# 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- 11 58

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

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.

Lui s Arc in ie ga Jas so , als o k no wn as Hect or Orti z,

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: Sep te m

be r 21 , 20 12

Fil ed : Dec em

be r 10 , 20 12

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , SMITH an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic t e d Lui s Arci ni eg a Ja ss o of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e

m et ha m ph et am in e an d po ss es si on of m et ha m ph et am in e wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te , i n

v i o la ti on of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1 an d 84 6. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m t o 1 8 8 1

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri c t J u dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t on each ch arg e, wit h th e se nt en ces to ru n co nc ur ren tl y

. Ja ss o

ap pe al s t he co nv ic ti on s, ch al le ng in g t wo o f th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s.

A gr an d jury ch arg ed Ja ss o an d twel ve ot he rs wit h co ns pi rin g wit h each ot he r

an d ot he r pe rs on s to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e fro m in or be fo re Apr il 20 09

th ro ug h on or ab ou t Octo be r 5, 20 10

. Th e i n d ic tm en t al so ch arg ed Ja ss o wit h

po ss es si ng m et ha m

ph et am in e wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e on A p r i l 24

, 20 09

. The

su bs ta nt iv e co un t was ba se d on a se iz ur e of dr ug s fro m a ve hi cl e in whi ch Ja ss o was

a p as se ng er.

At tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d te st im on y of Jo hn W at ki ns

, who co op erat ed

in th e fed eral in ve st ig at io n of Ja ss o aft er po l i ce arre st ed W at ki ns fo r po ss es si on of

m et ha m ph et am in e. W at ki ns te st if i ed th at Ja ss o ga ve hi m m on ey an d dr ug s as

co m pe ns at io n fo r dr iv in g ot he rs who de li ve red m et ha m ph et am in e. Pri or to tri al

, th e

go ve rn m en t m ov ed to ex cl ud e e vi de nc e of two fel on y co nv ic ti on s th at W at ki ns

su st ai ne d in th e 19 70 s. Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 60 9 ( a ) p l a c e s a li m it on th e

ad m is si bi li ty o f co nv ic ti on s whe re m or e th an te n y ears ha ve el a p s ed si nc e th e la te r

of th e wit ne ss ’s con vi ct io n o r rel eas e fro m co nf in em en t fr om

it

.

Ja ss o ur ge d th at de sp it e th e ti m e el ap se d be twee n th e 19 70 s an d th e tri al in

20 10

, ev id en ce of W at ki ns ’s ol d c on vi ct io ns sh ou ld be ad m it te d, be cau se “ th ey

be co m e rel ev an t in an ob li qu e way .” His th eo ry was pr em is ed on th e fact th at du rin g

W at ki ns ’s co op erat io n in th e in ve st ig at io n of Ja ss o an d ot he rs

, W at ki ns was ch arg ed

in st at e co ur t wit h fai li ng to reg is te r as a se x of fen de r an d fo r un la wfu l po ss es si on of

a fir earm as a fel on

. Ja ss o arg ue d th at th e co nv ic ti on s fro m th e 19 70 s m ad e W at ki ns

el ig ib le fo r pu ni sh m en t as a ha bi tu al of fen de r un de r Ark an sa s la w, su ch th at a pr is on

te rm wou ld be m an da to ry

. Non et he le ss

, he m ai nt ai ne d, th e St at e de cl in ed to pu rs ue

th at en ha nc ed pu ni sh m en t, su pp os ed ly in co ns id erat io n fo r W at ki ns ’s wor k on dr ug

cas es fo r th e d r u g t a s k f o rce. Ja ss o so ug ht to pr es en t ev id en ce of th e pr io r

co nv ic ti on s an d th e al le ge d fav or ab le tre at men t b y t he St at e in or de r to arg ue th at

-2

-W at ki ns was b ia se d i n fa vo r of th e fed eral pr os ecu ti on in Ja ss o’s case . The d is tri ct

co ur t gr an te d th e go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n to e x c l u de th e ev id en ce wit ho ut a de ta il ed

ex pl an at io n.

In pr of fere d te st im on y ou ts id e th e pr es en ce of th e jury, W at ki ns ad m it te d th at

he su st ai ne d th e two co nv ic ti on s in th e 19 70 s fo r as sa ul t an d th eft

. W at ki ns te st ifi ed

,

ho wev er, th a t h e was un aware th at hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on s m ad e hi m su bjec t to

pr os ecu ti on as a ha bi tu al of fen de r in Ark an sa s or th at a ha bi tu al of fen de r is in el ig ib le

fo r a se nt en ce of pr ob at io n. He ack no wled ge d a de si re to ge t ou t of jail aft er he was

arre st ed on th e st at e ch arg es

, bu t sa id th at he di d no t co nt act th e Uni te d St at es

Att or ne y ’s Offic e fo r as si st an ce an d d id no t as k h is att or ne y to do so

.

Ja ss o arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s refu sa l to al lo w hi s pr o p o s e d cro ss

ex am in at io n ab ou t th e pr io r co nv ic ti on s an d fav or ab le tre at m en t by st at e pr os ecu to rs

vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s un de r th e Co nf ro nt a t i o n Cl au se

. “ [E]xpo su re of a wit ne ss ’

m ot iv at io n in te st ifyin g,” of co ur s e

, “ is a pr op er an d im po rta nt fu nc ti on of th e

co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed rig ht of cro ss -exam ina tio n. ” D av is v. Ala sk a

, 41 5 U.S. 30 8,

31 6 (1 97 4)

. W he re th ere are fact s th at wou ld su pp or t a reas on ab le in fere nc e of bi as

th at rel at es to a wit ne ss ’s cred ib il it y , th e de fen da nt sh ou ld be pe rm it te d to m ak e an

effe ct iv e in qu iry in to t h a t bi as

. Se e id

. at 31 9. Bu t “ th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se

guar an te es an op

po rt un it y fo r effe ct iv e cro ss -ex am in at ion

, not cr oss -e xa m ina tio n tha t

is effe ct iv e in wha te ve r way

, an d to wha te ve r ex te nt

, th e de fen se m ig ht wis h.”

Dela wa re v. Fens te re r , 47 4 U.S. 1 5, 2 0 (1 98 5) (pe r cu ria m ).

Two as pe ct s of th is cas e le ad us to co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng di d

no t ru n afo ul of th e Si xt h Am en dm en t. Fi rs t, th e co nn ect io n be twee n Ja ss o’s

pr op os ed cro ss -ex am in at io n of W at ki ns an d an in fere nc e of bi as was hi gh ly

a t t e n u a t ed

. W at ki ns de ni ed kn owl ed ge th at he was su bjec t to pu ni sh m en t as a

ha bi tu al of

fen de r or th at he rece iv ed a be ne fit fr o m t h e St at e’s ch arg in g de ci si on s.

He al so te st ifi ed th at he so ug ht no as si st an ce fro m th e Uni te d St at es Att or ne y ’s Offi ce

-3

-in co nn ect io n wit h hi s pr os ecu ti on by st at e au th or it ie s. Ja ss o pr of fere d no ev id en ce

to co nt rad ic t th es e as se rti on s. To i n fer th at th e res ol ut io n of W at ki ns ’s ch arg es in

st at e co ur t res ul te d in bi as to ward th e fed eral pr os ecu to rs in Ja ss o’s cas e, a jury wou ld

ha ve to di sb el ie ve th e wit ne s s ’s de ni al th at he un de rs to od th e wor ki ng s of th e

Ark an sa s ha bi tu al o f

f e nd er pr ov is io n an d co nc lu de th at th ere was reas on fo r th e

wit ne ss to fav or th e fed eral pr os ecu ti on of Ja ss o be cau se of le ni en cy affo rd ed by st at e

pr os ecu to rs in W at ki ns ’s cas e. Cred ib il it y is a m at te r fo r th e jury, so th e jury co ul d

di sb el ie ve Wa tk in s. Eve n so

, th ere was no affi rm at iv e ev id en ce th at po te nt ia l

pu ni sh m en t as a ha bi tu al of fen de r was pa rt of W at ki ns ’s p le a ne go ti at io ns wit h th e

St at e or

, m or e im

po rta nt ly, th at th ere was an y co op erat io n be twee n st at e an d fed eral

au th or it ie s on ho w to ha nd le th e W at ki ns pr os ecu ti on in st at e co ur t. Wi t h o ut su ch

ev id en ce, it wou ld be a te nu ou s in fere nc e th at W at ki ns de si red to pl eas e fed eral

pr os ecu to rs as a res ul t of th e ch arg in g d e ci si on s m ad e by st at e pr os ecu to rs in an

un rel at ed cas e.

Seco nd

, Ja ss o ha d ot he r o p p o r t u n it ie s to de ve lo p ev id en ce of W at ki ns ’s

po te nt ia l bi as

. W at ki ns ad m it te d on cro ss -ex am in at io n th at he “ cu t a de al wit h th e

dr ug ta sk fo rce” th at th ey wou ld no t ch arg e hi m fo r po ss es si on of m et ha m ph et am in e

if he m ad e pu rch as es of dr ug s fro m Ja ss o. In W at ki ns ’s own wor ds

, “ I ro ll ed ov er to

sa ve m y bu tt .” W at ki ns ad m it te d th a t h e c o nt in ue d to us e m et ha m ph et am in e ev en

whi le he was as si st in g th e dr ug ta sk fo rce in an in ve st ig at io n of Ja ss o, bu t th at he was

no t ch arg ed wit h an y d r u g of fen se

. He al so ack no wled ge d th at he was pa id by th e

dr ug tas k fo rce in ex ch an ge fo r as si st an ce in th e in ve st ig at io n. Th is ev id en ce g av e

th e jury am

pl e reas on to in fer th at W at ki ns may ha ve be en bi as ed in fav or of la w

en fo rcem en t an d t he pro se cu ti on of J as so

.

A di st ric t cou rt m ay im

po se reas on ab le li m it s on cro ss -ex am in at io n ba se d on

co nc ern s ab ou t pr ejud ic e o r co nf us io n o f th e is su es

. Dela wa re v. Van Ars da ll , 4 75

U.S. 67 3, 67 8- 79 (1 98 6)

. Giv en th e at te nu at io n be twee n ev id en ce of W at ki ns ’s fo rtyy ear- ol d co nv ic ti on s an d an y po te nt ia l bi as

, it was reas on ab le fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to

-4

-co nc lu de th at ad m is si on of th e ev id en ce wou ld be un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l or co nf us in g.

Asi de fro m Ja ss o’s “ ob li qu e” th eo ry of rel ev an ce, ad m is si bi li ty of a pr io r co nv ic ti on

is go ve rn ed by Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 60 9, un de r whi ch “ co nv ic ti on s ov er 10 y ears

ol d wil l be ad m it te d ve ry rare ly an d on ly in ex cep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces .” Fed

. R.

Evi d. 60 9 ad vi so ry c om m it te e’s no te on 19 74 am en dm en ts

. W at ki ns al read y was

im pe ach ed wit h ev id en ce of hi s m or e rece nt fel on y co nv ic ti on s, so th ere was no

ex cep ti on al ne ed fo r th e us e of ol de r co nv ic ti on s to qu es ti on hi s cred ib il it y

. Se e

Uni te d St at es v. Si ng er

, 66 0 F.2 d 12 95

, 13 01 (8 th Ci r. 19 81 ). The cro ss -ex am in at io n

th at w as al lo wed

, m or eo ve r, ga ve Ja ss o ot he r m ean s “ to ob ta in th e effe ct th at th e

ex cl ud ed ex am in at io n wou ld ha ve al le ge dl y es ta bl is he d.” Uni te d St at es v. W ar fi el d

,

97 F.3 d 10 14

, 10 24 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). W e th us co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng

di d n ot vi ol at e Ja ss o’s ri gh ts un de r th e Co nf ro nt at io n C la us e.

The se co nd ev id en ti ary di sp ut e co nc erns te sti m ony by an FBI ag en t co nc ern in g

Ja ss o ’s b r o th er, Bex ab et Ja ss o. The ag en t te st ifi ed th at sh e co nd uc te d an

in ve st ig at io n in San Dieg o in 20 04 th at in vo lv ed wire ta ps on te le ph on es us ed by Ju an

Ja ss o Arci ni eg a. Sh e ex pl ai ne d th at ev id en ce in th e in ve st ig at io n sh owe d th at Ju an

,

Bex ab et , and th e ap pe ll an t h ere, Lui s, were b ro th ers . The g ov ern m en t al so eli ci te d

t e s t i mo n y fro m th e ag en t th at Bex ab et an d Ju an were in di ct ed in Cal ifo rn ia i n

Sep te m be r 20 04 , and th at Bex ab et was a rres te d i n Kan sa s C it y in Feb ru ary 20 10

.

J a s s o as se rts th at th e ev id en ce of Bex ab et ’s in di ct m en t an d arre st was

irr el ev an t, an d th at it se rv ed o n l y t o im pl ic at e hi m th ro ug h “ gu il t by as so ci at io n.”

The go ve rn m en t arg ue d at tri al th at th e ev id en ce was rel ev a n t

, be cau se “ th is is a

fam il y or ga ni zat io n,” an d th at Bex ab et ’s arre st in 20 10 ex pl ai ne d why hi s si st er to ok

ov er ru nn i ng th e dr ug tra ffi ck in g bu si ne ss at th at ti m e. Ano th er wit ne ss

, Osv al do

Dur an San do va l, te st ifi ed th at he rece iv ed m et ha m ph et am i n e f

ro m Bex ab et fo r

red is tri bu ti on

, th at Be x a b e t a t so m e po in t was “ cau gh t,” an d th at San do va l th en in

Feb ru ary 20 10 be ga n to rece iv e m et ha m ph e t a mine fro m Jo rg e Med in a, who was

m arri ed to Lis be th Ja ss o. The g o v e r n men t as se rts th at Lis be th is Ja ss o’s si st er,

-5

-al th ou gh th e e v i d e n c e a pp ears to es ta bl is h on ly th at “ sh e m ig ht be a rel at iv e” of

Bex ab et Jas so . T. T r. 14 5.

A l th ou gh th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of Bex ab et ’s arre st in Feb ru ary 20 10 ap pe a r s

m in im al

, it was no t an ab us e of di sc ret io n fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to al lo w it

. Ja ss o was

arre st e d i n A p r il 20 09

, bu t th e in di ct m en t ch arg ed th at he was pa rt of a co ns pi racy

th at ex te nd ed th ro ug h Octo be r 20 10

. The di sp ut ed ev id en ce was rel ev an t to ex pl ai n

ho w th e co ns pi racy ev ol ve d du rin g th e ch arg ed ti m e fram e, as Ja ss o was arre st ed in

20 09 an d th en B e x a be t was arre st ed an d rep la ced by Med in a as a su pp li er of

m et ha m ph et am in e in Feb ru ary 20 10

. Th e F BI ag en t’s te st im on y ab ou t Bex ab et ’s

arre st

, m or eo ve r, was es se nt ia ll y cu m ul at iv e of San do va l’s st at em en t— rece iv ed

wit ho ut ob

jecti on —t ha t Bex ab et was “ cau gh t” in Feb ru ary 20 10

. Any ris k of un fai r

pr ejud ic e fro m

th e ag en t’s t es ti m on y

was t he refo re m in im al

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-6

-