## 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. 10

- 2334 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M ICHAEL L EE M OK OL, J R ., D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on. No . 2:08- CR-97

— Jo sep h S . V an Bo kkel en, Judge

.
A RG UE D M AR CH 31, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UNE 22, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, P O SNER an d M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges . C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e . Ap pel l ant M i chaelLee M oko l, J r . , a ppea l s fr o m hi s co nv i ction fo r t wo c o unt s o fb eing a fel on in posse ssi on o fa fi re ar m . H e r ai ses fo u r tr i al proce du re i ssues , thr ee o fwh i ch pert ai n to ev i dence and one o fwh i ch pert ai ns to j ury i nstr ucti ons. W e do not cred it M okol’ s argu m en ts, an d accord ing ly w e affirm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

### 2 N o. 10

- 2334 I

. Ba ck g r o und M i ch ael M okolwas c ha r g ed wi thf o urc o unt s o fb eing a fe l o n i n po s s e s s i o n o fa fi r e ar m inv i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S

. C. § 9 22( g) ( 1) , i n connect i on with two r esi denti alburg l ar i es i n e a r l y Ma y o f2 00 8
. He wa s a c q u i t t e d o fth e t wo ch ar g es s te m m i ngfr o m the fi r stb urglary

. He was c o nvi ct ed o fpo ss es singthe g un s tolen i n the s ec o nd b u r g l a r y, a n d o fp o s s e s s i n g a ma g a z i n e c o n t a i n i n ga mmuni t i o n tha twa s i n hi s c a r wh e n he wa s a r r e s t e d. On appeal, he r ai ses se ver ali ssues r elat ed to tr i alpro cedure. W e r e pr o du c e o nly tho s e f a c t s r e l e v a ntt o h i s a r g ume nt s on ap p ea l, as rela te d by th e w itn es se s a t t ria l. Lo ui s Bat i des t estifi ed th ati n Apr i lo f2 00 8 he se par at ed te m po r ar i l y fr o m hi s wi fe an d m oved t o the D elu x e In n in M er rillville , In d ian a. H e b r o u g h t w ith h im a si l ve r S m i th& W es so n 9m m mode l5 90 3 ha ndg un. W hi l e s tay i ng atthe D elu xe Inn, he c onver sed with a n unknow n pers on wh o knew M i chaelM oko l

. Bati des ha d a tt en ded M err i l l vi l l e H i g h S ch o o lwi thM o k o l, a nd th e u n kn ow n int er m ed iar y off er e d to p u t t h em ba c k in to uch

. W i th i n a f ew da y s, M o k o lc al l ed Bat i des a nd ar ra nged to vi si t hi m atthe Delux e Inn. W hen M oko l ar r i ve d, Ba ti des s ho wed hi m hi s si l ve r S m i th& W es son . M oko ll i ke d t he gun, and ask ed w hetherBati des w anted to se l li t. Bati des answered no. Bati des and M oko lar ra nged to m eeto verd rinks seve ra ldays l ate r, o n M ay 6. M oko lar ri ved atthe bar at11:3 0 i n the e ve ni nga nd c ha tt ed wi thBa ti des , b ut the n r e c e i v e d a ph o ne c a l l a nd l e ft ab r up t l y . W hen Bati des r etur ned to hi s ho telr oom , he di sco ver ed thatN o. 10

- 2334 

### 3 i t had be en bur gl ar i zed. The d oo r had been for ced open and the s i l ver S m i th & W ess on handgun w as m i ssing. Ba t i de s t r i e d t o r each Mo k o lt o t e l lh i m wha th a d h a ppe ne d wh i l e the y h a d b e e n o ut, b utMo k o ln eve r re turned these cal l s. Rober t F l avi n tes ti fi ed that in e ar l y M ay of20 08, Mo k o lc a me t o h i m w i th a p l a n t o s t e a l a g un fr o m a r o o m i n the De l uxe Inn. M o k o lpr o po se d tha t he w ou ld m ee t w ith th e ro om ’s o c c u p an t (w h om Fla vin d id not kn ow ) at a bar w hile Flavin an d an oth er b u r glar, Ryan Gear y, br oke i n to t he r oo m . Fl avi n tes ti fi ed that the three m en w ent to W al

- M ar t a nd purchase d a cr owbar in prep aration. Th at even ing, con sist en t w ith M okol’ s pla n, Fl avi n and Geary bro ke in to t h e roo m and sto l e a silv er gu n a n d a m ag az in e. Fla vin th en ca lled M ok ol. The y me ti n a Wal

- M a r tp a r k i ngl o t, wh e r e F l a v i n g a ve M o k o lthe g un. R y a n G ea ry , tw en ty ye ar s o ld atth e t im e o f h is t es timon y, tes t i fi e d tha th e wa s da t i ngMi c he l l e Ar no l d, M i ch ae lM o k o l ’ s daught er, a t th e ti m e o f th e r el ev an t even t s. A ccord ing to G eary, M okol prop osed that Ge ary he lp Flavin break into a room a t t he De lux e I nn . Ge ary agr ee d. Hi s te st i m o ny g en er al l y c o r r o bo r at ed F l av i n’s ac co unto fthe De l uxe Inn br ea k

- i n. A c ra c k c oc ain e u se r n am ed M ar c o O tt om an elli t e s t i fi e d t ha t i n e a r l y Ma y o f2 0 0 8 , Mo k o lg a v e h i m a “si l verspra y l i ke” 9- m illim ete r Sm i th & W ess on, wh i ch he tr aded fo r cra ck coca i ne thathe a nd M oko l u se d to
geth er. Detecti ve J effre y Snem i s tes ti fi ed that he was pres ent a t the s cene w hen fel l ow p olice o ffi cer s pul l ed M oko l ’ s ca r

### 4 N o. 10

- 2334

ove r i n m i d -M ay . M oko lwas dri vi ng with a wom an nam ed LoriM iller. A handgun m aga zi ne was l yi ng o n th e fl oorboard of M okol’ s car. The f or ego i ng te sti m ony encom passes the ess enti al fac ts u n d er lyin g M ok ol’s c on vic tio n of bein g a fel o n in posse ssion o fa fi re ar m , and none o fi t i s chal l enged o n appe al. M oko l ’ s a pp el l ate ar gum ents re l ate i nstea d to th e t es tim on y of h is th en -gir lfrien d L or i M iller a n d h is da ught e r Mi c he l l e Ar no l d. Lo r iMi l l e r t e s t i fi e d th a ta tth e t i me o fth e r e l ev an t eve nts s he was dati ng M oko land w as working as a dan ce r a t a st r i p c l ub ( sh e co ul d no t rem embe r the nam e o fthe cl ub). S he te sti fi ed t h at M oko lhad sev er al gu n s, an d th at M ok ol h ad h e r c a rry a silv er h an d gu n in he r pur se b ec au se he was not all o wed t o c ar r y i t. And ofpart i cul arr el evance to thi s a p p ea l, she sta ted that M o k o lt o l d he r tha t “ [i ]fa nybo dy te l l s o n [ m e, abo ut th e bur g l ar i es o r fi r ea r m s] , the y woul d e nd up i n the gr ou n d .” M i chel l e A rno l d, tw enty yea rs o l d at the ti m e o f h er t e s t i mo n y, t e s t i fi e d a s a G o v e r n me n twi tn e s s . T wo par ts o fhe r t es tim ony a r e co nt es te d o n a ppea l

. F i r st, s he tes ti fi ed to an in c id en t that o ccurr ed i n the parking l ot ofthe Ris i ng S un n u d e d anci ng cl ub, wh en Lor iM i l l er was wor k i ngi ns i de. M i ch el l e te st i fi ed that, w he n s he ar ri ved att h e R i si ng S un, her f ather“g ot i n the car an d pul l ed a g un , a nd s ai d, ‘ H o w m uchy o u g o t? ’ And Isaid, ‘ Just fifty.’ A nd he p ut [ th e g u n ] bac k. I t w asn ’t m ea n t t o b e a th re at or s c ar e, it w as a j ok e.” M ich elle sta ted thatthe gun M oko lused i n t h is prank w as bl ack an d sil ver.N o. 10

- 2334 

### 5 The j ury neverhear d the s eco nd si gni fi cant por ti on ofMi c he l l e Ar no l d’ s t e s t i mon y : b e c a us e o fo bj e c t i ons, the j ud ge excused t h e j ury and al l owed defense counsel to m ake a p roffer w hile he con side red the te s t im ony ’s adm i ssibi l i ty. A t that t i m e, M i chel l e t est i fi ed to an incid en t i n t he pa rking lot of the L ake C ou nt y j ail, w he re she had g one to vi si t herf atherafterhe was arres ted on th e pr ese nt char ges . S he te sti fi ed that w hen she re tu r ne d t o he r c arfr om th e ja i l, s he f o und s o m e co ca i ne in t he car ’ s inter i ordoorhandle

. I t o ccurr ed to herthat perhaps the pol i ce w er e s ett i ng herup to secur e her c oo p er at ion ag ain st h er fat h er . H er te st im on y w as , in re l evantpart : Defe nse Counsel : N ow

— a n d a tth a tt i me

— y o u s i ncer el y b el i eve d that l aw enfo rce m ent offi cer s m ay have pu t those drugs on y ou, co rr ect? M i chel l e: Idi dn ’ t s i ncer el y b el i eve . I t has cr oss ed m y m i nd , ye s. De fe ns e Co un s e l : Bu t yo u do b e l i e v e s o meb o dy pla nted thos e drugs o n yo u? M i chel l e: Ididn ’ t hav e drugs , so Ibel i eve d som ebod y pu t som eth ing in m y car. * * * Defe nse Counsel : Let m e ask you thi s. Do you have, o r at any point since y ou have b een cooper ating with the g ove rnm ent, have yo u had any fearthatyo u m i ght b e cha rg ed w i th so m ethi ng? M i chel l e: No.

### 6 N o. 10

- 2334 D e f en se C ou n se l: Y ou h av e n o fe ar th at you w ou ld b e c ha r g e d? M i chel l e: N o. D efe n se C ou n se l: N on e a t a ll? M ich elle : N on e a t a ll. A t the end of a length y proffer, t h e d is t rict court d eterm i ne d t o pr ec l ude de fen se c o uns el fr o m c r o ss - ex ami ni ng M ichel l e about thi s inci dent. The j ud ge sta ted thatit w as irre lev an t, an d th at in t h e a lte rn at i v e i t s h ou ld be e xcl ud ed und erFe deralRule o fEvi denc e 40 3 be cause i t would t end to confuse the j ury. F i n a l l y, wh e n c h a r g i n gth e j u r y, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti nst ru c t e d th e jur y, ov er M ok ol’s ob j ec tio n, w ith th is c o u r t ’ s p a t t e r n j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n wi th r e s p e c t to c o nstr ucti ve posse ssion ( ofthe gun and m aga zi ne)

. M oko l voi ced the concern that thi s instr ucti on would al l ow the j ury to i m proper l y c onvi ct M oko lo n the basi s o f the physi calposs ess i on o fthe gun by othe rs . A s no ted, the j ury re turned a gui l ty ver dictwith r espect to the pos ses si on o fBa tid es ’s gun and an am m unit i on ma g a z i n e . T h e j u d g e i mpo s e d a s e n t e n c e o f2 6 2 mo nt hs ofi ncarc er ati on fol l owed byfi ve yea rs o fsuperv i sed re lea se . M ok ol tim ely ap p ea led , an d p re se n ts th e fo ll o wi ngi ss ue s f o r o urc o ns i der at i o n: ( 1) W hether the dist ri ct cour t abused i ts d isc reti on in ad m itt in g bad acts test im ony throu gh Lori M il ler’ s te st im on y a s t o M ok ol’s st at e m e n t t h at h e w ou ld pu t a nyone w ho t ol d on hi m “in the gr ound”;N o. 10

- 2334 

### 7

The s e is s ues ha ve bee n s l i ght l y r ewor ded a nd r eo rde re d f or 1 c o n v e n i e n c e i n a n a l y z i n g th e m. (2) W h et h er th e d ist ric t c ou rtab u s e d its d isc re tio n in ad m itti ng b a d acts evid en ce involving M ichelle’ s te st i m o ny abo utthe g un “pran k ” i n the Ri singS un parking l ot; ( 3) W he th erthe di st r ict c o ur t o ffen ded M o k o l ’ s co nfro ntati on cl ause ri ghts i n re str i cti ng cr oss - exam i nati o n o fM i ch el l e; a nd ( 4) W hetherthe dist ri ct c ourtabuse d i ts d isc re ti on byi ns truct i ngthe j ur y a s to c o ns truct i ve po ss es si o n. 1

II. A n aly sis 1. W e firs t a d d re ss th e a d m iss ibilit y of L or i M iller’s te st im ony that M ok ol stated thatanyo ne wh o i nfo rm ed on h i m wo u l d “ e n d u p i n th e g r o u n d

. ” T h i s t e st i m o ny fits co m for ta b l y w ith inth e w id ely rec og n ize d p rin c ip le tha t a de fe nd a nt ’ s a t t e mpt s t o i nt i mi da t e po t e nt i a lwitnesse s a re pro bati ve ofh i s co nsci ousness o fgui l t. Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 624 F. 3d 815, 82 0- 21 (7t h C ir. 20 10 ); U nited Sta te s v. C a la brese, 57 2 F

. 3d 362, 36 8 (7 t h C ir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. M iller, 27 6 F

. 3d 370, 37 3 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); U ni t ed State s v. Bal zano , 91 6 F

. 2d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 8 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 0 )

. Ru l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , r e s t r i c t i ng ba d acts ev i dence, will or dinar i l y no t k eep such e vi dence fro m th e ju r y. See M iller, 276 F.3d at37 3-7 4; U nited Sta tes

### 8 N o. 10

- 2334

The Gover nm en tr ai s es an othe r re as on thi s t estim ony m i ght 2 ha v e b een p ro p erly ad m itted : b eca u se it ten d s to exp lain w hy, in herearl y d is cuss ions w ith law enf orcem ent, Lori M il le r relate d a d iffe ren t acco u nt o f the f acts tha t tend ed to excu lp ate M okol . H av ing he l d the fi rs tar gum en ts uffi c i en tan d the t es t i m on y pr ope rl y a dm i t t ed, we ne ed n otr ea c h the Gover nm en t’ s altern ativ e arg u m en t. v. D eAngelo , 13 F. 3d 1228, 1232 (8th C ir. 1994) (“[ A ]s d ire c t e vi dence ofthe cri m e char ged, the evi dence of thr e a t s i s no t e v e n Ru l e 4 0 4 ( b ) e v i de nc e . ” )

. M oko l at te m pts t o f ac tu al l y di st i ng ui shhi s c ase onthe g r o und tha t, unl i k e i n s o m e o fthe c ases cited, the th re at w as not m ade wh i l e M oko lwas i n custo dy. This i s unavai l i ng, bec ause thi s l i ne o f p re cedent has perm i tte d evi dence ofthr eat s m ade i n a var i etyo f fac tu al c on te x ts
. C o m pa re C a l a brese, 57 2 F

. 3d at 366- 67 ( o r g a n i z e d c r i me b o s s c a p t u r e d b y wi r e th r e a t e n i ng su sp ecte d i nform an t) with Unit e d S t at e s v. Zi e rke, 61 8 F. 3d 755, 75 8 ( 8th Ci r. 20 10) ( defe nd ant who had been in j ailf or over seven m ont hs enc ou raged son to ha rm w itness es) and U ni t e d Stat e s v. Young, 24 8 F

. 3d 260, 27 1- 72 ( 4th Ci r. 20 01) ( m u rd ersuspectwas convi cted f or re ckl ess endanger m ent a nd as saul t o n vi cti m ’ s m ot her w ho w as coop erating w ith au th oriti es). 2 Further, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts disc reti on i n tr eat i ng thi s e vi dence as m ore pr obat i ve than p rej ud ici al w ithin th e m ean ing of R ule 403. Th e cou rt en tertaine d a l e ng th y sideb ar i n ad van ce of M il ler’ s testim ony , and ultim ately cred ited th e G ove r n m en t’s ar gum ent that i t s how ed M oko l ’ s co nsci ousness o fN o. 10

- 2334 

### 9

M ic h el le A rn o ld t es tifi ed t h a t th e g u n w a s “ b la ck an d silv er .” 3 B a tid es te sti fie d th a t h is g u n w a s “ sil v er .” g ui l t. Thi s det er m i na ti o n was wel l wi th i n th e co ur t’ s co nsi der ab l e di sc r et i o n.

2. W e di sag re e with M ok ol that the di str i ct c ourter re d or ab u se d its di scr eti on by adm i tti ng M ich elle A rno l d’s tes ti m ony that M oko lhad j okingl y pointed a ha ndg un a t heri n the pa r k i ngl o t o fthe Ri sing S un s trip club

. Since th i s was unde r st o o d a nd a pp a r e nt l y i nt e nd e d a s a j o k e , i t i s no t c l e ar wh y i ts i mpo r tmus tbe s e r i o us l y a na l y z e d. Mi c he l l e ’ s de s c r i pti on o fthe gun M oko lbr andishe d w as si m i l ar( al though not i denti cal ) to the descri pti on o fthe gun sto l en 3 fro m Bati des’ s ho telr oo m o n the eve ni ng o fM ay 6, so i t s p o s s e s s i o n ma y s i mp l y b e e v i d e n c e o fth e c r i me charg ed. The defendant chal l enges thi s inter pr et atio n on the gr ound that M i chel l e s ai d the e vent occur re d i n l at e Apr i l, b e f o r e the May6 b ur g l a r y . Bu ts he al so te sti fi ed tha t Lo r iM i l l erwas i ns i de th e Ri singS un wor k i nga t th e ti m e o fthe i nc i den t

— and t h at could not have been the c ase i n l ate A p ril because Lor iM i l l erwas i n j ai lunt i lM ay8
. I fo ne c r edi ts M i ch el le’ s st at ement that Lori M illerwas i nsi de the Ris i ng S un w or ki ng, th enthe g un v ery w ell c oul d ha ve b ee n Ba ti des ’ s. The exi ste nce o fso m e uncer tainty a s t o the date o fev ents d oes nott r an sfo r m di r ec t ev i den ce o fg ui l t i nt o i m per -

### 10 N o. 10

- 2334

A cou rt’ s lim itation on a d efend an t’ s cross-exam ina tion is 4 re vi ewed f or an abus e of di s c re t i on, butwhethe r the l i m i t at i on offe nd s the c on f r on t a t i onc l a us e i s r e vi e we d de novo . S ee Un i te d S ta te s v . M a rt in , 61 8 F

. 3d 7 05 , 72 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10 )

. Expo s i ng w itness b ias d irec t l y i m p licates the Sixth A m en d m en t, an d is r e vi e we d de novo . Id. m i ssibl e “ pri orbad ac ts” testi m ony. Dis cre pancie s a s to dat e s o r di na r i l y g o t o the we i g ht o f t e s t i mon y, not i ts adm i ssibi l i ty, and the actualdate ofe ve nts i s a pro per m at te r for j u ry co n sid er at ion
. See U ni t e d S ta tes v. B yrd , 77 1 F .2d 21 5, 22 4 (7 th C ir. 19 85 ); U ni t ed State s v. Fl e m i ng, 504 F.2d 104 5, 1048 ( 7th Cir. 1974). Si nce M i chel l e’ s t est i m ony ar guabl y s er ved as di re ct evi dence ofM oko l ’ s pos ses si on o fthe gun sto l en from Ba tides , i t w as p r o b a t ive ofthe G overn m en t’s fel o n- i n- po ss es si o n c ase. In an y e ve nt, the Go ve r nm ent did not hi ghl i ght the si gni fi cance of th e inci dent, and M i chel l e her self dow nplay ed i t byte sti fyi ng tha t she was notsca re d . T here was ther ef or e no er ro r und er Rule 404(b) o r abuse ofdi scr eti on under Rul e 4 03.

3. We r e v i e w de n ovo the quest i on wh etherthe dist ri ct cour t i m proper l y r est ri cted M oko l ’ s cr oss - ex am i nati on ofM i chel l e Arnol d as t o her disc ove ryo fdrugs i n her car, and find no error. 4 Ex po s i ngb i a s i s a “ c o r e c o nc e r n” o fthe S i xth Am e nd

m en t con frontation clause. N everth eless, a d istri ct cou rtN o. 10

- 2334 

### 11

m ayr es tr i ctc r o ss - ex ami na ti o n into su chi ss ue s so l o ng as the defe nse s ti l lhas an adequate opportunity t o ex p lore th e w itn es s’ s m ot ive s a n d bia se s. Se eO l de n v . Ken t uc ky, 48 8 U .S. 22 7, 23 2 (19 88 ) (“[A ] tria l co u rtm ay . . . im p ose reason able li m its on d efense cou ns el’ s inqu iry i nto the pot en tia l bia s o fa pros ecuti on witness, to ta ke ac co unto fs uchf ac to r s as ‘har as sment, pr ej udi ce , c o nfusi on o fthe i ssues , t h e w i tness ’ sa fety, o r i nter ro gatio n th at [w ou ld be ] rep et itiv e o r on ly m ar gin ally re lev an t . .
. . ’”) (cit at ion om itt ed ); U nite d S ta tes v. M arti n , 28 7 F. 3d 609, 62 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( “ ‘ So l ong as c r o s s - e xa mi nati on e l i ci ts ade q uat ei nf or m at i on to a llo w a j ury to ass ess a w i tness ’ s cr edibi l i ty, m oti ves, o r possibl e bi as, th e S i xth Am en dm en t i s no t co m prom ise d. ’ ”) ( quo ting U nite d State s v. Scott, 145 F.3d 878 , 888 (7th C ir. 1998)). A l th ou gh t h e c ou rt fo re c los ed d efe n se co unsel fro m questi oni ng M i chel l e A rno l d about the i nci dent in w hi chs he f o un d d r ug s i n he r c a r a ft e r v i s i t i ngh e r f a the r in jai l, the cour t di d not g ener al l y pr eve nt M oko lfro m probing i nto possibl e pr o- Gover nm ent b i as, o r fear o fpr o se cut i o n, on M i ch el l e’ s pa r t. De fen se c o uns ele xt en si vel y c ro ss- exam i ned her. Counselel i ci ted te sti m ony, f orexam ple , that tended to sho w thatherf atherhad i nter fer ed w i th herr el ati onshi p w i th herfi ancé Rya n Geary, i ncl ud i ng by i ntro du ci ng hi m to drugs and si m ult aneousl y e ncoura gi ng herto l eav e him bec ause he was a d rug us er. Cou ns el al so eli cited testim ony abou t M ichelle’ s c oo p er at ion w ith th e G ov er n m en t in ad va n c e o f tria l. M or eov er, M oko l ’ s theor y o fM i chel l e Arnol d’s proGov e r nme nt b i a s wa s no t v e r y c o mpe l l i ng . Th i s i s no t a case wh er e the co urt f or ecl ose d a l i ne o fcr oss - exam i na-

### 12 N o. 10

- 2334

The di s t ri c tc our t ’ s pr oc edur e i n thi s r eg ar d was c onsi s t en t 5 w ith F ed

. R

. E v id . 1 03 (c) , w hich p ro v id es tha t “[i] n ju ry cases, p ro ceed ing s sha ll b e con d u cted

. . . so as to p rev en t inad m issible ev id en ce from b eing sug g ested to the jury b y an y m ean s, suc h a s m ak ing statem en ts or offers of pro of o r a sk i ng qu est i on s i n the h e a r i ngo fthe j ur y. ” Th e Adv i s or y Co m m i t tee N ot es fur the r c l ar i fy, “[ t ] he j udge c an f or ec l os e a pa rt i c ul ar l i ne oft es t i m on y . . . withouta s er i es ofque s t i ons be f or e the j ur y, des i gne d atb est t o was t e t i m e and a twors t‘ t o wafti nt o the j ury b ox’ the very m att er s oug ht t o be exc luded

. ” See, e . g. U ni t ed Sta t es v. Wi l so n , 6 0 5 F. 3 d 9 8 5 , 1 0 1 1

- 1 4 ( D. C. Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( up h o l d i n g a g a i n st a c o n fr o n t a t i o n a r g u m e n tth e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s dec i s i on to f or ec l os e a l i ne ofque s t i oni ng a ft ert es t i m ony o u tsi d e t h e ju ry ’s p re se n ce p ro v ed fru itl es s fo r t h e d efe n d a n t), cert
. den i ed , 1 3 1 S . C t. 8 4 1 (20 1 0 ); U n i te d S tat es v. D i schn er, 974 F .2d 15 0 2 , 15 1 4 (9t h C ir . 19 9 2 ) (sam e), ove rr ul ed on othergr ounds as st ated i n Loral In

f ared & Im aging Sy s. v. E R A Hel i cop te rs , N o s. 94 -5 5 8 2 1 & 95 -5 5 0 9 4 , 19 9 7 U .S. A p p . L E X IS 14 8 5 0 , at*2 n .2 (9 th C ir . Jun e 1 7, 19 9 7 ); seeal so U ni t ed Sta t es v. Ol dbea r, 568 F. 3d 81 4, 8 2 1 (10 th C ir. 20 09 ) (up ho ld ing ag ain st a d u e p ro cess chall enge the ex cl u sio n o f a defense w itness afterthe court ru le d h er te sti m o n y o u tsi d e t h e ju ry ’s p re se n ce irr el ev a n t). tion w ithou t know ing w he re i t w ou ld lead

. Th e cou rt g av e d e fe n s e c o u n s e lth e o p p o r tu n i t y t o p r o b e th e i s su e ou ts id e t h e jur y’s p re se n c e . A t t h at tim e, M ich elle 5 A rno l d test i fi ed both that she di d not a ctual l y b el i eve the pol i ce pl an te d drugs in hercar, and that she had no fearo fp ro se c u ti on. Giv en herexpre ss denia lo f M okol’ s hyp oth esis, M okol’ s insistenc e tha t M ich e lle’s tes ti m ony w oul d have e xposed bi as i s no t per suasive. C f. U nited Sta tes v. Sa un ders , 16 6 F

. 3d 907, 9 19 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)N o. 10

- 2334 

### 13

H aving so hel d, we d o not re ach the quest ion ofi ts rel evancy 6 und er Fed. R. Evid. 402. ( dist ri ct c ourtpro perl y r est ric ted the defendant fro m c r o s s - e xa mi ning a t e s t i fy i ng l a w e nfo r c e men t a g e nto n in sp ec to r ge n er al’s in ve st iga tio n of th e a ge n t t h at u ltim ate l y abso l ved the age nt, bec ause i t “ w oul d nothave ex po se d a b i as , ” sinc e “a r epo r t co nc l udi ngtha t th e ag en t w as n otbia se d sim p ly c an n otbe p ro b at ive of h is bi as. ”)

. In other w or ds, t he co urt did notr est ri ct M oko l fro m sho w i ng M i chel l e’ s bi as because the propos ed l i ne o fquesti oni ng di d not r eve alany sour ce o fbi as. The cour t pr oper ly deter m i ned that M oko l ’ s pro posed l i ne o fque s t i o ningh a d a t e nd e nc y t o c o nfus e tha to ut
w eig h ed its p ro b at ive v a l u e u n d er R u le 4 03

. In 6 thi s co n necti on, despi te the s i m pli ci ty ofthe charg es ag ain stM ok ol, h is t ria l w as n ota sim p l e a f fair . I t l as te d fi ve da y s an d fea tu r ed s i xt ee n wi tn es se s, many of w h om h ad cr im in al h ist or ies th at su rfa c ed in thei r tes ti m ony. Energ eti c advoca cy on bo th si des l ed to numer o us

— eve n perva si ve

— O bj ecti ons and si debars

. T he tri al p r o d uc ed a transc ript th at sp an s over a th ou san d pa ges, exclus ive ofsent en cing. Fu rthe r, M i ch el l e Arno l d was pr o babl y no t amongthe Go ve r nm en t’ s m o sti m po r ta ntwi tn es se s. T rue , he r t es ti m o ny pla c ed a si l verhandgun i n M oko l ’ s pos ses si on

—but so di d s ev er alo th erwi tn es se s, a nd M i ch el l e h ad no fi r s th a n d k n o wl e d g e o f th e b u r g l a r y th r o u g h wh i ch t he si l ve r g un wa s o bta i ne d ( unl i k e F l av i n a nd Ge ar y, who parti ci pated). Of cour se, none of thi s co ntext di m i ni shes

### 14 N o. 10

- 2334

C om pare Pat t er n Cr i m i nalFe der al J ur y I ns t ru c t i ons f or the 7 Se ven th C i r c u i t, 1 8 U. S

. C

. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( De fi n i t i o n o fP o s s e s s i on) ( “Poss es si on m ay exi st ev en w hen a pers on is not i n phy si cal c ont ac twith th e obj ec t, butkno wingl y ha s the power an d (co n tin u ed ...) ( orposs ibl y c oul d dim i ni sh) M oko l’ s co nfr ontat i on r i g ht s, b uti t do es unde r sc o r e th e cr edibi l i tyo fthe j udg e’ s co nc erns abou t co nfus i ngthe j ur y wi thpe r i pher alm att er s. 4. Fi na l l y, the di s t r i c t c o ur t di d no t e r r o r abuse i ts disc re ti on in gi vi ng the j ury a co nstr ucti ve posse ssi on i nstr ucti on. Ind ee d , it w as properf orthe cour t t o do so , because the Gover n m ent’ s ca se i ncl ud ed evi dence that w oul d supp or t a co ncl usi on t h at M oko lwas a fel on i n p o s s e s s i o n th r o u g h c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n : t wo e x a mp les are th e h an d gu n L or i M i l l er te st ified to ca rry in g in he r pur se a t M o k o l ’ s be he st, a nd th e handg un mag az i ne o n th e d r i v e r ’ s s i d e fl o o rb o a r d o fMo k o l ’ s c a r a tth e t i me of h is arre st
. A n d c on st ru c tiv e po ss es sio n w as a p er m iss ibl e theor y o n w h ich t o convi ct M oko lf orbeing a fel on i n posse ssi on o fa gu n . See, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ll oyd, 71 F.3d 12 56, 1268 (7th C ir. 1995). W e dec l i ne M o kol’ s i nv i ta ti o n t o ho l d tha t th e Se venth Ci rcui t Pat tern Cri m i nalFe deralJu ry Instr ucti on fo r const ructi ve posse ssi on m i sl eads j uri es i nto convi cting defendan ts on a co nspir acy theo ryo fl i abi l i ty. The se t wo r es pec ti ve f o r m s o fl i ab i l i tyha ve di fferent el ement s, whi chthe pa tt ern j ur y i ns truct i o ns re fl ec t. T he 7N o. 10

- 2334 

### 15

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 inten tion to exercise d irectio n or con tro l ov er i t, eit h e r d i rectly o r t h r o u g h o th er s.” ) w i t h Patte rn J ury Inst ructi on N o. 5. 10 ( “A c ons pi ra t or i s r es pons ibl e f or offen s es c om m i t t ed by hi s fel l ow c ons pirato rs i fhe was a m em berofthe c ons pi ra c y whenthe o ffen se w as com m it ted and ifthe offense w as com m it ted i n fur the ra nc e ofan d as a f or es ee abl e c ons equen c e ofthe co n sp ir a cy .”).

6- 22- 11 i m pli cati on o fM oko l ’ s a rgum en t is that instr ucti ng a j ury on any f or m o fderi vati ve l i abi l i ty cre ate s a n unacceptabl e r i sk that th e j u ry wil lco nvi ct the defendant on so m e o th er . Butwe pr es um e th atj ur i es unde rstand an d follo w in s t ru c tio n s. SeeU nite d State s v. O ’Nei ll, 11 6 F.3d 245 , 249 (7th C ir. 1997). Forthe f or ego i ng r eason s, we A F F I RM the j ud gm ent o f the di str i ct c ourt
.