FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUL 12 , 2006 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. 05- 14519 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -000 84 -C R -W D O -5 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 H O S E A A L L E N , 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 o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 12, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: H oseaA l l en appeal s hi s c on vi ct i on s und eron e c ou ntof di stri bu t i ng cr ac k2

c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( C ) , a nd one c ountof d i s tr i b u t i n g i n e x c e s s o f f i v e g r a ms o f

c r a c k c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( iii) . D ur i ng the tr i a l i n M a r c h, 2005, the di s tr i c tc our te xc l ude d t e s t i m ony by T eresa V eal , th e g o v ern m en t ’ s co n fi d en t i al i n fo rm an tan d k ey w i tn ess o n th e fi rst coun t , re gardi ng a negot i at ed pl eat o m i sdem ea no r s i m pl e batt ery, i n l i eu of an a ggr a va t e d a s s a ul tc ha r ge , tha ts he ha d e nt e r e d i nt o tw o w e e ks pr i ort o t e s t i f y i ng a ga i ns tA l l e n. A l l e n’ s c ouns e l or a l l y oppos e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s m ot i on t o e xc l ude the e vi de nc e . D ur i ng hi s a r gum e nt , A l l e n a l s o r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e a 2004 arre stof V ea l thathad o cc urre d aft ershe began coop er at i ng w i th the autho ri t i es an d th ath ad n ev er b een p ro secu t ed . T h e co u rtp ro h i b i t ed A l l en fro m cro ssexam i ni ng V ea l re gardi ng the re ce ntpl eaagre em entor the 20 04 un prosec ut ed a rr e s t. O n ap p eal , A l l en arg u es th atth e co u rt ’ s d eci si o n l i m i t i n g h i s cro ssexam i nat i on vi ol at ed hi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh tt o con fr on tw i tness es and w as an i nc orr e c tappl i c a t i on of

the F e de r a l R ul e s of

E vi de nc e . A l l e n a r gue s tha tthe e x c lu d e d e v id e n c e w o u ld h a v e g iv e n th e ju ry a b e tte rid e a o f V e a l’s m o tiv a tio n to gi ve t es t i m on y f

avorabl e t o the go vernm ent . A s V ea l w as a key w i tness , A l l en a r g u e s th a tth i s e rr o rwa s n o th a r m l e s s a n d a f f e c t e d h i s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s . He3

further a rgues thatV ea l ’ s t es t i m on y w as so i m po rt antt o the ca se as a w ho l e that the court ’ s e rr or i nfec t ed the val i di ty of the evi dence as t o cou nttw o, and that th e r e f o r e w e s h o u ld o v e r tu rn b o th h is c o n v ic tio n s . I. A ssu m i n g arg u en d o th atA l l en su ccessfu l l y p reserv ed th i s i ssu e, h e m u st pers uade thi s c ou rtthatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s i nt erpret at i on of the rul es of evi dence w a s a n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , a n d th a t th e c o u r t’s e rr o ra f f e c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t e phe ns , 365 F . 3d 967, 974 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . U nde rthe subst ant i al ri gh t s prong , an “ erroneou s e vi dent i ary rul i ng i s abasi s f or re vers al on l y i f the defendantca n d em on stra t e thatthe error probabl y had a ‘ subst ant i al i nf l ue nc e ’ on the j ury ’ s ve r di c t . ” I d. a t977. A l l en ar gu es thathe shou l d h ave been permitt ed t o i ntrodu ce evi dence that V e a l w a s n o t p r o s e c u te d f o ra c o c a in e a rr e s t, a n d h a d a f e lo n y a g g r a v a te d a s s a u lt char ge re du ce d t o a m i sdem ea no r batt ery tw o w ee ks before her t es t i m on y. A l l en a r gue s tha tthi s e vi de nc e goe s t o V e a l ’ s m ot i ve f orc oope r a t i ng w i th the g o v e rn m e n t. F e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 4 ( b ) s ta te s th a t: E vi de nc e of

othe rc r i m e s , w r ongs , ora c t s i s nota dm i s s i bl e t o pr ove th e c h a r a c te ro f

a p e r s o n in o r d e rto s h o w a c tio n in c o n f o r m ity there w i th. Itm ay , ho w ever , be adm i ss i bl e f or other purpo se s, such as proo f of m ot i ve, op po rtun i ty, i nt ent , prepara t i on , pl an, kn ow l edge, id e n tity , o rab s e n c e o f

m is ta k e o ra c c id e n t . . . .4

F e d. R . E vi d. 404( b) . A c c or di ng t o A l l e n, the a ddi t i ona l e vi de nc e w oul d ha ve un derm i ned V ea l ’ s c re di bi l i ty by s ho w i ng thatshe had a m ot i ve t o l i e. W e c onc l ude tha tA l l e n’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s w e r e nota f f e c t e d by the e xc l us i on of the t e s t i m ony . A l l e n ha d othe re vi de nc e tha te s t abl i s he d tha tV e a l ha d a r e a s on t o coo pera t e w i th the go vernm ent . A l l en w as abl e t o cross -e xam i ne V ea l e xt e ns i ve l y abouthe rN ove m be r7, 2002 a rr e s tf orc oc a i ne tr a f

f i c ki ng a nd the t e r m s of he ra gr e e m e ntt o be c om e a gove rnm e nti nf or m a nt . O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on V e a l f u r th e re lab o r a te d o n th e “c o c a in e c h a r g e ,” a d m ittin g th a t it w a s a c tu a lly s e ve r a l c ount s , i nc l udi ng a f i r e a r m s c ount . V e a l t e s t i f i e d tha ts he f

a c e d a m i ni m um s e nt e nc e of

10 y e a r s a nd a m a xi m um s e nt e nc e of 30 y e a r s on the c oc a i ne tra ff i cki ng char ge. S he al so t es t i fi ed thatshe w ou l d h ave r ec ei ved an add i t i on al m andat ory 5 ye arse nt ence for herfi re arm char ge. T hese char ges w er e dropp ed b e c a u s e o f

V e a l’s c o o p e r a tio n w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t. A lle n ’s c o u n s e l w a s ab le to e l i c i tthe s e r i ous ne s s of

the pe na l ty tha tV e a l ha d f a c e d, a s w e l l a s the f

a c ttha ts he di d notw a ntt o go t o pr i s on, a nd tha ts he w a s abl e t o a voi d a l l pe na l t i e s f orthe char ges by w orki ng as an i nform antfor the po l i ce . F i nal l y, the t es t i m on y a l l ow ed at trial w as su ff

icien t t o eq u ip A ll en ’s co u n se l t o ar g u e s tro n g ly ag ain st V ea l’ s c r e d ib ility in h is c lo s in g a r g u m e n t. T he r e f or e , e ve n i f

the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n e xc l udi ng the t e s t i m ony aboutIt is not entirely clea r that All en successfully

preserved his constitutional objection below. 1 See United States v. Z inn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1090 n.7 (11th Cir. 2003) ( “weareunpersuaded that c ouns e l’ s v aguere ferenc eto A pp e lla nt’ s ‘ Con stitutional ri ghts’ wa s su ff ic ient to p re serv ehis objections for a

ppeal” ). 5 V ea l’ s o th erar re sts, A ll en h ad am p le o p p o rtu n ity to ca st d o u b t o n V ea l’ s c r e di bi l i ty . T he j ury w a s w e l l a w a r e tha tV e a l be c a m e a n i nf or m a nti n e xc ha nge fo r g o v er n m en t ass istan ce w ith h ercr im in al ch ar g es . W e c o n clu d e th at A ll en ’s su b stan ti al rig h ts w er e n o t aff ec ted b y th e e x clu sio n o f tes ti m o n y o f V ea l’ s a ddi t i ona l a rr e s ta nd c onvi c t i on.

II . S i m i l a r l y , a s s um i ng a r gue ndo tha tA l l e n r a i s e d hi s c ons t i tut i ona l a r gum e nt be l ow , w e a l s o r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on t o r e s tr i c thi s c r os s - e xa m i na t i on

1 of V e a l f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B apt i s t a - R odr i gue z , 17 F . 3d 1354, 13 71 (11th C i r. 19 94 ).

“ T he C onf

r ont a t i on C l a us e of

the S i xth A m e ndm e ntgua r a nt e e s the r i ghtof an accu sed i n a cri m i n al p ro secu t i o n ‘ t o b e co n fro n t ed w i th th e w i tn esses ag ai n st hi m . ’ ” D e l a w a r e v. V a n A r s da l l , 475 U . S . 673, 678, 106 S . C t . 1431, 1435, 89 L . E d. 2d 67 4 (19 86 ). “ T he m ai n and es se nt i al pu rpose of c on fr on t at i on i s t o sec ure fo r th e o p p o n en tth e o p p o rtu n i ty o f cro ss-ex am i n at i o n , ” esp eci al l y as i tex p o ses a6

w i tne s s ’ s m ot i va t i on. D a vi s v. A l a s ka , 415 U . S . 308, 315- 17, 94 S . C t . 1105, 1110, 3 9 L .E d .2 d 3 4 7 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ( c itin g G r e e n e v . M c E lr o y , 3 6 0 U .S . 4 7 4 , 4 9 6 7 9 S .C t. 1 4 0 0 , 1 4 1 3 , 3 L .E d .2 d 1 3 7 7 ( 1 9 5 9 ) ) . “F u ll c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n is p a r tic u la r ly c r i t i c a l w he n the e xa m i ne e i s a c hi e f gove rnm e ntw i tne s s . ” B apt i s t a - R odr i gue z , 17 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 6 . E ve n i f the c our tdi d e rr , w e w i l l notr e ve r s e unl e s s the e rr orw a s not ha r m l e s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E dw a r ds , 211 F . 3d 1355, 1359 ( 11th C i r . 2000) (hol di ng any C on fr on t at i on C l ause error harm l es s, because the defendanthad b ee n abl e t o exp ose the w i tness ’ s m ot i ve for t es t i fy i ng ). In det erm i ni ng w hether a C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e v io la tio n c o n s titu te s h a r m le s s e rr o r , th e c o u r t s h o u ld co n si d er sev eral fact o rs, i n cl u d i n g th e i m p o rt an ce o f th e w i tn ess’ s t est i m o n y, w he the rthe t e s t i m ony w a s c um ul a t i ve , the pr e s e nc e orabs e nc e of c orr obor a t i ng or co n trad i ct i n g t est i m o n y o f th e w i tn ess o n m at eri al p o i n t s, th e ex t en to f cro ssexam i nat i on perm i tt ed, and the ov er al l stre ng th o f the prosecut i on ’ s c as e. V an A rsd al l , 4 7 5 U . S . at6 8 4 , 1 0 6 S . C t . at1 4 3 8 . “ T h e t estfo r th e C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se i s w he the ra r e a s onabl e j ury w oul d ha ve r e c e i ve d a s i gni f i c a nt l y di f

f e r e nt i m pr e s s i on of

the w i tne s s ’ c r e di bi l i ty ha d c ouns e l pur s ue d the pr opos e d l i ne of c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n .” U n ite d S ta te s v . T a y lo r , 1 7 F .3 d 3 3 3 , 3 4 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . W e c on cl ud e thatany e rr or i n thi s c as e w as harm l es s. A s di sc usse d abo ve,7

A l l e n w a s abl e t o a r gue tha tV e a l w a s t e s t i f y i ng i n e xc ha nge f

orgove rnm e nt as si st ance on her ow n cri m i nal char ges. B oth O ff i ce r G ra y a nd V ea l t es t i fi ed that s he be ga n w or ki ng f

orG r a y a s a n i nf

or m a nta f

t e rhe ha d a rr e s t e d he r“ on a c oc a i ne c h a r g e .” T h e y b o th a ls o te s tif ie d th a t s h e w a s p a id f

o rh e rh e lp . M o r e o v e r , th e r e s t o f

th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c a s e a g a in s t A lle n w a s s o u n d . V eal ’ s t est i m o n y w as cl earl y v ery i m p o rt an tt o th e g o v ern m en t ’ s case ag ai n st A l l en u n d er co u n to n e, an d i tw as n o tcu m u l at i v e. H o w ev er, i tw as sl i g h t l y l ess c r i t i c a l tha n A l l e n w oul d por tr a y i t , a s tw o othe rw i tne s s e s i de nt i f i e d A l l e n a s the i ndi vi dua l w ho m e tV e a l a tthe pa r k t o s e l l he rc oc a i ne . E ve n a s s um i ng tha tthe nego t i at ed pl eaand arr es thad b ee n adm i tt ed, thi s w ou l d o nl y have s ho w n thatV ea l ha d a s tr onge rr e a s on t o c oope r a t e , nota ne w one . F ur the r , i tw oul d notha ve a dde d a ny w e i ghtt o the a r gum e nttha ts he ha d gone s o f a ra s t o f abr i c a t e t e s t i m ony fo r th e g o v er n m en t. G iv en th e c ro ss -e x am in atio n th at d id tak e p lace , A ll en ’s coun se l m ade a l l these ar gu m ent s abo utV ea l ’ s c re di bi l i ty i n h i s c l osi ng . S ee B u rs to n 1 5 9 F .3 d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 6 -3 7 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) ( h o ld in g th at th e d istrict co u rt’s refu sal t o ad m i tev i d en ce reg ard i n g a w i tn ess’ s p astcri m i n al h i st o ry w as h arm l ess e rr o rb e c a u s e o f

th e e x te n s iv e im p e a c h m e n t e v id e n c e a lr e a d y p r e s e n te d ) . B a s e d on the f

or e goi ng, w e f

i nd be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubttha ta ny e rr or com m i tt ed w as harm l es s, and there fore thatno ne of A l l en’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s w er e8

af fe ct ed. G i ven thi s r es ul t , A l l en’ s a rgum entthatthe court ’ s e rr or al so i nfec t ed c o u n t tw o is m o o t. AF F I RME D.