FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 16, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10100 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 36 -C R -C D L -4 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R A N D O L P H W I L L I A M R O B I N S O N , a .k .a . S h u g , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 16, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R a n d o lp h W illia m R o b in s o n ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s f o rc o n s p ir a c y to2

c om m i ta rm e d ba nk r obbe ry , a rm e d ba nk r obbe ry , a nd us i ng af i r e a rm dur i ng a c r im e o f v io le n c e . O n ap p e a l, R o b in s o n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n b y ( 1 ) e x c lu d in g te s tim o n y a s in a d m is s ib le h e a r s a y , a n d ( 2 ) r e f u s in g to gi ve a j ury i nstruct i on on an al i bi defe nse bec ause the proffer ed al i bi dem on stra t ed th a t R o b in s o n w a s n o t p r e s e n t d u r in g s o m e o f th e c o n s p ir a c y ’s o v e r t a c ts . I. R obi ns on f

i r s ta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by r e f us i ng to a llo w h im to in tr o d u c e te s tim o n y th a t th e c o u r t d e te rm in e d w a s d o u b le - h e a r s a y . S p eci fi cal l y, R o b i n so n att em p t ed t o i n tro d u ce t est i m o n y fro m h i s fo rm er att o rn ey, W il li am N as h , th at an o th erclien t, Q u in to n P er ry , t o ldN as h th at R o b in so n ’s coconspi ra t or m ade i ncri m i nat i ng st at em ent s abo uthi s r ol e i n the offens e that coul d h ave e xcul pat ed R ob i nson . R ob i nson ar gu es thatthe do ub l e hea rs ayw as a d m is s ib le a s as ta te m e n t a g a in s t h is c o c o n s p ir a to r ’s in te r e s t. U p o n r e v ie w o f

th e b r ie f s a n d th e r e c o r d , w e f

in d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in d eter m in in g th at b o th th e c o co n sp irato r’s a n d P er ry ’s s t a t e m e nt s w e r e he a r s a y . H e a r s a y i s a“ s t a t e m e nt , othe rtha n one m a de by the de c l a r a ntw hi l e t e s t i f

y i ng a tthe tr i a l orhe a r i ng, of f e r e d i n e vi de nc e t o pr ove the truth of the m a tt e ra s s e r t e d. ” F e d. R . E vi d. 801( c ) . H e a r s a y w i thi n he a r s a y , ors oc a lle d “d o u b le - h e a r s a y ,” is a d m is s ib le o n ly if e a c h p a rt o f

th e c o m b in e d s ta te m e n ts3

c onf orm s w i th a n e xc e pt i on t o the he a r s a y rul e . F e d. R . E vi d. 805. B oth the c oc ons pi r a t or ’ s s t a t e m e ntt o P e rry a nd P e rry ’ s s t a t e m e ntt o N a s h w e r e m a de outof c o u r t. T h e r e c o r d a ls o r e f le c ts th a t R o b in s o n w a s , in f a c t, o f f e r in g th e s e s ta te m e n ts fo r th e tru th o f th e m att er asserted— th ati s, h e w as u l t i m at el y h o p i n g t o est ab l i sh thathi s c ocon spi ra t or had a pl an for the robb ery, and thatR ob i nson w as no ta part o f th a t p la n . T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n f i ndi ng tha tthe te s tim o n y d id n o t q u a lif y f o rah e a r s a y e x c e p tio n u n d e rR u le 8 0 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) . R u le 80 4(b)(3) provi des that“ [a ] st at em entt endi ng t o exp ose the decl ar antt o cri m i nal l i abi l i ty a nd of

f e r e d t o e xc ul pa t e the a c c us e d i s nota dm i s s i bl e unl e s s c orr obor a t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s c l e a r l y i ndi c a t e the trus tw or thi ne s s of the s t a t e m e nt . ” F e d. R . E vi d. 804( b) ( 3) . F orthi s rul e t o appl y : “ ( 1) the de c l a r a ntm us tbe una va i l abl e ; ( 2) the s t a t e m e ntm us tbe a ga i ns tthe de c l a r a nt ' s pe na l i nt e r e s t ; a nd ( 3) c orr obor a t i ng ci rc um st ance s m ustcl ea rl y i nd i ca t e the trustw orthi ness of the st at em ent . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. Je rni gan, 34 1 F . 3d 12 73 , 12 88 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). R o b in s o n ’s a r g u m e n t th a t M c Q u e e n ’s s ta te m e n t to P e rry w a s e x c e p te d u n d e rR u le 8 0 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) f

a ils b e c au s e h e d id n o t d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e w itn e s s e s w e r e u n a v a ilab le t o t est i fy. F u rth er, as th e d i stri ctco u rtco rrect l y n o t ed , P erry’ s st at em en tt o N ash doe s notqua l i f

y a s apr i ors t a t e m e ntm a de by aw i tne s s unde rR ul e 804( b) ( 1)4

be c aus e P e rry ’ s pr e vi ous s t a t e m e ntw a s notm a de i n ahe a r i ng orunde roa th. F in ally, co n sid er in g th at d ef en se co u n se l w as ab le to im p ea ch R o b in so n ’s coconspi ra t or usi ng other m ea ns, and, i n l i gh tof al l the other e vi dence pres ent ed a ga i ns tR obi ns on, the r e w a s no r e a s onabl e l i ke l i hood tha ta ny pot e nt i a l e rr or a f f e c t e d R obi ns on’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a nds , 184 F . 3d 1322, 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( s ta tin g th a t th e r e is n o n e e d to r e v e r s e ac o n v ic tio n if e vi de nt i a ry e rr or“ ha d no s ubs t a nt i a l i nf l ue nc e on the out c om e a nd s uf f i c i e nt ev i d en ce u n i n fect ed b y erro r su p p o rt s th e v erd i ct ”) (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). A cco rd i n g l y, w e can n o tco n cl u d e th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred i n ex cl u d i n g th e t est i m o n y. II . R obi ns on a l s o a r gue s on appe a l tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by r e f us i ng t o gi ve the j ury a n a l i bi i nstruct i on . R ob i nson ar gu es thathe w as l ocat ed el se w here atthe t i m e the bank robb ery w as com m i tt ed, and there fore an al i bi i nstruct i on w as approp ri at e. W e have previ ou sl y hel d thatan al i bi i nstruct i on w as no tnece ss ary w here th e d e f e n d a n t w a s c h a r g e d w ith c o n s p ir a c y a n d th e p r o f f e r e d a lib i s h o w e d o n ly thatthe defendantw as no tpres entatthe t i m e thaton e of the conspi ra t ors pe r f orm e d a n ove r ta c ti n f

ur the r a nc e of

the c ons pi r a c y . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L e e , 483 F . 2d 96 8, 97 0 (5th C i r. 19 73 ). A l tho ug h R ob i nson pres ent ed al i bi evi dence5

s h o w in g th a t h e w a s n o t p r e s e n t d u r in g th e b a n kr o b b e ry , th e in tr o d u c tio n o f th is evi dence di d n otnece ss i t at e a n al i bi j ury i nstruct i on because he c ou l d h ave been f o u n d g u ilty o f

th e o f f e n s e w ith o u t b e in g p r e s e n t f o rth a t p a r tic u la ro v e r t a c t. P i nk ert on v. U ni t ed S t at es , 32 8 U . S . 64 0, 64 5-48 (194 6) (s t at i ng thatthe “ ov ertac t of one pa r tne ri n [ ac ons pi r a c y ] i s a ttr i but abl e t o a l l ” ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e c a nnot concl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on i n fai l i ng t o g i ve the j ury a n a lib i in s tru c tio n . AF F I RME D.