FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 21, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15554 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 0 0 3 - C R - F T M- 3 3 - DN F U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J O R G E M A R T I N Y A C V A S Q U E Z , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 21, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntJ or ge M a r t i n Y a c V a s que z appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e f orThe g overnment admits that the district court should not have per mitted the prosecutor 1 to cro ss- e xamineVa sq

ue z re g ardingstatementsthat pa sseng ershad madeto t hee xtent th at it ref erenced witnesses’ statements that had not been admitted into evidence. 2 tr a n s p o r t i n g i l l e g a l a l i e n s f o rp r i v a t e f

i n a n c i a l g a i n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U . S. C. § 1324( a ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) . O n appe a l , V a s que z f i r s ta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by pe r m i tt i ng the pr os e c ut ort o i m pe a c h one of i t s w i tne s s e s , ba s e d upon pr i or in c o n s is te n t o r a l s ta te m e n ts a lle g e d ly m a d e th e p r e v io u s w e e k in a h o ld in g c e ll. S eco n d , V asq u ez arg u es th ath i s S i x th A m en d m en tri g h tt o co n fro n tad v erse w itn e s s e s w a s v io la te d w h e n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a llo w e d th e g o v e rn m e n t to e lic it he a r s a y t e s t i m ony tha the know i ngl y tr a ns por t e d a l i e ns f orpr i va t e f

i na nc i a l ga i n. 1 N e xt , V a s que z a r gue s tha tthe pr os e c ut orm a de “ s a r c a s t i c a nd pr e j udi c i a l ” r e m a r ks re gardi ng the pres ence of hi s f am i l y i n the courtroom . L as t , V as qu ez ar gu es that the c um ul a t i ve e f

f e c tof c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i ons , e rr one ous rul i ngs , a nd pr os e c ut or i a l m i s c onduc t , c om bi ne d t o de pr i ve hi m of hi s r i ght s t o due pr oc e s s a nd a f a irtr ia l. I. G e ne r a l l y , w e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs f orabus e of d is c r e tio n . U

ni ted Stat es v. Ji m i nez , 22 4 F . 3d 12 43 , 12 49 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). H er e, h o w ev er , th e p ar ti es d isp u te w h eth erV as q u ez o b jected to th e p ro se cu to r’s q u e s tio n s r e g a r d in g w h y a w itn e s s ( R o b le r o - S a la s ) h a d c h a n g e d h is s to ry a t tr ia l,3

and, there fore , w hether V as qu ez pres erved h i s obj ec t i on t o thi s i ss ue. In thi s c as e, the r e c or d s how s tha tV a s que z m a de one obj e c t i on a tthe be gi nni ng of the cont es t ed l i ne of qu es t i on i ng , nam el y, he obj ec t ed thatthe prosecut or had asked R o b le r o - S a la s th e s a m e q u e s tio n th r e e o rf o u rtim e s . I t w a s n o t u n til a f te rth is obj ec t i on thatthe prosecut or qu es t i on ed w hy R ob l er o-S al as had chang ed hi s s t ory a n d u s e d th e a lle g e d p r io rin c o n s is te n t s ta te m e n ts in th o s e q u e s tio n s . V a s q u e z d id no tobj ec tt o the prosecut or’ s quest i on s there af t er , and d i d n ototherw i se sa y a ny thi ng r e l a t e d t o hi s a r gum e nton appe a l tha tthe pr os e c ut ori m pr ope r l y us e d the pr i ori nc ons i s t e nts t a t e m e nt s t o i m pe a c h the gove rnm e nt ’ s w i tne s s . T hus , a s the g o v e rn m e n t a r g u e s , V a s q u e z d id n o t tim e ly o b je c t to th e p r o s e c u to r ’s s ta te m e n ts in th is r e g a r d , a n d , th e r e f

o r e , w e r e v ie w f

o rp la in e rr o r . See U

ni ted Stat es v. Wi l l i a ms , 4 4 5 F .3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . “W h e n a p a r ty r a is e s a c la im o f e v id e n tia ry e rr o rf

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l, w e r evi ew i tfor pl ai n err or on l y. L i kew i se , w hen a defendantdo es no tobj ec tat tr ia l to s ta te m e n ts m a d e b y th e p r o s e c u tio n , w e r e v ie w th e m u n d e rth e s a m e p la in error s t andard. ” I

d. (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). U nd erthe pl ai n err or st andard, V as qu ez m u s t s h o w th a t: ( 1 ) a n e rr o ro c c u rr e d ; ( 2 ) th e e rr o rw a s p la in ; ( 3 ) it a f f e c te d h is subst ant i al ri gh t s; and (4) i tse ri ou sl y a ff ec t ed the fa i rnes s of the j ud i ci al p r o c e e d in g s . See U

ni ted Stat es v. H

um ph re y , 1 6 4 F .3 d 5 8 5 , 5 8 8 n . 3 ( 1 1 th4

C i r. 19 99 ). F urtherm ore, i n o rderfor a n err or t o b e pl ai n, i tm ustbe cl ea r und er c u rr e n t la w . See U

n i ted S ta tes v. A g u i l la rd , 2 1 7 F .3 d 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) .

“ W e have al so hel d thatw here nei ther the S up re m e C ou rtno r thi s C ou rthas e ver r e s o lv e d a n is s u e , a n d o th e rc ir c u its a r e s p lit o n it, th e r e c a n b e n o p la in e rr o rin re gard t o thati ss ue. ” I

d.

“ T he c r e di bi l i ty of

a w i tne s s m a y be a tt a c ke d by a ny pa r ty , i nc l udi ng the pa r ty c a l l i ng the w i tne s s . ” F e d. R . E vi d. 607. “ I n e xa m i ni ng a w i tne s s c onc e rni ng a pr i ors t a t e m e ntm a de by the w i tne s s , w he the rw r i tt e n ornot , the s t a t e m e ntne e d not be s how n nori t s c ont e nt s di s c l os e d t o the w i tne s s a ttha tt i m e , buton r e que s tthe s a m e s h a ll b e s h o w n o rd is c lo s e d to o p p o s in g c o u n s e l.” F e d .R .E v id . 6 1 3 ( a ) . F ur the r m or e , the F e de r a l R ul e s of E vi de nc e do notc l a s s i f y pr i ori nc ons i s t e nt s t a t e m e nt s of

f e r e d f ori m pe a c hm e ntpurpos e s a s he a r s a y , be c a us e the y a r e not offe re d i n evi dence t o p rove the truth o f the m att eras se rt ed. F ed. R . E vi d. 80 1(c) & ( d ) ; W ils o n v . C ity o

f A lic e v ille , 77 9 F . 2d 63 1, 63 6 (11 th C i r. 19 86 ). T hu s, w here te s tim o n y is n o t o f

f e r e d to p r o v e th e tru th o f o u t- o f - c o u r t a s s e r tio n s , b u t r a th e rto a tt a c k the c r e di bi l i ty of

t e s t i m ony gi ve n f

r om the s t a nd, s uc h t e s t i m ony i s not h e a r s a y . See U

n ite d S ta te s v . G a r c ia , 5 3 0 F .2 d 6 5 0 , 6 5 4 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 6 ) . I n B er ger v . U ni ted Stat es , 295 U . S . 78, 88- 89, 55 S . C t . 629, 633, 79 L . E d. 1314 ( 1935) , the S upr e m e C our tr e ve r s e d a c onvi c t i on w he n the pr os e c ut or5

throu gh qu es t i on i ng and argum enti m pl i ed pers on al kn ow l edge of addi t i on al evi dence. T he B er

gerc our tnot e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s uni que bur de n of j us t i c e a nd h e ig h te n e d r e s p o n s ib ility in c o u r t: T he U ni t ed S t at es A tt orney i s the re pres ent at i ve no tof an ordi nary p a r ty to a c o n tr o v e r s y , b u t o f a s o v e r e ig n ty w h o s e o b lig a tio n to g o v e rn im p a r tia lly is a s c o m p e llin g a s its o b lig a tio n to g o v e rn a t a ll

. . . Iti s f ai r t o saythatthe avera ge j ury, i n a great eror l es s degre e, has c onf i de nc e tha tthe s e obl i ga t i ons , w hi c h s o pl a i nl y r e s tupon the p ro secu t i n g att o rn ey, w i l l b e fai th fu l l y o b serv ed . C o n seq u en t l y, i m pr ope rs ugge s t i ons , i ns i nua t i ons , a nd, e s pe c i a l l y , a s s e r t i ons of pers on al kn ow l edge are aptt o carrym uch w ei gh tagai nstthe ac cuse d w hen they s ho ul d p roperl y c arryno ne. I d. a t88. F ur the r m or e , “ [ i ] ti s c l e a rtha ta pr os e c ut orm us tnota c ta s both pr os e c ut or and w i tness . T hi s i s apartof the general “ advo ca t e- w i tness ” rul e thatcoun se l shou l d avo i d app ea ri ng as bo th adv ocat e a nd w i tness exce ptun der e xtra ordi nary ci rc um st ance s. ” U

n i ted S ta tes v. H

o sf o rd , 78 2 F . 2d 93 6, 93 8 (11 th C i r. 19 86 ). H er e, V as qu ez ca nn otshow thatthe prosecut or’ s use of pri or oral i n c o n s i s t e n ts t a t e m e n t s t o i m p e a c h a g o v e rn m e n twi tn e s s wa s p l a i n e rr o r . As di s c us s e d above , the F e de r a l R ul e s of E vi de nc e pe rm i ta ny pa r ty t o a tt a c k the c r e d ib ility o f

a w itn e s s , a n d u s e o f

a w itn e s s ’s p r io ro r a l in c o n s is te n t s ta te m e n t is o n e w a y to d o s o . See F ed. R . E vi d. 60 6, 61 3(a) . W e c on cl ud e f rom the re cord that the gove rnm e nt ’ s us e of R obl e r o- S a l a s ’ s pr i ori nc ons i s t e nts t a t e m e nt s f orCrawf ord v. W ashington , 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. C t. 1354, 158 L . Ed. 177 (2004). 2 6 i m peac hm entw as prop ersi nce he w as a host i l e w i tness w ho se t es t i m on y di ff er ed fr om hi s pri or st at em enton re l evanti ss ues. F urtherm ore, V as qu ez do es no toffe r a ny l e ga l a uthor i ty t o s uppor thi s a s s e r t i on tha tthe us e of hi s pr i ori nc ons i s t e nt s ta te m e n t w a s p la in e rr o r . See Wi l l i a ms , 44 5 F . 3d 13 07 . N ei ther does V as qu ez offe r a ny l egal autho ri ty i n sup po rtof hi s a ss ert i on thatthe prosecut or pl ai nl y e rr ed b y in q u ir in g w h e th e rs o m e o n e h a d v is ite d R o b le r o - S a la s to c o e r c e o rth r e a te n h im in to c h a n g in g h is s to ry in f a v o ro f V a s q u e z . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f f irm th is is s u e . II. W hi l e w e nor m a l l y r e vi e w the a dm i s s i bi l i ty of e vi de nc e f

orabus e of d is c r e tio n , Ji m i nez , 2 2 4 F. 3 d a t1 2 4 9 , a n d a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m de no vo , U ni ted State s v . C ante l lano , 4 3 0 F .3 d 1 1 4 2 , 1 1 4 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 1 2 6 S .C t. 16 04 (200 6), un pres erved evi dent i ary a nd const i tut i on al chal l enges m ustsa t i sf y th e p la in e rr o rte s t. U

n ite d S ta te s v . Mo r ia r ty , 42 9 F . 3d 10 12 , 10 18 -19 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) .T h e p a r tie s d is a g r e e a s to th e p r o p e rs ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w . W e h a v e h e ld th a t, w he r e the de f

e nda nta ts e nt e nc i ng obj e c t e d on he a r s a y gr ounds , butdi d not m ent i on the C on fr on t at i on C l ause or Cra w f o rd , i tw a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o pr e s e rve the 2 o b je c tio n , a n d r e v ie w w o u ld b e f o rp la in e rr o ro n ly . U

ni te d State s v . Chau , 4267

F . 3d 1318, 1321- 22 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . V a s que z f i r s tobj e c t e d tha tthe pr os e c ut or w a s us i ng he a r s a y i n que s t i oni ng hi m . I n hi s s e c ond obj e c t i on, V a s que z di d not m ent i on the C on fr on t at i on C l ause or Cra w f o rd , b u t said “Ju d g e, th ey h av en ’t ca l l ed any of these peop l e a s w i tness es and h e . . . . ” T he prosecut or then i nt e rrupt e d V a s que z , a nd the c our ti m m e di a t e l y rul e d on the obj e c t i on. N one the l e s s , V a s que z c ont i nue d by a s ki ng f ora m i s tr i a l , a nd, a ga i n, he di d not m ent i on the C on fr on t at i on C l ause or Cr a w fo r d. Ac c o r d i n g l y , Va s q u e z ’ s two obj e c t i ons a ttr i a l a r e i ns uf f i c i e ntt o pr e s e rve the c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge unde rthe C on fr on t at i on C l ause , and w e w i l l re vi ew for pl ai n err or. V a s que z w a s c ha r ge d a nd c onvi c t e d of “ know i ng ori n r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d of th e f a c t th a t a n a lie n h a s c o m e to , e n te r e d , o rr e m a in s in th e U n ite d S ta te s in vi ol at i on of l aw , tra nspo rt s, or m ov es or att em pt s t o tra nspo rtor m ov e s uch al i en w i thi n the U ni t e d S t a t e s by m e a ns of tr a ns por t a t i on orothe rw i s e , i n f ur the r a nc e of such vi ol at i on of l aw . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 4(a) (1)( A )( i i ). T he S i xth A m e ndm e ntpr ovi de s tha t , “ [ i ] n a l l c r i m i na l pr os e c ut i ons , the ac cuse d shal l enj oy the ri gh t. . . t o b e c on fr on t ed w i th the w i tness es agai nsthi m . ” U . S . C ons t . a m e nd. V I . T he C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e f

orbi ds the i ntr oduc t i on of t e s t i m oni a l he a r s a y e vi de nc e a ttr i a l , unl e s s : ( 1) the de c l a r a nti s una va i l abl e , a nd ( 2 ) th e d e f

e n d a n t h a d a p r io ro p p o r tu n ity to c r o s s - e x a m in e th e d e c la r a n t.8

Cra w f o rd , 54 1 U . S . at68 , 12 4 S . C t . at13 74 . S ubj ec tt o cert ai n except i on s, hear sa y is n o t a d m is s ib le a t tr ia l. See F ed. R . E vi d. 80 2. U nd erF eder al R ul e of E vi dence 80 1, hear sa y i s def

i ned as “ a s tate m e nt , o th e rth a n o n e m a d e b y th e d e c la r a n t w h ile t es t i fy i ng atthe tri al or hear i ng , offe re d i n evi dence to p rove the truth o f the m at ter asse rted .” F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 1 ( c ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . N e ve r the l e s s , w e ha ve he l d tha t“ e rr one ous a dm i s s i on of e vi de nc e doe s not w a rr a ntr e ve r s a l i f

the e rr orha d no s ubs t a nt i a l i nf l ue nc e on the out c om e a nd suff i ci entevi dence uni nfec t ed by error s up po rt s the verdi ct . ” U ni ted Stat es v. H ar r is ton , 3 2 9 F . 3 d 7 7 9 , 7 8 9 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) (q u o t at i o n s o m i tt ed ) (n o t i n g al so thaterror i s harm l es s “ w here there i s overw hel m i ng evi dence of gui l t . ”) . I n thi s c a s e , w e c onc l ude tha tde s pi t e the pr os e c ut or ’ s i m pr ope rus e of the w i tne s s e s ’ s t a t e m e nt s i n hi s c r os s - e xa m i na t i on of V a s que z , the r e c or d c ont a i ns suff i ci entevi dence t o sup po rtthe j ury’ s ver di ct . F i rs t , evi dence s ho w s that V a s q u e z tr a n s p o r te d a n a lie n w ith in th e U n ite d S ta te s . See 8 U . S. C. § 1324( a ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) . O f f i c e rG r i de rt e s t i f

i e d tha the s t oppe d a va n dr i ve n by V a s q u e z o n a n in te r s ta te h ig h w a y in F lo r id a th a t h e ld m a le s u b je c ts a n d th e ir pe r s ona l i t e m s . A ge ntV a da s z t e s t i f i e d tha the f

ound e i ghtm e n i n V a s que z ’ s va n, a nd tha te a c h of

the m w e r e i l l e ga l l y pr e s e nti n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . S e c ond, the e v id e n c e s h o w s th a t th e e ig h t p a s s e n g e r s w e r e in th e U n ite d S ta te s ille g a lly . See 89

U . S . C . § 1324( a ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) . R obl e r o- S a l a s t e s t i f i e d tha the w a s a pa s s e nge ri n the van, he w as fr om G uat em al a, and h e pai d som eone a fe e t o h el p h i m i l l egal l y e nt er th e U n it ed S tates. T h ird , th e e v id en ce sh o w s th at V as q u ez k n ew o f th e p as se n g er ’s ille g a l s ta tu s . See 8 U . S . C . § 1324( a ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) . O f f i c e rG r i de rt e s t i f

i e d tha ta tthe st op , V as qu ez re po rt ed thatno ne of the pass engers had g re en ca rds, and V as qu ez as ked h i m i f he had cal l ed the IN S . F i nal l y, V as qu ez adm i tt ed thatthe pass engers w er e und ocum ent ed i l l egal al i ens, and thathe kn ew thattra nspo rt i ng them t o w ork w a s ille g a l. ( See R 5 at90 -91). B as ed on thi s e vi dence, no ne of w hi ch w as subj ec t to V a s q u e z ’s o b

je c tio n s , a ju ry w o u ld h a v e r e tu rn e d th e s a m e g u ilty v e r d ic t. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff

i rm thi s i ss ue. III. W e r e v i e w a p r o s e c u t o r i a l mi s c o n d u c tc l a i m de no vo b ecau se i tp resen t s a m ix e d q u e s tio n o f

la w a n d f

a c t. U ni te d State s v . N

or i ega , 117 F . 3d 1206, 1218 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . T o est abl i sh prosec ut ori al m i sc on du ct , “ (1) the re m arks m ustbe i m prop er , a nd ( 2) the r e m a r ks m us tpr e j udi c i a l l y a f

f e c tthe s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s of the defe nd ant . ” U

ni ted Stat es v. E

ys ter , 9 4 8 F .2 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 2 0 6 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). “A d e f e n d a n t’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts a r e p r e ju d ic ia lly a f

f e c te dw h e n a r e a s o n ab le pr obabi l i ty a r i s e s tha t , butf orthe r e m a rks , the out c om e of the tr i a l w oul d ha ve10

been di ff er ent . ” U

ni te d State s v . W

i l s on , 149 F . 3d 1298, 1301 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . W he n the r e c or d c ont a i ns s uf f i c i e nti nde pe nde nte vi de nc e of g u ilt, a n y e rr o ris h a r m le s s . Un i te d S ta te s v . A da ms , 7 4 F .3 d 1 0 9 3 , 1 0 9 7 - 9 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 96 ). W e c o n clu d e f

ro m th e r ec o rd th at itis u n li k ely th at th e p ro se cu to r’s q u est i o n s reg ard i n g w h y V asq u ez’ s ch i l d ren w ere p resen tath i s tri al w ere so p r e ju d ic ia l s u c h th a t th e o u tc o m e o f th e tr ia l w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. See W i l s on , 149 F . 3d a t1301. R a the r , the pr os e c ut or ’ s que s t i ons r e ga r di ng the pr e s e nc e of

hi s c hi l dr e n i n the c our tr oom l i ke l y w oul d ha ve e nge nde r e d s y m pa thy fr om the j urors. V as qu ez do es no tci t e t o any l egal autho ri ty t o d em on stra t e that su ch l i n e o f q u est i o n i n g i s i m p ro p er o r p rej u d i ci al . N o n eth el ess, ev en i f th ese co m m en t s w ere i n ap p ro p ri at e, rev ersal i s o n l y w arran t ed i f th e en t i re tri al i s so r e p le te w ith e rr o r s th a t V a s q u e z w a s d e n ie d a f a irtr ia l. See U

ni ted Stat es v. McL a in , 8 2 3 F .2 d 1 4 5 7 , 1 4 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) . T h e p r o s e c u to r ’s r e m a rk s w ith r e g a r d to V a s q u e z ’s c h ild r e n ’s p r e s e n c e in th e c o u r tr o o m a r e to o lim ite d to dem on stra t e thathe w as deni ed a f ai r tri al . R ather, the w ei gh tof the evi dence w o u ld h a v e le d to V a s q u e z ’s c o n v ic tio n r e g a r d le s s o f th e p r o s e c u to r ’s q u e s tio n s . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f

f irm th is is s u e . I V.11

“ [T ] he cum ul at i ve ef

fe ctof se vera l errors thatar e harm l es s by them se l ves c oul d s o pr e

j udi c e the de f

e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o a f

a i rtr i a l tha ta ne w tr i a l m i ghtbe nece ss ary. ” U

ni te d State s v . P r e c i ado- C or dobas , 9 8 1 F .2 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 1 5 n . 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 93 ). “ In addres si ng a c l ai m of cum ul at i ve error, w e m ustexam i ne the tri al a s a w h o le to d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e ap p e lla n t w a s a f f o r d e d a f u n d a m e n ta lly f

a ir tri al . ” U ni te d State s v . C alde r on , 12 7 F . 3d 13 14 , 13 33 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). W here th e r e is n o e rr o ro ro n ly a s in g le e rr o r , th e r e c a n b e n o c u m u la tiv e e rr o r . See U ni te d State s v . W

aldon , 3 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 0 3 , 1 1 1 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . T he r e c or d de m ons tr a t e s tha tthe r e w a s no c um ul a t i ve e rr ori n the i ns t a nt c a s e . A l though V a s que z a s s e r t s a num be rof e vi de nt i a ry a dm i s s i on e rr or s , a nd pr os e c ut or i a l m i s c onduc t , the onl y e rr ortha toc c urr e d dur i ng the c our s e of V a s q u e z ’s tr ia l w a s th e p r o s e c u to r ’s u s e o f th e p a s s e n g e r ’s h e a r s a y s ta te m e n ts . H ow ever , as di sc usse d abo ve, thi s e rr or ca nn otbe deem ed cum ul at i ve, w hi ch ne c e s s i t a t e a ne w tr i a l , e s pe c i a l l y i n l i ghtof the othe re vi de nc e i m pl i c a t i ng V a s q u e z . See W

aldon , 3 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 0 3 a t 1 1 1 0 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f f irm th is is s u e . F or the abov e- st at ed re as on s, w e a ff i rm V as qu ez ’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . AF F I RME D.