2010 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 5-13-2010 

# U SA v . Al s t on P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4034

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Al s t on" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1348. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1348J udge Sci r i ca c om pl et ed hi s t erm as C hi ef J udge on M ay4, 2010. * H o n o ra b le A rth u r L . A lar c ó n , S e n io r U n ited S tate s C irc u it Ju d g e f o r th e N in th ** C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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 . 07- 4034 

### UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. AN TH ON Y T . AL ST ON a/k/ aAnthony

Gol s on Anthony T. Al s t on, Appe l l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 04- cr - 00515) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 20, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , A M B R O , and A L A R C Ó N , C i r cui tJ udges * * * ( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay13, 2010)

OP I NI ONT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742. 2 A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge A j ur yfound A nt honyA l s t on gui l t yof i nt er fer i ng w i t h i nt er s t at e comm er ce by r obbery( i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1951) , carr y i ng and us i ng a fi r earm dur i ng a cr i m e of vi ol ence ( i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ) , and pos s es s i ng a fi r earm as a convi ct ed fel on (i n v i olat i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g) ). T he D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced him t o 3 0 y ears ’ i m pr i s onm ent . A l s t on now chal l enges hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . W e af fi r m both. 1 I. T h is c a se a rise s f

ro m a ro b b e ryo f

a jew e lrysto re , o w n e d b yA lex P a tlak h , in D ece m ber2003. Pat l akh w as s ervi ng A l s t on atthe s t or e count erw hen a thi r d m an buzze d t o ent ert he s t or e. T hi s t hi r d m an ent er ed and poi nt ed a gun a tPat l akh, butfl ed
w hen Pat l akh t ol d hi m t he pol i ce ha d been not i fi ed. Pat l akh then ac cus ed A l s t on of k n o w in g th e th ird m a n , p u lled o u t a g u n , an d o rd e re d A lsto n to th e f lo o r. A c c o rd in g to Pat l akh, A l s t on gr abbed moneyfr om the count erand s t art ed s hoot i ng atPat l akh, s t r i ki ng hi m i n t he arm . Pat l akh al s o fi r ed hi s gun, i nj ur i ng A l s t on. W hen Pat l akh r an outof amm uni t i on, he r an t o t he bac k of the s t or e t o getanothergun. A l s t on fol l ow ed and the t w o cont i nued fi ght i ng. T he pol i ce a r r i ved t o fi nd A l s t on thr ow i ng m oneyoutof hi s pocket s , and Pat l akh hol di ng a gun. I n A l s t on’ s pocket s , the pol i ce f ound a phone bi l l addr es s ed t o Pat l akhA l s t on’ s ot hert w o cont ent i ons — t hatthe j uryi ns t ruct i on on i nt er s t at e comm er ce w as 2 err oneous , and thathi s Fi fth and Si xth A m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen the D i s tr i ct C o u rtsen tenc ed at th e m an d atorym inim u m b ase d o n fa cts n o t fo u n d b ya jury

— are raised o n lyto p rese rve them fo r po ssible S u p rem e C o u rtrev iew . H e c o n ce d es th eyare f o re c lo s e d b y , re s p e c tiv e ly, U ni t ed Stat es v. U

r ban , 404 F. 3d 754 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , and H ar r is v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 3 6 U .S . 5 4 5 (2 0 0 2 ). See al s o A lm endar ez - Torr es v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 3 U . S . 2 2 4 (19 9 8 ). T h ere fo re, w e d o n o t discu ss the se c lai m s fu rth er. 3 and over$650 cas h. I n a tr as h can a tthe bac k of the s t or e, theyfound a ni ne- m i l l i m et er gun t hathad bee n s t ol en fr om A l s t on’ s l andl or d. T he pol i ce l at erdet erm i ned thatthr ee of t he ca r t r i dge ca s es found att he s cene came fr om thi s gun. A t tri al, A lst o n test ifi ed that h e w as a n inn o ce n t by stan d er, cau g h t i n the c ross fire b e tw e e n P a tlak h a n d th e th ird m a n . A lsto n c laim e d h e d id n o t h a v e a g u n a t th e sto re , d id nott ake moneyfr om t he count er , and thatthe ca s h found i n hi s pocket s w as hi s . A s for t he moneyhe w as t hr ow i ng outof hi s pocket s w hen the pol i ce a r r i ved, he cl ai m ed that P a t l a k h h a d s tu f

f e d i ti n t o A l s t o n ’ s j a c k e tt o f r a m e h i m . T h e j u r y f

o u n d h i m g u i l t y. II. A l s t on m akes t hr ee pr i m aryar gum ent s on appea l : ( 1) the G overnm entexer ci s ed p ere m p torych all en g es o n the b asis o f ra ce ; ( 2 ) a w itn ess’s im p rop er ref ere n ce to A lst o n ’s p a ro le s tatu s w a rra n ted a m istria l; an d (3 ) th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in e x c lu d in g e v id e n c e th a t th e g u n u se d b yP a tlak h h a d b e e n sto len . W e a d d re ss e a c h in tur n. 2 A. A l s t on ar gues t hatt he G overnm ents truck pot ent i al j ur or s fr om the j urypool on“[A ] nyi s s ue r egar di ng t he exi s t ence of a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng of di s cr i m i nat i on 3 becomes m ootw her e, as i n t hi s cas e, the pr os ecut oroffe r s an expl anat i on of the p e re m p to ryc h a llen g e b e f o re th e d istric t co u rt h a s e x p re ss lya d d re ss e d th e p rim a f a c ie i s s ue. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. U

w aez hoke , 995 F. 2d 388, 392 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( al t er at i on and q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 4 acc ountof thei rr ace i n vi ol at i on of B at s on v. Kentucky , 4 7 6 U . S . 7 9 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . S p e c i f i c a l l y, A l s t on chal l enges t he s t r i kes of J ur or s 38 ( a bl ack f emal e) and 136 ( a bl ack mal e) . ( A pp. 1 2 0 , 2 3 3 . ) U ndert he thr ee- s t ep B at s on pr ocedur e, ( 1) a def endantcan e s t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie cas e forunl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on bypoi nt i ng t o evi dence thatgi ves r i s e t o an i nfer ence t her eof; ( 2) t he bur den s hi ft s t o t he G overnm entt o s t at e r ace - neutr al r eas ons for exer ci s i ng i t s s t r i kes ; and ( 3) t he D i s t r i ctC our tm us tthen dec i de w hetherthe def endant h a s s h o w n p u rp o s e f

u l d is c ri m in a tio n . B at

s on , 47 6 U. S. a t 9 6

– 9 8 . H er e, t he C our tbypas s ed s t ep one a nd as ked the G overnm entt o s t at e i t s gr ounds forexer ci s i ng t he s t r i kes . ( A pp. 233. ) T he G overnm entexpl ai ned thati ts t ruck J ur or38 3 beca us e s he fr ow ned thr oughoutj urys el ect i on and appe ar ed t o gi ve the pr os ecut or“a dirt yl oo k” w hen he m ade ey e con t actw i t h h er. (A pp . 23 4. ) I tstruck Juror 136 b ecause he had not“cr ack[ ed] a s m i l e” orchatt ed w i t h t he otherj ur or s , and w as s t ar i ng atthe p ro s e c u to r. (I

d. ) T h e C o u rt c re d ited th e se e x p lan a tio n s, ru lin g th a t itw a s “ sa tisf ied w ith [ th e p ro s e c u to r] ’s re c ita l a s to th e J u ry.” (A p p . 2 3 5 .) A l s t on ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw as r equi r ed t o m ake s peci fi c fi ndi ngs co n ce rnin g the ju rors’ d em ea n o rs, b u t fail ed to d o so . H o w ev er, i t i s ev iden t th e C o u rtA l s t on’ s r el i ance on Snyderv. Louis i ana , 5 5 2 U .S . 4 7 2 (2 0 0 8 ), i s u n p e rs u a s iv e . 4 T her e, t he G overnm entgave tw o r ace - neutr al r eas ons fors t r i ki ng a j ur or— demeanorand s tudent - t eac hi ng obl i gat i ons — and the tr i al cour tdeni ed the B at s on cl ai m w i t hout e x p la n a tio n . I

d. at478–79. T he Supr eme C our tr ever s ed bec aus e i tcoul d notdet erm i ne f ro m th e re c o rd w h ic h o f th e tw o n e u tr a l r e a s o n s th e tr ia l c o u rt a c c e p te d . See i d. at479 ( beca us e “the r ecor d d[i d] nots how thatthe tr i al j udge ac tual l ym ade a det erm i nat i on conce r ni ng [the j ur or ’ s ] demeanor , ” the C our tcoul d not“pr es um e thatthe tr i al j udge c re d ite d th e p ro s e c u to r’ s a s s e rt io n th a t [ th e ju ro r] w a s n e rv o u s ” ). U nl i ke i n Sny d e r, w e pr oper l ym ay“pr es um e thatthe tr i al j udge cr edi t ed the p ro se c u to r’s a ss e rtio n ” re g a rd in g th e ju ro rs’ d e m e a n o rs, b e c a u se d e m e a n o r w a s th e o n ly ra c e -n e u tr a l r e a s o n g iv e n . I d. ( Fur ther , w e not e thatdefe ns e couns el i n Snyderdi s put ed b o th o f th e G o v e rn m e n t’ s e x p la n a tio n s , i d. at478, w her eas her e def ens e couns el di d not d is p u te th e p ro s e c u to r’ s e x p la n a tio n a t a ll.) 5 c re d ited th e p ro se c u to r’s e x p lan a tio n a s to b o th ju ro rs, a n d w e g iv e d e f e re n c e to th is d e c is io n . See Hernan dez v. N ew Y ork , 500 U . S. 352, 365 ( 1991) ( “[E] val uat i on of the pr os ecut or ’ s s t at e of mi nd bas ed on demeanorand cr edi bi l i tyl i es pecul i ar l yw i t hi n a tr i al j udge’ s pr ovi nce. ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . B efor e the D i s t r i ct C our t , A l s t on di d notchal l enge the G overnm ent ’ s r ace - neutr al r eas ons . H e bor e the bur den of pe r s uadi ng t he C our tt hatthe G overnm ent ’ s r eas ons w er e pr et extual , y ethe m ade no a t t empt t o do s o ( and does noton appea l ) . I n t hi s cont ext

— w her e one r ace n e u t r a l r e a s o n wa s g i v e n a n d t h e d e f e n s e d i d n o ta r g u e th e r e a s o n wa s p r e t e x tu a l

— we cann ot s ayt he C ou rterr ed in fai l i ng t o co m m ent s pecifi cal l yon the jur ors’ dem eano rs . 4 T hu s, w e affirm t he C ou rt ’s rej ect i on of A l st on ’s B at s on c la im . B. T he D i s t r i ctC our trul ed i n l i m i ne thatthe G overnm entcoul d noti ntr oduce a tt r i al e v id e n c e th a t A ls to n w a s o n p a ro le w h e n h e w a s a rr e s te d f o r t h e ro b b e ry. H o w e v e r, a6

G overnm entw i t nes s r efe r ence d A l s t on’ s par ol e s t atus dur i ng hert es t i m ony , w hi ch A l s t on ar gues w arr ant ed a mi s t r i al . “W e r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on fora mi s t r i al bas ed on a
w i t nes s ’ s al l egedl ypr ej udi ci al comm ent s foran abus e of di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. L ore , 4 3 0 F .3 d 1 9 0 , 2 0 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T he i m pr opercomm entcame dur i ng the G overnm ent ’ s di r ectexami nat i on of A l s t on’ s l andl or d, fr om w hom t he gun us ed i n t he r obberyw as s t ol en: Q . A nd how di d - - how w as i t t hat [the defe ndant] be ca m e a tena n t of y our s ? C an y ou j us tdes cr i be w hathappene d? A . U hm , l et ’s see, du ri ng t he ti m e he w as w orki ng atS pag hett i W arehou se h e w as sa y ing that h e w as o n p aro le or so m ethin g li k e tha t, h e h ad -- D ef en se C o u n sel: O b

jecti o n , Y o u r H o n o r. T h e W i t n e s s : I ’ m s o r r y. Def e n s e Cou n s e l : Ca n I s e e th e Cou r ta ts i d e b a r ? T h e Co u r t : J ur y w i l l d isr eg ard that stat em en t . W e have no

foundat i on anyhow [, ] s o i t ’ s t o be di s r egar ded. ( A pp. 517. ) A tt he end of t he di r ectexami nat i on, defe ns e couns el as ked fora conf er ence at si d eb ar a n d m o v ed fo r a m istri al ba sed o n the w itn ess’s statem en t. (A p p . 5 2 7

– 2 8 . ) T he C our tdeni ed the mot i on, r eas oni ng thatthe G overnm entdi d noti nt end t o el i ci tt he t es t i m ony , t he r es pons e w as an “unf or tunat e cons equenc e, ” a c ur at i ve i ns t ruct i on had b e e n g iv e n , a n d th e s ta te m e n t d id n o t ta in t th e e n tir e c a s e . (A p p . 5 2 9

– 3 0 .) T h ree fa ctors g u ide o u r rev iew : “(1) w h ethe r [the w itn ess’s] rem ark s w ere pr onounced a nd per s i s t ent , cr eat i ng a l i kel i hood t heyw oul d m i s l ead a nd pr ej udi ce the j ur y ; ( 2) t he s t r ength of the otherevi dence ; and ( 3) cur at i ve ac t i on t aken bythe di s t r i ct cour t . ” L ore , 430 F. 3d at207. A ppl y i ng thes e fa ct or s , w e have no t r oubl e conc l udi ng t heA lsto n ’s b rie f to u s a ss e rts th e D istric t C o u rt p ro h ib ited h im f ro m in tro d u c in g th is 5 e v id e n c e th ro u g h a “ tes tify in g A T F a g e n t,” b u t th e re c o rd sh o w s th e d e f e n se a ttem p ted to in tr o d u c e th e te s tim o n yth ro u g h M u to . (A p p . 6 0 6 .) 7 l andl or d’ s r emar k di d notw arr anta mi s t r i al . Fi r s t , the r emar k w as not“pr onounced a nd per s i s t ent , ” buti ns t ead a s i ngul arr efe r ence . Second, the evi dence agai ns tA l s t on w as str o n g : a gu n u sed to f

ir e se v era l sho ts du ri n g the ro b b eryh ad b ee n stolen fro m A lst o n ’s l andl or d and w as found i n a tr as h can i n t he bac k of the s t or e ( w her e A l s t on admi t s the t hi r d m an di d notgo) ; A l s t on w as s een thr ow i ng m oneyfr om hi s pocket s w hen the pol i ce arr i ved; and the pol i ce f ound Pat l akh’ s t el ephone bi l l i n A l s t on’ s pocket s , al ong w i t h a l ar ge amountof ca s h. M or eover , t he j uryw as al r eadyaw ar e thatA l s t on had a c r i m i nal h ist o ry , as itw as a n elem en t of the f elon -i n -po sses sion ch arg e. T h ir d , the C o u rt i m m edi at el ygave a cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on, and not ed thatthe w i t nes s ’ s s t at ementw as w ith o u t f o u n d a tio n . T h u s, w e e a silyc o n c lu d e th e C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g a m istria l. C. Att r i a l , P a t l a k h t e s t i f

i e d t h a th e p u r c h a s e d h i s g u n a b o u tt e n y e a r s e a r l i e rf r o m a gun s t or e i n Phi l adel phi a. A l s t on s oughtt o pr es entevi dence , thr ough t es t i m onyfr om t he purpor t ed r egi s t er ed ow nerof the gun, a M r . M ut o, thatthi s gun had bee n s t ol en i n 1996 from M uto’ s truck. T he C ou rtdid not al l ow the ev i den ce, a rul i ng w e revi ew for abu se 5
o f d is c re tio n . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Saada , 2 1 2 F . 3 d 2 1 0 , 2 2 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). O n ap p ea l, A lst o n arg u es th at th is t esti m o n yw o u ld h av e (1 ) estab li sh ed P atl ak h ’s8

m ot i ve t o l i e aboutw hathappene d i n t he j ew el r ys t or e ( t o avoi d pr os ecut i on for pos s es s i on of a s t ol en gun) , and ( 2) s uppor t ed “M r . A l s t on’ s des cr i pt i on of [Pat l akh] as an ag g ressive v igil an te w h o h ad att ac k ed M r. A lst o n fo r no rea so n . ” (A p p ell an t’ s B r. 2 5 . ) We d o n o ta g r e e , a s t h e l i n k s n e e d e d t o r e a c h th e s e c o n c l u s i o n s a r e t o o t e n u o u s . As t he G overnm entpoi nt ed outatt r i al , M ut o di d notknow w ho had s t ol en hi s gun orw hat happene d t o t he gun af

t eri tw as s t ol en. ( A pp. 608. ) A ccor di ngl y , even i f M ut o had bee n perm i t t ed t o t es t i fyt hathi s gun w as s t ol en, thatt es t i m onyw oul d nothave e s t abl i s hed that Pat l akh s t ol e the gun ort hathe knew the gun w as s t ol en. ( A pp. 609. ) M or eover , A l s t on has notexpl ai ned how M ut o’ s al l eged pos s es s i on of a s t ol en gun s uppor t s hi s theoryt hat P a tlak h w a s a n “ a g g re ss iv e v ig ilan te.” T h u s, w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th e C o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on i n excl udi ng t hi s evi dence . * * * * * Fort hes e r eas ons , w e af fi r m A l s t on’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence .