# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 26 42

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ray Bass et t, al so kn own as M em ph is

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

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

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 12 , 20 14
Fil ed : Au gu st 6, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, COLLOTO N, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ray Ant ho ny Bas se tt was co nv ic te d of co ns pi racy to c o mm i t ba nk ro bb ery,

p o s se ss io n of a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a cri m e of vi ol en ce, an d be in g a fel on i n

po ss es si on of a fir earm

. He ap pe al s, arg ui ng th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t

hi m of co ns pi racy an d po ss es si on of a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a cri m e of vi ol en ce.H e a l s o co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by de nyin g hi s m ot io n in li m in e t o 1

ex cl ud e Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce. W it h juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

, we affi rm

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Oti s McAl li st er, a fed eral in m at e, de ve lo pe d a pl a n t o red uc e hi s 37 -y ear

se nt en ce. W it h th e he lp of hi s ne ph ew, Anthon y McAl li st er, Oti s McAl li st er so li ci te d

hi s cou si ns , Ray an d W il li e Bas se tt

, to ro b Pul as ki Ban k in St

. Lou is

, Mi ss ou ri. He

in te nd ed to in fo rm th e FBI of th e ro bb ery to ob ta in a se nt en ce red uc ti on pu rs ua nt to

Fed . R. Cri m . P. 35 (b ).

Ray an d W il li e Bas se tt were un aware th e ro bb ery was a se t-u p. Oti s a nd

Ant ho ny McAl li st er to ld th em it wou ld be “ an in si de job ” an d th at a fem al e em pl oyee

at Pu la sk i Ba nk wou ld ass is t t he m

.

On Octo be r 29

, 20 11

, Oti s McAl li st er co nt act ed th e FBI ab ou t th e ba nk

ro bb ery, se t fo r Nov em

be r 4. Bas ed on Oti s McAl li st er’s ti p an d hi s in -p ris on ph on e
cal ls

, th e FBI se arch ed Ant ho ny McAl li st er’s res id en ce in th e earl y m or ni ng of

Nov em be r 4, arre st in g Ant ho ny McAl li st er, Ray Bas se tt

, an d W il li e Bas se tt on -s it e.
The FBI al so reco ve red a .22 cal ib er se m i-a ut om at ic pi st o l

, a fir earm m ag azi ne ,

am m un it io n, da rk co lo red cl ot hi ng an d ha ts

, a ro ll o f d u c t ta pe , an d la te x an d

bl ack -k ni t g lo ve s.

In hi s p os t-a rres t i nt erv ie w wit h F BI Sp eci al Agen t Bil l Mey ers , Ray Bass et t

ad m it te d in te nd in g to ro b Pu la sk i Ban k; so li ci ti ng an ot he r pe rs on to p a r t i c i pa te ;

pu rch as in g a ha nd gu n, am m un it io n, gl ov es , da rk co lo red cl ot hi ng , a du ffel ba g, an d

a ba ck pa ck ; bo rro win g m on ey fro m hi s gi rlf rie nd to ren t a car fo r th e ro bb ery; as ki ng

The Hon or ab le St ep he n N. Lim ba ug h Jr

., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-hi s si st er to ren t th e car in he r na m e; tra ve li ng fro m Mem ph is t o S t

. Lo u is on

Nov em be r 1; an d can va ss in g th e ba nk wit h hi s fel lo w ro bb er an d an ot he r in di vi du al

. He al so ad m it te d c om m it ti ng an arm ed ba nk rob be ry in 20 00

.

In May 20 12

, Ray Bas se tt was in di ct ed on fo ur co un t s : (I) co ns pi racy to

co m m it ba nk ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 21 13 (a) a n d 3 7 1 ; (II) at te m pt ed

ba nk ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § § 2 1 13 (a) an d 2( a); (III) po ss es si on of a

fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a cri m e o f vi ol en ce, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 );

an d (IV) 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 )

. W il li e Bas se tt was in di ct ed on Co un ts I an d II. Oti s an d Ant ho ny
McAl li st er were in di ct ed fo r so li ci ta ti on to co m m it a cri m e of vi ol en ce, in vi ol at io n

of 18 U.S.C. § 3 73 (a). Th e fo ur were s ch ed ul ed for a joi nt tri al

.

Befo re t ria l, Ra y

Bas se tt fil ed a m ot io n in li m in e to pre cl ud e th e g ov ern m en t

fro m in tro du ci ng , el ic it in g, or m en ti on in g ev id en ce of hi s cri m in al arre st reco rd

, pr io r
b a d a ct s, or un ch arg ed of fen se s— sp eci fic al ly, hi s 20 00 arm ed ba nk ro bb ery—t o
de m on st rat e p ro pe ns it y

to co m m it th e cri m es ch arg ed or t o im pe ach hi s cr ed ib il it y

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, fin di ng ev id en ce of t h e 2 0 0 0 arm ed ba nk

ro bb ery ad m is si bl e u nd er Fe d. R. Ev id . 40 4( b)

.

Tria l co m m en ced in Feb ru ary 20 13

. At tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t in tro du ced Ray

Bas se tt ’s ad m is si on to co m m it ti ng an arm ed ba nk ro bb ery in 20 00

. The di st ric t co ur t

in st ru ct ed th e jury on th e li m it ed us e of th is Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce. At th e cl os e of th e

go ve rn m en t’s cas e, Ray Bas se tt m ov ed fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on Co un ts I an d II,

arg ui ng th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e th at “ th e ta ki ng or at te m pt ed ta ki ng of th e

m on ey fro m

th e Pu la sk i Ba nk

. . . [was ] by fo rce and vi ol en ce and in ti m id at io n,” as

req ui red un de r § 21 13 (a). The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. At th e cl os e of al l th e

e v i d e n ce, Ray Bas se tt ag ai n m ov ed fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al “ ba se d on al l t h e

reas on s we p rev io us ly stat ed .” The c ou rt d en ie d t he m ot io n.

-3

-The jury co nv ic te d Ray Bas se tt on Co un ts I, III, an d IV an d acq ui tt ed hi m on

Co un t II. The jury acq ui tt ed W il li e Bas se tt an d Ant ho ny McAl li st er on al l co un ts an d

co nv ic te d Ot is McAl li st er o f so li ci ta ti on of c on sp ira cy to co m m it ba nk rob be ry

.

Afte r tri al

, Ray Bas se tt fil ed a th ird m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on Co un t
I, ar gu in g th e ev id en ce di d no t su pp or t a co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on be cau se th e jury

co nv ic te d on ly on e of hi s co -d efen da nt s (Oti s McAl li st er) an d th ere was no “ m eet in g

of th e m in ds ” be twee n th e two

. He al so m ov ed fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on Co un t
III, po ss es si on of a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a cri m e of vi ol en ce, be cau se it rel ie d on

th e c o n s p ira cy co nv ic ti on

. He th en m ov ed fo r a ne w tri al

, arg ui ng , am on g ot he r

th in gs , th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng ev id en ce of th e 2 0 0 0 a r med ba nk

r o bb ery. The co ur t de ni ed bo th m ot io ns

. The co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 13 8 mo n t h s ’

im pr is on m en t.

II . Disc us si on

A. Suffi ci ency of E vi denc e

On ap pe al

, Ray Bas se tt co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io ns

fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al an d m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al be cau se th e ev id en ce was

in su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t hi m of co ns pi racy to co m m it ba nk ro bb ery. He al so ch al le ng es

hi s co nv ic ti on for po ss es si on of a fir earm in fur th eran ce o f a cri m e o f vi ol en ce.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al ,” vi ewin g

“ th e e v i d e n c e in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi ng ev id en ti ary

co nf li ct s in fav or of th e go ve rn m en t, and acce pt in g all reas on ab le in fere nc es dr awn

fro m th e ev id en ce th at su pp or t th e jury’ s ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. W an na , 74 4 F.3 d

58 4, 58 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ W he re a pa rty ch al le ng es th e ev id en ce

un de rlyin g hi s co nv ic ti on , th e st an da rd of rev ie w is ve ry st ric t, an d th e jury’ s ve rd ic t

is no t to be li gh tl y ov ert ur ne d.” Uni te d St at es v. Hay es , 39 1 F.3 d 95 8, 96 1 (8 th Ci r.

-4

-20 04 ). “ ‘W e m ay rev ers e on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt

gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.’” W an na , 74 4 F.3 d at 58 8 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es
v. Wash in gt on , 31 8 F .3d 84 5, 8 52 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3) ).

“ W e rev ie w a de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a ne w tr i a l f o r a n ab us e of di sc ret io n,

reco gn iz in g th at a ne w tri al m ot io n sh ou ld on ly be gr an te d w h e re ‘the in te res t of
jus ti ce so req ui r e s

. ’” U ni te d St at es v. Ja ni s, 55 6 F.3 d 89 4, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Dod d, 3 91 F.3d 93 0, 9 34 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4) ).

In Co un t I, Ray an d W il li e Bas se tt were in di ct ed fo r co ns pi rin g, “ am on g

th em se lv es , an d wit h ot he r pe rs on s kn own an d un kn own to th e G r an d Ju ry ” to

co m m it ba nk ro bb ery. The di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury on th e el em en ts of Co un t

I: (1 ) on or be fo re Nov em be r 4, 20 11

, two or m or e pe rs on s reac he d an ag reem en t or

cam e to an un de rs ta nd in g t o co m m it ba nk ro bb ery; (2 ) de fen da nt vo lu nt ari ly an d

in te nt io na ll y joi ne d in th e ag reem en t or un de rs ta nd in g, ei th er at th e ti m e it was fir st

reac he d or at so m e la te r ti m e whi le it was st il l i n e f f e c t ; ( 3 ) at th e ti m e de fen da nt joi ne d i n t he ag reem en t or un de rs ta nd in g, h e k ne w th e p ur po se of t he ag reem en t o r

un de rs ta nd in g; an d (4 ) whi le th e ag reem en t or un de rs ta nd in g was in effe ct

, a pe rs on

or pe rs on s who ha d joi ne d in th e ag reem en t kn owi ng ly di d an ov ert act

. See Uni te d

St at es v. Hoe ls ch er, 76 4 F.2 d 49 1, 49 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (“ ‘T he of fen se of co ns pi racy

co ns is ts of an ag r e e ment be twee n [two or m or e pe rs on s] to co m m it an of fen se ,
at te nd ed by an act of on e or m or e of th e c o n s p i r a t or s to effe ct th e ob ject of th e

co ns pi racy.’

. . . The ag reem en t ne ed no t be ex pr es s or fo rm al an d m ay be es ta bl is he d
by ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce.”) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hol d er, 56 0 F.2 d 95 3, 95 7
(8 th Ci r. 19 77 )); se e al so 18 U.S.C. § 37 1 (Co ns pi racy req ui res “ two or m or e pe rs on s [to ] co ns pi re . . . to co m

m it an y off en se ag ai ns t t he Uni te d S ta te s.”)

.

On ap pe al

, th e pa rti es ag ree th at th e ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t to sh ow th at Ray

Bas se tt co ns pi red wit h Oti s or Ant ho ny McAl li st er to ro b Pu la sk i Ban k. Ray Bas se tt

co nt en ds , ho wev er, t ha t t he ev id en ce is al so in su ffi ci en t to sh ow he co ns pi red wit h

-5

-W il li e Bas se tt

, be cau se “ W il li e was fo un d no t gu il ty of co ns pi racy by th e jury, so Ray

co ul d n ot ha ve joi ne d i n a n a gr eem en t wi th hi m

. . . .”

In Uni te d St at es v. Po well

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t h e l d th at th e acq ui tt al of a
cri m in al de fen da nt on on e co un t do es no t in va li da te hi s co nv ic ti on on an ot he r co un t,

ev en if th e acq ui tt al an d co nv ic ti on are in co ns is te nt

. 46 9 U

. S. 57

, 64 –6 7 (1 98 4)

.

“ [W] he re tru ly in co ns is te nt ve rd ic ts ha ve be en reac he d, ‘[t]he m os t th at can be sa id

. . . is th at th e ve rd ic t sh ows th at ei th er in th e acq ui tt al or th e co nv ic ti on th e jury di d

no t sp eak th ei r real co nc lu si on s, bu t th at do es no t sh ow th at th ey were no t co nv in ced

of th e de fen da nt ’s gu il t.’” Id

. at 64 –6 5 (q uo ti ng Dun n v. Uni te d St at es , 28 4 U.S. 39 0,

39 3 (1 93 2) ).

In Uni te d St at es v. Mo rto n, we reco gn iz ed th at , “ [a]lt ho ug h Pow el l in vo lv ed

in co ns is te nt ve rd ic ts on m ul ti pl e co un ts as th ey

pe rta in ed to a si ng le de fen da nt , th e

reas on s th at th e Co ur t ga ve to jus ti fy it s de ci si on ap pl y eq ua ll y to a co nv ic ti on of on e
de fen da nt th at is in co ns is te nt wit h a ve rd ic t of acq ui tt al of an ot he r de fen da nt on th e

sa m e co un t.” 4 1 2 F

. 3 d 90 1, 90 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v.

Zun ig a-Sa li na s, 95 2 F.2 d 87 6, 87 7– 78 (5 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (en ba nc ); Uni te d St at es v.

Man cari

, 87 5 F.2 d 10 3, 1 0 4 ( 7 t h Ci r. 19 89 )). Acco rd in gl y , we reject ed th e
de fen da nt ’s arg um en t t ha t “ th e acq ui tt al of h is on ly alle ge d c o- co ns pi rat or req ui res

rev ers al of hi s co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on .” Id

. “ So lo ng as th e gu il ty ve rd ic t is su pp or te d
by su ffi ci en t ev id en ce, co ur ts ha ve no cau se to in te rfer e,” ev e n i f t h e o nl y ot he r

co -co ns pi r a t o r i s acq ui tt ed

. Uni te d St at es v. Fu ll er, 37 4 F.3 d 61 7, 62 3 (8 th Ci r.

20 04 ).

Not wit hs ta nd in g W il li e Bas se tt ’s acq ui tt al

, th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce th at

R a y B a s se tt co ns pi red wit h hi m to co m m it a ba nk ro bb ery. At tri al , Ag en t Me ye r s

te st ifi ed th at d ur in g a po st -arr es t in te rv ie w, Ray Bas se tt ad m it te d th at he as ke d

an ot he r pe rs on to pa rti ci pa te in th e ba n k r o b b e ry , an d th at pe rs on ag reed

. He al so
de sc rib ed th e ro le s he an d th e ot he r ro bb er wou ld pl ay : be fo re th e ba nk op en ed

, th ey

-6

-wou ld ap pr oa ch th e “ in si de ” em pl oyee an d her co -wo rk er in th ei r cars ; Ray Bas se tt

wou ld br an di sh hi s gu n an d gr ab th e co -wo rk er; th e ot he r ro bb er wou ld en te r th e
b a n k wit h th e “ in si de ” em pl oyee; an d on ce in si de

, Ray Bas se tt wou ld ti e u p b o t h

em pl oyees, an d th e ot he r ro bb er wou ld ga th er th e m on ey

. Age nt Meyers al so te st ifi ed

th at Ray Bas se tt un de rs to od he wou ld sp li t th e m on ey wit h th e ot he r ro bb er an d two

ot he rs

.

Ph on e cal ls

, em ai ls

, an d te st im on y ad m it te d at tri al al so pr ov id ed ev id en ce of

th e co ns pi racy be twee n Ray an d W il li e Bas se tt

. In a Sep te m be r 20 11 em ai l, Oti s
McAl li st er to ld Ant ho ny McAl li st er to c o nt act Ray an d W il li e Bas se tt ab ou t

“ so m et hi ng in th e wor ks ” an d in fo rm th em of th e do ll ar am ou nt

. In a Sep te m be r

20 11 ph on e cal l, Oti s McAl li st er sai d th at hi s cou si ns , Ray an d W il li e, “ wil l do an y
da m n t hi ng .” In Oc to be r 20 11 ph on e cal ls , Oti s M cAll is te r to ld Ray Bas se tt to ask

W il li e Bas se tt to he lp ro b th e ba nk an d to br in g gu ns to mak e t h e r ob be ry “ lo ok

go od .” The two al so di sc us se d ho w to sp li t th e m on ey

. In Nov em be r 20 11

, Ant ho ny
McAl li st er in fo rm ed Oti s McAl li st er th at Ray an d W il li e Bas se tt were st ay in g at hi s
ho us e an d th at he ha d sh own t h e m t h e t a r ge t ba nk

. Oti s McAl li st er la te r ta lk ed to

bo th Ray an d W il li e Bas se tt

, who co nf irmed th ey were st ay in g at Ant ho ny
McAl li st er’s, ha d ev erythi ng th ey ne ed ed fo r th e ro bb ery, an d ha d al read y m ad e pl an s

fo r th ei r sh are of th e m on ey

. Thro ug ho ut th e cal ls

, Oti s an d Ant ho ny McAl li st er an d
Ray Bas se tt refe ren ced m or e th an on e ro bb er. At tri al

, Oti s McAl li st er co nf irmed th e

co nt e n t of th e em ai ls an d ph on e cal ls

. He al so te st ifi ed th at he co nv in ced Ray an d

W il li e Bas se tt to co m

m it th e ro bb ery, th at th ey ren te d a car an d dr ov e fro m Mem ph is

to St

. Lou is

, an d th at th ey st ay ed at Ant ho ny McAl li st er’s ho us e to pr ep are fo r th e

ro bb ery.

The ev id en ce is su ffi ci en t to su pp or t Ray Bas se tt ’s co ns pi r a c y co nv ic ti on

. Bec au se th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t hi m of co ns pi racy, hi s ch al le ng e to th e

co nv ic ti on fo r po ss es si on of a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a cri m e of vi ol en ce is wit ho ut

m eri t. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

.

-7

-In a rel at ed arg um en t, Ray Bas se tt as ks th is co ur t to gr an t a ne w tri al be cau se

th ere is in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce th at he co ns pi red wit h an ot he r pe rs on to co m m it a ba nk

ro bb ery. He di d n ot rai se th is is su e in hi s m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al in di st ric t co ur t.
Reg ard l e s s , be cau se th ere was am pl e ev id en ce th at Ray an d W il li e Bas se tt ha d an

ag reem en t to ro b Pu la sk i Ban k, Ray Bas se tt is no t en ti tl ed to a ne w tri al on th is ba si s.

B. Rule 40 4( b) Ev id ence

Ray Bas se tt al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng th e po rti on of

hi s No ve m

be r 4, 2 01 1, s ta te m en t t o Ag en t M ey ers in whi ch he co nf es se d t o a 20 00

arm ed ba nk ro bb ery. He cl ai m s th e 20 00 ro bb ery is no t su ffi ci en tl y si m il ar to th e

ro bb ery he re an d t ha t ad m is si on of h is co nf es si on was u nd ul y

pre jud ic ia l.

Und er Ru le 40 4( b )

, “[e ]v id en ce of a cri m e, wro ng , or ot he r act is no t

ad m is si bl e to pr ov e a pe rs on ’s ch arac te r in or de r to sh ow th at on a pa rti cu la r oc cas io n

th e pe rs on act ed in acco rd a n c e w it h th e ch arac te r.” Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4( b) (1 ).

Howev er, “ [t]hi s ev id en ce m ay be ad m is si bl e fo r an ot he r pu rp os e, su ch as pr ov in g

m ot iv e, op po rtu ni ty, in te nt

, pr e p a r a ti on , pl an , kn owl ed ge , id en ti ty, ab se nc e of

m is ta ke

, or la ck of acci de nt .” Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4( b) (2 ). “ Su ch ev id en ce is ad m is si bl e

if ‘(1) it is rel ev an t to a m at eri al is su e; (2 ) it is si m il ar in ki nd an d no t ov erl y rem ot e

in ti m e to th e cri m e ch arg ed ; (3 ) it is su pp or te d by su f f i c i e n t ev id en ce; an d (4 ) it s

po te nt ia l pr ejud ic e do es no t su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh it s pr ob at iv e v a l u e

. ’” Uni te d

St at es v. Co ck erh am , 41 7 F.3 d 91 9

, 92 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v.

Fraz ie r, 28 0 F.3 d 83 5, 84 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 )). “ ‘W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s

ad m is si on of ev id en ce of pa st cri m es un de r [Fed eral Ru l e o f Ev id en ce] 40 4( b) fo r
ab us e of di sc ret io n, an d we wil l no t rev ers e un le ss th e ev id en ce cl earl y ha d no
be ari ng on th e cas e an d was in tro du ced so le ly to pr ov e th e de fen da nt ’s pr op en si ty to

co m m it cri m in al act s.’” U n i te d St at es v. Ban ks , 7 06 F.3 d 90 1, 90 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Bet te rto n, 4 17 F.3d 82 6, 8 31 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) ).

-8

-Ray Bas se tt ch al le n g es th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at hi s 20 00 arm ed ba nk

ro bb ery was “ si m il ar in ki nd ” to th e ro bb ery ch arg ed he re. At tri al

, Age nt Meyers

te st ifi ed th at Ray Bas se tt ad m it te d co ns pi rin g wit h an ot he r pe rs on to co m m it an

arm ed ba nk ro bb ery in St

. Lou is in 20 00

. Acco rd in g to Ray Bas se tt ’s ad m is si on , he

an d a fel lo w ro bb er cas ed th e ba nk be fo re th e ro bb e r y; wor e sk i m as ks to di sg ui se

th ei r ap pe aran ce; ap pr oa ch ed a ba nk em pl oyee in he r ve hi cl e a s s h e a r r iv ed in th e

pa rk in g lo t; br an di sh ed a gu n; fo rced th e em pl oyee to walk in to th e ba nk wit h th em ;

ti ed he r up ; an d us ed du ffel ba gs to rem ov e th e m on ey

. Al t h o u g h t h e 20 00 arm ed

ba nk ro bb ery was no t an “ in si de job ,” i t w a s su ffi ci en tl y si m il ar to th e ro bb ery pl an ne d he re to be ad m is si bl e un de r Ru le 40 4( b)

. See Uni te d St at es v. W al ke r, 47 0

F.3 d 12 71

, 12 75 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ W he n ad m it te d to sh ow in te nt

, ‘the pr io r act s ne ed

no t be du pl ic at es , bu t m

us t be su ffi ci en tl y si m il ar to su pp or t an in fere nc e of cri m in al

in te nt .’ ”) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Stro ng , 41 5 F .3d 90 2, 9 05 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) ).

Ray Bas se tt al so co nt en ds th at ev id en ce of his 20 00 arm ed ba nk ro bb ery was

m or e pr ejud ic ia l th an pr ob at iv e. The 20 00 arm ed ba nk ro bb ery was pr ob at iv e of Ray

Bas se tt ’s in te nt to ro b Pu la s k i Ban k as ch arg ed in Co un ts I an d II. At tri al

, Ray

Bas se tt arg ue d th at he co ul d no t be co nv ic te d of co ns pi racy o r a t t e mp te d ba nk

ro bb ery be cau se th e ro bb ery was fak e. Thro ug h th is de fen se , Ray Bas se tt pl aced hi s

in te nt at is su e, pe rm it ti ng th e go ve rn m en t to in t r o d uc e ev id en ce of th e 20 00 arm ed

ba nk ro bb ery. See Uni te d St at es v. Luc as , 49 9 F.3 d 76 9, 78 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ Si nc e [th e de fen da nt ] pu t hi s kn owl ed ge an d in t e n t at is su e, an d th e go ve rn m en t ha d th e
bu rd en of pr oo f on th es e el em en ts

, ad m is si on of th e 40 4( b) ev id en ce was pr op er.”) ;
Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo ne s, 1 10 F.3d 34 , 36 (8t h C ir. 1 99 7)

.

Fi na ll y , th e ev id en ce was no t un du ly pr ej u d i c i a l

. Onl y on e wit ne ss te st ifi ed

ab ou t Ray Bas se tt ’s ad m is si on to th e 20 00 arm ed ba nk ro bb ery. The te st im on y was
sh or t an d en te red ne ar th e en d of th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e. In it s cl os in g an d reb ut ta l,

th e g ov ern m en t m en ti on ed th e 20 00 ba nk ro bb ery o nl y two ti m es , ob se rv in g t ha t i t

“ sh ou ld in fo rm y ou ab ou t wha t Ray Bas se tt ’s in te nt was in th is cas e.” Mo reo ve r, th e

-9

-co ur t pr ov id ed a li m it in g in st ru ct io n, cau ti on in g th e jury ab ou t th e li m it ed pu rp os e

of Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce.

You are ab ou t to he ar ev id en ce th at Defen da n t R a y Ant ho ny Bas se tt ad m it te d to co m

mi t t in g an arm ed ba nk ro bb ery in th e Year 20 00 . Yo u

m ay co ns id er th is ev i d e n c e on ly if y ou un an im ou sl y fin d it is m or e li ke ly tru e th an n o t t r u e

. You de ci de th at by co ns id eri ng al l of th e

ev id en ce an d de ci di ng wha t ev id en ce is m or e be li ev ab le

. Thi s is a lo wer
st an da rd th an pro of

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.

If yo u f i n d th is ev id en ce ha s be en pr ov ed , t he n y ou m ay co ns id er it to he lp y ou de ci de Defen da nt Ray Ant ho ny’ s— Ant ho ny Bas se tt ’s m ot iv e,
op po rtu ni ty, in te nt , pl an , kn owl ed ge an d m od us op eran di . Yo u s ho ul d

no t gi ve it th e weig ht an d va lu e or y ou sh o u l d g i v e it th e weig ht an d

va lu e y ou be li ev e it is en ti tl ed to rece iv e. If y ou fin d th at th is ev id en ce ha s no t be en pr ov ed

, y ou m us t di sr eg ard it

. Rem em

be r, ev en if y ou fin d
th at th e Defen da nt m ay ha ve co m m it te d si m il ar act s in th e pa st , t hi s is

no t ev id en ce th at he co m m it te d s u c h an act in th is cas e. You m ay no t

co nv ic t a pe rs on s i mply be cau se y ou be li ev e he m ay ha ve co m m it te d
si m il ar ac ts in th e p as t.

“ [A] pr op er li m it in g in st ru ct io n se rv es as a pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t un fai r pr ejud ic e.”

Co ck erh am , 41 7 F .3d at 9 21

.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng ev id en ce of Ray

Bas se tt ’s con fes si on to a 20 00 arm ed ba nk rob be ry

.

II I. Co ncl us io n

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-1 0-