## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2037 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. H I LD A A LAYE TO, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07- CR-243

— Charle s N . Cleve rt, Jr. , Chief Ju dge .
A RGUED O CT OB ER 22, 2010

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 17, 2010

Befo re K ANN E , T INDER, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . Hi l da Ala y et o a ppea l s herc o nvi cti on f ori l l ega l p oss ess i on with i ntent to dist ribute cra ck coca i ne. She argues that excluded evi dence ofherco d efend an t’s post -arrest cond uc t m ight ha ve led a j ury to do ubthe r c r i m inali nt en t an d tha t i ts e r r o ne o us e xcl usi on i m pai re d her const i tuti onalr i ght t o prese nt a def e ns e . Be c a us e the di s t r i c t c o ur t di d no t ab us e i ts disc r e t i o n i n i t s e v i d e n t i a r y r u l i n g s , w e a ffi r m.2 N o. 10

- 2037 I. B ACK GR OUN D On the e ve ni ngo fJ ul y 4 , 2 00 7, Al ay et o was r i di ng wi thVi ct o r Go nz al ez i n h i s ca r . S he was i n the fr o nt passenge r sea t. Tw o pol i ce o fficers, wh o knew G onzal ez t o b e a g a ngme mbe r a nd drugt r a ffi c k e r, c o nd uc t e d a tr affic st op of th e veh icle

. T h e office rs go t ou t oft h eir unm arked car, approa ched Gonzal ez’ s v ehi cl e with pi s t o l s drawn, a nd o r de r e d G o nz a l e z , Al a y e t o , a nd a backse at passenge r to show thei r hand s. I n ful l v i ew o fthe o ffi ce r s, Go nz al ez r ea ch ed ac ros s th e fro nt se at and dropped a cl earpl ast i c ba g con ta ini ng a w hi te su bsta nce into A l aye to’ s l ap. W i thout conve rs atio n, he sit at ion, or p ro te s t, A lay et o lea n ed h er p elv is f or w ar d and shoved the bag dow n the fro nt o fh erpants. Aft erAl ay et o c o nc ea l ed th e ba g, Go nz al ez unl o ck ed th e door s. The offi cers a rr est ed Gonzal ez and A l aye to and tra nsp orted the m t o a po l i ce s ta ti o n whe r e th eywere se a r c he d a nd i nt e r v i e we d. A fe mal e o ffi c e r r e c o v e r ed the b ag

— w hi ch w as l ate r d et er m i ned to conta i n 32. 82 gr am s of a subst ance c ontaini ng a detect abl e a m ount o f cr ac kc o ca i ne

— fro m A laye to’ s v agina. A l aye to had been re str ai ned and un der s upervi si on fro m the tim e of her ar re st until t h e sear ch, so i t a pp ear s that Alay eto had i m m edi at ely c o nc ea l ed th e c o nt r ab an d i n h erv ag i na w hi l e in the passenge r sea t o fGon za lez’s car . W hen Det ec ti ve Har o l d Yo ungi nf o r m ed Ala y et o that s he a nd Gonzal ez w oul d be t ake n to the m unici pal j ai l, A l aye to vo l unt ee r ed th atthe dr ug s be l o ng ed to he r a l o ne a nd no t to Go nz al ez . De te ct i ve Yo ungr es po nd ed thats heN o. 10

- 2037 3 needed to be ho nest about w hetherso m eone thr eat
en ed h er i n o r d e r to forc e h er to ta ke th e c ra c k a n d cla im i t, b utAl a y e t o di d n o ts ug g e s ts he h a d b e e n c o e r c e d. A l though the natur e o fthei r re l ati onshi p i s uncl ear f ro m t he r e c o r d, Al a y e t o a nd Go nz a l e z we r e v e r y c l ose , ha vin g l i ved i n the sam e ho use form or e than fi ve yea rs . A l a y e t o c a l l e d G o nz a l e z ’ s mo the r, Mi l a g r o s R o s a , fr om j ai l a few day s a fte r the i r a r r es t; he r pho ne c al l s fr o m the j ai l s wer e r ec o r ded. Al ay et o e xpr es sed he r l o ve a nd concern f orGo n zal ez. Gonzal ez’ s uncl e a l so parti ci pated i n the conve rs ati on, i nd i cating t h at h e would s peak t o a law yer on A layeto’s beh alf

. I n a s u b se q u ent phone cal l to Rosa, A l aye to i nquir ed ab ou t A lay et o a n d G on za lez ’s join t p ro p er ty ins id e t h eir house, i ncl ud i ng m oneythatsho u ld b e found in an ar ti cl e o fcl othi ng co nceal ed in si de a c ouch. Rosa then ask ed A l aye to about the quanti ty ofco ntrab and recove re d fr om her ; she tol d Rosa t h e p ol i ce r em ove d “l i ke 32 g r ams” fr o m he r v ag i na a t the s ta ti o n. S he a l so menti oned the ar re sting o ffi cer s bynam e, st at i ng she had k no wn th eywere lo o k i ngf o r Go nz al ez pr i o r t o the ni g ht ofthei r ar re st. A gr and j ury charg ed A l aye to and G onzal ez w i th p ossess ion w ith inten t to distribu te fi ve gram s or m ore ofco cai ne bas e in vi ol ati on o f 2 1 U
. S. C. §§ 841( a) ( 1) and (b)( 1) ( B) a nd 18 U
. S. C. § 2
. Gonzal ez ple d gui l ty bef or e thei r schedule d tri al, so A l aye to w as tr i ed al o ne . Al ay et o s o ug htt o e l i ci t te st i m o ny fr o m g o ve r nm ent witnesse s r ega rdi ng Gonzal ez and i nc idents o f hi s co nd uct. The di str i ct c ourtl i m i ted hercr oss - exam i na-4 N o. 10

- 2037 ti on, hol ding that her question s cal l ed f orhear sayr esponses . I n a seri e s of p roffers at the end of th e govern m en t’s evi dence, A l aye to propos ed to sho w that

— w hi l e r el eas ed on bo nd afterthei r J uly4 ar re st

— Gonzal ez ha d (1) p ro v i de d R o s a a pp r o xi m ate l y fi v e g r a ms o fc o c a i ne t o h i de on herper son w hen offi cer s s ear ched hi s r esi dence, ( 2) gi ven a f ourt een- yea r- ol d fe m al e pass engera l ar ge am ount o fcurr ency to hi de on herper son w hen st o pp e d fo r a t r a ffi c v i o l a t i o n, a nd ( 3 ) g i v e n anothe r fem al e j uveni l e a sm al l quanti ty ofco cai ne and dir ecte d h er to h id e itin h er p an ts d u rin g y e t a n ot h er tra ffic stop
. Th e d istri ct cou rt as k e d A layeto to state h er theory ofthe proffer ed evi denc e’s adm i ssibi l i ty. A l aye to re sp onded the e vi dence w oul d show thatGonzal ez acted alo ne o n the date o fthei r ar re st and that Ala yet o di d no t ai d a nd abe t Gon za l ez ’ s p ossessi o n wi thi nt en t to dist ribute. The dis tr i ct c ourt, o n the gov er nm ent’ s obj ecti on, r ule d A l aye to coul d not intro du ce th e p roffer ed evi dence b a s e d on seve ral Fed eral Ru les ofEv iden ce. Th e cou rt fi rs t rul ed that the offi cer s fro m w hom A l aye to inte nd ed to el i ci t t est i m ony ofthes e inci dents l acke d p er so nal knowle dge o fthe i nci dents. The co urt then not ed that the pr offer ed propensi ty evi dence w oul d n ot appear to f al l wi thin the e xc e pt i o ns t o R ul e 4 0 4 ( a ) ’ s b a r a g a i ns t attem p ts to p rove th at a ctions conform ed to a person ’s ch ar acte r. The co urt al so questi oned the re l evance o f t h e eviden ce, as the incid en ts occu rred after A layeto’s a r r e s ta n d c o u l d s h e d l i t t l e l i g h to n h e r i n t e n ta tth e t i meN o. 10

- 2037 5 of h er arr es t. T h e c ou rtt h en ru led th e p ro ffer ed ev id en c e in ad m iss ible u n d er R u le 4 03 , as it s n eg lig i b le pr o ba ti ve v alue was s i g ni fi can tly o ut wei g he d b y the co ns um pti o n o ft i m e an d the de l ayo fthe t r i ali nhe r en t i n sec uri ng t esti m ony fro m co m petent w i tness es on such anci l l ar y i ssues . A l aye to re sponded thatev i dence of the incid en ts sh ou ld be ad m itted un d er R u le 404 (b), but the di str i ct c ourtagai n note d that the i nci dents l acke d rel evance . Ala y et o ne xt p ro po se d t o i nt r o duce Go nz al ez ’ s pho ne ca l l s fr o m j ai l i n h erc as e i n c hi ef

. She su ggest ed th atthe re cor ded cal l s would sho w thatGon za l ez conducted tr a ffi c k i n ga c t i v i t i e s th r o u g h h i s u n c l e wh i l e i n j a i l, t hus d em on st ra tin g t h at A lay et o w as n ota p ar tic ip an t in Go nz a l e z ’ s t r a ffi c k i ng . Th e g o v e r nme nt a g a i n obj e c t e d. The dis tr i ct c ourtr u led the evi dence i nadm i ssibl e, f i nd i ng the c a l l s t o b e i r r e l e v a nt t o Al a y e t o ’ s c a s e , to be hear saynotsubj ect to any e xcepti on, a n d t o be inadm i ssibl e under Rule 403. Ala y et o move d f o r a mis tr i alon th e g r o unds o fthe ev i den ti ar y e xc l us i o ns . The c o ur t den i ed he r mot i o n, fi nd i ng tha t i ts evi denti ar y r ulings di d not depri ve her ofdue proc ess o r the o pp or tuni ty to prese nt ev id en ce su ppo r tinghe r theor y o fde fen se . The j ur y the n fo und A la yeto gu il ty after the tw o-da y tri al. Th e d istri ct cou rt l at ers enten ce d Al ay et o t o s i xty months ’ i m pr i so nm en t and a subse quent f our- ye ar term o fsuperv i sed r el eas e. S he t i m ely a ppea l ed he r c o nv i ct i o n.6 N o. 10

- 2037 II. A NA LYSIS Ala y et o pr es en ts t wo i ss ue s i n h era ppea l

. Fir st, s he co nt en d s t he di st r i ctc o ur t ab us ed i ts di sc r et i o n b y e xcl ud i ng ev i dence of her co- defe nd ant’ s pos t- ar re st conduct thatwould have cas t r eas onabl e doubt on her i ntent. S eco nd , she c ontend s those ev i denti ar y r ulings i nfr i nged herco nsti tuti onal ri ght t o prese nt a defe nse d uring her crim inal tri al. Bot h issu e s tu rn on A layeto’s ar gum ent that the excl ud ed ev id ence const i tuted adm i ssibl e “ re verse 40 4( b) ” e vi dence thatwould have l ed to h er ac q u itt al. W e r e v i e w the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o ns t o e xc l ud e Alayeto ’ s pr o ffer ed ev i den ce f o r a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 600 F.3d 847, 853 (7th C ir. 2010). W e w il l not fi nd error in th e d istri ct court’s evide nt iary rul i ngs unl ess th e re c or d i s devo i d ofev i dence on w h ich it co u ld h av e b as ed th os e ru lin gs . Ag u s h i v. D uerr, 1 9 6 F
. 3 d 7 5 4 , 7 5 9 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 )
. In a d d i t i o n, we w i l l notr everse a convi cti on f orer ro neous excl usi on o fr ev er se 4 04 ( b) e vi den ce unl es s th e r ul i ngha d s ubs ta ntia l influ en c e o n th e jur y. U nited Sta t e s v . Reed , 25 9 F
. 3d 6 3 1 , 6 3 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 )
. W e r e v i e w de n ovo , how ever, the quest i on o f w h ether the ev i denti ar y r uling i nfr i nged u p on a d efe n d an t’s c on st itu tio n al r i g h ts
. See U nited Sta tes v. Sta rk, 507 F.3d 512 , 515 (7th C ir. 2007). A l aye to ar gues that, had the j ury bee n m ade aware of Gonzal ez’ s pos t- ar re st conduct, it m i ght ha ve i nfe rr ed that fem al es in hi s co m pany do nothave the i ntent to del i verco ntraband thrusto n them byGonzal ez. Based on that in fer ence, the j ury m i ght then have hadN o. 10

- 2037 7

re aso nabl e doubt that sh e h ad any cri m i nali ntent on th e dat e o fhe r a r r es t. S he the r efo r e co nt en ds thatthe evi dence of hi s post- ar re st c ond uct

— w hi ch w as to be the o nl y e vi dence supporting hertheo ryo fdefense

— sh o ul d ha ve b ee n a dm i tt ed p ur su an t to F ed. R. E vid. 404(b). W h ile ad m iss ion of p ro p en sit y e vi d e n c e is ge n er ally p ro h ibit ed , U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ur r ay, 474 F
. 3d 938, 93 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07 ), Ru l e 4 04(b) al l ows the intro du cti on o f an i ndi vi dual ’ s o th er ac ts f o r a va r i ety o f o th erpu rpo s e s . F e d. R
. Ev i d. 4 0 4 ( b ) ( “ Ev i de nc e o fo the r c r i m es, w ro ngs, o r ac ts
. . . m ay, however, be adm i ssibl e for othe r pu rpos es, such a s pro ofo fm oti ve, o pp or tuni ty, i ntent, pre parat i on, pl an, kno w l edge, i den tity, o r abse nce ofm i sta ke oracc i dent”)

. Rule 40 4( b) i s m ost o ften use d by pros ecuto rs t o i ntro du ce e vi dence ofa cri m i naldefendant’s conduct that i s not part of the charg ed cr i m es, but wh i ch i s probati ve ofthe defe nd ant’ s m oti ve, i ntent, or id en tit y w ith reg ar d to th e c h ar ge d cr im e. R eed, 25 9 F. 3d a t 6 34. Cri m i naldefendants, however, m ay al so use Rule 404(b) to b ols ter thei r defe nses by m aking use of w h at is kn ow n as “r ev er se 40 4(b ) ” e v i d en c e. Id. U nd er Rule 404(b) , A l aye to m ay i ntro du c e evi dence r egard ing G onz alez’s other c rim es or cond uc t to sup p ort her defe nse “ i fi t t ends, al one orwith o therev i dence, to n eg at e [h e r ] g u ilt of t h e c rim e c h ar ge d ag ain st [h er ].” Agus hi, 19 6 F
. 3d at 760. A ccor ding to A l aye to, evi dence ofGonzal ez’ s pos t- ar re st con du c two ul d h a v e s up po r t e d h e r the o r y o fde fe ns e an d th u s l i k e l y wo u l d h a v e n e g a t e d h e r g u i l to n t he8 N o. 10

- 2037

narco ti cs c harg e. S he ar gues the e vi dence shoul d have bee n a dmi t t e d b e c a us e di s t r i c t c o ur t s s ho ul d b e l ess disc ri m i nati n g in adm i tting r eve rs e 4 04(b) ev i dence than inad m itt in g e vid en c e p ro ffer ed b y t h e p ro se c u tio n . See U nite d State s v. Seals , 41 9 F
. 3d 600, 60 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) (“[T]he d efe n s e is not h eld to as rigorous of a stand ard as th e g ov er n m en t in in tr od u c in g re ve rs e 4 04 (b ) ev id en c e.” ). Sh e n ev er th ele ss co n c ed es th at its ad m iss ion is sti l l co nstr ai ned by the o therFe deralRule s o fEvi de nce. Forexam ple , the proffer ed re ver se 404(b) evi dence m ust b e re lev an t, U nite d S t at e s v. W al t on , 21 7 F
. 3d 443, 44 9- 50 (7th C ir. 2000), m us t no t con stitut e inad m issible hearsay, U nited Sta tes v. D ella R o se, 403 F.3d 891 , 902 (7th C ir. 20 05 ) , a nd must sur vi ve the b al an cingo fc o m pet i ng consi derat i ons und erRule 40 3, U nite d S t at e s v. Wi l s on , 307 F.3d 596, 601 (7th Cir . 2 002). T he district cou rt correctly rel ied o n e a ch of th ese ru les in its evide nt iary r u l i n g s b e l o w. Fol l owing A l aye to’ s fi rs t pr offero fr eve rs e 4 04(b) evi dence

— G onz alez’s three p ost-arrest incid e n ts w he re fem ale s c on c ea led co n tr ab an d f or h im

— th e d istri ct cou rt ev alua te d the pr o ba ti ve v alue o fthe e vi den ce a nd th en w eighed i t un d er Ru le 4 03. Th e d istri ct cou rt f ound, and w e a gr ee, that “ [ i ] fi t i s t rue that M r. Gonzal ez engag ed i n thos e acti vi ti es after the date of thi s i nci dent, i t does not dem onst ra te that th is parti cul ardefendant w as f or ced to ta ke dru gs fro m M r. G onzal ez and pu t i t into her pants o r body c avi ty .” ( T r . a t2 8 5
. ) N o th i n gi n A l a y e t o ’ s p r o ffe r t e n d e d t o d e monst ra te that G onzal ez com pel l ed hero r any o ther fem al e t o tak e o r concea l the d ru gs , l et al one tendedN o. 10

- 2037 9 to prove thatGonzal ez’s c on du ct a ro und o ther s nec essa rily n eg at ed h er ow n int en t. Se eM ur r ay, 474 F
. 3d at 940 (d iscus sing re v e r s e 404(b) cases in w hich a third par ty ’ s pat te r n o fc r i m i na l c o nduc t was pr o ba ti ve o fthe defe nd ant’ s cr i m i nali ntent orparti ci pati on)
. Th e other evi dence attr i alsho w ed that she di d not prote st be f o r e co nc ea l i ngthe b ag . Inde ed, s he c o nc ea l ed th e bag not j ust in herpants but r atheri n hervag i na; such r eso l ve str ongl y s ugges ts her i nti m ate i nvol vem en t w ith th e crim e a s opp osed to m ere un w il ling pa rti ci pati on. Fur ther, t h e j ury’ s know l edge o fthe postar r es t i nc i den ts w ou ld not te nd to n eg at e an y i nfe re nces draw n fro m A l aye to’ s f am ili ar i ty w i th bo th th e pr ec i se a m o unto fc o nt r ab an d s he c o nc ea l ed an d he r know ledge that Go nz alez w a s w an ted f or dru g traff i ck i ng . T he c o nt e s t e d e v i de nc e ma y h a v e de mon s t r a t ed G on za lez ’s in te n t t o d eliv er t h e n ar c ot ics , bu t itw ou ld no t have be ens i g ni fi ca nt l y pr o ba ti ve o fAl ay et o ’ s i ntent. Thei r i nd i vi du ali ntents ar e no t m utual l y e xcl usi ve. Pursuant t o Rule 403, the dist ri ct c ourtnext w ei ghed th i s ne g l i gib l e pr o ba ti ve v alue a g ains t co ns i der at i o ns ofdel ay, waste o fti m e, and c on fu si on o fthe i ssues bef or e the j ury. The co urt c or re ctl y no ted thatthe tr i al w oul d have t o be del aye d to procur e wit n esses co m pe t e n tt o t e s t i fy ab o u tth e i n c i d e n t s b e c a u s e the av aila b le w itn es se s la c ke d th e re q u isit e p er so n al k n ow led ge. D esp ite A layeto’s ar g u m en ts to the cont rary, th ere w as al so a d an gerthatthe j uror s would be di str acte d fro m the centr alis su e in the case

— Ala y et o ’ s i nt en t

—by prol onge d discuss i ons ofGonzal ez’ s pos t- ar re st acti vi ti es.10 N o. 10

- 2037 N ei therthi s r i sk ofconfusi on northe potenti alf or del ay w oul d have s ubstanti al l y o utw ei ghed r eve rs e 404(b) evi dence of si gni fi cant probat i ve val ue. But Gonzal ez’ s pos t- ar re st conduct had m in im alr el evance , i fany. Give n the tr i alj ud ge’ s “ abi l i ty to gauge the i m pa c t o f th e e vid en c e in th e c o n te x t o f th e e n tir e p ro c ee d in g,” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vargas , 552 F.3d 550 , 554 (7th C ir. 2008), w e fi nd thatthe dist ri ct c ourtpro perl y e xerci sed i ts discretion in d eterm ining th at A layeto’s first category ofpro ffer ed evi dence w as not adm i ssibl e. A lay et o’s se c on d p ro ffer of re ve r s e 40 4(b ) ev idence

— Gonzal ez’ s r eco rded cal l s fro m j ai l and the subse q u en t a rr e s t of h is u n c le

— l i k e wi s e s u ffe r e d fr o m a l ack ofpro bati ve val ue. The di str i ct c ourt al so concl ud ed th at th e c alls w er e in ad m iss ible h ea rs ay . A la y et o’s on ly re sponse to th at co ncl usi on i s that the cal l s o ccurr ed w i thi n the conspi ra cy peri od char ged ag ai nst Gonzal ez i n the sam e ind i ctm en t nam i ng Alay eto i n a j oi nt co unt. Y et t he i nd i ctm ent’ s o nl y c ount nam i ng Alay eto does not i nvol ve conspi ra cy charg es, and A l ay eto neve r devel oped any a rgum en t for adm i tting the ev i dence und er Rule 801( d)( 2) ( E) or any othe r Rule . A ccor dingl y, th e di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t a bu se i ts di sc r et i o n b y r ul i ng thi s e vi dence al so i nadm i ssibl e. H avi ng f ound that the di str i ct c ourtd i d not e rri n i ts evid en tiary ruli ng s, w e turn b riefly to A layeto’s se co nd i ss ue

— th atthe r ul i ng s depr i ve d he r o fhe r c o nsti tu tio nalr i ght t o prese nt a defe nse. A l aye to, as a cri m i naldefendant, was unq u es ti onabl y e nti tl ed to “a m ea n in gfu l op p or tu n ity to p re se n t a co m p let e d efe n se .”N o. 10

- 2037 11 Hol m e s v. Sout h Carol i na , 547 U
. S. 319, 324 (2006 ) ( q uot i ng C ran ev. Ke nt uc ky, 4 76 U. S
. 6 83 , 6 90 ( 19 86 ) )
. As the S upr eme Co ur t r ei te r at ed i n Ho lm es , ho w eve r, j ud ges m ay excl ud e m ar gi nal l y re l evant evi dence and e vidence p osinga n un due r i sko fc o nfus i o n o fthe i ss ue s wi th o ut offe n d in g a d efe n d an t’s co n st itu tio n al rig h ts
. Id. at32 6- 27. W e fi nd thatthe evi dence A l aye to s ou ght t o i nt r od uc e co ul d no t ha ve pl ay ed a m aj o r r o l e i n c as ting d o ubt o n he r g ui l t an d th at th e di st r i ct co ur t did n ot err b y e xc l ud i ngi t
. Ac c o r di ng l y, i t s e xc l us i o n di d n o tv i ol ate A l aye to’ s co nsti tuti on alr i ght t o prese nt a com ple te d efe n se . See Wi l s on , 30 7 F
. 3d at 601.

III. C ON CLU SI ON Because the dist ri ct cour t’ s evi denti ar y rul i ngs wer e n o te r r o n e o u s a n d d i d n o td e p r i v e Al a y e t o o fa ny const i tuti onalr i ght, we A FFIRM Al ay et o ’ s co nv i ct i o n.

12- 17- 10