2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-30-2010 

# P eople of the V

irgin I sl and s v

. J o shua B el ardo P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2234

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P e op le of the V

irgin I sl and s v

. J oshua Bel ar do " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1092. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1092NOT 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. 09- 2234

_____________ T HE P E OP L E OF T HE VI RG I N I S L ANDS

v. J OS HUA B E L AR DO, A ppel l ant

_________________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e D istric t C o u rt of the V i r gi n I s l ands , A ppel l at e D i vi s i on ( C r i m . N o. 1- 06- cr - 00023- 001) P a n e l: H o n . C u rt is V . G o m e z , H o n . R a ym o n d L . F in c h ,

and H on. M i chae l C . D uns t on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay7, 2010

________________ B e f o re : S M IT H , C H A G A R E S , a n d J O R D A N , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2010)

__________________ OP I NI ON

__________________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. J os hua B el ar do w as convi ct ed i n t he Ter r i t or i al C our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands ofM i nt o and B el ar do had a c ont ent i ous hi s t ory . M i nt o s us pect ed B el ar do of havi ng 1 en g ag ed in an il li citrelati o n sh ip w ith h is t ee n ag e d au g h ter, A n g ela, w h o is t en y ea rs B el ar do’ s j uni or . M i nt o had conf r ont ed B el ar do s ever al t i m es overthe al l eged re latio n sh ip , an d p re v io u slyh a d p u n c h e d h im b e c a u se o f it. 2 th i r d - d e g r e e a s s a u l t , u n l a wf u l p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m d u r i n g th e c o mmi s s i o n o f a c r i me o f v io len c e , an d b ra n d ish in g a d e a d lyw e a p o n , an d w a s s e n ten c e d to f if tee n y e a rs in p riso n . H e a p p e a led h is ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ictio n to th e D istric t C o u rt o f th e V irg in Isla n d s, A p p e llate D iv isio n , w h ich a f f irm e d . H e n o w a p p e a ls to o u r C o u rt. W e w ill a f f irm a s w e ll. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly su m m a riz e th e e ss e n tial f a c ts. O n A p ril 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , at a b o u t 6 :0 0 p .m . o n th e Isla n d o f S t. C ro ix , B e la rd o a p p ro a c h e d A n th o n yM in to in a p a rk in g lo t o u ts id e th e N o rt h s id e M a rk e t. Fr om a di s t ance of appr oxi m at el yt hi r t yfee t , B el ar do w i t hdr ew a chr om e and bl ack f ire a rm f ro m h is w a ist, p o in ted it at M in to , an d c ra n k e d th e slid e o f th e g u n b a c k so th a t a s i ngl e bul l etej ect ed fr om t he cha m berand anotherbul l etl oaded. A m an w i t h w hom 1 M in to h a d b e e n s p e a k in g s te p p e d b e tw e e n B e la rd o a n d M in to , a tte m p tin g to in te rv e n e . M eanw hi l e, t he ow nerof the N or t hs i de M arkethear d t he comm ot i on and: ( 1) w ent out s i de; ( 2) s aw an “a r gum ent ” betw een M i nt o and B el ar do; ( 3) s aw B el ar do poi ntand cock the gun atM i nt o; and ( 4) w entback i ns i de hi s s t or e and c al l ed the pol i ce. T hough he tw i ce poi nt ed the gun atM i nt o, B el ar do di d notfi r e i t . I ns t ead, he pi cked up the bul l et3

th a t h a d e

je c te d f ro m th e c h a m b e r a n d d e p a rt e d d o w n a n e a rb yro a d lo o k in g f o r a ri d e . H e ul t i m at el yfl agged dow n R enal do R i ver a, a pol i ce c adeton t he i s l and w hom B el ar do k n e w f ro m h is n e ig h b o rh o o d . I n the ca r , B el ar do t ol d R i ver a thathe had “ had a[ n] ar gum entw i t h a guynamed M in to a n d . . . [h a d ] p u ll[e d ] h is g u n .” A p p e n d ix (“ A p p .”) 1 5 3 . B e lar d o a lso lifte d h is s hi r tand s how ed R i ver a the gun. R i ver a then dr opped B el ar do off a thom e. B as ed on ey ew i tnes s es ’ des cr i pt i ons , R i ver a w as ul t i m at el ytr acke d dow n byl aw enfor cement , at w hi ch t i m e he pr ovi ded a s t at ement . T he pol i ce then obt ai ned an a r r es tw arr antfor B el ar do and a s ear ch w arr antforhi s hom e. W hi l e exe cut i ng the s ear ch w arr ant , the pol i ce di s cover ed a s i ngl e, l i ve r ound of amm uni t i on i n a bedr oom s afe . N o fi r earm w as r ecove r ed. B el ar do w as char ged w i t h unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a f i r earm dur i ng the comm i s s i on of a c r i m e of vi ol ence , i n vi ol at i on of 14 V . I . C . § 2253( a) ( C ountO ne) ; as s aul ti n t he thi r d degr ee, i n vi ol at i on of 14 V . I . C . § 297( 2) ( C ountT w o) ; and br andi s hi ng and e x h ib itin g a d e a d ly w e a p o n , in v io la tio n o f 1 4 V .I.C . § 6 2 1 (1 ) ( C o u n t T h re e ). A p p . 9 -1 0 . T ria l co m m e n c e d o n F e b ru a ry8 , 2 0 0 5 , an d th e ju ryre tu rn e d a g u iltyv e rd ict o n a ll co u n ts the s ame day . A pp. 15- 16. O n J une 19, 2006, the tr i al cour tdeni ed B el ar do’ s m ot i on for a new t r i al . A pp. 91- 98. O n J ul y12, 2006, i ts ent ence d hi m t o fi ft een y ear s i n pr i s on on C o u n t O n e , f

iv e y e a rs in p ri s o n o n C o u n t T w o , a n d o n e y e a r i n p ri s o n o n C o u n t T h re e . T he s ent ence s on C ount s T w o and Thre e w er e t o run concurr ent l yw i t h t he s ent ence onT h e D istri ct C o u rth ad juri sd ict ion to rev iew the ju d g m en t of the tri al co u rt 2 p u rs u a n t to 4 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 1 3 a (a ). W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 4 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 1 3 a (c ), ( d ). W e re v ie w f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n th e d e n ia l o f B e la rd o ’s m o tio n f

o r a n e w tr ia l. 3 U ni t ed St at es v. B ert ol i , 40 F. 3d 1384, 1392 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I n doi ng s o, w e cr edi tt he court ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs abs entcl earerr or . U ni t ed St at es v. N o lan-C o o p er, 15 5 F . 3 d 2 2 1 , 2 2 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). 4 C ountO ne. A pp. 100- 01. B el ar do appea l ed t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch af fi r m ed the convi ct i on on A pr i l 22, 2009. A pp. 387- 412. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 2 II. B el ar do fi r s tar gues t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o a new tr i al beca us e af t er - di s cover ed e v id e n c e d e m o n stra ted th a t V e rn a M a e D o w a rd , o n e o f th e d e lib e ra tin g ju ro rs a t h is tria l, i s the s i s t erof A nt honyM i nt o. H e as s ert s thatD ow ar d fai l ed t o m ent i on the conne ct i on 3 w h en the v en ir e w as q u esti o n ed d u ri n g v o ird ir e. T h e tri al co u rth eld a n ev iden ti ary hear i ng on t he mat t eron A ugus t24, 2005, and hea r d ar gum entfr om couns el on D ece m ber14, 2005. W e fi nd i texpedi entt o l i s tt he evi dence m ar s hal ed byboth s i des . T he fol l ow i ng d o c u m e n ts w e re p ro f

f e re d to su p p o rt B e lar d o ’s c laim th a t V e rn a M a e D o w a rd a n d M in to ar e r el at ed:

• A n af

firm ati o n o f a n inv esti g ator a v erring that C lem en t D o w ard (a br ot herof V erna M ae D ow ar d) had s t at ed thatM i nt o w as know n on th e is la n d a s h is b ro th e r. A p p . 3 9 -4 0 .

• A m o ti o n fo r release , d ated S ep tem b er 1 5 , 2 0 0 3 , in M into’s unr el at ed cr i m i nal cas e. M i nt o and V i ncentD ow ar d, J r . ( another br ot herof V erna M ae D ow ar d) fi l ed the mot i on, w hi ch r epr es ent ed5 th a t th e tw o w e re b ro th e rs . A p p . 4 6 -4 9 .

• A n a m e n d e d m o tio n f o r re lea se , file d o n S e p tem b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 3 , this t i m e r epr es ent i ng t hatM i nt o and A l exi s D ow ar d ( anotherbr otherof V erna M ae D ow ar d) w er e br other s . A pp. 50- 52.

• A n u n d ertak ing sign ed b yM into a n d A lexis D o w ard u p o n M into’s r el eas e on the cr i m i nal char ge. A pp. 45.

• A n o tar ize d , h a n d w ritten lette r, d a ted A u g u st 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 , fr o m A n g e la M i nt o – A nt honyM i nt o’ s t eena ge daught er , w hom M i nt o s us pect ed o f h a v in g e n g a g e d in a re latio n sh ip w ith B e lar d o . T h e lette r sta tes in r el evantpartt hatA ngel a under s t ood hergr andfa t hert o be V i ncent D ow ar d, Sr . , V erna M ae D ow ar d’ s father . A pp. 42- 43.

• A n o tar ize d , h a n d w ritten lette r, d a ted Ja n u a ry9 , 2 0 0 6 , fr o m A n g e la M i nt o. T he l ett ers t at es i n per t i nentpartthats he had metV erna M ae D ow ar d t hr ough herfatherw hen s he w as l i t t l e, thats he knew V erna M ae a s “A unt i e, ” thatas l ong as s he coul d r emem bers he knew the D ow ar ds as fami l y , and that“C l ementD ow ar d, A l exi s D ow ar d, V i ncentD ow ar d, [and V erna M ae] D ow ar d ar e [he r ] auntand uncl es . ” A pp. 64.

• A n aff

i r m at i on fr om B el ar do’ s pos t - t r i al couns el at t es t i ng that a n o th e r b ro th e r o f

V e rn a M a e D o w a rd – B ra d ley C h ristia n – to ld hi m t hat“A nt honyM i nt o ha[d] al w ay s cl ai m ed t o be the s on of V i ncentD ow ar d, Sr , w ho i s the fa t herof V erna[ M ] ae D ow ar d. ” A pp. 44. T he fol l ow i ng evi dence w as pr offe r ed t o s uppor tthe G overnm ent ’ s pos i t i on that A n tho n yM into a n d V ern a M ae D o w ard are eith er n o t r elated o r did n o t kn o w theyw ere re late d a t th e tim e o f

trial:

• V e rn a M a e D o w a rd ’s te stim o n ya t th e A u g u st 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 h e a rin g th a t: (1 ) to h e r k n o w led g e , M in to is n o t o n e o f h e r f a th e r’s c h ild re n ; (2 ) to herknow l edge, M i nt o had neve rcl ai m ed t o be the chi l d of V i ncent D o w a rd , S r.; (3 ) to h e r k n o w led g e , h e r f a th e r n e v e r c laim e d M in to to be hi s s on; ( 4) befor e the tr i al , s he knew M i nt o onl yi n pas s i ng, but6 di d not“l i t er al l yknow hi m ”; and ( 5) befor e the tr i al , s he di d not know M i nt o byname. A pp. 331- 34.

• A nt honyM i nt o’ s t es t i m onyatthe A ugus t24, 2005 hear i ng that : ( 1) he di d notknow V erna M ae D ow ar d; ( 2) he di d notknow C l ement D ow ar d; ( 3) he di d notknow w ho hi s fatherw as ; ( 4) he had ne ver h e a rd th a t V in c e n t D o w a rd , S r. w a s h is f a th e r; (5 ) n o o n e e v e r to ld hi m w ho hi s fatherw as ; and ( 6) he w as noti nt er es t ed i n i dent i fy i ng hi s father , norhad he e verat t empt ed t o do s o. A pp. 334- 43.

• T he s i gned, Sept ember28, 2005 s t at ementof A l exi s D ow ar d – ad m itted a t th e A u g u st 24 , 2 0 0 5 ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g as sw o rn t es t i m ony– acknow l edgi ng thathe had a t t es t ed i n the amended m ot i on forr el eas e thatM i nt o w as hi s br other , buts t at i ng thathe and M i nt o w er e mer el ychi l dhood fr i ends , and w er e notbi ol ogi cal s i bl i ngs . D ow ar d expl ai ned thathe had s t at ed on the amended mo t i o n f o rr e l e a s e t h a tM i n t o wa s h i s b r o t h e r“ d u e t o th e f a c tth a twe gr ew up t ogetheras chi l dr en fors o l ong t ogetherar ound m yfather butw e ar e notbi ol ogi cal l yr el at ed atal l . ” A l exi s D ow ar d al s o s t at ed t hathe di d notknow the i dent i t yof M i nt o’ s father . A pp. 58- 61.

• M i nt o’ s bi r t h cert i fi cat e, s how i ng thathi s father ’ s name w as “N ot re c o rd e d .” A p p . 3 4 1 . T he tr i al courtcr edi t ed M i nt o and V erna M ae D ow ar d’ s i n- cour tt es t i m onyover the document aryevi dence t hatB el ar do had pr offe r ed. A pp. 96- 97. I tfound that“at bes t , ” the document s “t end t o i nferthats om e peopl e i n M s . D ow ar d’ s fami l ybel i eved theyw er e r el at ed t o [M i nt o] . ” A pp. 97. B utthe courtconcl uded thatthe “doc um ent s do notpr ove . . . t hatM s . D ow ar d and [M i nt o] ar e r el at ed t o one anotherorknow one another . ” I d. B eca us e B el ar do had nots how n t hatV erna M ae D ow ar d had bee n u n tru th f u l d u rin g v o ir d ire , itd e n ied h is m o tio n f o r a n e w trial. A p p . 9 7 -9 8 . O n a p p e a l, the D i stri ctC ou rtcredi t ed the tri al cou rt ’s factual fi nd i ng abo ut V erna M ae’s truthfu l ness,7

“p arti cu larl yw h ere A n tho n yM into’s b irth ce rt ifi ca te fa il ed to d em o n str ate h is fathe r’s i dent i tyora corr es pondi ng fami l i al connec t i on w i t h [V erna M ae] D ow ar d. ” A pp. 395. T o o b t a i n a n e w t r i a l b a s e d o n a j u r o r ’ s u n t ru t h f u l r e s p o n s e t o a v o i rd i r e i n q u i r y, “a pa r tym us tfi r s tdemonstr at e that[the] j ur orfai l ed t o ans w erhones t l ya mat er i al ques t i on on voi rdi r e, and then furt hers how thata corr ectr es pons e w oul d have pr ovi ded a val i d bas i s fora cha l l enge f orcaus e. ” M cD onough Pow erE qui p. , I nc. v. G r eenw ood, 464 U . S. 548, 556 ( 1984) . “G ener al l y , w e w i l l noti nval i dat e a j uryver di ctbeca us e of a j ur or ’ s ‘ m i s t aken, t hough hones t ’ r es pons e atvoi rdi r e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. H odge, 321 F .3 d 4 2 9 , 4 4 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o tin g M c D o n o u g h , 4 6 4 U .S . a t 5 5 5 ). B el ar do admi t s i n hi s br i ef thathe “c annotpr ove thatM i nt o and [V erna M ae] D ow ar d [a] r e r el at ed b[y ] bl ood[. ] ” B el ar do B r . at15. H e i s l eft , then, w i t h chal l engi ng M in to ’s a n d D o w a rd ’s te s tim o n yth a t, to th e b e s t o f th e irk n o w le d g e , th e ya re n o t r e la te d . I d . a t1 5 - 1 7 . We c a n n o ts a yt h e t r i a l c o u r tc l e a r l ye r r e d i n c r e d i t i n g th i s t e s t i mo n y . As th e c o u r te x p l a i n e d , i tw a s i n a s u p e r i o rp o s i t i o n t o a s s e s s th e v e r a c i t y o f th e t e s t i m o n y, a n d it w a s e n tit led to c re d it su c h e v id e n c e o v e r d o c u m e n tar ya f f irm a tio n s n o t su b

jec t to cr os s - exami nat i on. See A nder s on v. C i t yof B es s emerC i t y , 470 U . S. 564, 575 ( 1985) ( “W hen [f

actual ] fi ndi ngs ar e bas ed on det erm i nat i ons r egar di ng the cr edi bi l i t yof w itn esse s, [th e p lai n -error stan d ard ] de m an d s ev en g rea ter de fe ren ce to the tr ial co u rt ’s fi ndi ngs ; foronl yt he tr i al j udge ca n be aw ar e of the var i at i ons i n demeanorand t one of v o ic e th a t b e a r s o h e a v ily o n th e lis te n e r’ s u n d e rs ta n d in g o f a n d b e lie f

in w h a t is s a id .” ).W e gene r al l yr evi ew evi dent i arydet erm i nat i ons forabus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed 4 St at es v. J ohns on, 388 F. 3d 96, 100 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T o t he ext entourr evi ew i m pl i cat es the i nt erpr et at i on of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence , ourr evi ew i s pl enary . I d. T o t he ext entB el ar do fai l ed pr oper l yt o pr es erve an obj ect i on, w e r evi ew forpl ai n err or . U ni t ed S tat es v . Iglesias, 53 5 F . 3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 8 A d d it ion all y , ind ep en d en t evid en ce su p p o rt ed the f ind ing that V ern a M ae D o w ard h o n e s tly b e lie v e d s h e w a s n o t r e la te d to M in to . T hough t he document aryevi dence thatB el ar do s ubm i t t ed perhaps w oul d have su p p o rt ed a d iffe ren t fi n d ing b ythe tri al co u rt , w e a re n o t entit led to d istu rb th e c o u rt ’s fac tual concl us i on w her e evi dence s uppor t s i t . See B es s emerC i t y , 470 U . S. at573 ( “[The cl ear - err or ] s t andar d pl ai nl ydoes notent i t l e a r evi ew i ng courtt o r ever s e the fi ndi ng of the tr i erof fa cts i m pl ybeca us e i ti s convi nced thati tw oul d have de ci ded the cas e di ffe r ent l y . . . . W her e ther e ar e tw o perm i s s i bl e vi ew s of the evi dence , the fac t fi nder ’ s choi ce be t w een them cannotbe cl ear l yerr oneous . ”) . T he tr i al cour tdi d not c lea rlye rr in f

in d in g th a t V e rn a M a e D o w a rd h a d b e e n tru th f u l w h e n sh e d id n o t sta te dur i ng voi rdi r e thats he knew orw as r el at ed t o M i nt o. A ccor di ngl y , the courtdi d not a b u se its d isc re tio n b yd e n y in g B e lar d o ’s m o tio n f o r a n e w trial. III . B el ardo ne xt chal l eng es three of the tri al cou rt ’s evident i aryrul i ng s. 4 A. T he tr i al courtperm i t t ed M i nt o t o t es t i fybr i efl ythatB el ar do had enga ged i n a r el at i ons hi p w i t h hi s t eena ge daught er , A ngel a, and thatthe r el at i ons hi p w as the s our ce ofT hough B el ar do obj ect ed as M i nt o began t o t es t i fyaboutthe r el at i ons hi p, he 5 o b jected o n lyto M into’s attem p t t o g ive h ea rsaytest im o n y , n o t t o the testi m o n y ’s relev an ce o r pre

jud ici al ef

fe ct. A p p . 1 1 4 -15 . “[ A ] pa rtyfa il s to p rese rve an ev iden ti ary i s s ue forappea l notonl ybyfai l i ng t o m ake a s peci fi c obj ect i on, butal s o bym aki ng t he w r ong s peci fi c obj ect i on. ” I gl es i as , 535 F. 3d at158 ( ci t at i ons and al t er at i on om i t t ed; e m p h a sis in o rig in a l). W h ile w e w o u ld n o rm a llyre v iew f o r p lain e rro r, sin c e B e lar d o d id pr oper l yobj ectt o a nea r l yi dent i cal l i ne of que s t i oni ng on t he G overnm ent ’ s r edi r ect exami nat i on, A pp. 136- 42, fors i m pl i ci t yw e w i l l r evi ew the ent i r e l i ne of que s t i oni ng for abus e of di s cr et i on. T he di s t i nct i on her e i s aca demi c. W e re jec t B e lar d o ’s a d d iti o n a l su g g e stio n th a t th e tes tim o n yw a s in a d m iss ib le 6 underFed. R . E vi d. 404( b) . E vi dence of a pe r s on’ s pr i orbad ac t s i s i nadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove th a t p e rso n ’s c o n d u c t in c o n f o rm ityth e re w ith , b u t “o th e r-c rim e e v id e n c e is a d m iss ib le if offe r ed fora pr operpurpos e apa r tfr om s how i ng thatthe def endanti s a per s on of cr i m i nal char act er . Such evi dence i s s ubj ectonl yt o t he l i m i t at i ons i m pos ed byFeder al R ul es of E vi dence 402 and 403. ” G ov’ tof V . I . v. Pi nney , 967 F. 2d 912, 914 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . H er e, of cour s e, t he evi dence of the al l eged r el at i ons hi p w as notus ed in a n yw a yto p ro v e th a t B e la rd o a c te d s im ila rl yo n A p ri l 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 . 9 s ever al pr i orconfr ont at i ons betw een M i nt o and B el ar do. A pp. 114- 15. B el ar do ar gues th a t th is te stim o n yw a s irre lev a n t an d p re ju d icia l. 5 M i nt o’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he al l eged r el at i ons hi p and pr i orconfr ont at i ons w ent di r ect l yt o B el ar do’ s m i nds etatt he t i m e of the A pr i l 21, 2004 i nci dent . A s di s cus s ed i nfr a, t o convi ctB el ar do on C ountT hr ee, the G overnm entw as r equi r ed t o pr ove thathe b ran d ishe d the f

ir ea rm in an “a n g ry ” m an n er. A p o ssible b asis fo r B elard o ’s an g er – M i nt o’ s ear l i erat t ack a r i s i ng fr om hi s daught er ’ s al l eged r el at i ons hi p w i t h B el ar do – w as ther efor e a pr obat i ve i s s ue. M or eover , the abbr evi at ed t es t i m onyconce r ni ng the rel at i on shi p w as not s o infl am m at orythat i tbecam e un du l yprej ud i ci al . W e fi nd no abu se of di s cr et i on i n t he admi s s i on of the cha l l enged e vi dence . 610 B. B e lar d o a ttac k s a s irre lev a n t an d p re ju d icia l th e a d m iss io n o f th e b u llet f

o u n d in h is re sid e n c e . B e c a u se th e G o v e rn m e n t h a d a lre a d ya d d u c e d tes tim o n yth a t a s in g le bul l ethad bee n r ecove r ed pur s uantt o t he s ear ch w arr ant , the tr i al cour ts us t ai ned B el ar do’ s obj ect i on w hen the G overnm entl at ertr i ed t o admi tthe bul l eti t s el f dur i ng O ffi cer J on at han H i t esm an’s t est i m on y . A pp . 21 6-19. Y eton cross -exam i nati on , defe nse couns el chal l enged O ffi cerH i t es m an thor oughl yon w hetherthe bul l etw as , i n fac t , a l i ve r ound. A pp. 219- 22. O n r edi r ect , t he tr i al cour tperm i t t ed the G overnm entt o m ove the bul l eti nt o evi dence , s t at i ng t hatdefe ns e couns el had “made a bi g i s s ue of i t ” on c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n . A p p . 2 2 7 . B el ar do does not , norcoul d he, chal l enge the r el evanc e of the t es t i m ony conce rni ng t he s i ngl e bul l et , gi ven the ea r l i ert es t i m onydemonstr at i ng thata s i ngl e r ound had bee n ej ect ed fr om t he cha m berof B el ar do’ s w eapon. A s s uch, w e ar e puzz l ed w hy admi s s i on of the bul l eti t s el f w oul d be anyl es s r el evant , es peci al l ygi ven the att ent i on t he bul l etr ece i ved dur i ng defe ns e couns el ’ s cr os s - exami nat i on. N orcan w e agr ee, as B el ardo po si t s, t hat adm i ssi on of the bu l l et“app eal [ed] t o the j ury ’s sym pathi es, ar ous e[d] i t s s ens e of horr or , pr ovoke[d] i t s i ns t i nctt o puni s h, orot herw i s e . . . caus e[d] [i t ] t o bas e i t s deci s i on on s om ethi ng ot herthan the es t abl i s hed pr opos i t i on i n t he ca s e. ” C ar t erv. H ew i t t , 617 F. 2d 961, 972 ( 3d C i r . 1980) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A dm i s s i on of the b u lle t h a d n o m o re c a p a c ity to in f la m e th e ju ry’s p a s s io n s th a n d id th e te s tim o n ya b o u t it.W e r ej ectB el ar do’ s ar gum entthatevi dence of the r es t r ai ni ng or derw as 7 admi s s i bl e underFed. R . E vi d. 404( b) . H e fa i l s t o expl ai n how thatevi dence i n anyw ay w as pr obat i ve of the al t ernat i ve purpos es forw hi ch the rul e perm i t s admi s s i on of char act erevi dence . 11 T her efor e, t he tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng the bul l eti nt o evi dence . C. M i nt o ans w er ed af

fi r m at i vel yw hen as ked on cr os s - exami nat i on w hetherhe w as “a peac eful fel l a. ” A pp. 132. B as ed on thatans w er , defe ns e couns el s oughtt o i ntr oduce ev iden ce ab o u t a restr ainin g o rde r th at M into’s w ife h ad o b tai n ed ag ains t him af ter a dom es t i c di s put e. A pp. 133. T he tr i al cour tcomm ent ed thatdefe ns e couns el “neve rgave anynot i ce t o t h[e] C our toroppos i ng couns el that[he] w ant ed t o geti nt o” the r es t r ai ni ng o rd e r. A p p . 1 3 5 . T h e c o u rt ru led , h o w e v e r, th a t in q u iryin to th e re stra in in g o rd e r w o u ld n o t b e p e rm itte d u n le s s a n d u n til it h e a rd “ a c o g n iz a b le s e lf -d e f e n s e c la im .” A p p . 1 3 6 . B el ar do chal l enges t hatrul i ng. W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat itw as n o t an a b u se o f th e tri al co u rt ’s di s cr et i on t o pr ecl ude evi dence of the r es t r ai ni ng or derunl es s and unt i l B el ar do as s er t ed a cl ai m of s el f- defe ns e. A pp. 402- 04; cf. Fed. R . E vi d. 404( a) ( 2) ( perm i t t i ng admi s s i on of evi dence of pert i nentchar act ert r ai tof al l eged vi ct i m “t o r ebutevi dence thatthe al l eged vi ct i m w as t he fi r s taggr es s or ”) . H er e, the onl yr el evantus e of the r es t r ai ni ng or der 7 w oul d be t o chal l enge M i nt o’ s char act erforpeac eful nes s , and the onl yr el evantus e of M in to ’s p e a c e f

u ln e ss , o th e r th a n im p e a c h m e n t, w o u ld b e in su p p o rt o f a c laim o f

se lfFort hi s r eas on, w e do notagr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t( orB el ar do) thatthe tr i al 8 cou rti n an yw aybased it s excl usi on of the evidence o n a lack of p ri or noti ce of defe nse couns el ’ s i nt entt o pr offe revi dence underR ul e 404( b) . R ather , w e r ead the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s s tr aycomm entconce r ni ng t he l ack of pr i ornot i ce – i ncorr ectthough i tw as – as s i m pl ythat . A fai rr eadi ng of the tr ans cr i ptcl ear l yr efl ect s thatthe onl ybas i s upon w hi ch th e trial c o u rt c o n d iti o n a llye x c lu d e d th e e v id e n c e w a s th e a b se n c e o f a se lf -d e f e n se c laim u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (a )(2 ). A p p . 1 3 5 -3 6 . T h e trial c o u rt’s e x p licit d ire c tiv e th a t itw o u ld p e r m i tth e e v i d e n c e i f

a c l a i m o f

s e l f d e f e n s e w a s m a d e d e m o n s t r a t e s th i s q u i t e p l a i n l y. 12 defe ns e. T he tr i al courtm ade c l earthati tw oul d notpr ecl ude B el ar do fr om pr offe r i ng t he r es tr ai ni ng or deri f and w hen he c l ai m ed thatM i nt o had bee n t he fi r s taggr es s or . B ut 8 B el ar do neverdi d s o, and he i s now i l l - pos i t i oned t o att ack the tr i al cour t ’ s condi t i onal e x c lu s io n o f

th e e v id e n c e . Fi nal l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yr ecogni zed thata w i t nes s w ho hi m s el f opens the doort o hi s peac eful nes s runs t he r i s k of bei ng ques t i oned on pr i oract s thatm ay i m peac h bycontr adi ct i on t he ver aci t yof hi s t es t i m ony . C f. Fed. R . E vi d. 607; U ni t ed St at es v. G r eeni dge, 495 F. 3d 85, 99 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A s the D i s t r i ct C our texpl ai ned, how ever , i tw as defe ns e couns el w ho el i ci t ed M i nt o’ s t es t i m onythathe cons i der ed hi m s el f a “ peac eful fel l a. ” A pp. 132. A s s uch, i tcan ha r dl ybe s ai d t hat M i nt o opened the doort o bei ng i m peac hed bythe r es t r ai ni ng or der . See U ni t ed St at es v. K i ncai d- C haunce y , 556 F. 3d 923, 932 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( “I m peac hm entbycontr adi ct i on comes w i th an i m por t antl i m i t at i on. I n gener al , a w i t nes s m aybe i m peac hed by contr adi ct i on onl yi f the s t at ement s i n i s s ue have been vol unt eer ed on di r ect exami nat i on. ”) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ; ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; U ni t ed St at esW hen revi ew i ng a cl ai m chall eng i ng the suf fi ci encyof the evidence, “w e m ust 9 d e ter m in e w h e th e r, v iew in g th e e v id e n c e m o st f a v o ra b lyto th e [ G ]o v e rn m e n t, th e re is s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tt he j ury ’ s gui l t yver di ct . ” U ni t ed St at es v. W exl er , 838 F. 2d 88, 90 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I f “a nyr at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have found the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , ” w e musts us t ai n t he c o n v ic tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . K in g , 2 7 2 F .3 d 3 6 6 , 3 7 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). B elard o ’s bu rde n “is ex tr em elyh igh . ” U n it ed S tat es v . L o re, 43 0 F . 3 d 1 9 0 , 2 0 3 (3d C ir . 2005) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . O urr evi ew i s pl enary . U ni t ed St at es v. B ornm an, 559 F. 3d 150, 1 5 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). 13 v. C as t i l l o, 181 F. 3d 1129, 1132 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( “[E] xtr i ns i c evi dence m aynotbe ad m itted to im p ea ch test im o n yinv it ed b yq u esti o n s p o sed d u ri n g cro ss-ex am ination . ”). I V. A s s ert i ng t hr ee a r gum ent s , B el ar do cont ends thatthe tr i al evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s us t ai n hi s convi ct i on. Fi r s t , he cl ai m s thatbeca us e a f i r earm w as never 9 r ecove r ed, a r at i onal j ur ycoul d notfi nd thathe had e i t herpos s es s ed a f i r earm ( as that t erm i s defi ned i n t he V i r gi n I s l ands C ode) orbr andi s hed a de adl yw eapon. Second, he ar gues t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o pr ove thathe ac t ed i n a rude and thr eat eni ng m anner , el ement s nece s s aryt o s us t ai n t he br andi s hi ng char ge. T hi r d, he as s ert s thatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe thi r d- degr ee a s s aul tchar ge bec aus e no evi dence demonstr at ed thatM i nt o fel tt hr eat ened byB el ar do’ s ges tur e. B el ar do w as char ged i n C ountO ne w i t h unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a f i r earm dur i ng the comm i s s i on of a c r i m e of vi ol ence . T i t l e 14 V . I . C . § 2253( a) pr os cr i bes the unauthor i zed “ pos s es [i on] . . . [of] anyfi r earm , as defi ned i n T i t l e 23, s ect i on 451( d) ” of“‘ Fi r earm ’ m eans anydevi ce byw hat evername know n, capa bl e of di s char gi ng 10 a m m u n itio n b ym e a n s o f g a s g e n e ra te d f

ro m a n e x p lo s iv e c o m p o s itio n . . . .” 2 3 V .I.C . § 4 5 1 (d). A s s aul ti n t he thi r d degr ee i s a cr i m e of vi ol ence underV i r gi n I s l ands l aw . See

11 1 4 V .I.C . § 2 2 5 3 (d ); 2 3 V .I.C . § 4 5 1 (e ); U n ite d S ta te s v . X a v ie r, 2 F .3 d 1 2 8 1 , 1 2 8 9 n .7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). A s w e d isc u ss in f ra , the e v id e n c e w a s s u f f icie n t to su sta in th a t p re d ica te c h a rg e . B el ar do ci t es G overnm entof the V i r gi n I s l ands v. G r eeni dge forthe pr opos i t i on

12 th a t§ 2 2 5 3 ( a ) ’ s p e n a l t ye n h a n c e me n td o e s n o tp r e s c r i b e a d d i t i o n a l e l e me n t s o f th e c r i me of unl aw ful pos s es s i on, and thatt he G overnm entw as thus r equi r ed t o pr ove thatthe fi r earm w as i ndeed ope r abl e. 41 V . I . 200, N o. 1996- 045, 1998 U . S. D i s t . L E X I S, at*6 n .2 (D .V .I. 19 9 8 ); a c c o rd X a v ier , 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 1 . W e d isa g re e . T h o u g h B e lar d o is c o rre c t th a t th e e n h a n c e m e n t d o e s n o t es tab lish a n ya d d iti o n a l ele m e n ts, its p lain l anguage cl ear l ypr ovi des an al t ernat i ve means of es t abl i s hi ng the al r eady - ext ant pos s es s i on el ementw hen a c r i m e of vi ol ence i s i nvol ved. I n t hos e ci r cumst ance s , the obj ectpos s es s ed maybe ei t heran oper abl e fi r earm as defi ned i n § 451( d) oran i noper abl e i m i t at i on of s uch a de vi ce. 14 the V i r gi n I s l ands C ode. A s t he G overnm entnot es , how ever , the s t atut e pr ovi des an 10 enhanc ed pena l t yw hen “s uch [a ] fi r earm oran i m i t at i on ther eof” i s pos s es s ed dur i ng t he comm i s s i on of a c r i m e of vi ol ence . I d. T hus , i ti s i r r el evantw hethera “f i r earm oran 11 im itatio n th e re o f

” is a c tu a lly“ c a p a b le o f d isc h a rg in g a m m u n iti o n ” w h e n th e im p lem e n t is pos s es s ed dur i ng t he comm i s s i on of a c r i m e of vi ol ence . H er e, tw o w i t nes s es t es t i fi ed 12 thattheys aw t he fi r earm ( or , att he veryl eas t , a fi r earm l ook- al i ke) i n B el ar do’ s phy s i cal p o ss e ss io n d u rin g th e a lterc a tio n w ith M in to , an d R iv e ra tes tifie d th a t h e sa w it im m e d iate lyth e re a f

ter . A s B e lar d o a ttac k s n o o th e r e lem e n t o f th e c h a rg e d o f

f e n se , h is c h a lle n g e to C o u n t O n e f a ils . I n anyevent , w e bel i eve the evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o perm i tthe j uryt o i nfert hatT i t l e 14 V . I . C . § 621( 1) pr ohi bi t s , “i n t he pr es ence of tw o orm or e per s ons ” and 13 w h e n “ n o t in n e c e ss a ryse lf -d e f e n se ,” th e “ d ra w [ in g ] o r e x h ib it[in g ] [ o f ] a n yd e a d ly w eapon i n a rude, angry , and thr eat eni ng m anner . ” 15 the w eapon Bel ar do pos s es s ed w as i ndeed ope r abl e, and thus “dea dl y ” forpurpos es of C ountT hr ee. See G ov’ tof the V . I . v. R obi ns on, 29 F. 3d 878, 886 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( “A

13 d e a d lyw e a p o n is o n e w h ich . . . is c a lcu late d o r lik e lyto p ro d u c e d e a th o r se rio u s b o d ily i nj ur y . ”) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W e al s o fi nd the t es t i m onyr egar di ng the A pr i l 21, 2004 incid en t suf

ficien t t o su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s de term ination that B elard o h ad p o inted a f ir ea rm atM i nt o i n a “rude, angry , and thr eat eni ng m anner . ” Fi r s t , R i ver a t es t i fi ed thatB el ar do admi t t ed t o hi m i n t he ca rt hathe had j us t“had a [n] ar gum entw i t h . . . M i nt o and . . . t hat he pul l [ed] hi s gun” on hi m . A pp. 153. Second, the evi dence es t abl i s hed thatB el ar do cocke d the fi r earm s uch thatone l i ve r ound w as di s char ged fr om the cha m berand another w a s lo a d e d . T h ird , the tes tim o n ye sta b lish e d th a t B e lar d o p o in ted th e w e a p o n a t M in to n o t on ce , b u t tw ice. Fo u rth , a sin g le, li v e ro u n d w as later rec o v ere d fro m B elard o ’s r es i dence . W e conc l ude thatt hi s evi dence perm i t t ed a r at i onal j uryt o deduce thatw hen B el ar do admi t t ed thathe had “ pul l [ed] hi s gun, ” he w as admi t t i ng thathe had pul l ed an oper abl e fi r earm . A nd gi ven the i nher ent l ythr eat eni ng natur e of the ac ti t s el f and the in ten se h isto ryb e tw e e n B e lar d o a n d M in to , the tes tim o n ye a silyp e rm itt e d th e ju ryto concl ude thatB el ar do br andi s hed the fi r earm i n a “rude, angry , and thr eat eni ng m anner . ” Fi nal l y , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s us t ai n t he thi r d- degr ee as s aul tchar ge under14 V . I . C . § 297( 2) , w hi ch pr ohi bi t s “as s aul t s w i t h a dea dl yw eapon. ”“ W h o e v e r u se s a n yu n law f u l v io len c e u p o n th e p e rso n o f a n o th e r w ith in ten t to 14 i nj ur e hi m , w hat everbe the means orthe degr ee of vi ol ence us ed, comm i t s an as s aul tand b a tte ry.” 1 4 V .I.C . § 2 9 2 . 16 A s w e have al r eadyconcl uded, t he evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o perm i tthe j uryt o fi nd t hat th e f ir e a rm w a s o p e ra b le , a n d th u s d e a d ly. “A s s a u lt,” in tu rn , is d e f in e d in 1 4 V .I.C . § 291; as i s r el evanther e, t hatt erm m eans “a thr eat eni ng ges tur e s how i ng i n i t s el f an im m e d ia te in te n tio n c o u p le d w ith a n a b ility to c o m m it a b a tte ry.” 1 4 V .I.C . § 2 9 1 (2 ). W hen B el ar do cocke d t he fi r earm and tw i ce poi nt ed i tatM i nt o, he i ndi s put abl ym ade a

“ th re a ten in g g e stu re ,” a n d o n e w h ich itse lf d isp layed b o th a n in ten tio n a n d a b ili tyto

“ b a tte r” M in to . B e la rd o s u g g e s ts th a t M in to d id n o t f e e l th re a te n e d b yth e g e s tu re . A 14 vi ct i m ’ s per cept i on, how ever , i s nota r el evantcons i der at i on underthe pl ai n t erm s of the s ta tu te ; th e s o le f

o c u s is o n th e n a tu re o f th e d e f e n d a n t’ s a c t. V. Fort he r eas ons s t at ed above , the j udgm entof convi ct i on w i l l be af fi r m ed.