Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule47 .5, the court has determined that this opinion should * not be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthinFifth Circuit Rule47 .5.4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 11127

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee , v. BRANDON M ARQUES GENTL E , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t
.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas N o . 3 :08 -C R -3 0 -B

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, SM ITH , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * D e fe nda nt

- Appe l l antBr and o n Gent l e a ppe al s hi s con vi c t i o n f o rb ank
r obbe r y and ai di ng and abet t i ng bank r obbe r y i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 2113( a) and( d)

. H e a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y: ( 1) pe r m i t t i ng t he govern m entt o c r o s s e xa m i ne adef en se w i t n ess abou ta pen di n g bu rgl ary cha rge,
r e s u l t i n gi n t h e “ e f

fe c t iv e e x c l u s i o n ” o f

t h a twi t n e s s ’ s t e s t i m o n y ; ( 2 ) e x c l u d i ng bi as e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng a ke y G o ve r nm e ntw i t ne s s ; and( 3) deny i ng hi s m o t i o ns f o ra c qui t t al , a nd i n t he a l t e r nat ive , a ne w tri al , w hi c h a l l e ge d i ns uf f i c i e nt United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 19, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-11127 Document: 00511007725 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 11127

The government co nten ds that this third person was Antonio Few, a cousin of Gentle 1 and Hines. Gentlealleges th at he did not know the third person , an d th at it was not Antonio Few . 2 e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r th i s c o n v i c t i o n. Fort h e r e a s o n s s t a t e db e l o w, we AF FI RM G e n tle ’ s co n v ic tio n .
I

. O n Jan u ary 14, 200 8, R odri ck H i n es robbed a C i t iban k i n D al l as, T exas. G en t l e dropp ed H i n es of f nea r t h e C i t iban k befor e t h e robbery. S h ort l y af t er 5 p. m . , H i ne s e nt e r e d t he b ankw hi l e w e ar i ng a s ki

- m as k, g l o ve s , s ung l as s e s , a nd a hat

. Abank s u rv ei l l ance c am er a c apt ure d H i nes as he hel d t he t el l erat g u n p o in t a n d o r d e r e d h e rto p la c e m o n e yinth e p la s tic lin e r o f h e r tr a s h ca n . W h e n a n u n s e e n e m p l o y e e a c t iv a t e da n a l a r m , H i ne s r a n o u to f t h e b a n k

. As H i ne s m ad e hi s e s c ap e do w n Bea r den St r e e t , t he pl as t i c t r as h b agc o nt ai ni ng t h e m o n e yb r o k e a n d m u c h o f th e c a s h fe ll t o t h e g r o u n d

. H in e s g o tin t o G e n t le ’s
c a rf o l l o w i n gt h e r o b b e r y . G e n t l e , wh i l e d r iv i n ga w a y , s t o p p e dt o p i c k u p s o me of t he dr opped c as h. A f t er w ar d, pol i c e a ppre hended G ent l e i n t he dr iver ’ s se at of t h e getaw ay vehi cl e, bu tH i n es and a t h i rd m an ha d f l ed the veh i cl e. H i n es w as a ppr e he nde d, b utt he t hi r d m an e s c ap e d. 1 I n Fe br uar y 20 08 , G e nt l e a nd H i ne s w e r e cha r ge d w i t h b ankr o bb e r y and
a id in ga n d a b e ttin gb a n k ro b b e ryinv iola tion of 1 8 U .S .C

. § § 2 1 1 3 (a ) an d(d). H i nes pl eade d gui l t y, and G en tl e pro c ee ded t o t r i al

. D uri ng G ent l e’ s f ive- day j ur y t r i a l , t h e g o v e r n m e n t s o u g h t t o p r o v e t h a t Ge n t l e k n o wi n g l y a i d e da nd
a b e tt e d H in e s in th e r o b b e r yb ya c tin ga s th e g e ta w a yd r iv e r . G e n tle
m ai nt ai ne d t hathe ha d b e e n a n unk no w i ng pa r t i c i pa nt i n t he e s c ap e f r o m t he
r o bb e r y— he ha d no knowl e dg e of H i ne s ’ s i nt e nt i o ns w he n he d r o ve H i ne s t o t he
area n ear t h e ban k, an d h e w as u n aw are tha tH i n es h ad robb ed t h e ban k w h en G en t l e pi cked him u p a ft er t h e robbery. A ccor di n g t o G en t l e, he h ad been pl ayi ng bas ketbal lw i t h H i nes and A nt oni o F ew t hataf t er noon. H e t hen gave H i ne s a nd at hi r d m an a r i de

. Af t e r dr o ppi ng H i ne s o f f a tt he b ank , G e nt l e w e nt Case: 08-11127 Document: 00511007725 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 11127

3 t o hi s gi r l f

r i end’ s house w her e he r em ai ned unt i lH i nes c al l ed hi m as ki ng t o b e pi c ked u p . G en tl e t hen r et r i eve d H i nes neart he bank, butw as unaw ar e t hat H in e s h a d ro b b e d th e b a n k u n til a fte rth e yh a dle ft t h e s c e n e . A tt r i al , H i nes t es t i f i ed t hathe de c i ded to rob t he bank as G ent l e dr ove h im a n d A n to n io F e w p a s t th e b a n k

. H in e s s a idth a t a lth o u g h G e n tle in itia lly
a t t e m p t e d to d is s u a d e h im fr o m r o b b in git , G e n t le tu r n e da r o u n da tH in e s ’s requ estan d d rove back tow ard the ba n k. G en t l e t h en park ed, an d H i n es dressed f

or t h e robbery i n G en t l e’ s c ar. H i n es pu ton a p ai r of G en t l e’ s gl oves, a ski

- m ask, sun gl asses, an d a h at, an d then l ef tfor th e b a n k

. H i n es t est i f i ed t h at t h e m en ha d ag reed t o spl i tt h e m on ey, an d G en t l e consent e d to w ai tf or H i nes and pi c k hi m up af t ert he rob ber y. H e al sos ai d t hatbe c ause G ent l e w as w a i ti n g f

orhi m , he nev erc al l ed G ent l e t o b e pi c ked up. A f t ert he r obbe r y, H i n es goti n t o G en t l e’ s c ar an d they st opp ed to ret ri eve t h e dropp ed c ash

. H i n es al so t est i f

i ed that t h ey pa rked nea r B ran don ’ s h ou se af t er t h e robbery. O n cr osse x a m in a tio n , G en tl e’ s cou n s e l q u e s tio n e dH in e s a b o u t h is re a s o n s fo rd r a s tic a lly cha n gi n g t h e ini t i alst ory he ga ve pol i ce, w h i ch w as t h at G en t l e w as not i n vol ved in th e ro b b e r y i n a n y c a p a c ity

. T h e d e fe n s e cr o s s -e x a m in e dH in e s a b o u t h is
m o t ive s f

o rc hang i ng hi s s t oryt o i m pl i c at e G e nt l e a nd a bo utpho ne r e c o r ds ref l ect i n g m u l t i pl e ph on e cal l s f rom G e n tle t o H i n es att i m es w h en H i n es te s tifie d th a t t h e tw o w e r e to g e th e r . The go ve r nm e nta l s o pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e t o r e f ut e G e nt l e ’ s v e r s i o n o f t he
eve nt s on t he day of t he r obbe r y. D et ec t ive G l en B r adshaw t es t i f i ed t hat i m m e di at e l y af

t e rt he a r r e s t , G e nt l e t o l d hi m t hat“ a guyputa g u n t o m e a nd
m a d e m e d r iv e , m a d e m e r o b th e b a n k .” T h e j u r y a ls o v ie w e dG e n t le ’s vi deotaped i n t ervi ew f ol l ow i n g h i s arr est , i n w h i ch h e st ated t h at he di d n ot know t hatH i nes had r obbe d t he bank unt i lt hey had dr iven aw ay f r om t he ar ea. In th a t in te r v i e w , G e n tle cla im e dth a t H in e s h a dca lle dh im to co m e p ic k h im up. Al t ho ugh G e nt l e di d no tg ive a s pe c i f i ct i m e - f

r am e f o rt he c al l , t he g o v e r n me n ti n t r o d u c e d p h o n e r e c o r d s s h o w i n gt h a tn o c a l lw a s ma d e n e a r5 p . m. H i n es’ s f

i an cé, K ri st en N eal , t est i f i ed that G en t l e ha d cal l ed h er m u l t i pl e t i m es Case: 08-11127 Document: 00511007725 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 11127

4 to reques tt hatH i nes “ st i c k t o t he s t or y” t hatG ent l e w as i nnoce nt
. D al l as Pol i c e D et ec t ive D enni s M um f or d te st i f

i ed t hati tw oul d be i m pos sibl e t o dr ive f r o m hi s g i r l f

r i e nd’ s ho us e att he t i m e s he a l l e ge d he l e f t( af t e r5 p. m . ) a nd t he t i m e t h e robbery w as com pl et e ( 5: 07 p
. m . )

. Th e governm en tal so presented
e v id e n c e th a t th e s k i-m a s k , h a t, a n dg u n u s e dd u r in gth e ro b b e r yw e r e fo u n d in
c l o s e pr o xi m i t y t o t he arre s ts c e ne ne arG e nt l e ’ s ho us e , c o nf i r m i ng t hatt he i t em s had been t ran sport ed i n G en t l e’ s c ar. G en t l e’ s a rr e stin g of f i cer al so t es t i f i ed t hathe f

ound G ent l e i n t he ge t aw ay c a r a ft er th e r obbe r y hol di ng a s ta c k o f s to le n m o n e y . G e nt l e ’ s c o uns e lc o nduc t e d av i go r o u s cr o s s - e xa m i nat i o n o f t he govern m en t ’ s w i t n esses . H e qu est i on ed D et ect ive B radsh aw abou tt el l i n g l i es andg ivi ng hal f

- t r ut hs t o G e nt l e dur i ng t he hi gh- pr e s s ur e “ go o d c o p- ba d c o p” i nt e r r o ga t i o n. H e al s o c r o s s - e xa m i ne d N e alr e ga r di ng he rm o t ive s f o rt e s t i f yi ng a b o u t G e n tle , a n d a b o u t h e rre a s o n s fo rm a k in gt h r e e -w a yp h o n e c a lls t o G e n tle
w i t h H i ne s ’ s m o t he r , Tam m y Few, s e c r e t l y o n t he l i ne . Atthe cl ose o f t he govern m en t ’ s c ase i n chi ef, G e n tle m oved f or a j u dg m en tof

acqu i t t albased on i n suff i ci en t evi den ce t o sup port t h e verdi ct , w h i ch w as den i ed. G en t l e presented
s t at e m e nt s m ad e b y Sylve s t e rFe w , H i ne s ’ s g r and fat he r , r e fe r e nc i ng an at t e m pt t o “br i ng G ent l e do w n” i f H i nes “ w entdow n. ” G ent l e’ s gi r l f r i end t es t i f

i ed t hat G en t l e w as w i t h her du ri n g t h e t i m e of the a l l eged robb ery, a n d t h at h e d i d n ot l eave her house unti l af t er 5 p. m . H ugo R i c o, t he m an w ho pai nt ed G ent l e’ s c ar a fe w da ys b e f

o r e t he r o bb e r y, t e s t i f i e d t hatw he n he s po ke w i t h Gent l e o n t he pho ne a t4 : 53 p. m . o n t he da y o f t he r o bb e r y, he he ar d a fe m al e v o i c e i n t he b a c k g r o u n d . T h e d e fe n s e a ls o p r e s e n t e dte s t im o n yfr o m A n t o n io F e w ’s gi rl f ri en d that A n t on i o F ew w as w i t h her un t i l6 p. m . t h at day, not w i t h H i n es and G ent l e dur i ng t he r obbe r y and ge t aw ay. Th e j ury f

ound G ent l e g ui l t y o f ai di ng a n d abe t t i ng bank r obbe r y. Fol l o w i n g a he ar i ng, t he c o ur tde ni e d Gent l e ’ s m o t i o ns f o rne w t r i ala nd
ac qui t t alb as e d o n t he g o ve rnm ent ’ s “ c r e dibl e ” t e s t i m o ny andt he “ s t r o ng c ir c u m s ta n tia l p r o o f” s u p p o r tin gG e n tle ’ s g u ilt. Case: 08-11127 Document: 00511007725 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 11127

Ant on io Few had bee n inc arcerate d ona pendingmurder chargean d a separate 2 pendingch arge for b urglaryof an ATM. Thegovernme nt did not se ek to cross-examine him ab out the murderch arge. 5 II. G en t l e contends that t h e di st ri ctcourtabu sed i t s di scr et i on w h en i trul ed th a t t h e g ov ern m en t cou l d , u n d er F ed era l R u l e of E vid en ce 6 0 8 (b), i n q u i re into de fe ns e w i t ne s s Ant o ni o Fe w ’ s pe ndi ng bur gl ar y c har ge s o n c r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n. A d i st ri c tc o ur t ’ s e vi de nt i ar y r ul i ngs a r e t yp i c al l y r e vi e w e d f o ra bus e of d is c r e tio n . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Sa n d ers , 3 4 3 F .3 d5 1 1 , 5 1 7 ( 5 th C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). T h is
s t and ar d o f r e vi e w i s “ he i ght e ne d i n ac r i m i nalc as e , ho w e ve r , w hi c h de m and s th a t evide n ce . . . be stri ctl y re l ev a n t t o th e p a rti cu l a r off en se ch a rg ed

. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hernan d ez- G u evara , 16 2 F. 3d 86 3, 86 9 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 98 ) (c i t ati on and i n tern a l q u ota ti on m a rk s om i tted). A “‘ tri a l cou rt a b u ses i ts d i scre ti on w h en i ts
r ul i ng i s b as e d o n a n e r r o ne o us v i e w o f t he l aw ora c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us a sse ssm en t of

the ev i d en ce.’” Un itedS ta tes v. G a rc ia , 53 0 F

. 3 d3 4 8 , 3 5 1 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 8)

. Er r o ri s no tr e ve r s ibl e , ho w e ve r , unl e s s i t“ s ubs t ant i al l y pr ej udi c e d” th e d e fe n d a n t ’s rig h ts
. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Lop ez , 979 F

. 2d 102 4, 103 4 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 2 ); se eF e d R . C r im . P . 5 2 (a ). G en tl e’ s cou n sel i n ten d ed to ca l l A n ton i o F ew to testi fy tha t, con traryto H i nes ’ s ac c ount , A nt oni o Few w as nott he “ t hi r d m an” i nvolved i n t he r obbe r y. Att he b e gi nni ng o f t he de fe ns e c as e , t he c o ur tc o ns i de r e d w h et h er t he go ve r nm e ntw o ul d b e pe r m i t t ed to cros s- exam i n e A n t on i o F ew abou thi s pe ndi ng bur gl ar y c har ge . The gov er nm e ntr e que s t e d p e r m i s s i o n t o c r o s s - e xa m i ne 2 A n to n io F e w a b o u t th e M a rc h 2 0 0 8 b u r g la r ych a r g e “u n d e rR u le 6 0 8 , sp e c ific a lly
u n der R u l e 608 (b)

. . . an d that hi s c h aract er f or t ruthful n ess can be i n qu i red ab o uto n cr oss- e xa m i nat i o n wi t h s pe c i f i c i ns t anc e s . ” The g o ve r nm e nts o ugh t speci f i cal l y t o qu est i on hi m abou tt h e ci rcum st an ces o f hi s burgl ary arrest Case: 08-11127 Document: 00511007725 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 11127

The trial tran s c rip tr eveal s that the governme nt expressed no intention to b rin g in 3 extrin sic evi denceab out Antonio Few’s pen ding burgl arycharge, and the court consented only toallowingth e govern me nt to“a sk ab out”th es e ch arges . 6 be c aus e “ att he t i m e t hathe w as a r r e s t e d, Ant o ni o Fe w ha d i n hi s po s s e s s i o n a bl ac k s t oc ki ng c ap, a w hi t e m as k, and a bl ac k pai rof gl ove s t hatar e v er y s i m i l ar t o t h e m odu s t h at - - ort h e m et h od that w as used i n t h i s r obbery. ” Th e court
c o n c l u d e d t h a tt h e g o v e r n me n tc o u l di n q u i r e a b o u tt h e b u r g l a r ya n dt h e i t e ms foundi n c o nj un c t i o n wi t h hi s a r r e s t , b utp r o hib i t e da nym e nt i o n o f t he ATM
m a c hi ne t o g u a r d a g a i n s tp r ej u d i c e i n l i g h to f ar e c e n ts p a t e o f

l o c a lA TM bu rgl ari es. W h en t i m e cam e f or A n t on i o F ew t o t est i f y, G en t l e’ s c ou n selnoti f i ed t he c our tt hathe had de c i ded t o i nvoke hi s Fi f t h A m endm entr i ghtnott o t es t i f y. The c o ur tr e af

f i r m e d i t s r e s t r i c t i o ns o n i nqui r y i nt o hi s b ur gl ar y c har ge , b ut expl ai ned t hat“ [A nt oni o Few ’ s] pot ent i albi as and pr ej udi c e a nd cr edibi l i t y as a w i t ne s s c an c e r t ai nl y be t e s t e d b y que s t i o ni ng him on w h e t he ro rno the
a ctu a l l y h a d a sk im a sk w i th h i m . ” G en t l e argu es on ap pealthatthi s rul i n g ef fect ivel y precl u ded A n t on i o F ew fr o m te s tify in ga t a ll a n d ra n a fo u l o f R u l e 6 0 8 (b ) w h ic h e x c lu d e s e x tr in s ic evi dence of b a d a ct s f orw hi c h t her e has be en no c onvi c t i on. H e c l ai m s t hat
c r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n i nt o t he s e b adac t s i s t he r e f o r e fo rbi dde n. Gent l e ’ s a r gum e nt i s m is p la c e d ; cr o s s -e x a m in a tio n is n o t a fo r m o f “e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e .” Uni t ed 3 St at e s v . To w ns e nd , 31 F. 3d 262, 269 ( 5t h C i r . 1994) ( “ R ul e 6 08(b) pr ovi des t hat speci f i c act s of

m i scondu ct , thou gh t h ey can n otbe proved by extr i n si c evi den ce,
m ay be el i ci t ed on cross- exam i n ati on . ” )

. T h e cou rtp roperl y perm i t t ed t h e cr osse xa m i nat i o n i nt o t he c i rcum st anc e s o f Ant o ni o Fe w ’ s b ur gl ar y c har ge f o rt he pur po s e o f

r e f ut i ng hi s a nt i c i pa t e d t e s t i m o ny t hathe w as no ti nvo lve d i n t he Case: 08-11127 Document: 00511007725 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 11127

United States v. F

arias-Far ias , 92 5 F .2d 8 05, 810 (5th Cir. 199 1) (Rule60 8(b) does 4 not “standas a b ar to the admissio n of evi denceintroduced to contradict, and whichthe j ury mi ght fin d di sp roves , a witnes s' s te stim ony a s toamateri al is su e of th e ca se .”); acco rd United States v. Opager , 58 9F. 2 d 79 9 , 80 2(5thC ir

. 1 9 7 9); see a lso United States v. Barrent ine , 59 1 F.2 d 10 69, 108 1 (5th Cir. 197 9) (“When the witness

. . . was an acco mpliceor participant in the crime for which the defen dant is being prosecuted, the importance of full cross-examin ation todis clos e po ssib leb ia s i s nec es sarilyincrea se d. ” (cit ationo mitt ed))

. 7 C i t iban k robbery, an d f or the pu rpose of dem on st rat i n g bi as. R u l e 6 08(b) poses
n o bar t o cr oss- exam i n ati on f or t h ese pu rposes. 4 G en t l e ha s al so fai l ed to dem on st rat e t h at t h e prej u di ce f rom t h e cr osse x a m in a tio n w o u ld h a v e s u b s ta n tia llyo u tw e ig h e dit s p r o b a tiv e v a lu e . S eeFe d. R. Evi d. 4 03
. The c o ur tre s t r i c t e d t he s c o pe o f t he c r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n t o pr e ve nt undue pr ej udi c e , s o w e f i nd n o a bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n.
III . G en t l e al so c l ai m s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed reversibl y w h en i texcl u ded
an - ou tof

- court st atem en tal l eged l y m ad e by T am m y F ew , w h i ch G en t l e of fered f or t h e p u rp o se of show i n g t h at H i n es w as bi ased ag ai n stG en t l e. A s noted
a b o v e , “[w ]e re v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e v id e n tia r yru lin g s fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n .” Un i t ed S t ate s v. S an d ers , 343 F .3d 511 , 517 ( 5th C i r. 200 3)

. I f “ an abu se of d is c r e tio n h a s o c c u r r e d , w e v ie w th e e r r o ru n d e rth e h a r m le s s e r r o rd o c tr in e .” Uni t e d St at e s v . Towns e nd , 3 1 F .3 d2 6 2 , 2 6 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). G en t l e pl an n ed to present t est i m on y f rom vari ou s w i t n esses t o est abli sh t h at Ta m m y F e w a n d S yl vest er Few

— H i n es’ s m ot h er and gran dfat h er,
r e s p e c t iv e l y— b o t h m a d e s t a t e m e nt s t o t he e f fe c to f “ [i] f Ro d r i c kHi n e s g o e s d o wn f or t h i s, t h en B ran don i s goi n g t o g o d ow n , too. ” T h e g overnm en tfi l ed a m ot i on in lim in e , a tt e m p tin gto e x c lu d e th o s e s ta te m e n ts a s p r eju d ic ia l h e a r s a y . G e n tle respond ed that t h e st a te m en t s w ere not of fered f or t ruth of

t h e m att er as s e r t e d— t o s ho w t hat t he fam i l y m e m be r s r e al l y w o ul d do any t hi ng t o bri ng G e n tle d o w n — b u t to s h o w th e “m o tiv e , c r e d ib ility , [a n d ] b ia s o f R o d r ic k H in e s .” Case: 08-11127 Document: 00511007725 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 11127

8 C o n c lu d in gth a t t h e s ta te m e n t “ c o u ldre a lis tic a llyb e u s e da s a re a s o n a b le i n ference t o rel y u pon t h at perhap s M r. H i n es h ad som e bi as i n t h i s, ” t h e court adm i t t ed Sylves t erF ew ’ s s t at em entw i t h t he l i m i t i ng i nst r uct i on t hat“ i t ’ s t o b e consi dered as st ate- of

- m i n d tes t i m on y t o be consi dered a s t o t h e cr edibi l i t y of M r . H i ne s . ” The c o ur te xp r e s s e d s o m e he s i t at i o n i n i t s de c i s i o n:

. . . [W ] e c an c har ac t e r i z e a l lo f t hi s s t uf

f, M r s . Fe w a nd t he gr a n d fath er, a s to the s tate of m i n d

. B u t th a t d oe sn ' t m ea n tha t i ts n ot j u st as si gn i f

i can t , i f n ot m ore, f or t h e t ruth of th e m a tter a s s e r t e d

. A n d t h e t e s ti s , w h a td o e s i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e d r a w f

r o m? F rom w h e re is i tderived ? Is it fro m b ec a u se it w a s tru e, oris it becau se of

t h e s t ateof

m i n d ? A n dth a t’s n o t a lw a y s cle a r . B u t g iv e n t h e fa c t t h a t t h is is a s itu a tio n in v o lv in gfa m ily m em bers, w i t h ou tqu esti on , cousi n s. I gu ess M r. H i n es and M r. G e nt l e , t he i rg r and pa r e nt s w e r e br o t he rand s i s t e r . And w e ha d t he you n g l ad y h ere w h o j u stt est i f i ed that i s c l ose, obvi ou sl y, w i t h M rs. F e w . . . . (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). A lt h o u g h t h e c o u r t w a s w il li n g t o a d m it S y lv e s t e rF e w ’s
s t a t e me n ta s e v i d e n c e o f b i a s , i td i dn o ta l l o w t h e d e fe n s e t o a s k a b o u tT a mmy F ew ’ s s t atem en t , w h i ch w as m ad e at a l atert i m e:

I th in k th a tis , h o w e v e ry o u s a yit , [T a m m yF e w ’s st at em ent ] s ee m s t o m e o f fer ed m or e f

ort he t r ut h -

- i t ’ s an af t e r - t he

- fac tc o nve r s at i o n - - t han t he ac t ual

- - o n t he he e l s o f t he d e t e n t i o n h e a r i n gd i s c u s s i o n b yt h e g r a n d fa t h e r , wh i c h s e e ms m u ch m ore a sta te of m i n d , w h i ch I t h i n k cou l dbe releva n t t o e s t ab l i s h t hatper hap s t he r e i s s o m e a nge ra nd h e atb e t w e e n t he fam i l i es t h at coul d hav e af fect ed t h e t en or an d t h e n ature of M r. H i nes ’t es t i m ony. So I t hi nk i t ’ s r e l e va ntt o t he c r e dibi l i t y o f M r . H i ne s , a nd th a t’s it fo rrig h t n o w . G ent l e a r gues t hatt he c our t ’ s exclus i on o f T a m m y Few ’ s st at em entw as im p r o p e rb e c a u s e th e r e “is n o th in gin th e R u le s o f E v id e n c e th a t w o u ldp r o h ib it G en tl e from pr ese n ti n g” th e testi m on y to sh ow H i n es ’ s “m otive an dbias.” W e a g r e e . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pa rry , 6 4 9 F .2 d2 9 2 , 2 9 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ); seealso Un i t ed S t ate s v. A bel , 4 6 9 U .S . 4 5 , 5 1 (1 9 8 4 ). Case: 08-11127 Document: 00511007725 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 11127

The distinctionbetween he arsayoffered underthe “state of min d” hearsay exception 5 and nonhearsayhas posed challenges for many courts. McCormick on Evidence § 27 4 (6th ed. 200 9) (“ Courts . . . h ave tended to lump to gether arguab ly hearsay statements asserting the declarant's state of min d withthose argu ably nonhearsayth at tend to pr ove state of min d circu mstanti ally, applying a ge neral exceptionto the hearsayrule and ignoringthe po ssibility th at manyof thes e st ate me ntsc ould b e treate d a s nonh ears ay .”(fo otnote omitte d) ); cf

. United Statesv . Harris , 73 3 F .2d 9 94, 100 4 (2 d C ir. 1 984) (recognizing th at thep hr aseology used ren d er ed astatementadmi ssible“eitheras nonhear say orun der the thenexis tin gst ate -ofmin d h ears ayexception .”(em ph a si s a dded))

. 9 Th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o n f l a t e dt wo s e p a r a t e p u r p o s e s f o rwh i c h t e s t i m o ny
m ayb e a dm i t t e d: ( 1) s how i n g bi as
— an i m pe ac hm e ntm e t ho d w h i ch i s not hear sa y, and ( 2) s how i ng s t at e o f m i nd— a hear sa y exce pti on u n d e r R u le 8 0 3 (3 ). 5 D et er m i ni ng t ha tthe ev i denc e c oul d notbe pr ope r l y adm i t t ed underR ul e 8 03( 3) t o s ho w s t at e o f

m i nd, t he c o ur te xc l ude d i tb o t h fortha tpur po s e a nd f o rt he p u rp ose of sh ow i n g b i a s. H ow ev er, b y p osin g th i s ch oice, the co u r t fa ile d to consi der t h at i tcoul d be of fered f or bi a s re g a rd l ess of w h et h er i tconst i t u t ed
ev i d en ce of state of m i n d

. S ee F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 1 (c ); Parry , 649 F. 2d at295 ( “ [W ] heneve ran outof c our ts tat em enti s of fer ed f ors om e pur pos e o t hert han t o pr o ve t he t r ut h o f t he m at t e r as s e r t e d, ” t he r ul e ag ai ns t he ar s aydoes not
a p p ly b e ca u se “th e v a lu e of th e sta te m e n t d o e s n o t re st u p o n th e d e cla ra n t ’s credibi l i t y. ” )

. A s t h e court determ i n ed t h at t h e st atem en tw as rel evan tt o show H i nes ’ s bi as agai nstG ent l e, exc l udi ng i ton t he basi s of fai l ure to s how a hea r sa y e x c e p tio n w a s e r r o r . N eve r t hel es s, t he e r r orw as harm l es s bec ause an i dent i c als t at em entby S yl vest er Few w as a dm i t t ed. W h ere the excl u ded inf orm ati on “ w ou l d h ave been
c u m u la tiv e ” o f o th e ra d m itt e d e v id e n c e , it s e x c lu s io n is “m e r e lyh a r m le s s e r r o r .” Un i t ed S t ate s v. R am i rez , 174 F

. 3d 584 , 590 ( 5th C i r. 199 9)

. G en t l e’ s c ou n sel ad m i t t ed at t ri alt h at t h e st atem en t s by T am m y an d S ylv est er Few w ere vi r t ual l y i de nt i c ala nd s har e d “t he s am e w o r di ng. ” Sylve s t e rFe w ’ s s t at e m e nt
w as adm i t t ed f

or t h e p u rp ose of

show i n g a “fam i l y bi as” aga i n stG en t l e, Case: 08-11127 Document: 00511007725 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 11127

10 pre sum abl y s hare d by H i nes , so T am m y Few ’ s i dent i c als t at em entw oul d have b e e n cu m u la tiv e if o ffe r e d fo rth is p u r p o s e . F u r th e r , G e n tle ’ s co u n s e l a r g u e d in
sum m ati on t h at Ta m m y F ew an d H i n es’ s f i an cé w ere “t ryi n g t o bri n g B ran don G e n tle d o w n b e c a u s e R o d r ic k H in e s w e n t d o w n , ju s t lik e t h e ys a idth e yw o u ld .” A s T am m y F ew ’ s stat em en tw as n oton l y cum u l ative of other evi den ce adm i t t ed
a t t ri a l , bu t w a s also offere d i n su m m a ti on f or tru th , w e ca n n ot con cl u d e th a t i ts
e x c lu s io n p r eju d ic e d G e n tle ’ s s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts
.
I V. G ent l e c l ai m s t he di st r i c tc our terr ed by denyi ng hi s m ot i on f ornew t r i al
a n d h i s m oti on f

or a j u d gm en t of

acq u i ttalb a sed o n in su ff i ci en t evide n ce of gu i l t. W e re v iew a di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof a m ot i on f

or new t ri alf

or “ abu se of d i scre ti on . ” Un it ed S t at e s v. Tarango , 3 96 F. 3d6 66 , 6 72 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 5)

. Our
r evi ew i s “ def

er ent i alto the t r i alcour tbeca use t he appel l at e c our thas onl y r ead t he r e c o r d, and , unl i ke t he t r i al c o ur t , di d no ts e e t he i m pa c to f w i t ne s s e s o n t he ju r yo ro b s e r v e th e d e m e a n o ro f w itn e s s e s .” Un itedS ta tes v. W a ll , 389 F. 3d 457, 46 5 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 004)

. S uc h m o t i o ns a r e di s fav o r e d, a nd t he de ni alw i l ls t and
un l e s s “ t h e p a r t yt h a twa s t h e mo v a n ti n d i s t r i c tc o u r tmak e s a c l e a rs h o wi ng o f a n a bs o l ut e a bs e nc e o f e vi de nc e t o sup po r tt he j ur y’ s ve r di c t , t hus i ndi c at i ng t h at t h e t ri alcourtha d ab u sed i t s di scr et i on i n ref u si n g t o f

i n d the j u ry' s verdi ct
con traryto t h e g rea t w eigh t of the ev i d en ce.” R u t h erf ord v. Harri s Cou n ty, T ex ., 1 9 7 F .3d 1 7 3 , 1 7 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (cita tion s o m itted ). G en t l e ha s not m ad e “ a cl ear sh ow i n g of an absol u t e absen ce of evi den ce to su p p ort th e ju r y ’ s v e r d i ct. ” Id

. To c o nvi c tG e nt l e f o ra i di ng anda be t t i ng H i n es i n the robbery, the govern m en tw as requ i red t o show t h at he: ( 1) shared i n t he c ri m i n a lin t entof t he pr i nci pal , ( 2) par t i c i pat ed i n t he ve nt ure t hro ugh
s o m e a f f i r m at ive c o nduc t de s i gne d t o ai d t he ve nt ur e , and ( 3) “ s o ugh tb y ac t i o n” to m a k e th e v e n tu r e s u c c e e d

. Uni t e d St at e s v . Lo pez - Ur bi na , 434 F. 3d 750, 757 Case: 08-11127 Document: 00511007725 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 11127

11 ( 5th C i r. 200 7)

. G en t l e argu es that the t h ere w as “no di rectcredibl e evi den ce” t o s ho w G e nt l e ’ s s har e d i nt e nt i o n a nd agreem en t t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n t he b ank
r o b b e r yb e c a u s e H in e s ’ s te s tim o n y a s to th e s e e le m e n ts w a s “c o m p le te ly di sc r ed i te d. ” The t r ansc r i ptdoe s nots upportG ent l e’ s c l ai m t hatH i nes w as t h orough l y di scr edi t ed, so h e i s not en t i t l ed t o a reversalof the cou rt ’ s d en i alof h is m o tio n fo rn e w tr ia l. G en t l e al so argues t h at t h e courti m properl y d e n ied hi s m ot i on f or ac qui t t al , and c l ai m s t hat t he e vi de nc e w as l e ga l l y i ns uf f i c i e nt t o s upp ortt he j ur y’ s v e r di c t
. W e e va l u at e c l ai m s o f e vi de nt i ar y i ns uf

f i c i e nc y t o de t e r m i ne

“ w h et h er anyreasonab l e t ri er of factcoul d h ave f

ou n d that t h e evi den ce esta b l i sh ed the ap p ell a n t’s g u i l t bey on da re a son a b l e d ou b t. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. Ja ra m illo , 42 F. 3d 92 0, 92 2– 23 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 95 )

. I n m ak i ng t hi s de t e r m i nat i o n,
w e r e v ie w th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e g o v e r n m e n t, Un i t ed S t ate s v. L opez , 7 4 F. 3d5 75 , 5 77 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 996) , a n d we m ayno tr e vi e w t he credibi l i t y of

w i t n esses or t h e w ei gh t o f t h e evi den ce. See Uni t e d S t at e s v. Floyd , 3 4 3 F .3 d 3 6 3 , 3 7 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). Gent l e ’ s e vi de nt i ar y s uf f i c i e nc y c l ai m fai l s b e c aus e H i ne s ’ s t e s t i m o ny a l on e is a d eq u a te to su p p o r t th e v erd i ct. W h en an acco m p l i ce testif i es th a t a de fe nda ntw as a pa r t i c i pa nti n a c r i m e , t hat t e s t i m o ny i s s uf f i c i e ntt o s us t ai n a convic t i on “ even i f

t h e w i t n ess i s i n t erest ed d u e t o a p l ea barga i n or prom i se of l en i enc y, unl es s t he t es t i m ony i s i ncr edibl e o ri nsubs t ant i alon i t s fa ce.” S ee Un i t ed Stat es v. B erm ea , 3 0 F. 3d1 53 9, 1 55 2 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 4) (c i t at i o ns o m i t t e d) (f i n di n g t est i m on y of a co- conspir atorsuf f i ci en tt o sup p o rt con spi racy c o n v ic tio n ); see als o Un i t ed Stat es v. D ailey , 2 08 F

. A pp ’ x 344 , 3 46 ( 5th C i r. D ec. 8, 200 6) (f

i ndi ng t hatt he ac c o m pl i c e s ’unc o r r o bo r at e d t e s t i m o ny w as s uf f i c i e nt t o sup port a verdi ctof ai di n g an d abett i n g ban k robbery w h ere t h e accom pl i ce t e s t i f i e d t hatt he de fe nda ntpa r t i c i pa t e d i n t he r o bb e r y)

. H i n e s ’ s t e s t i m o ny c ove r ed al lel em ent s of t he c r i m e, and G ent l e has m ade no ar gum entt hati tw as Case: 08-11127 Document: 00511007725 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 11127

12 le g a llyin c r e d ib le

. S ee B erm ea , 30 F. 3d at 1552. M or eo ver , t he c i r c um st ant i al
a n d te s tim o n ia l e v id e n c e fa v o r e dth e g o v e r n m e n t o v e r w h e lm in g ly

. G e n tle ad m i t t e d t o dr ivi ng H i ne s t o t he b ank , dr opp i n g hi m o f f i n t he v i c i ni t y, a nd pi cki n g u p m on ey af

t er t h e ban k r obbery. Th e governm en t ’ s w i t n esses t est i f i ed t h at G en t l e w as f

ou n d w i t h a st ack of m on ey i n hi s han d, an d the robbery in s tr u m e n ts w e r e fo u n d in a p la c e s u g g e s tin gth e yw e r e w ith H in e s w h e n G e n tle pi cked hi m u p. T h e g overnm en ta l so p resented w i t n ess t est i m on y t h at r ef u t ed G e n tle ’ s e x p la n a tio n o f th e d a y ’ s e v e n ts , in c lu d in gh is cla im th a t h e w a s a t h is gi r l f r i end’ s house duri ng t he r obbe r y. Th i s i s not a c as e w her e t he e vi denc e g ave

“ equ alor n earl y equ al” ci rcum st an t i alsup port t o a t h eory of gu i l tor i n n ocence. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pen n i ngt on , 20 F

. 3d 593 , 597 ( 5th C i r. 199 4)

. Th eref ore,
w e concl u de that t h e verdi ctw as sup ported by suff i ci en tevi den ce.
CO NC L US I ON F or t h e f

ore go i n g rea son s, w e A F F IR M th e j u d gm en t of the distri ct cou rt. Case: 08-11127 Document: 00511007725 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/19/2010