, an d d id n o t eve n m en ti o n ti m e o r ca r co lor. 3
C u m u la tiv e e v id e n c e c a n , o f c o u rs e , b e in a d m is s ib le

. A lth o u g h re lev a n t, ev id e n c e m a yb e e x c lu d e d if its pr obat i ve val ue i s s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed byt he dan ger of u nfairprej ud i ce, co nfu si on of the i ssues, or m i s l eadi ng t he j ur y , or by cons i der at i ons of undue d e la y , w aste o f ti m e, or needl es s pr es ent at i on of cum ul at i ve e vi dence

. Fed. R

. E vi d

. 4 03 ( emphasi s added)

. B ut H or s for d had noty et been i m peac hed i n anym at er i al w ay , i f atal l

. M or eover , her tes tim o n yin th e b ro th e r’s trial an d h e r state m e n t to th e p o lice , b o th of w hi ch w e have r evi ew ed, w er e consi s t entw i t h eac h ot herand w i t h hert es t i m onyatM ot t a’ s t r i al as t o t he es s ent i al par amet er s of the t i m el i ne and the col or of t he ca r . A nd, cer t ai nl y , D o w li n g ’s t es t i m onyw oul d have be en r el evanti m peac hm entevi dence gi ven t haton cr os s exami nat i on, H or s for d deni ed havi ng s ai d w hati t w as p ro f f e re d th a t D o w lin g w o u ld tes tify sh e sa id a s to th o s e d isc re te m at t er s . W e s im p ly cannot s ee how t hatt es t i m onyw oul d have b e e n c u m u lativ e o f a n y th in g , a n d th e re f u sa l to a llo w D o w lin g to te s tif yw a s e rr o r.
T he er r or , how ever , w as har m l es s , and does not r equi r e t hat w e vac at e M ot t a’ s con v ict i on. T he governm entpr es ent ed s ubs t ant i al evi dence of M ot t a’ s gui l t and, m or e i m p o rt an t l y , t he excl uded i m peac hm entt e s t i monyw as i ns i gni fi cant

. C r i t i cal l y , any m i nor var i at i on i n t he t i m el i ne, w hi ch i s al l t her e coul d have be en, w oul d not have cont r adi ct ed t he gr avamen of H or s for d’ s t es t i m ony – t o w i t , t hat M ott a w as notw her e he c l ai m ed t o be att he t i m e of the a ssau ltan d rob b ery . M o reo v er, as to the co lo r o f th e c ar, 4b u t c le a r. W het hert he er r or w as of cons t i t ut i onal di m ens i on, or 5 s i m pl y a vi ol at i on of t he R ul es of E vi dence , i s a ques t i on w e nee d not deci de gi ven tha t the er r or w oul d be har m l es s underei t her s t a n d a rd

. C om

pa re C h a

p m a n v . C a lif

o rn ia , 386 U

. S. 18, 24 (1 9 6 7 ); D a v is , 5 6 1 F

. 3 d at 16 5 (req u ir ing that co n sti tuti o n al errors b e ha rm less “b ey o n d a reaso n ab le do u b t”) w i t h K ot t eakos v. U ni t ed St at es , 3 2 8 U .S . 7 5 0 , 7 7 6 (1 9 4 6 ) (n o n -c o n stitu tio n a l e rro rs w ill o n lyju stif

yre v e rsa l if e rro r h a d a “ su b sta n tial an d in ju rio u s e f

f e c t” o n the v erd ic t)

. W e n o te, h o w ev er, t h at t h e test fo r w h ethe r a d ef en d an t’ s S ixth A m en d m en t r igh ts w ere v iolated b ya c o u rt ’s deci s i on t o excl u d e evi dence cont ai ns a mat er i al i t yr equi r ement th a t w a s s u r e l y n o t m e t h e re . See, e. g. , G o v ’t o f th e V .I v. M ill s , 956 F. 2d 443, 446 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( defe ndantm us t demonst r at e ( 1) a depr i vat i on o f an o p p or t uni t yt o pr es entevi dence , ( 2) t hatt he evi dence w as “mat er i al and fa vor abl e, ” and ( 3) t hat t he depr i vat i on w as “arbi t r ar y or di s pr opor t i onat e t o anyl egi t i m at e evi dent i ar yor p ro c e d u ra l p u rp o se ” ); s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. C r uz - Ji m i nez , 977 F .2 d 9 5 , 1 0 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). -6- H o rsf o rd a t all tim e s o th e r th a n w h e n sh e p u r p o r te d lysp o k e to D ow l i ng, s ai d t he carw as w hi t e – i n herpr i or t es t i m onyi n t he b ro th e r’s c a se , in h e r te stim o n yin th is c a se , a n d in h e r sta tem e n t to t he pol i ce. A t t he end of t he day , D ow l i ng’ s pr offe r ed t es t i m onyi s t he so rto f c o m m o n p lace im p ea ch m en t ev iden ce fo u n d at ne arlyev ery t r i al

. W hi l e r el evant and t hus admi s s i bl e, t hi s s or t of i m peac hm ent evi dence – w hi ch pi cks atm i nor i ncons i s t enci es found w i t hi n a se rie s o f a w itn e ss ’s p ri o r s ta te m e n ts – is ra re lyo f m u c h im p o rt. T hi s cas e i s no exce pt i on: w e si m pl y cannot s ee how t he exc l us i on o f D o w li n g ’s v ery li m it ed test im o n y co u ld hav e af fe cted the ju ry ’s v e rd ic t.
A nd even a s s um i ng, w i t h no gr eatconfi dence , t hatt he e x c lu sio n w a s a v io latio n o f M o tta’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to pr es ent w i t nes s es on hi s behal f, and t hus an err or of cons t i t ut i onal di m ens i on, t he err or w as har m l es s . I n l i ght of t he “ove r w hel m i ng

5 evi dence agai ns t t he def endant , ” G o v ’t o

f th e V .I. v . D a v is , 561-7- F. 3d 159, 165 ( 3d C i r . 2009) , and t he mi nut e im p o rtof t he er r oneous l yexcl uded evi dence , w e comfor t abl yconcl ude t hatt he “t he gui l t yver di ctactual l yr ender ed i n t his trial w a s s u re ly unat t r i but abl e t o t he err or , ” Sul l i van v. Loui s i ana , 508 U

. S. 275, 2 7 9 (19 9 3 ) (em p h asis in o ri g inal).
C oncl usi on For r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e w i l l aff i r m t he or derof t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on w hi ch af firmed M ot t a’ s j udgm entof c o n v ic tio n .

G o v e rn m e n t o

f th e V irg in Isla n d

s v . D a v id

Mo tta , N o. 08- 2693 C O W E N , C i r cui t J udge, di s s ent i ng 

### . Be c aus e I di s a gr e e wi th the Cour t ’ s de t e rm i nat i on that

the tr i a l c o urt c o mm i tt e dm e r e l y h a rm less erro r, I resp ectf u lly d issen t. I n an e ffort

t o i m pe a c h the a l i bi

- r e l at e d te s t i m ony of Hor s for d, Mott auns uc c e s s ful l y s ought t o pr e s e nt

the t e s t i m ony

of h is b ro th er’s law yer, D o w lin g , reg ard in g certain p rio r statem en ts al le gedly m ade to her b y this witnes s. Ho rs fo rd, who te st ifie d that M o tta w a s i n a w h ite car an dreturn edto th e ab an d o n edv eh icle aro un d 1 :3 0 p .m ., d en ied o n cro ss-ex am in atio n th at sh e ev er to ld D o w lin g eith er th at th e car w as b lu e o r th a t s h e saw M o tta r etu rn ing t o the abandone d ve hi c l e at an e ar l i e r

t i m e . Dowl i ng evidentl y wo uld h ave t es ti fied that

Ho rs fo rd did in fact te ll her that the c ar it se lf was blue andthat she witnes se d Motta com ing b ac k to the der el ic t vehicl e m

uch e ar li er

than 1:30 p.m . ( and even earl ie r than the 12 :30 p.m

. ti m e re corded in Ho rs fo rd’s po li ce st at em ent)

. Th e m ajority

correc tl y

re ject s the Ap pell at e Divis ion’s dete rminat ion that i t w as approp ri at e t o exclude such tes ti m on y as cum u lativ e. L ik e th e trial co urt, th e Ap p e l l a t e D iv isio nf ailedto pr ovi de ar e a l e xpl anat i on for thi s c um

ul at i ve ne s s fi ndi ng, om i tt i ng any

e xpr e s s r e fe r e nc e t o e i the r the t i m e l i ne or

the c ol or of the c ar . Contr ary

t o the tr i a l c ourt ’ s s ugge s t i ons , Hor s for d’ s pr i or t e s t i m ony i n th e b r othe r ’ s tr i a l and he r pol i c e s t at e m e nt

di d not consti tute suff

ic ie nt substi tute s fo r Do wling’s ow n p ro ff er ed t e s t i m ony , esp ecia l l y

wi th r e s pe c t

t o the c ol or

i s s ue . As the m ajority no te s ( and n ei ther

the App el late Divisi on n or the tri al

### T h e m aj o rity also p ro p erly c o n clu d es th at th e Ap p ellate 6 

### Di vi s i on fa i l e d t o pr ovi de any jus t i fi c at i on for

i t s fi ndi ng that

the prof fered t es ti m on y

was “ li kely” t o con fu se the i ss ues
.

-8- 

### c ourt e vi de nt l y

r e c ogni z e d) , Dowl i ng’ s t e s t i m ony woul d have a c tu a l l y p r o v i d e dr e l e v an t

an dn o n - s up e r f

l u o u s i m p e a c h m e nt ev id en ce g iv enH o rsf

o rd ’s o w nad am an t d en ials o ncro ssex am in a t i o n . Inth e ap t w o rd s o f th e m aj o rity , “[ w ] e sim p ly c annot s e e how that t e s t i m ony woul d have be e n c um ul at iv e of an y th in g , an dth e ref

u sal to allo w D o w lin g to testif y w as erro r.” 6 

### N ev erth eless, I f

in dth at th is erro r itself

w as not h arm less. In itially , th e g o v ern m en t f ailedto raise th is h arm lessn ess issu e in its o w nap p ellate b rief

in g , alth o u g hth e issu e w as sub sequ en tly a ddr e s s e d at

or a l ar gum e nt

thr ough thi s Court ’ s own que s t i oni ng. See, e. g., Unite d S tate s v . M cLaugh li n, 12 6 F.3d 13 0, 13 5 (3dCir. 19 97 ) ( re cogn iz ing that

appell at e c ou rt

had d is cr et ion to con si der w h eth er co n stitu tio n al erro r w as h arm less w h ere g o v ern m en t d id not ar gue i s s ue but

r e fus i ng t o do s o be c aus e of c om pl e xi ty of reco rd an d lack o f certain ty o r clarity w ithresp ect to h arm lessn ess fi ndi ng)

. I n any

c a s e , Hor s for d wa s an i m p o rtant gove rnm e nt wi tne s s , pr e s e nt e d t o r e but Mott a ’ s own de fe ns e that he c oul d not have be e n one of the att a c ke r s i n Es t at e Mary ’ s Fanc y be c aus e he wa s a c t ua l l y i n Es t at e Cam

po Ri c o whe n the c r i m e s oc c urr e d. The c ol or of the c ar , i n part i c ul ar , a ppe ar e d t o c ons t i t

ut e an i m port ant and d is pu te d iss ue at

tria l. Whil e the vict im te st if ie d that her atta ck er s use d a w h itecar, the defense c la im ed that Mo tt a was driving in a blue c ar on the day i n que s t i on. I n the abs e nc e of the tria l c ou rt ’s evidenti ar

y er ror, Do w li ng wo uld h ave t es ti fied that Ho rs fo rd ac tual ly

told h er th atshe did in fact se e a blue car. In t urn, ajury

c oul d have r e a s onabl y

r e l i e d o n suc h i m

pe a c hm e nt t e s t i m ony t o c a l l i nt o qu estio n Hor s for d’ s s worn de ni a l on the stan dth at sh e ev er m ad e su cha st a t e me n t as w ell as h er sp ecif ic cl ai m , m ade at bo th tria ls and i n the po li ce st at em ent, that she s aw a w h itec ar . Unde r

the c i r c um s t anc e s, I c annot a gr e e wi th the m a jority ’s ch aracterizatio nof Dowl i ng’ s proffe r e d non- c um ul ati ve t e s t i m ony a s i nv o lv in g m e r e l y

“ m i nor i nc ons i s t e nc i e s ” and the “so rt o f co mm o np lace im

p each m en t ev id en ce f

o un dat n early ever y tria l. ” I n the e nd, the m a

jor i ty a ppr opr i at e l y

poi nt s o ut

that the-9- 

### g o v ern m en t p resen tedsub stan tial ev id en ce o f M o tta’s g u ilt inth is case. N e v e rth e les s, a n e v id e n ti a r y e rro r is h a rm les s o n lyif it i s h igh lyp rob ab le t h at th e erro r did n o t con tr ibu te t o the ju ry ’s j udgm entof convi ct i on. U ni t ed St at es v. Sal l i ns , 9 9 3 F

. 2 d 344, 348 ( 3d C i r . 1993)

. T he err or i n pr ecl udi ng t he def en se fro m at l eas t at t empt i ng t o i m peac h an i m por t antpr os ecut i on w i t nes s on a im p o rt a n t d is p u te d is s u e f a i l s to s a tis f

yth is ri g o ro u s s ta n d a rd . I accordi ngl yw oul d r ever s e t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on’ s r ul i ng a f f ir m in g th e c o n v ic tio n a n d re m a n d th is m a tte r f o r a n e w tr ia l.