1

06-2933-c r United States v. Ham ilton UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T Aug ust Term, 2007 (Argued: September 26, 2007 Dec ided: Aug ust 15, 2008) Docke t No. 06-2933-c r

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, 1 Appellee , 2 3 -v.- 4 5 HORATI O HAMI L TON, 6 7 Defendant- Appellant

. 8 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 10 11 Be fore : L EVAL , SOTOMAYOR, and K ATZ MANN, Circuit Judges

. 12 13 Def

endant a ppeals fr o m t h e j u d g ment of the United States District Court for the Southern 14 Di str ic t of

Ne w Y or k c on vic tin g him

of c on sp ir a c y

to dis tr ibute and po sse ss w ithint e nt t o d istri bu te 15 mari

jua na . T he de fe nd ant co nte nd s tha t the dis tr ic t cou rt e rr e d (1) in d e nyinghis mot ion to s up pr e ss 16 evidence s ei z ed from a house in which he c laimed a pr ivacy interest on the g round that he la cked 17 standing ; (2) in re ce i v i n g hear say testimony ; (3) in re ceivingexpert opinion testim ony without 18 establishing the qualifications of the expert; (4) in instructing the j u ry o n ac compl ice testimony 19 wi tho ut s uf

ficien t ex pl anati on

of the wi tne ss’ s in te re st a

nd mot ive to t e sti fy

fa lse ly ; and

(5 ) i n 20 pla c ingthe burd e n o f s ho wi ngwi thd ra wa l fr om a

c on sp ir a c y

on the de fe nd ant. Th e c ourt

of a pp e a ls2 1 (L eval, J

.) re jects the majority

of th e d ef

en d ant’s appellate cla ims but agr ees that the defe ndant’s 2 m o t i o nt o s u

p p re s s co u l d

n o t p ro p er l y

b e d en i edo ngro u n d s o f l ac k o f s t an d i n g wi t h o u ta h ea ri n g. 3 The c ourt rema

nds for fur

ther proc eeding s. 4 5 J OCEL YN E. S TRAUB ER, Assistant United St ates 6 A tt o r n e y , So u the r

nD is tr ic t o f

N e w Y o r

k ( Ja c o b W. 7 Buc hdahl, Diane Gujarati, Assist ant United States 8 Attorney s, of counsel ; Michael J. Garcia , Unit ed 9 States Attorney , on the brief ), Ne w York, N Y, for 10 Appellee

. 11 12 DI ARMUI D WHI TE, White & Wh i te (B renda n 13 Whit e, o n the brief ), Ne w York, N Y, for De

fe nd an t14 Appellant

. 15 16 17 L EVAL , Circuit Judge : 18 Def

endant Hor atio Hamilton appea ls from the judg ment of the United St ates District Court 19 for the Souther

n District of Ne w York ( Chin, J .) c on vic tin g him , a ft e r a

jur y tr ia l, o f c on sp ir a c y

to 20 distribute, and possess with intent to dist ribute, more tha n 1,000 kilogr ams of mar ijuana, in violation 21 of 21 U.S.C. § 8 4 6

. Ha m i l t o n was sente nced to 25 y ear s’ imprisonment, ten y ear s’ supervise d 2 2 r e l e a s e , an d

t h e f o r f e i tu r e o f $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 p l u s an y i n t e r e s ti na h o u s e a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h t h e c o n s p i r a c y. 23 He c ha lle ng e s th e c on vic tio n o n f ive g ro un ds . H e c on te nd s th a t the c ourt e rr e d (1 ) i n d e nyinghis 24 motion to s uppress e viden ce seized from a house in whic h he cla imed a priva cy interest on the 25 g round t hat he lacke d standing ; (2) in rec eiving hear say testimony ; (3) in re ceivingexpert opinion 26 test i m ony

without establishing the qua lifications of the e x pert; (4) in instructing the jur y on 27 acc omplice testimony without sufficie nt explanation of t he witness’s interest and motive to testify 28 fa lse ly ; and

(5 ) i n p la c ingthe bu rden of show ingwi thd ra wa l f ro m a c on sp ir a c y

on the de fe nd ant.3 1 Whil e we reje ct most of the def endant’ s claims, we ag ree that the cour t could not properly

deny the 2 suppression motion on the gr o u n d s gi ven without conductinga hea ring . We remand f

or fur ther 3 pr oc e e din g s. 4 Bac kgr ound 5 I. The Evid ence 6 The e vidence prese nted at Ham i l t o n ’s trial, see n in the light most favor able to the 7 g overnme nt, se e J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 4 3 U. S

. 3 0 7 , 3 1 8 -1 9 (1 9 7 9 ), s h o we d t h e f o l l o wi n g. 8 a. Ha mi lto n’ s 1 99 9 A rre

st 9 On Octobe r 11, 1999, the L os Ang eles Police De partment a rr e s te d H a mi lt o n and anothe r man 10 at L os Ang eles International Airport with 3,640 pounds (abo u t 1 , 6 5 0 kilogr ams) of ma rijuana. 11 Hamilton and his partner had broug ht the drug s to the Continental Airli n es carg o fac ility for 12 sh ipm e nt t o N e wa rk , N e w Jer se y . Th e mari

jua na wa s wr a

pp e d in pla sti c and

pa c ke d in to s ty

ro fo a m13 lined car dboard boxes marke d “Ape l Electronics.” At the t ime of hi s arr est, Hamilton was c arr y ing 14 the business car d of Steve Gar rig an, an employ ee of Box B rothers in Re dondo Be ach, C al i fornia. 15 He wa s also car

rying a key car d for the L e Parc Suites Hotel. At the time, Hamilton was using a n 16 alias – “Tony

Dumars” – and wa s car

rying a n Ohio driver’ s license in that name

. 17 A Continental Airlines employ ee te stified that Hamilton had re g ularly shipp e d b ox es marke d 18 “ Ap e l E le c tr on ic s” fr om L os An g e le s to Ne wa rk fo r s ix mon ths to a

y e ar p re c e din g his arr e st i n 19 October

1999. Steve Gar

rig an, the B ox Br others employ ee whose ca rd H am i l t on had ca

rried, 2 0 testif

ie d th a t d u r in g 1 9 9 8 an d

1 9 9 9 , a g r o u p o f me nw it h Ca r r ib e ana c c e n ts r e g u la

r ly p u rcha sed 21 car dboard boxes with sty rofoa m lining, plastic wra

p, packingpeanuts, a

nd spray adhesive

. I n 1998, 22 Ga

rr ig an h a d s old

the m a lar g e ru

bb e r s tamp t o p ri nt t

he wo rd s “ Ap e l E le c tr on ic s” on the bo xes. 23 The men c ontinued to buy box es fr om Garr iga

n until the middl e of 2000.4 1 Following his arre st, Hamilton was char g ed under the name of Tony Dumars f or possession 2 of the seized marijuana. On November 3, 1999, he was rele ased on bail. A war rant wa s issued for 3 his arre st when he f ailed to appe ar in c ourt as ordered on Ma rch 28, 2000. O n April 6, 2000, 4 Ha

mil ton a c qu ir e d a

ne w d ri ve r’ s li c e ns e fr om t

he State of

F lor ida , th is t ime un de r the name “ Rom ie 5 Robertson.” 6 b. Ha mi lto n’ s D ru g Traff ic k ing Su bs e qu e nt to th e 19 99Arre st 7 Denise Pinnock, a n acc omplice witness, testified that Hamilton c ontinued to e ng ag e in drug 8 traff

icking afte r his arr est in October 1999. Pinnock knew Hamilton because H amilton was a pa rtner 9 in the marijuana

business of Pinnock’s boy fr i end, Duway ne John. P innock met Hamilton, whom 1 0 she kn e w b y th e a li a s Ro mi e , in 1 9 9 7 o r 1 9 9 8 a t th e L o s A n g e le s h o u s e o f a ma n named Ade

. 11 Pin no c k e xpla ine d th a t H a mil ton pa c ka g e d ma

ri jua na in A de ’s ho us e fo r s hip me nt t o th e Ea st C oa st. 12 Pinnock’s role in the c onspiracy was to oper ate stash house s in the Bronx wher e mar ijuana 13 was store d and distributed in smaller quantiti es t o customers. She explained that the m arijuana was 14 shipped from L os Ang eles to Ne war k and then dr iven in U-Ha ul vans to various locations in t he 15 Br onx . Pinnock testified that she saw H amilton at one of the B ronx st ash houses four or five times 16 afte r she moved the re in 1999. On one occa sion, Hamilton was prese nt when a shipment of 1 7 m ar i

j u an a c a m e i n ; o nan o t h e r , h e g a v e P i n n o c k t h r e e p o u n d s o f

m ar i j u an a t o s e l l o nh e r

b i rt h d ay. 18 On c e , s he saw H a mil ton pa y Duwa y ne John ’s br oth e r I

rk y $5 00 in the ba se me nt o f o ne of the sta sh 19 houses af

ter Irky helped unload a

shipment. 20 21 On at lea st two occa sions subsequent to Hamilton’s a r r e s t i n O c to b e r 1999, Pinnock observed 22 Ha

mil ton ’s inv olv e me nt i n re c e ivi ng dr ug pr oc e e ds se nt ba c k to the Wes t Co a st. Pin no c k h e rs e lf 23 delivere d the ca sh to the L e Parc Suites Hotel in L os Ang eles three or f our times. On one oc casion,B oth pa rt ie s’ br ie fs sp e ll the re c ipi e nt’ s n a me “ Coo ke ,” bu t th e a c tua l F e dE x air bil l 1 say s “Cook.” GX 60. I n the def

ense’ s opening statement, counse l asserte d that “Mr. Ha milton t old them [ that 2 the owner ] was Shane J ohnson and provided the telephone numbe r to them to contac t her.” Tr. 40. The trial e vidence did not show which of the men pr ovided J ohnson’s name a nd telephone number. See , e.g. , Tr. 200-04. 5 1 Pinnock saw Hamilton when he ca me to L e Parc Suites to m eet Duw ay ne John t he morning af

ter 2 Pinnock ga

ve John the m oney . On another occa sion, J ohn called Pinnock to find what room she was 3 staying in, a

nd Pinnock could hear

J ohn rela ying the information to Hamilton on a sepa rate phone. 4 c . TheSe ar c h o f th e Toq ue t H

ou se 5 On J anuar

y 29, 2004, police off

icer s from the City

of B urbank in L os Ang eles wor king on 6 a druginterdiction task forc e ca me ac ross a suspicious pac kag e at the F ede ra l E x p re s s sorting 7 fac iliti es in the San F erna ndo Valley , California. The pa ckag e wa s addre ssed to a “Ma ndy Cook” 1 8 at 17338 Toquet Dr ive (the “ Toquet House” ) in Encino, California , a suburb of L os Ang eles. The 9 p o l i c e c a l l e d t h e c o n t a c t nu mb e r l i s t e d f o r M an dy C o o k o n t h e s h i p p i n g l a b e l an d r e a c h e d t h e Le 10 Parc Suites Hotel, but no per son with the name Mandy Cook could be re ache d. 11 The off

icer s decide d to conduct a controlled delivery of the pa ckag e. The Toquet House w as 12 located on a

cul-de -sac in an upsca le neig hborhood. When the police a rrived, the y

found five me n 13 standing in the driveway , one of whom was Hamilton, still using the name Romie Robertson. One 14 of the police office rs identified himself a nd asked the men i f t hey knew who lived in the house. The 15 men stated that they did not live in the house and did not know who did, but one of t h em t o l d the 16 office rs that a “ Shane Johnson” owned the house. One of the m en provided Shane J ohnson’s phone 2 1 7 nu mb er . T h e p o l i ce d i d n o tfi n d an y o n e n am edM an dy C o o k , t h e ad dre s s ee o f t h e F ed E x p ac k age 18 at the house.Acc ording to the testimony of one of the offic ers, na

rcotics tra fficke rs use pe troleum 3 jelly in the belief that it throws off sea rch dog s and pre vents rec overy of fing erpr ints. 6 1 The office rs asked if there was any one else inside the house, and rec eived a re s p o n s e t h at 2 someone named “Slick” wa s inside. T he office rs noticed that multipl e doors to the house wer e open, 3 including a

sliding g lass door. They

called out to Slick and, upon rec eiving no response , enter ed the 4 ho us e . T he of

fi c e rs c ame up on

a man lying in be d in on e of the be dr oo ms. He ide nti fi e d h ims e lf 5 as “Ma

rk Ha ndsom” but later stated his true name was Ray mond Foster. F oster conse nted to have 6 the offic ers se arc h the house. The sear ch turne d up three loaded firea rms and appr ox imately

nine 7 pounds of m arijuana, as we ll as a pile of e mpty car dboard boxes, packingmateria ls, ten to fifteen 8 jars of pe troleum jelly , larg e plastic tubs t hat s melled of marijuana , and a photo identification in the 3 9 name of

“ Mark Hi bb e rt .” Th e ho us e ha d f our b e dr oo ms a

nd wa s sp ars e ly fu

rn ish e d, wi th a

be d in 10 thr e e of

the fo ur be dr oo ms, and

a c ou c h, po ol t a

ble , a nd TVin t he liv ingro om. 11 Whil e the police wer e conducting the sear ch, a second packa g e was delivere d by UPS. I t was 12 addre ssed to an “A llison R ams ey” and bor e the same addr essee ’s phone number as wa s listed for 13 Mandy

Cook on the Fe dEx packa g e. The packa g e had be en sent fr om a suburb of A tlanta, Geor g ia. 14 Th e me n s a id t

hat th e y we re e xpe c tin g n e ith e r t

he F e dE x nor

the UPS pa c ka g e . D e te c tiv e Da vid 15 Kleinfe ld later obtaine d a sea rch w ar ra n t for both pac kag es, and f ound $36,000 cash in one and 16 $35,000 in the ot her. The reac tions of t raine d dog s to the s mell of t he currenc y was int erpr eted by 17 the dog handler s as identifying the smell of narc otics. 18 Af

te r t he UPS pa c ka g e arr ive d, tw o o the r m e n a pp ro a c he d in

a g re e n H umm e r, bu t qu ic kly 19 tried to drive of

f when they

spotted the police in the c ul-de-sa c. The police stopped the ve hicle and 20 identified the drive r as Ade Adeoy e, the man Pinnock had identified a s the owner of the house where 21 she first met Hamilton. The police sear ched the vehicle but did not find any contra band.7 1 The Toque t House wa s reg istered at the time of the sea rch to Shane J ohnson, who was 2 Hamilton’s g irlfriend a nd the mother of his c hild. 3 d. Hamilton’s Arrest in 2005 4 I n mid to late 2003, DEA Specia l Ag ent Eric B aldus attempted to locate Hamilton by 5 chec king H amilton’s criminal history and inqui ring among informants. He testified that he r ece ived 6 “information” that Hami l t o n was living with his girlfr iend “Shane ” on “T oquet Street.” Tr. 597. 7 Using a DEAdataba se, B aldus l ater lear ned of the J anuar

y 2004 sear ch of the Toquet House, a nd 8 discovere d that some o n e n am ed R omie Robertson who fit the desc ription of Hamilton had bee n 9 detained a

t the scene . I n late 2004, B aldus obtained a photo of “Romie Robertson” from the F lorida 10 Depa

rtment of Motor Ve hicles and f ound that it was Hamilton. 11 On

Janu ary 11 , 20 05 , DE A a g e nts arr e ste d H a mil ton a t L os An g e le s Inte rn a tio na l A ir po rt

. 12 Hamilton had just flown from Atlanta, G eorg ia – the plac e of orig in of the UPS pac kag e sent to the 13 To qu e t H ou se . Ha mil ton ha d pur c ha se d a fir st cl a ss tic ke t usin g ov e r $ 1, 20 0 in c a sh . A t th e tim e 14 of

his arr e st, he wa s c arr

y ingthe bu sin e ss c ard

of a re se rv a tio ns mana g e r at the L e Parc Sui te s H ote l. 15 e. Hamilton’s Evidenc e 16 Hamilt o n ’s lawy er c oncede d in his opening state ment that Hamilton had par ticipated in a 17 marijuana

distribution conspiracy

at a much earlier tim e, but asser ted t hat he ha d withdrawn f rom 18 the c on sp ir a c y

a ft e r h is a rr e st i n O c tob e r 1 99 9, and ha d th e re a ft e r d e vo te d h ims e lf e xclu siv e ly

to h is 19 music production company . He c laimed t hat, as the result of his withdrawal, his indictment, filed 20 on J anuar

y 18, 2005, was ba

rre d by the fi v e- y ea r statute of limitations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). 21 The g overnme nt countere d that Hamilton never withdrew from the conspiracy , and that eve n if he 22 did, the statute of limitations was tolled on March 28, 2000 be cause he wa s “flee ing f rom justice” 23 as of that date when he failed to a ppear in court on the Oc tober 1999 a rre st. See 18 U.S.C. § 3290.8 1 Hamilton called two witnesse s in an eff ort to corr oborate his a b an d o n m en t of the drug 2 business for the music industry

. The first was J ames Goring , a music executive who testified a bout 3 Hamilton’s involvement in the reg g ae business up until the time of his a rre st. Goring admitted on 4 cross, howe ver, that Hamilton’ s b i g g est musical projec t – a serie s of conc erts in J amaica called 5 “Sashi” – be g an in August 1999, which was pr ior to his arre st with over 3,600 pounds of mar ijuana 6 in L os Ang eles. Ha milton’s second witness was Da rre ll Thompson, an ente rtainment lawy er w ho 7 testified about wor k he had done relating to Hamilton’s mus ic produc tion company , L OY. 8 II. The District C ourt P roce edings 9 Duri ngthe pe ri od be fo re tr ia l, t

he g ov e rnme nt p ro vid e d H a mil ton ’s att orn e y s w ith 10 dis c los ur e s p ur su ant t o F e d. R. Cr im

. P . 1 6, and the c ourt

a dju dic a te d p re tr ia l mo tio ns . 11 Ap pr oximate ly

fi ve da y s b e fo re tr ia l, t

he g ov e rnment pro vi ded

fu rt he r i nf or matio n to the de fe ns e 12 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500. On J anuar y 9, 2006, the cour

t was pre pare d to swear

in the jury

and 1 3 beg in

tr ia l. A t t

h a t m o me n t, H a mi lt o n ’ s a tt o r n e y mo v e d o r a ll y to s u p p r e s s th e e v id e n c e s e iz e d at 14 the Toquet House on g rounds that the police ha d enter ed the house without a war rant befo re 15 rec eiving consent to conduc t the sear ch. The court e x hibited understanda ble annoy an ce t h at the 16 motion, perhaps re quiring a hea ring that would interrupt the prog ress of the proc eeding s, was made 17 not only

out of ti m e b ut also at a hig hly inconvenient moment in the cour t’s administration of the 18 jury . De fens e cou ns el o fferedth e ex pl anat io n t hat th e governm ent hadno t d is clo sedth e pre -con sent , 19 wa rr an t l es s entry until the rece nt delivery

of the § 3500 mate rial. Counsel then made an attorne y 20 proff

er of fac ts supporting Ha

milton’s claim of a privac y interest in the house. The c ourt found that 21 these fa cts, eve n if true, we re insuff icient to g ive Hamilton standing to c ontest the sea rch, a nd denied 22 the motion without a hearing

.9 1 On J anuar

y 17, 2006, the jury

found Hamilton guilty

of the mar ijuana conspira cy , and 2 rende red a

specia l verdict that he had not withdrawn from the conspira cy . The jury found him not 3 g uilty

of the fir ear

ms offense

. 4 Discussion 5 I. Ham ilt on’ s St andi ng t o C ont e stth e Se ar c h of t he Toqu e t H ous e 6 Hamilton contends the dist ri ct co u rt err ed in deny ing his motion to suppress the evide nce 7 se ize d f

ro m th e To qu e t Hou se f or la c k o f s tand ing . H e c on te nd s h e e sta bli sh e d a re a so na ble 8 e xpe c ta tio n o f p ri va c y in t he pr e mis e s, wh ic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt wa s not at lib e rt y to r e je c t un le ss i t 9 deter

mined at a he aringthat the fa cts he a lleg ed we re untrue

. 10 A de fe nd ant se e kin g to sup pr e ss the fr uit s of a se arc h by

re a so n o f a

vio latio n o f t

he F ourt h 11 Amendment must sho w t h at h e had a “leg itimate expectation of privac y ” in the plac e sea rche d. 12 R a k

a s v . I l l i no is , 43 9 U.S . 128 , 1 43 (1 97 8) . T his inq uir y inv olv e s tw o d ist inc t qu e sti on s: f ir st, 13 whether

the individual had a subjec tive expectation of privacy ; and sec ond, whether that expectation 1 4 o f

p r iv a c y is o n e th a t s o c ie ty

a c c e p ts a s r e a s o n a

b le

. S ee Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 361 15 (1967) ( Har lan, J. , c on c ur ri ng ); accord U

nited States v. Chuang , 897 F.2d 646, 649 ( 2d Cir. 1990). 16 A protec ted privac y in t er es t h as been found in a wide arr ay of circ umstances, r ang ing f rom 17 owner ship or regular oc cupanc y of a home , United States v. Villegas , 899 F.2d 1324, 1333 (2d Cir. 18 1990), to status a s an over night guest in someone else ’s home, Minnesota v. Olson , 495 U.S. 91, 99 19 (1990), or

even in someone else’s hote l room, United States v. W ilson , 36 F.3d 1298, 1303 ( 5th Cir. 20 1994), to a re ntal storag e unit, United States v. J ohns , 851 F.2d 1131, 1136 ( 9th Cir. 1988), to one’s 21 business premises, Ma nc us i v . D e Fo rte , 392 U.S. 364, 369 (1968), including the desk drawer s and 22 file ca

binets contained the rein, O’Connor v. Ortega , 480 U. S

. 709, 718-19 (1987) , as we ll as the 23 contents of one ’s offic e computer , Leventhal v. Knape k , 266 F.3d 64, 73 ( 2d Cir. 2001).10 1 Hamilton proffe red t he followingfac ts supporting his claim of a privac y interest in the 2 To qu e t H ou se : ( 1) Ha mil ton ha d p a id the $2 50 ,0 00 fo r the purc ha se of the ho us e ; ( 2) the purc ha se 3 was re g istered in the name of Shane J ohnson, who was ide ntified by counsel in makingthe motion 4 as Hamilton’s “wife,” his “common law wife ,” and the mother of his c hild; (3) Hamilton ha d fre e 5 acc ess “to come and g o as he please d”; and (4) he went ther e “two to thre e times a we ek for y ear s.” 6 Tr. 12-13. Counsel noted t hat Hamilt on “would be prepa red to swe ar to [these fa cts] under oath.” 7 Tr. 13. I n the ensuing colloquy , t h e As s i s t ant United States Attorney (“A USA”) sa id, “I

don’t 8 believe that they are marrie d,” and added that when the police arr ived at the house, Hami l t o n had 9 denied living there . I n response to questioning fr om J udg e Chin, Hamilton’s attorney acknow ledg ed 10 that Hamilton did not ha ve key s to the house, stating, “ He ha d acc ess, but not key s.” Tr. 17. The 11 d i strict court then de nied the motion, ruling that Hamilton had no more priva cy interest than a 12 mor

tg a g e e and

the re fo re la c ke d s tand ingto c on te st the se arc h. Th e c ourt sa id: 13 He does not have standing. I t would be no differ ent t han if a bank pr ovided money 14 for someone to purcha se a house

. The bank has acc ess in the sense that it can send 15 a re prese ntative from ti me to time to inspect, etc. He re, in lig ht of all of the 16 circ umstances, he didn’t have ke y s. He didn’t have control of the f acility . They

wer e 1 7 n o tm ar

r i e d

. H e w a s n o t o nt h e d e e d

. T h e m e r e f a c tt h a th e p r o v i d e d

m o n e y, 18 assuming that to be the case, i s not sufficie nt to establish standing . You add to that 19 the fac t that [on the day the police sear ched] he denied that he lived there , Ifind that 20 he does not have standing

. 21 22 Tr. 17. 23 We disa g ree with the district c ourt’s view that Hamilton’s claim to a priva cy interest wa s no 24 better tha

n that of a mortg ag ee bank and there fore insufficient. Whil e the burden was on Hamilt on 25 to establish a protec ted privac y interest, the court was obligated t o cre dit the fac ts he asser ted, and 26 could not proper ly deny his moti on for lac k of standing unless the fa cts he a sserted, se en in the lig ht 27 most favora

ble t o Hamilton, were leg ally insufficient to sustain his burden. I f the a sserted f acts, orTh e pic tur e su g g e ste d b y his a lle g a tio ns (whic h, by the wa y , th e tr ia l e vid e nc e te nd e d to 4 confirm) would be of a

transnational mar ijuana tra fficke r who purc hased a house in the suburbs of L os Ang eles to ser

ve as a business location for bundlingand pac kag ing ma rijuana f or shipment to the East Coast. Bec ause he was wa nted on a f

ug itive warr ant, and to avoid e x posure to criminal liability

in case the unlawf

ul use of the house came to the attention of law e nf or c e me nt, he pu t th e de e d in the name of

so me on e he be lie ve d h e c ou ld c on tr ol a nd tr us t – h is wife, or common law wife , and the mother of his child. He ke pt the house staff ed with per sonnel of the bu sin e ss, wh o p a c ka g e d me rc ha nd ise the re fo r s hip me nt a nd re c e ive d b un dle s o f c a sh re pr e se nti ngthe pr oc e e ds of sa le s. He ha d f

re e a c c e ss t o c ome and

g o a s h e ple a se d a

nd did so with freque ncy . He ne eded no ke y to obtain acc ess as the house was oc cupied by personne l of his business operations who we re r esponsive to his wishes. 11 1 the inf

e re nc e s to be dr awn

fr om t he m, w e re c on te ste d, the c ourt wo uld ne e d to ho ld a

he ari ngto 2 deter

mine the conteste d issues. See U nited States v. Pena , 961 F.2d 333, 339 ( 2d Cir. 1992). 3 Ac c e pta

nc e of Ha mil ton ’s a lle g a tio ns a s tr

ue , c on str uin g the m in

the lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to 4 him , w ou ld y

ie ld a pic tur e of

on e wh o h a s n ot o nly

fr e e and fr e qu e nt a c cess , but a lso pr ob a bly 5 eff ective c ontrol, and a solid expectation of privacy at t he Toque t House. I nstead of c onsidering the 4 6 fac ts Hamilton asserted in the lig ht most favorable to him, the court ap p ea rs to have a ssessed the 7 fac ts Hamilton asserted in the l ight least favor able to him . Although his a lleg ations would support 8 the infer ence that he effec tively controlled the use of the fa cility , the cour t somehow conc luded that 9 “[h] e didn’t have control of the f acility .” Tr. 17. A lthough his alleg ations expl icitly stated that he 10 had fr ee a cce ss “to come a nd g o as he please d,” the cour t somehow conc luded that he ha d no more 11 fre edom of a cce ss than a mortg ag ee, e ntitled to make occa sional inspecti o n s, beca use Hamilton 12 a dmi tte dly

did no t live at the house, ha d no key , and wa s not named as owne r on the de ed. There 13 is n o a

uth or ity fo r t he pr op os iti on

that on e ne e d li ve in t

he pr e mis e s, or

e xer c ise c on tr ol o ve r t

he m, 14 in order to enjoy

a priva cy interest in those pre mises. Privacy interests have been f

ound with respec t 1 5 to b u s in e s s p r e mi s e s an d s to r a g e lo cker s. S ee C huang , 8 97 F .2 d at 64 9 ( “ I t is we ll- se ttl e d th a t a 16 corpor ate of

fice r or e mploy ee in c erta in ci rc u m s t an ces may asser t a re asonable expectation of12 1 privac y

in his c orporate office , and may have standing with respec t to searc hes of c orporate pre mises 2 and

re c or ds .” ); Johns , 8 5 1 F. 2 d at 1 1 3 6 (f i n d i n g re as o n ab l e ex p ec t at i o n o f pr i v ac y i n re n t eds t o ra ge 3 space ). They

have be en found w here one wa s merely a g uest at the pre mises. Olson , 495 U.S. at 99. 4 Nor has po ss e ssi on of a ke y or a de e d o r l e a se in o ne ’s ow n n a me be e n d e e me d in dis pe ns a ble to 5 establishment of a pr ivacy interest, whe re the claimant’s unde rstanding with those in char g e of the 6 premises wa s the basis of the e x pectation of privacy

. Id. ; see also W ilson , 3 6 F

. 3 d

a t 1 3 0 3

. We 7 conclude that the cour t erre d in failing to draw rea sonable infere nces in H amilton’s f avor f rom the 8 fac ts he allege d and in denying Hamilton’s motion without a hearing on the ground that he did not 9 have a

privac y interest prote cted by

the Four th Amendment. 10 I t does not nece ssarily follow, howeve r, that the motion to su p p re s s should have be en 11 g rante d. The district cour t, relying on a

n invalid rea son to deny

the motion, did not reach othe r 12 possible rea sons for denia l of the motion. For e x ampl e, t h e court e x presse d frustration that the 13 motion, poss i b l y re q u iring a hea ring , was not made until the start of trial – appa rently bey ond the 14 time set by

the cour t for motions. C o u n s el o ff er ed as an ex cuse that he had not lea rned of the 1 5 w ar

r an t l e s s e n t r

y u n t i l t h e g o v e r

n m e n t ’ s r e c e n t d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e § 3 5 0 0 m a t e r i a l . H ow e ve r, it 16 appea

rs that the § 3500 mater ial was disclosed f ive day s prior to the m aking of the motion. We do 17 no t kn ow , a ssumin g the c ourt wo uld a c c e pt c ouns e l’ s r e a so n f or no t ha vin g ma de the mot ion

wi thi n 18 the time set by t h e co u rt fo r m otions, whether it would also ac cept the a dditional five-day delay 19 following delivery of the § 3500 mate rial, and e x cuse the failure to support t h e m o t i o n wi th an 2 0 a f

f id a v it a tt e s te d b y H a milton. Uni ted Sta te s v . M e nd oz a , 438 F.3d 792, 795 ( 7th Cir. 2006) 21 (“[W] ithout an affidavit or testimony from the defe ndant, it is almost impossible to find a privac y 22 interest.” ( internal c itation and quotation marks omitted)). Nor can w e know whe ther, upon 23 conductinga hear ing, the court mig ht find either that Ha milton failed to sustain the facts a sserted byThe g overnme nt argues that Hamilton forfeited standingto challeng e the se arc h 5 beca use, whe n asked by

the police of

fice rs, he de nied living in the house . Gover nment Br . at 17- 18. I t is true, we ha

ve stated that “an other

wise leg itimate privacy

interest may

be lost by disclaiming or

abandoningproper

ty , espec ially

when a ctions or statements disavow a ny expectation of privac y .” United States v. Torres , 949 F.2d 606, 608 ( 2d Cir. 1991). The Torres case , howeve r, diffe rs sig nificantly from these fac ts. The def endant in Torres ha d e xpre ssl y disclaimed any

interest in the bagwhich the bor der patrol ag ent then sea rche d. She told the ag ent that “he c ould look into t he bag , that it wasn’t her bag , she didn’t ca

re.” Id. a t 60 7. Ac c or din g to the police r eport on whic h the g overnme nt’s contention re lies, when Ha milton and the other men we re a pp ro a c he d b y

the po lic e in t

he dr ive wa

y of the To qu e t H ou se , th e y

de nie d e ith e r l ivi ngin the house or know ing w ho did – appar ently truthful answe rs. Hamilton did not live in the house. I ndeed it appe ars this scantily furnished house did not serve a s any one’s r esidenc e but serve d rathe r as a

business fac ility

for pa cking and shipping bundles of mar ijuana and r ece iving shipments of cash. We do not see why Hamilton’s denial that he lived in the house or knewwho d id , e s p e c ia ll y

if tr u th f u l, s h o u ld b e c o n s id e r e d

e qu iv a le n t t o a

“ d is a v o w [a l o f

] anyexpectation of privac y .” Torres , 9 49 F .2 d at 60 8 ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . In ma ny c ir c ums tanc e s o ne may

po sse ss a priva cy interest in ce rtain pre mises without li ving the re. See Ne w Hampshire v. Sodoy er , 931 A.2d 548, 551 (N.H . 2007) (d e fe nd ant’ s st a te me nt t hat he did no t li ve in t

he ho us e se arc he d d id not constitute disavowal of any privac y interest in the house) . A number of other c ourts have ruled, sometimes on re asoning that differ ed slig htly from ours, that a

defe ndant’s denia l to the investigating police that he lived at the pr emises did not constitute a forf eiture of a priva cy interest. See U

nited States v. Vega , 2 21 F .3 d 7 89 , 7 97 (5 th C ir . 2 00 0) ; Un ite d S tates v . B ro wn , 64 F.3d 1083, 1085 ( 7th Cir. 1995). But see United States v . Sweeting , 9 33 F .2 d 9 62 , 9 64 (1 1th Cir. 1991) (def

endant’ s statement that he did not live in the re sidence constituted denial of a ny re la tio ns hip wi th t

he ho me and

thu s d e pr ive d h im o f s tand ing ); Te nn esse e v . R os s , 49 S.W .3d 833, 842-43 (Te nn. 2001) (de fenda nt forfe ited a priva cy

interest in a hotel r oom by telling police that the room key

in his sock was not his).

13 1 his c o u n s e l, o r th a t Ra y mo n d F o s te r ’ s c o n s e n t to th e s e ar c h o v e r r o d e th e w ar

r an tl e s s e n tr

y . See 2 Uni ted States v. Sny pe , 4 4 1 F

. 3 d 1 1 9 , 1 3 4

- 3 5 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( h o ld in g th a t ta in t o f il le g al entry by 3 police had dissipated be fore consent wa s g iven). 5 4 We acc ording ly simply rule that the r eason g iven by the cour t for t h e denial of the motion 5 to suppress ca

nnot stand, and we re m an d for f urther c onsideration of the motion, leaving it to the 6 dis tr ic t c ourt to c on sid e r in the fi rs t ins tanc e the va ri ou s argume nts that may be ma de fo r a nd a g a ins t 7 the motion. 8 II. He ar sa y Te st im onyby G ov e r nm e nt Wit ne ss14 1 Hamilton claims that the testimony of Special Ag ent Eric B aldus that he ha d lear ned that the 2 defe ndant was “ living with someone na med Shane, his g irlfriend, somewhere in California [on] 3 To qu e t Str e e t[,]” wa s in a dmi ssi ble and pr e jud ic ia l he ars ay . T he g ov e rnme nt r e sp on ds tha t th is 4 e vid e nc e wa s pro pe rl y re c e ive d not fo r the tr uth of wh a t wa s sta te d but fo r t he no n- he ars ay

purp os e 5 of sh ow ingthe g ov e rnme nt’ s inve sti g a tiv e e ff or ts t o f ind the de fe nd ant f

oll ow inghis fa ilure to 6 a pp e ar i n c ourt a ft e r his 19 99 arr e st at th e L os An g e le s a ir po rt . T his , th e g ov e rnme nt a rgue s, be c a me 7 rele vant to rebut the defe ndant’s contention that his indictment in 2005 was not w ithin the f ive y ear s 8 allowed by

the statute of limitations following the ter mination of his involvement in the marijuana 9 conspirac y . We ag ree with the g overnme nt. 10 I n his opening statement to the jury at the start of

trial, Hamilton’s attorney conce ded that 11 Hamilton had bee n a par t of a mar ijuana conspira cy up to the time of his a

rre st at the L os Ang eles 12 airport in 1999, but asser ted that he ha d withdrawn f rom the conspira cy at t h at time and had 13 the re a ft e r d e vo te d h ims e lf to a c areer pr omo tin g Re g g a e mus ic . D e fe ns e c ouns e l a sse rt e d th a t, 14 be c a

us e Ha mil ton c e a se d to be pa

rt of the co ns pi racy in 1 99 9, the ind ic tme nt f ile d a g a ins t hi m in 15 20 05 wa s n ot w ith in t he fi ve y e ars a llo we d b y

the statut e of

lim itatio ns . 1 8 U .S. C. § 32 82 . Wh ile 16 the g ov e rnme nt s ou g ht t o c ounte r t his c on te nti on in p art by e vid e nc e that H a mil ton

c on tin ue d to 17 pa

rt ic ipate in t

he mari juana tr affi c kin g c on sp ir a c y a ft e r 1 99 9, the g ov e rnme nt a lso un de rt oo k to 18 show that, eve n if the jury should find that he had withdra wn in 1999, the five-y ear

period a llowed 19 for his indictment did not ex pire prior to his indi ctment bec ause it wa s tolled during t h e t i m e that 20 Ha

mil ton wa s “f

le e ing fr om jus tic e .” 18 U. S.C. § 329 0 (“ No statut e of lim itatio ns sh a ll e xten d to 21 any

person f leeingfrom justice.” ). 22 Th is c ourt ha s h eld th at “‘t he n a tur e and the e xten t of

the e ff or ts o f g ov e rnme nt a g e nts to 23 locate the defe ndant is one fac tor to consider in dete rmining w hether . . . the def

endant wa s [fleeing15 1 from justice].’” United States v. Florez , 4 4 7 F. 3 d 1 4 5 , 1 5 2 (2 d C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g United States 2 v. Gre eve r , 134 F.3d 777, 780 n.1 ( 6th Cir. 1998)). In acc ordanc e with t h es e author ities, the 3 g ov e rnme nt co nte nd s th a t, i n o rd e r t o p e rs ua de the jur y that th e statut e of

lim itatio ns wa s to lle d, it 4 ne e de d to sh owthe c ours e of its inv e sti g a tio ns that e ve ntu a lly le d to the c a

ptu re of the de fe nd ant. 5 Th e g ov e rnme nt a c c ordi ng ly c a lle d A g e nt B a ldu s, the c a se a g e nt o r l e a d inve sti g a tor , to 6 testify to his eff

orts to find the defendant. Ba ldus stated t hat, beginning in 2003, he had be en “a sking 7 c oo pe ratin g ind ivi du a ls if the y kn [e]w wh e re he wa s. ” Tr

. 59 6. Ev e ntu a lly he re c e ived some 8 inf or ma tio n. Th e AU SA then aske d, “Without telling me what the inf ormation was, did this have 9 any

thing to do with his location or his wher eabouts? ” Tr. 597. B aldus aff irmed that it was about 10 the defe ndant’s location and wa s permitted by the cour t to answer, where upon he g ave the answe r 11 wh ic h is the su

bje c t of thi s c la im –

that he le arn e d th e de fe nd ant w a s li vin g wi th S ha ne , h is 12 g irlfriend, in California on Toquet Street. 13 The AU SA then elicited how that piec e of inform at ion eventually led to the def

endant’ s 14 appre hension. At first, with only the na m e o f Shane a

nd a stree t name, B aldus had insuffic ient 15 information with which to do any thing. He cont i n u ed , h o weve r, to inquire of c ooperators and 1 6 e v e n tu a l l y w a s g i v e na t e l e p h o n e nu mb e r . A s u b p o e n a ( p r e s u m a

b l y t o t h e t e l e p h o n e c o mp an y) 17 reve aled a

n addre ss for that telephone number, which was 17338 Toque t Drive in Encino, Califor nia. 18 Checkingthat addre ss ag ainst criminal investig ation databa ses re veale d th e poli ce r eport of the 19 incident in J anuar y 2004 at 17338 Toquet Dr ive. The r eport include d descr iptions of the persons 2 0 encoun te r e d

b y th e p o li c e a t t

h e T o qu e t H o u s e , o n e o f

w h ic h matc h e d

th e d e s c r ip ti o nB a ld

u s had 21 for the de fenda

nt. That individual had used the name R omie Robertson. The a g ent knew that the 22 defe ndant had use d the name Romi e. The report also gave the number of Romie Robertson’s Florida 23 driver’ s license. The age n t o b t ai n ed a photo f rom the F lorida motor vehicle authority , which16 1 conf

i rm ed t h at Horatio Hamilton and Romi e Robertson we re the same pe rson. An ana ly sis of 2 telephone rec ords related t o the Toquet addre ss resulted in the i dentification of a cell phone which 3 had pre viously

been use d i n t h e L o s Angeles a rea and wa s now making calls in the Atlanta a rea . 4 Fur

ther inquiry

of coope rators c oncer

ning Romie Robertson produce d information that he would be 5 flying f

rom Atlanta to L os Ang eles on a particula r D el t a Ai rlines flig ht. Ba ldus went to the L os 6 Ang eles a irport and a rre sted the def

endant a s he depla

ned. 7 W e agree with the g overnme nt that Ba ldus’s testimony , including his re port of the 8 information he r ece ived that the defe ndant was living with his g irlfriend Shane on Toque t Street, was 9 re le va

n t t o t h e g o v e r

n m e n t ’ s e f

f o rt s t o l o c a t e H am i l t o n i n s u p p o rt o f t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a the wa s a 10 fug itive, whose li mitation period was tolled while he was in flight f rom justice. The re port linking 11 him to the Toquet House wa s releva nt not for the truth of what was stated in the repor t, but rather 12 for the non- hear say purpose of

showing the information B aldus rec eived a nd how he use d that 13 information in h i s continuing e ffor ts to locate the de fenda

nt. These e ffor

ts to find the defe ndant 14 beca

me per tinent when, at the sta

rt of trial, the de fenda

nt r aised the contention that he ha d withdrawn 1 5 f r o m t h e c o n s p i r a c y i n1 9 9 9 w i t h t h e c o n s e qu e n c e t h a th i s i n d i c t m e n ti n2 0 0 5 w a s u n t i m e l y. 16 The fa ct that the evide nce w as admiss i b l e t o s u pport the g overnme nt’s contention that 17 Hamilton was in fug itive status does not end the i nquiry

. I t is indisputable that Ba ldus’s testimony 18 also included incr iminating hea rsay i n fo rm ati on. The jury had hea rd evide nce that at the Toquet 19 House the p o l i ce h ad found nine pounds of marijuana with packingmateria ls, guns, a nd tens of 20 thousands of dollars in ca sh shipped in bundles from Atlanta. Th e h ea rsay information 21 communicated to B aldus that Hamilton was living in the house wher e the police had f o u nd such 22 evidenc e of tra ffickingin marijuana undoubte dly had a c apac ity

to prejudice Hamilton.17 1 Un de r R

ule 40 3 of the F e de ra l Rul e s of Ev ide nc e , re le va nt e vid e nc e “ may be e xclu de d if its 2 probative va lue is substantially outweig hed by

the dang er of

unfair prejudice .” Fe d. R. Evid. 403; 3 see also United States v. Reye s , 18 F.3d 65 ( 2d Cir. 1994). We acc ording ly must consider whe ther 4 the pr ob a tiv e va lue of thi s e vid e nc e fo r its pr op e r purp os e wa s “ su bs tanti a lly

ou tw e ig he d” by

un fa ir 5 prejudice resulting from its hear say content to suc h an extent that its a dmission was a n abuse of

the 6 court’s discr etion. We conclude that it was not. 7 There was a lrea dy substa nti a l, p r o p e r ly

a d mi tt e d e v id e n c e c onnectingHamilton to the Toquet 8 House, includin g t hat he wa s found there by the police at the very

time when they

discovere d the 9 marijuana

there and the bundles of cash from Atlanta we re de livered. I n addition, Hamilton 10 c on c e de d th a t he wa s “ ha ng ing aro un d” the re that da y , T r. 39 , a

nd that th e ho us e wa s o wn e d b y his 11 g irlfriend. The pot ential harm to the defendant from the hea rsay that at some unspec ified time in or 12 afte r 2003 he w as living in that house w ith his girlfrie nd was thus subst an t i al l y d i minished. The 13 standard of

Rule 403 for the e x clusion of the g overnme nt’s rele vant evidenc e wa s not met. 14 I I I . H a mi l to n ’s O th er Cl a i ms 15 Hamilton’s other c laims require littl e discussion. 16 a. The court’s chargeon accom plice testimony. Hamilton faults the cour t’s char g e on 1 7 a c c o mp li c e te s ti mo n y , c o n te n d in g th a t i t f a il e d to w ar nth e ju r y a d e qu a te ly

o f th e a c c o mp li ce 18 witness’s intere s t and motive to testify falsely . We disag ree . The c ourt’s cha rg e on this issue 1 9 i n cl u d edt h e f

o l l o wi n g: 20 Be cause of the possible intere st an ac complice m ay h av e in testifying . . . , the 2 1 a c c o mp l i c e ’ s t e s t i m o n y s h o u l d b e s c r u t i n i z e d w i t h s p e c i a l c ar e an d

c a u t i o n . . . . In 22 evaluating the te stimony of an a ccomplice witness, y o u should ask y ourselves 23 whether

the ac complice would be nefit more by ly ing or by telling the tr

uth. Was the 24 testimony made up in any

way beca use t he witness believed or hope d that he or she 25 wo uld

so me ho w r e c e ive fa

vo ra ble tr e a tme nt b y

te sti fy ingfa lse ly ? Or

did the wi tne ss18 1 believe that his or her best interests would be serve d by testifying truthfully ? I f y ou 2 believe that the witness was motivated by hopes of pe rsonal g ain, was the motivation 3 on e tha

t wo uld c a

us e the wi tne ss to lie , or

wa s it on e that w ou ld c a

us e him or he r t o 4 t e l l t h e t r

u t h ? D i d t h i s m o t i v a t i o nc o l o r

t h e t e s t i m o n y ? 5 6 Tr. 846-47. 7 The c ourt’s for mulation was more or

less verbatim to t hat noted with appr oval in L eonar d 8 B. Sand et al., Modern J ury Instructions ¶

7.01, I nstruction 7-5 (2005) , and wa s considera bly more 9 favor able to the de fenda nt than the char g e we uphe ld in United States v. Vaughn , 430 F.3d 518, 523- 10 24 (2d Cir. 2005). He re, unlike in Vaughn , the di strict court pointed out the spec ific risk that the 11 acc omplice might f alsify or color he r tes t i m o n y i n t he hopes of “per sonal g ain” in the nature of 12 “ fa

vo ra ble tr e a tme nt. ” Tr . 8 47 . We fi nd no me ri t in

the de fe nd ant’ s c la im. 13 b. Burden of proof on withdr awal from a conspiracy

. Ha mil ton c on te nd s the c ourt e rr e d in 14 placingthe burde n of proof on the def

endant to show withdra

wal fr om a

conspirac y . He a

rg ues that 15 the Supreme Court’s discussion in Dixon v. U nited States , 548 U.S. 1 (2006), under cuts this court’s 16 long- standing p re cedent that withdrawa l from a c onspiracy is an aff irmative def

ense w hich the 17 defe ndant must prove by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Se e Un ite d S tates v . M ils te in , 401 F.3d 1 8 5 3 , 7 2 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. J ames , 609 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir. 1979) ). We disag ree . 19 I n Dixon , th e de fe nd ant a sse rt e d a d ur e ss d e fe ns e a t he r t

ri a l f or re c e ivi nga

fi re arm wh ile 20 un de r i nd ic tme nt a nd makin g fal se st ateme nts in c onne c tio n w iththe a c qu isi tio n o f a fi re arm . 21 Consist ent with Fifth Circuit pre cede nt, the trial judg e ins tructed the jury that the def endant bor e “the 22 burden of

proof to esta

blish the defense of dure ss by a pre pondera

nce o f t h e ev i d ence .” Dixon 23 argued that fe dera l law require s the g overnme nt to bear the burden of disproving he r def ense be y ond 24 a re asonable doubt. Dixon , 548 U.S. at 5. Her theory was that, be cause the prosec ution must prove 25 all the elements of t he crime bey ond a re asonable doubt, In re W ins hip , 397 U.S. 358, 364 ( 1970),19 1 it must also disprove a defe nse that controve rts one of those e lements. I n her c ase, she claimed that 2 duress controverts or neg ates the mens rea element of the cr ime with which she wa s char g ed, and 3 that the prosec ution was thus bound to disprove duress. The Supreme Court rejec ted this argument 4 on g rounds that dure ss does not neg ate mens rea , b ut r a the r “ a llo ws the de fe nd ant to ‘ a vo id l ia bil ity 5 . . . beca

use coe rcive conditions or nece ssity neg ates a conclusion of g uilt eve n though the nec essar y 6 mens rea was pre sent.’” Dixon , 5 4 8 U. S

. at 7 (q u o t i n g United States v. Bailey , 444 U.S. 394, 402 7 (1980))

. 8 Ha

mil ton c la ims , fi rs t, that the Sup re me Court imp lic itl y a c c e pte d Di xon’ s argume nt t hat a 9 defe nse which c ontroverts a n essential ele m en t m u s t be disproved by the prosec utor beyond a 1 0 r e a s o n a

b l e d o u b t , an d s e c o n d , t h a tu n l i k e d u r e s s , w i t h dr aw a l f

r o m a c o n s p i r a c y does neg ate a n 11 e le me nt o f t

he su bs tanti ve of

fe ns e : na me ly , me mbe rs hip in the c on sp ir a c y . He no te s that th e F ourt h 12 and Seventh Circuits, in pre- Dixon case s, have so he ld. Se e Un ite d S tates v . W est , 877 F.2d 281, 289 13 (4 th C ir . 1 98 9) ; United States v. Re ad , 658 F.2d 1225, 1236 ( 7th Cir. 1981). 14 The prose cution must establish three el em ents in order to prove a

conspirac y : (1) an 15 ag ree ment betwee n two or more pe rsons to commit a n unlawful a ct; (2) the de fenda nt’s knowing and 16 intentional membership in the conspiracy ; and (3) the commission of an “ove rt ac t” in further ance 17 of t he conspira cy . United States v. Re yes , 302 F.3d 48, 53 (2d Cir. 2002) . The de fenda nt’s eventua l 18 withdrawa l from the conspira cy neg ates none of these e lements. To the contr ary , a defendant’s 19 withdrawa l from a conspirac y tends to c onfirm, rathe r than de ny , his prior membership in it. United 20 Sta te

s v . F lah ar ty , 295 F.3d 182, 192 ( 2d Cir. 2002) (explaini n g that membership in a c onspiracy 21 is “ pr e sume d to c on tin ue . . . unle ss t

he de fe nd ant p ro ve s . . . that he loo k a ffi rm ati ve st e ps to 22 withdraw” ). Even a ssuming that the Dixon opinion should be construed a s acc epting Dix on’s20 1 proposition with respect to the bur d en o f p ro of as to def enses whic h neg ate a

n element of

the 2 offe nse, on which w e express no view, it would have no a pplication to this case. Ac cording ly , we 3 find nothing in Dixon that would lead us to disturb the long- established prec edent o f t h i s court 4 placingthe burde n of provingwithdrawa l on the defe ndant. 5 c. Ex

pert opinion testimony . F ina lly , H a mil ton c on te nd s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in 6 admitting testimony by a law e nforc ement witness bec aus e (1) it was based on spec ialized 7 knowled g e , an d th u s d id n o t qu a li f

y a s la y o p in io n te s ti mo n y , an d ( 2 ) th e g o v e r n me n t did not 8 demonstrate its admissibilit y as expert opinion testimony

. 9 Detec tive J ohn Cater of the L os Ang eles County

Sheriff’ s D ep ar tment, one of the of fice rs 10 involved in the Toquet House sear ch, g ave g ener al testimony about nar cotics traf

ficking , based on 11 his fourtee n y ear s’ experience as a narc otics detec tive. Cater descr ibed Encino – the loc ation of the 12 To qu e t Ho us e – a s a pla c e we ll- su ite d fo r a ba se fo r pa c kin g and sh ipp ing dr ug s b e c a us e it i s a qu ie t, 13 residential a

rea with littl e poli ce presenc e. He also char acte rized Atlanta – the c ity from which the 14 UPS packag e conta ining $35,000 in ca sh had bee n sent and fr om which Hamilton w as arr iving whe n 15 he wa s arr ested at the L os Ang eles airport – as “a destination place for narcotics to come from the 16 West Coast and g o to the East Coast.” Tr. 245. Hamilton c ontends that this line of testimony was 17 “expert opinion masquera ding a s lay opinion.” Appellant’s B r. at 38. 18 Although H amilton may be corr ect that Cater’ s testimony rested on “spec ialized knowledg e” 19 within the m eaning of Rule 702, s ee Fe d. R. Evid. 702 ( providing for testimony by experts on the 20 basis of “scie ntific, technica l, or other spe cialized knowledg e”) , so that the court ne eded to pa ss on 21 his qua lifications as an expert and the reliability of his testimony , and so that the g overnme nt was 2 2 obligate d to p r o v id e e xp e rt d is c lo s u r e p u r s u an t to F e d

. R. Cr im

. P. 1 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( G ) , an y e r r o r wa s21 1 harmless. On direc t e x amination, the g overnme nt f irmly established the officer’ s re l ev ant 2 experience , his qualif i ca t i o n s , and the r eliability of his evidenc e. Hamilton s hows no prejudice 3 resulting from the failure to make pretria l disclosure of Cate r’s g ener alizations. United States v. 4 Miller , 116 F.3d 641, 681 (2d Cir. 1997) (“ When the g overnme nt has failed to c omply with Rule 16, 5 the district court ha s broad discretion to de termine what remedia l action, if any , is appropriate. . . . 6 A re versa l will only be wa rra nted if the nondisclosure results in substant i al p re j u d i ce to the 7 defe ndant.” ( internal c itation and quotation marks omitted)). 8 Conclusion 9 F or

the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e c a se is r e mand e d f or fu rt he r p ro c e e din g s c on sis te nt w iththi s 10 opinion.