## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 4043 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . R OND ELL F R EE MAN, a/ k/ a N igh tfa ll, a/ k/ a F all, etal., D efend a nts-A pp ellees. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C R 843

—Jo an H umph reyL efk ow, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 30, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UNE 17, 2011

Befo re F LA UM, M A NI ON, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. Aft er a fi ve - wee k tr i al, f our defen dan ts wer e con vi ct ed o fv ar i o us dr ugc r i m es . The dist ri ct c ourtl ate r f ound that the go ve rnm ent’ s s tar wi tn es s h ad te st i fi ed f al se l y, tha t th e g o ve r nm en t k ne w thi s te stim o ny was f al se , a nd tha t th e g o ve r nm ent r el i ed upon i t to secur e the defendants’ co nvi cti ons. The dis tr i ct c ourtthen gr anted a new tr i al, an d t h e g over nm ent a pp eal s. Because the r eco rd fully s up port s th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s fi n d i n g s th a tthe g o v e r n me n tkn o w-2 N o. 09

- 4043 i ng l y us ed f al se t es ti m o ny a nd tha t th i s te st i m o ny a ffe c t e d th e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t, w e a ffi r m.

I. F o r se ve r aly ea r s, the g o ve r nm en t i nv es ti g at ed th e dr ug tr ade in the no w-r az ed Cab r i niGr ee n pub l i c ho us i ng pr oj ec ts
. Usi ngv ideo s ur ve i l l an ce , g arba g e pul l s, c o nt r o l l e d b u y s , a n d c o n fi d e n t i a l i n f o r ma n t s , th e g o v e r nm ent g ather ed evi dence and l ate r se c ured an ind i ctm ent a gainst fi ftee n i nd i vi du al s forvari ous dr ugre l ate d cri m es, i ncl ud i ng o ne o ve ra rchi ng co nspir acy. Ten ple aded gui lty , a n d fi ve w ent t o tr i al

. Of thos e that w en t t o tri al, one w as acq uitted and the oth ers w ere convi cted o fse ve ra l char ges , i ncl ud i ng the co nspir acy charg e. A t t ria l, th e g o v e rn m en t p re se n te d a b old ca se . I t all eged that Ron d ellFreem an w as p oised a t t h e top of a l ar g e dr ug - tr affi ck i ngr i ng . He s uppl i ed th e d r ug s an d wi th h i s l i e u t e n a n t s c o n t r o l l e d C ab r i n i G r e e n ’ s dr ug t r a de

— th e g ov er n m en t c la i m ed th at n o on e c ou ld se ll dr ug s th er e wi th o uthi s appr o va l

. Thi s was b y no mean s a sm allope ration. Freem an w as su p p osed to have pu rchased o vera ki l ogr am o fcocai ne a w eek, wh i ch he turned i nto cra ck an d sol d i n re tai l quanti ti es. W hi l e no exact fi gure was produced at tr i al, o ne w i tness specul ate d that thi s pra cti ce woul d net F re em an as m u ch as $140 , 000 a week. Ofc o ur s e a n o pe r a t i o n o fthi s s i z e r e qu i r e s h e l p. The go ver nm ent a l l ege d that the co

- defe nd ants, Bri an W i lbour n, Danie l H i l l, and A dam S anders, al l se rv ed asN o. 09

- 4043 3 Fr eem an’ s s ubor dinat es, b u t w i th a tw i st. W hi l e they a l l wo r k e d f o r F r e e man s o met i mes s e l l i ng hi s drugs a t re tai l, theyea ch al so had thei r own b usi ness that com peted w i th, ye t was st i l l tie d to, Fr eem an’ s co ntro l and supp l y o fdrugs. So, al though F re em an would tak e coca i ne and m ake i t in to hi s o w n “br and” ofcr ack that w as sold at reta ilby his l ieuten an ts, W ilbou rn an d others w oul d al so b u y coca i ne fro m Fr eem an, co ok i t, and then se ll it atret ail a s w ell. N atur al l y the defendants deni ed these all ega ti ons. Fr eem an, f orhis p art, di d not hav e m uch ofa defe nse; he sim p ly p ut the gove rnm en t to i ts b u r d en . Th e othe rs had a di ffer ent t ri alst ra tegy: theycandi dlyadm i tte d to d ea ling d rugs bu t clai m ed they did so on a very sm allscale, as i nd ep en d en t con tracto rs and not as p art o fF r ee m an ’ s ope r at i o n. I n do i ngs o , the y de ni ed be i ng t i e d t o h i m i n a nywa y b utfr i e nd s hi p. Fori ts part, the gov er nm ent’ s p h ys icalev i dence w as buttr ess ed by the t est i m ony ofthr ee si gni fi cant, coop erating w itness es. R alph La Sall e w as Freem an ’s su ppl i er ; he testifi ed th atF r ee m anb o ug hta t l ea sto ne and som eti m es m or e than two ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne a w eekb etween 200 0 thro ugh 200 5. Dem ar quis W i l l i am s, a co - defen dan t, w ork ed f o r F r ee m ana nd t es ti fi ed ab o ut Fr eem an’s st ra ngl ehol d overCabrini Gree n. The m ost i m port ant t est i m ony, however, cam e fro m ano therco d e fe n d a n t, S e n e c a Wi l l i a ms

— th e c e n tr al figu re in t h is ap p ea l. For years Sene ca W il lia m s served as Freem an ’s bagger, a f ai rl y l ow-l ev el p osi ti on. In i t, W i l l i am s would t ake4 N o. 09

- 4043 the l ar ge chunks ofcr ack cocai ne thatf or m ed w hen the pow der i s “co oke d,” and then bre ak and b ag it i nto r et ai l

- si ze d “ r o ck s. ” Des pi te s ucha meni alr o l e, he knew m uch about the o perat i on. H e t est ified about how th e o per at i o n be g an an d ho w i t g r ew; he te st i fi ed about th e co de wor ds an d the dr ugho us es us ed; a nd he testifi ed abou t h ow W ilbou rn, H il l, and Sand ers w ere pl ac ed wi th i n the o per at i o n. W i l l i am s was , ho wev er, s k et ch y o n da te s, s o th e ti m el i ne f o r h is t es ti m o ny was b as ed o n s ea so ns a nd l an dm ar k s. Thi s i s a br i efs um m ar y o fhis pe r tine nt tes ti m ony.

• W il li am s w as relea s ed from prison i n Feb rua ry 20 02 a nd r etur ne d t o Cabr i niGr ee n in l ate s pr i ng to early sum m er of th at year.

• So m eti m e duri ng tha t sum m er, he a ske d Fre em an i fhe c o ul d s ta r t ba g g i nga g ain.

• Som et i m e l ate r, he s tar ted bag gi ng atan a partmen to n 9 5 th a nd Ha l s t e d.

• Thr ee o r f o urmonths l at er, wheni t was “ g o i ng i nto w i nter, ” he bega n bagg i ng at an apar tm ent o n 35th and K i ng Dri ve.

• The oper ati on then m ove d t o the seco nd fl oo r ofan ap ar tm en t in th e G ra n ville bu ild in g, w h er e it re m ai ned untilea rly winte r of20 03.

• A f ew m ont hs l at er, the o per at i o n mov ed to the to p fl o o r ofthe Gr an vi l l e bui l di ng, t o a n a par tment kn ow n as th e “ p en th ou se .”N o. 09

- 4043 5

From the conte xtofth e te stim ony, i t s eem s thatthi s refer- 1 ence to R o nd el l should be to W ilbou rn. O ur quote, how ever, r e fl e c t s the r e c or d. W i l l i am s t est i fi ed at l ength about the pentho use, fre qu en tly p lacing W ilbou rn there w ith Freem an an d others di sc us singthe dr ugt r ade

. Thi s i nc l ud ed t es ti m o ny about the defendants “b ra nd i ng” th ei r re specti ve types of cra c k. T h is w as a p ar tic u lar ly d am n in g pie c e o ft es tim ony. I t was j us t o ne da y Ro nde l l F r ee m anwas ha ving Bri an W i lbour n cam e [ si c] i n. They had a bi g b ag of s ea ls, all

— d iffer ent k i nd s, bl ue devi l, bl ue st ri pe, an d ora n ge st rip e. The n the y wa s t a l k i ngab o uth o w thi s p e r son w ho pi cked co l or

— w hat t h eir co l orwas. Bri an W i lbour n had the o ra nge s tr i pe. Royc e Hatterhad th e bl ue s tr i pe. And Ro nde l l F r eem an stuckwi ththe b lu e d ev il. Rondell then sta ted thathe was g oi ng to st op

1 ar ou n d w ith th e o ra n ge st rip es , t h at h e w ou ld su r pr i s e p e o p l e wi th th e n e w c r a c kb a ga n d s a y i ng th at h e w as goin g t o m ak e n ew clie n te le, se ll

— Igues s sel l a l ot. A nd Royc e Hatter w as s ayinghe was go i ngt o do the s a me thingwi th the b l ue st ri pes. R ond el l F r ee m anwas s ay i ngtha t ca n’ t no th i ng m es s w ith th e b lu e d ev il lab el. W i l l i ams’ s te st i m ony abo utthe pe ntho us e wentb ey o nd that ex cer pt and provi ded so m e o fthe m ostdetai l ed6 N o. 09

- 4043

ev i den ce o fF r ee m an ’ s op erat i o n a nd the o th erde fen dants’ r ol e in i t. T h er e w as , ho w ev er , a p ro b lem w ith W illiam s’s te st im ony abou t the pen th ou se, p artic u larl y W ilbou rn’s pr es en ce a nd a ct i o ns the r e. Fr o m W i l l i ams’ s te st i m o ny a nd th e g o v e r nme nt ’ s o the r e v i de nc e , i t i s c l e a r tha t the penthouse w as used ex c l usi vel y in 200 3. But W i lbour n w as in p ris on from 20 02 u n til 20 05 , givin g h im an ob vio u s a libi. A nd thi s a libi w asn’ t a sur pri se f orthe gov er nm ent. A fte r re ad i n g W illiam s’s gra n d j u ry te st im on y, W ilbo ur n’ s at torne y s en t th e pr o se cut o r s a l et te r l et ting th e m k n o w th a tWi lb o u r n w a s i n p r i s o n d u r i n gth e t i me W i l l i am s pl aced hi m i n the penthouse. Fo r som e r eason

— neverar ti cul ate d

— the g o v e r nme ntp l o we d a he ad an d s ti l l ha d W i l l i ams t es ti fy . I t so l i ci ted te st i m o ny about W i lbour n’s pre sence at the pentho use; i t e ven en cou raged W illia m s to sp ecifi cally d etail W ilbou rn’s p articipation i n Freem an ’s operat ion the re

— i nc l udi ngthe t estim ony qu oted above. W ha t’s m ore, w he n W ilbou rn’s at to r ne y b eg anc r o ss - ex ami ni ngW i l l i am s abo utthe im p ossibi l i tyo fW i lbo ur n b einga t th e pen th o us e, the pros ecuto r obj ecte d, sta ti ng i n the prese nce o fthe j ury

“Obj ecti on. That’ s no t t rue. ” T h e c ou rto ve rru led th e o bj ec tio n, bu t la te r n ot ed it “f or cibl y m uted w hat m i ght o ther w i se have been [ a] d ev as ta tin g im p ea c h m en t.” A t the tim e, th e govern m en t d ispu t ed that W ilbou rn ha d been i n p rison d uring this p e r iod. Th e pros ecu tors fe l ttha tWi lb o urn’ s a r r e s ta nd i nc a r c e r a t i o n r e c o r dsN o. 09

- 4043 7

w er e uncl earo n hi s t i m e in p ri son. They a re not
. That asid e, th e govern m en t d id not resolve th is issue before tr i al

. N ordi d it q u ick l y a tte m pt to cl ar i fy the co nfl i ct when i t was r ai se d dur i ngthe trial. Even tu al l y ne arthe end of th e tri aland w i thout furtherco m m ent o r tes ti m ony, i t sti pu l ate d that W i lbour n w as in pri son f ro m A pri l 20 02 unti l S eptem ber20 05. A nd at t h e cl ose ofthe gov er nm ent’ s ca se, t h e sti pu l ati on was r ead to th e j ury

— t we l v e da y s a ft e r Wi l l i a ms t e s t i fi e d. Despit e the ce rt ai nty the st i pu l ati on pro vi ded , pro blem s s te m m in g fro m W illiam s’s te st im on y a ro se ag ain dur i ngc l o sing a r g um en ts
. I n i ts s um m at i o n, the g o ve r nm ent s ti l l r el i ed on hi s t esti m ony f ora num bero f f ac tu ali ss ue s, i nc l udi ngc o nne ct ing W i lbo ur n t o the conspi ra cy thro ugh hi s use o fthe or ange- str ip ed bag s. I t a l so used the re buttalpor ti on o fcl osing ar gum ent t o con fuse rath er than clari fy the tim e con fl ict i n W il li am s’s te st i m o ny . I t ar g ue d tha t W i l l i ams h ad not l i ed ab o ut W i lbour n and the othe rs atthe penthouse

— Wi l l i a ms w as j ust i m preci se orm i l dlym i staken about the date s ( and presu m ablythe l oca ti on) o n w hi ch so m e e vents o cc ur r ed. I n e ss en ce , i t clai m ed W i l l i ams’ s te st i m o ny about th e pen th o us e was , i n f ac t, t r ue

— i t j ust happened ear l i erthan he cl ai m ed, and i n a di ffer ent pl ace. Du ringtha tl i ne o fa r g ume nt, the c o ur ts us t a i ned seve ra l o bj ecti ons fro m the defe nse. A nd i t info rm ed the g ove rnm ent that i ts ar gum ent was bo th i na c c u ra te an d a n a tt empt t o b o l st erW i l l i ams’ s testim o ny . The cour t l ate r f ound that th is consti tuted pro secuto ri al m i sco nd uct.8 N o. 09

- 4043 The j ury eve ntual l y c onvi cted fo ur o fthe fi ve defendants o n var i ous c harg es, i ncl ud i ng the co nspir acy charg e. The defendants were, however, a c quit ted o f seve ra l o ther s. A fterthe ver dic t, th e defendants m ove d f o r a ne w t r i al, ar g ui ng th at W i l l i ams’ s f al se testim o ny vi ol ate d thei r du e pr oce ss ri ghts

. I n a v er y thor ough or der, the dist ric t co urt agr eed and gr anted the defen d an ts a n ew tria l on co u n t 1 , t h e c on sp ira c y c h ar ge . I t al so gr anted W i lbour n a ne w tr ial on c ou nts 1 0 a nd 11 , and Fre em an a new tr i alo n count 11

— coun ts 1 0 and 11 w er e char ges o fposs ess i on with i ntent to dist ribute. C onc ernin g thos e c ou nt s, it fou nd that the p rosecu tor’s m i sco nd uct duri ng cl osing ar gum ent a ffecte d the ve rdi ct.

II. W hen the gov er nm en t obt ai ns a convi cti on thro ugh th e k no wing u se o ff al se t es ti m o ny, i t vi o l at es a de fen d an t’s d u e p ro c es s rig h ts
. N apue v. Ill inois , 36 0 U .S. 26 4, 26 9 (1 95 9); U nited Sta tes v. B agley , 47 3 U .S. 66 7, 67 9 n .8 (1 98 4) ( di sc us singthe e vo l ut i o n o fthe r ul e i n Nap ue ). To ob tain a ne w tr i al, the de fen dan t m us t es tabl i sh : ( 1) th at th er e was f al se t es ti m o ny ; ( 2) tha t th e g o ve r nm en t kn ew o r shoul d have know n i t was f al se; and ( 3) that there is a l i k el i ho o d tha t th e f al se t es ti m o ny a ffec te d the j u d gm en t o f th e jur y. U nited Sta tes v. S a a d eh , 61 F. 3d 510, 52 3 ( 7th Ci r. 1995 )
. T h e d ist ri ct c ourtf ound al l thr ee c r i t e r i a a n d g r a n t e d the d e fe n d a n t s a n e w t r i a l, a n d we re vie w th at d ec isio n for a n ab u se of d isc r et ion
. U nited Sta tes v. A re, 5 90 F
. 3d 49 9, 5 08 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. The distri ct c ourtabuse s i ts disc re ti on wh en i t m ake s a nN o. 09

- 4043 9

er r o r o f l aw o r when i t m ak es a cl early err o ne o us fin d in g of fa c t. U n it ed S ta te s v. Tingle, 18 3 F
. 3d 719, 72 8 (7th C ir. 1999).

A
. The r e ar e se ve r all ay er s to th e g o ve r nm en t’ s ar g um en t o n a ppea l

. As a n ini ti alpo i nt, i t ar g ue s th atthe di s t r i c tc ourtmi s a pp l i e d N apue, bec ause N apueon ly appl i es whenthe t r uthful ne ss o fa wi tn es s’ s te st i m o ny can be verified or refut e d . I t ch aract erizes W il li am s’s tes ti m ony as a cho i ce b etween co m peti ng infe rences, “r at h er th an a m at te r of d em on st ra b le t r u th or fa lsit y.” A n d it ar gu es th at sin c e t h e t r u th of W illiam s’s te st im ony cannot be v er i fied or re futed, the possibi l i ty rem ains t h a t he w as m istaken

. Th us , un d er i ts un d erst an d in g, N apuedoes notap ply

. The go vernm ent a l so ar g ue s th atS en ec a W i l l i ams di d no t te st i fy f al sel y a nd th at th e d ist ric t c ou rte rre d by find in g W illiam s’s te st im ony w as f al se. The r e ar e two pr o bl ems wi ththe g o vern m en t’ s ar g um en t. F i r st, i t do es no t ac kno wl edg e o r unde r st an d the e ffe c ttha ts t i pu l a t i ngt o Wi lb o urn’ s p r i s o n s entence h ad on its ev id en c e. See W ri ght & M i l l er, 22 Fe d. Pract i ce & P ro c .: E vid en c e § 5 1 9 4 (1s t e d . 197 8); see also Keller v. U nited Sta tes , 58 F.3d 1194, 1199 n.8 (7th C ir . 1995). W i l l i am s puts W i lbour n i n one pla ce when he di scusse s the dr ug tr ade and th e brandi ng o fthe cra ck: the penthouse. But the penthouse w as onl y used i n 2003
. On cros sexami na t i o n, Wi l l i a ms di d n o te qu i v o c a t e o r wa v e ro n thi s; he s tuck to hi s s tor y: W i lbourn w as at the pent-10 N o. 09

- 4043 ho us e, de al i ngdr ug s, a nd s pl i tt i ngup th e Cab r i ni Gr ee n dr ug tr ade wi th F r ee m an . And a fte r fi na l l y st i pul ati ng tha t W i l l i am s’ s t est i m ony w as i naccurat e

— no th i ng could h ave occ urr ed w i th W i lbour n at the pentho use

— th e g ov er n m en t d id n otre-c all W illiam s fo r h im to pr o vi de ane xpl an at i o n. To b e cl ea r, the re w as no tes ti m ony that any o fthe ev en ts that W i l l i am s t est i fi ed about tak i ng pl ace i n the penthouse t oo k pl ace el sew here o r at anothe r ti m e. I n f act, i t wa s n ot unti l the pros ecuto r’ s s tat em ents at c l o s i n ga r g u me n ttha t t h e j u r y h e a r d th a tWi l l i a ms was mil dl y mis taken a nd the e ve nt s des cr ibe d a t th e p en th ou se reall y took place one y ear earli er, i n a d if

fer en t loc at ion
. See S eve nth C ircuitPatt er n I nstr ucti on 1. 06 ( i ns truct i ng th at “the l awy er s’ s ta te m en ts t o [ th e j u ry ] are n otev id en c e.” ); a cco rd Whiting v. We s t ray, 29 4 F.3d 943 , 9 46 (7th C ir. 2 002). In its ord er, the d istri ct cou rt rej ecte d the g ove rnm ent’ s a rgum ent o n thi s p oint as a “gl ib as ser ti on. ” An d w e a gr ee. The st i pu l ati on e stabl i sh es tha t W i lbo ur n was ne ve r i n the pe ntho use. I fhe had nev er b een ther e, tho se conve rs ati ons coul d not have tak en pl ace

— ther e i s no com peti ng i nfe re nce fro m su c h an im p os sib le e ve n t. T h er efo re , th e e vid en c e fu lly su p p orts the district c ou rt’s find ing tha t W il li am s’s tes ti m ony w as f al se. Se cond, the gov er nm ent’ s l ega l ar gum ent m i sco nstr ues th e ho l di ngi n N a pu e an d o urpr ec ede nt
. The g o ve r nm en t se izes on se ve r alc as es wher e we ha ve uphe l d the den i alo fa mot i o n un d er N apuewhenthe r e wer e co ntr ad ict ion s in te st im o n y. Sa a deh , 61 F .3d at52 3; U nitedN o. 09

- 4043 11 State s v. Sm ith , 223 F.3d 55 4, 57 4 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ); Si m e nt al v. M at r i s ci ano , 36 3 F
. 3d 607, 615 (7 th Ci r. 20 04)
. I t a rgues that thos e ca ses dic ta te that N apuei s inapp l i cabl e when th ere can be com p eting inferenc es ab o u t w he th er a w itn es s i s l y i n g . Th at is, N apueo nl y a ppl i es whenthe t r uth o r f a l s i t y o fthe t e s t i mon y c a n b e e s t ab l i s he d. The go ver nm en t’ s a rgum ent i s m i spl aced. Fo r one, W i l l i a ms’ s f a l s e t e s t i mon y wa s c o nc l us i v e l y es tab l i s he d. B u t even i fweren’ t, none oftho se case s l i m i ts a def e nd a nt ’ s du e pr o c e s s r i g ht s t o s i t ua t i o ns whe r e i t c an be concl usi vel y e stablished that the go ver nm ent witness was l y i ng . I n f ac t, we ha ve he l d the o ppo si te
. In Boyd, we note d that N apued oe s n o t r eq u ire th at th e w itn es s c ou ld b e s u c c es sfu lly p ro se c u te d for p erj u ry . U nite d S t at e s v. Boyd, 5 5 F
. 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 3 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 5 )
. I n th i s ar ea o ft he l aw , the gov er ni ng princi ple i s s i m plythatthe pros ecuto r m ay not knowingl y use fa lse tes ti m ony. Thi s incl ud es “h alf

- tr uths” and v ague sta tem ents that coul d b e tr ue in a l i m i te d, l i te r als en se b utg i ve a f al se i m pr es si o n t o the j u ry . Id. ( “It i s enou gh that the j ury w as li ke ly to un d ersta nd the w i tness to h av e sa i d som ethi ng tha t was, as th e pr o se cut i o n kne w, f al se . ”)
. To upho l d the g ra nt i ng ofa new tr i al, th er e d oes notneed t o be c oncl usi ve proo fthatthe tes ti m ony w as f al se or t h at the w i tness cou ld h a v e b een prose cu ted f or perj ury; allthat m atters i s that the di str i ct c ou rt fi nd s that the go ver nm ent has k no wi ng l y us ed f al se t es ti m o ny . Thu s, we r ej ec t th e govern m en t’s argum en t tha t a clai m un d er N apuecan onl y b e m ade wh en i t ca n be est abl i shed that the w i tness i s l yi ng.12 N o. 09

- 4043 B
. The c en tral is su e th enb ec o m es whethe r the g o ve r nm en t k n ew or s h ou ld h av e k n ow n th at W illiam s’s te st im on y w as fals e. Sa a deh , 61 F .3d at52 3
. O n t h i s p oin t, it is obvi ous that when t h e gove rnm ent r ecei ved the l ett er f r o m Wi lb o u r n ’ s a t t o r n e y, i tkne w th e r e w e r e p r o b l e ms wi thW i l l i ams’ s te st i m o ny

— p r o b lem s t h at it sh ou ld have cl ear ed up w el l befor e W i l l i am s was al l owed to tes ti fy. The go ver nm en t’s du ty to ass ure the a ccurac y o fi ts re prese ntati ons has be en we ll state d, m any t i m es bef or e. B erger v. U nited Sta tes , 2 95 U. S
. 7 8, 8 8 ( 19 35) ; Alcorta v. Te xas , 35 5 U.S
. 28 , 31 ( 1957); U nited St at e s ex re l
. Wi l s on v. War de n Cann on , 538 F.2d 1 2 7 2 , 1277 (7th Cir. 1976); seeal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. La Page, 2 31 F
. 3d 48 8, 4 92 ( 9th Ci r. 20 00 ) ( “A pr o se cut o r ha s a spec i alduty c o m m en sura te w i th a pros ecuto r’ s uni que pow er, to as sure that defe nd ants re cei ve f air tr i al s. ”)
. Thi s m eans that w hen the gov er nm ent l ear ns thatparto fi ts case m ay be inacc u ra te , i t m u st inv es t i ga te
. U nite d State s v. P ri ce, 56 6 F. 3d 900, 91 0 n. 11 ( 9th Ci r. 20 09) ( noti ng “[w]hen a pro secut o r s us pec ts pe rj ur y, the pr o se cut o r musta t l ea sti nve st iga te fu rt h er ” (q u ot at ion o m itt ed )). I t c an n otsim p ly ign or e e vid en c e t h at its w itn e ss is lyin g. See U nited St at e s v. Young, 20 F. 3d 758, 76 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) (not i ng “a pr o s e c ut o r ’ s o ffi c e c a nn o tg e ta r o un d Bradyb y k ee pi ng i t se lf in ign or an c e” (qu ot at ion om itt ed )); Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Wa ll ach , 93 5 F
. 2d 445, 45 7 ( 2d Cir

. 19 91) ( “W e fearthat g i v e n th e i mpo r t a n c e o f[ th e wi tn e s s ’ s ] t e s t i m o ny to th e c as e, the p rosec uto rs m a y ha ve co nsci o usly av o idedN o. 09

- 4043 13

r e cognizi ng t heob vi ous

— that is, that[ the witness] was n o tt e l l i n gth e t r u th

. ” ( e mph a s i s a d d e d ) )
. He r e , t he g o ve r nm en t ab di ca ted its r es po ns ibi l i tyb y f ai l i ngt o i nve st iga te an d d et er m in e w h et h er W ilbo u rn c ou ld have been at the pentho use a s W i l l i am s cl ai m ed he was. This notic e o fW i lbour n’s i ncarc er ati on e stabl i shes th at th e govern m en t shou ld h ave kn ow n th at W il li am s’s te st i m o ny w as f al se . Ev enmor e, o nc e th e g o ve r nm en t fi na l l y s ti pu la te d tha t W i lbo ur n was i n pr i so n the enti re ti m e the penthouse was us ed , t h at m eant the g over nm ent knew W i l l i am s’ s tes ti m ony w as f alse . Yet d esp ite first using an d then ad m itti ng t h at W il li am s’s te st im on y w a s fals e, th e g ov er n m en t re lied on it d u rin g c los in g a rg u m en ts . In s u m , th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id not er r i n fi nd i ng tha t th e go vernm ent know i ngl y use d f al se tes ti m ony.
C
. S i nc e Wi l l i a ms ’ s t e s t i mo n y wa s f a l s e a n d th e g o v e r nm en t k new or sh o ul d ha ve kno wn i t was f al se , the iss u e b ec om es w h et h er th e d i st ric t c ou rterr ed in fi ndi ngtha t th er e was a “ r ea so nabl e l i k el i ho o d tha t th e f al se t es ti m o ny c o ul d ha ve a ffec te d the j udgm en t o fthe j u ry . ” G ri

ff in v. Pier ce, 6 2 2 F
. 3 d 8 3 1 , 8 4 1

- 4 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 10) ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. A gu rs , 427 U
. S. 97, 103 ( 1976 ))
. Thi s st an dar d i s m uchfr i en dl i erf o r defendant s an d “se ts a lo w erthresho l d f ord ete rm i ni ng m ate ri al i ty. ” Brau n v. P ow el l , 22 7 F
. 3d 908, 92 0 & n .11 (7 th Ci r. 20 00) ( disc u ss in g t h e d ist in c tio n an d su rv ey in g c as es ); U ni t ed State s v . M o rris , 4 98 F
. 3d 63 4, 6 40 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( no ting14 N o. 09

- 4043 the s ta nda r d f o r f al se t es ti m o ny i s “[ t] he e as i ers tand ard f orthe d efendant to m eet ”)
. The di m i ni shed burden r efl ec ts the f ac t th atthe kno wi ngus e o ff al se t es ti m o ny c or ru p ts “t h e t ru th -se ek in g fu n c tio n oft h e t ria l p ro c es s.” A gu rs , 427U .S. at 1 04 ; a cco rd B agley, 4 7 3 U. S
. a t 6 8 0
. At th i s po i nti n the a na l y si s, we al so w eigh whe th erthe defen dan ts ha d a n ade qua te o ppo r tu ni tyt o e xpo se the fals e t es tim on y on cr os s-e x am i n at ion
. Sa a deh , 61 F. 3d at 52 3; Sh a steen v. Sa ver, 252 F.3d 929 , 933 (7th C ir. 2001). Give n al l the evi d ence i n thi s ca se, gr anti ng a new tr i ali s a di ffi cul t que st i o n. Butwe r e- emphas i ze o ur stan d ard of review : Th e issue is not w he th er w e are convi nced that th e d efendants ar e guil ty but wh ether the di str i ct c ourtcl ear l y e rr ed w h en i t dete rm i ned that th ere w as an y reason able li keli hood that W il li am s’s fals e t es tim on y a ffec te d th e v er d ict
. P ow el l , 22 7 F
. 3d at 92 0. I n a tr i all i k e th i s, much o fwhato cc ur r ed i n the cour tr oo m can be l osti n the tr anscr i p t. Com pared to th e tria l ju d ge w ho h an d led all th e evide nc e, ou r un d ers t a n d i n g o fth e t e s t i mo n y a n d i t s i mp a c ti s l i mi t e d

. We ca n’ t se e the wi tn es se s, a nd we ha ve no i dea ho w the j ury re acte d to them : wh at w e m ay dism i ss as a cl um sy m om ent o n the tr anscr i pt coul d ver y wel l be a cl ev erpi ec e o fa dvo ca cy, de li vered a t a pi vo ta l mom en t in th e t ria l. Se eU nited S t at e s v. Van Eyl , 46 8 F
. 3d 428, 43 6 ( 7th C ir. 2 006)
. Fo r fi ve w eek s, the dist ri ct j ud ge l i ste ned to thi s ca se; s h e had a feelf ori t that we can’ t r epl i cate , an d tha t f ac t i s no t l o sti n o urr ev i ew o fhe r de cision
. Boyd, 55 F. 3d at 242. The go ver nm ent a rgues that s i nce W i l l i am s was cr oss ex am ined exte ns ively an d i t stipu lated abou t W ilbou r n’sN o. 09

- 4043 15 ti m e in pri son, the j ury k new abo ut W i l l i am s’ s f al se te sti m ony. Thus, hi s f al se tes ti m ony coul d not hav e affecte d the jury

. I n the j ud ge’ s o rder, she add re sse d both ofthes e a rgum ents. Concer ni n g the cr oss - exam i nation of W il li am s, sh e note d tha t “ [w ]hen W ilbou rn’s counselat tem pted to confro nt W illiam s with the dates o fWi lb o urn’ s i nc a r c e r a t i o n [ ] the go v e r nme nto bj e c t e d, sta ti ng, ‘ Obj ecti on. That’ s n ot true. ’ ” An d thi s i m proper obj ecti on “ f or cibl y m uted w hat m i ght other w i se have be en[ a] de va st at i ng i m pea ch m en t. ” Con ce r ni ngthe st i pul at i o n, the j udg e f o und tha t i t di d notc ur e th e fals e tes ti m ony. I t was r ead twel ve fulldays afterW ill i am s’ s t est i m on y a nd atthe end ofa tedi ous, fi ve- w eek tr i al

. Gi ve n the j udg e’ s vi ew o fthe t r i al, we can no t co ncl ud e that s he cl ear l y e rr ed i n fi nd i ng tha t the st i pu l ation an d the cross -exam ination d id n ot cu re the h arm ofW i l l i am s’ s f al se tes ti m ony. N or d o w e a gr ee w ith th e gov er n m en t t h at th e e vid e n c e w as so ov er w h elm in g t h at it w as u n re as on ab le f orthe dist ri ct c ourtto fi nd thatW i l l i am s’ s f al se testim ony affecte d the ve rdi ct. To b e s ure, ther e was m uc h ev iden ce of the d efend an ts’ guilt, s om e of it very strong
. A fteral l, the defe nd ants did candi dlyadm i t t o bei ng drug deal er s. Bu t despi te that, ther e were thre e criti cal i m p ressions affecting th e evide n c e that i nform o urh olding

. F i r st, whenr ea di ngthe t r an sc r i pt an d the j ud ge’ s o rderther e i s a n i m pression that the cas e pr o m i se d b y the g o ve r nm en t

— a la rg e a n d p r o f i ta b le c o ns pi ra cy

— w as not w hat i t del i ver ed. S e c o nd , W i l l i am s’ s t est i m ony fi l l ed i n m any ne cess ar y deta ils th at ga ve fles h an d co n te x t t o th e g ov er n m e n t’s ev i-16 N o. 09

- 4043 dence. Thi rd, the othe r p ar ts ofthe gov er nm ent’ s ca se w ere not so stron g th at W il li am s’s testim ony w a s m ere surpl usage . The g o ve r nm en t cla i m ed th atF r ee m anwas a k i ng pi n, tak i ng a ki l o or tw o of coca i ne a w eek

— som eti m es m ore

— and tu rni ng i t into Cabri ni Gree n’s r eta i l m ar ket

. Y et th e e vid en c e d id n otfu l l y s u p p or t t h is c laim . Th is w as unli ke the previ ous c ase s co ncer ni ng co ntro l o f Cabri ni Gree n , with the hi er ar chy, weal th, and pow er ex er c ise d by th e G a n gs te r D isc ip les

. E.g
. , U nited Sta tes v. Jac ks on , 207F.3d 91 0 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ); Sm ith , 22 3 F
. 3d at 56 0-6 2; U ni t e d S ta tes v. Wi l s on , 23 7 F
. 3d 827, 83 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1). W he n the po l i ce o ffi ce r s m ade s ev er alc o ntr ol l ed sto ps ofFr eem an and h is ass oci ate s, so m eti m es hopingt o fi nd the de fe nd a nt s wi th b a g s o fmo ne y, they h ad a few h u n d re d o r a th ou sa n d d olla rs on th em . Sim il ar l y, th e r ec o r ded pho ne c al l s wer e no t th o se o fk i ng pi ns contr ol l i ng la rge a re as ofvi ce; r ather, theybo rder ed on th e com ica l. A t one p oint at th e heigh t of Freem an ’s “em pir e, ” he w as re cor ded cal l i ng ar ound try i ng to sc r o ung e up fi ve do l l ar s f r o m s ev er ala ss o ci at es . The sa m e c an be sa id of th e o th er d e f e n d a n ts an d th e e vidence ag ai ns t th em . Ind eed, the tr anscr i pt does not r ev ea l th e m ar k i ng s o f th e o per at i o n the gove r nm en t a l l e g e d. And w hi l e th er e was c er ta i nl y e vi den ce o fdr ugde al i ng going o n, m uch ofthe str onge st evi den c e that Fr eem an was i n l ea g ue wi th these de fen dan ts i n t hi s m as si ve c o ns p i r a c y c a me f r o m S e n e c a Wi l l i a ms

— he wa s the i ns i de m an . H is t es tim on y m ad e u p for s om e o f t h e o t h er d efi-N o. 09

- 4043 17

O ur st atem ent on the e vidence s h o u ld not be r ead as 2 touching on the ult im ate is sue of w h ethe r the dis tr ic t c ourt er re d i n de nyi ng the defen dant s ’ m ot i ons f orj udgm en tof ac qui t tal at the c l os e ofthe e vi denc e. Thi s i s the gove rn m en t’ s interlo cu t o ry ap p eal a nd ou r jurisd iction is lim ited to w h et h er th e d ist ri ct co u rt er re d in g ra n tin g a n e w tr ia l. S ee U n i te d S ta te s v. E berhart, 38 8 F .3d 10 4 3 , 10 5 1 -5 2 (7t h C ir . 20 0 4 ), re v. on o t hergr ounds , 54 6 U. S. 12 ( 20 05 ) . T he q u es t i on about deny i ng de fen dant s ’ m ot i on f or j udgm en tofac qui t t al will be full y ad dress ed lat er, i fthe g o v er n m ent decides to r e- tr y th e d efe n d a n ts. SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. Tayl or, 176 F .3d 3 31, 335 (6 th C ir . 19 9 9 ). ci en ci es i n the g o ve r nm en t’ s ca se . I nde ed, hi s te st i m o ny about W i lbour n and Sanders , supposedl y a t the penthouse, ga ve them a pr om in en t r ol e in the conspi ra cy, f arb ey o nd the i m pr es si o n tha t an y o th ert es ti m o ny c r e a t e d. M or eov er, the tr anscr i pt does not re vealevi dence so ove rwhelm i ng tha t W i l l i am s’ s t est i m ony coul d be vie w ed as m er e s u rp lu sa g e. U nite d State s v. B eck, 62 5 F. 3 d 4 1 0 , 4 2 1

- 2 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )
. T he de fe ns e a t t o r ne y s’ cross- exam i nati on was, atti m es, effecti ve i n qual i fyi ng, m i ni m i zi ng, o r cast i ng doubt on the te stim ony of Dem ar quis W i l l i am s a nd Ral ph L aSa l l e. In deed, al l o f th e test i m o ny a nd e vi den ce he r e do es no t st r o ng l y c o nvinc e us tha t th e di st r i ctco ur t was mis ta k eni n fi ndi ng that W i l l i am s’ s f al se tes ti m ony affecte d the defendants’ co nv i ct i o ns o n the c o ns pi r ac y c ha r g e. Acco r di ng l y, the 2 d istri ctc o ur t di d no t ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n b y g r an ting the defendants a new tr i alo n that count.18 N o. 09

- 4043 III
. The go ver nm ent a l so appeal s the gr anti ng o fthe new tr i alf or W ilbourn o n c o unt1 0 an d f o r b o thF r ee m ana nd W i lbour n on c ount 1 1. W i l l i am s’ s r ole in these counts am o un t e d t o t r a ns l a t i ngthe c o de s tha twe r e b e i ngused by W i lbo ur n an d F r ee m an dur i ng so m e r ec o r ded co nve r sa ti o ns . The se r ec o r ded co nv er sa ti o ns s er ve d a s th e pr i nc i pale vi den ce a g ains t th em o n the se coun ts
. The dist ri ct c ourtf ound that the ve rdi ct o n thos e co unts was affected by the govern m en t’s bolsteri ng of W il li am s’s f al se t es ti m o ny dur i ngc l o singa r g um en t. To b e cl ea r, no o ne s ug g es ts tha t W i l l i ams’ s te st im ony c o nc erni ng thos e co unts was f al se. The di st r i ctc o urt has b r o ad di sc r et i o n in de ci di ng w hetherto gr ant a new tri albas ed on pro secu tori al m isc on d u c t. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . C he s ka , 2 02 F. 3d 947, 94 9- 50 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)
. The i nquir y i s tw o- f ol d: fi rs t, w hether ther e was pro secuto ri alm i sco nd uct; se cond, wh ether it p rej u d ice d th e d efe n d an t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Se r f l i ng, 50 4 F
. 3d 6 7 2 , 6 7 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 )
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tf o u nd that the pr ose cutor ’ s com m ents du ring cl osing ar gum ent, that W i l l i am s was tr uthfulabo ut hi s t est i m ony but m i sta ke n on th e d at es , w as im p ro p er . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. White, 2 22 F
. 3d 36 3, 37 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) ( no ting“ [ a] r g um en t referenc ing facts not i n ev iden ce is cl early i m p r o p e r”). W e a gr ee. T h e c om m ent was noto nl y inaccurat e, i t a l so gave the i m press i on that the pro secuto r kn ew so m ethi ng o utside the ev i dence

— na mel y, tha tWi l l i a ms ha d, o ut si de the pre se nc e o fthe j ur y, cl ar i fi ed hi s po si ti o n a nd th ati t was no w cl ea r tha t he was j us t m is ta k eno n theN o. 09

- 4043 19 dat es . Thi s was , t o s aythe l ea st, i m p rop er. M orris , 49 8 F. 3 d a t6 4 2 ( no t i nga “ pr o s e c ut o r ma y n o ti mpl y that facts n ot before the j ury lend a w itness cred ibi li ty”). T o d e te rm in e w h et h er th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in fi nd i ng tho se com m en ts p rej ud i ced W i lbour n and Fr eem an, we l ook at sever alf acto rs , i ncl ud i ng the effi cacy ofcura ti ve i nstr uction s, the defe nd ant’ s o pp or tuni ty to re b u t t h e fa lse st at em en ts , an d th e w eig h t o f th e e vid en c e. U nited Sta tes v. C o rley , 5 1 9 F .3d 716, 727 (7th Cir. 20 08 ) ( l i st i nga l l s i x f ac to r s)
. But“ [ u] l ti m at ely, the i nquir y turns o n w hether t he i m properst ate m ent s o i nfe cted the t ri alwith unf ai rnes s a s t o m ake the re sul ti ng co nvi cti on a d eni alo fdue proc ess . ” Id. ( quotati on m ar ks an d cit at ion om itt ed ). A ga in, w e re ve rs e o n ly if w e hav e a “s tr ong convi cti on o fer ro r. ” Che s ka , 20 2 F
. 3d at 950 (qu otation om itted ). The com m ents at i ssue w er e m ade duri ng the r ebutta l p ort io n of th e govern m en t’s closi ng argum en t, so the re w as no o pp or tuni ty f orthe defe nse t o counterthe sta tem ent. A nd a curat i ve i nstr u c ti on would have had l i ttl e e ffect. In d ee d, eve n i fthe pros ecuto r’ s s tat em ents w er e the pro du ct o fgr oss negl i ge nce, r atherthan an i ntenti onalact, we fully ag re e with the dist ri ct c ourtthat i n a c ase l i ke thi s, th e h arm was not cured

— in st ea d it l efta n i nd e l ib l e i mpr e s s i o n o n the j ur y . Whi l e the r e was oth er eviden ce to su p p ort W ilbou rn’s an d Freem an ’s convi cti ons on counts 10 and 11, W i l l i am s’ s t est i m ony w as a s ub s t a nt i a l p a r to fthe e v i de nc e : h e t r a ns l a t ed th e c o de an d to l d the j ur y pr ec i se l y whatthe de fen dan ts were disc ussi ng o n the tap es . I n other w or ds, hi s cr edibi l i ty20 N o. 09

- 4043

was i m po r ta ntt o the g o ve r nm en t’ s pr o o f

. Thu s, the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s fi nd i ng s a r e we l l s up po r t e d in the r e c o r d, an d i t was no t an a bus e o fdi sc r et i o n t o g r an t th e defen d an ts a n ew tria l on th es e c ou n ts as w ell.

I V. Aft era ful l r ev i ew o fthe r ec or d, we ho l d tha t th e di st r i ctc o urt di d no t er r i n fi ndi ngtha t th e g o ve r nm en t knowingl y use d fa l se tes ti m ony and t h at ther e was a re aso nabl e l i kel i hood thatthe f al se tes ti m ony affecte d th e j ur y ’ s ve r di cton th e co ns pi r ac y c ha r g e. Nordi d the di s t r i c tc o u r tab u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n gth e d e fen dants a new t ria l

. I n additi on, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n b y g r an ti ng a ne w tr i alf o r the c o un t s a ffe c t e d b y the g o v e r nme nt ’ s s t a t e ments ma de i n cl o singa r g um en ts
. Acco r di ng l y, the j udg m en t o fthe di s t r i c tc o ur ti s a ffi r med

.

6- 17- 11