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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 2- 36 59

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

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

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

ff - App el le e

v.

W al te r Ewin g

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 8 , 20 13
Fi le d: May 29, 2 01 3 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BOW MAN, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Afte r a be nc h tri al in th e Dis t r i c t Co ur t, W al te r Ewin g was co nv ic te d of 1

co ns pi rin g to pr ov id e a pr oh ib it ed ob ject ( t o b acco ) to an in m at e in a pr is on an d

The Hon or ab le D. P. Mar sh al l Jr

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

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.at te m

pt in g to ob ta in a pr oh ib it ed obj ec t (to ba cco ) whi le an in m at e. The go ve rn m en t’s

th eo r y of th e cas e was th at Ewin g’s co co ns pi rat or wen t to th e Fed eral Co rrec ti on al

Co m pl ex (FCC ) i n F or res t Ci ty, Ark an sa s, la te at ni gh t an d to ss ed fo ur “ st ic ks ” of

to ba cco (b ag s of lo os e to ba cco wrap pe d in ta pe a n d pa in te d br own ) ov er th e

pe rimeter fen ces an d in to th e recr eat io n y ard of th e pr is on , wit h th e ex pe ct at io n th at

Ewin g w o u ld ret rie ve th em at so m e la te r ti m e. Ewin g’s so le is su e on ap pe al is a
ch al le ng e to a ru li ng m ad e by th e Dis tri ct Co ur t reg ard in g a go ve rn men t w it ne ss ’s

no te s. We affir m

.

Lize W il co x, a fo ren si c ch em is t wit h th e Ark an sa s st at e cri m e la b, te st ifi ed th at

sh e pe rfo rm ed ch em ic al tes ts on fou r sa m pl es of a br own le afy su bs ta nc e de li ve red

to th e la b by an in ve st ig at iv e s p e c i al is t wit h th e Fed eral Bu reau of Pri so ns , FCC

Fo rres t Ci ty. All fo ur sa m pl es te st ed po si ti ve fo r ni co ti ne

. Befo re cro ss -ex am in in g
he r, Ewin g’s co un se l as ke d to se e th e pa pe rs th at W il co x ha d br ou gh t wit h he r to th e

st an d, ci ti ng Ru le 26 .2 of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e (Pr o d u c i ng a

W it n e s s ’s St at em en t). The Dis tri ct Co ur t de ni ed th e req ue st

. On ap pe al

, Ewin g

co nt en ds th is was erro r. He arg ue s th at be cau se W il co x pr es en te d th e on ly ev id en ce

th at th e su bs ta nc e in qu es ti on was to ba cco , th e co ur t’s al le ge d erro r pr ejud ic ed Ewin g

“ by de nyin g hi s rig ht to m ean in gf ul ly co nf ro nt th is cru ci al wit ne ss ag ai ns t hi m .” Br.

of App el la nt at 8

.

In hi s br i e f o n a p p eal

, Ewin g co nc ed es th at Ru le 26 .2 was no t th e co rrec t

au th or it y un de r whi ch to req ue st acce ss to W il co x’s no te s. Now he sa y s th at he was

en ti tl ed to se e th e no te s un de r Ru le 61 2 of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e. He fu rth er 2

cl ai m s th at co un se l “ su ffi ci en tl y in vo ke d Ru le 61 2” at tri al

, id

. at 9, by sa y in g, “ I

d o n ’t h av e m

y ru le bo ok in fro nt of m e, bu t I th in k it ’s so m et hi ng li ke if y o u ’r e

G e n e r a l ly, Ru le 61 2 pr ov id es th at “ whe n a wit ne ss us es a writ in g to refr e s h 2

m em or y

. . . an ad ve rs e pa rty is en ti tl ed to ha ve th e writ in g pro du ced at th e he ari ng , to in sp ect it

, to cro ss -ex am in e th e wit ne ss ab ou t it

, an d to in tro du ce in ev id en ce an y
po rti on th at rel at es to th e wit ne ss ’s tes ti m on y .”

-2

-te st ifyin g an d y ou ’re ba si ng y ou r te st im on y on ot he r do cu m en ts or no te s th at y ou

us ed to refr es h y ou r m em or y , th in gs li ke th at ,” Tria l Tr. at 29

. Ci ti ng Ru le 10 3( a) of

th e Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e, Ewin g su gg es ts th at ba se d on th is co m m en t, th e co ur t

sh ou ld ha ve kn own co un se l in te nd ed to ci te Ru le 6 12

. The co nf us io n was

co m po u n d e d

, ho wev er, whe n co co un se l fo r Ewin g th en ad dr es se d th e co ur t,

sp eci fic al ly id en ti fy in g Ru le 26 .2(f ) an d (g ) as su pp or t fo r th e req ue st

, ev en read in g

po rti on s o f th e ru le to th e co ur t:

You r Hon or , if I may, I be li ev e it ’s 26 .2(g ), sa y s th e sc op e -- sa y s th e

ru le ap pl ie s at tri a l

, so I be li ev e th at th os e st at em en ts -- an y writ te n
st at em en ts th at a wit ne ss m ak es or si gn s or ot he rwis e ad op ts or ap pr ov es

o r a st at em en t th at is su bs ta nt ia ll y ve rb at im

, co nt em po ran eo u s l y

reco rd ed reci ta ls of wit ne ss es ’ or al st at em en ts th at is co nt ai ne d in an y

reco rd in g or an y tra ns cri pt io n of reco rd in g.

. . . You r Hon or , th at is th e de fin it io n of st at em en t un de r Ru le 26 .2. It’s (f). And th en th e sc op e of
th e ru le is 26 .2(g ), whi ch st at es th at th e ru le ap pl ie s at tri al

.

Id

. Afte r th at , t he co ur t de c l a r e d

, c o r rect ly, th at la b no te s are no t “ st at em en ts ” an d

de ni ed co un se l’s re qu es t.

The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at be cau se Ewin g’s c o u ns el di d no t in vo ke th e

co rrec t ru le an d, in fact

, in vo ke d an in ap pl ic ab le ru le

, th e ob jecti on was no t pr op erl y

pr es erv ed

. Acco rd in g t o th e go ve rn m en t, we sh ou ld rev ie w t he co ur t’s ru li ng on ly

fo r pl ai n e rro r, as Ewin g’s o bjec ti on di d n ot sp eci fy th e co rrec t b as is for a ru li ng in

hi s fav or

. The go ve rn m en t m ay well ha ve a po in t. See Uni te d St at es v. Lee, 68 7 F.3 d

93 5, 94 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (n ot in g th at we ha ve he l d o n mo r e th an on e oc cas io n th at

ob jecti on s to ev id en ti ary ru li ng s m us t be sp eci fic ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 3 S

. C t

. 1 7 43
(2 01 3) ; Uni te d St at es v. W or m an , 6 22 F.3 d 96 9, 97 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ Bec au se th e

arg um en t on ap pe al di ffer s fr om th e co nt em

po ran eo us ob

jecti on , th is co ur t revi ews

fo r pl ai n erro r.”), cert

. de ni ed 13 2 S. Ct

. 36 9 (2 01 1)

. Bu t as we ex pl ai n be lo w, we

-3

-ne ed no t reac h th e qu es ti on whe th er th e co ur t was on no ti ce of th e co rrec t ru le whe n

it de ni ed acce ss to W il co x’s n ot es

.

Ass um in g wit ho ut de ci di ng th at Ewin g ad eq ua te ly pr es erv ed hi s ob jecti on to

th e Dis tri ct Co ur t’s ru li ng , we rev ie w fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n an d wil l no t rev ers e

if an y erro r was ha rm le ss

. See Uni te d St at es v. W hi te Bu ll

, 64 6 F.3 d 10 82

, 10 91 (8 th

Ci r. 20 11 ). Ewin g as ks us to pr es um e th at th e pa pe rs were la b no te s an d th at W il co x

3

rel ie d on th em whi le te st ifyin g, as ev id en ced by he r de ta il ed te st im on y reg ard in g th e weig h t of th e co nt en ts of each of th e fo ur pa ck ag es

. He fu rth er as se rts

, wit ho ut

ci ta ti on , th at th e pu rp os e of Ru le 61 2 “ is to al lo w th e op po si ng pa rty to ex am in e wh at

el se th e writ in g co nt ai ns —p art ic ul arl y be cau se rel at ed m at te rs wit hi n th e writ in g

m ig ht sh ed li gh t o n t he wit ne ss ’s cred ib il it y .” Rep ly Br. of Ap pe ll an t at 5. Bu t we

ha ve sa id th at “ Ru le 61 2 is no t a ve hi cl e f o r a p l e n a r y se arch fo r co nt rad ic to ry or
reb ut ti ng ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Sh effi el d

, 5 5 F

. 3 d 34 1, 34 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ).

And in th is cas e, pr ob ab l y b e c a u se Ewin g’s req ue st to lo ok at th e no te s was m ad e

un de r a ru le of cri m in al pr oc ed ur e th at ap pl ie s to wit ne ss st at em en t s an d no t th e

ap pr op ria te ru le of ev id en ce, no reco rd was m a d e o f th e co nt en ts of th e no te s in

qu es ti on or whe th er W il co x di d act ua l ly us e th em to refr es h he r m em or y whi le

te st ifyin g. In th es e ci rcu m st an ces , it is di ffi cu lt to sa y whe th er th e co ur t ab us ed it s
di sc ret io n in de nyin g co un se l’s req ue st to lo ok at th e no te s. Bu t ev en if th e co ur t di d

err in de nyin g th e req ue st

, so lo ng as Ewin g’s “ su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s” were un affe ct e d

an d th e erro r ha d, at m os t, a m in im al effe ct on th e ou tc om e of th e pr oc eed in gs , th en

su ch erro r is ha rm le ss . W or m an , 62 2 F .3d at 9 76

.

Bo th pa rti es ad dr es s th e co ur t’s de ci si on as a n e v i d en ti ary ru li ng , whi ch is 3

or di na ril y su bjec t t o a pp el la te rev ie w for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n a nd ha rm le ss erro r. An al le ge d erro ne ou s ru li ng un de r Ru le 26 .2 wou ld be rev ie wed in th e sa m e m an ne r. See Uni te d St at es v. Sh y res , 89 8 F.2 d 64 7, 65 6– 57 (8 th Ci r.) (tr eat in g a ru li ng m ad e by th e di st ric t co ur t un de r th e Je nc ks Act, th e su bs ta nc e of whi ch is in co rp or at ed in to
Ru le 26 .2, as an ev id en ti ary ru li ng an d rev ie win g fo r an ab us e of d i s cret io n)

, cert

. de ni ed 49 8 U.S. 8 21 (19 90 ); F ed . R. Cri m . P. 52 (a) (h arm le ss erro r).

-4

-W e ha ve rev ie wed th e en ti re tra ns cri pt of Ewin g’s tri al

, an d we co nc lu de th at

an y erro r was in de ed ha rm le ss

. Ewin g’s defe ns e st rat eg y was to co nv in ce th e co ur t

th at th e pr os ecu ti on m is id en ti fie d hi m as th e co ns pi rat or in si de th e pr is on —n ot th at

th e pr o s e c u ti on m is id en ti fie d th e br own le afy su bs ta nc e as to ba cco

. As co un se l

arg ue d to th e co ur t, “ Tha t is ou r reas on ab le do ub t, y ou r Hon or

. The go ve rn m en t ha s

fai le d t o p ro ve be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at it was W al te r [Ewin g].” Tria l Tr. at

27 1. Not wit hs ta nd in g th at W il co x was th e on l y wit ne ss th e go ve rn m en t cal le d to

id en ti fy th e br own le afy su bs ta nc e as to ba cco , Ewin g’s co un se l, in cro ss -ex am in in g

W il co x, as ke d on ly ab ou t th e cri m e la b ’s fai lu re to te st th e ev id en ce fo r la te nt

fin ge rp rin ts as th e FCC in ve st ig at or ha d req ue st ed

. Sh e di d no t at te m pt to ch al le ng e

W il co x’s co nc lu si o n s t ha t th e br own le afy su bs ta nc e co nt ai ne d ni co ti ne or he r

op in io n th at it was to ba cco

. In hi s cro ss -ex am in at io n of W il co x, co un se l fo r Ewin g’s

co d e f e n d a nt di d co nf

irm wit h W il co x th at th e ch em ic al te st sh e pe rfo rm ed was fo r

ni co ti ne , no t fo r to ba cco , an d th at sh e di d no t ha ve pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of “ al l

su bs ta nc es in th e wor ld th at co nt ai n ni co ti ne .” I d

. a t 3 2

. He le ft it at th at

, an d on
red ire ct W il co x affi rm ed th at ba se d on th e ni co ti ne te st an d he r ex pe rie nc e in te st in g
br own le afy su bs ta nc es fo r co nt ro ll ed an d un co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es , sh e be li ev ed th at

th e su bs ta nc e in qu es ti on was to ba cco

. Rec al li ng th at th is was a be nc h tri al

, we

can no t sa y th at th e co ur t’s de ci si on reg ard in g th e ex pe rt’s no te s ha d ev en a m in im al

effe ct on it s fact ua l fin di ng th at th e br own le afy su bs ta nc e was to ba cco or it s ul ti m at e

fin di ng of gu il t. A n y e r r o r was th eref or e ha rm le ss , an d rev ers al of Ewin g’s

co nv ic ti on on th at gro un d i s u nwa rran te d.

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e Dis tri ct Co ur t.

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

-5

-