FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOV 3, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 7- 13 73 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 08 1- CR-0 1- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ALVIN L. PRIC E, DONALD M. REYNOLDS, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m ber 3 , 20 08 ) Befo re DUBINA, HULL andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. FAY, Cir cu itJu dg e:Defen da nt s R eyno ld s an d P ric e ap pe al th ei r co nv ic ti on s fo r arm edba nk

ro bb ery in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 11 3( a) an d (d ) an d d is ch arg e o f a fi rearm du rin g acri 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 )(A)(i ii ). Reyno ld s al so ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of afir earm by a con vi ct edfel on in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). Reyno ld s ar gu es th athe sh ou ldno t h av e b een li m it edinhi s p res en ta ti onof e vi de nc e atth e supp res si on he ari ng an d t he di st ric t co urt erredby find in g t he id en ti fic at io n p ro cedur e ad m is si bl e. Reynol ds als o arg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt erredby allo win g t es ti m on y at t ria l re la te d t o l os t o r de st ro y edev id en ce, p erm it ti ng tes ti m on y at t ria l fr om

th e Ru le 11 he ari ng , and im po si ng anup wardde pa rtu re atsen te nc in g. Pri ce co nt en ds th atth e go ve rn m en t’s u se of t es ti m on y fro m th e Ru le 11 he ari ng crea te s a r ev ers ib le erro r. Fo r th e rea so ns setou t b el ow, we af firm Reynol ds ’ co nv ic ti on s an d t he di st ric t co urt’s upwardde pa rtu re atsen te nc in g andwe va cat e Pri ce’s co nv ic ti on s o n a ll co un ts . Accor di ng ly, we rev ers e th e jud gm en t en te redag ai ns t Pr ic e an d re m an d th is m at te r to th e d is tri ctco urt fo r a n ew tr ia l. I. BACKG ROUND On Ap ril 21 , 20 06 , th e Que en sb or o Nat io na l Ba nkan d Tru stin Heph azi ba h, Geo rg iawas ro bb edby a bla ck m al e, carry in g ash ot gu n a ndweari ng a whi te jum p su itan d alo ng , bl ackwig . The ro bb er fi redth e sh ot gu n t hr ee t im es : i nt o t he 2cei li ng as h e en te redth e b an k, d em an di ng m on ey fro m th e te ll er; in to th e o ffi ce o f a b an k e m

pl oyee; an d a t a c us to m er s erv ic e rep res en ta ti ve . Fortun at el y , no on e was ki ll ed . Howev er, a b an k e m pl oyee, sh otat i ns id e h er cubi cl e, su ffer eda wou ndto he r le ft arm . The rob be r le ft t he bankwit h 6 65 0 d ol la rs in cas h. He g otin a “ ge taway ” car a nddro ve away . Fiv e to ten m in ut es lat er a 9 11 cal le r pr ov id eda po ss ib le de sc rip ti on of t he “ ge ta way ” car . Depu ty An, a R ic hm on d C ou nt y Sh eri ff’s Dep uty , saw a n earb y

car s to pp edat ast op li gh t tha t fi t t he de sc rip ti on . Depu ty An p ul le d i nt o a“ T-Bo ne ” p os it io n wi th th atcar. The ba cksea t p as se ng er i n t he car p op pe d up a ndfir eda sh ot gu n a t the Depu ty. Depu ty An, n othi t b y th e sh ot , returne d fi re. The dri ve r th ensl owl y dro ve th e carin to a ne arb y co nv en ie nc e st or e pa rk in g l otat a n a lm os t i dl e sp eed . The s ho ot er ex it edth e v eh ic le an d ra n t owa rd a woo de d a rea b eh in d t he co nv en ie nc e st or e. Pri ce, t he dri ve r, was a rres te d a t t he co nv en ie nc e st or e b y

Depu ty Brian Ric he y . Cou nt y ag en ts fou ndsh ot gu n s he ll s; whi te co ve ral ls , a lo ng bl ackwig , a kn itcap , two bl ackgl ov es , a wall etbe lo ng in g to a ba nkem

pl oyee, th e b an k t el le r’s pu rs e, an d abl ackba g c on ta in in g 6 65 0 do ll ars in cas h i n t he ba ck sea t o f th e car . Aftera te n t o fi fte enm inut e ch as e, Dep uty An an d t wo o th er o ffi cers fou ndReynol ds ina ne arb y ne ig hb orho od hi di ng in a bu sh y

areain fro ntof ares id en ce an d p la cedhi m un de r arre st . 3Dep ut y An t he n b ro ug htReynol ds to th e b an k fo r a s ho w-up i de nt ifi cat io n. The bankem

pl oyees wer e in fo rm edby an o ffi cer t ha t t he m anres po ns ib le forth e ro bb ery ha d b een ap pr eh en de d a ndth enwatc he d a s Dep ut y An re m ov eda ha nd cu ffedReynol ds fro m th e b ack se atof apo li ce v eh ic le . Reyno ld s was tu rn ed to face th e em

pl oyees andto ldto sh ow b ot h s id es of h is face , op enhi s m ou th , and ho ldup hi s h ead . The b an k e m pl oyees p os it iv el y

id en ti fie d R eyno ld s as th e ro bb er. Defen da nt s R eyno ld s an d P ric e were i nd ic te d o n o ne co un t ea ch of a rm ed ro bb ery in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 11 3( a) an d (d ), an d o ne co un t ea ch of di sc ha rg e o f a fi rearm

du rin g acri 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 )(A)(i ii ). Reyno ld s was als o i nd ic te d o n o ne co un t o f po ss es si on of a fir earm by a con vi ct edfel on invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). On March 6, 20 07 Pri ce an d R eyno ld s wer e tr ie d b efo re a ju ry in th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Geo rg iaan d c on vi ct edon all co un ts . On Ju ly 31, 2 00 7 P ric e was sen te nc edto 15 5 m on th s fo r arm edrob be ry an d 1 20 m on th s fo r po ss es si on of afir earm by a co nv ic te d fe lo n, t o ru n c on se cu ti ve ly for a t ot al sen te nc e o f 27 5 m on th s i n co nf in em en t. Reyno ld s was sen te nc edto 30 0 m on th s wi th res pe ctto Co un t On e, 12 0 m on th s wi th res pe ctto Co un t Th ree, t o ru n c on cu rren tl y wit h C ou ntOne, an d 12 0 m on th s wi th res pe ctto Co un t Two , to be serve d c on se cu ti ve ly. 4II . STANDARD OF REVIEW

The re ar e fo uris su es on ap pe al be fo re u s: A. Whe th er t he co urt erredby find in g t he id en ti fic at io n p ro cedur e ad m is si bl e an d wh ethe r th e m ag is tra te jud ge sh ou ldha ve all owe d R eyno ld s t o c al l wit ne ss es at the supp res si on he ari ng . B. Whe th er t he co urt erredby adm it ti ng tes ti m on y ab ou t ev id en ce t ha t h adno t be enpre se rv edor o th erwi se lo cat edfortri al . C. Whe th er t he co urt erredby adm it ti ng tes ti m on y at t ria l fr om

Pri ce’s Ru le 11 he ari ng . D. Whe th er Re yno ld s’ sen te nc e was reas on ab le . A di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n tha t an ou t o f co urt i de nt ifi cat io n p ro cedur e was no t i m

pe rm is si bl y

su gg es ti ve is subjec t t o c le ar erro r rev ie w. Uni te d Sta te s v. Dia z , 24 8 F .3d10 65 , 11 03 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). If we fi ndth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d a n e rro r, we rev ie w th aterro r to de te rm in e if itwas h arm le ss . Mar

sden v. Moo re , 84 7 F .2d15 36 , 15 46 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ) (“ Unr el iabl e id en ti fic at io ns res ul ti ng fro m

un du ly sug ge st iv e p ho to gr ap hi c d is pl ay s ar e subjec t t o h arm le ss erro r an al y si s.”) . W e rev ie w evi de nt ia ry

rul in gs of t he di st ric t co urt fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta te s v. N

ov at on , 27 1 F .3d96 8, 1 00 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Evid en ti ary erro rs are o nl y gro un ds forrev ers al if “ th ere i s a r eas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth ey affe ct ed th e Defen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts ; wh ere a n e rro r ha d n o s ub st an ti al in flu en ce o n 5th e o ut co m e, an d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce u ni nf

ect edby errorsupp orts th e v erd ic t, rev ers al is no t warran te d.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Dr ur y , 39 6 F .3d13 03 , 13 15 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta te s v. Ha wki ns , 90 5 F .2d14 89 , 14 93 (11 th Cir . 19 90 )); se e a ls o K

ot te ak os . v. Uni te d Sta te s , 32 8 U.S. 7 50 , 75 7 (1 94 6) (qu ot in g Berg er v. Uni te d Sta te s , 29 5 U.S. 7 8, 8 2 (1 93 5) (“ The tru e in qu iry . . . is no t wh ethe r th ere ha s b eena va ria nc e o f pr oo f, bu t wh ethe r th ere h as be ensu ch a varia nc e as to affe ctth e subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts of t he accu se d.” ). W e rev ie w sen te nc es im

po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fo r rea so nabl en es s. Uni te d Sta te s v. Will ia ms , 45 6 F .3d13 53 , 13 60 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); se e a ls o Ki mbr ou gh v. Uni te d Sta te s , 12 8 S .Ct. 5 58 , 57 4 (2 00 7) . II I. ANALYSI S A. Suppre ss io n Hea ri ng Reynol ds ap pe al s t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s dec is io n t o b ar h im fro m in tro du ci ng ev id en ce athi s s up pr es si on he ari ng an d t he di st ric t co urt’s s ub se qu en t de ci si on to all ow p ret ria l an d i n- co urt i de nt ifi cat io n t es ti m on y at t ria l. Bef

or e tri al , Reyno ld s ch al le ng edth e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng hi s arres t an d the pr oc edur es us edby the arre st in g o ffi cers du rin g t he sh ow up. Sp eci fic al ly, he m ov edto supp res s al l p retria l an d i n- co urt i de nt ifi cat io n t es ti m on y du e to it s su gg es ti ve na tu re. A he ari ng on Reynol ds ’ Mo ti onto Supp res s was he ldbe fo re 6U.S. Mag is tra te Ju dg e Bar fie ldon Decem be r 20 , 20 06 . At th e h eari ng , Ju dg e Barf ie ldde ni edReynol ds ’ reque stto cal l t hr ee b an k e m pl oyees t o t es ti fy

ab ou t t he su gg es ti ve na tu re o f th e id en ti fic at io n p ro cedur e. Ju dg e Bar fie ldth en reco m m en de d t ha t Re yno ld s’ Mo ti on be de ni edan d t he di stric t co urt s ub se qu en tl y ad op te d J ud ge Barf

ie ld ’s reco m

m en da ti on . Reyno ld s ap pe al s the de ci si on , as se rti ng th athe was d en ie d due pro ces s b ecau se he was n otgi ve n a n a de qu at e op po rtu ni ty to p ro ve th e su gg es ti ve na tu re o f th e sh ow up a t t he he ari ng an d t he sh ow up c reat eda subs ta nt ia l ri skof m is id en ti fic at io n a t t ria l. Sh ow ups “ al lo w id en ti fic at io n b efo re t he su sp ectha s al te redhi s ap pe aran ce an d wh il e th e wit ne ss ’ m em ory is fres h a ndpe rm itth e qui ckrel eas e o f in no cen t pe rs on s.” Jo hn so n v . Dug ge r , 81 7 F .2d72 6, 7 29 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). Bu t, a s ho w up can be un du ly sug ge st iv e if “ th e p ol ic e ag gr av at e th e su gg es ti ve ne ss of t he sh ow up .” Id . In “ as se ss in g t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of atri al co urt’s d eci si on to adm itan ou t-o f-co urt i de nt ifi cat io n . . . [f]irs t, we m us t d et erm in e whe th er t he ori gi na l id en ti fic at io n p ro cedur e was un du ly sug ge st iv e. If we co nc lu de th atitwas su gg es ti ve , we th enm

us t co ns id er wh ethe r, un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e id en ti fic at io n was no ne th el es s re li ab le .” Dia z , 24 8 F .3dat 1 10 2. Id en ti fic at io n p ro cedur es th atare fo un d t o b e u ndul y su gg es ti ve an d u nr el iabl e are th ensubjec t t o h arm le ss erro r rev ie w. Mar sden , 84 7 F .2dat 1 54 6 (“ Unr el iabl e 7id en ti fic at io n re su lt in g fr om un du ly sug ge st iv e p ho to gr ap hi c d is pl ay s ar e subjec t to ha rm le ss erro r an al y si s.”) . To p ro ve th e id en ti fic at io n p ro cedur e was un du ly sug ge st iv e, Reyno ld s t rie d to cal l t hr ee b an k e m

pl oyees a s wi tn es se s. Re yno ld s’ cou ns el to ldth e co urt t he ba nkem pl oyees wo ul d t es ti fy

th at(1) Reynol ds was fo rcedto ho ldhi s h eadup an d o pe n h is m ou th to sh ow h is tee th to th e b an k e m pl oyees; an d (2 ) th e p ol ic e to ldth e b an k e m

pl oyees the y

were b rin gi ng so m eo ne ov er wh o the y want edth e em pl oyees t o l oo k a t an d t ry to id en ti fy . The m ag is tra te jud ge co ns id eredth e fac ts pr es en te d b y

co un se l an d c on cl ud ed“ ev enass um in g t ha t t he ba nkem pl oyees h ad te st ifi edto th e in fo rm at io n o ut li ne d b y de fen se co un se l atth e h eari ng , th is wou ld no t ch an ge th e co nc lu si on th atth ere was no th in g u ndul y su gg es ti ve ab ou t t he m an ne r in whi chth e sh ow- up was c on du ct ed .” (Dis tri ctCt. Do ck etEnt ry # 9 8, Rep . andReco m

m en da ti on , at 1 4.) Th e m ag is tra te jud ge an no un cedhe acce pt ed de fen se co un se l’s p ro fferas g iv enan d c on se qu en tl y fou nditun ne ces sa ry

to cal l th e b an k e m

pl oyees t o t es ti fy

at t he supp res si on he ari ng . The m ag is tra te jud ge ex pl ai ne d t ha t Re yno ld s was to ldto li ft h is he adan d o pe n h is m ou th be cau se th e em pl oyees h adno ti ced“ th e d is ti nc ti ve na tu re” o f th e ro bb er’s t eet h. ( Id. at 1 4.) The m ag is tra te jud ge als o s ta te d t ha t t he off ic er’s rem arkth atth e p ol ic e were br in gi ng ov er s om eo ne to be id en ti fie d was si m il arl y no t s ug ge st iv e, itwas ju stan 8ex pl an at io n o f wha t was ab ou t t o o ccu r. The m ag is tra te jud ge subs eque nt ly fou nd

th e sh ow up was no t o ve rly su gg es ti ve . At a s up pr es si on he ari ng , th e p refe rredco ur se is to gi ve gre atlat itud e to a pa rty pres en ti ng ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f a Mo ti onto Supp res s. Th is is co ns is te nt wit h Uni te d Sta te s v. Will ia ms wher e we rec og ni zedth ata de fen da ntsh ou ldbe gi ve n wi de lat itud e to de ve lo p t he factua l ci rcu m st an ces ab ou t t he su gg es ti ve ne ss of anid en ti fic at io n p ro cedur e. 59 2 F .2d12 77 , 12 81 (5t h C ir. 1 97 9) . In thi s 1 ab un danc e o f cau ti on , in st eadof c on si de rin g t he ev id en ce t ha t Re yno ld s p ro ffer ed th es e wit ne ss es wou ldtes ti fy to , Reyno ld s s ho ul d h av e b een ab le to en te r th es e wit ne ss es ’ te st im on y

in to th e rec or d. Nev ert he le ss , th is erro r ha d n o s ub st an ti al in flu en ce o n the ou tc om e o f th e tri al . The d an ge r of

m is id en ti fic at io n b y

ey ewit ne ss es in pre -tr ia l i de nt ifi cat io n pr oc edur es m ay

be “ subs ta nt ia ll y

les se ne d b y

a co ur se of c ro ss -ex am in at io n a t t ria l whi chex po se s t o the jury th e m etho d’s p ot en ti al forerro r.” Si mmon s v. Un it ed St at es , 39 0 U.S. 3 77 , 38 4 (1 96 8) . Here, Dep ut y An an d t he ba nkem

pl oyees wer e cro ss ex am in edby Rey

no ld s ab ou t t he sh ow up a ndid en ti fic at io n p ro ces s. Reynol ds was abl e to ex po se an y po te nt ia l erro rs in th e id en ti fic at io n p ro cedur e to

Under Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 1 are bound by

case s decide d by

the forme r F ifth Circuit before October 1, 1981. 9th e jury. Reynol ds fur th er p res en te d e vi de nc e th atth e ro bb ery la st edon ly fifty fiv e se co nd s (Tr. at15 3) ; t ha t Re yno ld s was th e o nl y pe rs on pre se nt edto th e b an k em pl oyees fo r id en ti fic at io n ( id. at 1 54 ); t ha t o ne of t he wit ne ss es co ul d n ot po si ti ve ly ide nt ify Reyno ld s as th e ro bb er, p ro vi de anaccu rat e d es cri pt io n o f th e ro bb er o r rec al l wh athe was wearin g a n h ou r aft er t he rob be ry ( id . at 9 5 a nd98 ); an d t ha t t he tel le r who id en ti fie d R eyno ld s av oi de d l oo ki ng at t he rob be r du rin g th e ro bb ery an d d idno t ev enreca ll see in g agu n ( id . at 1 50 -5 1) . The jury he ard th e te st im on y

of a ll of the witne ss es , th e cro ss ex am in at io n o f th os e wit ne ss es , and th e fac ts Reynol ds pl acedin to th e rec or d b efo re fi nd in g R eyno ld s g ui lt y . Thu s, we fi ndth e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s fai lu re t o a ll ow t he tes ti m on y of t he ba nk em pl oyees a t t he supp res si on he ari ng was h arm le ss erro r. Viewi ng th is reco rdin it s en ti ret y , th ere i s s im pl y no ris k t ha t Re yno ld s was m is id en ti fie d. Th is is so be cau se th ere was anab un da nc e o f in cri m in at in g ev id en ce i de nt ifyin g R eyno ld s as th e ro bb er, i nd ep en de ntof the sh ow up. Fo r ex am pl e, th ere was a vi de o t ap e o f th e ro bb ery an d i t was cle ar fro m th e v id eo th at Reynol ds was wea rin g t he same clo th in g a s t he rob be r. Thu s, t he ba nkem pl oyees were n otrel ie d upo n t o re m em be r th os e d et ai ls ab ou t the rob be r. Seco nd , th e b an k em pl oyees i nf

orm edth e p ol ic e ab ou t t he di st in ct iv e n atur e o f th e ro bb er’s t eet h be fo re t he sh ow up i de nt ifi cat io n a ndth e ro bb er’s t eet h wer e cau gh t o n c am era. 10Reynol ds ’ te eth m at ch edth e v id eo an d the em pl oyees’ de sc rip ti on . Thir d, Reynol ds was i de nt ifi edby Price , th e driv er o f th e “ ge taway ” car , as t he pa ss en ge r in th at“ ge ta way ” car . Fou rth , Pric e te st ifi edth ataft er h eari ng a lo udno is e h e sa w Reynol ds in th e b ack se atof t he “ ge ta way ” carho ld in g ash ot gu n. Fi fth , Rey no ld s was id en ti fie d b y

Depu ty An a s t he pe rs on who sh otat h im . Six th , th e “ ge ta way ” car c on ta in edth e whi te ov eral ls , lo ng bl ackwig , kn itcap , andbl ackgl ov es worn by the rob be r. The ca r al so co nt ai ne d awall etan d apu rs e b el on gi ng to ba nk em pl oyees a nda bl ackba g fi ll edwit h t he same am ou ntof m on ey th atwas s to le n fro m th e b an k. Th us , no subs ta nt ia l ri skof m is id en ti fic at io n e xi st edbe cau se th ere was ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e ag ai ns t Re yno ld s t o s up po rt t he jury’ s g ui lt y ve rd ic t. Ass um in g t he adm is si on of t he sh ow up was erro r, whi chwe do no t h ol d, i t was ha rm le ss . B. Dis rupt io n o f Ev id ence Reynol ds ap pe al s t he di stric t co urt’s d eci si on to pe rm ittes ti m on y rel at edto ev id en ce u na va il ab le at tria l. The go ve rn m en t i nt ro du cedtes ti m on y ab ou t t he

“ ge ta way ” car , whi ch was d es tro y edpri orto tri al , aft er Defe nd an ts fil eda Mo ti on to Pres erv e Evi de nc e. Fu rth er, the go ve rn m en t ca ll edtwo bankem pl oyees a s wit ne ss es who se au di ot ap e st at em en ts fro m th e d ay of the rob be ry

di sapp eare d pr io r to tri al . Reyno ld s o bjec te d t o t he us e o f th is tes ti m on y . The co urt h eard 11co un se ls ’ arg um en ts , andth enrul edth e te st im on y adm is si bl e. Reynol ds ap pe al s th e d eci si on , ass ert in g h e was de ni edhi s ri gh t t o due pro ces s. Los t ev id en ce d oe s n otau to m at ic al ly den y a de fen da nthi s o r he r ri gh t t o du e p ro ces s. Th e lo stev id en ce “ m us t b ot h p os se ss anex cu lp at ory va lu e th atwas ap pa ren t b efo re t he ev id en ce was de st ro y ed , andbe of s uc h ana tu re t ha t the de fen da ntwou ldbe un ab le to ob ta in co m pa rab le ev id en ce b y

ot he r rea so nabl y av ai labl e m ean s.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Rev ol or io -Ramo , 46 8 F .3d77 1, 7 74 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ti ng Ca li

fo rn ia v. Tro mbe tt a , 46 7 U.S. 4 79 , 48 9 (1 98 4) ). Furth er, the lo ss m us t b e due to th e g ov ern m en t’s b adfai th . Id. Here, t he di st ric t co urt h el d t he re was no de ni al of due pro ces s b ecau se th e ev id en ce was no t p ot en ti al ly excu lp at ory , itwas b ro ug htbe fo re the jury by oth er m ean s, an d t he re was no sh owi ng of b adfai th by the go ve rn m en t. We agre e. Befo re d es tro y in g t he car, t he off ic ers sei zedwhatth ey

be li ev edto be all th e rel ev an t ev id en ce fr om

th e car : the st ol enm on ey , sh ot gu n s he ll s, t he whi te jum ps ui t, t he wig , th e kni t cap, an d s pe ntsh el l ca si ng s. Pi ctur es were al so tak en of th e carwhi ch th e d is tri ctco urt o bs erv ed“ wou ldsee m to su ffi ce” a ndDepu ty An t es ti fie d t ha t t he y

fai rly andaccu rat el y

de pi ct edth e v eh ic le he att em pt edto st op . The d is tri ctco urt fu rth er p erm it te d t es ti m on y an d c ro ss -ex am in at io n o f th e of fic ers ab ou t t he co nt en ts of t he car, i ts subs eque ntde stru ct io n a ndan y ev id en ce 12of

ba d fa it h. Re yno ld s d idfil e a Mo ti on to Pres erv e Evi de nc e (Di st ric t Ct . Dock et Ent ry # 4 0) on May 24, 2 00 6, b efo re t he car was de st ro y ed , bu t t he Mo ti on was t o pr es erv e al l ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng “ in ve st ig at iv e rep orts , witne ss st at em en ts , do cu m en ts , . . . co nt rab an d, . . . andot he r ph y si cal ev id en ce.” ( Id. at1.) Th e

“ ge ta way ” carwas n ev er s pe ci fic al ly m en ti on ed . Add it io na ll y , Reyno ld s d idno t m ov e to in sp ectth e v eh ic le un ti l J anua ry 31 , 20 07 , aft er t he car was alr ead y de st ro y edan d o ve r ei gh t m on th s af te r th e Mo ti on to Pres erv e was fil ed . (Dis tri ct Ct . Dock etEnt ry

# 1 05 , Not ic e o f In te ntto Ins pe ctVehi cl e.) Aga in , ass um in g a rg ue nd o t ha t t he co urt erredin pe rm it ti ng tes ti m on y ab ou t th e d es tro y edve hi cl e, itwas h arm le ss . As di sc us se d abo ve , th e jury hear d te st im on y ab ou t h ow the ve hi cl e was de st ro y ed . The jury als o s aw ph ot og rap hs of th e car , andth e co nt en ts of t he car wer e av ai labl e fo r Reyno ld s’ us e attri al . Fu rth er, the car was no t i nt eg ral to Reynol ds ’ de fen se . Reyno ld s d idno t sp eci fic al ly nam e th e carin hi s M ot io n t o P res erv e Evi de nc e, no r di d h e m ov e to in sp ectth e carforeig htm on th s af te r he fil edth e Mo ti on . The t ria l co urt fo un d th at“ qu it e fra nk ly, th e au to m ob il e it se lf d oe s n otap pe ar t o m e, fro m m y li m it ed pe rs pe ct iv e, as anim

po rta ntfeatur e o f th e ev id en ce i n thi s ca se . The p ic tu res th at we ha ve see n o f th is ve hi cl e wou ldsee m to su ffi ce. Whatis im

po rta ntis th e laun dry li stof i te m s t ha t wer e fo un d i n t ha t v eh ic le . . . ” Tr. at 2 31 . Fin al ly, th ere 13was am

pl e ev id en ce t ha t Re yno ld s was co nn ect edto th e car an d t he car was co nn ect edto th e ro bb ery. Pric e, th e driv er o f th e car , id en ti fie d R eyno ld s as a pa ss en ge r in th e car ; Re yno ld s was ch as eddo wn af te r jum pi ng ou t o f th e car ; Reynol ds was s een ho ld in g ash ot gu n i n t he ba ck se atof t he car b y bo th Pri ce an d Dep uty An; it em s fo un d i n t he car wer e li nk edto th e ro bb ery; andReynol ds was id en ti fie d b y

th e b an k e m

pl oyees a s t he rob be r who lef t t he ba nkin th e “ ge ta way ” car. Al th ou gh co un se l en ga ge d i n s om e sp ecu la ti on , th ere was no th in g t o s ug ge st th atex am in at io n o f th e car wou ldha ve rev eal edan y ex cu lp at ory

ev id en ce. The co urt al so co rrec tl y

all owe d t he ba nkem

pl oyees t o t es ti fy , des pi te th e lo streco rd in gs of t he ir p rev io us st at em en ts . Reyno ld s h adam pl e o pp ortu ni ty to es tabl is h a ny inc on si st en ci es intes ti m on y th atm ay ha ve be ende m on st rat edby the lo sttap es th ro ug h o th er ev id en ce. Reyno ld s cr os s ex am in edth e b an k e m pl oyees an d u se d i nv es ti ga ti ve no te s an d o ffi cer t es ti m on y to bri ng th e wit ne ss es ’ pr ev io us st at em en ts be fo re t he jury. The jury als o h eardtes ti m on y

fro m th e o ffi cers ab ou t th e lo sttap es an d t he jury was in st ru ct edab ou t s po li at io n o f ev id en ce. Fu rth er, th ere was no sh owi ng of b adfai th . Fin al ly, an y erro r was harm le ss : t he jury he ard te st im on y ab ou t t he lo sttap es , th e cro ss ex am in at io n o f th e b an k e m pl oyees, t he in ve st ig at iv e n ot es , off

ic er t es ti m on y , andth e jury ins tru ct io n o f sp ol ia ti on of ev id en ce b efo re fi nd in g R eyno ld s g ui lt y . 14C. Rule 1 1 H ea ri ng Tes timony

Defen da nt s R eyno ld s an d P ric e ap pe al th e co urt’s d eci si on to all ow the in tro du ct io n o f te st im on y fro m Pri ce’s Ru le 11 he ari ng . Ini ti al ly, Pri ce en te red in to pl ea n eg ot ia ti on s wi th th e g ov ern m en t; he wou ldpl eadgu il ty to arm ed ro bb ery an d i n e xc ha ng e th e g ov ern m en t wo ul d d is m is s t he ch arg e o f po ss es si on of a fi rearm by a con vi ct edfel on . On Feb ru ary 2, 2 00 7, t he di st ric t co urt h el d a Ru le 11 he ari ng for

Pri ce. J ud ge Bo wen , ho wev er, d idno t ac cep t Pr ic e’s gu il ty pl ea b ecau se Pri ce re fu se d t o a dm ithe kn owi ng ly part ic ip at edin th e b an k ro bb ery. As a re su lt , Pric e wen t t o t ria l. At tria l, o ve r th e o bjec ti on s o f bo th Defen dant s, 2 th e g ov ern m en t i nt ro du cedtes ti m on y fro m th e Ru le 11 he ari ng . Init s cr os s- ex am in at io n o f Pri ce, t he go ve rn m en t as ke d: Q. Do you r em em

be r te st ifyin g b efo re t hi s co urt ea rli er? A. Yes . Q. Andwhen y ou tes ti fie d a t t ha t t im e y ou were s worn b y th is cle rk an d you pr om is edto tel l t he who le tru th an d yourem em be r Ju dg e Bo wenwas a sk in g y ou so m e que st io ns ? MR. LEOPARD: I am

go in g t o o bjec t. I am

no t s ur e wha t d ire ct io n [t he 3 go ve rn m en t] is go in g i n, b utwe co ul d g etin to a da ng ero us si tu at io n.

Price’s obje ction is the only objection re flec ted on the tra nscript, but Rey

nolds asserts 2 that he also objec ted. For purposes of this appe al, we a ssume that Rey nolds objected timely

to the use of the Rule 11 testimony and is not prec luded from br ingingthis iss ue up on appe al. Daniel G. L eopar d, Esq. repr esents Alvin L . Price in this action. 3 15THE COURT: I am go in g t o a ll ow an in qu iry int o h is pri or tes ti m on y , bu t o nl y hi s t es ti m on y . 4 Q. At t ha t h eari ng th is jud ge , Ju dg e Bo wen , ask edy ou so m e que st io ns an d h e sp eci fic al ly ask edy ou ‘ I’m no t s o c on cern [ed ] [s ic ] ab ou t wh athapp en edat th atpo in t i n t im e. I am

co nc ern edab ou t wh aty ou kn ew ordi d n otkn ow at th e ti m e whe n youwentto th e b an k wi th Mr. Reyno ld s t el l m e ab ou t t ha t? ’ Andy ou r an swe r was : ‘at t he ti m e h e was in th e b an k I wa s i n the car an d i t was faci ng to wardth e tr affi c? ’ Tr. at 3 63 -6 4. Th e g ov ern m en t co nt in ue d: Q. Let m e rea d s om ethi ng els e to y ou . Yousai d dur in g t ha t s am e h eari ng : J us t a few s eco nd s b efo re ‘whenI was t he re atth e b an k I wa s fa ci ng th e tr affi c. He to ldm e h e was go in g t o s ee s om eo ne . Okay. So, h e g otou t an d I wa s jus t l oo ki ng aro un d, ju stsi gh t s eei ng be cau se th is is m y fir stti m e in Geo rg ia . He com es ba ckin an d h e to ldm e to go ah eadan d d riv e.’ Do you rem em be r say in g t ha t? Id. at36 5. Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 10 st at es th at“ an y st at em en t m ad e in th e co ur se of an y pro ceed in gs un de r Ru le 11 of t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e” i s in ad m is sabl e “ ag ai ns t t he de fen da ntwho m ad e th e p le a o r was a pa rti ci pa ntin th e pl ea d is cu ss io ns .” F E D . R. E V ID . 41 0( 3) . Alth ou gh Ru le 41 0 m ak es anex cep ti on whe n the ev id en ce i s u se d fo r im pe ach m en t p ur

po se s, Ru le 11 (e)( 6) of the Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e, whi ch supe rs ed es Ru le 41 0, o nl y all ows ev id en ce o f

It would have be en extremely helpful if the lawy ers ha d reminded the trial judg e that 4 this testim ony

had come from a Rule 11 he aring . At the Rule 11 hea ring , immediately

afte r the judge had re fused to ac cept Price ’s guilty plea, the judg e advise d the lawyers that none of this would be admissible at trial. 16a wit hd rawn gu il ty ple a to be adm it te d i n acri m in al pro ceed in g fo r pe rjury or i f

th ere i s a f

al se st at em en t. Uni te d Sta te s v. Ma rt in ez , 53 6 F .2d11 07 , 11 08 (5t h C ir. 19 76 ); F E D . R. C R IM . P. 11 (e)( 6) . A defe nd an t m ay als o a gr ee t o wai ve hi s R ul e 41 0 p ro te ct io ns . Uni te d Sta te s v. Mez za na tt o , 51 3 U.S. 1 96 , 20 9 (1 99 5) (“ W e ho ldth atab se ntso m e aff irmativ e in di cat io n t ha t t he ag reem en t was en te redin to un kn owi ng ly or in vo lu nt ari ly, anag reem en t t o wai ve th e ex cl us io na ry pro vi si on s of th e p le a-s ta te m en t Ru le s i s v al idan d e nf or ceab le .”). Pri ce d idno t wai ve hi s R ul e 4 10 pro te ct io ns an d t he Ru le 11 tes ti m on y was no t ad m it te d fo r pe rjury or b ecau se Pri ce m ad e a fal se st at em en t. We fin d t he go ve rn m en t’s u se of P ric e’s Ru le 11 tes ti m on y erro ne ou s. Ho wev er, i f th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t t he Defen dant s, ap artfro m th e Ru le 11 tes ti m on y , was s uf fic ie nt to supp ort t he jury’ s g ui lty ve rd ic ts an d was un affe ct edby the Ru le 11 tes ti m on y , th enth e m is us e o f th e te st im on y is no t re ve rs ib le erro r. Dru ry , 39 6 F .3dat 1 31 5 (“ whe re an erro r ha d n o s ub st an ti al in flu en ce o n t he ou tc om e, an d s uf fic ie nt ev id en ce u ni nf

ect edby errorsupp orts th e v erd ic t, re ve rs al is no t warran te d” ); Mar ti ne z , 53 6 F .2dat 1 10 8 (“ Bu t we n eedno t d et erm in e whe th er o r no t t he erro r was in vi te d b ecau se we are co nv in cedth atin li gh t o f al l t he ev id en ce p res en te d a t tri al th e swo rnst at em en ts ha d o nl y a sl ig hteffe cton th e jury’ s d eci si on . There fo re th e g ov ern m en t’s m is ta ke n re li an ce o n R ul e 4 10 was h arm le ss erro r.”). 17W it h re ga rdto Pri ce, t he Ru le 11 tes ti m on y was n otha rm le ss an d we th eref or e fi ndrev ers ib le erro r. As farfet ch edas i t m ay see m , Pric e’s so le de fen se was th athe was s o h ig h o n c rackco cai ne th athe kn ew no th in g abo utth e fac ts le ad in g up t o t he ba nkrob be ry . At tri al , Pric e te st ifi edat g reatlen gt h tha t h e was so in to xi cat edor h ig h o n c rackco cai ne be fo re, dur in g, an d a fte r th e ro bb ery th at he was u na ware a r ob be ry or a ny oth er cri m e h adtak enpl ace. He t he refo re cl ai m edhe di d n otha ve th e req ui si te in te ntto co m m itth e b an k ro bb ery oran y ot he r of fen se . Price pre se nt edev id en ce t ha t h e smoke d c rackco cai ne pri orto an d du rin g t he st op at t he ba nk(Tr . at 3 48 ); wa s u na ware t he y ha d s to pp edat aba nk , th ata ro bb ery ha d o ccu rred , or tha t a s ho tg un , a ba g o f m on ey , a wig , anda whi te jum p s ui t wer e in th e b ack se atof t he car u nt il Reynol ds fir edth e sh ot gu n a t l aw en fo rcem en t ( id. at35 3) ; wo ul d n otha ve go tt enin th e carwit h R eyno ld s h adhe kn own whatwas i n t he car o r Reyno ld s’ in te nt( id. at35 6) ; d ro ve th e “ ge ta way ” car i n am an ne r co ns is te ntwit h ape rs on un aware th ata cri m e h adjus t t ak enpl ace - un de r th e sp eedli m it“ li ke anol d p ers on was d riv in g i t” ( id. at 1 11 ); d idno t ru n fro m law en fo rcem en t, b utsl owl y id le d t he car i nt o t he ga s s ta ti on ( id. at 1 87 ); a nd se em edun cl ear a s t o wh y a po li ce o ffi cer was pu ll in g h im ov er wh enhe was ap pr eh en de d ( id. at 1 89 ).

18Pri ce’s Ru le 11 tes ti m on y di rect ly con tra di ct edth is de fen se . The go ve rn m en t s ug ge st edon cro ss ex am in at io n o f Pri ce t ha t atth e Ru le 11 he ari ng Pri ce h adst at edso m ethi ng to th e eff ectth at“ whe n I wa s t he re atth e b an k I wa s faci ng th e tr affi c” an d “ atth e ti m e [Re y no ld s] was i n the ba nkI was i n t he car an d itwas fa ci ng to wardth e tr affi c.” Id. at 3 63 -6 5. Pri ce i ns ta nt ly andve he m en tl y de ni edev er u si ng th e wor d “ ba nk .” He m ai nt ai ne d t ha t Re yno ld s h adto ldhi m he was go in g t o s ee s om eo ne in a st or e. Thi s t es ti m on y co ul d h av e in flu en cedth e jury’ s fi nd in g t ha t Pr ic e was co gn iz an t o f hi s s urro un di ng s dur in g t he rob be ry an d was th eref

or e cu lp ab le . The i m

po rta nc e o f th e te st im on y is rei nf or cedby the jury’ s re qu es t fo r th e Ru le 11 he ari ng tra ns cri ptdu rin g d el ib erat io n. Th e jury’ s reas on in g b eh in d i ts gu il ty verd ic t i s u nk no wn. Ho wev er, due to th e n atur e o f Pri ce’s d efen se an d t he co nt rary tes ti m on y fro m th e Ru le 11 he ari ng , we fin d t ha t th e te st im on y

m us t h av e h ada subs ta nt ia l i nf lu en ce o n t he jury’ s v erd ic t an d was no t h arm le ss erro r. W it h re ga rd s t o R eyno ld s, t he Ru le 11 tes ti m on y was h arm le ss an d we th eref or e fi ndno rev ers ib le erro r. Reyno ld s ar gu es th atth e Ru le 11 tes ti m on y in si nu at edth e co urt b el ie ve d R eyno ld s en te redan d e xi te d t he bank . That in si nu at io n, h owe ve r, di d n otaffe ctth e o ut co m e o f th e cas e. The re co rdco nt ai ns to o m uc h i nc ul pa ti ng ev id en ce fo r th e te st im on y to ha ve affe ct edth e jury’ s g ui lt y 19ve rd ic t. Fi rs t, Pri ce t es ti fie d t ha t Re yno ld s was in th e b ack se atof the “ ge ta way ”

car. Se co nd , Cou nt y

ag en ts fou ndth e whi te co ve ral ls an d t he lo ng , bl ackwig worn b y th e ro bb er an d i de nt ifi edat t ria l b y th e b an k e m

pl oyees i n t he ba ck se atof th atcar. The car al so co nt ai ne d s ho tg un sh el ls , a kn itcap , bl ackgl ov es , th e 6 65 0 do ll ars st ol enfro m

th e b an k, an d awall etan d apu rs e b el on gi ng to ba nk em pl oyees. Th ird , Reyno ld s was id en ti fie d a s t he rob be r by the ba nkem pl oyees anho uraft er the rob be ry

an d h e was id en ti fie d a ga in du rin g t he tri al . Fou rth , Reynol ds was wea rin g t he same clo th es as t he rob be r an d h e h adth e sa m e di st in ct iv e te eth. Fi fth , Offic er Anfur th er i de nt ifi edReynol ds in li ve co urt as th e m anwho fir eda sh otin th e d ire ct io n o f hi s v eh ic le an d P ric e te st ifi edth ataft er he ari ng a lo udno is e h e sa w Reyno ld s h ol di ng a sh ot gu n i n t he ba ck se atof t he car. The re was ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e ag ai ns t Re yno ld s, u na ffec te d b y th e Ru le 11 te st im on y , to supp ort t he gu il ty verd ic t. Thus , we fin d t he co urt’s ru li ng in th is reg ardwas h arm le ss erro r as to Reynol ds . D. Upw ar d Depa rtur e a t Sent enci ng Reynol ds ap pe al s t he di stric t co urt’s upwa rdde pa rtu re fro m th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge an d i ts im po si ti on of t he m ax im

um sen te nc e al lo wed . Reyno ld s’ Pre- se nt en ce In ve st ig at io n R ep ort re co m m en de d a n a dv is ory

gu id el in es se nt en ci ng ran ge of 1 35 to 16 8 m on th s fo r arm edba nkrob be ry an d p os se ss io n o f 20a fi rearm

by a con vi ct edfel onan d am an da to ry m in im um of 1 20 m on th s t o b e se rv edco ns ecu ti ve ly for d is ch arg e o f a fi rearm du rin g acri m e o f vi ol en ce. Sen t. Tr. at 6 2- 63 . The d is tri ctco urt ch os e to de pa rt f ro m th e ad vi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge fo r arm edba nkrob be ry

an d i m po se d t he m ax im

um sen te nc e al lo wedby statut e o f 30 0 m on th s. Whe n s en te nc in g ade fen da nt , a di st ric t co urt m us t fi rs t ca lc ul at e th e gu id el in e ran ge an d t he n c on si de r th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s t o a rri ve at a reas on ab le sen te nc e. Uni te d Sta te s v. Owe ns , 46 4 F .3d12 52 , 12 54 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Due to th e n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of t hi s o ffen se , th e d is tri ctco urt’s up wardde pa rtu re was reas on ab le . After c al cu la ti ng th e g ui de li ne ran ge , th e co urt co ns id eredth e 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s an d fo un d t ha t an in crea se d s en te nc e wou ldfur th er th e g oa ls of p un is hm en t an d d et erre nc e. Fu rth er, ci ti ng th e b la ta ntna tu re o f th e ba nkrob be ry , th e co urt s en te nc edReynol ds ab ov e th e g ui de li ne ran ge be cau se of th e p art ic ul arl y

eg reg io us fact s o f th e cas e. Reynol ds fir edon law en fo rcem en t an d b an k e m

pl oyees andev enwou nd edanem pl oyee. The co urt ex pl ai ne d tha t

“ Mr. Re yno ld s b la st edhi s way int o t he ba nksh ou ti ng an d s ho ot in g a ndcrea ti ng as m uc h t erro r an d i nt im id at io n a s h e p os si bl y co ul d.” Sen t. Tr. at61 . In fa ct , th e co urt co ul d n otreca ll an y ba nkrob be ry

wher e “ a weap on ha s b een di sc ha rg edas 21wan to nl y

as t hi s o ne .” Id. at 6 2. We fin d t he in crea se d s en te nc e was jus ti fie d a nd reas on ab le . IV. CONCLUSI ON Bas edon th e fo reg oi ng an al y si s we a ffi rm Reynol ds ’ co nv ic ti on s an d h is se nt en ce. We furt he r rev ers e th e jud gm en t en te redag ai ns t Pr ic e an d re m an d t hi s m at te r to th e d is tri ctco urt fo r a n ew tr ia l. REYNOLDS’ CONVICTION AND SENTE NCE AFFIRM ED; PRI CE’S CONVICTION REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NE W TRIAL.

22