## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### A p r i l 9, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 04- 6288 J A C K IE G E N E N A S H , J R ., D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t.

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E WE S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

(D . C . N o . 0 3 -C R -14 8 -T ) V i cki e M andel l - K i ng, A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder( R aym ond P. M oor e, Feder al P u b lic D e f

e n d e r, w ith h e r o n th e b rie f s), D e n v e r, C o lo ra d o , fo r D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. M aryM . Sm i t h, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney( J ohn C . R i cht er , U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , w i t h heron t he br i efs ) , O kl ahoma C i t y , O kl ahoma, forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B ef o re B R I S C O E , M c K A Y , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. B RI S CO E , C i r cui tJ udge. D efe ndantJ acki e N as h w as convi ct ed, fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al , of tw o drug traffi cking of

fenses and a rel at ed fir earm off ense. N ash w as sent enced on tho se convi ct i ons t o a l engthyt erm of i m pr i s onm ent . N as h now appea l s hi s convi ct i ons and-2-

se n ten c e . W e e x e rc ise ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , an d a f f irm h is convi ct i ons , butr emand w i t h di r ect i ons t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence and r es ent ence . I. Factualbackgr ound I n 2002, an O kl ahoma C i t y , O kl ahoma, r es i dentnamed A r l ondo J ones w as char ged i n fede r al courtw i th pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne. J ones oper at ed a bus i nes s i n O kl ahoma C i t ynamed A udi o C onnect i ons thats peci al i zed i n s el l i ng and i nst al l i ng car audio, video, and al arm sy st em s. T hroug h thatbu si ness, Jones al so f u n c tio n e d a s a d ru g -tra f f ick in g “ m id d lem a n ,” c o n n e c tin g p e rso n s s e e k in g d ru g s w ith d ru g s o u rc e s . It w a s a s a re s u lt o f th o s e a c tiv itie s th a t J o n e s w a s c ri m in a lly c h a rg e d . J ones and the governm entul t i m at el yr es ol ved the ca s e byJ ones agr eei ng t o cooper at e by p ro v id in g in f

o rm a tio n to th e g o v e rn m e n t o n lo c a l d ru g tra f f ick e rs, a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t in turn agreei ng t o d i sm i ss the fe deral charges againstJones. In M a yo f

2 0 0 3 , as p a rt o f

h is a g re e m e n t to c o o p e ra te, J o n e s c o n tac ted A n g e lo O r efi ce, a s peci al agentw i t h t he U ni t ed St at es D rug E nfor cementA gency( D E A ) , and i nform ed O r efi ce thathe had be en appr oache d athi s bus i nes s byN as h, w ho w entbyt he n ic k n a m e o f

J .K ., a n d T im o th yK in c h io n , w h o w e n t b yth e n ic k n a m e o f T o u c h e . A ccor di ng t o J ones , he had e ngaged i n appr oxi m at el yt en t o fi ft een pr evi ous coca i ne d e a ls w ith K in c h io n in v o lv in g q u a n titie s f ro m a f o u rt h o f a k ilo g ra m to a w h o le k ilo g ra m . J ones i nform ed O r efi ce thatK i nchi on, w ho had j us tbeen r el eas ed fr om pr i s on and ow ed m oneyt o bot h J ones and a drug deal eras a r es ul tof a pa s tcoca i ne dea l , expr es s ed anS o m e o f th e tran scripts an d d o cu m en ts r eli ed o n b yN ash o n ap p ea l w ere 1 s ubm i t t ed bycodef

endantK i nchi on i n connec t i on w i t h hi s ow n appea l . Forpurpos es of thi s opi ni on, al l ci t at i ons t o t he r ecor d i n K i nchi on’ s appea l w i l l be r efe r r ed t o as “K i nchi on R O A , ” combi ned w i t h t he s peci fi c vol um e and, i f nec es s ary , document n u m b er. -3- i nt er es ti n gett i ng back i nt o t he drug bus i nes s . O r efi ce a nd ot heragent s began s ur vei l l i ng N a sh a n d K in c h io n . F u rth e r, O re f ice p ro v id e d a u d io a n d v id e o -re c o rd in g e q u ip m e n t to J o n e s a n d d ir e c te d h im to u s e it to re c o rd h is c o n v e rs a tio n s w ith N a s h a n d K in c h io n . F o llo w in g h is in iti a l m e e tin g w ith N a sh a n d K in c h io n , Jo n e s c o n tin u e d to comm uni cat e w i th bot h m en. I n par t i cul ar , N as h and K i nchi on ut i l i zed N as h’ s cel l phone t o s peak on numer ous occa s i ons w i th J ones , w i t h N as h t ypi cal l ycal l i ng J ones i n t he m orni ng and K i nch i on t ypical l ycal l i ng Jones i n the even i ng . O n M ay30 , 20 03 , N ash i nfo rm ed Jon es that he had chan ged his cel l ph on e nu m ber and that K i nch i on cou l d als o b e re a c h e d a t th e n e w n u m b e r. O n Ju n e 5 , 2 0 0 3 , N a sh a n d K in c h io n a rriv e d to g e th e r a t Jo n e s’ p lac e o f b u sin e ss in a s i l verG r and A m , w i t h N as h dr i vi ng and K i nchi on i n t he pas s engers eat . N as h r emai ned in the ca r, w h il e K inch ion g o t ou t and sp o k e w ith Jo n es a b o u t ob tai n ing eith er a h alf o r a w hol e ki l ogr am of cocai ne. K i nchi on i ndi cat ed he i nt ended t o “br eak [ t he coc ai ne] do w n” an d “rock i tup ” i nto sm al l po rt i on s. K i nch i on R O A , V ol. 2 at 140. Jones, 1 r el y i ng on hi s fami l i ar i t yw i t h s t r eetpr i ces forcoca i ne, quot ed K i nchi on a pr i ce of $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 f

o r a k ilo g ra m o f

c o c a in e . Fol l ow i ng t hi s m eet i ng, t he D E A arr anged f orJ ones t o engage i n a “r ever s e s t i ng” w i th N as h and K i nchi on, w her ebythe governm entw oul d pr ovi de the coc ai ne t o J ones-4-

w h o in tu rn w o u ld g iv e it t o N a sh a n d K in c h io n . N a sh a n d K in c h io n , ap p a re n tly bel i evi ng t heyw er e bei ng “fr ont ed” the coc ai ne, agr eed t o pr ovi de J ones w i t h fi ve vehi cl es , atl eas tone of w hi ch w as j oi nt l yow ned byN as h and K i nchi on, thatw oul d be us ed as col l at er al fort he coc ai ne. B etw een a ppr oxi m at el y12: 00 and 12: 30 p. m . on J une 11, 2003, N as h and K i nchi on s upervi s ed the del i veryof thos e fi ve vehi cl es , vi a t ow t ruck, to J o n e s ’ s h o p . A t ap p ro x im a tely2 p .m . tha t sa m e a f ter n o o n , N a sh a n d K in c h io n re tu rn e d to J ones ’ bus i nes s i n t he s i l verG r and A m . N as h r emai ned i n t he ca rand K i nchi on w ent i ns i de and metbr i efl yw i t h J ones . D ur i ng the meet i ng, J ones i nform ed K i nchi on thatt he s our ce of the coc ai ne w oul d “come up and t ake a l ook atthe vehi cl es ” and de t erm i ne w hethertheyw oul d be s uffi ci entcol l at er al . I d. at161. A tthe conc l us i on of the meet i ng, J ones gave K i nchi on an empt ycor dl es s t el ephone box t o carr youtw i t h hi m s o t hathe w oul d notl ook s us pi ci ous t o J ones ’ empl oy ees orcus t om er s . K i nchi on r eturned t o t he s ilv e r G ra n d A m a n d le f t J o n e s ’ b u s in e s s w ith N a s h . Shor t l ybefor e 4: 30 p. m . t hataft ernoon, A gentO r efi ce metw i t h J ones out s i de of th e b u sin e ss a n d g a v e Jo n e s a k ilo g ra m o f c o c a in e w ra p p e d in a b ro w n p a p e r b a g , a s m a ll a u d io re c o rd in g d e v ice , an d a n e m p tyc o rd les s te lep h o n e b o x . Jo n e s c a lled N a sh ’s c e ll ph on e nu m ber and i nfo rm ed the person w ho answ ered that the co cai ne h ad arr i ved . N ash a n d K in c h io n re tu rn e d to J o n e s ’ b u s in e s s in th e s ilv e r G ra n d A m s h o rt ly b e f o re 5 p .m . N as h r emai ned i n t he vehi cl e w hi l e K i nchi on w enti ns i de, carr y i ng the empt yt el ephone box he had be en gi ven ea r l i er . J ones and K i nchi on s poke br i efl y , and then K i nchi on l eft-5-

w i th tw o i dent i cal t el ephone boxe s – one empt yand the othercont ai ni ng the ki l ogr am of c o c a in e -- a s w e ll a s a la rg e w h ite s h o p p in g b a g a n d a f a k e re c e ip t p re p a re d b yJ o n e s . W hen K i nchi on r etur ned t o t he G r and A m , he pl ace d t he empt yt el ephone box i n t he trunk and keptt he othert el ephone box c ont ai ni ng the coc ai ne w i t h hi m i n t he pas s enger c o m p a rt m e n t. A s N a sh a n d K in c h io n lef t Jo n e s’ b u sin e ss in th e G ra n d A m , tw o O k lah o m a C ity p o lic e o f f ic e rs in m a rk e d c a rs p u lle d in b e h in d th e m , w a tc h in g f o r a n ytr a f

f ic v io la tio n s . N otfarfr om J ones ’ bus i nes s , N as h m ade a n i l l egal r i ghtturn. A ccor di ngl y , one of the pol i ce of fi cer s tur ned on hi s emer gencyl i ght s and att empt ed t o s t op N as h and K i nchi on as theyent er ed I nt er s t at e 44. A l t hough N as h pul l ed the G r and A m overbr i efl yt o t he s i de o f th e h ig h w a y , h e s p e d o f f a g a in b e f

o re th e p o lic e o f

f ic e r c o u ld a p p ro a c h th e G ra n d A m . A thi r ty - ei ghtm i nut e, hi gh- s peed c has e i n and ar ound O kl ahoma C i t yens ued. D ur i ng t he cou rs e of the chase, l aw enfo rcem ent offi cers ob served K i nch i on throw i ng vari ou s i t em s, i ncl udi ng chunks of the coc ai ne, outof the pas s enger - s i de w i ndow . N as h and K i nchi on w er e eve ntual l ys t opped and a r r es t ed. I n t he ce nt ercons ol e of the G r and A m , l aw enfor cementauthor i t i es r ecove r ed a l oaded, oper abl e handgun. Subse quenti nves t i gat i on r evea l ed thatt he handgun w as r egi s t er ed t o N as h and thatthe G r and A m had bee n r ent ed byN as h. P r ocedur albackgr ound O n July2, 20 03 , a fed eral grand juryreturned a three- cou nt i nd i ct m ent agai nst N a sh a n d K in c h io n . C o u n t 1 o f th e in d ictm e n t ch a rg e d N a sh a n d K in c h io n w ithK in c h io n h a s s in c e a p p e a led h is c o n v ictio n s a n d se n ten c e . W e a f f irm e d h is 2 convi ct i ons , butr ever s ed and r emanded forr es ent enci ng. U ni t ed St at es v. K i nchi on, N o. 0 4 -6 3 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 9 8 1 2 8 3 (1 0 th C ir . O c t. 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 ). -6- cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e appr oxi m at el yone ki l ogr am of cocai ne p o w d e r, in v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . C o u n t 2 c h a rg e d N a sh a n d K in c h io n w ith p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te a p p ro x im a telyo n e k ilo g ra m o f c o c a in e p o w d e r, in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . C ount3 char ged N as h and K i nchi on w i t h carr y i ng a f ir e a rm d u ri n g a n d in re la tio n to a d ru g tr a f f ic k in g c ri m e , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 924( c) . T he ca s e pr ocee ded t o t r i al on O ct ober20, 2003. A tthe conc l us i on of al l the evi dence , t he j ur yfound both m en gui l t yas char ged. I n r es pons e t o s peci al 2 i nt err ogat or i es , t he j ur yal s o found thatboth of the drug- t r aff i cki ng count s i nvol ved 500 gr ams orm or e, butl es s t han 5 ki l ogr ams, of coc ai ne. O n A ugus t27, 2004, t he di s tr i ctcour ts ent ence d N as h t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm ent of 292 m ont hs , a t erm att he bott om of the gui del i ne r ange. T he di s t r i ctcour tal s o, h o w e v e r, an n o u n c e d a n a ltern a tiv e se n ten c e , sta tin g th a t if th e g u id e lin e s w e re f o u n d to be u nco nst i tuti on al , i tw ou l d, i n it s di scr et i on , i m po se a l ow er s entence of 1 80 m on t hs. II. D eni alof

m ot i on f orcont i nuance and m ot i on f orm is tr i al A ppr oxi m at el yt w o w eeks pr i ort o t r i al , the governm ents oughtand w as gr ant ed p e rm iss io n b yth e d istric t co u rt to f ile u n d e r se a l a d o c u m e n t en tit led “ E x P a rte D i s cl os ur e of Cer t ai n M at er i al fort he C our t ’ s I ns pect i on I n C amer a, ” and a r el at ed pl eadi ng ent i t l ed “M emora ndum B r i ef on G overnm entD i s cl os ur e O bl i gat i on. ” K i nchi onI ti s uncl earfr om t he r ecor d w hetherthi s s t at e courtcr i m i nal act i on i nvol ved 3 ei therN as h orK i nchi on. -7- R O A , V ol . 1, D ocs . 106, 107, 108, 109. T he “Ex Par t e D i s cl os ur e” pl eadi ng i ndi cat ed thatthe governm entw as “s ubm i t [t i ng] cert ai n i nform at i on . . . forthe C our t ’ s i ns pect i on in c a m e ra ,” b u t as se rte d th e g o v e rn m e n t “s h o u ld n o t b e d ire c ted to d e liv e r th e m a ter ial to the def endant s beca us e nei t herB r adynorG i gl i o m andat e[d] i t s di s covery . ” I d. , D oc. 108. T he ac company i ng M emora ndum B r i ef e xpl ai ned thatthe i nform at i on s ubm i t t ed by th e g o v e rn m e n t co n c e rn e d O k lah o m a C ityP o lice D e p a rtm e n t (O C P D ) D e tec tiv e P h il W i l l i ams, w ho w as al s o a mem berof a D E A t as k for ce a nd a ca s e age nti n t he pendi ng fede r al cas es agai ns tN as h and K i nchi on. W hi l e pr epar i ng foran unr el at ed cr i m i nal t r i al in O k laho m a C o u n tyD istri ct C o u rt , W il li am s d isco v ere d the e x ist en ce o f a fa lse rep o rt 3 of i nves t i gat i on pr epar ed bya D E A s peci al agental l egedl ybas ed upon i nform at i on p r o v i d e d b yW i l l i a ms . W i l l i a ms n o t i f i e d h i s s u p e r v i s o r s a tb o t h th e OC PD a n d th e DEA aboutthe fa l s e r epor t . O n J anuary28, 2002, the O kl ahoma C ount yD i s t r i ctA t t orney not i fi ed the U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce f orthe W es t ern D i s t r i ctof O kl ahoma of t he i s s ue. A l though t he D E A agentpr epar ed a c orr ect ed r epor t , the D E A ’ s O ffi ce of P rofessi on al R espon si bil i t ynev ertheles s cond ucted an invest i gati on regar ding t he fa l se r epor t . O n J ul y9, 2003, a “D eci di ng O ffi ci al ” empl oy ed bythe D E A ’ s H um an R es our ces D i vi s i on i s s ued a mem or andum i ndi cat i ng he had c om pl et ed hi s r evi ew of W i l l i a ms ’ r o l e i n t h e f

a l s e r e p o r ta n d c o n c l u d e d th a t , “ [ h ] a d . . . W i l l i a ms b e e n a DEA empl oy ee, [he] w oul d have [ i m pos ed] s ever e di s ci pl i naryact i on, up t o and i ncl udi ng-8-

[W i l l i ams’ ] r emoval , forM aki ng Fal s e orM i s l eadi ng St at ement s . . . . ” I d. , D oc. 108, E xh. A . B eca us e, how ever , W i l l i ams “[w a] s nota D E A empl oy ee a nd [w a] s nots ubj ect t o [the D eci di ng O ffi ci al ’ s ] author i ty , ” the D eci di ng O ffi ci al admi ni s t r at i vel ycl os ed the ca se. Id. O ff

ici als at th e O C P D w ere ap p are n tl yn o ti fied o f th e D ec iding O ff ici al’s r epor t . I n tur n, on Sept ember29, 2003, the C hi ef a nd D eputyC hi ef of the O C PD m et w ith th e U n ited S tate s A tto rn e yf o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f O k lah o m a a n d in f

o rm e d h im of the D eci di ng O ffi ci al ’ s r eport . T he fol l ow i ng day , Sept ember30, 2003, the U ni t ed S tate s A tto rn e ysp o k e w ith a tto rn e y s a t th e D E A a n d p e rsu a d e d th e m to im m e d iate ly r el eas e the under l y i ng i nves t i gat i ve r epor t . A ft err evi ew i ng the i nves t i gat i ve r epor t , t he U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne yco n tacted the A d m inistrator o f th e D E A an d ex p resse d co n ce rn thatD et ect i ve W i l l i ams had a damant l ydeni ed bei ng the s our ce of i nform at i on forthe f a ls e re p o rt a n d w a s d e n ie d h is d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts d u ri n g th e c o u rs e o f th e in v e s tig a tio n . T h e Ad mi n i s t r a t o ro f

t h e DE A, i n tu r n , d i r e c t e d a n i mm e d i a t e r e v i e w o f th e ma t t e r . On O ct ober3, 2003, t he A ct i ng A s s i s t antA dm i ni s t r at orof the D E A ’ s H um an R es our ces D i vi s i on i s s ued a mem or andum re s ci ndi ng the D eci di ng O ffi ci al ’ s J ul y9, 2003 m emora ndum “as pr ocedur al l ydefe ct i ve. ” I d. , D oc. 108, E xh. C . I n doi ng s o, the A ct i ng A s s i s t antA dm i ni s t r at ornot ed thatbeca us e W i l l i ams w as nota D E A empl oy ee, he w as “nots ubj ectt o t he author i t yof the D E A t o r enderanydeci s i on, ei t hercl ear ance or d is c ip lin e , w ith re s p e c t to a n ya c tio n s h e t[ o o k ] w h ile s e rv in g o n a D E A T a s k F o rc e .” Id . I n cl os i ng, t he A ct i ng A s s i s t antA dm i ni s t r at or ’ s m emora ndum r eques t ed that“anycopi es o f [ th e D e c id in g O f

f ic ia l’ s ] J u ly 9 , 2 0 0 3 , m e m o ra n d u m ” b e d e s tr o y e d . Id .Itis un clea r fro m the re co rd w h at th is prior p rose cu ti o n inv o lved . T h e re co rd 4 does i ndi cat e, how ever , t hatK i nchi on fi l ed s om e type of mot i on i n t he pr i orpr os ecut i on a lleg in g th a t D e tec tiv e W ill iam s m a d e f a lse a n d m isle a d in g sta tem e n ts in o rd e r to o b tain w arr ant s i n fur t her ance of the pr os ecut i on. K i nchi on R O A , V ol . 1, D oc. 150 at1. T he governm entdi s put ed thatas s ert i on, al l egi ng that“W i l l i ams w as notan af fi anton anyof the s ear ch w arr ant s t hatw er e i n ques t i on i n t hatpr os ecut i on, ” and i ns t ead “ w as [onl y ] t he a f f ian t f o r th e a rre st w a rra n t f

o r D e f e n d a n t K in c h io n . . . . ” Id ., D o c . 1 5 2 a t 3 (e m p h a sis i n o ri ginal ). Iti s unco ntr ov ert ed thatthe g ov ernm ent ul t i m at el ydis m i ssed the p ri or case agai ns tK i nchi on w i t h pr ej udi ce. I d. , D oc. 150 at1. W i l l i ams appa r ent l yt es t i fi ed atthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng that( a) the audi o and 5 vi deo r ecor di ngs m ade byJ ones w er e cons ens ual , and ( b) agent s i nvol ved i n t he s ur vei l l ance of the drug t r ans act i on betw een J ones , N as h and K i nchi on w er e aw ar e that N as h and K i nchi on had coc ai ne i n t hei rcus t odyaft ertheyl eftJ ones ’ bus i nes s and thus had pr obabl e ca us e t o s t op and arr es tN as h and K i nchi on. N ot abl y , N as h does not c h a llen g e th e se iss u e s o n a p p e a l. -9- T he governm ent ’ s M emora ndum B r i ef a cknow l edged thatboth N as h and K i nchi on had r eques t ed notonl yB r adyand G i gl i o m at er i al , butal s o “[c ] opi es of al l r epor t s of i nves t i gat i on of . . . W i l l i ams conduc t ed bythe D epart m entof J us t i ce oranyagenc yatt he di r ect i on of oron behal f of the D epart m entof J us t i ce a s a r es ul tof [a ] pr i orpr os ecut i on o f [ K in c h io n ] in th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f O k lah o m a , in w h ich . . . W il li am s w as a p ri n cipa l parti cipa n t. ” Id., D o c. 10 9 at 4. T h e g o v ern m en t’ s 4 M emora ndum B r i ef f

ur t heracknow l edged thatW i l l i ams had t es t i fi ed ata s uppr es s i on hear i ng i n t he pr es entcas e aga i ns tN as h and K i nchi on. N otw i t hs t andi ng thes e fa ct s , t he 5 M emora ndum B r i ef a s s ert ed i tw as unnece s s aryforthe governm entt o di s cl os e t o N as h or K i nchi on anyof the i nform at i on and document s pert ai ni ng t o t he D E A ’ s i nt ernal i nv est i gati on of W i l l i am s becau se W i l l i am s w ou l d n ot be a w i t ness attri al , and becau se the D eci di ng O ffi ci al ’ s m emora ndum had bee n offi ci al l yr es ci nded. I n s um , the-10-

g o v e rn m e n t a rg u e d , th e in f o rm a tio n d id n o t c o n s titu te G ig lio o r B ra d ym a te ri a l. O n O ct ober10, 2003, t he di s t r i ctcour ti s s ued a w r i t t en or der“dec l i n[i ng] t o m ake a s peci fi c fi ndi ng as t o w hethert he document s s houl d be pr oduced t o” N as h and K i nchi on. I d. , D oc. 117 at3. I n doi ng s o, the di s t r i ctcour texpr es s ed conc erns about( a) th e f a c t th a t th e U n ited S tate s A tto rn e y ’s O f f ice f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f O k lah o m a d id notr ece i ve the D eci di ng O ffi ci al ’ s m emora ndum unt i l m or e than tw o m ont hs aft eri tw as author ed, even though W i l l i ams w as w or ki ng w i t h t hatoffi ce a nd the D E A on s ever al m at t er s , ( b) t he fa ctt hatt he governm entfai l ed t o pr ovi de t o t he di s t r i ctcour tthe D e c id in g O f

f icia l’s u n d e rly in g in v e stig a tiv e re p o rt, an d (c ) th e g o v e rn m e n t’s f a ilu re to fi l e i t s ex par t e pleadi ng s i n a m ore t i m el yfashi on , part i cular l yi n li gh tof the defe nd ants ’ re q u e s ts f

o r d is c o v e ry a n d th e u p c o m in g tr ia l d a te . O n O c t o b e r1 5 , 2 0 0 3 , o n e d a y a f t e rth e j u r y w a s s e l e c t e d a n d s w o r n , b u tf i v e d a ys pr i ort o the s t artof the evi dent i arypor t i on of tr i al , the governm entobt ai ned fr om the di s tr i ctcourta pr ot ect i ve or derencompas s i ng the D eci di ng O ffi ci al ’ s J ul y9, 2003 m emora ndum , and the A ct i ng A s s i s t antA dm i ni s t r at or ’ s O ct ober3, 2003 m emora ndum p u rp o rte d lyre sc in d in g th e D e c id in g O f f icia l’s m e m o ra n d u m . T h a t o rd e r p ro v id e d , in pert i nen tpart , t hat the m em oranda w ere “not t o b e dis sem i nated bey on d the defen se i t s el f” a nd t hatno copi es t her eof c oul d be made bythe def ens e. I d. , D oc. 138. T he fol l ow i ng day , O ct ober16, 2003, t he governm entpr ovi ded def ens e couns el w i t h copi es of the mem or anda. K i nchi on i m m edi at el yfi l ed a mot i on forcont i nuance of the evi dent i arypor t i on of the tr i al , w hi ch w as j oi ned byN as h, ar gui ng thatthe di s cl os ed-11-

m emora nda “di r ect l yi m pact [ed] [thei r ] defe ns e and the theor i es on w hi ch [they ] ha[d] founded thatdefe ns e . . . . ” I d. , D oc. 134 at1. T he governm entr es ponded, i ndi cat i ng th a ti th a d “ n o o b

j e c t i o n s t o a l i mi t e d c o n t i n u a n c e o f tr i a l . ” I d . , Do c . 1 4 3 a t1 . On O c to b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is s u e d a n o rd e r d e n y in g th e m o tio n f o r c o n tin u a n c e . I d. , D oc. 144. I n doi ng s o, t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed thatW i l l i ams, “the s ubj ectof the r ece nt l ydi s cl os ed i nform at i on, ” w oul d notbe t es t i fy i ng attr i al . I d. at2. Fur t her , the d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e re c e n tlyd isc lo se d “ in f o rm a tio n c o u ld o n lyb e u se d to im p e a c h [ W ill iam s]” a n d “ d [ id ] n o t g o to th e iss u e s to b e d e ter m in e d b yth e ju ry(i.e., it [w a] s notdi r ect l yr el at ed t o t he i nnocenc e orgui l tof the def endant s ) . ” I d. “Thus, ” the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed, “the t i m i ng of the pr oduct i on [w a] s notan i s s ue. ” I d. I n addi t i on, t he di s tr i ctcourtnot ed thatN as h and K i nchi on had “w hol l yfai l [ed] t o des cr i be the i nves t i gat i on t heyal l egedl yneed[ ed] t o conduct , ” and ha d “i dent i f[i ed] no w i t nes s es t o be i nt ervi ew ed ordocument s t o be s oughtdur i ng the i nves t i gat i on. ” I d. L as t l y , the di s t r i ct cour tnot ed that , “w hi l e onl ym i ni m al l yr el evant , ” i t“ha[ d] pr evi ous l yarr anged the tr i al s chedul e i n a s peci fi c mannert o acc om m odat e the part i es [] and thei rat t orney s , ” and ha d fur ther“not i fi ed the fi ft een j ur or s of the dat e the t es t i m ony[w a] s t o comm ence and the a n tic ip a te d le n g th o f

th e tr ia l.” Id . a t 3 . O n O ct ober20, 2003, t he fi r s tdayof the evi dent i arypor t i on of tr i al , N as h and K i nchi on fi l ed a j oi ntm ot i on form i s t r i al . I d. , D oc. 150. T heyar gued that , “due t o t he la te n e s s o f

th e [ g o v e rn m e n t’ s ] p ro v is io n o f m a te ri a ls [ re g a rd in g D e te c tiv e W illia m s ],” a n d “ th e [ d istric t co u rt’s] d e c lin a tio n o f [ th e ir] re q u e st f

o r a c o n tin u a n c e ,” th e yw e re “ a t a-12-

deci ded di s advant age notof [thei r ] ow n m aki ng i n bei ng abl e t o demonstr at e the or ches tr at ed natur e of the ca s e, i ncl udi ng w i t nes s es ” they“genui nel ybel i eved [ w er e] per j ur er s forhi r e . . . . ” I d. at5. A ccor di ng t o N as h and K i nchi on, theys houl d have be en gi ven an opportuni t yt o conductdi s coveryt o det erm i ne w hetherthe O C PD had i nves t i gat ed the al l egat i ons of w r ongdoi ng agai ns tD et ect i ve W i l l i ams and, i f s o, w hatt he OCP D’ s f

i n d i n g s we r e . F u r t h e r , Na s h a n d Ki n c h i o n o p i n e d th a tDe t e c t i v e W i l l i a ms “h a[ d ] co n ti n u ed h is prac ti ce o f m an u fa cturing ev iden ce an d w itn esse s. ” Id . at 4. In s uppor tof thi s as s ert i on, N as h and K i nchi on not ed theyhad obs erved W i l l i ams atthe O kl ahoma C ount yJ ai l , w her e theyw er e hous ed pendi ng tr i al , w i t h otheri nm at es w ho u ltim a te ly b e c a m e p ro s e c u tio n w itn e s s e s . I n i t s r es pons e i n oppos i t i on t o t he mot i on form i s t r i al , the governm entnot ed that th e O C P D h a d re v iew e d th e in v e stig a tiv e f ile a n d ten tativ e lyc o n c lu d e d th a t th e f ile d id

“ n o t s u p p o rt th e a lle g a tio n lo d g e d [ a g a in s t W illia m s ] b y[ th e D e c id in g O f f ic ia l] .” Id ., D oc. 15 2, E xh . B . T he g ov ernm ent further noted, ho w ever, that, “[d]ue to the seri ou sness of the al l egat i on, ” the O C PD ’ s “O ffi ce of Pr ofes s i onal St andar ds ” w as “conduc t [i ng] an i ndepende nti nves t i gat i on i nt o t h[e] m att er . ” I d. A ppar ent l y , thati nves t i gat i on had not been c om pl et ed as of the t i m e of tr i al . A s forthe r emai ni ng as s ert i ons i n s uppor tof the m o tio n f o r m istria l, th e g o v e rn m e n t n o ted , in p e rtin e n t p a rt, th a t d e f e n se c o u n se l w o u ld be “f r ee t o cr os s - exami ne the G overnm ent ’ s ot herw i t nes s es [attr i al ] t o el i ci ti nform at i on b e a ri n g o n th e irc re d ib ility.” Id . a t 5 . O n O ct ober23, 2003 ( t he l as tdayof tr i al ) , the di s t r i ctcour ti s s ued an or der-13-

deny i ng the mot i on fora mi s t r i al . I d. , D oc. 158. I n doi ng s o, the di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded th a t N a sh a n d K in c h io n h a d “ f a iled to d e m o n stra te th a t th e re c e n t p ro d u c tio n o f c e rta in in f o rm a tio n re g a rd in g O f

f ic e r W illia m s im p a ir e d th e irri g h t to a f a ira n d im p a rt ia l tr ia l,” part i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof the fa ctt hat“W i l l i ams di d nott es t i fyat. . . tr i al , ” ther eby re n d e ri n g th e d o c u m e n ts in a d m is s ib le . Id . a t 3 -4 . a) D eni alof

m ot i on f orcont i nuance N as h cont ends on appea l t hatthe di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng the j oi ntm ot i on forcont i nuance . W e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of a mot i on f o r c o n tin u a n c e o f

tr ia l. U n ite d S ta te s v . D o w lin , 4 0 8 F .3 d 6 4 7 , 6 6 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). U n d er tha t st an d ard , “w e w il l fi n d erro r on lyif th e d istri ct co u rt ’s de cisi o n w as a rbitrary orunr eas onabl e and mat er i al l ypr ej udi ced the def endant . ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “I n det erm i ni ng w hethera di s t r i ctcour tarbi t r ar i l yorunr eas onabl ydeni ed a m o tio n f o r c o n tin u a n c e ,” w e e x a m in e th e f o llo w in g f

a c to rs: “ (1 ) th e d ili g e n c e o f th e p a rty re q u e stin g th e c o n tin u a n c e ; (2 ) th e lik e lih o o d th a t th e c o n tin u a n c e , if g ra n ted , w o u ld acc om pl i s h t he purpos e under l y i ng the part y ’ s expr es s ed nee d forthe cont i nuance ; ( 3) t he i nconveni ence t o t he oppos i ng part y , i t s w i t nes s es , and the courtr es ul t i ng fr om the cont i nuance ; [and] ( 4) t he nee d as s er t ed forthe cont i nuance and the harm thatappel l ant m i ghts uffe ras a r es ul tof the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of the cont i nuance . ” I d. A ppl y i ng t hos e fa ct or s her e, w e conc l ude thatthe di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on w as not arbi tr aryorunr eas onabl e. T o be s ur e, N as h act ed di l i gent l yi n fi l i ng the mot i on for cont i nuance . I ti s uncl ear , how ever , w hetherthe cont i nuance , i f gr ant ed, w oul d have-14-

a c c o m p lish e d th e sta ted p u rp o se u n d e rly in g th e m o tio n . A s n o ted b yth e d istric t co u rt in deny i ng the mot i on, N as h fai l ed t o des cr i be the i nves t i gat i on he i nt ended t o conduct , and in p a rticu lar id e n tifie d n o w itn e ss e s h e in ten d e d to in ter v iew o r d o c u m e n ts h e in ten d e d to s eek. E ven as s um i ng t hatt he r eques t ed cont i nuance w oul d have a l l ow ed hi m t o conduct dis cov eryregar ding W i l l i am s’ al l eged m i scond uct and t he invest i gati on thereof, N ash f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a ta c o n t i n u a n c e wa s n e c e s s a r yi n l i g h to f th e f a c tth a tW i l l i a ms w o u ld n o t b e a p p e a rin g a s a g o v e rn m e n t w itn e ss a t trial. In o th e r w o rd s, N a sh f a iled to es t abl i s h how i nform at i on pert ai ni ng t o W i l l i ams’ purpor t ed mi s conducti n another c ri m in a l c a s e w o u ld b e re le v a n t o th e r t h a n f o r p u rp o s e s o f

im p e a c h in g W illia m s . A l though N as h now at t empt s on appea l t o as s ertthats uch i nform at i on w oul d have bol s t er ed hi s defe ns e thathe w as i nnocentand w as s i m pl y“s etup” byl aw enfor cement author i t i es , he di d notcl ear l ym ake thatar gum entbel ow . M or eover , ther e i s no evi dence thatD et ect i ve W i l l i ams enga ged i n anym i s conducti n t he i nves t i gat i on of the off ens es of convi ct i on, and i ndeed the evi dence of N as h’ s gui l tw as overw hel m i ng. L as t l y , the di s tr i ctcourtfound, and N as h does notdi s put e, thata cont i nuance w oul d have be en i nconveni entfort he di s t r i ctcourtand the j ur or s , w ho had al r eadybeen s el ect ed atthe tim e th e m o tio n f

o r c o n tin u a n c e w a s f

ile d . b) D eni alof

m ot i on f orm is tr i al N as h al s o cont ends t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng the mot i on form i s t r i al . “A trial c o u rt m a ya p p ro p ria telyg ra n t a m o tio n f o r m istria l o n lyw h e n a d e f e n d a n t’s rig h t to a fa i rand i m part i al t r i al has been i m pai r ed . . . . ” U ni t ed St at es v. C avel y , 318 F. 3d 987,N as h, i n hi s appel l at e br i ef, s ugges t s that , i f nothi ng el s e, he coul d have 6 i ntr od uced , pu rs uan tt o F ederal R ule of E vidence 4 04 (b) , evidence o f W i l l i am s’ m i s conducti n t he unr el at ed ca s es . T hats ugges t i on, how ever , l acks m er i t . Such evi dence s u re ly w o u ld h a v e b e e n e x c lu d e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt , a n d ri g h tly so , a s ir re le v a n t. E .g ., U ni t ed St at es v. T ay l or , 417 F. 3d 1176, 1179- 80 ( 11t h C i r . 2005) ( aff i r m i ng excl us i on of -15- 9 9 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). “W e re v iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s r efus al t o gr anta mot i on form i s t r i al forabus e of di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. St i ger , 413 F . 3 d 1 1 8 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). “In re v iew ing a c o u rt ’s d e ter m in a tio n f

o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n , w e w ill n o t d istu rb th e d e ter m in a tio n a b se n t a di s t i ncts how i ng i tw as bas ed on a c l ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ctoran err oneous concl us i on of l aw orm ani fes t s a cl earerr orof j udgm ent . ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itte d ). A r evi ew of the r ecor d on appea l i ndi cat es thatN as h’ s r i ghtt o a fa i rand i m part i al trial w a s n o t im p a ire d b yth e d istric t co u rt’s lim itatio n s o n h is a b ili tyto e n g a g e in di s coveryr egar di ng, ort o pr es entevi dence attr i al of, D et ect i ve W i l l i ams’ al l eged m i scond uct ort he invest i gati on t hereof b ythe D E A or the O C P D . A l t ho ug h N ash s ugges t s on appea l t hats uch evi dence w oul d have bol s t er ed hi s defe ns e thathe w as “s et u p ” b yla w e n f

o rc e m e n t a u th o ri tie s , th e e v id e n c e a t tr ia l w h o lly re f u te s th a t s u g g e s tio n . D u rin g th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c a se -in -c h ief , b o th N a sh a n d K in c h io n w e re a b le to e x ten siv e ly ques t i on pr os ecut i on w i t nes s es r egar di ng the coc ai ne tr ans act i on ati s s ue, as w el l as D et ect i ve W i l l i ams’ r ol e i n s ett i ng up t he r ever s e s t i ng oper at i on. N othi ng i n t hat so licite d tes tim o n ysu g g e ste d a n yw ro n g d o in g o n th e p a rt o f W ill iam s, n o r d id it rem o tely su g g e st th a t N a sh w a s th e v ictim o f a “ se t u p .” T o th e c o n tra ry , the e v id e n c e o f h is 6sim il ar e v iden ce in a c ri m inal ca se). -16-

i nt entt o know i ngl ycons pi r e t o pos s es s , and t o actual l ypos s es s , the ki l ogr am of cocai ne w as overw hel m i ng. T hus , w e conc l ude the di s t r i ctcour tact ed w el l w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he mot i on form i s t r i al . See gene r al l yC avel y , 318 F. 3d at997 ( concl udi ng th a t, i n lig h t o f

th e o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilt , the d istric t co u rt d id notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng m ot i on form i s t r i al bas ed upon admi s s i on of i m pr oper ev iden ce ). B r ut on er r or N as h cont ends t he di s t r i ctcour tvi ol at ed the rul e announc ed i n B rut on v. U ni t ed St at es , 391 U . S. 123 ( 1968) , byadmi t t i ng i nt o evi dence t es t i m onyfr om thr ee w i t nes s es r e g a r d i n g p o s t - a r r e s ts t a t e me n t s ma d e t o th e m b yKi n c h i o n . I n Bru t o n , th e S u p r e me C our thel d t hatt he admi s s i on of a nont es t i fy i ng codef endant ’ s confe s s i on i m pl i cat i ng t he defe ndantatt hei rj oi ntt r i al vi ol at es the def endant ’ s Si xth A m endmentC onfr ont at i on C l aus e r i ght s . 391 U . S. at137; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. Sarr aci no, 340 F. 3d 1148, 1159- 60 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) . W e have s i nce e m phas i zed, how ever , thatthe rul e announc ed in B ruto n is a l im it ed o n e. S p ec ifi ca ll y , “B ruto n ap p li es o n lyin tho se f ew co n texts w h ere the s t at ementi s s o i ncul pat or yas t o t he def endantthatthe ‘ pr act i cal and human l i m i t at i ons of the j ur ys y s t em cannotbe i gnor ed. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. R ahs epar i an, 231 F. 3d 1267, 1277 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng B rut on, 391 U . S. at135) . I n otherw or ds , t he B ru to n ru le d o e s n o t ap p lyto “ sta tem e n ts th a t ar e n o t d ire c tlyin c u lp a to ryb u t o n ly i nfer ent i al l yi ncr i m i nat i ng. ” I d. at1277; s ee G r ayv. M ary l and, 523 U . S. 185, 195 ( 1998)Na s h d i d n o to b j e c ta tt r i a l t o th e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f th e c h a l l e n g e d e v i d e n c e . He 7 d id , h o w e v e r, f

ile a p re tr ia l m o tio n f

o r s e v e ra n c e , w h ic h w a s d e n ie d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt . T h e f ilin g o f th a t m o tio n w a s s u f

f ic ie n t to p re s e rv e th e e n s u in g a lle g e d B ru to n e rr o r. U n it ed S tat es v . S arrac ino , 3 4 0 F . 3 d 1 1 4 8 , 1 1 5 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). -17- ( not i ng t hatt he dec i s i on i n R i char ds on v. M ar s h, 481 U . S. 200 ( 1987) , “pl ace d out s i de the s cope of

B rut on’ s rul e thos e s t at ement s thati ncr i m i nat e i nfer ent i al l y . ”) . W e r evi ew de novo anyal l eged Brut on err or s . See U ni t ed St at es v. V er duzco- M art i nez, 186 F. 3d 7 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 1 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). N as h as s ert s t hatt he cha l l enged s t at ement s ati s s ue ar e fa ci al l yi ncr i m i nat oryand ther efor e vi ol at e B rut on. T he di s put ed s t at ement s ar e as fol l ow s : Fi r s t , J ayC handl er Fl ot t , a convi ct ed bank r obberw ho s poke w i t h K i nchi on w hi l e atthe countyj ai l , t es t i fi ed thatK i nchi on s ai d “hi s par t nerw as dr i vi ng” w hen theyl eftthe buyand that , as the pol i ce i ni t i at ed the s t op, “he ha d t ol d hi s par t nert o, ‘ L et ’ s getthe hel l outof her e, m an. Y ou know w hatw e got . ’ ” K i nchi on R O A , V ol . 3 at365. Second, D i r k T err y , a convi ct ed m oneyl aunder erw ho al s o conver s ed w i t h K i nchi on atthe countyj ai l , t es t i fi ed that K i nchi on “conf

i r m ed w i t h hi s dr i ver , the dr i ver , thattheyw er e hea vi l ys t r apped, m eant thattheyw er e arm ed and da nger ous . ” I d. , V ol . 4 at572. T hi r d, T err yal s o t es t i fi ed that K in c h io n h a d sa id to th e d riv e r a s th e p o lice a p p ro a c h e d th e v e h icle , “‘W e ’re g o in g to end up doi ng l i fe. ’ ” I d. at574. Four t h, A ar on R eed, a convi ct ed coc ai ne tr aff i ckerw ho sp o k e w ith b o th N a sh a n d K in c h io n a t th e c o u n tyjail, tes tifie d th a t K in c h io n “ [ t]o ld h is c o -d e f e n d a n t, M r. N a sh , n o t to w o rry , b e c a u se , h e sa id , ‘If so m e th in g g o e s w ro n g , I’ll ta k e th e b la m e . I’ ll ta k e th e c a s e .’” Id ., V o l. 3 a t 4 0 2 .-18-

W e a g ree w ith N ash that ea ch o f th ese stat em en ts violates B ruto n . T h ese are i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement s of a nont es t i fy i ng codef endantthatr efe rdi r ect l yt o N as h. T he f a c t th a t N a sh ’s n a m e w a s n o t m e n tio n e d d o e s n o t alte r th is re su lt. It is o b v io u s th a t a j ur yi m m edi at el yw oul d under s t and thatthe t erm s “part ner ” and “ hi s dr i ver ” w er e meant to ref er to N ash . A lth o u g h the g o v ern m en t con tend s tha t Flott’ s u se o f th e term “p artne r” r equi r ed an i nfer ent i al deduct i on t o es t abl i s h N as h as a part neri n t he coc ai ne tr aff i cki ng s cheme r athert han s i m pl yK i nchi on’ s acqua i nt ance , w e di s agr ee. T he cont exti n w hi ch thi s s t at ementw as m ade a nd r ecount ed t o t he j ury , i . e. , Fl ot t ’ s t es t i m onythatK i nchi on s a id to h is “ p a rt n e r,” “ Y o u k n o w w h a t w e g o t,” a d m its o f n o o th e r p o s s ib le in f

e re n c e . T he s ame hol ds t rue fort he di r ectr efe r ence s t o t he “dr i ver ” i n s t at ement s m ade by K i nchi on. A s fort he fi nal s t at ement , the governm entar gues thati tw as actual l yan a p o lo g yb yK in c h io n f

o r g e tti n g N a sh m ix e d u p in a d ru g d e a l. W h ile th a t is c e rta in ly one i nt erpr et at i on, i ti s nott he onl yone. T hes e s t at ement s , i n ourvi ew , r efl ectthe ki nd of i nference the S up rem e C ou rthas soug ht t o p rohi biti n joi nt tri al s. T h e m ere fin d ing o f a B ruto n v iolati o n , h o w ev er, “d o es n o t auto m ati ca ll yreq u ir e r ever s al of the ens ui ng cr i m i nal convi ct i on. ” Schnebl e v. Fl or i da, 405 U . S. 427, 430 ( 1972) . R ever s al i s unnece s s aryi f “w e ca n concl ude bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatt he cons t i tut i onal err orw as harm l es s . ” Sarr aci no, 340 F. 3d at1160. T he t es tfordet erm i ni ng w hetherthe err orw as harm l es s i s “w hetherthe j uryw oul d have r eturned the s ame ver di ct abs entthe err or . ” W as hi ngt on v. R ecue nco, 126 S. C t . 2546, 2552 ( 2006) . I n appl y i ng thi s s t andar d, w e r evi ew t he r ecor d de novo, and ourj udgm enti s i nform ed bythe cont ext-19-

in w h ich th e B ru to n sta tem e n t w a s a d m itt e d , h o w it w a s u se d a t trial, an d h o w it compar es t o t he pr oper l yadmi t t ed evi dence . Sar r aci no, 340 F. 3d at1160. “‘ O ur ju d g m e n t m u st b e b a se d o n o u r o w n re a d in g o f th e re c o rd a n d o n w h a t se e m s to u s to have be en the pr obabl e i m pactof the . . . confe s s i on[] on t he mi nds of an a ver age j ury . ’ ” Id. (qu o ti n g H arring ton v . C ali fo rnia, 39 5 U . S . 2 5 0 , 2 5 4 (19 6 9 )). A ft ercar eful l yexami ni ng t he tr i al tr ans cr i pt , w e ar e convi nced thatthe B rut on err orw as harm l es s . A l t hough t he B rut on s t at ement s w er e no doubti ncr i m i nat ory , the properl yadm i t t ed ev i den ce of N ash’s part i ci pati on i n the offen ses of con vict i on w as “so overw hel m i ng, and the pr ej udi ci al eff ectof the” Brut on s t at ement s “s o i ns i gni fi cantby compar i s on, t hati ti s cl earbey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe i m pr operus e of the” B rut on s t at ement s “w as harm l es s err or . ” Schnebl e, 405 U . S. at430. A m ong t he key pi ece s of pr oper l yadmi t t ed evi dence es t abl i s hi ng N as h’ s gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt w er e the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) N as h and K i nchi on cont act ed J ones i n M ayof 2003 aboutthe p o ss ib ili tyo f

p u rc h a sin g a k ilo g ra m o f c o c a in e f

ro m h im ; (2 ) N a sh p ro v id e d Jo n e s w ith hi s cel l phone numberi n or dert o fac i l i t at e the ens ui ng di s cus s i ons ; ( 3) both N as h and K i nchi on ut i l i zed N as h’ s cel l phone t o s peak on numer ous occa s i ons w i t h J ones aboutt he cocaine t ransact i on ; (4) aft er chang i ng his cel l ph on e nu m ber i n lat e M ay20 03 , N ash i m m edi at el ynot i fi ed J ones of thi s change and advi s ed thatK i nchi on coul d cont i nue t o be r eac hed att he new cel l phone number ; ( 5) N as h and K i nchi on vi s i t ed J ones ’ s hop t ogetheron s ever al occa s i ons i n connec t i on w i t h t he tr ans act i on; ( 6) atl eas tone of the fi ve vehi cl es us ed as col l at er al fort he tr ans act i on w as r egi s t er ed j oi nt l yt o N as h andT h e d i s s e n tc l a i m s t h i s t e s t i m o n yw a s a l s o a d m i t t e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f B ru t o n . We 8 n o te, in resp o n se, th at N ash h as n ev er a sserted an ysu ch o b jecti o n to this t esti m o n y . In anyevent , w e w oul d r eac h t he s ame concl us i on of harm l es s nes s w i t houtcons i der at i on of th i s p a r t i c u l a rp i e c e o f

t e s t i m o n y. -20- K i nchi on; ( 7) w hen N as h and K i nchi on r eturned t o J ones ’ s hop t o acc eptdel i veryof the coca i ne, K i nchi on i nform ed J ones thatN as h w as s car ed bec aus e theyhad obs erved a pol i ce c arata nea rbyvi deo s t or e ( t hus i ndi cat i ng thatN as h w as aw ar e a c ocai ne tr ans act i on w as aboutt o t ake pl ace ) ; ( 8) w hen an O kl ahoma C i t ypol i ce of fi cerat t empt ed 8 t o s t op N as h’ s caraft ert he coc ai ne tr ans act i on, N as h pul l ed overbr i efl yt o t he s i de of the highw ay , bu tt hen sped o ff b efore t he o ffi cer could approach the G rand A m ; (9) N ash pr ocee ded t o l ead the pol i ce on a t hi r t y - ei ghtm i nut e, hi gh- s peed c has e; ( 10) dur i ng one p o rtio n o f

th e c h a se , N a sh sw e rv e d c lo se to th e e d g e o f a b rid g e , en a b lin g K in c h io n to thr ow s om e of the coc ai ne overt he s i de of the br i dge; ( 11) w hen N as h w as arr es t ed fol l ow i ng t he cha s e, he w as found t o be i n pos s es s i on of appr oxi m at el y$2, 800 i n cas h, w hi ch N as h l at ert ol d hi s j ai l cel l m at e ( A ar on R eed) w er e the pr ocee ds of pr i ordrug tr ans act i ons ; ( 12) t he fi r earm r etr i eved f r om the G r and A m fol l ow i ng the s ear ch w as confi r m ed t o have be en pur chas ed ea r l i eri n t he y earbyN as h; ( 13) pol i ce i nves t i gat i on confi r m ed thatN as h r ent ed the G r and A m on J une 10, 2003, us i ng cas h; and ( 14) fol l ow i ng hi s arr es t , N as h m ade numer ous i ncul pat orys t at ement s t o hi s j ai l cel l m at e, A ar on R eed, i ndi cat i ng t hathe had s ol d coca i ne on an a l m os tdai l ybas i s forfourt o fi ve y ea rs, an d h ad p icke d u p a k il o g ram o f p o w d er c o ca ine im m ed iat elyp ri o r t o h is arrest. In l i ghtof thi s evi dence , w e ar e fi r m l yconvi nced that“the j uryw oul d have r eturned the-21-

s ame ver di ctabs entt he err or . ” R ecue nco, 126 S. C t . at2552. B ookerer r or F in a lly , N a sh c h a llen g e s h is s e n ten c e b a se d u p o n th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in U n ited S tate s v . B o o k e r, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). In B o o k e r, th e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t re q u ire s “ [ a ]n yf a c t (o th e r th a n a p rio r c o n v ictio n ) w h ich is n e c e ss a ryto s uppor ta s ent ence exce edi ng t he maxi m um author i zed bythe fa ct s es t abl i s hed bya pl ea of gui l tyora j ur yver di ctm us tbe admi t t ed bythe def endantorpr oved t o a j urybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” 543 U . S. at244. T o r emedythe pot ent i al forSi xth A m endment vi ol at i ons bya s ent enci ng cour t ’ s appl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes , the C our ts ever ed and exci s ed 18 U . S. C . § 3553( b) ( 1) , w hi ch had r equi r ed s ent enci ng court s t o i m pos e a s ent ence w i t hi n t he appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange, s ubj ectt o departur es i n l i m i t ed ca s es . I d. at764. A s a r es ul t , t he G ui del i nes ar e now advi s ory . I d. at259. W e have r ecogni zed tw o types of B ooker - r el at ed err or . “Fi r s t , a courtcoul d errbyr el y i ng upon j udge- found fac t s , othert han thos e of pr i orconvi ct i ons , t o enhanc e a de fenda nt ' s s ent ence m andat or i l y . ” U ni t ed St at es v. G onzal ez- H uer t a, 403 F. 3d 727, 731 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( en b a n c ). T h is typ e o f

e rro r, w h ich v io late s th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t as d e sc rib e d in B o o k e r, is g e n e ra lly re f

e rr e d to in th is c ir c u it a s “ c o n s titu tio n a l B o o k e r e rr o r.” Id . “ S e c o n d , a s ent enci ng courtcoul d errbyappl y i ng the G ui del i nes i n a mandat oryfas hi on, as oppos ed t o a di s cr et i onaryfas hi on, even though t he r es ul t i ng s ent ence w as cal cul at ed s ol el yupon fac t s t hatw er e admi t t ed byt he def endant , found bythe j ury , orbas ed upon the fa ctof a pr i orconvi ct i on. ” I d. at731- 32. T hi s type of e r r ori s r efe r r ed t o as “non- cons t i tut i onal-22-

B ookererr or . ” I d. at732. N as h al l eges , and w e agr ee, thatthe di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed cons t i tut i onal B ooker erro r byen h an cing h is sen tenc e m an d atoril yo n the b asis o f ju d ici all y -fo u n d fa cts. In cal cul at i ng N as h’ s bas e off ens e l evel , the di s t r i ctcour tut i l i zed the drug quant i t yt abl e s et forth in U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(c) and , rather than rel y i ng up on the jury ’s fi nd i ng that N ash know i ngl ypos s es s ed appr oxi m at el yone ki l ogr am of pow dercoca i ne, i ns t ead f ound, bas ed upon the evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al , thatN as h i nt ended t o convertthe ki l ogr am of pow dercoca i ne i nt o cr ack c ocai ne. I n turn, the di s t r i ctcour ti m pos ed a ba s e off ens e l evel of 36, i ns t ead of

t he bas e off

ens e l evel of 26 thatw oul d have be en appl i ed had the di s tr i ct cour tr el i ed s ol el yupon t he j ur y ’ s fi ndi ngs . T he di s t r i ctcour tal s o i m pos ed a tw o- l evel enhanc ementon N as h pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 2 forhi s havi ng r eckl es s l ycr eat ed a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of dea t h ors er i ous bodi l yi nj uryt o anotherper s on i n t he cour s e of f l eei ng fr om l aw enfor cementoffi cer s . L as t l y , the di s t r i ctcourti m pos ed an a ddi t i onal tw o- l evel e n h a n c e m e n t o n N a sh p u rsu a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 f o r h a v in g c o m m itt e d p e rju rya t trial. B eca us e N as h as s ert ed a t i m el ychal l enge t o t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s enhanc ement s , he s uffi ci ent l ypr es erved hi s cl ai m s of err orunderB ooker . U ni t ed St at es v. L abas t i daSegur a, 396 F. 3d 1140, 1142- 43 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( concl udi ng thata B l akel yobj ect i on s uffi ci ent l ypr es erves a cl ai m of err orunderB ooker ) . A ccor di ngl y , w e r evi ew for harm l es s err ort he cons t i tut i onal B ookererr or s comm i t t ed bythe di s t r i ctcour t . I d. U nder the harm l es s err ors t andar d out l i ned i n Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 52( a) , the governm ent , t he bene fi ci aryof the cons t i tut i onal err or , m us tpr ove thatthe err orw as-23-

harm l es s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . I n anal y zi ng w hethera pr es erved cons t i tut i onal B ookererr orw as harm l es s , t w o i m por t antfac t or s ar e the s t r ength of the evi dence s uppor t i ng t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs and w hetherthe di s t r i ctcour tw oul d have i m pos ed a l es s s ever e s ent ence had i tknow n i thad di s cr et i on t o do s o. See U ni t ed St at es v . R icca rdi, 4 0 5 F . 3 d 8 5 2 , 8 7 5 -76 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A n anal y s i s of thes e tw o fac t or s cl ear l yl eads t o t he conc l us i on thatthe cons t i tut i onal B ookererr orw as notharm l es s . A l t hough the evi dence s uppor t i ng the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs w as extr emel ys t r ong, i f notoverw hel m i ng, the fa ct r emai ns thatt he di s t r i ctcourtannounce d al t ernat i ve s ent ence s forN as h and, i n doi ng s o, expr es s l ys t at ed on the r ecor d t hat , i f the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w er e hel d t o be uncons t i tut i onal , i tw oul d i m pos e a s ubs t ant i al l yl ow ers ent ence on N as h. I ndeed, the governm ent , acknow l edgi ng t hes e s t at ement s bythe di s t r i ctcour t , conce des the con st i tuti on al B oo ker errorw as not harm l ess. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e A F F IR M N a sh ’s c o n v ictio n s, b u t R E M A N D w ith d i r e c t i o n s t o VACATE Na s h ’ s s e n t e n c e a n d r e s e n t e n c e h i m.0 4 -6 2 8 8 , U nited S tates v. N

ash M c KAY , J. , C ir c u it J u d g e , dis s ent i ng . N ear l yt hr ee de cade s of obs ervi ng and part i ci pat i ng i n t he appl i cat i on of the s ocal l ed harm l es s err oranal y s i s per s uades m e thatthe court s of appe al s , byr eci t i ng the B r ut on stan d ard b u t j u sti fy ing it s b rea ch in the n am e o f h arm lessn ess, i n cre asin g lyare er odi ng t he i m por t antcons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i on aff or ded bythe B r ut on b a rr ie r. In c e ss a n tlyre m in d in g th e p ro se c u tio n a n d th e trial c o u rts o f th e ir d u tyto p re v e n t B r ut on erro r on the o n e h an d , w h il e e x cu sing it s v iolati o n o n the o ther h an d , b u il d s an ev erin c re a s in g f

lo o r u n d e r t h is u n la w f

u l p ra c tic e ra th e r t h a n p la c in g a c e ilin g u p o n it.

T he ci r cumst ance s of thi s appea l demand a s t r ongerexpr es s i on of ourcomm i t m ent t o B r ut on . H er e, t he B r ut on e rro r re su lts d ire c tlyf ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s f a ilu re to h o ld the pr os ecut i on t o i t s r epr es ent at i on t hati tw oul d noti ntr oduce a nys t at ement s i m pl i cat i ng B r ut on . T he cons equenc e of thatfai l ur e— t he admi s s i on of num er ous r ei nfor ci ng prej ud i ci al st at em ents

— go es bey on d h arm l ess. T ru e , B r ut on re c o g n ize d th a t “‘ [ a ] d e f e n d a n t is e n tit led to a f

a ir trial b u t n o t a per fec tone. ’ ” B r ut on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 391 U . S. 123, 135 ( 1968) ( quot i ng Lutw ak v. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 4 4 U. S . 6 0 4 , 6 1 9 ( 1 9 5 3 ) ) . We n o l o n g e ra d h e r e t o th e “ t i me i n th e l a w, ex tend ing into o u r ow n ce n tury , w h en n o erro r w as li g h tl yfo rgiv en . ” R o g er J. T rayn o r, The R i ddl e of

H ar m l es s E r r or3 (197 0) ( “In that s om ber age o f t echn i cal i t ythe sl i gh t est e rro r in a trial c o u ld sp o il th e ju d g m e n t.”). A c c o rd in g ly , the h a rm les s e rro r te st p e rm its th e c o u rt s o f

a p p e a ls to a f

f ir m d e c is io n s d e s p ite th e c o m m is s io n o f c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o rs .- 2-

Y et , appl i cat i on of thi s t es tdoes notj us t i fys hi r ki ng ourdutyt o pr ot ectthe fa i r nes s of trials . O u r d u tye n tails a n a ly z in g th e e f f e c t o f th e im p ro p e r e v id e n c e u p o n th e p ro p e rly a d m itte d e v id e n c e . U

nited S tates v. G l ass , 1 2 8 F. 3 d 1 3 9 8 , 1 4 0 3 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( “ To h o ld a n e rro r o f

c o n stitu tio n a l d im e n sio n h a rm les s, w e m u st c o n c lu d e ‘th e p ro p e rly admi t t ed evi dence of gui l ti s s o overw hel m i ng, and the pr ej udi ci al eff ectof the co d ef en d an t’ s ad m issi o n is so insig n ifi ca n t byco m p arison , that itis cl ea r beyond a re a so n a b le d o u b t t hatt he i m pr operus e of the admi s s i on w as harm l es s err or . ’ ” ( quot i ng Schneble v. F l or i da , 4 0 5 U .S . 4 2 7 , 4 3 0 (1 9 7 2 )) (e m p h a s is a d d e d )) . Th e ma j o r i t yt a k e s i t s f

o r mu l a t i o n o f

th e h a r ml e s s e r r o rs t a n d a r d f r o m W as hi ngt on v. R ecue nco , 126 S. C t . 2546, 2552 ( 2006) , a ca s e i n w hi ch the C our tw as noteval uat i ng th e h a rm les sn e ss o f

th e c o n c e d e d e rro r, b u t ra th e r a llu d in g to th e sta n d a rd th a t th e sta te cour ts houl d have e m pl oy ed. I pr efe rthe more pr eci s e def i ni t i on of the harm l es s err or t es tpr ovi ded i n N

ederv. U ni t ed Stat es , the ca s e ci t ed bythe R ecue nco C o u rt in its d isc u ss io n o f

h a rm les s e rro r: “ [ T ]h e tes t f o r d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r is harm l es s . . . i s w hetheri tappea r s ‘ bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe err orcompl ai ned of di d notcontr i but e t o t he ver di ctobt ai ned. ’ ” 527 U . S. 1, 16 ( 1999) ( quot i ng C hapm an v. C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 1 8 , 2 4 (1 9 6 7 )). S in c e th e tes t f o r su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e to co n v ictis “w h ethe r any ra tio n a l ju ro r” c o u ld f in d g u ilt b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t, Schl up v . D e lo , 513 U . S. 298, 330 ( 1995) ( r eci t i ng s t andar d pr om ul gat ed i n J a c k so n v . V irg in ia , 443 U . S. 307, 319 ( 1979) ) ( emphasi s added) , i ts eems appr opr i at e thatthe harm l es s err or t es ti s bes tdi s ci pl i ned byas ki ng t he i nver s e: coul d anyr eas onabl e j ur orent ert ai n aCertainly hosts of case s merely

rule Bruton error har

mless due to overwhelming record 1 evidenc e. While most are simpler ca ses, to the extent that these dec isions are ba sed solely on the presence or

absenc e of “ overwhelming”evidenc e, they do an injustice to the har mless error standard.

- 3- r eas onabl e doubtt hatt he pr ej udi ci al eff ectof the B r ut on erro r co n tr ibu ted to the ju ry ’s d e c i s i o n ? See Sul l i van v. Louis i ana , 508 U . S. 275, 279 ( 1993) ( hol di ng thatcorr ect i nqui ryforharm l es s err orr evi ew i s “w hetherthe gui l t yver di ctactual l yr ender ed i n th is tri al w as s ur el

y unat tr i butabl e to the erro r” (sec o n d em p h asis ad d ed )). N e v e rt h e le s s , th e m a

jo ri ty d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o a p p ly ev e n th e re c ite d s ta n d a rd . W hi l e ac know l edgi ng t hati tm us tcons i der“‘ t he pr obabl e i m pact ’ ” of the B r ut on e v id e n c e “ ‘o n th e m in d s o f a n a v e ra g e ju ry ’” b a se d u p o n a n a n a ly sis o f “ th e c o n tex t in w hi ch the B r ut on s t at ementw as admi t t ed, how i tw as us ed attr i al , and how i tcompar es t o the pr oper l yadmi t t ed evi dence ” ( ant e at18- 19 ( quot i ng and ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Sar r aci no , 340 F. 3d 1148, 1160 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ) , the maj or i t yfor egoes anyanal y s i s of thes e cons i der at i ons , i ns t ead s i m pl yconcl udi ng thati t s l aundryl i s tof pr oper l yadmi t t ed e v i d e n c e — mu c h o f

i tc o n t e s t e d a tt r i a l

— i s s u f f i c i e n tt o e s t a b l i s h De f

e n d a n t ’ s g u i l t . By w hol l yi gnor i ng t he s i gni fi canc e of the w r ongl yadmi t t ed B r ut on e v id e n c e , the m a jo rity f a ils to a d d re ss th e m o st s ig n if ica n t p a rt o f

th e sta n d a rd . “ A re v iew in g c o u rt m a k in g th is 1 h arm less-error inq u iryd o es n o t, as Ju sti ce T rayn o r pu t i t, ‘be co m e in e ff ec t a sec o n d jury t o det erm i ne w hethert he def endanti s gui l t y . ’ ” N

eder , 5 2 7 U . S . at 18 (qu o ti n g T rayn o r, supra , at 2 1 ). In ste a d , w e a re m e a n t to d e ter m in e “ w h a t ef f e c t th e e rro r h a d o r re a so n a b ly m ayb e tak en to h av e h ad u p o n the ju ry ’s de cisi o n , ” a sses sed n o t bas ed u p o n a jud g e’s- 4-

per s onal r eac t i on, but“w i t h al l ow ance forhow ot her s m i ghtr eac tand notbe r egar ded gener al l yas act i ng w i t houtr eas on. ” Kot t eakos v. U ni t ed Stat es , 328 U . S. 750, 764 ( 1946) . St i l l , t he maj or i t ydi s count s w i t houtcons i der at i on the pr ej udi ci al eff ectthatt he sig n if ica n t B r ut on e v i d e n c e m u s th a v e h a d u p o n th e j u r y. A s an init ial m att er, w e sh o u ld as sess the im p o rt an ce that the s ea so n ed p rose cu tors p lace d u p o n that w ron g lyad m itted e v iden ce w h en theyloo k ed ah ea d at w h at th e jury w oul d thi nk of thei rcas e, r athert han l ooki ng back a ft erthe j uryhad r es ol ved the cl ear di s put es i n t he evi dence i n t hei rfavor . W hen the ac cus ed w as doi ng al l he coul d t o keep thi s evi dence out , i ncl udi ng m ovi ng t o s everand movi ng i n l i m i ne t o pr ecl ude admi s s i on of thes e s t at ement s , t he pr os ecut i on vi gor ous l yr es i s t ed. I ndeed, des pi t e s t at i ng thati thad no i nt ent i on of i nt r oduci ng B r ut on evi dence , the pr os ecut i on pr ocee ded t o i ntr oduce a hos tof pr ej udi ci al t es t i m onyand r el i ed upon both t hatt es t i m onyand the i m pl i cat i ons c o n ta in e d th e re in d u ri n g its c lo s in g a rg u m e n t. See A riz o n a v . Fu lm in a n te , 499 U . S. 279, 297- 98 ( 1991) ( not i ng t hatpr os ecut i on vi ew ed coe r ced c onfes s i on as es s ent i al and em p h asize d erro n eo u slyad m itted c o n fe ssion in o p en ing an d clos ing stat em en ts) ; Sat t er w hi t e v. Texas , 486 U . S. 249, 260 ( 1988) ( not i ng pr os ecut or ’ s emphasi s of e rro n e o u slya d m itt e d tes tim o n yin c a p ital se n ten c in g p ro c e e d in g ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. Sar r aci no , 3 4 0 F . 3 d 1 1 4 8 , 1 1 6 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (asses sing ef fe ct of p rose cu ti o n ’s r epea t ed emphas i s of i m pr oper l yadmi t t ed s t at ement ) . V i ew i ng the i m por t ance of the B r ut on t es t i m onyfr om t he pr os ecut i on’ s per s pect i ve, i ti s appar entthatthe pr os ecut i on bel i eved the B r ut on e v id e n c e to b e e ss e n tial to its c a se , w h ich strik e s a sta rk c o n tra st to- 5-

its c la im o n a p p e a l th a t th e in tr o d u c tio n o f th is e v id e n c e w a s w ith o u t c o n s e q u e n c e . I n as s es s i ng w hethert he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fai l ur e t o enfor ce the s t andar ds of a d m i s s i b i l i t y m a n d a t e d b y B r ut on m a yh a v e in f lu e n c e d th e ju ry , itis e ss e n tial to k e e p in m ind that the c ri ti ca l adm issi b le ev iden ce an d the in fe ren ce s to b e d raw n there fro m w ere c a lled in to q u e stio n b yM r. N a sh ’s o w n sw o rn d e n ial, a ra ritya m o n g st B r ut on c a s e s . W h ile h is d e n ial w o u ld n o t b e sig n if ica n t sta n d in g a lo n e , the ju ry ’s im p licit c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on agai ns tM r . N as h becomes s us pectonce the tr i al i s s t r i pped of the im p ro p e rlya d m itt e d tes tim o n y : th e c o rro b o ra tin g e f f e c t o f th e im p e rm iss ib le s tate m e n ts m a d e b yth re e g o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s e s is m u te d . S e e Fu lm in a n te , 499 U . S. at298 ( obs ervi ng t hatj ur y ’ s as s es s m entof i m pr oper l yadmi t t ed conf es s i on “coul d eas i l yhave d e p e n d e d in lar g e p a rt o n th e p re se n c e ” o f o th e r te stim o n y ); s ee al s o N eder , 527 U . S. at 1 8 (sta tin g th a t B r ut on err or“i nfr i nge[s ] upon t he j ury ’ s fac t fi ndi ng r ol e and a ffe ct [s ] t he jury ’s de li b era ti v e p roc ess in w ay s tha t are, str ict lysp ea k ing , n o t r ea d il yca lculab le”). T his effect i s especi al l ypo w erful given de fense co un sel ’s i m peach m ent of these w i tnes s es , w ho i ncl uded thr ee i nm at es — t w o of them fri ends

— t r adi ng t es t i m onyfor s e n te n c e re d u c tio n s . S e e Fu lm in a n te , 499 U . S. at300 ( not i ng j ury ’ s det erm i nat i on m i ght have be en s w ay ed byt es t i fy i ng w i t nes s ’ s des i r e forfavor abl e tr eatm ent ) . I n addi t i on, t he abs ence of s uch bol s t er i ng w oul d no doubti m pactanyr at i onal j ur or ’ s det erm i nat i on of the cr edi bi l i t yof the governm ent ’ s cooper at i ng w i t nes s , w ho t es t i fi ed t o avoi d drug dis tri bu t i on charges. O ne of the mostdamagi ng pi ece s of admi s s i bl e evi dence

— t he cl ai m ed conf es s i on- 6-

t o a ce l l m at e w hos e t es t i m onyi n excha nge fori m por t antbenef i t s coul d notbe char act er i zed a s uni m peac habl e— w as di r ect l ydeni ed. I n r el y i ng upon t hi s evi dence , t he m aj or i tyus urps t he j ur y ’ s r ol e byi m pl i ci t l ydet erm i ni ng thateven a bs entthe B r ut on te s tim o n y , D e f

e n d a n t’ s te s tim o n yre m a in s n o t c re d ib le . See Kot t eakos , 328 U . S. at763 (“ [ I]t is n o t th e a p p e llate c o u rt’s f u n c tio n to d e ter m in e g u ilto r in n o c e n c e .”); c f. Za p p u lla v. N ew Y ork , 391 F. 3d 462, 470 n. 3 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( col l ect i ng r epor t s i ndi cat i ng i nher ent l yunr el i abl e natur e of j ai l hous e i nform ant s ) . T hi s appr oach, w hi ch turns a bl i nd ey e on the bol s t er i ng and corr obor at i ng eff ectof the B r ut on ev iden ce u p o n the ju ry ’s cr edi bi l i tyas s es s m ent s , does noti n m yj udgm entconform t o t he l i m i t ed r ol e of the harm l es s err oranal y s i s w hen dec i di ng w hethert o excus e the vi ol at i on of cons t i tut i onal s ta n d a rd s . A s a r es ul tof thi s err or , t he maj or i t ypl ace s undue emphas i s on t he i m por t ance of a hos tof ci r cumst ant i al evi dence and di s r egar ds M r . N as h’ s pr offe r ed expl anat i ons fort he e x is te n c e o f

th is e v id e n c e . S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . Hill , 901 F. 2d 880, 885 ( 10t h C i r . 1990) ( rul i ng B r ut on err ornotharm l es s w her e much of governm ent ’ s admi s s i bl e evi dence w as ci r cumst ant i al and def

endantoffe r ed expl anat i ons count er i ng governm ent ’ s s ugges t ed i nfer ence s ) . T he r ecor d, w hi l e nota model of cl ar i t y , r efl ect s thatM r . N as h never di s cus s ed the drug t r ans act i on w i t h M r . J ones . M r . J ones conce ded as m uch both on di r ectexami nat i on and on cr os s - exami nat i on. M r . J ones admi t t ed thatM r . N as h never le f t h is v e h ic le o n th e o c c a s io n s w h e n M r. N a s h d ro v e M r. K in c h io n to M r. J o n e s ’ s to re . M o reo v er, M r. Jo n es’ testi m o n yil lustrat es th at his ca ll s to M r. N ash ’s ce ll p h o n e w ere- 7-

m ade i n or dert o s peak w i t h M r . K i nchi on, w ho appar ent l ydi d nothave a cel l phone of h is ow n . M r. Jo n es a lso testi fied that M r. K inch ion firstap p roa ch ed h im at his store w i thoutM r . N as h, havi ng been dr i ven ther e bya w om an. T hi s contr adi ct s pol i ce test im o n ythat M r. N ash firstap p roa ch ed M r. Jo n es. A d d it ion all y , ac co rdin g to M r. Na s h , th e $ 2 , 8 0 0 f

o u n d i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n c a me a l mo s te n t i r e l yf r o m th e r e c e n ts a l e o f

t wo car s , w hi ch he w as abl e t o es t abl i s h w i t h s al es r ece i pt s . M r . N as h’ s fatherconfi r m ed that M r. N a sh f

re q u e n tlyb o u g h t an d so ld c a rs to m a k e m o n e y . M r. N a sh a lso a rg u e d th a t h is n am e li k elyap p ea red o n the re g istrati o n o f o n e o f th e f ive c o ll ateral v eh icl es b ec au se M r. K inch ion im p rop erlyco m p let ed the re -reg istrati o n af ter M r. N ash so ld the ca r t o M r. K i nchi on. A l s o, M r . N as h w as a r egul arcus t om erof the ca rr ent al s hop, as a c k n o w le d g e d b yth e re n ta l c a r o w n e r, r e n d e ri n g h is u s e o f th e G ra n d A m in n o c u o u s . W h e th e r M r. N a sh in ten tio n a llysw e rv e d to w a rd th e e d g e o f th e b rid g e in o rd e r to fac i l i t at e the ej ect i on of drugs byM r . K i nchi on, w ho had bee n t os s i ng drugs outof the w i n d o w w e l l b e f

o r e th e c a ra p p r o a c h e d th e b r i d g e , i s n o tc l e a rf r o m th e r e c o r d . L a s t l y, the maj or i t yi nfec t s i t s ow n deci s i on w i t h B r ut on evidence b yrel y i ng on M r. Jones’ t es t i m onyt hatM r . K i nchi on cl ai m ed M r . N as h w as nervous aft ers eei ng a pol i ce c ar p a rk e d n e a rb y . T he maj or i t y ’ s fai l ur e t o addr es s the over al l eff ectof the B r ut on evi dence s t r i ps the harm l es s nes s t es tof a c ruci al componentw hi l e r educi ng the overw hel m i ng evi dence req u ir em en t t o n o m o re tha n a su ff ici en cy -of

-th e-e v iden ce ex am ination . B ec au se I- 8-

cannots ayt hatt he cumul at i ve B r ut on e rr o r w a s h a rm le s s b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t, I w o u ld re v e rse a n d re m a n d f o r a n e w trial.