## 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. 07

- 1555 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J AM ES L. L E S HO RE , D ef endant-Appellant.

____________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on. No . 1:05- CR-57- TS

—Th eres a L . Sp ri ngman n, Judge .

____________ A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 20, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 11, 2008

____________
Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. T hi s ca se i l l us tr at es the i m po rtan ce of the stan d a r d of review that an ap p ell ate cou rt appli es to ass er ted tr i aler ro r. W hen an a p p ell ant wants t o co m p lain ab ou t a n err or for t h e firs t t im e o n ap p ea l, we o r di na r i l y r equi r e th e co m pl aini ngpa rty t o de m o nstr ate pl ai n er ro r. S ee F ED . R. C RIM . P
. 52 (b ). If t h e ch allen ge d ru lin g is o n e t h at w e w ou ld h a ve rev iew ed on ly2 N o. 07

- 1555 f orabuse o fdi scr eti on if a p ro per com pla i nt had bee n m ad e in t h e d ist ric t c ou rt, t h e a p p ella n t’s j ob is es p ec ially di ffi cul t. Tha t, i n a nut sh el l, i s the b urd en tha t appe l l an t Jam es L eS h or e ha s sh ou ld er ed h er e. Fin d in g n o re ve rs ible er r o r, we affi r m hi s co nv i ct i o n a nd s en te nc e f o r b an k ro bber y.

I W e d raw our acc ou nt of th e facts from the d istri ct cou rt’s opi ni on, su p p l em enti ng i t with other i nfo rm ati on a s ne ede d. O n the mor ni ngo fS ept embe r 1 3, 2 00 5, a t ab o ut 9: 30 a. m . , the Fi rs t S ourc e Bank i n Fo rt W ayne, I nd i ana, was r o bb ed by tw o Af r i ca n- Am er i ca n mal es wea r i ng whi te c l o thmask s. One o fthe m br an di sh ed a gun. W i tha bag fullo fm oney($ 5,6 00, al ong w i th so m e ba i t m oney and a dye pack) , the r ob ber s j um ped into a bl ue van an d dr o ve a way . The va n was l at erf o und aba ndo ne d i n a cem ete ry near a w oo ded ar ea; i ts pla tes were re gi ste re d to J e a nn i e Co l o n a nd i t s s t e e r i ngc o l umn ha d b e e n pu nc he d. An e y e wi t n e s s o n th e o the r si de o fth e wo o d s s a w t wo A fri can -A m erican m en run from the w ood s into a bu rg undy t r ucka nd dr i ve a way . A long the pa thfr o m the va n thr o ug h the woo ds to wher e th e ey ewi tn ess saw the m en j um p i nto the t ruck, pol i ce fou n d a sl eev e fro m a wh i t e t
- s hi r t ; the r e s to fthe t
- s hi r twa s n o tf o un d. LeShor e doe s no t chal l enge any o f the f acts we have recou nt ed thu s far. A t thi s p oint, how ever, his story d ive rg es from th at of t h e p olic e o ffice rs w h o e ve n tu ally ar re st ed an d qu es tio n ed h im . Of fice r Fr i t z R om m el t es tifi ed that he pi cked up LeShor e in fro nt o fa house bel ong-N o. 07

- 1555 3 i ngt o Li nds eyGr ee n, t o o kLe S ho r e to the pol i ce s ta ti o n, and then esco rt ed hi m i nto the i nter vi ew ro om . Rom m el has no part i cul ar exp er ti se i n re cogni zi ng the effects o f dr ug s, b uthe do es ha ve s o m e traini ngi n r ec o gni zingthe eff ects o fal cohol

. H e s tat ed that LeShor e di d not s tum bl e, sl ur hi s s peech, di sob ey com m ands, o r act stra n gely

. Rom m eldi d not s m el l al coholo n L eS hor e’ s br eath. A fter a 40-m inu t e w ait, Spec ialA gen t Re stitut o Lora n inte rv i e we d L e S ho r e ; the i nt e r v i e w wa s r e c o r de d o n a DV D. Loran did have tr ai ni ng i n re cogni zin g and deal i ng with perso ns under the infl uence o fbo th al coholand drugs. Loran tes ti fi ed that he d i d not noti ce any s i gns o fi ntoxi cat i o n, a l th o u g h h e d i d s me l l p e p p e r s pr a y ( wh i c h i s c o mm on a ftera dye- pack e xplos i on)
. Lor an ga ve LeShor e a f or m expl ain in g hi s M i r anda rights, and then Le Shore re ad the m a l o ud a nd s i g ne d the f o r m. Lo r a n the n qu e stioned Le Shore, w ho reco un ted t h a t he left his fi an cée’s house at 10: 00 a. m . and fou n d a b ag ofm oneyal re ady o n th e ba ckpo r chof G re en ’ s ho us e. Le S ho r e sa i d tha t he ne ve r s m o k ed an y c r ac ka nd was not im p ai r ed i n a ny w ay. A fterl i ste ni ng to LeSho re , Lor an and sev er alo ther offi cer s confro nted LeShor e w i th i ncri m i nati n g evi dence i nc l ud i ng st ate m ents f ro m Gree n, sur vei l l ance phot os from the ba nk, eviden ce con n e c t in g him to his fiancé e’s van , and the d ye p ack. T hrou gh ou t th e interview , Le Shore re m ai ned att enti ve and a nsw er ed questi ons appropri ate l y. Befo re tr i al, LeSho re m ove d t o su pp re ss the s tat em ents he ma de du r i ng hi s i nt e r r o g a t i o n a nd the a s s o c i a t e d D VD , al l eging that hi s M i r anda wai ve r was i nv al i d b ec au se he w as heavi l y intoxi cate d at th e ti m e. A t the suppress i on he ar i ng, Le S ho r e tr i ed to pr o vi de a bas is f o r tha t m o ti o n,4 N o. 07

- 1555 expand i ng o n ( and changi ng sl i ghtl y) h i s pre vi ous nar ra tio n . H e t es tifie d th at h e w ok e up an d leftth e h ou se of h is fi an cé e, J ea nni e Co l o n, b efo r e 8: 00 a . m . tha t m o r ni nga nd headed fo r a drug house, st eal in g a bi ke al ong the way. H e e st im at ed th at th is t rip to ok h im an h ou r-a n d -a-h alf to t wo h o ur s. At th e dr ugho us e, he s m o k ed ab o ut 2. 5 g ra m s o fcr ack and dr an k f our orfi ve beer s. H e then proce eded to L i nd seyGree n’s house , wh er e he sm oke d a no the r 1
. 5 g r a ms o f c r a c k, dr a nk s e v e r a l s ho t s ofvo dka, an d cr ac ke d op en a b e e r . H e c laim s t h at h e s aw a p ile ofm oneyo n the tabl e in Green’ s ho use a n d star ted to po ck ets o m e o fi t. Gr ee n s po tt ed hi m do i ngthi s an d ki cked hi m out. H e began w al ki ng back t o the dr ug house , saw a pol i ce c ar, tur ned arou n d , a n d l eft the m oneyo n the back porch ofGree n’s house i n a b ag. ( The l asto fthes e detai l s was co rr obo ra ted byan e yewitness; pol i ce di sc ov er ed so m e o f th e ba it m on ey fro m th e b an k in th e b ag .) H e was a r r es te d i n fr o nto fGr ee n’ s ho us e ar o und n o o n. The di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha t LeS ho r e’ s te st i m o ny a t th e supp re ssi on hea ri ng was not cre dibl e a nd that he was not i m pai re d w hen he g ave hi s M i r anda con sen t. T he cou rt th er efo r e den i ed hi s m o ti o n t o suppr es s th e DVD o fthe ques t i o ninga nd v a r i o us i nc ul pa t o r y s t a t e men t s h e had m ade. A t t ri al, LeSho re was f ound gui l ty and convi cted o fb a nkr o b b e r y wi th a da ng er ous we a po n, 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 1 1 3 ( a ) & ( d) , a n d b r a n d i s h i n ga fi r e a r m d u r i n ga c r i me ofvi ol ence, 18 U
. S. C. § 9 24(c). H e was se ntenced to a to ta l of 14 ye ar s’ im p ris on m en t. On a ppea l, Le S ho r e ch al l en g es the admi ss i o n o fthe DVD o fthe i nterro g at i o n a nd a l i sto fb ai t m o ne y us ed attheN o. 07

- 1555 5 ban k; he also assert s tha t even i f t h e i n d ivi d ua l errors ar e ins uffi ci ent t o w ar ra nt a new tr i al, ther e i s cum ula

ti ve er ro r that does.

II L eSh ore at t a c k s the ad m issi on of the D V D of his interro ga tio n on tw o gr ou n d s: firs t, th at th e D V D w as u n fair ly pr ej udi ci ala nd i ns uffi ci en tl y pr o bati ve , war r an ting ex clusion un d er F ED . R. E V ID . 40 3, a nd s ec o nd, tha t he w as int ox ica te d d u rin g t h e in te rv iew , w h ich vit iat ed h is M i r anda c o ns e nta nd r e nd e r e d the s t a t e m ents h e ma de du ri ng quest i oni ng i nadm i ssibl e.

A
. Rule 403 Prej ud i ce Rul e 40 3 al l o ws the di st r i ct c o ur t to e xc l ude r el ev an t evi dence “i fi ts proba ti ve val ue i s s ub s t a nti a l l y o utw ei ghed b y th e d a n g e r o funf a i r p r ej u d i c e . . . . ” O r d i n a r i l y, we re vi ew a dist ri ct c ourt’s ev identi ar y r uling o nl y forabuse ofdi scr eti on; wh en i t co m es to the nece ssa ri l y c onte xtsensi ti ve eval uati on o fa cl ai m under Rul e 403 , “ w e gi ve spe c i a l d e f e r e n c e ” t o th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s fi n d i n g s an d r ev er se o nl y w he n “ no r ea so nabl e per so n c o ul d t ak e th e vi ew a d opted by the tr i alco urt[
. ] ” U nited Sta tes v. C a sh , 394 F.3d 560, 564 (7th Cir. 2005). LeS ho r e’ s po si ti o n i s co m pl i ca te d her e, howev er, b y the f act that thi s o bj ecti on was nev er rai sed attr i al, wh i ch m eans he m ust show p l ai n er ro r. (The Governm ent a rgues th atLe S ho r e di d no t m er ely f o r fei t th i s ar gu m en t but6 N o. 07

- 1555 affir m at ive ly w aiv ed it. W aiv e r w ou ld ex tin gu ish ap p ell ate r evi ew al tog ether

. S ee U nited Sta tes v. M urry , 3 95 F
. 3 d 7 1 2 , 7 1 7(7t h Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. No s uc h wa i v e r o c c ur r e d, ho wev er . I fthe pr et r i alr ul i ngi s d efi ni ti ve , a s th i s o ne w as, no tr i al obj ecti on i s necess ar y to prese rv e the obj ecti on for re vi ew . S ee Wi l s o n v . Wi l l i a ms , 18 2 F
. 3d 562, 56 6 ( 7th C ir. 1 999)
. ) “Bef or e we m ay cor re ct a n er ro r not ra i sed attr i al, we m ust fi nd ( 1) th at ther e i s e rr or, ( 2) that i t is p l ai n, and (3) that i t a ffects subst anti alr i ghts.

. . . Once these thr ee condi ti ons h ave been m et, we m ay exer ci se ou r d iscr eti on t o cor re ct the er ro r i fi t s er i ousl y a ffects the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, o r pu bl i c r eputati on o fj ud i ci al proce edi ngs. ” U nited Sta tes v. Ja m es , 464 F. 3d 699, 70 9 ( 7th Cir
. 20 06) ( ci tat i on o m i tte d); se e g ener al l y U nited Sta tes v. O l ano, 507 U
. S. 725 (1993). I t i s he r e th atwe m us t g i ve s om e force bo tht o the abuse ofdi scr eti on s tandard o fr evi ew that w oul d have appl i ed had L eS ho r e m ade a pr o pero bj ec ti o n a nd t o the pla i n er ro r sta nd ar d that a pp l ies t o fo rfei ted ar gum ents. Bec au se Le S ho r e ne ve r obj ec te d attr i alon th e g r o unds he i s no w pre senting, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not hav e a ch a nc e to exerc ise i ts d iscretion at all

. Le Shore th erefore m ust per su ade us that i t would have bee n an ab use o f d isc re tio n for t h e d ist ric t c o u r t to h av e rej ec te d h is p os iti on

— i nd e e d, s uc h a s e r i o us ab us e o fdi s c r e t i o n tha t th e pl ain e r r o r st an d ar d i s sa ti sfi ed. Gi ve n the sp ecial d eferenc e pa id to a d istri ct cou rt’s assessm en t of a Rul e 4 0 3 a r g u me n t, th i s i s a n e x t r e me l y d i ffi c u l ts ho wi ng to m a ke . L eS h or e m u st es se n tia lly sh ow th at th e e vidence w as so obvi ousl y a nd eg re gi ou sly prej ud i ci althat the t ri alco urt shoul d have ex cl ude d i t ev enwithout a nyN o. 07

- 1555 7

re quest fro m the defe nse, and thatno re aso nabl e per son coul d argue f ori ts adm i ssibi l i ty. LeS ho r e’ s ar g um en ts do no t pas s th i s hi g h b ar . On th e i ss ue o fthe DVD’ s pr o ba ti ve ne ss , LeS ho r e a r g ue s tha t th e vi de o c o nt a i ne d no i nc ul pa t o r y s t a t e men t tha t c o ul d be used f or i m peachm ent, because he did not tes ti fy at tr ial. The Gov ernm en t po i nt s o ut, ho wev er, tha t th e DVD l i n k e d L e S h o r e t o s o me o fth e e v i d e n c e fr o m th e c r i me sc en es , i t c or ro b or at ed se ve ra l w itn es s a c c ou n ts , an d it est abl i shed LeSh or e’ s co nsci ousness o fhi s o w n gui l t. These a re al l r eas onabl e s ugges ti ons. LeSho re adm its o n the v i deo tha t he i s l eft- hand ed, wh i ch m atches the descr i ption o fthe gunm an pro vi ded by ey ew i tness a c c o u nt s an d s h o wni n th e v i d e o s u r v e i l l a n c e fi l ms fro m th e b an k. L e S h or e a d m its on th e v id eo th at Jea n n ie Col o n i s hi s fi an cé e, a nd tha t adm iss i o n l i nk s hi m t o the van in the s ur ve i l l an ce v i deo

. I n the i nt er vi ew Le S hore st at ed th atthe v anwas pa r k ed i n fr o nt of hi s apa r tment r i g htb efore the r o bb er y ; thi s co nc es si o n wea k en s th e i nfer en ce tha t an o th erpe r so n s to l e it an d us ed i t i n the r o bb er y . The v i deo int er vi ew c o r r o bo r at es the t es ti m o ny o fa n ey ewi tn es s, Gr ee n’ s ne i g hb o r, who s aw Le S ho r e put a ba go n the c o r ne r o fGr ee n’ s ba ckpo r ch. Finall y, i n the i nter l ud e be f or e the i nt er vi ew beg an LeSho re check ed hi mse l f o v e r, whi c h the Go v e r nme nt c l a i ms s ho w s a consci ousness o fgui l t in l i ght o fthe explo ding dye p ac k. H e a lso ca re fu lly c h an ge d h is s to ry to p lac e h im se lf athi s o wn apa r tmentwhenthe r o bb er y t o o kpl ac e. ( The di st r ict co ur t f o und tha t th i s st o r y ha d c ha ng ed bythe tim e o f th e s u p p re ss ion h ea rin g.)8 N o. 07

- 1555 L eSh ore argue s tha t the DV D de p icts him i n th e po stu re o f so m eo ne who ha s al r ea dy be ende emed gui l ty, a nd thus i t was t o o pr ej ud ici alt o us e. ( Inde ed, S pec i alAge nt Loran m enti oned thattheyapproached thi s inter ro gat i on wi thL e S h o r e’ s pr es um pti ve g ui l t i n mi nd

— h ar d ly surpri sin g i n its elf, giv en th e fa c t t h at th e p olic e h ad p ro b ab le cause to ar re st hi m . ) The r ealpro b lem h ere i s no t that the pol i ce a pp ro ached their s uspect a s i fhe m i ght b e gu il ty; it i s tha t d uring the c ou rse of d escribing th e interro gat i on, the offi cerm i ght put i m perm i ssibl e hea rs ay evi dence befor e the j ury. The Governm ent points t o othe r case s a l l owing m ug sho ts and evid en ce o fpri or cri m i nal i ty to be adm i tte d, but al l of the e vi dence i n thes e oth er cases prov ided cruc ial links in the Go vern m en t’s c as e, su c h as id en tific at io n o ft h e d efe n d an t. Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. R o drig uez , 925 F.2d 1 049, 1054-55 (7th Cir. 1991 ) ( up hold in g adm i ssi on o fm ug sho t that pr ovi ded p os itiv e id en tific at ion ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ri ch a rds on , 56 2 F. 2d 476, 47 8- 79 ( 7th Ci r. 19 77) ( affi rm i ng adm i ssi on o f photog ra ph and fi nger pri nt car d because theyi denti fi ed d efe n d an t). T o t h e e x te n t t h e e vid en c e fro m th e D V D in thi s ca se is pro bati ve, i t i s pri m ar i l y a s co rr obo ra ti ve m at er ial. E ve n if L eS h or e is co rre c t t h a t t h e D V D d id n otco n ta in es se n tia l ev id en c e, h ow ev er , i t is far fro m u n re as on ab le t o thinktha ti ti s p r o b a t i ve

— a n d c er ta in ly n otso p lain ly unreas onabl e that the di str i c t c ou rtsho uld have bar re d the e vi dence ev en witho ut a m oti on. That i s e nough, under the s tandard o fr evi ew thatgo ver ns her e. Thi s i s no t a sit u at ion in w h ich th e d ist ric t co u rtn ec es sa rily w ou ld ha ve abus ed i ts di sc r et i o n i n a dm i tti ngthe e vi den ce , a ndN o. 07

- 1555 9 th us Le S ho r e’ s ar g um en t fai ls on the fi r sts te p o fthe pla i n er ro r anal ysi s.

B. I nt o xi c a t i o n a nd M i r anda Con se nt LeS ho r e al so a r g ue s th athe was i nt o xi ca te d du ri ngthe in te rv iew re c o r d e d on th e D V D , an d th at h e w as th u s in no co nd i ti on t o provi d e a know i ng waiv ero fhi s M i r anda r i g ht s. ( Once a g ain, the Go ve r nm en t ur g es us t o fi nd w ai ver, but w e a re satis fi ed that LeShor e di d not a ffi rm ati vel y gi ve up thi s poi nt. ) The ult i m ate question w h ether a co nfes si on w as v o l unt ar y i s o ne o fl aw, a nd thus o ur re vi ew of that i ssue i s deno vo. M i l l e rv. Fe nt on, 474 U.S
. 10 4, 110 ( 1985 )
. W e e xam i ne the to tal i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces to as se ss “w h et h er th e d efe n d an t’s w ill w as ov e r b o rn e,” U nite d S t at e s v. Hoc ki ng, 860 F.2d 769 , 774 (7th C ir. 1988), an d w e review f actu al dete rm inations f or clear error. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Haddon , 927 F.2d 942 , 945 (7th Cir. 1991). “[W ]h en th e in te rro ga tin g off ice rs rea so n ab ly sh ou ld have know n that a suspect i s under the infl uence o f drugs o r al cohol, a l ess erquantum o f c oe rc i on m ay be su ffi ci en t to c al l i nt o que st i o n the v o l unt ar i ne ss o fthe confess i on. ” Id. at94 6. I n additi on, a va l i d w ai vero f M i r anda r i g hts i s ne ce ss ar y b efo r e a cus to di als ta te m en t m ay be ad m itt ed

. M i r anda v. Ar izona, 38 4 U.S
. 43 6, 47 6 (19 66 ). A va lid w aiv er m u st b e m ad e kn ow in gly , i n t ellige n tly , an d vo lu n t a rily. Id. at44 4. A va lid w aiv er is n ec es sa ry bu t n otsu fficie n t fo r a v olu n ta ry st at em en t: a st at ementmay st i l l b e f o und i nv o l unt ar y unde r the tot al i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces eve n though the wai verwas va lid

. B a ski n v . Cla rk, 956 F.2d 142 , 145 (7th C ir. 1992).10 N o. 07

- 1555 LeShor e r uns i nto probl em s at the thres hol d: the di str i ct cour t speci fi cal l y f ound that “[ LeShor e] w as n ot u n der th e infl ue nc e of an y d rugs affectin g his cap acity to un d erst an d w h at w as goin g on or to int e l l i ge n tly as se ss h is si tu at i o n. ” Thi s was a s i m pl e cr edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n. LeShor e s ai d that he had sm oke d 2. 5 g ra m s o fcr ack bef or e going to Green’ s and had anothe r 1. 5 g ra m s w i th Green. Gree n a dm i tte d that s he had tak en a hi t but not en o u gh to clo u d h er th in kin g. Sp ec ial A ge n t L or an te st if i e d tha t no thing he s a w a l e r t e d hi m t o a pr e s e nt s t a te of i n t o x i c a t i o n dur i n gth e i n t e r v i e w. L o r a n w a s n o ti mp e a c h e d a ttr i a l, a n d L e S h o r e o ffe r s n o r e a s o n wh y we shoul d secon d -gu ess the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o cre ditA gent Loran’ s t est i m on y. The di str i ct c ourtwas ne gatively i m p ressed by L eSh ore beca us e his story ch an g ed be twe enth e in te r vi ew a nd hi s te st i m o ny a t th e sup p re ssi on hea ri ng, and he had twice bee n convi cted o f f al se i nfo rm i ng. I fLe Sh or e was notunder anyi nfl uence th at w ou ld d im inish his cap acity, th en there is no circum sta nce that would l ead us t o ques tio n t he va l i dity ofhi s M i r anda wai ve r, e ve n o n deno vo r e v i e w.

III The s ec o nd pi ece ofe vi den ce Le S ho r e que st i o ns i s th e li st of bait m one y tha t w as introd uc ed at t r ia l. Th e term “ba it m one y” refers to a p acke t o f bill s t he serialnu m bers ofwh i ch a ban k pre- re cor ds. The bankdoes notci rcul ate th e b ait m on ey ; th e o n ly w ay it lea ve s t h e b a n k is if it is sto l en. Thus, i fa bi l l f ro m a bai t m oney l i st turns up , i t was m ostl i ke ly sto l en atso m e poi nt. A bai t m oneyl i st i s aN o. 07

- 1555 11

w ri ti ng o ff er ed to pro ve the t ruth o fthe m att eras serte d

— that the m oney i n evi dence w as part of a ba it m on ey p ac k. T h is is cla ss ic in ad m iss ible h ea rs ay , F ED . R. E V ID . 8 01 , unl es s i t ca n b e sh ow n to f al l i nt o o ne o fthe en um er at ed ex ce pti o ns r ec o g ni ze d i n F ED . R. E V ID . 8 0 3
. We re view the di str i ct c ourt ’ s inter preta ti on o fthe Feder al Rules o fEvi dence deno vo , A m erica n A uto m o tiv e A ccesso ries v. Fis hm an , 1 7 5 F
. 3 d 5 3 4 , 5 4 0 , n. 1 ( 7t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) , b u twe re vi ew deci si ons to ad m it o r excl ud e e vi dence f orabuse of d isc re tio n, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob b i ns , 19 7 F
. 3d 829, 83 7 ( 7th Cir
. 19 99). The Governm ent r el i ed on the busi ness re cord s ex c epti on t o the he ar sayr ule , se e F ED . R. E V ID . 80 3( 6) , t o s uppo r t adm i ss i o n o fthe b ai t m o ne y l i st
. The di st r i ctc o ur t ac ce pte d tha t ar g um en t an d l etthe l i sti n, an d Le Shore n ow asserts th at th is w as error. A docum ent f al l s w i thi n the busi ness re cor ds excepti on i f“1 ) the acts r eco rded the re in w er e r epor ted bya perso n wi thkno wl edg e, 2 ) i t was the r egul arpr ac ti ce ofthe [ busin es s] a s a r egul ar l y c onducted busi ness acti vi ty to re cor d s uch acts , 3) the acts w er e re cor ded at or near th e tim e of th e ir o ccu rrenc e, an d 4) th e d ocu m en ts are proper l y a uthenti cate d unles s the so urce ofinf or m ati on o r the m etho d orci rc u m sta nces ofpre parat i on i nd i cate l ack oftr ustw or thi ness. ” Wh e e l e rv . S i ms , 95 1 F
. 2d 796, 80 2 ( 7th Cir
. 1 99 2) ( ci tat i ons and quotati ons om i tte d). The per son w ho t est i fi es to the busi ness re cor d m ust be the custo dian ofthe docum ents, the perso n w ho co m pil ed t hem , o r “h av e k no wl edg e o fthe pr o ce dur e unde r whi chthe re cor ds w er e cr eat ed, ” U nited Sta tes v. Wa bles , 73 1 F
. 2d 440, 449 (7th C ir. 1998).12 N o. 07

- 1555 LeShor e’ s chal l enge to the b ait m oneyl i st i s that e ven th o ug h the ba nkr egul ar l y k eptthi s r ec o r d, i t was i r r egul ar l y c om pil ed ( i n thi s ca se, r em ade) : a new l i st w as m ad e o n ly a fte r th e t h eft (or l o s s ) o f an ex ist in g b ait m one y pa cket

. By i ts very na tu re, therefore, L eSh ore a r g ue s , a b a i tmo ne y l i s tc a nn o tb e r e g ul a r l y c o mpi l e d. Com p i l ati ons ar e g ener ate d onl y when a r obbe r get s aw ay w i th the ol d pack et. LeShor e al so chal l enges wh ether M el i nda Bo wm ar, a b an ke m pl o y ee who testi fi ed ab o ut the b usi ness re cor ds, had suffi ci en t p ersonalkno w l edge to be a cr edibl e witness. T h is a rg u m en t o ve rs ta te s t h e s p irit o fb o th th e ru le an d t h e e x c ep tio n . Th e c h ief c on c er n w ith h ea rs ay ev idence i s that i t l acks suffi ci ent ind i ci a o f r el i abi l i ty. Even th o ug h the b an kdi d no t co m pi l e i ts b ai t m o ne y l i str egularl y, it veri fi ed the l ist three tim es p er year. T he A d visory Comm i tt ee i ndi ca te d tha t r egul arve r i fi ca ti o n i s o ne o fthe i ndi ci a o fr el i ab i l i tytha t g av e bus i ne ss r ec o r ds th e st atus ofa f re est anding ex c epti on i n the fi rs t pl ace. S ee F ED . R. E V ID . 80 3, 19 72 A d vis or y C m te
. N ot es , pa ra . 6. In d ee d , all oft h e f acto rs sugg est ed by the Ad vi sor y Com m i tte e a s c en tr al t o t h e j u st ifica tio n for t h e e x c ep tio n are m et in thi s ca se: sy ste m ati c che cki ng, r egul ar i ty and conti nuity ( gi vi ng r i se to preci si on) , actualrelia n c e bythe busi ness, and com pil ati on a nd ver i fi cati on byso m eone wh ose duty it is t o d o s o. Id. I n thi s ca se, M el i nd a Bowm ar, a bank em plo yee , te sti fi ed that she had per sonal knowle dge o fhow the l i st w as m ade, eve n though she did notput i t t oge therher sel f

. I t was her j o b to mai nt ain a nd v erify t he b ai t m o ne y l i st, a nd s heN o. 07

- 1555 13

e x p l a i n e d th e p r o c e d u r e f o r c r e a t i n gt h e l i s ti n d e t a i l, d o wn to i den ti fy i ngho w the b an kt r ac k ed th e m o ne y i n di ffer en t tell ers’ draw ers. H er p e rson al know ledge m akes h er a “q u alifie d w itn es s” w ith in th e con te m p lat ion o fR u le 80 3( 6) , a nd s he s ubs ta nt i at ed th e tr us two r th i ness ofthe ba i t m o ne y l i st by demons tr at i ngho w the b us i ne ss r egul ar l y v er i fi ed all o fthe s er i alnumbe r s an d r el i ed o n the l i st
. I n d e e d , th e l i s t i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e wa s t he very on e use d to i d en tify som e of th e m one y L eSh ore was c au g htwi th

. W e fin d no l ega l er ro r i n the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s inter preta
ti o n o fRul e 80 3 o r th e bus i ne ss r ec o r ds ex ce pti o n, a nd no abuse ofi ts disc re ti on t o adm i t the ev i dence. ( W e nee d not disc uss LeS hore’ s chal l enge to the know l edge o f anothe r w i tness , A nn Denn i s, as the dist ri ct c ourtdid not re ly on h er .)

IV Last, LeSho re ar gues th at t he cum ula ti ve er ro r ofthes e rul i ng s i nfe c t e d h i s t r i a l i n a wa y tha tn o s i ng l e e r r o r di d. “The cum ula ti ve effect anal ysi s r equi re s a peti ti onerto e s t a b l i s h t wo e l e me n t s : ( 1 ) a tl e a s tt wo e r r o r s w e r e c o mm itted i n th e cou rse of th e trial ; ( 2 ) con side red togeth er, al ong w i th the enti re r eco rd, the m ult i ple er ro rs so i nfec te d the j ur y ’ s del ibe r at i o n th at th eyde ni ed th e peti ti onera fund am ental l y fa i r tr i al

. ” Alva r ez v. Boyd, 22 5 F.3d 820 , 824 (7th C ir. 2000). W e ca n rej ect thi s a rgum ent qui ckl y, bec ause w e hav e f o u n d n o e r r o r t o b e g i n wi th

. L e S h o r e c a n n o t s h o w,14 N o. 07

- 1555 further m or e, wh y the di str i ct c ourt’s rul i ngs m i ght ha ve aff ecte d the o utcom e o fthe tr i al

. The DVD co rr ob or ate s the Gove rnm en t’s case , but i t was nota centr alpi ece of evi dence. H ad i t be en excl ud ed, the case would al m ost c er ta in ly h av e c om e o u t t h e s am e w ay . L ike w ise , t h e b ait m one y lis t conn ects the cu rrenc y w ith w hich Le Shore was c au g htwi ththe mone y s to l enfrom the b an k

. Butthe j ury w as probabl y e ven m ore i m press ed by the pr ese nce ofr ed dye o n hi s cl othe s a nd hands and the s urve i l l ance vi deo. A ny error in adm i tti ng the ev i dence on w hi ch LeShor e has f ocuse d i n hi s a pp ealwas harm l ess . * * * The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

9- 11- 08