# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 35 47

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ju an Fran ci sc o Her rera -Ro dr ig ue z
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Sio ux Fal ls

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Octo be r 16 , 20 17 Fil ed : No ve m

be r 28 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BEAM, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ju an Fran ci sc o Herre ra-R od rig ue z ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on by a jury fo r on e
co un t of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m et ha m p h e t a mi n e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 6. Herre ra-R od rig ue z co nt en ds th at a m is tri al sh ou ld ha ve be en gr an te d be cau se th e pr os ecu ti on 's la w en fo rcem en t wit ne ss te st ifi ed ab ou t hi s be li ef t h a t H erre ra-R od rig ue z ha d be en un tru th fu l du rin g hi s po st -arr es t in te rv ie w. Tr i a lco un se l ob

ject e d a nd m ov ed fo r a m is tri al aft er th e co m m en t. The di st ric t co ur t 1

s u s t a i ne d th e ob

jecti on , res erv ed ru li ng on th e m ot io n fo r m is tri al , an d aft e r
co ns ul ti ng w i t h t h e at to rn ey s ab ou t th e pa rti cu la r wor di ng , in st ru ct ed th e jury to di sr eg ard th e wit ne ss 's te st im on y reg ard in g whe th er a de fen da nt or ot he r wit ne ss was tru th fu l or un tru th fu l, rem in di ng it th at a ve raci ty de te rm in at io n was in th e ex cl us iv e pr ov in ce of th e jury. At th e cl o se of th e ev id en ce, Herre ra-R od rig ue z ren ewed hi s

m ot io n fo r m is tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e ren ewed m ot io n, f i n d i n g t h at th e
co m m en t h ap pe ne d o nc e, an d " an y erro r was cu red by the cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n."

We rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on on whe th er to gr an t a m is tri al fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Co le m an , 34 9 F.3 d 10 77 , 10 87 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). Adm is si on of a pr ejud ic ia l st at em en t is "o rd i n a r il y cu red by st rik in g th e te st im on y
an d in st r u ct in g th e jury to di sr eg ard th e rem ark ." Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W e pr es um e a jury wil l fo ll ow su ch an in st ru ct io n un l e s s t he re is an "o ve rwh el m in g pr ob ab il it y " th at it wou ld be un ab le to do so

. Uni te d St at es v. Uph of f, 23 2 F.3 d 62 4, 62 6 (8 th Cir . 20 00 ) (q uo ti ng Greer v . Mil le r, 48 3 U.S. 7 56 , 76 6 n .8 (1 98 7) ).

Hav in g rev ie wed th e reco rd , we fin d th at th e di st ric t co ur t d i d n o t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in refu si ng to gr an t th e m is tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t im m ed ia te ly co nd uc te d

a si de ba r wit h co un se l, st ru ck th e of fen di ng st at em en t, in st ru ct ed th e jury to di sr eg ard it , an d rem in de d th e jury of it s jo b to de ci de whe th er a de fen da nt or wit ne ss was tru th fu l or un tru th fu l. Not hi ng in th e reco rd su gg es ts th ere was an ov erwh el m in g pr ob ab il i t y t ha t th e jury was un ab le to fo ll ow th is in st ru ct io n. Add it io na ll y , th e
ev id en ce of Herre ra-R od rig ue z's gu i lt was su bs ta nt ia l. In ad di ti on to th e of fic er's te s ti m on y , th e jury he ard ev id en ce in th e fo rm of co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t te st im on y
an d au di o reco rd in gs ab ou t a nu m be r o f c on tro ll ed bu y s in vo lv in g Herre raRo dr ig ue z. Acco rd in gl y , an y po ss ib le pr ejud ic e fro m th e jury he ari ng th e im pr op er

The Hon or ab le Karen E. Sch rei er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of So ut h Dak ot a.
-2

-co m

m en t was m in im al an d th eref or e ha rm le ss

. Uni te d St at es v. Enc ee, 25 6 F.3 d 85 2, 85 4 (8 th Cir . 20 01 ) ("Whet he r a cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n is su ffi ci en t m us t be eval ua te d in th e co nt ex t o f th e en ti re tri al , in cl ud in g th e st ren gt h of th e go ve rn m en t's

ev id en ce." ). W e aff

irm.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-