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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 19 27

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l App el le e

v.

Diam on d B la ir,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l App el la nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

18 , 20 13 Fi le d: Marc h 8 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es , and KOPF, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ KOPF, Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Diam on d Bl ai r of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( e)(1 ). On ap pe al
, Bl ai r arg ue s th e di st ric t

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard G. Kop f, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Nebr as ka , si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.co ur t erre d whe n it al lo wed th e g ov ern m en t t o i nt ro du ce ev id en ce o f Bl ai r’s fel on y 2

co nv ic ti on s at tri al . Blai r al so arg ue s he was de ni ed hi s rig ht to a fai r tri al ba se d on
act s o f m is co nd uc t b y

th e p ro se cu to r. W e aff

irm Bl ai r’s co nv ic ti on

.

I.

Bl ai r refu se d to st ip ul at e at tri al th at he ha d pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s. Bl ai r, who

rep res en te d hi m se lf at tri al wit h th e as si st an ce of st an d- by co un se l, ob jecte d whe n th e
go ve rn m en t so ug ht to in tro du ce th e cert ifi ed reco rd s of Bl ai r’s si x pr io r fel on y

co nv ic ti on s fo r ro bb e r y ( t w o co un ts ), un la wfu l us e of a weap on , arm ed cri m in al

act io n, ki dn ap pi n g , an d fo rci bl e so do m y

. Bl ai r al so ob

jecte d whe n a de te ct iv e wit h th e Kan sa s Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri, Po li ce Dep art m en t te st ifi ed ab ou t th e na m es , da te s, an d le ng th s o f se nt en ce fo r th e co nv ic ti on s.

In pr es en ti ng hi s ob

jecti on s to th e co ur t, Bl ai r arg ue d th at th e ev id en ce was

“ pr ejud ic ia l un de r Ru le 40 4,” cu m ul at iv e, an d al so pr ejud ic ia l be cau se th e co nvict ions bo re no “ si m il ari ty [to ] th e cas e wha ts oe ve r.” Co nf us in gl y , aft er th e go ve rn m en t

res te d it s cas e, Bl ai r m ov ed to st rik e so m e bu t no t al l of th e co nv ic ti on s, an d he di d so wit ho ut ex pl an at io n. The di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d Bl ai r’s ob jecti on s an d hi s m ot io n to
st rik e, st at in g th at th e ev id en ce was no t cu m ul at iv e, an d th e co nv ic ti on s di d no t ha ve
to be si m il a r t o th e ch arg e he was faci ng in or de r to be in tro du ced as ev id en ce. In ad di ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d th at th e ev id en ce was pr ejud ic ia l be cau se it sh owe d th at Bl ai r ha d pr io r co nv ic ti on s, bu t st at ed th e g o ve rn m en t was en ti tl ed to
pr es en t ev id en ce o f th e co nv ic ti on s.

II.

Bl ai r arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n it al lo wed th e go ve rn m en t to in tro du ce

ev id en ce of al l of Bl ai r’s pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s, an d al so erre d whe n it fai le d to

The Hon or ab le Dean W hi pp l e , U n it ed St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 2 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. -2

-ex pl ic it ly ba la nc e on th e reco rd th e pr ejud ic ia l na tu re of Bl ai r’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s

ag ai ns t t he ir p ro ba ti ve va lu e. W e rev ie w a di st ric t cou rt’s evi de nt ia ry ru li ng s for a n ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d S ta te s v. C la xt on , 27 6 F .3d 42 0, 4 22 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

Bl ai r was ch arg ed wit h be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of
18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g ) ( 1 )

. Th i s st at ut e m ak es it un la wfu l fo r an y pe rs on to po ss es s a fir earm “ in or affe ct in g co m m erce ” whe n th at pe rs on “ ha s be en co nv ic te d in an y co ur t of [] a cr im e p un is ha bl e b y

im pr is on m en t fo r a t erm

ex ceed in g o ne y ear.” 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g )(1 ). Tit le 18 U.S.C. § 92 1( a)(2 0) ex cl ud es fro m th e de fin it io n of a “ cri m e
pu ni sh ab le by im

pr is on m en t fo r a te rm ex ceed in g on e y ear,” cert ai n cri m es , in cl ud in g b u t n o t l i mite d to , “ an y St at e of fen se cl as si fie d by th e la ws of th e St at e as a

m is de m ean or an d p un is ha bl e b y a te rm of i m pr is on m en t o f two y ears or l es s.”

Acco rd in gl y , in th e ab se nc e of a st ip ul at io n by Bl ai r, th e go ve rn m en t ne ed ed to
pr ov e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at at le as t on e of Bl ai r’s pr io r cri m es qu al ifi ed as

“ a pr io r fel on y ” un de r 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 1( a)(2 0)

. In ad di ti on , th is co ur t h a s h e l d t h a t “ it is no t erro r to al lo w th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e m ul ti pl e co nv ic ti on s whe n p r o o f o f bu t a si ng le co nv ic ti on is req ui red .” Rus h v. Uni te d St at es , 7 95 F.2 d
63 8, 63 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ). W e fin d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n whe n it all owe d t he go ve rn m en t t o i nt ro du ce ev id en ce o f Bl ai r’s si x fe lo ny con vi ct io ns

.

As fo r Bl ai r’s sp eci fic arg ume n t t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to ex pl ic it ly ba la nc e th e ev id en ce un de r Ru le 40 3 of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Evid en ce, Blai r di d no t in vo ke Ru le 40 3 i n a ny of h is ob jecti on s at tria l, or oth erwi se sp eci fic al ly argu e th at th e ev id en ce was m or e pr ejud ic ia l th an pro ba ti ve . In fa ct , B la ir se em ed to be un de r th e m is ap pr eh en si on th at th e jud ge was req ui red to ap pl y Ru le 40 4( b) (al lo win g th e ad m is si on of ot he r cri m es to pr ov e su ch th in gs as m ot iv e) whe n, in fact
, th e jud ge was de al in g wit h di rect ev id en ce of fere d to pr ov e an es se nt ia l el em en t of th e go ve rn m en t’s

cas e. Tha t is
, th e go ve rn m en t ha d to pr ov e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at at le as t on e of Bl ai r’s pr io r cri m es qu al ifi ed as “ a pr io r fel on y ” un de r 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d
92 1( a)(2 0)

. The on ly way fo r th e go ve rn m en t to do th is was to pr ov e th e co nv ic ti on s -3

-si nc e Bl ai r ob st in at el y refu se d to si gn a st ip ul at io n. W hi le we as su m e as a th eo ret ic al

m at te r th at pr oo f of a l a r g e n u mber of pa rti cu la rly eg reg io us fel on ie s m ay be so
pr ejud ic ia l as to req ui re th e ex cl us io n of so m e of th em , we do no t be li ev e th e si x pr io r fel on ie s pr ov ed by th e go ve rn m en t in th is cas e po se su ch a pr ob le m

. The refo re, be cau se th e jud ge was co nf ro nt ed wit h a pr o se de fen da nt who se ev id en ti ary ob jecti on s were co nf

us ed an d of

f th e m ark
, an d be cau se th e co nv ic ti on s were th e on ly

a d m is si bl e ev id en ce of an es se nt ia l el em en t of th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e, we fin d n o

rev ers ib le erro r in th e co ur t fai li ng to m ak e an ex pl ic it , o n- th e-re co rd de te rm in at io n th at th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of Bl ai r’s co nv ic ti on s ou tw e i gh ed th e da ng er of un fai r
pr ejud ic e u nd er Ru le 40 3.

III.

Fi na ll y , Bl ai r arg ue s th e pr os ecu to r co m m it te d m is co nd uc t whe n it (1 ) el ic it ed

te st im on y ab ou t a ho m ic id e al le ge dl y in vi ol at io n of th e di st ric t co ur t’s pr et ria l in li min e ru li ng ; (2 ) qu es ti on ed Bl ai r ab ou t hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on s du rin g it s cro ss

ex am in at io n of Bl ai r; (3 ) di sp arag ed Bl ai r’s ch arac te r du rin g it s cro ss -ex am in at io n of Bl ai r an d du rin g cl os in g arg um en ts ; an d (4 ) im pr op erl y vo uc he d to th e cred ib il it y of th e go ve rn m en t’s wit ne ss es du rin g cl os in g arg um en ts

. Afte r care fu ll y rev ie win g th e

reco rd an d co ns id eri ng th es e rem ai ni n g a s s ig nm en ts of erro r, we fin d th em to be wit ho ut m eri t.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

Bla ir’s c on vi ct io n.

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

-4

-