P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 4427

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OSEPH R. LEE, A ppel l ant

________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N o. 06- cr - 162) D i st ri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W

. A m brose

_______________ A r gued J anuary29, 2010
B e f o re : R E N D E L L a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudges , and

P RATT ER, D is t r i ct

Judge .* ( Fi l ed : J ul y14, 2010)
* H o n o rab le G en e E

. K

. P ratt er, U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt J udge fort he East er n D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on.2 Re n e e P i e t r o p a o l o [ AR GUE D] Feder al Publ i c D efe nder ’ s O ffi ce 1500 L i ber t yC ent er 1001 L i ber t yA venue Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 C ouns el f orAppel l ant

R ober tL

. E ber har dt Re b e c c a Ro s s Ha ywo o d [ AR GUE D] U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce 700 G r antSt r eet- #4000 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge

. J os eph R

. L ee w as convi ct ed i n t he U ni t ed S t at es D i s t r i ct C our t for t he W es t er n D i s t r i ct of P enns y l vani a of be i ng a fe l on in p o sses sion o f a firearm , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ), and w as sent enced as a careerof f e n d er t o 1 20 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm ent

. H e appe al s bot h t he convi ct i on and hi s s ent ence . For t he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m L ee’ s convi ct i on but vaca t e hi s s ent ence and r emand forr e- s ent enci ng.L ee ha s never been a s us pecti n t he murde ri nves t i gat i on, and 1 “j us t happene d t o be dr i vi ng dow n t he s ame bl ock” the dayaft er th e m u rd e r. ( A p p . a t 4 2 2 .) 3 I . Backg r ound
A

. The St op O n J une 27, 2005, L i eut enantK evi n K r aus of t he C i t yof Pi t t s bur gh P o li ce D epar t m entt r avel ed t o t he 2400 bl ock of W e b ste r A v e n u e in th e H ill D istric t o f P itt sb u rg h , P e n n sy lv a n ia t o i nves t i gat e a homi ci de thathad occ ur r ed ther e t he daybefor e. K r aus w as i n an unm ar ked pol i ce car w hen he obs erve d L ee, dr i vi ng a bl ue J eep G r and C her okee, run a s t op s i gn. 1

K ra u s a c tiv a ted h is s ir e n a n d f o llo w e d L e e to sto p h im forthe t r aff

i c vi ol at i on. L ee a bru p tl y pul l ed over , and, acc or di ng t o K r aus , began maki ng “ra pi d, s us pi ci ous m ovement s , ” and r each ing “dow n t ow ar ds hi s t or s o ar ea” as K ra u s a p p ro a c h e d th e c a r o n f o o t. (I d. at 3 4 9

. ) A l l of t he w i ndow s of t he J eep w er e dow n and t he s u nr oof w as open. K r aus s canne d t he ca r , and not i ced a “r atherl ar ge bl ack he avy coat

. . . [w i t h] a di s t i nct i ve fl ap on t he t op” i n t he backs eatof t he J e e p . (I d. a t 3 5 1 .) H e al s o not i ced thatt he coa t“appe ar ed t o be par t i al l yw r apped a r ound .

. . a l ong, nar r ow obj ect

. ” (I d. at351- 5 2

. ) H e too k p arti cu lar n o te o f the co at b ec au se the tem p era ture w as over90 degr ees t hatday

. K r aus fur t her obs er ved t hatL ee w a s w e a rin g a tan b u llet-p ro o f v e st an d w a s n o t w e a rin g a sh irt. L e e v o lu n tee re d th a t h e h a d b e e n try in g to tak e o f f th e b u lletpr oof vest

. K r aus or der ed hi m t o r ai s e hi s hands above hi s head4 a n d p lac e th e m w h e re K ra u s c o u ld se e th e m . A c c o rd in g to K r aus , at t hat m om ent , he s aw w hat he bel i eved t o b e a b lack s emi

- aut om at i c pi s t ol l y i ng on L ee’ s r i ghtt hi gh. A ft ers eei ng t he o b j e c t , Kr a u s d r e w h i s o wn g u n a n d t o l d Le e : “ Gety our hands i n t he ai r . D on’ tm ove. ” (I d. a t 3 5 3 -5 4 .) I n r espons e, L ee gr abbed the s t eer i ng w heel , s ai d t hathe had t o go, and s ped a w a yf ro m th e s c e n e . K rau s cal l ed t he pol i ce di s pat cher , r epor t ed t hathe had an emer gency , and pr ovi ded a de s cr i pt i on of L ee and t he J eep. Shor t l y t her eaf

t er , K r aus l earned thatanotheroffi cerhad found a Je ep G ran d C h ero k ee m atch ing the d esc ri p ti o n o f L ee ’s ca r. It w a s in a p a rk in g lo t at th e re a r o f th e C h risto p h e r A . S m ith T e rra c e A p a rtm e n ts (the “ A p a rtm e n ts” ), a b o u t a ten th o f a m ile fr om w her e K r aus had s t opped Lee. L ee l at er s t i pul at ed t hathe a b a n d o n e d th e J e e p w h e re th e p o lic e f o u n d it.
B

. The Sear ch
K r aus w entt o t he parki ng l otatt he A part m en ts a nd id e n tifie d th e Je e p a s th e o n e th a t h e h a d e a rlier sto p p e d a n d in w hi ch Lee had f

l ed. A l l t he w i nd o w s w er e s t i l l dow n and t he s unr oof r emai ned open. T he bul l et

- pr oof ves tw as l y i ng on t he pas s e n g e rs i d e o f

t h e v e h i c l e . Howev e r , t h e c o a ta n d l ong s l enderobj ectt hatK r aus r emem b ere d s eei ng i n t he bac ks eat w e re n o lo n g e r th e re . F o u r o th e r o f f ice rs w e re a t th e sc e n e to ai d K r aus i n t he i nves t i gat i on. D ur i ng a s ear ch of the ar ea, one of t hem, K evi n Faul ds, found an A K

- 47 as s aul tr i fl e bes i de a f e n c e separat i ng t he A part m ents from t he n ext door F rancis C our t H ous i ng C om pl ex ( t he “H ous i ng Pr oj ect ”)

. K r aus j oi ned Faul ds byt he fe nce a nd obs er ved the A K

- 47 part i al l ycover ed5 i n a bl ack c oatw i t h a di s t i nct i v e flap , l y i ng agai ns tt he fe nce. K rau s ide n ti fied the b lack co at a s the o n e h e h ad see n in L ee ’s J e e p . A p o li ce b loo d h o u n d n am ed D igg er a n d h is ha n d ler, O ffi cerR ud o lph H ar ki ns , s oon arr i ved att he s cene . K r aus i nfor m ed H ar ki ns t hat t he otheroffi cer s had al r eadyl ocat ed t he J eep, r i fl e, and coa t

. H ar ki ns gave D igg ert he s centof t he J e e p ’ s d r i v e rb ywi p i n g t h e d r i v e r ’ s s e a twi t h a s wab , o f f e r i ng th e sw a b f

o r D ig g e r to sm e ll, a n d g iv in g th e d o g a c o m m a n d to t rack t he scen t

. D i gg er then w ent dow n a fli gh tof st eps, t hr ough a parki ng l ot , and cam e t o w i t hi n t en t o fi ft een i nches of t he r i fl e and the coa t

. A ccor di ng t o H ark ins , D i ggert hen “vee r ed t o t he r i ghtal ong t he fe nce, [and] w entdow n t he fe nce l i ne appr oxi m at el y20, 25 fee t

. ” ( A pp. at458. ) D i ggerfound an ar ea of t he fe nce thathad bee n ri p p ed open, w entt hr ough t he openi ng, and cont i nued t ow ar ds t he H ous i ng Pr oj ec t o n t he ot hers i de of the fe nce. H e sto p p ed in fr ontof t he doorof a vaca ntbui l di ng i n t he H ous i ng Pr oj ect , and, at t hat poi nt , ci r cl ed and s atdow n, i ndi cat i ng t hathe had l os tt he s cent

. T he bui l di ng w a s s e a rc h e d , b u t L e e w a s n o t f o u n d

. C

. T he A rres t
A ppr oxi m at el yt w o w eeks l at er , on J ul y12, 2005, K r aus learn ed that fe ll o w p o li ce o ff icers had ca u g h t si g h t of an d w ere p u rsu in g L e e . T h e yf

in a llyf o u n d h im h id in g in a n a p a rtm e n t. N o w e a p o n s o r c o n tra b a n d w e re f o u n d o n L e e a t th e tim e o f h is ar r es t , nori n t he apa r t m entw her e he w as found. T he pol i ce ar r es t ed hi m , t ook hi m t o an i nt er vi ew r oom at the pol i ce s t at i on, a n d g a v e h i m Mi r anda w a rn in g s. H e sig n e d a f o rm w a iv in g h is6 Mi r anda ri ght s , and K r aus pr ocee ded t o i nt er vi ew hi m . L ee d e n i e d h a vi ng a n yg u n s i n h i s c a rwh e n Kr a u s s t o p p e d h i m. H o w e v e r, h e a c k n o w led g e d th a t h e h a d b e e n w e a rin g a b u lletpr oof ve st. H e s ai d t hathe had s t ar t ed t o t ake of f t he ves tas K r aus appr oache d t he ca rbeca us e he w ant ed t o cre at e a di ver s i on s o t hatK r aus w oul d no t se e a bag of m ar i j uana that w as i n t he ca r . L ee f

ur t her expl ai ned t hathe dr ove aw ayw hen K r aus dr ew hi s gun beca us e he though t K rau s had dr aw n the gun i n r eac t i on t o s eei ng t he bag of m ar i j uana. K r aus t ol d L ee t hat he h a d n o ts e e n a n yma r i j u a n a b u tr a t h e rh a d s e e n a b l ack s em i- au t om at i c pi s t ol on L ee’ s l ap. L ee r es ponded t hatw hat K r aus had s een w as actual l y a “bl ack a nd s i l vercel l phone fl i ps tyle o p e n a n d e x te n d e d o n h is la p .” (A p p . a t 4 1 4 .)
A ccor di ng t o K r aus , L ee “i ns i s t ed t hat he does not t ypi cal l yow n orcarr yguns . H ow ever , he di d s t at e t hathe had acc es s t o a l ot of guns and w oul d us e them agai ns tany one w ho t hr eat ens hi m orhi s fami l y . ” (Id

. at 417. ) L ee a l s o s ai d t hathe had pr evi ous l ys hotat a m an nam ed Erne s t“Pi ckl es ” H arr i s and th a t th e re w a s a “ lo n g tim e , o n g o in g v io len t f e u d ” b e tw e e n th e ir tw o f a m ilie s . (I

d. ) Fi nal l y , w hi l e Lee i ns i s t ed t hathe di d not have a n ywea p o n s wi t h h i m du r i n g t h e t r a f f i c s t o p t wo wee ks ear l i er , he admi t t ed fl eei ng w hen K r aus had tr i ed t o s t op hi m on a n e a rlier o c c a sio n in 2 0 0 0 o r 2 0 0 1 w h e n L e e d id h a v e g u n s in a v e h ic le

. D

. P rocedu ralHist ory O n M ay3, 2006, a gr and j ur yi n t he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof P e n n sy lv a n ia r eturned a on e-coun ti n d ictm e n t ch a rg in g L e e w ith b e in g a f e lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f tw o f ire a rm s, a rif

le a n d a p isto l,T h e i nd i ct m ent di d n ot desi gn at e separat e cou nts and so 2 appea r s i n for m t o be a s i n g le c ount

. 18 U

. S. C

. § 922( g) ( 1) provides:
I ts hal l be unl aw ful foranyper s on . . . w ho has been convi ct ed in anycour tof [] a cr i m e puni s habl e by i m pr i s onm entfor a t er m exce edi ng one y ear. . . t o s hi p or tra n sp o rt in in ter sta te o r f o re ig n c o m m e rc e , o r p o ss e ss in o r a f f e c tin g c o m m e rc e , a n y f

ire a rm o r a m m u n iti o n ; o r to r ece i ve anyfi r earm oramm uni t ion w hi ch has been s hi pped or t r ans por t ed i n i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce. 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ) 7 in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g ) ( 1 )

. T h e rif le r e f e rre d to in 2 t he i ndict m en t is the A K

- 47 t hatw as found l y i ng byt he fe nce u n d er a b lack co at, n ea r t h e loc ati o n o f L ee ’s ab an d o n ed ca r. T he pi s t ol i s w hatK r aus had al l egedl y seen on Lee’ s l ap, a lth o u g h n o s u c h p is to l w a s e v e r r e c o v e re d

. Pr i ort o t r i al , L ee f

i l ed s ever al m ot i ons , i ncl udi ng a m o tio n to su p p re ss a u d io tap e s o f h is in ter v ie w s , a m o tio n to excl ude t he bl oodhound evi dence and fora D a u b e rt h e a rin g to tes t th e a d m iss ib ili tyo f th a t ev id e n c e , a m o tio n u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b) to e x clud e t h e ev iden ce o f t h e b u ll et-pro o f v est an d L ee ’s i nt er vi ew s t at eme nt s t o K r aus , and a mot i on forj udgm entof acqui t t al w i t h r egar d t o t he pi s t ol on t he j ur i s di ct i onal gr ound th a t th e p isto l w a s n o t a f ir e a r m in o r a f

f e c tin g in ter sta te comm er ce. W i t h t he e x ce p ti o n of a l i m i t ed por t i on of t he8 404( b) m ot i on t hati s notr el evantt o t hi s appe al , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt d e n ie d a ll o f

L e e ’s m o tio n s . A t t r i al , overL ee’ s obj ect i on, t he governm enti nt r oduced t he s t at ement s tha tL ee made dur i ng hi s i nt er vi ew w i t h K r aus and evi dence that L ee w as w ear i ng a bul l et

- pr oof ves tw hen he w as s t opped. A ddi t i onal l y , overobj ect i on, t he di s pat ch t apes w e r e p l a ye d , a n d a t r a n s c r i p t w a s p r o v i d e d t o t h e j u r y. F i n a l l y, o v er o b jecti o n , the D istri ct C o u rt ad m it ted ev iden ce o f D igg er’s eff or t s t o t r ack Lee. H ow ever , i n l i ghtof a di s put e overw het her D i ggerhad al er t ed at t he coat and r i fl e, t he C our tnot ed t hatt he gover nm ent“agr eed t o el i m i nat e any r efe r ence i n t he t es t i m ony that D igg er p au sed ” w h en h e re ac h ed them

. (A p p . at 2.)
A tt he cl os e of the governm ent ’s cas e, L ee moved for j udgm entof ac q u it t al w i t h r es pectt o hi s al l eged pos s es s i on of t he p i st ol. E ven assum i ng t hat w hat K raus had s e e n w as a pi s t ol , L ee a r gued, t her e w as no evi dence t hatt he pi s t ol had eve r t r a v e l e d i n i n t e r s t a t e c o mme r c e , a s i s r e q u i r e d u n d e r1 8 U. S

. C. § 9 2 2 (g ). T h e C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n , a n d d e n ied it ag a in w h e n d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l r e n e w e d it a t th e c lo s e o f a ll e v id e n c e . T h ro ug ho ut tri al , L ee’s defe nse w i t h regard t o the r i fle w as t hati thad neve rbeen i n hi s J eep a nd t hathe w as not t he p e r s o n who d i s p o s e d o f i t

. Sp e c i f i c a l l y , “ [ t ] h e d e f

e n s e ( 1) at t acke d t he r el i abi l i t yof [K r aus’s] obse r vat i ons , ( 2) offe r ed e v id e n c e th a t o th e rs h a d a n o p p o rtu n ityto h a v e h id d e n th e rif le in th a t cr im e -rid d e n a r e a , ... a n d (3 ) stre ss e d th e c o m p lete a b s e n c e o f

p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e tyin g L e e to th e w e a p o n a n d c o a t.” (A p p ell an t’ s O p . B r. at 63

. )T he D i s t r i ctC our thad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uant 3 t o 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 2 3 1

. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S

. C. § 1291 and pur s uantt o 18 U

. S. C

. § 3742( a) ( 1) , as t hi s i s an appea l fr om a fi nal j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence . A s alre a d y n o ted , L e e w a s c h a rg e d in a n in d ictm e n t th a t d id 4 nots epar at e cha r ges i nt o di s t i nctcount s , so the unl aw ful pos s es s i on of bot h t he r i fl e and pi s t ol w er e, eff ect i vel y , par tof a s i ngl e count

. T he fac t t hat L ee’ s al l eged r i fl e pos s es s i on and a lleg e d p isto l p o ss e ss io n w e re se t f o rth in a sin g le c o u n t w o u ld per haps be pr obl emat i c i n a spi l l over cont ext , w er e i tnotfort he 9 T he D i s t r i ctC our ti ns t ruct ed the j ur y thata convi ct i on coul d be base d on a fi ndi ng t hatL ee pos s es s ed ei t hera pi s t ol , or a r i fl e, or bot h. T he C our t and t he pr os ecut ort ol d t he j ur yt hat unani m i t yw as r equi r ed on anyfi ndi ng of pos s es s i on as t o ei t her w e a po n, a nd j ury i nt e r r og a t or i e s t r e a t e d e a c h w e a pon as a sep ara te ba sis of

crim in al l iabili ty

. O n Ju n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , the ju ry found Lee gui l t yof possessi ng t he r i fl e butnotgui l t yof p o ss e ss in g th e p isto l. T h e C o u rt su b se q u e n tlyse n ten c e d L e e to 120 m ont hs of i m pr i s onm ent , t o be fol l ow ed by a thre e- y ear t er m of s uper vi s ed r el eas e, and a s peci al as s es s m entof $100. L e e f iled a tim e lyn o tic e o f a p p e a l, ch a llen g in g b o th h is c o n v ic tio n a n d h is s e n te n c e . I I . D i s cus s i on 3

L ee a dvance s s i x ar gum ent s o n appea l : fi r s t , t hat“t he rif le c h a rg e w a s p re

ju d icia llytain ted b y ev id e n c e o f f e re d to su p p o rtthe im p rop er .. . [p ist o l] ch arg e” (A p p ell an t’ s O p . B r. 4fac tt hatt he D i s t ri ctC our tand t he par t i es cons i s t ent l yt r eat ed t he si ng l e cou nt i nd i ct m ent as con t ai ning tw o s eparat e charges: th e “ rif le c h a rg e ” a n d th e “ p isto l c h a rg e .” T h e a lleg e d rif le pos s es s i on and t he al l eged p ist ol pos s es s i on w er e ar gued s epar at el ybefor e t he D i s t r i ct C our t ( forexampl e, L ee moved for j udgm entof ac qui t t al w i t h r egar d to the al l eged pi s t ol p o sses sion o n ly ), w ere tr ea ted s ep ara tel yb ythe D istri ct C o u rt thro u g h o u t tri al, an d w ere n o ted s ep ara tel yin b o th the jury ch arg e an d the ju ryinterrog atories. M o st si g n ifi ca n tl y , the ju ry ul t i m at el yacqui t t ed Lee of pos s es s i ng t he pi s t ol , butconvi ct ed hi m of pos s es s i ng t he r i fl e. Fi nal l y , t he al l eged r i fl e pos s es s i on a n d t h e a l l e g e d p i s t o l p o s s e s s i o n c o n t i n u e t o b e t r e a t e d a s t wo s epar at e cha r ges byt he part i es on appea l

. A ccor di ngl y , w e t oo w i l l t r eatt he i ndi ct m ent as s et t i ng for t h t w o s epar at e cha r ges for purpos es of as s es s i ng w het herev idence of t he al l eged pi s t ol pos s es s i o n t ai nt ed t he j ur y ’ s cons i der at i on of w het herL ee p o ss e ss e d th e rif

le. L ik e th e p a rties , w e w ill u se th e ter m s “ rif le c h a rg e ” a n d “ p is to l c h a rg e ” to d is tin g u is h th e tw o c h a rg e s . 10 at 19) ; s econd, t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ter r ed i n al l ow i ng t he gover nm entt o i nt r oduce e vi dence t hath e w as w ear i ng a bul l et

- pr oof ves t at t he t i m e he w as s t opped byK r aus ; t hi r d, t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our ter r ed i n al l ow i ng K r aus t o t es t i fy aboutt he i nt er vi ew s t at ement s L ee made r egar di ng pr i orw eapons pos s es s i on; four t h, t hat th e pr os ecut orcomm i t t ed mi s conduct dur i ng hi s di s cus s i on of D i gger , t he bl oodhound; fi ft h, t hatt he D istric t C o u rt e rre d a t se n ten c in g b yc las si f yin g L e e ’s s tate mi s d e me a n o rc o n v i c t i o n f o rr e c k l e s s e n d a n g e r me n t a s a c r i me of vi ol ence , t her eby i ncr eas i ng t he l engt h of hi s s ent ence ; and,11 six th , t h a t th e f

e lo n -in -p o ss e ss io n sta tu te is u n c o n stitu tio n a l. W e addr es s eac h ar gum enti n tur n. A

. P r ej udi ci alSpi l l over L e e a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m oti on for j ud gm ent of acqu i t t al on t he p i st ol char ge b ecause t her e was i n s u f

f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p i s t o l , e v e n i f h e had one, t r avel ed i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce, w hi ch i s a req u ir ed e lem e n t u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g ). A lth o u g h L e e w a s u lti m a tely ac q u it ted of the pi s t ol char ge, he cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s er r ori n per m i t t i ng t hatchar ge t o go t o t he j ur yent i t l es hi m t o a n ew tr i al on t he r i fl e cha r ge, beca us e the r i fl e cha r ge w as pr ej udi ci al l y“t ai nt ed” byevi dence s ubm i t t ed t o s uppor tt he pi s t ol char ge. ( A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at 25. ) I n ot herw or ds , L ee c o n ten d s th a t th e re w a s p re ju d icia l sp ill o v e r f

ro m o n e c h a rg e to th e o th e r. i

. St andar d of R evi ew T he par t i es begi n w i t h a debat e aboutt he s t andar d of r evi ew w e s houl d appl y w h en eval uat i ng a cl ai m t hatone crim inal ch arg e h as tainted the jury ’s c o n side rati o n o f a n o ther. Le e a r g u e s t h a t we s h o u l d a p p l y t h e t e s t a r t i c u l a t e d i n U n it ed S ta tes v . P e lu llo , 14 F. 3d 881 ( 3d C i r . 1994) , i n w hi ch w e s t at ed t ha t, “[w ]hen co nfron t ed w i t h a p robl em of tai nt, w e m ust

‘ cons i derw het hert he pr es ence of t h e [i nval i dat ed] counthad an ysp il lov er e ff

ec t su ff ici en tl y p rejud ici al to ca ll fo r rev ersa l. ’” Id

. at 897- 98 ( quot i ng U n ited S ta tes v . Ivic , 700 F. 2d 51, 65 ( 2d C i r . 1983) )

. W e m u st rever s e and a l l ow fora new t r i al i f t he j ur yw as “pr obabl yi nfl uence d, ” id

. at900, or “‘ w as l i kel yt o be12 confus ed or r el i ed upon i m pr oper evi dence ’ i n i t s del i ber at i ons on t he r emai ni ng count s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Mur

phy , 3 23 F. 3d 102, 122 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng P e lu llo , 14 F. 3d at 898)

. E ven t hough L ee r ai s ed t he i nval i di t yof t he pi s t ol char ge att r i al , t he g o v e r n me n t , c i t i ng U

n it ed Stat es v. W

r ight , 363 F. 3d 237 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , ar gues t hatpl ai n er r orr evi ew ap pl i es beca us e Lee d id n o t ar g u e p re

ju d icia l sp ill o v e r b e f

o re th e D istric t C o u rt “ in a n yre le v a n t p le a d in g , s u c h a s in a m o t i o n f o r a n e w tr ia l.” (A p p e lle e ’s A n s . B r. a t 3 .)
T he deba t e i s m i s l eadi ng, as i t s eems t o pr ocee d fr om t he m i s t aken p res um pt i on t hatt he t es tar t i cul at ed i n P el ul l o i s a s t andar d of appe l l at e r evi ew . I ti s not

. R at her , i ti s an ana l y t i cal appr oach t o assess i ng w het herevi dence fr om one cha r ge u n fa ir ly af

fe cted co n side rati o n o f a n o ther c h arg e. In p arti cu lar, w e ar e her e t as ked w i t h as s es s i ng w het herw hathappene d – an a c q u itt a l o n th e p isto l ch a rg e a f ter h e a rin g e v id e n c e o n it – m e a n s th a t th e ju ryc o u ld n o t h a v e f a irlya d d r e s s e d th e rif

le char ge. T o ans w ert hatques t i on, w e empl oyt he P el ul l o te s t.
H o w e v e r, ac k n o w led g in g th a t P el ul l o m u st be a p p lied to ev alua te a cl ai m of t ai nts t i l l l eave s us t o det er m i ne w hat s t andar d of r evi ew t o empl oyi n a ca s e l i ke thi s , in w h ic h t he iss u e o f ta in t w a s n e v e r ra ise d b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt. T h is appea r s t o be an i s s ue of fi r s t i m pr es s i on for us , and so w e l ook t o how w e addr es s chal l enges t o t he s uffi ci encyof evi dence as a gui de fort he appr opr i at e appe l l at e r ol e i n appr ai s i ng pos t

- hocR a isin g th e iss u e o f tain t b e f o re th e v e rd ict m a yb e d if f icu lt 5 as a def ens e l aw y erdoes notknow , p re- ver di ct , t he count s on w hi ch t he j ur yw i l l convi cto r a cq u i t

. E ven i f a de fenda nt c a n n o t sa tisf

a c to r il y ra ise th e iss u e o f tain t b e f o re th e v e rd ict, how ever , he ca n do s o i n a pos t

- ver di ctm ot i on. T h e p lai n erro r st an d ard is m et w h en “(1 ) t h ere is an erro r; 6 (2 ) th e e rro r is c lea r o r o b v io u s, ra th e r th a n su b jec t to re a so n a b le dis pu t e; (3) t he er roraffected t he ap pell ant’ s subst anti al ri gh t s, w hi ch i n t he ordi nar y cas e m eans i t aff ect ed t he out come of t he di s t r i ctcour t pr ocee di ngs ; and (4) t he err ors er i ous l yaff ect s t he f a ir n e s s , in te g ri ty o r p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s .” U ni t ed Stat es v. Mar cus , — S

. C t

. — , 2010 W L 2025203, at*1 13 compl ai nt s abouta v erd ic t ’ s bas i s . Som ew hatl i ke an 5 i ns uffi ci encyof t he evi dence ar gum ent , an ar gum entof t ai nt as s er t s t hat , once the al l egedl y t ai nt ed mat er i al i s r emoved fr om t he j u r y ’ s c a l c u l u s , t h e r e i s n o s o u n d b a s i s t o s u p p o r t t he re m a in in g c h a rg e . W hen a s uffi ci ency of evi dence chal l enge has fi r s tbeen m ade i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew on appea l a n d a sk sp e c if

ica lly“ w h e th e r th e re is su b sta n tial e v id e n c e th a t, w h e n v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, w oul d al l ow a r at i onal t r i erof fa ctt o convi ct

. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B or nm an , 559 F. 3d 150, 152 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot at i ons and c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h o u g h p len a ry , the “ sta n d a rd o f re v iew is hi ghl ydefe r ent i al

. ” Id

. H ow ever , w her e a de fenda ntdoes not m ounta cha l l enge t o t he s uffi ci encyof t he evi d en ce i n t he D istri ct C o u rt , w e re v iew fo r p la in erro r. U ni t ed Stat es v. 6(M a y2 4 , 2 0 1 0 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d a lte ra tio n s o m itte d ). T hi s hol di ng i s notatodds w i t h ourr eas oni ng W r ight

. In 7 W r ight , t he def

endantfi l ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s cer t ai n count s of t he i ndi ct m ent , w hi ch the di s t r i ct cour t deni ed. 363 F. 3d at241. A ft ert he j ur yr etu rne d a gui l t yver di ct , t he def endantfi l ed a m ot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al , r enew i ng ar gum ent s t hathe h a d m a d e in h is m o tio n to d is m is s . I d. T h e d istri ct co u rt gr ant ed t he def

e n d a n t ’ s m ot i on w i t h r es pectt o cert ai n count s but d e n ie d th e m o tio n w ith re s p e c t to o th e r c o u n ts

. I d. O n a p p e a l, th e d e f e n d a n t ar g u e d th a t h e w a s e n tit led to a n e w trial d u e to p re ju d icia l sp ill o v e r f

r o m th e e v id e n c e th a t w a s a d m itt e d to pr ove t he count s on w hi ch t he di s t r i ctcourtgr ant ed j udgm entof a c q u itt a l. Id

. at 2 4 7

. W e s t at ed t hatw e di d notneed t o r eac h t he mer i t s of t he d ef

endant ’ s s pi l l overar gum ent , beca us e t he defe ndant had not r ai s ed i t befor e t he di s t r i ctcour t , and Feder al R ul e o f Cr i mi n a l Pr o c e d u r e 3 3 a u t h o r i z e s a n e w t r i a l o n l yon g ro u n d s ra is e d b yth e d e f e n d a n t. I

d. at247- 48. W e r eas oned t hatt he di s t r i ct cour t coul d not have err ed i n notgr ant i ng a new t r i al bas ed on pr ej udi ci al s pi l l overw hen t he def endant never re q u e s te d a n e w tr ia l o n th a t g r o u n d

. I d. at 24 8

. H o w ev er, d e s p i t e s t a t i n g t h a t we we r e n o t r e a c h i n g t h e me r i t s , we pr ocee ded t o us e t he P el ul l o fac t or s t o expl ai n w hyt he s pi l l over a rg u m e n t f

a ile d in a n ye v e n t. I

d

. T hus , i n W

r ight , ourfocus 14 G uadal upe , 402 F. 3d 409, 410 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. A nal ogi zi ng t o t hats t andar d, w e hol d t hat , beca us e L ee di d notr ai s e t he i s s ue of t ai nt i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t , w e m us t eval uat e hi s cl ai m of t ai nt – t hr ough appl i cat i on of t he P el ul l o t es t – under a plain e r r or s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w. 7w as on t he l anguage of R ul e 33 t hatr equ ir es a defe ndantw ho fi l es a mot i on fora new t r i al t o s peci fyt he grounds upon w hi ch h e s e e k s a n e w tr ia l. 15 A s d iscu ssed bel ow , w e conc l ude t hatL ee’ s cl ai m of tai n t fail s u n d er P e lu llo , even w h en em p loy ing th e m o re gener ous pl enarys t andar d of re vi ew . A ccor di ngl y , w e have no d if f icu ltyc o n c lu d in g th a t h is c laim d o e s n o t su c c e e d u n d e r p lain e rr o r r e v ie w . ii. The Mer i t s of the Prej udi ci alSpi ll o ver A r gum ent
T he governm entc o n t e nds t hatL ee’ s pr ej udi ci al s pi l l over ar gum entfai l s for t w o r eas ons . Fi r s t , t he governm ents ay s t hat t he D ist ri ctC our tdi d noterrw hen i tdeni ed Lee’ s m ot i on for j udgm entof ac qui t t al as t o t he pi s t ol char ge bec aus e t her e w as s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e t o a l l o w t h a tc h a r g e t o g o t o t h e j u r y. S ec o n d , the a rgu m en t con ti n u es, ev en assu m ing that the C o u rt er r ed i n deny i ng L ee’ s m ot i on, the ri fl e convi ct i on can s t and beca us e t her e w as no pr ej udi ci al s pi l l overof evi dence fr om t he p is to l c h a rg e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s in sis ten c e th a t th e re w a s s u f f icie n t evi dence t o s uppor t t he pi s t ol char ge i s noti t s m os tper s uas i ve ar gum ent

. I ndeed, i t m i ght have been t he bet t er par tof w i s dom nott o have pr es s ed for t hat char ge t o go t o t he j ur y . T he pi s t ol w a s n e v e r re c o v e re d , a n d th e tes tim o n ya b o u t it s m a k e a n d , in tur n, aboutw het heri thad t r avel ed i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce,For exampl e, t he i n terst ate c om m er ce e l ement of t he pi s t ol 8 char ge r es t ed fi r s ton K rau s, w ho t es t i fi ed t hatt he gun he s aw on L ee’ s l ap “a ppear ed” t o be a . 9 m il li m eter pi s t ol , bas ed on t he s i ze, s hape, and barr el o f t he gun, buthe admi t t ed thathe w as nots ur e. H e al s o t es t i fi ed thatt he gun “a ppear ed t o be pos s i bl ya B er et t a [ o r] p o s s i bl ya Taur us , ” butagai n he conce ded t hathe “c oul dn’ tbe s ur e. ” (Id

. at392. ) T he gover nm ent al s o cal l ed M ar k W i l l gohs , a s peci al agentw i t h t he B ur eau of

A l cohol , T obacc o, Fi r earm s & E x p los i ves , w ho t es t i fi ed t hatB er et t a fi r earm s are m anufa ctur ed i n I t al yand T aurus fi r earm s ar e manufactur ed i n B r azi l

. W i l l gohs fur t her t e s t i f i e d t h a tt h e r e a r e n o c o mme r c i a l ma n u f a c tu r e r s o f

f i r e a r ms in P e n n sy lv a n ia. H o w e v e r, h e n o ted th a t th e re a re so m e p riv a te m anufa ctur er s of fi r earm s i n Penns y l vani a. W i l l gohs admi t t ed, as he had t o , t h a t , wi t h o u te x a mi n i n g t h e g u n i n q u e s t i o n , he c o u ld n o t d e te r m in e w h e th e r th e g u n w a s m a d e b ya p riv a te m a n u f a c tu re r o r a c o m m e rc ia l o n e . 16 turned o ut t o b e a bit equ i vo cal

. H ow ever, w e need no tadd res s 8
w h ethe r i t w as e rror to sen d the p ist o l cha rge to the jury beca us e, even a s s um i ng i t w as , t he gover nm ent i s cor r ectt hatno p rejud ici al tai n t fro m that ch arg e spil led ov er i n to th e jury ’s c o n s id e ra tio n o f

th e ri f le c h a rg e . A n anal y s i s of w het hert her e w as pr ej udi ci al s pi l l over in v o lv e s tw o in q u ir ie s . See U nit ed St ates v . C ross , 308 F. 3d 308, 3 1 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )

. Fi r s t , i f “ t h e e v i d e n c e t o p r ove t he over tur ned count w o u ld ha ve bee n admi s s i bl e t o pr ove the r em aini ng val i d count , t he def endantw as notpr ej udi ced, and t her e i s no need t o cons i derw het hert he evi dence i nfl uence d t heR ul e 404( b) pr ovi des t he fol l ow i ng: 9

E vidence of ot hercr i m es , w r ongs , oract s i s not a d m issi ble t o p rove t he ch aract er of a person in o rde r t o sh o w ac ti o n in co n fo rm itythere w ith

. It

17 out come. ” I

d. I n ot her w or ds , i f, i n cr eat i ng a hypot het i cal t r i al as t o t he val i d countonl y , t he evi dence of t he i nval i dat ed count w o u ld h a v e b e e n a d m is s ib le a n yw a y , th e a n a lysis e n d s th e re . I d. If the ev i den ce w ou l d not hav e been adm i ssi ble, “t hen w e m ust cons i derw het hert he ver di cton t he r emai ni ng co u ntw as aff ect ed ad v ers el ybyt he evi dence t hatw oul d have be en i nadmi s s i bl e ata t r i al l i m i t ed t o t hatcount

. ” Id

. “ G e n e r a l l y, in v a lid a tio n o f

th e c o n v ictio n s u n d e r o n e c o u n t d o e s n o t lea d to aut om at i c r ever s al of t he convi ct i ons on ot her count s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. G am bone , 314 F. 3d 163, 180- 81 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng P e lu llo , 1 4 F .3 d a t 8 9 7 ).
A s to w hetherev id e n c e re g a rd in g th e p isto l ch a rg e w o u ld have be en adm iss i bl e i n a t r i al onl yaboutL ee’ s pos s es s i on of t he r i fl e, L ee a s s er t s t hat , had t he D i s t r i ct C our tpr oper l ygr ant ed hi m a j udgm ent o f acqui t t al on t he pi s t ol char ge, evi dence re latin g to th e p isto l w o u ld h a v e b e e n stric k e n . A c c o rd in g to L ee, t he onl yr eas on foral l ow i ng evi dence of K r aus ’ s bel i ef that h e sa w a p isto l “w o u ld b e to d e m o n stra te L e e ’s p ro p e n sityto c a rr yf ir e a rm s ... i

. e. , a p e rso n w h o c a rrie s a p isto l o n h is la p is th e typ e o f

p e rs o n w h o a ls o tr a n s p o rt s a ri f le in h is b a c k s e a t.” (A p p e llan t’s O p . B r. at 3 1 .) A d m iss io n o f su c h p ro p e n sity evi dence , L ee a r gues , i s pr eci s el yw hat R ul e 404(b) “i s i nt ended to p re v e n t.” Id

. H ow ever , even i f w e as s um e t hat ev idence

9m ay , ho w ever, be a dm i ssi ble for ot her purpo ses, su c h a s p ro o f

o f m o ti v e , o p p o rtu n ity , inte n t, pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, i dent i t y , orabs ence of m i st ake or acci den t , provided thatup on request byt he acc used, t he prosecut i on i n a cri m i nal cas e sh a ll p ro v id e re a so n a b le n o tice in a d v a n c e of tria l, ordur i ng t r i al i f t he cour t excus es pr etr i al not i ce on good caus e s how n, of t he gene r al natur e of a ny su c h e v id e n c e it i n ten d s to in tro d u c e a t trial.
F ED

. R. E V ID

. 404( b) T her e i s at l eas t a pl aus i bl e ar gum ent t hat t h e p ist ol 10 evi dence coul d have been admi s s i bl e i n t he abs ence of the pi s t ol charg e b ecaus e i tr evea l s w hyK r aus dr ew hi s ow n gun and y e lled to L e e , “[ g ]e t y o u r h a n d s in th e a ir,” a n d w h yL e e , in r es pons e, fl ed t he s cene . ( A pp. at353- 54. ) K r aus t es t i fi ed t hat se e in g a p is to l o n L e e ’s la p is w h a t ca u se d h im to d ra w h is w e a p o n , w h ich in tu rn led to L e e ’s s p e e d in g a w a y . T h u s, it coul d be ar gued t hat t he evi dence w as par t of t he chr onol ogyof event s demonst r at i ng w hyK r aus t ook t he ac t i ons t hathe di d. See U ni t ed Stat es v. R am i r ez , 4 5 F .3 d 1 0 9 6 , 1 1 0 2 (7th C ir

. 19 9 5 ) ( r ecogni zi ng t he “i nt r i cat el yr el at ed doctr i ne” unde r w hi ch “e vi dence of uncha r ged cr i m i nal act i vi t yi s admissible, eve n if i tdoes nots at i s fyt he r equi r ement s of .

. . 404( b) , i f t hat evi dence i s i nt r i cat el y r el at ed t o t he fac t s of t he cas e befor e t he c o u rt .” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s , c ita tio n s a n d ita lic s o m itte d ))

. B ut 18 r egar di ng t he pi s t ol w oul d nothave be en adm i s s i bl e dur i ng a tr ial o n the ri fle ch arg e alon e, L ee h as f ail ed to sh o w that there 10cf

. C ross , 3 0 8 F

. 3d at320 n. 19 ( s t at i ng t hat“w e expr es s no v iew o n w h e th e r ‘o th e r a c ts’ e v id e n c e th a t d o e s n o t d ire c tly pr ove an el ement of t he char ged offe ns e maybe ‘ i nt r i ns i c’ ( and thu s ex em p t from R u le 40 4 (b)) if the o ther a cts w ere

‘ i next r i cabl yi nt er t w i ned’ w i t h t he eve nt s under l y i ng t he cha r ge, s o t hatt he evi dence i s nece s s ary fort he j ur yt o under s t and how t he off ens e oc cu rred ”)

. W e do notneed t o cons i dert he admi s s i bi l i t yques t i on, how ever , bec au s e Lee’ s s pi l l over a rg u m e n t f

a ils e v e n if

w e a c c e p t ar

guendo t hatevi dence of t he pi s t ol w oul d nothave be en admi t t ed i n a t r i al s ol el y ab outt he r i fl e. 19 w as a n yp rejud ici al sp il lov er.
I n P e lu llo , w e es t abl i sh ed a f our - par tt es tt o eval uat e a spi l l ov er cl ai m . W e ask (1 ) w h e th e r th e c h a rg e s w e re in ter tw in e d w ith eac h ot her

. . . s o as t o cr eat e s ubs t ant i al confus i on o n t h e p a r to f

t h e j u r y;

. . . (2 ) w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e f o r th e d if f e re n t co u n ts w as s uffi ci ent l ydi s t i nctt o s uppor tt he ver di cton otherseparat e cou nts ;

. . . (3 ) w hethersubst anti al l yal l t he ev i den ce i ntr od uced to s uppor tt he i nval i d convi ct i on w oul d have be en admi s s i bl e t o pr ove othercount s , and w het hert he20 el i mi n a t i o n o f

t h e c o u n to n whi c h t h e d e f e n d a n tw as i nval i dl yconvi ct ed w oul d have s i gni fi cant l ychange d t he stra teg yo f

th e trial;

. . . ( 4) [w het her ] t he cha r g es, t he l anguage t hatt he gover nm entus ed, and the evi dence i nt r oduced d u ri n g th e tr ia l ... a re o f th e s o rt to a ro u s e a ju ry ... [ a n d] w hethert he d efen dan tw as branded w i th s om e t er m s w i t h deci dedl y pej or at i ve connot at i on

.. . so th a t th e p re

ju d icia l sp ill o v e r e f

f e c t is pal pabl e. 1 4 F .3 d a t 8 9 8 -9 9 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ).
T h e f irst P el ul l o fac t or as ks w het her t he char ges w ere s uffi ci ent l yi n te r t w i ned t o cr eat e conf us i on on t he par tof t he ju ry. Id

. a t 8 9 8 . L e e a rg u e s th a t th e c h a r g e s d id c re a te c o n f u sio n b e c a u se a sin g le- c o u n t in d ictm e n t c h a rg e d h im w ith pos s es s i ng bot h the r i fl e and pi s t ol on t he s ame dat e, and a s i ngl e off

i cerdes cr i bed t he ent i r e epi s ode. W hi l e i t i s t rue that th e p isto l ch a rg e a n d th e rif le c h a rg e w e re se t f

o rth to g e th e r in t he s i ngl e- counti ndi ct m ent , and t hat bot h al l egat i ons ar os e out of t he eve nt s of a s i ngl e day , t her e w as , on t h is rec o rd, no m e a n in g f

u l risk th a t th e ju ryw a s c o n f u se d w h e n a sk e d to c o n s id e r t h e tw o c h a rg e s . T he pr oof of the j u ry ’s compre hens i on i s t hati tfound L ee gui l t yof pos s es s i ng t he r i fl e but not gui l t y of pos s es s i ng t he pi s t ol

. C l ear l y , i tw as abl e t o s ep ara te t he i s s ues and t he21 ch arg es, an d itd id so , in k ee p ing w ith the D is tr ict C o u rt ’s in s tr u c tio n s . T h e C o u rt s a id , In order t o find t he d efen dan tgu i l t y , y ou m ust unani m ous l ydet er m i ne t hatt he def en dant s peci fi cal l ypos s es s ed t he r i fl e, ort he pi s t ol , or b o th . F o r e x a m p le, it i s n o t su f f icie n t f o r six j urors to a gr ee thatt he def endantpos s es s ed t he r i fl e an d the ot hers i x t o agr ee he pos s es s ed the p is to l. R a th e r, th e v e rd ict s lip in d ica tes th a t all j ur or s m us tagr ee on w hi ch w eapons , i f any , t he d e f e n d a n t p o s s e s s e d

. (A p p . at 60 1 -02

. ) Q u esti o n s ab o u t the p ist o l an d the rifle w ere a lso se t f o rth se p a ra telyin th e sp e c ial in ter ro g a to rie s a ttac h e d to t he v e r d i c tf

o r m. I n a d d i t i o n , i n c l o s i n g a r g u me n t , t he p r os ecut oremphasi zed thatt he j ur yneede d t o cons i dert he pi s t ol char ge and the r i fl e cha r ge s epar at el y , s ay i ng, [Y ] ou have t o fi nd t hatt he def endantpos s es s ed t he r i fl e or pos s es s ed t he pi s t ol orpos s es s ed bot h. T hat m eans al l of y ou as a w hol e. A s the J u dge t ol d y ou, s i x of y o u can’ ts ay , w e bel i eve thathe p o sses sed the ri fle, an d the oth er si x say , w e bel i eve he pos s es s ed th e p ist ol

. T hat ’ s not enough. A l l t w el ve fi nal j ur or s have t o det er m i ne t hat t he defenda nt pos s es s ed t he ri fl e orpos s es s ed th e p is to l o r p o s s e s s e d b o th

.22 (Id

. at615. ) I n s hor t , by ar gum ent , i ns t ruct i on, and the ver di ct for m , t he j ur yw as t ol d t o keep the r i fl e and pi s t o l c har ges s epar at e, and t hei rver di ctpr oves t hatt heydi d.
T he s ec ond P el ul l o fac t oras ks w het hert he evi dence r el at i ng t o eac h char ge w as s uffi ci ent l y di s t i nct t hat a ver di ctas t o one coul d be s uppor t ed w ithoutr efe r ence t o evi dence regar ding t he o t her. 14 F

. 3d at89 8. P ut di fferent l y , w e m u st as k w het hert her e w as enough i ndepende ntevi dence conce r ni ng L ee’ s pos s es s i on of t he r i fl e t o s uppor tt hatchar ge. L ee a r gues t hatt he governm ent m i xed t oget her t he pi s t ol and r i fl e evi dence byt ell ing t he j ur yt hatK r aus had al r eadys een a l ong s l ender obj ectconce al ed on the b ac k s eatof Lee’ s J eep, and t hen by aski ng t he jur yt o infer that w hat K raus saw i n L ee’s l ap w as a firearm

. L ee p o ints t o the p rose cu tor’s closing arg u m en t, w h ere h e a sk e d th e ju ry , “[ h ]o w a b o u t th e f a c t th a t th e re w a s a g u n in t he back s eat ? D oes t hat l end any m or e cr edenc e t o t he fa ctt hat w hatw as on [Lee’ s ] l ap w as a gun and nota s qui r tgun?” ( A pp. a t 6 1 5 .)
L eavi ng as i de t he fa ctt h at L ee ’s l ogi c her e i s t hatt he r i fl e evi dence w as pr ej udi ci al l ys pi l l i ng overt o s uppor tt he p isto l ch a rg e , w h ich is th e o p p o site o f th e p o in t h e is tr yin g to m ake, hi s ar gum entfai l s beca us e ther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence of hi s r i fl e pos s es s i on t hatw as di s t i nct fr om anypi s t ol evi dence

. Shor t l yaft erL ee a bandoned hi s J eep, t he same di s t i nct i ve bl ack coatt hatK r aus had see n i n t he Jee p cover i ng t he l ong, s l ender obj ect on t he backs eat w as l ocat ed al ong a fence neart he J eep, and t hatcoat w as cover i ng a r i fl e. T hatverypot entevi dence sta n d s in d e p e n d e n t o f

th e a lleg a tio n th a t L e e p o ss e ss e d a p isto l,23 as does t he evi dence of t he bl oodhound’ s t r acki ng hi s s centfr om t he J eep a l ong a path w her e t he r i fl e w as found.
T he t hi r d P el ul l o fac t orasks u s t o l ook atw het hert he ab sen ce o f the p ist o l ch arg e w o u ld h av e af fe cted the d ef

en se’s s t r at egyi n a t r i al on t he r i fl e cha r ge onl y . 14 F. 3d at898- 99. L ee a r gues t hatt he error af fect ed hi s t r i al s t r at egybeca us e t he D i s t r i ctC our tal l ow ed t he j ur yt o bas e a f i ndi ng of gui l ton pr obabi l i t i es orpr opens i t y . I n ot herw or ds , beca us e Lee w as a c c u se d o f h a v in g tw o f ire a rm s, th e ju ryw a s p e rm itt e d to a ss u m e th a t h e p ro b a b lyh a d a t lea st o n e . L e e a rg u e s th a t th is n e c e ss a rilyin f

lu e n c e d h is tria l stra teg y , b e c a u se , if o n ly pos s es s i on of t he ri fle been c har ged and ha d t he j udgm entof acqui t tal been gr ant ed as t o t he pi s t ol , t he j ur yw oul d nothave neede d anyi ns t ruct i on aboutunani m i t yas t o ei t hert he r i fl e or th e p is to l o r b o th

. I ns t ea d, t he def

ens e w oul d have be en a s t r ai ght for w ar d pl ea f or a w ei ghi ng of t he evi dence

. . . . H ad evi dence s uppor t i ng t he i m pr operhandgun cha r ge neve r been pr es ent ed or been s t r i cken, t he j ur yw oul d n othave be en a u th o riz e d to re a c h a c o m p ro m ise v e rd ict o r re ly on pr opens i t i es butw oul d i ns t ead ha ve bee n f o rc e d to w e ig h th e e v id e n c e a n d m a k e c re d ib ili ty deter m i nati on s. (A p p e lla n t’ s O p . B r. a t 3 7 -3 8 .)
T hi s arg um enthas a cruci al fac tual fl aw i n i t s as s er t i on t hatt he j ur yw as aut hor i zed t o r eac h a compr om i s e ver di ct

. T heT he i ns truct i on r efe r r ed t o i s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t at ement 11 th a t “[ i]n o rd e r to f

in d [ L e e ] g u il ty, y o u m u st u n a n im o u sly det er m i ne t hat

. . . [he] s peci fi cal l ypos s essed the r i fl e, ort he p ist o l, o r bo th.” (A p p . at 60 1

. ) 24 j ur yw as rep ea t edl yand expl i ci t l yt ol d t hatt heyw er e not p erm it ted to d o an y su ch thing , as sh o u ld b e c lear fro m the v ery i ns t ruct i on t hatL ee ci t es . L ee does not i dent i fyanyaddi t i onal 11 ar gum ent s he w oul d have made oranyw it n ess h e w oul d have c a lled – o r n o t ca lled – if th e trial h a d b e e n s o lelyo n th e rif le charge, no r does he descr i be how his qu est i on i ng of an yw i t ness w oul d have be en mat er i al l ydi ffe r ent

. I n fac t , L ee’ s s t r at egy s eems t o have been exac t l y w hat he s ay s i t ought t o have be en, namel y , as ki ng t h e jury t o w ei gh t he evi dence and make cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i ons , focus i ng on uncer t ai nt yi n K r aus’s tes tim o n y , an d arg u ing the p au cit yo f p h y sical ev iden ce . It appea r s t hatt he jury di d not“r el yon pr opens i t i es ” as L ee s ugges t s the ydi d, buti ns t ead w as abl e t o “w ei gh t he evi dence a n d m a k e c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n s,” b e c a u se th e yu lti m a tely acqui t t ed hi m of t he pi s t ol char ge.
T h e f in a l P el ul l o fac t oras ks w het hert he pi s t ol char ge a n d i t s a c c o m p a n yi n g e v i d e n c e w a s p e j o r a t i v e o ri n f

l a m m a t o r y. 1 4 F

. 3 d at 89 9

. L e e d o es n o t of fe r an arg u m en t on this fac tor, pr obabl yb e c a u s e t he evi dence pl ai nl yw as nei t herpej or at i ve nor i nfl amm at or y . T he evi dence w as notthatL ee thr eat ened K r aus w i t h t he pi s t ol , buts i m pl yt hat K r aus s aw w hathe bel i eved t o be a p is to l o n L e e ’s la p . T hus , w het her or nott he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng L ee’ s m ot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al , al l of t he P el ul l o fa ctors i ndi cat e t hatt her e w as no pr ej udi ci al s pi l l overfr om t he pi s t ol char ge t o t he r i fl e cha r ge. A ccor di ngl y , L ee i s not ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al on t he r i fl e cha r ge.L ee s ay s t hatt he bul l et

- pr oof ves tevi dence is e v iden ce of 12 a “ p rio r b a d a c t,” b u t, am o n g o th e r p ro b lem s w ith h is a rg u m e n t, h e is in c o rr e c t a s a m a tte r o f tim in g . (A p p e lla n t’ s O p . B r. a t 4 5 .) H i s w ear i ng of t he ves tw as nota pr i oractatal l ; r ather , i tw as cont empora neous w i t h t he gun pos s es s i on ati s s ue. M or e t o t he poi nt , t ho u g h , R ul e 404( b) does notfocus on w hen t he ot her w r ongful actm ayhave oc cur r ed; i ti s ai m ed atkeepi ng out “[ e ] v i d e n c e o f

o t h e rc r i me s , wr o n g s , o ra c t s . . . t o p r o v e t he c h a ra c ter o f

a p e rso n in o rd e r to sh o w a c ti o n in c o n f o rm ity t h e r e w i t h , ” r e g a r d l e s s o f c h r o n o l o g y. W h ile it c a n b e ille g a l f

o r a f e lo n to p o s s e s s b o d ya rm o r, s ee 13 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 931 (a) (“[I ]t shal l be unlaw ful for a pe rso n to 25 B

. T he B ull et -Proo

f V est
L e e n e x t ar g u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d w h e n it al l ow ed t he governm entt o i nt r o d u ce e vi dence t hathe w as w ear i ng a bul l et

- pr oof vest att he t i m e of the t r aff i c s t op, and, fur ther , w hen i tal l ow ed the governm entt o ar gue, “w hatgoes m or e w i t h a bul l et

- pr oof ves tt han guns ?” ( A pp . at 6 1 8

. ) Lee a ss e rts th a t th is i s i m p e rm iss ib le p ro p e n sitye v id e n c e u n d e r R u le 404( b) and t hati ti s s ubs t ant i al l ym or e pr e j udi ci al t han pr obat i ve underR ul e 403. T he D i s t r i ctC our trul ed t hatt he bul l et

- pr oof v e st w a s n o t ex c lu d a b le u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ) b e c a u se it “is r el evant and s t r ong evi dence of [Lee’ s ] al l eged pos s es s i on of fi r earm s . ” ( A pp. at4. ) A s a r es ul t of t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng, bot h t he governm ent ’ s and Lee’ s br i efs focus on w het hert he b u lle t- p ro o f

v e s t w a s a d m is s ib le u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ).
In our vi ew , t he ad m i ssi bil i t yof the bu ll et -pr oo f vest does nottur n on R ul e 404( b) , beca us e i ti s n o t ev i dence of a sep ara te w ron g fu l act. N o o n e su g g ested to the D istri ct C o u rt 12 ort o t he j ur yt hat L ee’ s pos s es s i on of t he bul l et

- pr oof ves tw as i l l egal orot her w i s e w r ongful i n and of i t s el f; i ndeed, t her e w as

13pur chas e, ow n, orpos s es s bodyar m or , i f t hatper s on has been convi ct ed of a fel onyt hat i s . . . a cr i m e of vi ol ence . . . . ”) , no one has i ndi cat ed t hatL ee i s t he t ype of fel on for w hom i t w oul d be i l l egal , and no one ar gued t hatL ee ha d comm i t t ed an i l l egal act b yh a v in g th e v e st. R ul e 401 defi nes r el evantevi dence as “evi dence havi ng any 14 t endenc yt o m ake the exi s t ence of anyfac tt hati s of cons equenc e t o t he det er m i nat i on of t he ac t i on m or e pr obabl e or l es s pr obabl e t han i tw oul d be w i t hou t the evi dence

. ” F ED

. R. E V ID . 4 0 1 . R u le 4 0 2 sta tes th a t “[ a ]ll re lev a n t ev id e n c e is admi s s i bl e, exce ptas ot her w i s e pr ovi ded byt he C ons t i tut i on of t he U ni t ed St at es , byA ctof C ongr es s , byt hes e rul es , orbyot her ru le s p re scribe d b ythe S u p rem e C o u rtp u rsua n t t o statu tory a u th o ri ty. E v id e n c e w h ic h is n o t r e le v a n t is n o t a d m is s i b le .” F ED

. R. E V ID

. 402. W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcourt ’s deci s i on as t o t he a d m is s ib ility o f e v id e n c e f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Ser af i ni , 2 3 3 F

. 3 d 7 5 8 , 7 6 8 n . 1 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ).

26 no s ugges t i on t hatt her e w as anyt hi ng i nherent l y“bad” about pos s es s i ng or w ear i ng a bul l et

- pr oof ves t

. L ee’ s w ear i ng of t he bul l et

- pr oof ves ti s not ew or t hyonl yforw hati tsay s ab outt he natur e of the obj ecton t he bac k s eatof hi s J eep. T hus , t he bul l et

- pr oof ves ts houl d, i n t he fi r s t i ns t ance , be anal y zed unde r R ul es 401 and 402, as ci r cumst ant i al evi dence r el at ed t o a fa ct 14 d i r e c t l yi n i s s u e , n a me l y , Le e ’ s a l l e g e d p o s s e s s i o n o f a f i r e a r m. E vi dence of t he bul l et

- pr oof ves ts uppor t s t he i nfer ence t hatt he l on g, sl end er obj ect ben eat h the coat on t he b a c k se a t w as a fi r earm, i n t h e s a me ma n n e r t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e o f a r a z or and s m al l gl as s i n e bags found ata cr i m e s cene can s uppor tt he inf ere n ce that w h it e po w d er r esid u e f o u n d n ea rby is co ca ine. In bot h t he ca s e of drug par aphernal i a and dr ugs and t he ca s e of a bul l et

- pr oof ves tan d a fi r earm , t he r el at i ons hi p bet w een the cont r aband a nd t he t ool s s om et i m es us ed w i t h contr abandT he governm entar gues t hat“t he fa ctt hatL ee w as w ear i ng 15 a bul l et

- pr oof ves tand w as at t empt i ng t o t ake of f t he ves tw hen he w as appr oache d byL t

. K r aus is a d m i s s i bl e bec aus e the a b se n c e o f th is fa c t w o u ld c re a te a ‘c h ro n o lo g ica l o r c o n c e p tu a l’ v o id in th e L t. K ra u s ’s s to ry ... .” (A p p e lle e ’s A n s . B r . a t 4 1 .) H o w ev er, ev en w ith o u t m en ti o n ing the b u ll et-pro o f v est, there w er e enough f

act s i n t he chr ono log y fo ra j ur yt o under s t and w h yK ra u s s to p p e d L e e ’s J e e p a n d lo o k e d a t th e b a c k se a t, namel y , t he t r aff

i c vi ol at i on and t he fur t i ve m ovement s L ee w as m aki ng w he n he w a s pu l l e d ov e r . Thus , t he bu l l e t

- pr oo f vest w a s n o tn e c e s s a r y t o c o n s t ru c ta c h r o n o l o g y. R ul e 403 s t at es t hat , “[a ] l t hough r el evant , evi dence m aybe 16 excl uded i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s s ubs t ant i al l yout wei ghed byt he dangerof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of t he i s s ues , or m isle a d in g th e ju ry , o r b y c o n sid e ra tio n s o f u n d u e d e lay, w a ste of t i m e, or needl es s pr es ent at i on of cum ul at i ve evi dence

. ” F ED

. R. E V ID . 4 0 3

. L e e g iv e s a n a ltern a tiv e e x p lan a tio n f o r h a v in g th e v e st, namel y , t hathe w as w ear i ng i tforpr ot ect ion si nce one day e a rl ie r t h e re h a d b e e n a h o m ic id e in th e a re a . 27 all o w s a lo g ical i n fe ren ce to b e d raw n . In o th e r w o rd s, a jury coul d, aft ercons i der i ng K r aus ’ s des cr i pt i on of t he obj ecton t he backs eatand Lee’ s deci s i on t o w ear a bul l et

- pr oof vest , dr aw an in f e re n c e th a t th e o b

jec t w a s a f

ire a rm . T h e b u llet-p ro o f v e st is th e re f o r e c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e u p o n w h ich th e ju ryc o u ld pr oper l ym ove t ow ar d a conc l us i on aboutgun pos s es s i on. 15

L ee n e x ta r g u e s t h a tt h e b u l l e t

- p r o o f v e s ts h o u l d have been e xcl uded underR ul e 403, beca us e “ any p u rpor t ed pr obat i ve val ue w as s ubs t ant i al l y out w ei ghed by t he dange rof unfai rpr ej ud ic e. ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at44 ( or i gi nal 16 em p h asis). ) S p ec if

ica ll y , L ee arg u es th at t h e p rose cu tor’s acc om pany i ng s t at ement – “w hatgoes m or e w i t h a bul l et

- pr oofL i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i ons are n o tl i m i t ed t o R ul e 404( b) 17 evi dence

. T heyar e of a s sist ance i n ot hercont ext s w her e t he ju ryn e e d s to b e d ire c ted to v iew a p iec e o f e v id e n c e so lelya s it p e rt a in s to a s p e c if

ic is s u e . See, e. g. , U

ni t ed St at es v. Jones , 566 F. 3d 353, 359 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( fi ndi ng t hata court ’ s l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on w as s uffi ci entbecaus e i t“di ffe r ent i at ed [the d e f e n d a n t’s o f

f e n se s] f ro m th e o th e r o f

f e n se s c o n n e c ted to h is c o -d e f e n d a n t”) ; U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r een , 556 F. 3d 151, 155 ( 3d

28 ves tt han guns ? D oes i tcorr obor at e t he fac t t hat t her e w as a gun i n hi s l ap and thatt her e w as a gun i n t he bac k s eat ?” – m akes t he i nt r oduct i on of t he bul l et

- pr oof ves teven m or e pr ej udi ci al t han itw o u ld h av e b ee n o n it s o w n . (A p p . at 61 8

. )
A di s t r i ct cour t ’ s rul i ng under R ul e 403 m aybe r ever s ed onl y i f i t i s “arbi t r ar y or i r r at i onal

. ” See U ni t ed St at es v. U

ni v. R ehab. Ser vs
. (

P A) , I nc . , 205 F. 3d 657, 665, 669 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( en banc ) ( “[W e] cannot r ever s e a D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s co n cl us i on under Feder al R ul e 403 unl es s s uch a concl us i on i s hel d t o be an abus e of di s cr et i on, w hi ch w e have defi ned as ‘ arbi t r aryor i r r at ion al

. ’ ” ( ci t i ng In re P a o li R .R . Y a rdP C B L it. , 113 F. 3d 4 4 4 , 4 5 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ))). H e re , the C o u rt’s r u lin g w a s c e rta in ly nots o inf

ir m . I t , i n eff

ect , r ecogni zed thatt he pr os ecut orw as onl ypr ovi d ing the j ur yw i t h t he i nfer ent i al s t ep t hathe hoped w oul d be made: t hatL ee ha d par t icular r eas on t o pr ot ect hi m s el f aga i ns t gun vi ol ence by w ear i ng bodyar m orbeca us e he w as hi m s el f car r y i ng a gun. W hi l e pre j udi ci al t o L ee, i tw as not unfai r ly pr ej udi ci al t o s ugges tt hatbul l et

- pr oof ves t s and guns o f te n a c c o m p a n yo n e a n o th e r.
I n addi t i on, w hi l e w e do not t hi nk i t hel pful t o vi ew t he b u ll et-pro o f v est as 4 0 4 (b) e v id e n ce , an yco n ce rn th at t h e jury m i gh thav e m i si nterpret ed t he r el evan ce of t he v esti s l ai d to r est byt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ns t ruct i on t hati nfor m at i on r el at ed t o t he v est co u ld o n lyb e c o n side red fo r a li m it ed p u rpo se. T h e C o u rt 17C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( d i s c u s s i n g l i mi t i n g i n s t ru c t i o n s i n t h e c o n t ext of admi t t i ng a pi ece of evi dence underone of the exc ept i ons t o t he h e a rsa yru le) ; V

az quezv. W

i l s on , 5 5 0 F

. 3 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 9 (3d C ir

. 2008) ( di s cus s i ng t he us e of l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i ons i n t he cont ext of al l eged B r ut on v iolati o n s). 29 t old the j ury , t w i ce, t hat i tshou l d co nsi der t he b ull et -pr oo f vest onl y for “dec i di ng w het her t he defe ndant had t he s t at e of mi nd, k n o wl e d g e , mo t i v e o ri nt e nt n e c e s s a r yt o c o mmi tt h e c r i me char ged, ordi d notcomm i tt he ac t s forw hi ch he i s o n tr ial by ac cide n t o r m ist ak e.” (A p p . at 64 4 -45

. ) T h u s, the C o u rt ’s lim iti n g in stru c tio n e n c o u ra g e d th e ju ry to th in k o f th e v e st o n ly fo r w h at it m igh t im p ly ab o u t w h ethe r L ee p o sses sed a f ir ea rm wh e n Kr a u s c o n f

r o n t e d h i m. G i ven t he hi gh degr ee of defe r ence w e ow e w hen r evi ew i ng a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s R ul e 403 det er m i nat i on, combi ned w i t h t he l egi t i m ate pr obat i ve val ue of the evi dence and t he D i s t r i ctC ourt ’s l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on, w e ca nnots ayt hatt he deci s i on t o admi t t he bul l et

- pr oof vest evi dence w as arbi t r aryor ir ra tio n a l.
C

. Lee’s St at em ent

s R egar di ng His P r i orP os s es s i on o f F i r e a r ms L ee ne xtar gues t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our ter r ed i n admi t t i ng in to e v id e n c e th e s ta te m e n ts h e m a d e to K ra u s d u rin g th e ir i nt er vi e w. Spe ci fi cal l y , K r aus pr ovi ded the fol l ow i ng t es t i m ony att ri al regar ding t ho se st at em ents :
L ee insist ed h e d o es n o t typ ic a lly o w n o r ca rry g u n s. H o w e v e r, h e d id sta te th a t h e h a s a c c e ss to a l otof guns and w oul d us e t hem agai ns tany one w ho t hr eat ens hi m orhi s fami l y . H e st at ed thathe sh o t at a n in d iv id u a l n a m e d P ick les , w h o w a s w e ll30 kn ow n as E rnestH arr i s, on m ult i ple occasions. H e w e n t o n to sa yth a t I a rre ste d P ick les , w h ich is t rue, i n t he past, w i t h a fi r earm . A nd M r . L ee cl ai m ed t hat on t hat ni ght , t hat

. . . Pi ckl es w as a rre ste d , tha t P ick les w a s ac tu a lly o n h is w a yw ith t hatgun t o ki l l M r . L ee. H e ac know l edged that and sai d t hatt her e’ s a l ong t i m e, ongoi ng vi ol ent f e u d b etw ee n M r. L ee ’s fa m il y an d P ickles.

... L ee c ont i nu ed to i ns i s tt hathe di d nothave a ny w eapons i n t he ca rw hen I stop p ed hi m on J une 27t h, buthe di d compar e thatt o a t i m e w hen he sta ted th a t h e f

led f ro m m e b e f

o re in th e H ill D i s t r i ct

. . . . I d o r emem bert hi s . I tw oul d have b e e n p r o b a b l y b a c k i n 2 0 0 1 o r 2 0 0 2

. . . . He f u r th e r to ld m e th a t if I w o u ld h a v e c a u g h t h im th a t n ig h t, I w o u ld h a v e c a u g h t h im w ith g u n s in t he ca r , but , agai n, he cont i nued t o i ns i s tt hathe had no guns in the caron J une 27t h w hen I s t o p p e d h i m. (A p p . at 4 1 7 -1 8 .) In sh o rt, L e e a d m itt e d th a t h e h a d a c c e ss to guns , t hat h e w as w i l l i ng t o us e guns , t hathe had s hotat s om eone w i t h w hom he had a n ongoi ng feud, t hatt hatper s on had t r i ed t o ki l l hi m , and t hat he had pos s es s ed a g u n at an e a rl i er t i m e w hen K raus t ri ed t o s t op him

. L ee at t em pte d to e x c lu d e th o se sta tem e n ts a s im p e rm iss ib le e v id e n c e u n d e r R u le 404( b) , ar gui ng t hat t hey do not hi ng but s how a pr opens i t yfor unl aw ful gun pos s es s i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed thatm ot i on a n d h e ld th a t th e sta tem e n ts w e r e “ a d m iss ib le to p ro v e in ten t, know l edge a nd/ ort he abs ence of m i s t a k e. D efe ndanthas deni ed pos s es s i on of t he fi r earm s i n ques t i on her e. ” (Id

. at 5.)
O n a p p e a l, L e e a g a in a rg ues that hi s sta tem e n ts c o n stitu te i m per m i s s i bl e pr opens i t yevi dence under R ul e 404(b)

. “To t he ext entt hat our r evi ew of t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s R ul e 404( b) rul i ng re q u ire s u s to in ter p re t th e r u les o f e v id e n c e o u r re v iew is p l e n a r y , b u t , i f t h e e v i d e n c e c o u l d h a v e b e e n a d mi s s i b l e i n s o me c irc u m sta n c e s, w e w o u ld re v iew th e d istric t c o u rt’s d e c isio n to admi tevi dence

. . . foran abus e of di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D a ra io , 4 4 5 F .3 d 2 5 3 , 2 5 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ).A tl eas ti ti s undi s put ed i ns ofaras L ee’ s s t at ement s r efl ect ed 18 h is m o tiv e s . See inf

ra n .2 2 a n d a c c o m p a n y in g tex t.

31 T he Supr eme C o ur thas cr eat ed a f our - s t ep t es tfort he a d m iss ib ili tyo f

e v id e n c e c o v e re d b yR u le 4 0 4 (b ): (1) t he e vidence m usthav e a prop er purpose underR ul e 404( b) ; ( 2) i tm us tbe r el evantunder R ul e 402; ( 3) i t s pr obati v e val ue mustout w ei gh i t s pr ej udi ci al eff

ectunderR ul e 403; and ( 4) t he cour tm us tchar ge the j ur yt o consid er t he e v id e n c e o n ly f

o r th e lim ited p u rp o se f

o r w h ich it is a d m itte d

. U ni t ed S tate s v. Sam

ps on , 980 F. 2d 883, 886 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( ci t i ng H

uddl es t on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 485 U

. S. 681, 691- 92 ( 1988) )

. O nl yt he fi r s t , t hi r d, and fou rt h s t eps ar e cont es t ed h e re , a s it is un d isp u ted th a t, u n d e r step tw o , L e e ’ s sta tem e n ts a re re lev a n t. 18
i

. P roper P urpo se If th e pro ff

ere d “e v iden ce o n ly g o es t o sh o w c h a ra cter, o r t hat the d efen dan thad a prope nsi t yt o co m m i tt he cri m e, it m u st be e x c lu d e d

. W h e re , h o w e v e r, th e e v id e n c e a lso ten d s to pr ove s om e fa ctbes i des char act er , admi s s i bi l i t ydepends upon w het heri t s pr obat i ve val ue outw ei ghs i t s pr ej udi ci al eff ect

. ” I d. at887 ( ci t i ng G ov’tof V. I. v. H a rr is , 938 F. 2d 401, 419 ( 3d C i r . 1991) )

. I f t he gover nm ent offe r s evi dence of ot herw r ongful acts, “it m us tcl ear l yar t i cul at e how t hatevi dence fi t s i nt o a chai n of l ogi cal i nfer ence s , no l i nk of w h i ch ca n be t he in f e re n c e th a t b e c a u se th e d e f e n d a n t c o m m itt e d

.. . [s u c h a n a c t] b e f o re , h e th e re f

o re is m o re lik e ly to h a v e c o m m itte d th is o n e .” I d. N ever t hel es s , R ul e 404( b) “i s i ncl us i ve, notexcl us i ve, and emphasi zes admi s s i bi l i t y . ” Id

. at 88 6 (cit ati o n o m it ted).
T he gove rnm ent pr es ent s s ever al ar gum ent s as t o w hy L e e ’ s s t a t e m e n t s a r e a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e 4 0 4 ( b )

. F i r s t , i ts a ys t hatL ee’ s s t at ement s ar e “r el evant[t o] and admi s s i bl e r egar di ng32 th e k e yis s u e [ ] o f

k n o w le d g e .” (A p p e lle e ’s A n s . B r. a t 4 5 .) L ee’ s t r i al , how ever , w as notabout w het herhe knew t hathe had a r i fl e i n t he bac k s eatof hi s J eep. T her e w as no ques t i on of ac cide n t o r m ist ak e. R athe r, L ee ’s d ef en se w as sim p lythat there w as no r i fl e i n h is Je ep and t hatt he r i fl e r ecove r ed att he A par t m en ts w as not hi s . T hus , t he t r i al w as aboutw ei ghi ng K rau s’s cred ibil ity ag ains t L ee ’s, an d , as L ee ri g h tl yn o tes, “[ i] t is in c o n c e iv a b le th a t if th e ju ry b e liev e d [ K ra u s’s ] tes tim o n yit w oul d have f

ound t hatL ee a ct ed by m i s t ake. ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r. a t 4 7 .)
T he governm ent pr es s es t he poi nt , how ever , s ay i ng t hat know l edge i s ati s s ue because L ee di d notadmi tpos s es s i on of anyfi r earm . I tr el i es on ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. G i van , 320 F. 3d 452 (3d C ir

. 2003) , i n w hi ch the def endantw as c o n v icte d o f

c o n sp irin g to d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d is tr ib u te h e ro in

. Id

. at455. T her e, w e al l ow ed the governm ent t o i nt r oduce i nt o evi dence t he fact t hat t he defenda nt had a pr i or fe lon yd rug co n v ict ion

. W e a cc ep ted th e g o v ern m en t’ s a rg u m e n t th a t, b e c a u se it h a d to p ro v e th a t G iv a n k n e w , p rio r to i t s di s coverybyt he troo p ers, t hata quant i t yof her oi n w as hidd en in t he bac k s eatof t he r ent al carand t hati thad t o pr ove t hatG i van pos s es s ed t he he roin w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e i t , know l edge and i nt entw ere m at er i al and cont es t ed i s s ues at trial.
Id

. at 460- 61. U nl i ke i n G i van , how ever , w her e t he def endant d e n ied k n o w in g th a t th e r e w a s h e ro in in th e b a c k se a t o f h is r ent al carand t hathe inten d ed t o di s t r i but e i t , L ee ha s notput k n o w l edge a ti s s ue. L ee i s notar gui ng t hathe di d notknow t here w as a r i fl e i n h i s ba c k se a t. H i s ar gu m ent i s a s tr a ig h tf o rw a rd d e n ia l th a t a n yg u n w a s th e re . T he gover nm ental s o ar gues t hatL ee puthi s know l edge ati s s ue w hen hi s couns el t ol d t he j ur y , “Y es , t he pol i ce di d fi nd t he r i fl e i n t he w oods nearw her e M r . L ee a bandoned hi s J eep, butt he evi dence w i l l s how t hathe di d notputi t the re.” ( A pp.T he D i ssentqu est i on s w hetherm oti ve is “rel evan t i n a case 19 su ch as th is .

. . [b ec au se] w e are n o t fac ed w ith a situ ati o n w h ere ans w er i ng ‘ w hy ’ w oul d hel p s ol ve t he cr i m e . . . . ” ( D i s s entatp. 7 -8 .) M o ti v e is o n e o f

th e p e rm iss ib le p u rp o se s liste d in R u le 40 4(b) not becau se t he “w hy ” helps sol ve a cr i m e, bu tbecau se it i s h ig h ly re lev a n t to sh o w th a t a d e f e n d a n t h a d a m o tiv a tio n to comm i t t he cr i m e forw hi ch he i s bei ng char ged. I n a ca s e l i ke t hi s , w her e L ee is a s s er t i ng t hathe neve rhad a gun on the day i n q u esti on, i ti s i m por t antt o know t hathe had a per s onal m ot i vat i on t o pos s es s a gun. I ndeed, s om eone w ho i s i nvol ved i n an ongoi ng feud – a feud dur i ng w hi ch guns have be en us ed – i s farm or e l i kel yt o have a g u n in hi s pos s es s i on t han s o m e o n e w h o is n o t in v o lv e d in s u c h a f e u d

. See U

ni t ed Stat es v . C a ss e ll , 292 F. 3d 788, 793 ( D

. C

. C i r . 2002) ( “[I ] n cas es 33 at334. ) B utt he governm ent ’ s ar gum entfai l s agai n. T he quot ed comm entdoes notamount t o a st at ement t hatL ee di d notknow t he r i fl e w as in h is poss es s i on ornearhi s vi ci ni t y ; i tw as once m or e an out

- and- outdeni al t hathe had a ny t hi ng t o do w i t h t he gun.
T h e g o v ern m en t do es f ar b ett er w ith m o ti v e a s a th eo ry o f a d m iss ib ili ty . A c c o rd in g to th e g o v e rn m e n t, th e sta tem e n ts Le e ma d e t o Kr a u s r e v e a l Le e ’ s mo t i v e f o rp o s s e s s i n g f

i r e a r ms beca us e he a dm i t t ed t hathe has no qual m s aboutus i ng s uch w eapons agai ns tany one w ho t hr eat ens hi m or hi s fami l y , and he st at ed that he w as in a viol ent feu d w i t h E rnest “P i ckles ” H arr i s. See A p p . at 2 1 6 ( “ T h e d e f e n d a n t’s s tate m e n ts re g a rd in g h is m ot i ve for pos s es s i ng fi r earm s ( t o us e t hem agai ns tany one w ho w o u ld th re a ten M r. L e e o r h is f a m ily , s u c h a s .. . ‘P ick les ’, w ith w h o m h e a n d h is f

a m ilyh a v e h a d a lo n g sta n d in g f e u d ) is c e rta in lyre lev a n t to h is m o tiv e to p o ss e ss a f ir e a rm in th is m at t er . ”)

. W e agr ee w i t h t hat as s es s m ent of t he s t at ement s . N ot onl ydi d L ee c l ai m t hat , ats om e poi nti n t he pas t , H arris had pl anned t o s hoot hi m and he ha d s hotatH arr i s , he al s o admi t t ed t hatt he fe ud he and hi s fa m il y had w i t h H arr i s w as ongoi ng. M or eover , L ee c oncede d t hathe “ha s acc es s t o a l ot of guns and w o u ld u se th e m a g a in s t a n y o n e w h o th re a ten s h im o r h is fami l y . ” (I

d. at417. ) T ho se stat em ent s r evea l t hatL ee ha d r eas on t o pos s es s a w eapon on the dayi n ques t i on. 19w her e a de fendanti s char ged w i t h unl aw ful pos s es s i on of s om et hi ng, evi dence t hathe pos s es s ed t he s ame or s i m i l art hi ngs at ot her t i m es i s oft en qui t e r el evantt o hi s know l edge a nd i nt ent w i t h r egar d t o t h e cri m e cha r ged.

. . . [A ] j ur ycoul d i nfer pos s es s i on fr om m ot i ve, w hi ch coul d i n tur n be inf err ed fr om inten t. ”) (q u o tat ion s o m it ted).
T he D i s s ent al s o poi nt s out t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our tdi d not ci t e t o m ot i ve i n i t s i ni t i al rul i ng on t he ad m issi bi l i t yof t he stat em en ts. (D issen t atp p . 8 -9.) H o w ev er, th e D istri ct C o u rt di d i ns t ruct t he j ur y t hat i t coul d “cons i der t he evi dence

. . . for t he purpos e of deci di ng w het hert he def endanthad t he .

. . m ot i ve

. . . t o c o mmi t t h e c r i me c h a r g e d

. . . . ” ( App

. a t 5 96. ) T hat d e c i s i o n t o i n s t ru c t on mo t i v e i s n o twi t h o u tme a n i n g . By offe r i ng m ot i ve as a bas i s on w hi ch t he j ur y coul d cons i dert he evi dence , t he D i s t r i ct C our t nece s s ar i l y concl uded t hat m ot i ve w as a pr operbas i s foradmi s s i on of one or m or e of the st at em ents

. Fur t her , t he D i s s ent ’ s r el i ance on Sam ps on , i n wh i c h we h e ld th a t “ [ t]h e d istric t co u rt, i f it ad m its th e e v id e n c e , m u st in th e f irst in sta n c e , r a th e r th a n th e a p p e llate c o u rt in re tro sp e c t, ar t i cul at e t he re as ons w hy t he evi dence goes t o s how s om ethi ng ot hert han c h ar act er [, ] ” 980 F. 2d 888, does notacc ountfor l anguage t hatfol l ow s i m m edi at el yaft ert hat quot e. W e w enton to s a yth a t, “ U

nles s the reas o n is appa rentf rom the reco rd , a m e re lis t o f th e p u rp o s e s f o u n d in R u le 4 0 4 (b ) i s in s u f f ic ie n t.” I d. (em p h asis ad d ed ). M ot i ve, i n t hi s i ns t ance , i s appar entfr om t he r ecor d, and i s an ent i r el yl egi t i m at e b asis u pon w hi ch t he j ur ycoul d cons i der s t at ement s about L ee’ s r eas on forhavi ng a r i fl e, des pi t e hi s deni al s . L ee’ s s t at ement s t o K r aus r evea l t hat he w as afr ai d of bei ng at t acke d bya s peci fi c per s on – w ho had a ttem p ted to k ill h im in th e p a st – a n d th a t h e w o u ld a rm h im se lf f o r h is a n d h is f

a m ily’s p ro te c tio n . I n s um , L ee ha d a compel l i ng r eas on t o ar m hi m s el f, and th a t is d ire c tlyre lev a n t to th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r L e e h a d a rif le in h is car. 3435 W e not e t hat t he fi nal par t of L ee’ s s t at ement s t o K r aus – i n w hi ch Lee admi t t ed t hathe had pos s es s ed fi r earm s on a pr i orocca s i on i n 2000 or 2001 w hen K r aus s t opped hi m – does n o t, in isolati o n , sp ea k to m o ti v e in th e sa m e w a y as L ee ’s s t at ement s about pos s es s i ng guns t o pr ot ecthi s fami l yand about h i s o n g o i n g f

e u d wi t h Ha r r i s ’ s f

a mi l y . Ba s e d o n t h e r e c o r d , we cannott el l w het her , as a fa ctual m at t er , t he s ta t ement about 2 0 0 0 o r 2 0 0 1 w a s p a rt a n d p a rc e l o f L e e ’s f irst tw o sta tem e n ts abo utpr ot e c t i ng hi s fa mi l ya nd hi s vi ol e ntfe ud w i t h Har r i s. M o reo v er, i t i s n o t cl ea r t o u s w h ethe r, as a p ro ce d u ral m att er, defe ns e couns el , i n ar gum ent befor e t he D i s t r i ctC our t , t r eat ed L ee’s st at em ents as one si ng l e con versat i on , or w hetherdefe nse c o u n se l trea ted th e sta tem e n ts a s a n a lyt ic a llyd istin c t. W h ile defe ns e couns el di d par s e t he s t at ement s i n a mot i on i n l i m i ne s ubm i t t ed t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , i n the b r i efi ng befor e us , noT he D i s s ents l i ces t he s t at ement m or e fi nel yt han di d t he 20 defe ndant i n hi s m ot i on i n l i m i ne. O ur di s s ent i ng col l eague a n a ly z e s L e e ’s s tate m e n t to K ra u s b y d iv id in g it i n to six s epar at e s t at ement s ( D i s s ent at pp. 1- 4) , w hi l e Lee had di vi ded i ti nt o t hr ee, l eavi ng outcert ai n el ement s of t he s t at ement alt o g ethe r ( s ee A pp. at180)

. A s an i ni t i al m at t er , t he D i s s ent s epar at es t he s t at ement , “[Lee] s hotatan i ndi vidu al named Pi ckl es ” fr om “[Pi ckes] w as actual l yon hi s w ayw i t h t hatgun t o ki l l [Lee]

. . . [and] t her e’ s a lon g ti m e, ongoi ng vi ol entfeud bet w een M r . L ee’ s fami l yand Pi ckl es . ” (I d. ) T h e D iss e n t f

a u lts u s f o r n o t s e p a ra t i n g th o s e tw o s ta te m e n ts . ( See D is s e n t p . 4 n. 2. ) H ow ever , L ee never s epar at ed t hat des cr i pt i on of t he fe ud i nto t w o separat e st at em e n ts, and ri gh t l yso beca use t ho se s t at ement s , as K r au s recount ed t hem, can a ppr opr i at el ybe vi ew ed as a s i ngl e s t at ement about th e fe ud. T hatL ee s hotat Pi ckl es al s o s how s t he degr ee t o w hi ch t he feud betw een them w as re al an d v iolen t, an d n o t j u st a m att er o f h e ated w o rds. It t hus s how s t he hi gh degr ee of L ee’ s m ot i vat i on t o pos s es s a gun.
M o reo v er, attr ial , L ee arg u ed o n lythat th e en ti re i n t e r v i e w wi t h Kr a u s s h o u l d b e e x c l u d e d , n o t t h a t i t s h o ul d be p a r s e d i n t o s i x s e p a r a t e s t a t e m e n t s t o b e a n a l yz e d i n d i v i d u a l l y. T h e d e f e n se a rg u m e n t w a s s im p lyto k e e p it all o u t. W e sh o u ld be w ar yof hol di ng di s t r i ctcour t s t o an anal y t i cal cons t ructt hat w a s n o t f a irlyp re se n ted a t trial.

36 dis t i ncti on w a s d raw n b et w een the vari ou s adm i ssi on s. ( See 20 A p p . a t 1 8 0 .)
A ssu m ing that this l ast stat em en t can , as a fa ctua l m att er, be s epar at ed fr om L ee’ s fi r s tt w o s t atem en t s , and as s um i ng fur thert hatt hi s l as ts t at ement w as ar gued sep ar at el yt o t he D i s t r i ctC our tand s o can be anal y zed s epar at el y h ere , itw as er r ort o admi t t he t hi r d s t at ement r egar di ng L ee’ s 2000 or2001 gun pos s es s i on beca us e t hats t at ement i s notpr obat i ve of mot i ve ( oranyot herper m i s s i bl e gr oun d l i s t ed i n 404( b) )

. U nl i ke t he s t at ement s conce r ni ng t he ongoi ng feud a nd hi s d esire and c a p a b ili tyto p ro tec t h im se lf a n d h is f

a m ilyw ith g u n s, h is c o m m e n t th a t h e o n c e h a d a g u n y e a rs e a rlier d o e s n o t, on itsI n di s cus s i ng har m l ess e rror, ourdi s s ent i ng col l eague 21 s ugges t s t hatt he r es tof t he evi dence of Lee’ s gui l tw as not “overw hel m i ng, ” cit i ng t o, forexampl e, D i gger ’ s equi vocal act i ons near t he ri fl e and t he l ack of for ens i c evi dence

. ( D i s s ent atpp. 19- 20. ) H o w ever , t he D i s s enti s notr ecogni zi ng t hat1) L ee f l ed fr om t he ori gi nal s t op; 2) a coat m at chi ng w hatK r aus s ai d he s aw cover i ng a l ong obj ecti n t he bac ks eatof Lee’ s J eep w as found w i t h t he r i fl e n ear t he J eep; 3) L ee a dm i t t ed t hathe had aba ndoned t he J eep near w her e t he ri fl e w as found; and 4) L ee c ont i nued to be a fugi t i ve unt i l he w as found hi di ng i n a c o u c h . T h e se a re n o t m in o r f a c ts. T h e ya re , p a rticu lar lyin combi nat i on, pow er ful evi dence of gui l t , even w it h o utt he 4 0 4 (b ) s ta te m e n ts

. T h e go v ern m en t also co n tend s that L ee ’s stat e m e n ts a re 22 ad m issi b le ev iden ce o f his m o d u s o p era n d i. T h e p rose cu ti o n ’s t heor y i s as fol l ow s : L ee adm i t t ed t o fl eei ng fr om a t r aff i c s t op conduct ed byK r aus foury ear s ear l i er beca us e he had a w eapon in h is v e h icle . T h a t p rio r a c t sh o w s L e e ’s m e th o d o f f lig h t to avoi d convi ct i on forw ea pons pos s es s i on. W e have hel d t hat “[a ] j ur ycan r at i onal l yi nferfr om evi dence t hatt he def endant comm i t t ed a pr i orcr i m e i n an unus ual and di s t inctive m anner and evi dence t hat a sec ond s i m i l arcr i m e w as comm i t t ed i n t he 37 ow n, pr ove anyt hi ng abouta pr es en t m o ti ve t o be arm ed. H ow ever , anyerr o r in admi t t i ng t hatt hi r d s t at ement w as har m l es s i n t he cont extof t he over al l admi s s i ons , beca us e i tw as

“ h ig h lyp ro bab le” th a t th e a d m iss io n o f L e e ’s f in a l sta tem e n t d id notcont r i but e t o t he convi ct i on, es peci al l y cons i der i ng t he fa ct t hatt he j ur yhad j us thear d t he pr evi ous t w o s t at ement s t hat s poke s o di r ect l yt o L ee’ s m o t i ve. S e e U n itedS ta tes v . A li , 21 493 F. 3d 387, 392 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “[T] he t es t for har m l es s er r or i s w het heri ti s hi ghl ypr obab le thatevi dent i aryerr ordi d not cont r i but e t o convi ct i on. ” ( ci t i ng G o v ’t o f V .I. v. T o to , 529 F. 2d 278, 283- 84 ( 3d C i r . 1976) ) ) ; 2A F E D E RA L P ROCEDURE , L AW YER ' S E DI TI ON § 3 :8 4 4 4 (1 9 8 1 ) (“ [ F ]e d e ra l a p p e llate c o u rts are m o re w il li n g to f

ind h arm less erro r in the are a o f e v iden ti ary rul i ngs t han t heyar e i n other ar eas of pr ocedur e. ” ( ci t i ng Ju lande rv. For d Mot orC o. , 488 F. 2d 839, 843 ( 10t h C i r. 1 9 7 3 )))

. 22s ame u n u s u a l a n d d i s t i n c t i v e ma n n e rt h a tt h e d e f e n d a nt comm i t t ed t he s econd c r i m e. ” G i van , 320 F. 3d at 467- 68. B ut t her e w as not hi ng unus ual ordi s t i nct i ve aboutL ee dr i vi ng aw ay fr om t he pol i ce back i n 2000 or 2001. A s L ee not es , “[t ] he ac t o f f lee in g f ro m a tr a f

f ic s to p to a v o id b e in g f o u n d w ith cont r aband i s har dl y s o uni que as t o cr eat e an i nfer ence t hatL ee h a d a r if le in h is J e e p h e re b e c a u se h e h a d a g u n in h is v e h icle [ b e f o re ] ... .” (A p p e lla n t’ s O p . B r. a t 5 1 .) See sup ra n . 1 8 a n d a c c o m p a n y in g tex t. 23 38 I n concl us i on, the governm entpr es ent ed a “ chai n of l ogi cal i nfer ence s ” betw een Lee’ s pr i orw eapons p o s s es s i on and th e rif le c h a rg e th a t d o e s n o t su g g e s t a m e re p ro p e n sityto e n g a g e in w e a p o n s o f

f e n s e s . Sam

ps on , 9 8 0 F

. 2 d at 8 8 7

. L ee ’s s t at ement s about pos s es s i ng guns t o pr ot ecthi s fami l yand about h is o n g o in g a n d v io len t f e u d w ith H a rris’ s f

a m ilya re re lev a n t to s how h is m o t i ve forpos s es s i ng a r i fl e on t he dayi n ques t i on. T h u s, th e e v id e n c e w a s o f f e re d f o r a p ro p e r p u rp o se u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b).
ii. P r obat i ve Val ue vs
. P r ej udi ci alE f f ect G i ven t he r el evanc e of Lee’ s s t at ement s , w e next 23 d eterm ine u n d er H

uddl es t on w het her , pur s uantt o R ul e 403, t he dangerof unfa i rpr ej udi ce s ubs t ant i al l y out w ei ghs t he pr obat i ve val ue of t he st at ement s . 485 U

. S. at691. G i ven the s ubs t ant i al defe r ence ow ed t o di s t r i ctcour t s i n w ei ghi ng evi dence under R ul e 403, combi ned w i t h t he hi gh ly p robat i ve val ue of the e v id e n c e – p a rticu lar lyL e e ’s s tate m e n ts a b o u t h is f e u d w ith H ar r i s and w hatt hatr evea l ed about L ee’ s m ot i ve – t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on t o admi tt hos e s t at ement s w as not“arbi t r aryor i r rati o n al

. ” See U

niv. R eha b. Servs. , 205 F. 3d at669 ( “[W e] c a n n o t re v e rse a D istric t C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le 4 0 3 u n less su ch a c o n clus ion is .

. . ‘arb itraryo r i rrati o n a l.’” ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) )

. I ndeed, t he s t at ement s r evea l L ee’ s m ot i ve to p ossess w eapo ns on t he d ayi n q uest i on , w hich i s hi gh lyO urdi s s ent i ng col l eague as s er t s t hat w e “neveraddr es s [] t he 24 i s s ue of pr ej udi ce” ( D i s sen t at p. 15) , butw e have endea vor ed to d o so h e re . T o re itera te, it w a s n o t an a b u se o f d isc re tio n to co n clud e tha t th e d an g er o f u n fa ir p rejud ice

– i. e., that the ju ry w oul d w r ongl yus e Lee’ s admi s s i on of pr i orgun pos s es s i on and us e t o concl ude t hathe musthav e bee n gui l t yof t he cr i m es char ged her e – di d nots ubs t ant i al l yout w ei gh the rel evanc e of the s tat em en ts L ee m ad e to K rau s. A p p li ca ti o n o f th e stan d ard di ct at ed byR ul e 403 i s , by defi ni t i on, a j udgm ent cal l

. T hatt he D istric t C o u rt c o u ld u se f u llyh a v e m a d e th a t ju d g m e n t ca ll w ith a m or e expl i ci t des cr i pt i on of i t s “pr obat i ve val ue vs . pr ej udi ci al eff ect ” w ei ghi ng of t he evi dence does not l ead us to co n clude t hat t he exper i ence d t r i al j udge fai l ed t o appr ehend the natur e of t he pr ej udi ce a nd t he pr obat i ve val ues ats t ake. 39 pr obat i ve i n a ca s e l i ke thi s , i n w hi ch t he defenda nt has deni ed p o sses sion all tog ethe r. 24

iii

. Li m i t i ng I

ns t r uct i ons L a s tly, H uddl es t on r equi r es us t o ens ur e t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our tchar ged t he j ur yt o cons ider the evi dence onl yfort he l i m i t ed purpos e forw hi ch i tw as admi t t ed. 485 U

. S. at691- 92. T he D i st ri ctC ou rtgav e a l i m i t i ng i nst ruct i on as fol l ow s: N ow , y ou have he ar d evi dence t hatt he def endant

. . . m ade cer t ai n s t at ement s t o L i eut enan t K r aus a b o ut hi s p a s tp o s s e s s i o n a n d u s e o f f i r e a r ms w h e n h e w a s ar re ste d o n Ju ly 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 . T h is e v i d e n c e w a s a d m i t t e d f o ra l i m i t e d p u rp o s e o n l y. Y ou m aycons i dert hi s evi dence onl yfort he purpos e of de ci di ng w h ethert he def endanthad t he s t at e of m i nd, know l edge, m ot i ve ori nt ent nece s s ar yt o comm i tt he cr i m e cha r ged i n t he i ndi ct m ent , ordi d notcomm it t he ac t s forw hi ch he i s on t r i al byacc i dent o r m i s t ake. D o not cons i dert he evi dence foranyot herpurpos e.40 O f cour s e, i t i s for y ou t o det er m i ne w het hery ou bel i eve t hi s evi dence , and i f y ou do bel i eve i t , w h ethe ry ou acc epti tfort he purpos e off er ed. Y ou m aygi ve i tas m uch w ei ght as y ou fee l i t des er ved, but on lyfo r t he lim ite d p u rp o s e th a t I d e s c ri b e d to y o u . T he d efen dan ti s not on t ri al for com m i t t i ng t hese ot heract s . Y ou m ay notcons i dert he evi dence of t hes e ot heract s as a s ubs t i tut e forpr oof t hatt he d ef en dantcomm i t t ed the cr i m e cha r ged. Y ou m aynotcons i dert hi s evi den ce as proof t hatt he d e f e n d a n t h a s a b a d c h a ra c ter o r a n yp ro p e n sityto c o m m it c rim e s. S p e c if

ica lly , y o u m a yn o t u se th is evi dence t o co n clude thatbeca us e t he def endant m ayhav e com m i t t ed t he other act s, he m ustal so h a v e c o m m itt e d th e a c t c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t.
R emem ber , t he def

endanti s on t r i al her e onl yfor pos s e s s i n g a f

i r e a r m on t h e d a t e i n q u e s t i o n , n ot fort hes e ot heract s . D o notr etur n a gui l t yver di ct unl es s t he governm entpr o v es t he cr i m e cha r ged in th e in d ictm e n t b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. (A pp. at595- 97 ( quot i ng T HI R D C I R C UI T M O D E L J URY I NSTRUCTI ONS - C R I MINA L § 4. 29 ( 2009)

. ) A tt he conc l us i on of t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’s in s t ruct i ons t o t he j ur y , defe ns e couns el as ked t he C our t t o r epea t t he l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on, w hi ch i tdi d.
N ow , fort he fi r s tt i m e, L ee c hal l enges t h e adequacyof t hati ns t ruct i on. B eca use he di d notobj ectatt r i al , anyr evi ew o f th e in s tr u c tio n m u s t b e f o r p l a in e rr o r. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 4 -3 6 (1 9 9 3 ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. P e lu llo , 3 9 9 F .3 d 1 9 7 , 2 2 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ A p a rtyg e n e ra lly m aynotas s i gn er r ort o a j ur yi ns t ruct i on i f he fa il s to obj ect befor e t he j ur y r et i r es or t o ‘ s t at [e] di s t i nct l yt he mat t ert o w hi ch t hatpar t yobj ect s an d the gr ounds of t he obj ect i on. ’ ” ( quot i ng Jones v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 7 U

. S

. 3 7 3 , 3 8 7 (19 9 9 )))

. L ee has n ot s ho w n an yerr or i n thi s re g a rd , m uch l ess p l ai n er r or . T hough L ee a r gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t’ sT h e i m p li ca ti o n fro m the D issen t i s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s 25 l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on – w hi ch fol l ow ed nea r l yw or d- for

- w or d our C i r cui t ’ s m odel 404( b) i ns t ruct i on – i s i nher ent l yi nadequat e. ( See D i s s entatp. 13- 14. ) W e d is agr ee. T he l i s tof pr oper evi dent i ar ypurpos es s etfor th i n 404( b ) a n d r epea t ed i n t he m odel i ns t ruct i on, w hi ch i s t he l i s tt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tus ed her e, i s notm ade i m pr oper s ol el y beca us e t he C our tw as notas cl ear as i tcou l d h ave b een in art i culat i ng w hym oti ve w as a pr operpurpos e t hatt he j ur ycoul d r el yon w hen cons i der i ng L e e ’s s tate m e n ts to K ra u s. W e ta k e th is o p p o rtu n ityto encour age di s t r i ct cour tj udges t o del i neat e t he s peci fi c gr ounds forad m is s i bi l i t yof 404( b) evi dence , even i f t he ent i r e 404( b) lit a n yh a s a lre a d yb e e n re c o u n ted

. O u r d iss e n tin g c o llea g u e is qui t e r i ght t o not e t hatcomm ent s t o t he model j uryi ns t ruct i ons encour age thatpr act i ce. ( D i s s entatp. 13- 14 n. 8. ) H ow ever , t he gover nm entar gued mot i ve; m ot i ve i s appar enton t he re cor d; an d the D istri c t C o u rt i n stru cted o n m o ti v e. G iven the v ery defe r ent i al s t andar d w e ar e under , t he i ns t ruct i on w as adequa t e. T o hol d ot her w i s e w oul d be contr aryt o one of the over ar chi ng pr i nci pl es w e r efe r r ed t o i n Sa mps on , n a m e lyth a t “[ R u le 404( b) ] i s i n c l u s i v e , n o te x c l u s i v e , a n d e mphas i zes admi s s i bi l i t y . ” 980 F. 2d at886. 41 i ns t ruct i on pr ovi ded no gui dance beca us e i t s i m pl yr epea t ed the lit a n yo f p e rm iss ib le th e o rie s u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ) , th e C o u rt in fac tdi d m or e tha n si m pl yl i s tt he 404( b) gr ounds

. T he i ns t ruct i on pr oper l yi nfor m ed the j ur yof t he l i m i t ed purpos e for cons i der i ng L ee’s admi s s i ons aboutgun pos s es s i on. T o t he 25 ext ent thatL ee i s now ar gui ng t hatt he j ur ycoul d nothave under s t ood t he i ns t ruct i on, w e have re j ect ed such s w eepi ng and n o n -s p e c if

ic a s s e rt io n s b e f

o re . See G i van , 3 2 0 F

. 3 d at 46 2 (“[ I]t i s a bas i c t enet

. . . t hata j ur yi s pr es um ed t o have f ol l ow ed t he i ns t ruct i ons t he cour tgave i t

. . . [and i ] f w e pr ecl ude t he us e of ev iden ce ad m issi b le u n d er R u le 4 0 4 (b) be ca u se of a c o n c e rn t hatj ur or s w i l l notbe abl e t o fol low t he court ’ s i ns t ruct i ons r egar di ng i t s us e w e w i l l i nevi t abl ys ever el yli m it the s cope of e v id e n c e p e rm itte d b yth a t im p o rt a n t r u le .” ). L e e ’ s s t at ement s aboutpos s es s i ng guns t o pr ot ecthi s fami l yand about hi s feud w i t h H ar r i s t her efor e meett he gui del i nes forT h e D i ssentsugg est s that Lee ’s st at em ents are al so 26 pr obl emat i c bec aus e t hey w er e r ecount ed by K r aus , r at hert han b yL e e h im s e lf. ( See D iss e n t p p . 1 4

- 1 5 n . 2 0 .) B u t v irtu a lly everyconfe s s i on ent er ed i nt o evi dence at a cr i m i nal t r i al i s m ade to so m eo n e e lse an d n o t o n the st an d b y the de fe n d an t, an d v ery oft en t he conf

es s i on s are m ad e t o pol i ce of fi cer s . W e do not pr es um e a r el i abi l i t y pr obl em i n al l s uch cas es . H ere , L ee f ra n k lyc o n f

e ss e d to K ra u s h is m o tiv e f o r a n d w ill in g n e ss to carr ya fi r earm . Fur t her , t he def ens e t heor y of t he cas e has not been thatL ee ne ver s ai d t o K r aus w hat K r aus cl ai m s L ee s ai d. T he di s put e i ns t ead ha s cons i s t en tl y been a boutw het hert he s t at ement s s houl d be al l ow ed i nt o evi dence , not w het hert hey w er e made. 42 admi s s i bi l i t yar t i cul at ed i n H uddl es t on . T h e yw e re a d m iss ib le fo r a p rop er p u rpo se u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b) a s ev iden ce o f L ee ’s m ot i ve forpos s es s i ng a w eapon; t hey ar e undi s put edl yr el evant underR ul e 402; t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng underR ul e 403 that th e d a n g e r o f

u n f a ir p re ju d icia l ef

f e c t d id n o t su b sta n tially o u tw eigh the p rob ati v e v alue o f th e statem en ts w as n o t arbit rary a n d irra tio n a l; an d th e D istric t C o u rt tw ice c h a r g e d th e ju ryto c o n sid e r th e e v id e n c e o n ly f o r th e lim ited p u rp o se f o r w h ich it i s admi t t ed. See H

uddl es t on , 485 U

. S. at691- 92. 26

D

. The P r os ecut or ’s St at em ent s R egar di ng D igger L ee next ar gues t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al bas ed on t w o i ns t ance s of pr os ecut or i al m isco nduct

. Fi r s t , he cont ends th a t, du rin g th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c lo sin g , the p ro secut or i m pro p e rly r efe r r ed t o evi dence r egar di ng t he bl oodhound, D i gger , t hathad been excl uded byt he D i s t r i ctC our t

. Second, he as s er t s t hatt he p ro se c u to r v o u c h e d f

o r th e c re d ib ili tyo f

D ig g e r b a se d o n h is o w n p e rso n a l e x p e rie n c e w ith h u n tin g d o g s. T h a t m isc o n d u c t, s a y s L e e , d e p ri v e d h im o f d u e p ro c e s s a n d a f

a ir tr ia l.
i

. B ackgr ound
I n a pr e- t r i al m ot i on, L ee s ought t o excl ude the evi dence o f D ig g e r’s b e h a v io r as irre lev a n t, o r, if re lev a n t, i n a d m iss ib leT he C ou rt ’s m eaning w as pl ai nlyt hat the ri sk of u n f a ir 27 pr ej udi ce w as r educe d. 43 underR ul e 403. S p ec if i cal l y , L ee a r gued t hatt he evi dence w oul d m ake the j ur ybel i eve that D i gger “ac tual l y i dent i fi ed the g u n a n d th e ja c k e t w h e n , in f a c t, th a t’ s n o t w h a t h a p p e n e d .” ( A pp. at 2 26. ) L ee a l s o at t acke d t he pr obat i ve val ue of the evi dence , ar gui ng t hatt he off i cer s sea r chi ng t he ar ea ha d cont ami nat ed t he J eep a nd t he s cene s o that th e dog coul d not h a v e re lia b ly tra c k e d a s c e n t.
T he C our theld t hatt he evi dence of D i gger ’ s t r acki ng w as admi s s i bl e, “as i tt ends t o prove t hat[Lee] , w ho had occupi ed t he fr ont s eat of t he J eep, had t r avel ed al ong t he pat hw ayw her e t he coa t and ri fl e w er e found and t hen on t o t he apar t m entcompl ex. T hi s i s ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat[Lee] pos s es s ed and r emoved t he coa tand r i fl e fr om t he J eep. ” (Id

. at 2. ) T he C our t added, how ever , t hat“the G over nm enthas agr eed t o el i m i nat e anyr efe r ence i n t he t es t i m o n y that D i ggerpaus ed at t he coat and r i fl e, t hus , fur t her r educi ng anyunfai rpr ej udi ce to [ L e e ].” (I

d. ) 27

I n l i ghtof t he C our t ’ s pr e- t r i al rul i ng, pol i ce of fi cer H ar ki ns , t he dog handl er , di d not m ent i on i n hi s t es t i m onyt hat D i gger“paus ed” a tt he coa tand the r i fl e. R at h er, he s ai d t hat D i ggerw entfr om t he Jee p , “d o w n a fl i ghtof s t eps , t hr ough a ver yover gr ow n w eede d as phal tpar ki ng l ot

. . . s l i ght l yt o t he l eft an g le o f t he fe nce. ” (Id

. a t4 5 8

. ) He a d d e d t h a tDi g g e r“ went dow n t he fenc e l i ne appr oxi m at el y20, 25 fee t ” ( i d. ) , and t hathe c a m e w ith in “ 1 0 to 1 5 in c h e s ” o f th e ri f le a n d th e c o a t. (I

d. at 4 6 0 .)
L ee a r gues t hat , unl i ke H ar ki ns , t he pr os ecut or di s r egar ded t he C our t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons and ar gued exa ct l y w hatt he C our t had excl uded, namel y , t hat D i gger paus ed at t he coa tand r i fl e. T he pr os ecut ors ai d t he fol l ow i ng: [W ] hatD i gger t ol d us fr om C hi ef H ar ki ns on t he s t and i s t hatt he per s on w ho w as t he dr i verof t hat44 car w ent s t rai gh tdo w n the st eps, st rai gh tacro ss t he parki ng l ot , depos i t ed a gun, w entt hr ough t he fenc e . . . and t hen ul t i m at el yes cape d.

. . . W h a th a p p e n e d wi t h Di g ge r i s t h a tDi g g e rc a me fro m t he ca r , w entdow n t he s t eps , acr os s t he p a rk in g lo t a n d to th e g u n . D ig g e r d id n o t g o to the righ t w h ere the firstp erso n to f ind this fir ea rm w ent or i gi nal l y , D i gger w ent i n t hat exac tp ath. D o e s th is s u p p o rt L ieu ten a n t K ra u s o r d o e s it c o n t r a d i c th i m? (Id

. a t 6 1 7 ; 6 1 9 .) L ee d id no t o b ject w h en tho se statem en ts w ere m ade, butar gues on appea l t hati n m aki ng t hos e s t at ement s , t he pr os ecut or w as s ugges t i ng t hat D i gger paus ed at t he ri fl e, w hi ch w as forbi dden byt he C our t ’ s ear l i errul i ng. L ee c ont ends t hat

“ it i s [ ] im p ro p e r f

o r a p ro se c u to r, d u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts, to br i ng t o t he at t ent i on t o t he j ur y any purpor t ed fa ct s t hatar e not i n evi d en ce and ar e pr ej udi ci al

. ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at59 (c ita tio n o m itte d ).)
T he second i ns t ance of al l eged mi s conducti s w hatL ee cal l s t he pr os ecut or ’ s i m per m i s s i bl e vouchi ng for D igg er , by “as s ur i ng t he j ur y of D i gger ’ s cr edi bi l i t y bas ed on [t he pr os ecut or ’ s ]

. . . ow n per s onal exper i ence hunt i ng and t r acki ng us i ng dogs

. ” (I

d. ) T he s peci fi c s t at ement s L ee poi nt s t o ar e as foll ow s: I am a hu nter

. S om e of y ou m aybe as w el l

. A s a h u n ter , I’v e h a d e x p e rie n c e w ith d o g s in th e p a st. I’v e h u n ted w ith b ir d d o g s a n d I’v e h u n ted w ith be a g l e s f

o rt h e ma

j o r i t yo f myl i f e . I tn e v er ceased to am aze m e w hen w e w ere out w i t h those do gs, t heirabil i t i es. W h e n I r a b b i th u n twi t h myb r o t h e r s a n d my f a t h e r , we wo u l d s o me t i me s s e e a r a b b i t , we w oul d j um p a r abbi t and i t w oul d be runni ng out fr ont

. O urdog, bei ng m uch s m al l ert han us , he45 coul dn’ tnece s s ar i l ys ee the r abbi t , s o w e had a s i gnal t hatw e w oul d t el l t he do g w h er e w e s aw and w hatw e s aw . W e w o u ld say , her e’ s t he b u n n y . T h a t m e a n t to th e d o g , w e sa w th e ra b b it, h e re ’s w h e re w e th in k it w a s. A n d th e d o g w o u ld come t her e and s t ar tt o ci r cl e and fr om j us tgoi ng t o t hatl ocat i on, s m el l i ng i n one di r ect i on and t hen s m el l i ng i n t he ot her , t hat dog coul d t el l w hi ch one of t hos e t w o t r acks w as fr es herand go i n t he d ir ec ti o n that the rab b it w en t t o rathe r t h an w h ere t he r abbi tcame fr om . T hat never cea s ed t o amaze m e. O r, w h en y o u h u n ted w ith b ir d d o g s, that that b ir d d o g w o u ld sto p a f

o o t an d a h a lf

f ro m th is p a rticu lar b ird , a p h e a sa n t— (A p p . at 61 5 -16

. ) A tt hatpoi nt , L ee’ s couns el obj ect ed, not i ng t he “pe r so n al natur e of the t es t i m onyw hi ch does n’ thave anyt hing to do w i t h t he evi dence

. ” (I d. ) T h e D istri ct C o u rt s u sta in e d d e f

e n se c o u n se l’s o b

jec tio n , sta tin g th a t “w e sh o u ld m ove fr om t hat

. ” (I

d. ) T he pr osec u torcompl i ed and di d not r etur n t o hi s r emi ni s ci ng.

ii. S t a n d a r d o

f Re v i e w: Pr o s e c ut or i al Mis conduct
W e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng o n a c o n te m p o ra n e o u s o b je c tio n . U

ni t ed St at es v. B r ennan , 326 F. 3d 176, 182 ( 3d C i r . 2003)

. H ow ever , any n o n -co n tem p o ran eo u s o b jecti o n s are rev iew ed f o r p lai n erro r. I d. W h il e L ee o bjected to o n e p o rt ion o f th e p rose cu tor’s cl os i ng ar gum ent– t he por t i on t hatL ee now cl ai m s w as vouchi ng – he di d not obj ect t o t he par tof t he cl os i ng i nvol vi ng D i gger ’ s behavi orneart he r i fl e. I t i s onl y her e on appea l t hathe as s er t s t hat t he pr os ecut orcomm i t t ed mi s conductbys ugges t i ngL e e tries to a rg u e th a t h e p re se rv e d th e iss u e b yo b jec tin g to 28 t he pr os ec u tor ’ s pr opos ed us e of thi s evi dence dur i ng a s uppr es s i on hear i ng, r emi ndi ng t he C our t of i t s rul i ng excl udi ng t he evi dence , and not i ng i n hi s o w n cl os i ng ar gum entt hatt he pr os ec u tor ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of t he bl oodhound evi dence w as in c o rre c t. H o w e v e r, th o se a re n o t o b jec tio n s ra isin g th e sp e c if ic cont ent i on t hatt he pr os ecut orhad al l uded t o excl uded evi dence

. I n fac t , t her e w as no obj ect i on t o t he s peci fi c s t at ement s w hi ch L ee now ar gues cont ai ned exc l uded evi dence

. 46 t hatD i ggerpaus ed att he coa tand r i fl e. T hus , w e r evi ew t he 28
r u l i n g o n a l l e g e d v o u c h i n g f o ra b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n , a n d we r evi ew t he pr os ecut or ’ s d escr i pt i on of D i gger ’ s behavi ornear th e ri f le f o r p la in e rr o r. A p ro s e c u to r’s c o m m e n ts c a n c re a te r e v e rsib le e rro r if t hey “s o i nfec t ed t he t r i al w i t h unfai r nes s as t o m ake the r es ul t i ng convi ct i on a denial of due pr oces s . ” D onnel l y v. D e Chr is t of

or o , 416 U

. S. 637, 643 ( 1974)

. “[A ] cr i m i nal convi ct i on i s nott o be l i ght l yover tur ned on t he bas i s of a pr os e c u t o r ’ s c o mme n t s s t a n d i n g a l o n e , f o r t h e s t a t e me n t s or conductm us tbe view ed i n cont ext ; onl ybys o doi ng can i tbe det er m i ned w het hert he p rosecut or ’ s conductaff ect ed t he fai rnes s of t he t r i al

. ” Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Y oung , 470 U

. S. 1, 11 ( 1985)

. M or eover , w e “mustexami ne th e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s offe ns i ve act i o n s i n c o n t e x t a n d i n l i g h t o f t h e e n t i r e t r i a l , a s s e s s i ng t he severi t y of t he cond uct, t he effect of t he curat i ve in stru ct i on s, a n d th e q u a n tu m o f

e v id e n c e a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n t.” Moor e v. Mor t on , 2 5 5 F

. 3 d 9 5 , 1 0 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). “A fi ndi ng of p rosecut ori al m i scond uct requi res rever sal un l ess t he er ro r is har m l es s. ” B r ennan , 3 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 8 2

. “ If th e e rro r is consti tuti onal , w e w i l l aff i r m [onl y ] i f w e det er m i ne t hatt he er r or i s har m l es s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt

. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Hel bl i ng , 209 F. 3d 226, 241 ( 3d C i r . 2000)

. “I f t he err ori s noncons t i tut i onal , w e w i l l aff i r m w hen i ti s hi ghl ypr obabl e t hatt he errordi d notcont r i but e t o t he j udgm ent

. ” I d. ( q u o t a t i on o m itte d ).47 iii

. The P r os ecut or ’s A l l eged Rel i ance on E xcl uded Evi dence
T hough s i l ent on t he i s s ue bef or e, L ee now cont ends t hat t h e p r o s e c u t o rc o mmi t t e d mi s c o n d u c tb ya l l u d i n g t o e x c l uded evi denc e in sugge s t i ng t hatD i gger“paus ed” a tt he coa tand r i fl e. ( A pp. at2. ) L ee’s pr evi ous s i l ence i s under s t andabl e, s i nce the r ecor d does not actual l y s uppor thi s ar gum ent

. A tno t i m e di d t he pr os ecut ors t at e t hatD i gger paus ed orhes i t at ed at t he coat and t he r i fl e. W hi l e t he pr os ecut or di d s t at e that “D i g g e r c a me f

r o m th e c a r , wen t d o wn t h e s t a i r s , a c r o s s t he par ki ng l ot and t o t he gun” (Id

. at 619) , and w hi l e t hatcomm ent ar guabl ycomes c los e t o w hatw as pr ohi bi t ed byt he D i s t r i ct C our t , t her e w as no as s er t i on t hatt he d o g paus ed oral er t ed at the g u n . Instea d , a f air i n terpret a tio n o f th e p rose cu tor’s a r g u me n ti s t h a tDi g g e rl e d t h e p o l i c e a wa yf r o m th e c a r , d o wn a path, and t o t he ar ea w her e t he coa tand r ifl e w er e l ocat ed, befor e h e a d i n g t o t h e Apa r t me n t s . Gi v e n Har k i n s ’ s t e s t i mony t hatD iggert r ace d a path fr om L ee’ s cart o w i t hi n i nches of w her e t he pol i ce d isco ver ed t he coa tand r i fl e, t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s a ll o w ing the p rose cu tor’s a rgu m en t w as n o t plain erro r. W e h a v e re p e a ted lyh e ld th a t a “ p r o s e c u to r is e n tit led to cons i der abl e l at i tude i n s um m at i on t o ar gue t he evi dence and anyr eas onabl e i nfer ence s t hatcan be dr aw n fr om t hat e v id e n c e .” Un i t e d

S t a t e s v
. We r me , 9 3 9 F

. 2 d 1 0 8 , 1 1 7 (3d C ir

. 1991) (cit at i on om i t t ed)

. T hatl at i tude enc om pas s es t he ar gum entt h at t he path t hatD i ggert r acke d w as evi dence t hat L e e h a d d ro p p e d th e c o a t a n d ri f le b yth e f

e n c e . i v. The “V

ouchi ng” A r

gum ent
A pr osecut orm aynotvouch fort he cr edi bi l i t yof a w i t nes s base d on t he pr os ecut or ’ s per s onal know l edge, e x p e ri e n c e , o r o p in io n s . See Young , 470 U

. S. at18- 19. V ouchi ng occur s w hen t w o cr i t er i a ar e m et : “( 1) t he pr os ecut or m u st a ss u re th e ju ryth a t tes tim o n yo f a G o v e rn m e n t w itn e ss is cr edi bl e; and ( 2) t his as s ur ance i s bas ed on ei t hert he pr os ecut or ’ s per s onal know ledge, orot heri nfor m at i on not cont ai ned i n t he r ecor d. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W

alker , 155 F. 3d 180, 187 ( 3d C i r . 1998)

. W hi l e L ee sa y s t hatt he pr os ecut orvouchedT h e g o v e rn m e n t a rg u e s th a t it “ is u n c lea r w h e th e r o r n o t a 29 pr os ecut orcoul d be gui l t yforvouchi ng fora pol i ce dog, w ho w as no t ac tually a w itn ess i n the m att er.” (A p p ell ee ’s A n s. B r. at64. ) T o t he ext ent t hat L ee i s compl ai ni ng notj us taboutt he pr os ecut or ’ s vouchi ng forK r aus ’ s and H ar ki ns ’ s t es t i m ony about D i gger but i s al s o s ay i ng t hatt he pr os ecut orw as vouchi ng di r ect l y for D i gger , an i nt er es t i ng ques t i on i s r ai s ed. A s s um i ng t h e l a t t e r p r o b l e m we r e t h e o n l y o n e a t i s s u e a n d we wer e not pr es ent ed w i t h a cl as s i c ca s e of vouc hi ng fo r th e cr edi bi l i t yof a tes tify in g w itn e s s , it w o u ld still b e a c lo se c o u sin o f c las sic vouchi ng. I f t he pr os ecut orw as vouchi ng fort he r el i abi l i t yof D i ggeras an exper t on t r acki ng s cent , us i ng per s onal anec dot es to v o u c h f

o r D ig g e r’s e x p e rtise , tha t w o u ld b e im p e rm iss ib le becau se “[i ]t i s w el l set t l ed thata prosecutori n a cri m i nal cas e has a sp e ci al ob l i gati on t o av oid i m proper sugg est i on s, insinuat i ons , and es peci al l yas s ert i ons of per so n al kn o w ledg e[ , ]” U ni t ed Stat es v. E dw ar ds , 154 F.3d 915, 921 ( 9t h C i r . 1998) ( i nt er nal quot ati o ns om i t t ed) , w hi ch the I

- know

- dogs c o m m e n ta ry w a s h e re . 48 fo r t h e b loo d h o u n d ev iden ce , the g o v ern m en t argu es t h at t h ere w as no vouchi ng beca us e t he pr os ec u tor “mer el yt ol d an a n e c d o te a b o u t h is o w n e x p e ri e n c e w ith B e a g le s a n d b ir d d o g s .” (A p p e llee ’s A n s. B r. a t 6 4 .) T h e g o v e rn m e n t th e n a rg u e s th a t it i s “comm on know l edge t hat dogs have a n abi l i t ym uch gr eat er t han humans t o det ects cent

. ” (I d. a t 6 5 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ).)
W het her s om et hi ng i s “comm on know l edge” t o a gr oup of peopl e l ar gel y depends , of cour s e, on t he com pos i t i on of t he gr oup. T he amazi ng abi l i t i es of hunti n g d o g s ar e nott he comm on ken of a l l hum ani t y . Per haps t he hei ght ened a bi l i t yof dogs t o det ects centi s w el l- k n ow n, butt he pr os ecut ordi d not confi ne hi m s el f t o t hat

. R at her , he s poke fr om hi s ow n per s onal e x p e r i e n c e wi t h d o g s , d a t i n g b a c k t o h i s c h i l d h o od, and refl ect ed o n the r em arkabl e t hings he h ad w itnessed. A s a resu lt , the ju rym ayh av e b ee n inf luen ce d b y th e p rose cu tor’s exper i ence s , t hi nki ng t hatt he pr os ecut or ’ s vi ew s bol s t er ed t he cre d ibil ity o f K rau s’s an d H ark ins’s test im o n y ab o u t D ig g er. 29 T h is is w h a t th e ru le a g a in s t v o u c h in g p ro h ib its

.Wh i l e L e e d e s c r i b e s v o u c h i n g a s a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l e r r o r , we 30 h a v e h eld th at “v o u ch ing that is ai m ed at t h e w itn ess’s cre d ibi l i t yand i s bas ed on extr a- r ecor d evi dence i s deemed non- cons t i tut i onal er r or . ” U nit ed S t ate s v. D ispoz-O -Plast i cs, I nc. , 172 F. 3d 275, 286 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Zehr bach , 4 7 F .3 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 6 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ))

. L ee n o tes t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notgi ve anycur at i ve 31 i nst ruct i on aft er i t su stai ned his obj ect i on . H ow ever, defe nse couns el never r eques t ed one, and t he pr os ecut or m ov ed on i m m edi at el yaft ert he C our ts us t ai ned t he obj ect i on. 49 H ow ever , even tho u g h t he pr os ecut ordi d cr os s t he l i ne in to im p ro p e r vo u c h in g , a n e w trial i s n o t w a rra n ted b e c a u se it is high lyp rob ab le t h at t h e erro r did n o t con tr ibu te t o L ee ’s con vict i on , for several reas on s. Hel bl i ng , 209 F. 3d at 241. 30 Fi r s tand most s i gni fi cant l y , t he pr os ecut ordi d notcont i nue the v o u ch ing o n ce an o b

jecti o n w as ra ised an d the D istri ct C o u rt di r ect ed t he pr o secut ort o m ove on. See U ni t ed Stat es v. 31 G al l ow ay , 3 1 6 F .3 d 6 2 4 , 6 3 3 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t, w hi l e pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement conce r ni ng hi s pers onal opi ni on w ere i m proper, t he st at em ent did no t w arr ant a revers al becau se t he defe ndant obj ect ed at t r i al and t he cour t s us t ai ned t he obj ect i on and di r ect ed t he pr os ecut or t o m ove on)

. Second, t he acut enes s of D i gg er ’ s s ens e of s m el l w as of r ecor d t hr ough H ark ins’s testi m o n y . T h ir d , the testi m o n yab o u t D igg er’s behavi orr equi r ed no vouchi ng. T he dog w entw i t hi n i nches of t h e r i f l e o n i t s way t o t h e Apa r t me n t s . Th a t c o n c r e t e and speci fi c evidence, no t gen eral prai se for the n ose on m an’s best f rie n d , is w h a t in a ll l ik e lih o o d lef t an im p re ss io n o n th e ju ry , if a n y th in g a b o u t D ig g e r d id . F o u r th , th e C o u rt sp e c if ica lly i ns t ruct ed t he j ur y t hat “w hat the l aw y er s s ai d i s n o t evidence an d it ’s no t bind ing o n y o u . ” (A p p . at 58 9

. )
T h u s, des pi t e t he w hol l yunnece s s aryvouchi ng fort he tes tim o n ya b o u t D ig g e r a n d th e g ra tu ito u s c o m m e n ts a b o u t a dog’ s abi l i t yt o t r ack a s cent , a n ew t r i al i s notw arr ant ed beca us e i ti s hi ghl ypr obabl e tha tt he mi s conductdi d not c o n tr ib u te to th e ju d g m e n t.T he D i s t r i ctC our templ oy ed t he 2007 edi t i on of t he 32 G ui del i nes M anual , eff ect i ve N ovember 1, 2007. W hi l e t he B egay C our t addr es s ed t he defi ni t i on of “vi ol ent 33 f e l o n y ” u n d e rt h e Ar me d Ca r e e r Cr i mi n a l Ac t( “ AC CA ” ) , we have s i nce he l d t hatt he def i ni t i on of “vi ol entfel on y ” in t he A C C A and the d efi ni t i on of a “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” i n t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ar e “c l ose enough thatpr ece dentunder th e f o rm e r m u s t b e c o n s id e re d i n d e a lin g w ith th e la tte r.” U n itedS ta tes v . P o lk , 577 F. 3d 515, 519 n

. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2009) (cit ati o n s o m it ted). 50 E

. R eck l es s E ndanger m ent as a C r i m e of

V i ol ence Le e c h a l l e n g e s h i s s e n t e n c e , a r g u i n g t h a tt h e Di s t r i ct C our terr ed i n cl as s i fy i ng hi s m i s demeanorconvi ct i on for r eckl es s endange r m entas a “c r i m e of vi ol ence , ” t h ere by i ncr ea s i ng hi s offe ns e l evel undert he ca r eeroffe nder enhanc ement found i n § 2K 2. 1( a) ( 2) and ( a) ( 4) of t he Sent enci ng G ui d eli n es. T he governm enthad ar gued t o t he 32 D i s t r i ctC our tt hatL ee’ s convi ct i on w as a cr i m e of vi ol ence unde rt he G ui de l i ne s bu t , on a pp e a l , c on c e de s t ha t“ r e ckles s conduct , s t andi ng al o n e, i s nott he t ype of purpos eful conduct t hat can con st i tu t e a cri m e of v i olence .

. . [and t hu s, L ee’s ] s ent ence s houl d be vac at ed and the ca s e r emanded fort he purpos es of re

- s ent enci ng. ” ( A ppel l ee’ s A ns . B r . at68 ( ci t at i on o m itte d ).)
L ee a nd t he governm entar e corr ecti n t hei ragr eement aboutt he law

. Fol l ow i ng L ee’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he Supr eme C our tdeci ded B egay v
. U n it edSt at es , 553 U

. S. 137 ( 2008) , i n w hi ch i t eff

ect i vel y hel d t hat , t o qual i fy as a cr i m e of viol ence, the cri m e at i ssue m ust present “a s eri ou s po t enti al ri sk of phy s i cal i nj ur y ” and be o ne t hat“t ypi cal l yi nvol ves p u rp o s e f u l, v io le n t, a n d a g g re s s iv e c o n d u c t.” Id

. at1 4 4 -45. 33 T he C our t expr es s l y di s t i ngui s hed cr i m es i nvol vi ng negl i gence orr eckl es s nes s fr om t hos e i nvol vi ng vi ol ence oraggr es s i on. I d. a t 1 4 6 ; s ee al

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 587 F. 3d 203, 208 ( 3dO th e r c irc u its a d d re ss in g th e iss u e h a v e sim ilarlyh e ld th a t, 34 af ter B egay , r eckl es s conductdoes notqual i fyas a cr i m e of v io le n c e . Johns on , 5 8 7 F .3 d a t 2 1 1 n . 8

. See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v
. B aker , 559 F. 3d 443, 453 ( 6t h C i r . 2009) ( hol di ng t hat T e n n e s s e e ’ s r e c k l e s s e n d a n g e r me n t s t a tu t e d o e s n o t q u a l i fy as a cri m e of

v io le n c e); U

n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 544 F. 3d 781, 786- 87 ( 7t h C i r . 2008) ( fi nd ing tha tI ndi ana’ s cr i m i nal re c k les sn e ss sta tu te is n o t a c rim e o f v io len c e ); U

ni t ed St at es v. G r ay , 535 F. 3d 128, 131- 32 ( 2d C i r . 2008) (h o ldi ng t hatN ew Y or k’ s r eckl es s endange r m ents tat u te i s nota cr i m e of v io le n c e ). Penns y l vani a’ s r ec k l es s endange r m ents t atut e, under w hich L ee w as con v icted, st at es t hat “[a] person co m m i t s a m isd e m e a n o r o f

th e se c o n d d e g re e if

h e re c k les slye n g a g e s in conductw hi ch pl ace s or m ay pl ace anot herper s on i n dangerof death ors er i ous bodi l yi nj ur y . ” 18 P A

. C ON S

. S TAT

. § 2705. 51 Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )

. Th u s , f

o l l ow i ng B egay , a c o n v ict ion fo r m ere r eckl es s nes s cannotcons t i tut e a c r i m e of vi ol ence . 34

L ee’s earl i er- no t ed c on vict i on for con ceded l yreckl ess conduct , s t andi ng al one, does not qual i fy as a cr i m e of vi ol ence . A ccor di ngl y , as t he par t i es agr ee, L ee’ s s ent ence m us tbe vaca t ed and the ca s e r emanded forr e- s ent enci ng.
F

. The C ons t i t ut i onal i t y of the Fel on- I

n- P os s es s i on S ta tu te
F in a lly , L e e a rg u e s th a t th e f e lo n -in -p o ss e ss io n sta tu te is uncons t i tut i onal

. H e r ecogni zes , how ever , t hatw e ar e bound by ourdeci s i on i n U

nit ed S t ates v. Singl et ary , 268 F. 3d 196, 198- 2 0 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ), in w h ich w e c o n f irm e d th e c o n stitu tio n a lity of t he fe l on- i n- pos s es s i on s t atut e, and he acknow l edges t hathe pr es ent s t hi s i s s ue onl y“t o prese rve a cha l l enge t o t he c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i t yof

[the fe l on - i n- po s s e s s i on s t a tut e ] f o rS u p r e me C our tr evi ew . ” (A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at80. ) W e t her efor e r ej ect th a t a rg u m e n t w ith o u t f u rt h e r d is c u s s io n .52 I I I . C oncl usi on F o r t h e re aso n s d iscu ssed ab o v e, w e w ill af firm L ee ’s convi ct i on butw i l l vacat e h is s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng.A l t hough t he D i s t r i ctC our tand t he maj ori ty o p ini on r efe r 1 t o, r es pect i vel y , “D efe ndant ’ s s t at ement s m ade byhi m att he tim e o f h is a rre st,” A p p . 5 , a n d “ L e e ’s S tate m e n ts R e g a rd in g H is P rio r P o ss e ss io n o f

F ire a rm s,” M a

jo rityO p . 2 9 , the e v id e n c e in q u e s t i o n i s a c tu a l l y O

f f i cerKr aus ’s t es t i m ony re g a rd in g h is re p o rt o f sta tem e n ts L e e p u rp o r ted lym a d e to h im p o st-a rre st. T h e se w e re n o t tra n sc rib e d sta tem e n ts, n o r w e re th e ysta tem e n ts i n L ee’ s ow n w ords, and the r epor tw as notm ade pa r tof t he re c o rd a s f

a r a s I c a n te ll. R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge, di s s ent i ng.
I r es pect ful l ydi s s entbeca us e I concl ude t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our ts houl d nothave a dm i t t ed O ff i cerK r aus ’ s t es t i m ony conce r ni ng L ee’ s pos t

- arr ests t at ement s r egar di ng L ee’ s pr i or e x p e rie n c e s w ith g u n s, v io len t f e u d s, a n d p a st e x p e rie n c e s w ith O f f ic e r K ra u s , a n d th a t th i s e rr o r w a s n o t h a rm le s s . I a c k n o w led g e th a t th is i s a clo se c a se a n d th a t o u r s ta n d a r d is defe r ent i al , butI s ubm i t t hat w hen i t comes t o guns , w e mustbe ca ref u l, fort he pr ej udi ci al i m pacton t he j ur yof t hi s t ype of c h a ra c te r e v id e n c e is v e ry re a l in d e e d

. T h e m ajorit yo p inion ref ers to sali en t p o rt ion s o f K rau s’s t es t i m o n y b u t it i s w or t h i ncl udi ng i ti n i t s t ot al i t y . I num ber di s t inct poi nt s foreas e of r efe r ence . K r aus t es t i fi ed that , i n a p o s t

- a r r e s ti n t e r v i e w: 1

1 . L e e in sis ted h e d o e s n o t typ ica lly ow n orcarr y g u ns . H ow ever , he di d s t at e t hathe has acces s t o a l ot of guns and2 2. w oul d us e t hem agai ns tany one w h o th re a te n s h im o r h is f a m ily.
3. H e s t at ed thathe s hotatan i ndi vi dual named Pi ckl es , w ho w as w ell know n as E r nes tH arr i s , on m u ltip le o c c a s io n s . 4. H e w enton t o s ay t hatI ar r es t ed P ick les , w h ic h is tru e , in th e p a st, w i t h a fi r earm . A nd M r . L ee c l a i me d t h a to n t h a tn i g h t , t h at E r nes t H arr i s , Pi ckl es w as ar r es t ed, t hatPi ckl es w as actual l yon hi s w ay wi t h t h a tg u n t o k i l l M r . L e e . He acknow l edg ed t hatand s ai d t hat t her e’ s a l ong t i m e, ongoi ng vi ol ent feud be t w een M r . L ee’ s fami l yand P ic k le s . . . . 5. L ee c ont i nued t o i ns i s tt hathe di d nothave a nyw eapons i n t he ca r w hen I s t o p p e d h i m on J u n e 2 7 t h, b u th e d i d c o mp a r e t h a tt o a t i me wh e n h e s t a t e d t h a th e f

l e d f r o m me b e f o r e i n t h e H i l l D i s t r i c t

. He a s k e d me i f I r e me mb e r e d t h e t i me t hatI chas ed him an d l os tt he ca r t hats t ar t ed on M or gan St r eeti n t he3 hi l l

. A s I w as r emem ber ed, he s t a t e d th a t I p u lle d b e h in d h im , I had my — att hatt i m e i n a mar ked p o li ce ca r, w h en I w as in u n ifo rm i n p at rol i n the H i l l D i st ri ct , I guess I wa s b e h i n d h i m, a c c o r d i n g t o h i m, and I had my w hi t e i l l um i nat i on lig h ts , w h ich a re lik e sp o tli g h ts cont ai ned on t he l i ghtbarof t he ca r w hi ch w e can acces s , and w hen he s aw t hos e l i ght s , he cl ai m ed t hathe th o u g h t I w a s p re p a rin g to p u ll h im o v e r . S o h e s t o p p e d , mo t i o n e d me al ongs i de of hi m t o as k for d ire c tio n s to C h a u n c e yS tre e t. I d id r emem ber t hat

. H e w enton t o s ay t hat he had — I had got t en outof the ca rbeca us e I had s m el l ed m ar i j uana a nd as I appr oache d, t he carhe t ook off. A nd I do r emem bert hi s . I tw oul d have be en p ro b a b ly b a c k in 2 0 0 1 o r 2 0 0 2 . I d id n ’t k n o w at t h e ti m e itw as M r. L ee . Th e r e was n o c o n n e c t i o n at th a t p o in t, b u t I did re m e m b e r th a t.
6 . H e f u rth e r to ld m e th a t if

I w o u ld h a v e c a u g h t h im th a t n ig h t, I w o u ld h a v e c a u g h th i m w i t h g u n s i n t he c a r, bu t , again, he co nti nu ed to i ns i s tt hathe had no guns i n t he ca rT he maj or i t ydoes not ex p li ci t l ydi s cus s t he admi s s i on of 2 s t at ement 3, t he st at ement t hatL ee “ s hotatan i ndi vi dual named P ick les , w h o w a s w e ll k n o w n a s E rn e st H a rris, o n m u lti p le o c c a sio n s,” in ste a d f

o ld in g th is state m e n t in to its a n a ly sis re g a rd in g th e “ v io len t f e u d ” b e tw e e n L e e a n d H a rris. M a jo rity O p. 30. T hi s i s s i gni fi cant , gi ven t h at p erh aps t he mostgr ave pr i orbad ac t evi dence i nt r oduced i s t hatL ee s uppos edl ys t at ed t hathe had s hotatH arr is. It is n otcl earhow t he fa ctt hatL ee s hotatH ar r i s ‘ad d s ’ anyt hi ng r el evantt o L ee’ s m ot i ve for p o sses sing a g u n , o n ce it is e stab li sh ed that L ee an d H arris are e n g a g e d in a n o n g o in g v io le n t f e u d

. 4 o n J u n e 2 7 t h wh e n I s t o p p e d h i m. A pp. 417- 18. T he m aj or i t y concl udes t hat t he i ni t i al r efe r ence s to th e f a c ts th a t L e e h a d a c c e ss to g u n s an d w o u ld u se th e m to pr ot ecthi s fami l y( s t at eme n ts 1 a nd 2) , and thathe had a n o n g o ing v iolen t fe u d w ith E rne st “P ickles” H arris ( stat em en t 4), w e re a d m is sib le a s p ro b a tiv e o f L e e ’s “ m o tiv e ,” a n d th a t th is 2 out w ei g hed t he pr ej udi ce c aus ed byt he r efe r ence t o hi s pr i or gun pos s es s i on. I tr eas ons t hatt he r es tof t he pas s age (sta tem e n ts 5 a n d 6 ) sh o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a d m itt e d b u t th a t it s a d m iss io n d o e s n o t re q u ir e a n e w trial b e c a u se it w a s “ h ig h ly pr obabl e” t hat t he off

endi ng s t at ement s di d notcont r i but e t o t he v e rd ic t. I re s p e c tf

u lly d is a g re e . A s a t r i al cour t j udge, I w as a l way s c o n c e r n ed about r efe r ence s t o pas tpos s es s i on orus e of guns in g u n cas es , and refer ences t o p astpo sses si on or use of d rugs i n d rug cases. W h ile o f ten a d m iss ib le a s g o in g to a p ro p e r pu rp o se u n d e r R u le5 404( b) , fr om an evi dent i ary s t andpoi nt , t hi s t ype of e vi dence m akes t he j ur y ’ s j ob ( i

. e. t o avoi d us i ng t hi s t ype of e vi dence as b ra n d in g th e d e f

e n d a n t as a g u n o r d ru g c rim in a l) v e ryd if f icu lt, a s a p ra c tic a l m a tte r. W hi l e t he pot ent i al i m pactof t hi s t ype of e vi dence can nonet hel es s be cont ai ned by s peci fi c i ns t ruct i ons t o t he j ur y , t he pr ej udi ce r es ul t i ng fr om evi dence of guns and drugs i s i m m ens e. A s th e A d v iso ryC o m m itt e e ’s N o te to R u le 4 0 4 (a ) in d ica tes , this typ e o f c h a ra c ter e v id e n c e e p ito m ize s w h a t “p re ju d ice ” is a ll a b o u t:
C h ar act erevi dence i s of s l i ght

p rob ati v e v alue a n d m ayb e v ery pr ej udi ci al

. I tt ends t o di s t rac tt he t r i erof fa ctfr om t he m ai n ques t i on of w hatactual l yhappene d on t he p a r ticu lar o c c a sio n . It su b tly p erm it s the trie r o f f

ac t t o rew ard t he good m an and t o puni s h t he bad m an bec aus e of t hei rr es pect i ve cha rac ters d espi t e w hat t he e v id e n c e in th e c a se sh o w s a c tu a lly happene d.
Fed. R

. E vi d. 404( a) A dvi s or y C om m i t t ee’ s N ot e. I s ubm i tt hat t he pot ent i al for s uch “di s t r act i on” i s es peci al l y gr eat i n gun and d ru g c a s e s . P ri o r ba d ac t evid en ce is g o v e rne d b yR u le 40 4 (b), w hi ch, as t he m aj or i t y not es , i nvol ves a four

- s t ep t es tr equi r i ng6 cour t s t o as s es s pr oper purpos e and r el evanc e, t o w ei gh pr ej udi ce agai ns t pr obat i ve val ue under R ul e 403, an d to offer a n a p p ro p ri a te lim itin g c h a rg e to th e ju ry. H uddl es t on v. U

ni t ed St at es , 485 U

. S. 681, 691- 92 ( 1988)

. T he A dvi s or yC om m i t t ee N ot es t o R ul e 404( b) s t at e that , w hi l e evi dence of ot herw r ongs oract s i s “notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove cha r act er a s a b asi s for s ugges t i n g t he i nfer ence t hatconducton a par t i cul arocca s i on w as i n co n fo rm i t yw i t h i t , ” s uch evi dence “maybe off er ed for ano t her purp o se , s u ch as proo f of m oti ve, op po rtun i t y , and so on, w hi ch does not f

al l w i t hi n t he pr ohi bi t i on. ” N one of the s ta te m e n ts h e re w e re a d m itte d f o r a p ro p e r p u rp o s e . Fi r s tof al l , t he par tof t he s t at ement t hat t he maj or i t yhas held i s probat i ve o f m oti ve, regar ding L ee’s w i l l i ng ness t o u se g u n s to p ro tec t h is f

a m ilya n d th e o n g o in g f e u d in w h ich h e is engage d, i s onl ya s m al l par tof w hat the juryhear d. A s not ed a b o v e , the ju rya lso h e a rd O f f ice r K ra u s te stif

yth a t L e e to ld h im t hat he had access t o “a lo t o f gu ns, ” t hat he has shot atE rnest

“ P ick les ” H a rris “ o n m u lti p le o c c a sio n s,” th a t h e h a s p re v io u sly fl ed fr om O ffi cerK r au s beca us e O ffi cerK r aus s m el l ed m a riju a n a c o m in g f

ro m h is c a r, an d th a t h e d id h a v e g u n s in h is cardur i ng t hi s pr evi ous encount er w i t h O ffi cerK r aus . N one of t hes e ot her , ver y col or ful , s t at ement s

— w hi ch I have l abel ed 1, 3 , 5 , an d 6

— g o to L e e ’s m o tiv e f o r p o ss e ss in g g u n s in g e n e ra l, l etal one t o hi s m ot i ve forpos s es s i ng a r i fl e on t hi s par t i cul ar oc c a s i o n . Th e ma

j o r i t yr i g h t l yc r i t i c i z e s t h e “ p r o p e rp u r pos e” t heor i es offe r ed bythe G over nm entot hert han mot i ve (kn o w ledg e, i n tent, ab sen ce o f m ist ak e, m o d u s o p era n d i) , r eco g n i z i n g t h a tt h e o n l ys t a t e me n t s t h a tma yh a v e b e en pr oper l yadmi t t ed are t hos e thatcoul d be r el evantt o m ot i ve. T he ot hers t at ement s fr om O ffi cerK r aus ’ s t es t i m ony h av e noT h e m a jo rity tak e s m e to tas k f o r p a rsin g th e sta tem e n ts in 3 a w ayt he d efen se di d not, M aj ori t yO p. n. 20 , si nce the defe nse ur ged t ot al ex clus i on. B utI ur ge t ot al excl us i on as w el l

. A nd t he s t at ement s ar e par s ed onl y for eas e of r efe r ence and i n or der t o fol l ow t he maj or i t y ’ s anal y s i s w hi ch di s t i ngui s hes among th e m . 7 pr obat i ve val ue and f

ai l t he ‘ r el evanc e’ t es tof H uddl es t on ent i r el y . T heys houl d have be en exc i s ed fr om w hatt he j u ry hear d. 3

T h e o th e rt w o p o r t i o n s o f O f f i c e rK r a u s ’ s t e s t i m o n y, re f e re n c in g th e f

a c ts th a t L e e w o u ld u se g u n s to p r o tec t h is fam i l y a nd t ha t he i s i n a n on go i ng vi ol e nt fe ud w i t h E rnest “P i ckles ” H arr i s, presentcl oser cal l s. T he m aj ori t yfou nd t hese st at em ents adm i ssi ble as probati ve o f L ee’s “m oti ve. ” I am l ess s u re . F i rs t , i t i s quest i on able that “m oti ve” is rel evan ti n a case su c h a s th is. L e e d id n o t co n ten d th a t h e h a d n o r e a s o n to p o sses s a g u n , an d w e a re n o t fac ed w ith a situ ati o n w h ere ans w er i ng “w hy ” w oul d hel p s ol ve t he cr i m e of pos s es s i on. T h e re is n o su g g e stio n in th e re c o rd th a t L e e w a s o n h is w a yto a c o n f ro n tatio n w ith E rn e st “ P ick les ” H a r r is , o r to p ro tec t h is fami l y , ort o do anything el s e w i t h a gun att hatpar t i cul ar m om ent

. I f r el evant at al l , L ee’ s fami l y feud i s not of gre at p ro b a tiv e v a lu e w it h re sp e c t to th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r h e inW e h a v e n o ted th a t th e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f p rio r b a d a c ts 4 evi d e n c e “ i s s i g n i f

i c a n t l y l e s s ” whe n t h e d e f e n s e i s t h at t he d e f e n d a n t d id n o t p e rf

o rm th e c h a rg e d a c t a t a ll. U ni t ed Stat es v . D a ra io , 445 F. 3d 25 3 , 2 6 5 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. Jem al , 2 6 F .3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 3 n .3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ))

. T he D ist ri ct C our tdi d r efe rt o “s t at e of mi nd, know l edge, 5 m o tiv e o r i n te n t” in its in s tr u c tio n s to th e ju ry. A p p . 5 9 6

. 8 fac tw as i n pos s es s i on of a gun on t hi s par t i cul arocca s i on. 4
S ec o n d , an d p erh ap s m o st i m p o rt an tl y , the D istri ct C o u rt d id n o t ru le th a t th e se sta tem e n ts w e re a d m iss ib le a s re lev a n t to m o tiv e . In ste a d , the D istric t C o u rt ru led th a t th e sta tem e n ts w er e “admi s s i bl e t o pr ove i nt ent , know l edge and/ ort he abs ence of m i s t ake. ” A pp. 5

. T h e m aj or i t yqui t e pr oper l yr ej ect s t he

5 “knowl e d g e ” t h e o r yo f a d mi s s i b i l i t y , b u tc o n c l u d e s t h a tt he “governm entdoes farbet t erw i t h m o t i ve as a t heor yof a d mi s s i b i l i t y , ” M a

j o r i t yOp

. 3 3 , i n e f

f e c ts u b s t i tu t i n g i t s o wn t heory as t o w hys om e of the s t at ement s m i ghthave be en per m i s s i bl y admi t t ed. T he m aj or i t y ’ s concl us i on as t o r el evanc e t o m ot i ve i s under m i ned byt he fa ct that w e ar e t o r evi ew t he rul i ng of t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch hel d t hat“[e ] vi dence t hat D efen dan t had kn ow i ng l y po sses sed fi rear m s at other t i m es is pr opert o pr ove know l edge and i nt entand notexcl udabl e under R u le 4 0 4 (b ) .” A p p . 5 . T h is is th e ru lin g th a t w e a re to r evi ew

— nots om e hypot het i cal al t ernat i ve rul i ng that t he D i s t r i ctC our tm i ghthave made. I ti s t rue t hatt he G over nm ent ar gued t he m ot i ve t heor y , br i efl y , befor e t he D i s t r i ctC our t , and it ad v a n c e s th a t th e o ry b e f o re u s a s w e ll. T h e D istric t C o u rt d idT he maj or i t yw r i t es : “B yoffe r i ng m ot i ve as a basi s on 6
w h ich th e juryco u ld co n side r t h e e v iden ce , the D istri ct C o u rt n e c e s s a r i l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t mot i v e was a p r o p e r b a s i s for a d mi s s i o n o f o n e o r mor e o f t h e s t a t e me n t s . ” M a j o r i t y Op. 34 n .1 9 . A lth o u g h th is in f e re n c e m ig h t m a k e se n se in th e o ry , itis notappr opr i at e her e. T he D i s t r i ct C our ti ns t ruct ed t he j ur yt hat i tcoul d cons i dert he s t at ement s fors t at e of mi nd, k n o w l edge, m ot i ve, i nt ent , orabsen ce of ac ci dentorm i s t ake. A pp. 596. B u t th ere is no rea so n to su p p o se th at t h e D istri ct C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t, f

o r e x a m p le , abs ence of acci dent orm is t ake w as a pr operbas i s for admi s s i on. R ather , i ts eems thatt he D i s t r i ct C our tw as s i m pl yr eci t i ng t he l i t anyof pot ent ial l ypr oper purpos es . M or e t o t he poi nt , i f t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded that m ot i ve w as a pr oper bas i s for admi s s i on, i t s houl d have s ai d s o.

9 notadmi tthe s t at ement s as r el evantt o L ee’ s m ot i ve. I ndeed, t he fa ctt hatt hi s t heoryw as ad v an ce d byt he G over nm ent , but n o t re lied u p o n b yth e D istric t C o u rt in its ru lin g , ac tu a lly s ugges ts thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed thi s r at i onal e. 6 A ccor di ngl y , w e m us tcons i dert he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t at ed r at i onal e foradmi t t i ng t he s t at ement s : t hat“[e ] vi dence t hat D e f e n d a n t h a d k n o w in g lyp o ss e ss e d f ire a rm s a t o th e r t im e s is p ro p e r t o p ro v e k n o w le d g e a n d in te n t.” A p p . 5

. A s t he maj or i t yconvi nci ngl yar gues , t he know l edge a nd inten t rati o n ales fo r ad m it ti n g the st atem en ts d o n o t h o ld w ater:

L ee ’s t r i al

. . . w as notabout w h e th e r h e k n e w th a t h e h a d a rif le10 in the b ac k sea t of

h is Jeep

. T h ere w as no ques t ion of ac ci dentor m i s t ake. R at her , L ee’ s defe ns e w as sim p ly th a t th e re w a s n o rif le in h is J eep a nd t hat the ri fl e r ecove r ed at th e A p a rt m e n ts w a s n o t h is

. . . . L ee ha s not put know l edge a ti s s ue. L ee i s notar gui n g that he di d not know t here w as a r i fl e i n hi s back seat

. H i s ar gu men t i s a s t r ai ght for w ar d deni al t hatanygun w a s th e re . M aj or i t yO p. 32. T hus , evi dence goi ng t o ei t herknow l edge or i n t e n ti s n o t“ r e l e v a n t ” a s r e q u i r e d b y H uddl es t on ’ s s econd pr ong, a fa ctt he maj or i t yi m pl i ci t l y recogni zes i n a footnot e. M a j o r i t yOp

. 3 1 n . 1 8

. I c o n c l u d e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e t wo s ta te m e n ts w e re a d m itte d f o r a n im p ro p e r p u rp o s e . W e mi ght b e ab le t o s om ehow j us t i fyt he admi s s i on of t hes e s t at ement s , al bei tfort he w r ong r eas on, w er e i tnotfort he i m por t ance w e have pl ace d on havi ng t he t r i al cour t d raw t he j ur y ’ s at t ent i on t o t he s peci fi c a sp ec t o f t he ca s e t o w hi ch the par t i cul arevi d en ce r el at es . I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Sam

ps on , t he G over nm entur ged t he admi s s i bi l i t yof a pr i ord rug convi ct i on as demonst r at i ng “pl an or s cheme” and “ r efut i ng an ac ci dentor m i s t ake” defe ns e. 980 F. 2d 883, 885 ( 3d C i r . 1992)

. T he tr i al cour ti ndi cat ed t hatt he evi dence “fa l l [s ] w i t hi n t he pur vi ew of t he exc ept i ons l i s t ed i n 404( b) , ” and i ns t ruct ed t he j ur yt hat “[y ] ou m aycons i dert he def endant ’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons onl yas t hey r el at e t o pr oof of m ot i ve, oppor tuni t y , i nt ent , pr epar at i on,C ont r ar yt o t he maj or i t y ’ s cont enti on t hatt he r eas on for 7 a d m iss io n w o u ld h a v e b e e n a p p a re n t f ro m th e re c o rd , M a

jo rity O p. 34 n. 19, I s ubm i tt hat t he j ur yw oul d notr eadi l yunder s t and that the g u n fe u d e v id en ce w as re leva n t t o , an d o n lyto, L ee ’s m o tiv e . 11 pl an, know l edge, i dent i t y , orabs ence of m i s t ake oracc i dent , a nd notforanyot herpurpos e. ” Id

. at888- 89. W e r ever s ed and r emanded, aft erconcl udi ng t hatbot h t he rul i ng and t he i ns t ruct i ons w er e fl aw ed, and, fur t her m or e, that t he R ul e 403 bal anci ng r equi r ed underR ul e 404( b) w as notappar entfr om t he re c o rd

. Id . R e g a rd in g th e trial c o u rt’s r u lin g , w e sa id :

T he di s t r i ct co ur t , i f i tadmi t s t he evi dence , m us t i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , r a th e r th a n th e a p p e llate c o u rt in r et r os pect , ar t i cul at e r eas ons w hy t he evi dence al s o goes t o s how so m ethin g o th er tha n ch ara cter. U nl es s t he r eas on i s appar entfr om t h e r e c o r d , a me r e l i s t o f t he p u rp o se s f

o u n d in R u le 4 0 4 (b ) is i nsuff i ci ent. T he d i st ri ctcou rtm ust puta ch ai n of i nfer ence s i nt o t he r ecor d, none of w hi ch is t he i nference thatt he d efe n d a nt has a pr opens i t yt o comm i tt hi s cr i m e. Id

. at888. A s t o t he i ns t ruct i on t o t he j ur y , w e s ai d:

712 T hi s i ns t ruct i on d oes notcur e t he er r or . W her e the governm enthas notcl ear l yar t i cul at ed r eas ons w hy t he evi d ence i s r el evantt o any l egi t i m at e purpos e, t her e i s no r eal i s t i c bas i s t o bel i eve that t he j ur yw i l l cul l t he pr operi nfer ence s and ma t e r i a l f

a c t s fr om t he evi dence

. B ys i m pl yr epea t i ng t he ent i r e l i t any of per m i s s i bl e t heor i es u n d er R u le 40 4 (b), th e ju d g e’s in stru c ti o n g a v e th e ju ryin a d e q u a te gui dance

. I t al s o fai l ed t o l i m i tt he g o v e rn m e n t to th e th e o rie s it pr offe r ed i n s uppor tof admi s s i on o f th e e v id e n c e . Id

. at889. A s t o t he bal anci ng of pr obat i ve val ue ver s us pr ej udi ce, w e not ed:

W h e n a c o u rt e n g a g e s in a R u le 403 bal anci ng and ar t i cul at es o n t he r e c o r d a r a t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n , we w i l l r ar el ydi s turb i t s rul i ng. W h e re , h o w e v e r, th e c o u rt f a iled to p e rf o rm th is a n a ly sis , o r w h e re its rati onal e i s notappar entfr om t he re c o rd , the re is n o w a y to re v iew its d is c re tio n .T he Thi r d C i r cui tM anual of M odel J uryI ns t ruct i ons m akes 8 t hi s s ame poi nt , i ns t ru ct i ng j udges t o “des cr i be t he precise purpos e orpurpos es forw hi ch the ot heract evi dence w as admi t t ed, ” and to “ [p] i ck t hos e of the fol l ow i ng, orot her reas on s, t hat appl y , ” foll ow ed b ya l i stof ex a m ple r easons, 13 Id

. at889 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. W e conc l uded:

I n s um , w e ar e not hol di ng t hatt he evi dence of Sam ps on’ s pr i ordrug convi ct i ons i s notr el evan tt o a p ro p e r p u rp o se . W e sim p lyh o ld t hata l egi t i m at e re l evanc e has not b een pr oper l ydemonst r at ed and t hatt he r ecor d does nots how t hat t he cour tconduct ed a R ul e 403 bal anci ng. I n t he new t ri al, i f t he gover nm ent agai n t r i es t o i nt r oduce t he evi dence , i tm us tcarr yt he bur den of pr offe ri n g a r at i onal chai n of i nfer ence s and t he di s t ri ct cour tm us tt hen eva l u at e the gi ven r eas ons in the cont extof t he devel opi ng cas e and gi ve t he rat i on al e for i t s ruli ng . W e w ill re v e rse a n d re m a n d f

o r a n e w trial.
Id

. T hus , w e hel d i n Sam ps on t hat the d i st ri ctc ou rtm ust id e n tifyth e p ro p e r p u rp o se a n d in stru c t th e ju rya s to e x a c tly how i ts houl d u se t he evi dence

. T hatdi d notoccurher e. 8i n c l u d i n g s t a t e o f m i n d , k n o w l e d g e , i n t e n t , m o t i v e , o p p o r tu n i t y, pr epar at i on, pl anni ng, m odus o p erandi , abs ence of ac ci dentor m i s t ake, and i dent i t y . T hi r d C i r cui t M od. C r i m . J ur yI ns t r . 4. 29 (em ph asi s add ed). T he C om m ent t o the M od el Instruct i on s al so str esse s tha t th e “instruc ti o n sh o u ld n o t m ere lyinclu d e a laun d ry list o f p e r m itt e d u se s o f

o th e r a c t ev id e n c e . R a th e r, itsh o u ld s peci fi cal l ys t at e t he l i m i t ed purpos e for w h i ch the ot heract evi dence i s admi t t ed. ” T hi r d C i r cui t M od. C r i m . J ur yI ns t r . 4. 29 c m t. ( c itin g M ic h a e l H . G ra h a m , H andbook of

F ederal E vi dence , § 4 0 4 .5 n .5 6 (5 th e d . 2 0 0 1 ))

. T he maj or i t ys ugges t s th a tth e Di s tr i ctC our t ’ s i ns t ruct i on “fol l ow ed near l y w or d- for

- w or d our C i r cui t ’ s m odel 404( b) i ns t ruct i on. ” M aj or i t yO p. 40 n. 25. A l t hough i ti s t rue t hatt he w or ds t he D i s t r i ct C our t us ed ar e found i n ourC i r cui t ’ s m odel i nst ruct i on , t he D i st ri ct C ou rt fai l ed t o do as t he m anu al adv i ses, namel y , t o “des cr i be t he pr eci s e purpos e” f orw hi ch t he otheract e v id e n c e w a s a d m itte d , a n d to “ p ic k ” th e re a s o n s th a t a p p ly.

14 I ns t ead, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti ns t ruct ed t he j ur yr eci t i ng t he l i t any of pos s i bl e pr oper purpos es : “Y ou m aycons i dert hi s evi dence onl y for t he purpos e of deci di ng w het her t he defe ndanthad t he sta te o f m in d , k n o w led g e , m o tiv e o r in ten t n e c e ss a ryto c o m m it th e c rim e c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t, or d id n o t c o m m it th e a c ts for w hi ch he i s on t r i al by acc i dent or m i s t ake. ” A pp. 596. T he R ul e 403 bal anci ng w as a s i ngl e s t at ement i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s rul i ng: “A ddi t i onal l y , s uch evi dence i s hi ghl ypr obat i ve and notexcl udabl e under R ul e 403 as i t s pr ej udi ci al eff ectdoes n o t o u tw e ig h its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e .” A p p . 5

.W hi l e w e ar e t o be def er ent i al t o t he t r i al cour tand r evi ew 9 forabus e of di s cr et i on, her e t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notadmi tany of t he s t at ement s fora pr operpurpos e underR u le 4 0 4 , and v iolati o n o f th e R u le i s an ab u se o f d iscreti o n . “A d istri ct co u rt by d e f i n i t i o n a b u s e s i t s d i s c r e t i o n whe n i t ma k e s a n e r r o r of l aw . ” Koon v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 1 8 U

. S

. 8 1 , 9 9 (19 9 6 ).

15 A lth o u g h o u r rev iew sta n d a rd is e x tre m e lyd e f e re n tial, 9
w e sh o u ld b e h a rd -pre ssed to ap p rov e o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s rul i ng as t o t he admi s s i bi l i t yof eve n t he mot i ve evi dence w hen t he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o i dent i fyt he corr ectpurpos e, conduct t he R ul e 403 bal anci ng w i t h r efe r ence t o t he corr ectpurpos e, or d ra w th e ju ry ’s a tt e n ti o n to th e p u rp o se th a t ev e n th e m a jo rity c o n c lu d e s w a s th e o n ly p e rm is s ib le p u rp o s e , n a m e ly, m o tiv e . I concl ude t hat , i n l i ght of t he pl ai n l anguage of R ul e 404 and our rul i ng i n Sam

ps on , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d er rher e bec aus e t he r eas oni ng, i ns t ruct i ons , and bal anci ng w er e i nadequa t e as t o t he

“ m o tiv e ” sta tem e n ts. I a lso c o n c lu d e th a t, ev e n if a rg u a b ly r el evant t o s om e pr oper purpos e, t he ext r emelyp r ej udi ci al natur e of thes e s t at ement s out w e i g h e d a n yp r obat i ve val ue under t he R ul e 403 pr ong. T he m aj or i t yneveraddr es s es the i s s ue of pr ej udi ce, but as I not ed above, w hen t he cr i m e per t ai ns t o guns I s ugges tt hatpai nt i ng t he def endant ’ s char act erand p as tas eff ect i vel ygun- fi l l ed i s pr ej udi ci al i ndeed. A s t o t he r es tof t he s t at ement s , t heydi d not hi ng ot hert han r ei nfor ce the not i on t hat L ee i s t he t ype of pe r s on w ho p o sses ses guns , s hoot s t hem at peo ple, carr i es t hem i n hi s car, and has run -i ns w i t h, and evad es, l aw enfor ce m en t. T hi s t es t i m onyhad no pr operpurpos e or p ro b a tiv e v a lu e w h a ts o e v e r.16 G iv e n th e d a m n in g n a tu re o f th e se sta tem e n ts, I th in k it verydiffi cultt o co nclude t hat the int roducti on of these s t at ement s w as har m l es s . T he maj or i t ycor r ect l ynot es t hatt he a p p ro p ria te te st f

o r ‘h a rm les sn e ss ’ is “ w h e th e r it is h ig h ly p ro b a b le th a t ev id e n tia ry e rr o r d id n o t co n tr ib u te to c o n v ic tio n .” M aj or i t y O p. 36 ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . A li , 493 F. 3d 387, 392 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2007) (cit ing G o v ’t o f V .I. v. T o to , 529 F. 2d 278, 2 8 3

- 8 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 7 6 ) ) )

. But , we h a v e a l s o s t a t e d t h a t an appr opr i at e s t andar d for “err or s aff ect i ng noncons t i tut i onal t r i al r i ght s , ” as i n t hi s cas e, i s “w het her t he er r or‘ had s ubs t ant i al and injuriou s ef

fe ct o r inf

luen ce in determ ining the ju ry ’s ve rdict. ’” U ni t ed Stat es v. Tol i ver , 330 F. 3d 607, 612 (3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng Kot t eakos v. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 2 8 U

. S

. 7 5 0 , 7 7 6 (19 4 6 )). Th e s e t wo s t a t e me n t s o f t h e t e s ta r e b o t h b o r n e o f t h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s r eas oni ng i n Kot t eakos

. I n G o v e rn m e n t o f th e V irg in Isla n d s v . T o to , the c a se f

ro m w h ich th e m a

jo rityd ra w s its te st, w e not ed t hat“[w ] e ar e thus r equi r ed t o appl yi n t hi s cas e the t es tof Kot t eakos

. W e m us t deci de ‘w het her t he er r ori t s el f had su b sta n tial in f

lu e n c e (o n th e m in d s o f th e ju ry .) [ sic ] If so , o r if one i s l efti n gr ave doubt , t he convi ct i on cannot s t and. ’ ” 529 F. 2d at283 ( ci t i ng Kot t eakos , 328 U

. S. at 765)

. W e al s o not ed t hat“st ati n g t he t es ti s eas i ert han appl y i ng i t , ” id

. , w hi ch re m a in s tru e e v e n if w e f o c u s o n ly o n th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r it is h ig h lyp ro b a b le th a t ev id e n tiary erro r d id n o t co n trib u te to convi ct i on. I ti s w or t h r etur ni n g t o Kot t eakos forgui dance , as th e S u p re m e C o u rt e lo q u e n tly e x p o u n d e d o n th e p ro p e r w a yin w hi ch we, t h e r e v i e wi n g c o u r t , s h o u l d a s s e s s whe t h e ra n e r r or w as “h arm less” i n the co n text o f de term ining the e ff ec t of erro rs in a c rim in a l ca se :

[I ]t is no t th e a p p ell ate c o u rt ’s17 funct i on t o det er m i ne gui l tor i nn ocen ce. N or i s i tt o specu late upon pr obabl e r econvi ct i on and deci de ac cor di ng t o h ow t he sp e c u latio n c o m e s o u t. A p p e llate j udges cannot es cape s uch i m pr es s i ons . B utt hey m ay not m ake t hem s ol e cr i t er i a forr ever s al o r a f f irm a n c e . T h o se ju d g m e n ts ar e exc l us i vel yfo rt he j ur y , gi ven al w ay s t he nec es s arym i ni m um e v id e n c e leg a llysu f f icie n t to s us t ai n t he convi ct i on unaff ect ed b ythe e rror.
B utt hi s do es notm ean that t he appe l l at e cour tcan e s cape al t oget hert aki ng acc ount o f t he o u t come. T o w ei gh t he err or ’s eff ectagai ns tt he ent i r e set t i ng of t he r ecor d w i t h outr el at i on t o t he ver di ctorj u d g m entw oul d be alm o st t o w o rk in a v a c u u m . In c rim in a l ca u se s th a t o u tco m e is convi ct i on. T hi s i s di ffe r ent , or m a yb e , f

ro m g u iltin f

a c t. Itis gui l ti n l aw , es t abl i s hed b yt he j u d g me n t o f l a y me n . And t he q u e stio n is, n o t w e re th e yrig h t in t hei rj udgm en t, r egar dl es s of t he e rro r o r its e f

f e c t u p o n th e v e rd ict.18 I ti s r at herw hateff

ectt he err orhad or r eas onabl y m ay be t aken t o have had upon t he j ur y ’ s deci s i on. T he cruci al t hi ng i s t he i m pactof t he t hi ng done w r ong on t he mi nds of ot herm en, not on one’ s ow n, i n t he t ot al s et t i ng.
T hi s m us tt ake a ccountof w hat t he err or m eant t o t h em , not s i ngl ed out and st andi ng al one, but i n r el at i on t o al l el s e t hathappene d. A nd on e mus tj ud ge othe r s’ re a c tio n s n o t b yh is o w n , b u t w ith al l ow ance forhow ot her s m ight re a c t an d n o t b e re g a rd e d g e n e ra lly a s a c tin g w ith o u t re a so n . T h is is t he i m por t antdi ffe r ence , butone eas yt o i gnor e w hen t he sense of gui l tcomes s t r o n gl yfr om t he r ecor d.
I f, w hen al l i s s ai d and done, t he convi ct i on i s s ur e t hatt he err or di d noti nfl uence th e j ur y , orhad butver ys l i ghteff

ect , t he ver di ct and t he j udgm ents houl d s t and, ex ce p t p erh ap s w h ere the d ep arture is from a c o n sti tution al no rm o r a speci fi c com m and of C on gress . B u t if o n e c a n n o t sa y , w it h f a ir19 as s ur ance , aft erpon d er i ng al l t hat happene d w i t houts t r i ppi ng t he er r oneous act i on fr om t he w hol e, t hat t he j udg me n t was n ot su b sta n tiallysw a y e d b y th e e rro r, it i s i m pos s i bl e t o concl ude t hat s ubs t ant i al r i ght s w er e notaff ect ed. T h e in q u iryc a n n o t b e m e re ly w h e th e r th e r e w a s e n o u g h to su p p or tt he r es ul t , apar tfr om t he p h a se a f f e c ted b yth e e rro r. It is r at her , even s o, w h ether t he err or it self h ad su b stan ti al i n flu en ce . If so , o r i f o n e is l e f

t in g ra v e d o u b t, t he convi ct i on cannots t and.
3 2 8 U .S . a t 7 6 3 -6 5

. A ccor di ng ly , w e ar e nott o l ook s ol el yatt he qual i t yor quantum of t he evi dence of gui l t y( “w het hert her e w as enough t o s uppor tt he r es ul t , ” id

. at76 5 ), b u t “eve n s o” di d t he err or h a v e “ su b sta n tial in f

lu e n c e .” H e re , th e o th e r e v id e n c e o f g u ilt w as notover w hel m i ng; everyas pectw as a j udgm entcal l : W as D i gger ’ s r eac t i on a cl ear i dent i fi cat i on t hat t he ri fl e i n t he w oods w as L ee ’s ri fle? W as w h at O f f ic e r K rau s saw in L ee ’s ca r, dur i ng t he br i ef t i m e i tw as s t opped, a r i fl e? Lee w as nevers een i n t he w oods ; he w as found i n an apa r t m ent , hi di ng i n a couc h, t w o w eeks l at er. T here w as no f orensi c evidence o r ey ew i t ness w ho ever saw L ee w i t h the gun i n q uest i on , or w ho cou ld i den ti fy the gun as Lee’ s . I f t he j uryknew not hi ng aboutL ee, w oul d i t have been m or e l i kel y t o have had r eas onable d o ubtI t i s w or t h not i ng t hat , s i nce the s t at ement s w er e pr es ent ed 10 as comi ng fr om L ee hi m s el f, addit ion al concer ns ar i s e. I n a di ffe r entcont ext , t he Supr eme Courthas s t at ed “a dm i s s i ons of a def end ant com e f

ro m t he actor hi m sel f, t he m ost know l edgea bl e and uni m peac habl e s our ce of i nfor m at i on about hi s pas tconduct

. C er t ai nl y , confe s s i ons have pr ofound i m pact o n th e ju ry , so m u c h so th a t w e m a y ju stif iab ly d o u b t it s a b ili ty t o p u tt h e m ou to f

mi n d e v e n i f

t o l d t o d o s o. ” A r iz ona v. Fu lm in a n te , 4 9 9 U

. S

. 2 7 9 , 2 9 6 (19 9 1 ) (cit ati o n o m it ted). Fu lm in a n te deal tw i t h t he admi s s i on o f a coer ced c onfes s i on; her e, w e have no i s s ue of c oer ci on. H ow ever, b ec au s e i tw as re p o rte d b yK ra u s (w h o se c re d ib ili tyw a s a c e n tra l co n c e rn in t he ca s e) , and i t w as not comm i t t ed t o w r i t i ng oracknow l edged byL ee, w e ar guabl yfac e s i m i l arconce r ns as t o r el i abi l i t y : “the r i s k t hatt he confe s s i on i s unr el i abl e, coupl ed w i t h t he pr ofound i m pact that the co nfessi on h a s u po n the j ury , requi res a r evi ew i ng cour t t o exer ci s e extr eme caut i on befor e det er m i ni ng t hatt he adm i s s i on of t he conf es s i on att r i al w as har m l es s . ” Id

.

20 and ac qui t ? D i d t he s t at ement s det ai l i ng L ee’ s ext ens i ve e x p e rie n c e w ith g u n s, a n d p rio r c rim in a l a c tiv ityk n o w n to O f f ice r K ra u s, sw a y o r in f

lu e n c e th e ju ry ? “ If

, w h e n a ll i s s a id 10 and done, t he convi ct i on i s s ur e t hat t he er r or di d noti nfl uence t he j ur y , orhad butverys l i ghteff ect , t he ver di ctand t he j udgm ents houl d s t and. ” Id

. at 764. I n l i ght of t he natur e of the ot herevi dence , and the n ature of t he s t at ement s , I do nothave t hi s “convi ct ion, ” and a m l efti n “gr ave doubt

. ” I w oul d t hus c o n c lu d e th a t th e e rro r w a s n o t h a rm les s a n d th a t a n e w trial is w a rr a n te d

.