2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-9-2010 

# U SA v . D a vid Gree n P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2330

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . D a vid Gr e e n" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 681. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/681P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 2330

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. DAVI D GR E E N, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

f o rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 1- 06- cr - 00612- 001 D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le R o b ert B

. K u g ler

A r gued M ar ch 10, 2010 B e f o re : A M B R O , S M IT H , a n d A L D IS E R T , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: A ugus t9, 2010)2 M ar k S. G r eenbe r g ( ar gued) L aC h ee n W ittel s & G ree n b erg 1429 W al nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1301 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102 C ouns el f orAppel l ant R alph J. M arra, Jr. G eor ge S. L eone Je n n if e r H . C h in St even G

. Sander s ( ar gued) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 970 B r oad St r eet R oom 700 N ew ar k, N J 07102 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

OP I NI ON

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge.
A j ur yconvi ct ed D avi d G r een of at t empt ed pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e 500 gram s orm or e of c ocai ne. G r een appea l s , ar gui ng t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed by al l ow i ng t he G overnm entt o i nt r oduce e vi dence t hathe thr eat ened t o ki l l an u n d e rc o v e r p o lic e o f

f ic e r. W e w ill a f

f ir m . I.T h re e o f S tah l’ s b ro th e rs w e re a c tiv e o r re tired sta te 1 t roopers. 3 I n M ar ch of 2006, G r een w as arr es t ed i n N ew J er s eyon s t at e- l aw drug char ges . T hi s arr es tcame abouti n par tt hr ough t he ef for t s of an unde r coverofficer ident i fi ed i n t he r ecor d as “A

. G

. , ” “G us , ” and “ G us s y . ”
T hr ee mont hs l at er , G r een a nd an acquai nt ance , J acque l i ne St ahl , w er e i n a vehi cl e t ogetherw hen theydr ove pas tA

. G

. ’s hom e. G r een t ol d St ahl t hathe w as goi ng t o bl ow u p A .G . as re talia tio n f o r g e tti n g h im a rre ste d . H e sta ted h is des i re to p ur chas e dynami t e and bl as t i ng caps , as w el l as coca i ne. A l arm ed, St ahl cont act ed l aw enfor cement , r epor t ed w hatG r een had sai d, and agr eed t o actas an i nfor m ant
. I n t he 1 w ee k s tha t fo ll o w ed , S tahl, ac ting at th e d ir ec ti o n o f th e F B I, s ur r ept i t i ous l yr ecor ded a s er i es of conve r s at i ons w i t h G r een aboutt he pos s i bi l i t yof acqui r i ng dynami t e and c ocai ne thr ough

“ F ra n k ie ,” S ta h l’ s b o y f ri e n d f ro m F lo ri d a . O n J ul y1, 2006 , S tahl and G r een metata conve ni ence sto re in M a n tu a , N e w Je rse y . G r e e n c o n f irm e d h is in ter e st in buy i ng dynami t e and bl as t i ng caps . St ahl told G r een that Fr anki e coul d get hi m s i x s t i cks of dynami t e. T he conve r s at i on t hen tu r n e d t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f b u y i n g c o c a i n e t h r o u g h a m an G re e n k n e w in M iam i. S tah l v o lu n tee re d to d riv e to F lo rid a to cons um m at e the dea l

. G r een agr eed thatSt ahl s houl d m ake the t r i p, beca us e s he w as “mi ddl e cl as s l ooki ng” and w oul d not4 ar ous e s us pi ci on. L at er , t he conve r s at i on r etur ned t o t he s ubj ect o f e x p l o s i v e s . Gr e e n s a i d , “ l o o k , s e r i ou s . . . l e t ’ s d o s o me dynami t e. ” St ahl as ked hi m w hat he pl anned t o do w i t h i t , and t ol d hi m he’ d bet t ernotki l l any one s he knew , or“go bl o w up t hat G us ’ s hous e. ” G r een r emai ned coy , s ay i ng onl y t hat he w ant ed t o keep “s o m ethi ng handy ” bec aus e he i nt ended t o do

“ so m e th in g .” W h e n S tah l p re ss e d h im , as k in g “ w h o y o u g o t in m i nd?”, G r een r es ponded, “y ou neverknow

. ” O n J u ly 7 , S ta h l a n d G r e e n a g a in d is c u s s e d th e p o s s ib ility of buy i ng coca i ne and dynami t e fro m F r anki e. St ahl as ked G r een w hetherhe nee ded s m al l s t i cks of dynami t e, s uch as w o u ld b e u se d to b lo w u p a c a r or a tre e stu m p , o r b ig stic k s, to dest roy a bu i l ding. S he again asked w hetherhe int end ed to use i tt o bl ow up A

. G

. ’ s hom e. G r een s t eadf as t l yr efus ed t o s peci fy hi s t ar get , buthe di d as k St ahl t o t el l hi m m or e aboutA

. G

. T he r emai nderof the conve r s at i on r evol ved ar ound t he t erm s of the deal

. St ahl t ol d G r een thatFr anki e w oul d acc ept“fi ft een hundr ed [dol l ar s ] and an ounce of coke f ors i x l i t t l e ones or300 api ece fort he s m al l ones , ” or“2 ounce s of coke and a t hous and ca sh ” fo r “ the b ig o n es.” G ree n told S tahl that thes e p ri ce s w ere t oo high. H e w as al so skepti cal t hat Frankie w ou l d h ave an yuse f o r c o c a in e f

ro m N e w Je rse y , sin c e th e d ru g w a s a b u n d a n t in F lo rid a . S tah l p ro m ise d to f in d o u t h o w m u c h c a sh F r a n k ie w o u ld re q u ir e . In the w eeks t hatfol l ow ed, G r een’ s i nt er es ti n buy i ng dynami t e appe ar ed t o w ane. A tone meet i ng, G r een t ol d S t ahl5 t hatt he dynami t e w as on t he “ba ck burner ” bec aus e he w as l ow o n m o n e y . B u t h e w a s still in ter e ste d in c o c a in e , w h ich h e c o u ld se ll fo r a he f

typ ro f it. O n Ju ly1 9 , S tah l to ld G re e n th a t F ra n k ie w oul d s el l hi m a ki l ogr am of cocai ne i n excha nge for$5, 000 up fr ontand $11, 000 m or e w i t hi n a mont h. She al s o t ol d hi m t hat t he t ot al pur chas e pr i ce o f $16, 000 i ncl uded “the s t i cks [of d yn am ite ].” G ree n resp o n d ed , “I a in’t , fo rge t th e sti ck s. I’m t al ki ng about the pow der

. ” H e al s o t ol d St ahl t hathe di d not “w anna ke ep t al ki ng about t hi s t hi ng” becaus e he f ear ed he w as unders ur vei l l ance . T he nextday , G r een t ol d St ahl t hathe w oul d acc eptFr anki e’ s t erm s , and des cr i bed hi s pl an t o s el l t he c o c a in e th ro u g h a f

rie n d in P o ttsto w n , P e n n sy lv a n ia. O n Ju ly 28, St ahl t ol d G r een thatFr anki e’ s as s oci at es w oul d be up fr om F lo rid a th e f

o llo w in g w e e k e n d a n d th a t G re e n sh o u ld h a v e h is $ 5 , 00 0 r eady

. S t ahl rem i nd ed hi m t hat “t he st i cks ar e ri gh t in w ith the 11 g ran d

. . . . T ak e i t, b o o k an d then y o u ca n d ea l m o re w i t h hi m l at er . ”
T he s al e w as s chedul ed forA ugus t 3

. G r een ha d not pul l ed t og ethert he nec es s ary$5, 000, buthe br oughtal ong $3, 100 pl us t he t i t l e t o a vehi cl e h e i nt ended t o offe ras col l at er al

. St ahl pi cked up G r een a thi s apart m entand dr ove hi m t o a mot el , w her e theym et“M ar i o, ” an FB I agentpos i ng as F ra n k ie’ s f

rie n d . A f

ter in iti a l co n v e r s a tio n s in sid e th e m o tel, M ar i o, G r een, and St ahl w ent t o M ar i o’ s vehi cl e. M ar i o opened t he trunk and s how ed G r een one bag cont ai n ing d ynami t e and anothercont ai ni ng coca i ne. G r een tw i ce s ai d, “al r i ght , ” then w en t t o retri ev e S tahl’s ve h icl e. A s h e w alke d to the ca r,6 ho w ev er, he not i ced pol i ce of fi cer s s i t t i ng i n s ever al of the v e h i c l e s i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t
. He d e c i d e d t o a b a n d o n t h e d e a l

. He goti nt o St ahl ’ s car , s t opped i n fr ontof M ar i o’ s car , pul l ed St ahl i nt o t he vehi cl e, and s ped aw ay . A s t heydr ove aw ay , G r een e x c laim e d to S tah l th a t th e re w e re p o lice o f f ice rs ( “ th e m a n ” ) in th e p a rk in g lo t. S tah l f e ig n e d ig n o ra n c e , b u t G re e n a n g rily acc us ed herof s et t i ng hi m up. H e exc l aim ed : “L ook, l ook. T hat ’ s t he fuc ki ng m an . . . . bi t ch I ought a ki l l y ourfucki ng as s . ” St ahl deni ed any i nvol vement w i t h t he pol i ce, butG r een wa s n o t c o n v i n c e d

. He o r d e r e d S t a h l t o s t a y a wa yf r o m h i m, dr ov e hercarback t o hi s apart m ent , and dr opped hi m s el f off

. S ta h l d ro v e a w a yu n h a rm e d

. G r een w as arr es t ed fourday s l at er . H e w as i ndi ct ed on one countof att empt ed pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e 500 gr ams or m or e of coca i ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U

. S. C

. § 841( a) ( 1) a n d (b )(1 )(B ) a n d 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . H e w a s n o t ch a rg e d in co n n e c t i o n wi t h h i s a t t e mpt s t o p r o c u r e d yn a mi t e o r h i s t hr eat to k ill A .G

. B e f o re trial, th e G o v e rn m e n t f iled a m o tio n in lim in e to a d m it rec o rd e d a n d tes tim o n ial e v id e n c e o f G re e n ’s a ttem p ts to pur chas e dynami t e and thr eat s t o ki l l A

. G

. S peci fi cal l y , t he G o v e rn m e n t’s th e o ry o f a d m iss ib ili ty w a s th a t G re e n ’s p u rsu it of dynami t e cons t i tut ed “i nt r i ns i c evi dence ” conc erni ng t he char ged coc ai ne off

ens e. T hi s ar gum ent r el i ed on U ni t ed Stat es v . Wi l l i a ms , 900 F. 2d 823 ( 5t h C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) , and s i m i l arcas es f r o m oth e rc o u r t s o f

a p p e a l s . I n Wi l l i a ms , the F if th C irc u it7 s t at ed tha t ev ide nce of

unchar ged bad a ct s i s “i nt r i ns i c” t o t he char ged off

ens e “w hen the evi dence of the other a ctand the evi dence of t he cr i m e char ged ar e ‘i nextr i cabl y i nt er tw i ned’ or b o th a c ts a re p a rt o f a ‘sin g le c rim in a l ep iso d e ’ o r th e o th e r a c ts w er e ‘ nece s s arypr el i m i nar i es ’ t o the cr i m e cha r ged. ” Id

. at825. T he courtdi s t i ngui s hed s uch evi dence fr om “extr i ns i c” evi dence , w hi ch, unl i ke i nt r i ns i c evi dence , m u st b e ana l y zed u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ). Id

. T he G overnm entcont ended that G r een’ s at t empt s t o buydynami t e w er e i nextr i cabl yi nt er t w i ned wi t h t h e c h a r g e d c o c a i n e o f f e n s e b e c a u s e Gr e e n ’ s dru g c r i me “occ ur r ed conc ur r ent l yw i t h and ar os e outof [hi s ] negot i at i ons f o re x p l o s i v e s , a n d b e c a u s e t h e f i n a l p r i c e , q u a n t i t y , a n d t e r ms of the cha r ged coc ai ne tr ans act i on w er e i n ex tr i cabl ybound up in a n d in f

lu e n c e d b yG re e n ’s n e g o tia tio n s f o r e x p lo s iv e s .” G r een a r gued forexcl us i on of al l r efe r ence s t o t he dy na mi t e a n d whyh e wan t e d i t
. He a r g u e d t h a td i s c u s s i ons about dynami t e and ki l l i ng A

. G

. w er e not “i nt r i ns i c” t o t he char ged coca i ne offe ns e, and coul d eas i l y be r edac t ed fr om t he r e c o r d i n g s o f

h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n s wi t h S t a h l a b o u t c o c a i n e . He a lso a rg u e d th a t e v e n if th e re f e re n c e s to d yn a m ite w e re in trin sic e v id e n c e , th e ys h o u ld b e e x c lu d e d u n d e r R u le 4 0 3

. A fter a hear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on. T he D i s t r i ctJ udge appa r ent l yacc ept ed the G ov ernm en t’s “ in trin sic e v id e n c e ” a rg u m e n t, be c a u se h e d id notcondu ct a R ul e 404( b) anal y s i s . H e r eas oned that“the dy nam i t e exp l ai ns ho w w e go ti nto a d rug dea l i n the fi rs t8 pl ace , ” and that “the G overnm ent cert ai nl yi s ent i t l ed t o gi ve the b a c k g ro u n d [ a n d a n ] ex p lan a tio n [ o f ] ho w th is a ll ca m e a b o u t, how t heyended up t ogetheri n t hi s pos it i on t o arr es t[G r een] u n d e r th e se c h a rg e s.” T h e D istric t Ju d g e a lso d e c lin e d to e x c l u d e t h e Go v e r n me n t ’ s e v i d e n c e u n d e rRu l e 4 0 3

. He r ecogni zed thatt he evi dence w as hi ghl y pr ej udi ci al , butoffe r ed to g iv e a lim itin g in s tru c tio n to th e ju ry. A t t r i al , t he j ur y hear d r ecor di ngs of t he co nver s at i ons betw een St ahl and G r een r ecount ed above. St ahl s uppl ement ed t hos e r ecor di ngs w i t h t es t i m onyaboutt he conve r s at i ons and G r een’ s at t empt s t o pr ocur e dy nami t e and coca i ne. She t es t i fi ed th a t sh e w e n t to th e F B I af ter sh e lea rn e d th a t “G re e n w a n ted to ki l l a coupl e off

i cer s and he w as l ooki ng for .

. . s om e coc ai ne a n d d yn a m ite.” S h e a lso sa id th a t sh e a g re e d to c o o p e ra te w ith th e su b se q u e n t in v e stig a tio n b e c a u s e “ o f f ice rs’ liv e s w e re in d a n g e r . ” S h o r t l y a f

t e r t h a t t e s t i m o n y, t h e j u r y h e a r d t h e J u l y 7 co n v ersa ti o n in w h ich S tahl q u esti o n ed G ree n ab o u t his de sir e t o “b l ow up ” G ussy . T he p rosecut or asked w ho G u ss y w as. St ahl r es p o n d ed t hatG us s yw as “an of fi cer ” and thatG r een “w ant ed t o know w her e he l i ved .

. . beca us e . . . y ou know , he w ant ed t o ki l l hi m . H e w an ted t o m ur derhi m beca us e he w as b u s te d .”
M eanw hi l e, G r een a tt acke d St ahl ’s cred ibil itythro ughout t he tr i al

. I n hi s openi ng s t atem ent , he ca l l ed hera “pr ofane , a g g re ss iv e , an d u n p lea sa n t in d iv id u a l” w h o se c o o p e ra tio n w ith t he FB I w as “mot i vat ed by m oney . ” H e devel oped t hi s l i ne of9 attac k d uri ng his cross -exam i nati on of the G ov ernm ent’ s fi rs t wi t ne s s , F BI Ag e n tRo b e r tBa rb i e r i , wh o wa s S t a h l ’ s F BI h a n d ler . B a rb ier i tes tifie d th a t th e F B I pa id S tah l ap p ro x im a tely $900 forher w or k as an i nfor m ant , bot h t o compensa t e herfor h e r tim e a n d to r e im b u rse h e r f o r g a s a n d th e u se o f

h e r c e ll phone. H e ac know l edged that St ahl had as ked form oneyfr om t he FB I “fi ve ors i x t i m es ” s i nce the i nves t i gat i on of G r een ha d concl u d ed , and had t hr eat ened nott o t es t i fyagai ns tG r een unl es s t he FB I gave he rm or e mo n ey . H e al s o admi t t ed that St ahl had as ked i f the FB I coul d hel p hers on, w h o w as fac i ng s t at e- l aw cr i m i nal char ges i n an u nr el at ed mat t er . G r een r es um ed thi s at t ack dur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on of St ahl her s el f. H e s ugges t ed thatt he $900 s he r ece i ved fr om t he FB I w as a l ot o f m o n e yto h e r, an d a g a in su g g e ste d th a t sh e c o o p e ra ted to h e lp hers on. St ahl deni ed any i m pr oper m ot i ve and i ns i s t ed thats he appr oache d t he FB I out of a des i r e t o “pr ot ect peopl e, l i ves t hat [w er e] i n danger

. ”
N eart he end of t he tr i al , t he D i s t r i ctC our tr emi nded the ju ryth a t G re e n w a s “ n o t o n trial f o r a n ya c ts o r a ttem p ted a c ts r el at i ng t o dynami t e, ” and c aut i oned j ur or s nott o us e evi dence ab o u tdynami t e as pr oof thatG r een w as a bad pe r s on w i t h a pr opens i t yforcomm i t t i ng cr i m i nal act s . G r een’ s t r i al couns el appr oved thi s char ge, t el l i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hati t s pr opos ed in s tru c tio n w a s “ g re a t.” T h e ju ry f o u n d G re e n g u ilty.
I n det erm i ni ng G r een’ s offe ns e l evel forpurpos es of ca lculati n g h is ad v isoryG u idelines ran g e, th e D istri ct C o u rtT h e D is tr i c t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 3231. 10 appl i eda tw o- l evel enhanc ementforobs t ruct i on of j us t i ce unde r U

. S. S. G

. § 3C 1. 1. O bs t ruct i ve conduc tunder§ 3C 1. 1 i ncl udes “thr eat eni ng, i nt i m i dat i ng, or ot herw i s e unl aw ful l yi nfl uenci ng a . . . w itn e s s . . . d ir e c tly o r in d ir e c tly, o r a tte m p tin g to d o s o .” U

. S. S. G

. § 3C 1. 1 cmt

. n. 4( a)

. G r een r ece i ved thi s enhanc ement beca us e he y el l ed, “bi t ch I ought a ki l l y our fucki ng as s ” atSt ahl as t heydr ove aw ayfr om t he mot el

. T he D i s t r i ctC ou rt concl uded thatt hi s s t at ement amount ed t o a “thr eat , ” i nas m uch a s G r e e n h a d m e n a c e d S t a h l p r e c i s e l y beca use he r eal i zed s he had s ethi m up, and w as l i kel yt o be a w i t nes s agai ns thi m i n t he f u tu re . T he C our ts ent ence d G r een to 96 m ont hs i n pr i s on. G r een f i led a ti m el ynot i ce of appea l

. W e have j ur i s di ct i on u n d er 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 7 4 2 (a). 2
II.
In th e D istric t C o u rt, G re e n c h a llen g e d th e a d m iss ib ili ty of al l evi dence conce r ni ng hi s at t empt s t o buydynami t e. H e has n a rro w e d h is c h a llen g e o n a p p e a l. H e a d m its th a t h is d is c u ss io n s a b o u t d yn a m ite p e rm e a ted a n d “ c o u ld b e sa id to have i nt er t w i ned” w i t h hi s di s cus s i ons about c o cai ne. G r een cont ends , how ever , t hatt he D i s t r ict C o ur terr ed i n al l ow i ng e v i d e n c e t h a th e h a d t h r e a t e n e d t o u s e t h a td yn a mi t e t o k i l l A. G.H e al s o cl ai m s t hatt h e D i s t r i ctC our terr ed by 3 e n h a n c i n g h i s o f

f e n s e l e v e l p u r s u a n tt o U. S

. S

. G. § 3 C1

. 1

. He admi t s t hathe thr eat ened St ahl , butar gues t hathe di d not obs t ructj us t i ce beca u se hi s t hr eatw as nei t her“r eal ” nor “cr edi bl e” a nd w as nevercarr i ed out

. W e ar e notper s uaded. See U ni t ed Stat es v. R am ey , 24 F. 3d 602, 609 (4th C i r . 1994) (u p h o ld in g § 3 C 1 .1 e n h a n c e m e n t in lig h t o f d e f e n d a n t’s th re a ts a g a in st tria l ju d g e , w h ich th e d e f e n d a n t cla im e d w e re m e re ly “i dl e” th rea t s , beca us e “[ a] s betw een the thr eat enerand the t hr eat ened, w e thi nk t hatt he thr eat eners houl d beart he r i s k of m is u n d e rs ta n d in g ” ), abr ogat ed on othergr ounds by Jones v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 9 U .S . 8 4 8 (2 0 0 0 ); U nited S t ates v. McInt osh , 2 3 F .3 d 1 4 5 4 , 1 4 5 9 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (re jec tin g a rg u m e n t th a t § 3 C 1 .1 e n h a n c e m e n t w a s u n ju stif ied b e c a u se d e f

e n d a n t’s th re a ts ag ains t susp ec ted in fo rm an ts w ere n ev er c arried o u t)

. 11 I n ot her w or ds , he no l onger ar gues t hatt he j ur ys houl d nothave lea rned t hat he sough t t o buy dy nam i t e. H e argues on l y t hat it s houl d nothave be en al l ow ed t o l earn why h e w ant ed that d yn a m ite. H e c laim s th a t th is e v id e n c e w a s n o t “in trin sic e v id e n c e .” A d d iti o n a lly , h e a rg u e s th a t ev id e n c e o f h is th re a t to ki l l A

. G

. w as i nadmi s s i bl e underR ul e 404( b) , and i n anyevent s houl d have be en exc l uded underR ul e 403. 3
A s i tdid i n the D i stri ctC ou rt , t he G ov ernm ent as ser ts th a t ev id e n c e o f

G re e n ’s th re a t to k ill A .G . w a s in trin s ic ev iden ce an d thu s ad m issi b le w ith o u t r ef ere n ce to R u le 40 4 (b). In th e a ltern a tiv e , it a rg u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s a d m iss ib le u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ), an d n e e d n o t h a v e b e e n e x c lu d e d u n d e r R u leT he fa ctt hatG r een ha s narr ow ed hi s i nt r i ns i c evi dence 4 ar gum enton appea l does not nece s s i t at e pl ai n err orr evi ew . T he ar gum enthe adva nces her e— t hatevi dence of hi s m ot i ve for pur chas i ng dynami t e s houl d have be en exc l uded— w as nece s s ar i l yi ncl uded w i t hi n, a n d s p e c i f i c a l l ya dvance d as par tof, h is b ro a d e r a rg u m e n t in th e D istric t C o u rt f o r e x c lu sio n o f

a ll e v id e n c e a b o u t d yn a m ite

. 12 403. A s a fa l l back pos i ti o n , the G overnm entm ai nt ai ns t hat a d m is s io n o f

th e e v id e n c e w a s , a t w o rs t, h a rm le s s e rr o r. “W e r evi ew t he di str i ctcour t ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs pr i nci pal l yon an abus e of d i s cr et i on s t andar d. ” C om pl ai ntof C ons ol i dat i on C oalC o. , 1 2 3 F

. 3 d 1 2 6 , 1 3 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 7 )

. An ab u se o f d iscreti o n o cc u rs on lyw h ere th e d is tr ictco u rt ’s d e c isio n is “ a rb itrar y , fa n c if u l, or c lea rlyu n re a so n a b le”

— in s hor t , w her e “no r eas onabl e per s on w oul d adoptt he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s vi ew . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. St ar nes , 583 F. 3d 196, 214 ( 3d C i r . 2009)

. “W e exe r cise p lenaryr evi ew , how ever , of [the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s ] ruli ngs t o t he ext entt heyar e bas ed on a l egal i nt erpr et at i on of the F eder al R ul es of Evi dence

. ” C om pl ai ntof C ons ol i dat i on C oalC o. , 1 2 3 F

. 3 d at 13 1

. T h is i n clud es p lena ry re v ie w “ o f

w h e th e r e v id e n c e f

a lls w ith in th e sc o p e o f R u le 4 0 4 ( b )

. ” U

n i t ed Stat es v. C r uz , 3 2 6 F

. 3 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). 4
II I.13 W e b e g in w ith G re e n ’s a rg u m e n t th a t ev id e n c e o f h is threa t t o k il l A

. G

. w as n o t “i n tr insic” to th e crim e c h arg ed

. In doi ng s o, w e exami ne s ever al evi dent i aryconce pt s t hathave frustra ted c o u rts a n d c o m m e n tato rs a lik e . A ccordi ng l y , recourse to s o m e le g a l h is to ry a f f o rd s u s e f u l c o n te x t. “The or i gi nal at t i tude of the Engl i s h cour t s w as t hatany re lev a n t ev id e n c e o f

th e d e f e n d a n t’s m isc o n d u c t w a s a d m iss ib le even i f the onl yt heoryof r el evanc e w as to es t abl i s h t he defe ndant ’ s char act erand, i n tur n, us e cha r act eras ci r cumst an ti al pr oof of c onduct

. ” 1 Edw ar d J

. I m w i nkel r i ed, U nchar ged Mis cond u ctE vi dence § 2: 25 ( 2009) [her ei naft er Im w in k e lr ie d , U

nchar ged Mis conduct

E vi dence ]. A b u se o f

th is rul e, among ot her s , byt he i nqui s i t ors o f the St arC hamber p ro m p te d P a rl ia m e n t to p a s s th e T re a s o n A c t o f 1 6 9 5

. Id

. T hat l aw gr ant ed s ever al new r i ght s t o i ndi vi dual s acc us ed of tr eas on. Fi r s t , i tent i t l ed the ac cus ed t o a copy of t he i ndi ctm ents t at i ng t he cha r ges agai ns thi m . Second, i t m andat ed t hatanyover tact of tr eason al l eged i n the i nd i ct m ent be proved byt w o w i t nesses, t es t i fy i ng i n open cour t s ubj ect t o cr os s - exami nat i on. T hi r d, and m o st i m p o rt an tl yfo r p rese n t p u rpo ses, i t pro v ided that n o o v ert actt hatw as notal l eged i n t he i ndi ct m entcoul d be pr oved at tr ia l. See T h o m a s J . R e e d , Tri alby Propensit y: A dm is s i on of O th e r C rim in a l A c ts E v id e n c e d in Fe d e ra l C rim in a l T ria ls , 50 U . C in . L

. R e v . 7 1 3 , 7 1 6 -1 7 (1 9 8 1 ) [ h e re in a f te r R e e d , Tri alby P ro p e n sity ] (c iti n g 7 W ill . III, ch . 3 (1 6 9 5 )). O v e r tim e , co u rts ext ended the rul e aga i ns tpr ovi ng un ch ar ged ac t s t o cr i m i nal tr ia ls g e n e ra lly, n o t ju s t tr ia ls f o r t re a s o n . Id

. at717. B y1810,See al s o Im w in k e lr ie d , U

nchar ged Misconduct 5 E vi dence , supra , § 2 :2 6 (e x p lain in g th a t C ol e “forbade the pr os ecut i on onl yfr om us i n g th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s ubj ect i ve cha r act er as ci r cumst ant i al pr oof of t he def endant ’ s conduct ” w i t h r es pect to th e c ri m e c h a rg e d ); D a v id P . L e o n a rd , The N ew W igm or e: E v id ence o

f O th e r M isc o n d u c t a n d

S im ila r E v e n ts § 4. 3. 1 ( 2009) (“ T h e g e n e ra l b a n o n e v id e n c e o f c h a ra c te r to p ro v e a c tio n in co n fo rm ityw as w e ll- estab li sh ed in G rea t B ri tai n b y1 8 1 0

. ”). Bu ts ee J u liu s S to n e , The R ul e of E xclus i on of

Si m i l arFact E vi dence : E ngl and , 46 H arv. L

. R ev . 9 5 4 , 960- 61 ( 1933) ( r ecount i ng E ngl i s h cour t s ’ t r eatm ent of char act erevi dence and a rg u in g th a t C ol e announced “a verynarr ow pr i nci pl e of e x c lu s io n ” th a t w a s n o t w id e ly f o llo w e d ). 14 it w a s m o re o r le ss se ttl e d th a t “ b a d a c ts e v id e n c e w h ich m e re ly demonst r at e[d] t he pr opens i t yof the def endant t o do act s s i m i l ar to th o s e c h a rg e d ” w a s in a d m is s ib le

. See N or m an K r i vos ha et a l., R el evanc

y: The N

ecess ar y El em ent

i n U s i ng E vi dence of O ther C r i m es , W

r ongs , or B ad A ct

s To C onvi ct , 60 N eb. L

. R ev. 657, 664 ( 1981) ( ci t i ng t he 1810 ca s e of R ex v . C o le ). 5
E ngl i s h deci s i ons i n t hi s ar ea i nfl uence d A m er i can cour t s , and the rul e her e thr oughout t he 19th and 20th centur i es m i r r or ed thatof Engl and: evi dence t hatt he ac cus ed had comm i t t ed s om e o ther cr i m e w as notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove that the d ef endanthad a pr opens i t yforcomm i t t i ng cr i m es , andT heor i es var i ed for w hy t hi s s houl d be. Som e ar gued 6 t hat evi dence t hat t he defe ndant had comm i t t ed an uncha r ged c rim e a s p ro o f

o f c rim in a l p ro p e n sityw a s s im p lyirre lev a n t. T h e m o st c o m m o n v iew w a s th a t su c h e v id e n c e w a s re lev a n t, bu tt hat the ri sk of u nfairprej ud i ce ou t w ei gh ed it s usefulness

. O t her s poi nt ed outt he unfa i r nes s of s urpri si ng t he def endant and for ci ng hi m t o d e f e n d a g a i ns t unchar ged m i s deeds

— hearkeni ng back t o t he abus es t hatbr oughtaboutt he T r e a s o n A c t o f

1 6 9 5

. See L e o n a rd , supra , § 1. 2 ( col l ect i ng c ita tio n s ).

W e w i l l som et im e s use the term “cri m es” as a 7 s hor t hand fort he more acc ur at e, butcumber s om e, t erm “cr i m es orw r ongful act s . ” F o r p u rposes of thi s di s cus s i on, t her e i s no m at eri al differ ence betw een cri m i nal an d no n-cr i m i nal bad acts

.
15 th e re f o re p ro b a b ly co m m itte d th e c h a rg e d c ri m e . R e e d , Tri al 6 b y P ro p e n sity , supra , a t 7 3 6 , 7 3 9

. See a l so D avi d P. L eonar d, The N ew W igm or e: E vi dence of O ther Mis conduct and Si m i l ar E v e n ts § 3. 3 at 101 ( 2009) ( “A m er i can cour t s pl ai nl yfol l ow ed E ngl i s h pr act i ce i n excl udi ng [uncha r ged mi s conduct ] evi dence w hen off

er ed t o p rove gui l tt hr ough an i nfer ence of bad c h a ra c te r.” ).
I tw as hel d ear l yon, h ow ever , t hatt hi s rul e di d not r equi r e the exc l us i on of a ll evidence of unch arged c ri m es. 7 C o u rts a llo w e d su c h e v id e n c e w h e n it w a s in tro d u c e d n o t to demonst r at e pr opens i t y , butt o es t abl i s h t he “r es ges t ae” ( “thi ngU s e of t he t erm “r es ges t ae” i n t he evi dent i arycont ext 8 or i gi nat ed i n t he l aw of hear s ay . I tdevel oped as one exc ept i on to th e g e n e ra l ru le a g a in st h e a rsa y , w ith th e a p p lica b le r u le bei ng s t at ed as fol l ow s : “W heneve r any act m ayb e prove d, sta tem e n ts a c c o m p a n y in g a n d e x p lain in g th a t ac t m a d e b yo r to th e p e rso n d o in g it , m a yb e p ro v e d if th e ya re n e c e ss a ryto u n d e rs ta n d it.” J a m e s B . T h a y e r, B edi ngfi eld’s C as e – D e c la ra tio n s a s a P a rt o f th e R e s G e sta , 1 5 A m . L . R e v . 1 , 2 (1 8 8 1 ). See al

s o 2 K e n n e th S . B ro u n , McC or m i ck on Evi dence § 2 1 8 (6th ed

. 2 0 0 9 ) (ex p lai n ing h ea rsayo ri g ins o f re s g estae ). T he i dea w as t hat , w i t h r es pect t o t he event s at i s s ue i n a cas e, “the conduc tand the ac company i ng w or ds w er e al l par tof the sam e t r ans act i on ort he ‘ t hi ngs done, ’ and i f the conduc tw as a d m is s ib le , s o w e re th e w o rd s .” C h ri s B la ir , Let ’s Say G oodbye t o R es G es t ae , 3 3 T u ls a L .J . 3 4 9 , 3 5 0 (1 9 9 7 ). 16 d o n e ” ) o f

th e c h a rg e d c rim e . M o st o f th e e a r ly ca se s a ro se in 8 th e s ta te c o u rt s . W

a lke r v . C o m m o n w e a lth , 28 V a. (1 L ei gh) 5 7 4 , 1 8 2 9 W L 7 7 2 (V a. 18 2 9 ), w a s o n e su c h c a se , tho u g h it d id n o t e x p l i c i t l y i n v o k e t h e t e r m “ r e s g e s t a e . ” I n W alker , t he defe ndantw as i ndi ct ed for l ar ceny of a w at ch, a gol d chai n, and a key

. A tt r i al , t he pr o sec ut i on w as perm i t t ed t o i nt r oduce evi dence t hatt he def

endanthad al s o s t ol en a cl oak, a theft w h ic h w a s th e s u b

je c t o f a s e p a ra te in d ic tm e n t. Id

. at*1. T he defe ndantw as convi ct ed and appe al ed, cont endi ng t hat ad m issi o n o f e v iden ce co n ce rnin g the s tolen clo a k w a s erro r. T he G ener al C our t of V i r gi ni a agr eed. I tbegan i t s anal y s i s by acknow l edgi ng t he gene r al rul e th att he pr os ecut i on w as forbi dden t o “g o int o pr oof of the comm i s s i on of anyot her17 o ff en ce than that ch arg ed o r of the c h ara cter o f th e p ri so n er[

. ]” Id

. at*2. I tt hen r ecogni zed that [ i ] tf r e q u e n t l yh a p p e n s , h o wev e r , t h a ta s t he evi dence of ci r cumst ance s m us t be re s or t ed t o for t he p urpos e of pr ovi ng t he comm i s s i on of the part i cularoff

ence c h a rg ed, t he p roof o f t ho se ci rcum st ances i nv olves the p roof o f other act s, ei t hercr imi nal orappar ent l yi nnocent
. I n s uch cas es , i t i s pr oper . . . t hat t he chai n o f e vi dence s houl d be unbr oken. I f one orm or e l i nks of that c h a in c o n sis t o f

c irc u m sta n c e s . . . w h ich ten d to pr ove thatt he pr i s onerhas been gui l t yof other cr i m es t han that char ged, t hi s i s no r eas on w hyt he cour ts houl d excl ude thos e ci r cum sta nces . T hey ar e s o i nt i m at el yconnec t ed and bl ended w i t h t he m ai n fac t s ad d uced i n evi dence

. . . t hatt hey ca n n o t be d ep arted fro m w ith p rop ri ety ; and there i s no r eas on w hyt he c rim in a lit y o f su c h in tim a te and connect ed ci r cumst ance s . . . s houl d excl ude th e m , m o re th a n o th e r f a c ts a p p a re n tlyin n o c e n t. Id

. T he courtgave the fol l ow i ng hypot het i cal : su p p os e a man i s i ndi ct ed form ur der

. Suppose fur t hert hatt he murde rw eapon w as a pi s t ol ; t hatt hi s pi s t ol once be l onged t o anotherm an, but w as s t ol en on the s ame ni ghtt he def endantw as s een a tt he ri g h tf u l o w n e r’s h o u se ; an d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a s s e e n in pos s es s i on of the pi s t ol on t he day of t he m ur der

. T hi s evi dence w o u ld ten d to su g g e st th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a d sto len th e p isto l. Shoul d i tbe admi t t ed i n t he murde rt r i al ? T he cou rtsai d y es,18 even t hough t he evi dence t ended t o pr ove bot h l ar ceny and m u rd e r, b e c a u se it w a s “in tim a telyc o n n e c ted a n d b len d e d w ith t he mai n fac t s ” of t he cha r ged murde r . T he courtdi s t i ngui s hed betw een e vi dence w hi ch “c ons t i tut e[d] a partof the t r ans act i on”— t he s or t of evi dence t hat beca m e kno w n as r es g e sta e

— a n d e v id e n c e o f “ c irc u m sta n c e s h a v [ in g ] n o in tim a te connexi on w i t h t he mai n fac t
. ” I d. T he form erw as admi s s i bl e; th e la tte r w a s n o t. A p p lic a tio n o f

sim ilar r u les led to a d if f e re n t re su lt i n C o m m o n w e a lth v . H

e a th , 40 V a. ( 1 R ob. ) 735, 1842 W L 2475 ( V a. 1842)

. T here , the tr i al cour tal l ow ed a w i t nes s t o t es t i fy t hatt he def

endanthad shot hi m s hor t l y befor e he m ur der ed the vi ct i m . T he G ener al C our tuphel d t hatdeci s i on, not i ng t hat“the fac t o f t h e s h o o t i n g , a s b e i n g p a r t o f t h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s a n d of t he r es ges t ae , oughtnott o have be en pr ecl uded fr om bei ng gi ven i n evi dence t o t he j ur y , alt h o u gh s uch evi dence m i ght i t s el f have t ended t o pr ove a di s t i nctfel onycomm i t t ed b y t he pr i s oner . ” I

d. a t * 5

. B ro w n v . C o m m o n w e a lth , 76 Pa. 319, 1874 W L 13019 ( Pa. 1874) , w as t o t he s ame effe ct
. I n t hat cas e, t he defe ndantw as acc us ed of m ur der i ng a hus band and w i fe. I n a se p a ra te tria l f

o r th e m u rd e r o f

th e w if e , p ro se c u to rs s o u g h t to pr ove thatt he hus band’ s bodyhad bee n found nea rby

. T he defe ndantar gued that n ot hi ng aboutt he hus band’ s m ur der sh o u ld b e a d m itted. T h e P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt d isag r eed. I thel d t hat“[b] ei ng par t s of the s ame r es ges t ae ,” the tw o m u rde rs “ tog ethe r, tend [e d ] to thro w li g h t on ea ch o ther, and ther e i s n o rea so n t hatt he trut h s houl d be thr ow n outby19 e x c lu d in g ” e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g th e m u rd e r o f th e h u s b a n d

. I d. at*16. T hi s des pi t e t he gener al rul e t hat “the comm i s s i on of a d istin c t o f

f e n s e , ev e n sim ilar in c h a ra c ter , ca n n o t b e g iv e n in e v id e n c e ” a g a in s t a d e f e n d a n t. I

d.
T he m ostfam ou s case on thi s i ssue w a s P eopl e v. Mol i neaux , 6 B edel l 264 ( N

. Y

. 1901)

. I n t hatcas e, M ol i neaux w a s a c c u se d o f

p o iso n in g a n d k ill in g o n e M rs. A d a m s. A t trial, t he courtal l ow ed the pr os ecut i on t o i nt r oduce e vi den ce s ugges t i ng t hatM ol i neaux ha d al s o poi s oned a r o m ant i c r i val w ith th e s a m e d ru g th a t f e lle d M rs . A d a m s . Id

. at281- 84. T he N ew Y or k C our tof A ppeal s hel d t hatt hi s evi dence s houl d not have be en admi t t ed. I t decl ar ed i t“uni ver s al l yr ecogni zed a nd

. . . fi r m l yes t abl i s hed i n al l E ngl i s h -s peaki ng l ands ” that“the gener al rul e of e vi dence appl i cabl e t o cr i m i nal t r i al s i s t hatt he sta te c a n n o t p ro v e a g a in st a d e f e n d a n t a n y c rim e n o t a lleg e d in th e in d ictm e n t, e ith e r a s a f o u n d a tio n f

o r a se p a ra te p u n ish m e n t, o r a s a id in g th e p ro o f

s th a t h e i s g u ilty o f

th e c ri m e c h a rg e d .” I d

. at 29 1. T he court recogn i zed that t here w ere excep tio n s to t hi s rul e, how ever , s uch as w her e t he evi dence t ended t o pr ove
“ ( 1 ) m o ti v e ; (2 ) in ten t; (3 ) th e a b se n c e o f m ista k e o r a c c id e n t; ( 4 ) a c o mm o n s c h e me o rp l a n e mb r a c i n g t h e c o mm i s s i o n o f t wo orm or e cr i m es s o r el at ed t o eac h ot hert hatpr oof of one t ends t o es t abl i s h t he other s ; [or ] ( 5) t he i dent i t yof the per s on char ged w it h the comm i s s i on of the cr i m e on tr i al

. ” Id

. at 293

. In ex p lai n ing the “ co m m o n sch em e” ex ce p ti o n , the c o u rt a c k n o w led g e d th a t ev id e n c e o f o th e r c rim e s c o u ld b e a d m iss ib le

“ w h e re tw o o r m o re c rim e s a re so c o n n e c ted th a t itis im p o ss ib le20 t o d i sti n g u i sh t hem and proof of all , i n the effortt o est abli sh one, i s a partof the r es ges t ae . ” Id

. at308 ( ci t i ng Br o wn , 76 Pa. 319, and P eopl e v. Fol ey , 3 1 N .W . 9 4 (M ic h . 1 8 8 7 ))

. In th e d e c a d e s th a t f

o llo w e d , fe d e ra l co u r ts g e n e ra lly adher ed t o t he appr oach out l i ned i n Mol i neaux . T heyhel d t hat evi dence of uncha r ged m i s conductw as gener al l yi nadmi s s i bl e, butr ecogni zed m an y exce pt i ons t o t hatrul e, i ncl udi ng one for e v id e n c e th a t w a s p a rt o f th e re s g e s ta e . G i anot os v. U ni t ed St at es , 104 F. 2d 929 ( 9t h C i r . 1939) , i s r epr es ent at i ve. I n that c a se , G ian o to s a n d tw o o th e rs w e re c h a rg e d w ith u n law f u lly i m por t i ng opi um . T hom as , a co- defe ndantw ho had bee n caught w i t h t he opi um , pl eade d gui l t yand agr eed t o t es ti fy fort he governm ent
. T hom as t es t i fi ed t hat he agr eed t o hol d t he opi um onl y beca us e G i anot os had thr eat ened t o i nfor m pol i ce that T hom as had as s i s t ed hi m i n a s epar at e ac tof opi um s m uggl i ng m o n th s e a rl ie r. Id

. at930. O n appea l , G i anot os ar gued thatno evi dence conce r ni ng the ea r l i ers m uggl i ng s houl d have be en admi t t ed. T he N i nt h C i r cui t di s agr eed. I t began byr ecogni zi ng t he gene r al rul e aga i ns tadmi t t i ng evi dence “that t he ac cus ed has comm i t t ed another cr i m e w hol l y i ndepende nt of t hatforw hi ch he i s on t r i al

. ” Id

. at 932. T he cour tr ecogni zed, how ever , t hat t her e w er e manyexce pt i ons t o t hi s rul e, i ncl udi ng one for in sta n c e s in w h ich “ tw o d istin c t o f f e n s e s a re so in se p a ra b ly connec t ed thatt he proof of one nece s s ar i l yi nvol ves pr ovi ng t he ot her [. ] ” Id

. A p p ly in g th is e x c e p tio n , the N in th C irc u it h e ld th a t th e c h a llen g e d e v id e n c e w a s a d m iss ib le b e c a u se it e x p lain e d w h y T h o m a s f e a re d G ian o to s e n o u g h to g o a lo n g w ith21 t he cha r ged off

ens e. T he cour tr eas oned that“[t ] he purpos e of t his e vi de nc e r e l a t i ng t o the fo r merc r i me w a s no tt o e s t a bl i sh t he comm i s s i on of a d istin c t offe ns e, ” butt he char ged offe ns e, inso fa r as i t ex p lai n ed T h o m as’s i n v o lvem en t. I d. (e m p h a sis added)

. I tconcl uded bys t at i ng t he pr evai l i ng rul e: “i n pr ovi ng a c rim e , all th e r e s g e s tae m a ya lw a y s b e sh o w n , tho u g h it i nvol ve p roo f o r ev iden ce co n ce rnin g the c o m m issi o n o f a n o the r and i ndepende ntcr i m e by t he defenda nt at t he same t i m e. ” I d. a t 9 3 3

. Si m i l ar l y , i n U

ni t ed St at es v. T

u ffa n e lli , the S e v e n th C i r cui tal l ow ed e v ide nce of unchar ged w r ongful act s i n a cons pi r acycas e i nvol vi ng vi ol ati ons of fe der al l i quorl aw s , on t he theoryt hatt hos e ac t s w er e “l ogi cal l yconnec t ed ” w ith t he c h a rg e d o f

f e n se a n d “ so c lo se lya n d in e x trica b lym ix e d u p w ith t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e g u i l t y a c t i t s e l f a s t o f o r m p a r t of t he pl an or sy stem o f c ri m inal ac ti o n . ” 1 3 1 F

. 2 d 8 9 0 , 8 9 3 (7 th C ir

. 1 9 4 2 ). I n B r acey v. Uni t ed Stat es , the D

. C

. C ir cu itsyn thes ized m o re t han a doz en ca s es and conc l uded that , not w it h s t andi ng t he ge neral rul e againstt he ad m i ssi on of u nch arged cri m es,
“ e v id e n c e o f o th e r c rim in a l ac ts h a s b e e n h e ld a d m iss ib le b yth is cour tw hen theyar e s o ble nded orconnec t ed w i t h t he one on t r i al as t hat p roo f of one i nci dent al l yi nvol ves t he other ; or ex p lai ns t he ci r cumst ance s t her eof; ort ends l ogi cal l yt o pr ove an yelem en t of the crim e ch arg ed

. ” 1 4 2 F

. 2 d 8 5 , 8 8 (D

. C

. C ir

. 1 9 4 4 ). See al

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ughes , 441 F. 2d 12, 19- 20 ( 5t h C i r. 1971) ( uphol di ng admi s s i on of evi dence t hat defe ndant s pos s es s ed fi r earm s i n a t r i al fo r co unt er fei t i ng22 beca us e the def

endant s ’ g u n s w er e partof the r es ges t ae; t hey “w er e s o cl os el ybl ended a nd i nextr i cabl ybound u p w i t h t he hi s t or yof t h e cri m e i t s el f as t o cons t i tut e a pa r tof the pl an or sy ste m o f

c rim in a l ac tio n in v o lv e d in th e c a se ” ); U ni t ed Stat es v . Cr o we , 188 F. 2d 209, 212 (7th C ir

. 1951) ( ci t i ng T u ffa n e lli and G i anot os ); Lynch v. U n it edSt at es , 1 2 F .2 d 1 9 3 , 1 9 4 (4 th Ci r . 1 9 2 6 ) ( “ Th e g e n e r a l ru l e i s t h a t , whe r e a d e f e n d a n t i s on t r i al forone offe ns e, evi dence of s epar at e and di s t i nctoffe ns es i s not per m i ssi ble, excep tw here

. . . t he subject of i nq uiry i s so related to the m ain o ff

en se as to thro w m aterial li g h t th ere o n . ”).
W hi l e u s e o f

t h e r e s g e s t a e e x c e p t i o n g r e w co mmon, cr i t i cs ar gued the t er m w as t oo vague t o be us eful and encour aged r ot e i ncant at i on of L at i ni s m s i n l i eu of t hought ful a n a l y s i s . P r o f

e s s o rWi g mo r e wa s e s p e c i a l l yu n s p a r i n g . He w r ot e that r es ges t ae w as an “e m pt yphr as e [w hi ch enc our aged] l oos enes s of t hi nki ng and uncert ai nt y of deci s i on, ” 6 Jo hn W ig m o re , W

igm or e on E vi dence § 1 7 6 7 (C h ad b o u rn re v . 1 9 7 6 ), and “most fr equent l y us ed as a cover for l oos e idea s and ig n o ra n c e o f p ri n c ip le s ,” 1 A J o h n W ig m o re , W igm or e on E vi dence § 2 1 8 (T ill e rs r e v . ed . 1 9 8 3 ). P ro f e ss o r M o rg a n w ro te th a t re s g e sta e w a s a “ tro u b les o m e e x p re ss io n ” w h ich o w e d its pr om i nence “t o an i ncl i nat i on of j udges and l aw y er s t o avoi d t he to ils o m e e x e rt io n o f

e x a c t a n a lysis a n d p re c is e th in k in g .” E d m u n d M o rg a n , A Sugges t ed C l as s i f i cat i on of

Utt er ances A d m is s i bl e as R es G es t ae , 3 1 Y a l e L

. J

. 2 2 9 , 2 2 9 ( 1 9 2 2 )

. He ar gued tha tt he phr as e w as m arked by“exa s per at i ng i ndefi ni t enes s ” thatdi d “nothi ng butbew i l der and perpl ex, ” andT h e s e c ri tic is m s liv e o n . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. 9 Hill , 95 3 F

. 2d 45 2, 45 7 n

. 1 (9t h C i r. 19 91 ) (caut i on i ng against u se o f th e “ o v e rly -b ro a d ” re s g e sta e d o c trin e ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Krezdorn , 639 F. 2d 1327, 1332 ( 5 t h C i r . U ni tA M ar . 1981) (d e sc r ib in g re s g e sta e a s “ a n a p p e llatio n th a t ten d s m e re lyto obs cur e the ana l y s i s under l y i ng t he admi s s i bil i t yof the evi dence ”) ; 1 C hri stop h erB

. M uel l er& L ai r d C

. K i r kpatr i ck, Feder alE vi dence § 4: 33 ( 3d ed. 2003) ( des cr i bi ng r es ges t ae a s a “mi nd- num bi ng and el as t i c t erm ” w hi ch “pr et ends m uch but m e a n s littl e ” ); C h ri s B la ir , Let ’s Say G oodbye to R es G es t ae , 33 T u lsa L . J. 3 4 9 (1 9 9 7 ) (a rg u in g th a t O k lah o m a c o u rts s h o u ld ab an d o n the term ). 23 faul t ed court s forchoos i ng t o “expr es s [] i n a d ead and for ei gn to n g u e a n id e a f

o r w h ich th e re a re a c c u ra te a n d a d e q u a te En g l i s h wor ds

. ” I

d

. Pr ofes s orT hay erl i kew i s e cr i t i ci zed the “gr ow i ng and i nt ol er abl e vague nes s of the expr es s i on. ” J ames B . T h a y e r, B edi n g

f i eld’s C as e – D eclar at i ons as a P ar tof the R e s G e sta , 1 5 A m . L

. R ev . 1 , 1 0 (18 8 1 ). T h ese crit ici sm s w ere chi efl ydi r ect ed t o t he us e of r es ges t ae a s a hea r s ayexce pt i on, butt hey w ere equa l l yappl i cabl e t o i t s us e i n t he cont extof un charged cri m es. See L e o n a rd , supra , § 5. 2 at322- 24. 9
I n 1 9 7 5 , Con g r e s s a d o p t e d t h e Fe d e r a l Rul e s of E vi dence

. T he new codi fi cat i on i ncl u d ed R ul e 404( b) , w hi ch pr ovi ded thatevi dence of “othercr i m es , w ron g s , oract s ” w as i nadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove a p er s on’ s char act eri n or dert o s how act i on i n conform i t yt here w i t h, butadmi s s i bl e for“other purpos es , s uch as p ro o f o f m o tiv e , o p p o rtu n ity, i n ten t,A m in o rityo f c o u rts, in c lu d in g th is C o u rt, ad h e re d to 10 a n in c lu s io n a ry ru le e v e n b e f o re R u le 4 0 4 (b ) w a s a d o p te d

. See U ni t ed St a tes v. St i r one , 262 F. 2d 571, 576 ( 3d C i r . 1958) ( adopt i ng the i ncl us i onarys t at ementof the rul e aga i ns tot her c ri m e s e v id e n c e ), r ev’ d on othergr ounds , St i r one v. U n it ed St at es , 3 6 1 U .S . 2 1 2 (1 9 6 0 ). See al s o T h o m a s J

. R e e d , The D evel o p m en t of th e P ro

p en sit y R u le i n Fed era l C rim ina l Causes 1840- 1975 , 51 U

. C i n. L

. R ev. 299, 303- 04 ( 1982) ( expl ai ni ng that th e S ec o n d an d T en th C ir cu it s also too k the in clus ion ary v ie w b e f o re R u le 4 0 4 (b ) w a s a d o p te d ).

24 pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, i dent i t y , or abs ence of m i s t ake or acci d ent
. ” The rul e codi fi ed the comm on l aw baragai ns tt he u se o f u n c h a rg e d c rim e s to p ro v e c rim in a l p ro p e n sity

— a lb e it i n a modi fi ed form . T he comm on l aw rul e w as w i del y , t hough not u n iv e rsa lly , sta ted in “ e x c lu sio n a ry ” ter m s. T h a t is, itse t f o rth a gene r al rul e of i nadmi s s i bi l i t y , s ubj ectt o exce pt i ons , s uch as res ge s ta e . S ee, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. C l em ons , 503 F. 2d 486, 489 ( 8t h C i r . 1974) ( des cr i bi ng “narr ow exce pt i ons t o [a] g en era l ru le of

ex clus ion ”); Mol i neaux , 6 Be d e l l a t2 9 3

. By c o n tra st, R u le 4 0 4 (b ) w a s “ in c lu sio n a ry .” It sta ted a g e n e ra l ru le of admi s s i bi l i t y , s ubj ectt o a s i ngl e exc ept i on— evi dence of ot herw r ongful act s w as admi s s i bl e s o l ong as i tw as not i nt r oduced so le ly to pr ove cr i m i nal pr opens i t y . T hus , t he pr oponentno l ongerhad t o pi geonhol e hi s evi dence i nt o one of t he es t abl i s hed comm on- l aw except i ons , on pai n of exc l us i on. I f h e c o u l d i d e n t i f

y any non- pr opens i t ypurpos e fori nt r oduci ng t h e e v i d e n c e , i twas a d mi s s i bl e. See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. 10T he t er m “r es ges t ae” i s s t i l l i ncant ed bycour t s fr om 11 tim e to tim e . See, e. g. , U n itedS ta tes v . T

ill , 434 F. 3d 880, 884 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 25 Long , 574 F

. 2d 761, 765- 66 ( 3d C i r . 1976) ( contr as t i ng t he e x c lu sio n a rya n d in c lu sio n a rya p p ro a c h e s); U ni ted St at es v. B ra dw e ll , 388 F. 2d 619, 621- 22 ( 2d C i r . 1968) ( s ame) ; L eonar d, supra , § 4 .3 ; R e e d , T

ria l b y P ro p e n sity , supra , a t 7 2 8 -3 0

. Si nce R ul e 404( b) w as enac t ed, t he t erm “r es ges t ae” has lar g e lyg iv e n w a yto its “ m o d e rn , d e -L a tin iz e d ” d e sc e n d a n t:

“ in trin sic e v id e n c e ,” th e ter m in v o k e d b yth e G o v e rn m e n t in th is cas e. See 1 C hr i s t opherB

. M uel l er& L ai r d C

. K i r kpatr i ck, 11 Feder alE vi dence § 4 :3 3 (3 d e d . 2 0 0 3 ). See a l so E dw ard J. Im w in k e lr ie d , The Secon d C om i ng of R es G es t ae , 5 0 Ca t h

. U. L

. R e v . 7 1 9 , 7 2 8 (2 0 1 0 ) [ h e re in a f te r I m w in k e lr ie d , The Second C om i ng of R es G es t ae ] ( des cr i bi ng t he i nextr i cabl yi nt er t w i ned d o c t r i n e a s “ a r g u a b l y t h e s e c o n d c o mi n g o f t h e c o mm o n - l a w r es ges t ae pr i nci pl e”)

. A s m ent i oned ea r l i er , m odern cas es di vi de evidence o f other cr i m es and b ad acts i nto tw o categori es: t ho se
“ e x trin sic ” to th e c h a rg e d o f f e n se , an d th o se “ in trin sic ” to it. E x trin sic e v id e n c e m u st b e analyzed u nd er R ule 4 0 4 (b ); in trin sic evi dence need not be. R eca l l i ng t he l ogi c foral l ow i ng r es ges t ae e vi dence, cour t s t odayexempt i nt r i ns i c evi dence fr om ap p li ca ti o n o f R u le 40 4 (b) o n the theo ry that there is n o “o ther” w r ongful conductat i s s ue; t he evi dence i s admi s s i bl e as par tand p a rc e l o f th e c h a rg e d o f f e n s e . C om

par e G i anot os , 104 F. 2d at 932 ( r es ges t ae e vi dence admi s s i ble “nott o es t abl i s h t heSee G i anot os , 1 0 4 F .2 d a t 9 3 2 ; T u ffa n e lli , 131 F. 2d at 12 893. 26 comm i s s i on of a di s t i nctoffe ns e . . . . butfori t s bear i ng on t he c ri m e u n d e r i n v e s tig a tio n ” ), w i th U ni t ed Stat es v. G i bbs , 190 F

. 3 d 188, 217- 18 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( i nt r i ns i c evi dence i s not su b ject t o R u le 40 4 (b) a n aly sis b e c au se th ere is no “o ther” cr i m e)

. T he di s t i nct i on betw een i nt r i ns i c and e xt r i ns i c evi dence h a s b e e n c ri tic iz e d , s ee, e. g. , U nited S t ates v. C ross , 308 F. 3d 3 0 8 , 3 2 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); U n ited S ta tes v . B o w ie , 232 F. 3d 923, 9 2 7 (D .C . C ir . 2 0 0 0 ), b u t it i s o n e w e h a v e a c c e p te d , s ee, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. H

of f ecker , 5 3 0 F

. 3 d 1 3 7 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ); G i bbs , 1 9 0 F .3 d a t 2 1 7

. T hi s br i ngs us t o t he i s s ue pr es ent ed i n t hi s appea l

. W as evi dence of G r een’ s t hr eatt o ki l l A

. G

. “i nt r i ns i c” t o t he cha r ged off ense of at t em pted po sses si on of cocaine w i t h i ntent to di s t r i but e? T h e an s w ert o t hatques t i on depends on t he d ef init ion o f “ intr ins ic e v id en ce , ” a term w e h av e u sed b ef o re b u t n e v e r c o n c lu siv e lyd e f in e d . E x h u m in g th e “ in se p a r a b ly connec t ed” a nd “i nextr i cabl ym ixed up” l anguage of r es g estae , m o st co u rt s o f a p p ea ls t o d ayh o ld tha t acts are

12

“ in trin sic ” to th e c h a rg e d o f f e n se if th e ya re “ in e x trica b ly in te rt w in e d ” w ith th a t o f f e n s e . C ross , 308 F

. 3 d at320. T hey al l ow t hi s evi dence fort he s ame r eas on cour t s once a l l ow ed r es ges t ae e vi dence : i thel ps t he fa ct fi ndert o “eva l uat e al l of the ci r cumst ance s under w hi ch t he defenda nt act ed. ” U ni t ed Stat es v . Sm ith , 93 0 F

. 2d 10 81 , 10 87 (5th C i r. 19 91 ). In ot her w ords,27 i t ai ds under s t andi ng by “compl et [i ng] t he s t or y ” of the cha r ged c ri m e . See, e. g. , U

n it edSt at es v. B as ham , 561 F. 3d 302, 326 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); U

n itedS ta tes v . Su m lin , 4 8 9 F .3 d 6 8 3 , 6 8 7 (5 th C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ar boni , 2 0 4 F

. 3 d 3 9 , 4 4 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). C o u rts f

o llo w in g th is re a so n in g e m p lo ya v a rie tyo f tes ts f o r d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a n a c t is “ in e x tr i cablyi ntertw i ned ” w ith t he cha r ged off

ens e. T he E l eventh C i r cui t hol ds t hatevi dence i s i nextr i cabl yi nt er t w i ned i f i t i s “not par t of the cr i m e cha r ged but p erta i n[s ] t o t he cha i n of eve nt s expl ai ni ng t he cont ext ” of t he cr i m e; ori s “l i nked i n t i m e and circu m s t ance s w i t h t he char ged cr i m e”; or“form s an i nt egr al and natur al p art of a n acc ountof the cr i m e”; or“compl et e[s ] the s t oryof the cr i m e for t he j ur y . ” U

ni t ed S tat es v. W

r ight , 3 9 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 6 (1 1 th C i r . 2004)

. T he Seventh C i r cui texempt s fr om R ul e 404(b) evi dence of m i s conduct t hat s uppl i es “a compl et e s t or y o f the cr i m e on tr i al ”; evi dence nece s s aryt o avoi d “a c hr onol ogi cal or c o n c e p tu a l v o id in th e sto ry o f th e c rim e ” ; a n d e v id e n c e th a t is “s o bl ended orconnec t ed t hat i t i nci dent al l y i nvol ves , expl ai ns t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng, or t ends t o pr ove anyel ementof, t he cha r ged cr i m e. ” U

ni t ed St at es v. G i bs on , 170 F. 3d 673, 681 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e E ig h th C irc u it cons i der s evi dence i nextr i cabl yi nt er t w i ned i f i ti s “an i nt egr al par tof the i m m edi at e cont extof t h e crime char ged. ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . H

a ll , 604 F. 3d 539, 543 ( 8t h C i r . 2010)

. T he Second C irc u it i n q u ire s w h e th e r th e u n c h a rg e d c rim e e v id e n c e is “nec es s aryt o compl et e the s t or yof the cr i m e on tr i al

. ” U n it edSee a l so U ni t ed Stat es v. C onner , 583 F. 3d 1011, 13 1018- 21 ( 7t h C i r . 2009) ( cr edi t i n g sever al cr i t i ci s m s of the inex tr icab lyintertw ined testan d h o lding that the d istri c t cou rt abus ed i t s di s cr et i on byadmi t t i ng ev idence pur s uantt o t he d o c tr in e ). 28 St at es v. Q ui nones , 511 F. 3d 289, 309 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed). T h e Tent h C i r cui tas ks w hethera w i t nes s ’ s t es t i m ony“w oul d have been confus i ng and i ncompl et e w i t houtm ent i on of the [unchar ged] act
. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Johns on , 4 2 F .3 d 1 3 1 2 , 1 3 1 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ).
T h e re a re a t lea st th re e p ro b lem s w ith th e “ in e x trica b ly in ter tw in e d ” tes t an d its su b s id iar yf o rm u latio n s. T h e f

irst is t hatt he t es tcr eat es confusi o n beca us e, qui t e s i m pl y , no one k n o w s w h a t itm e a n s. S u c h a n im p e d im e n t sta n d s a s a n o b sta c le to h e lp f u l a n a ly sis

. In d e e d , w e h a v e c riticiz e d th e “ in e x trica b ly in te rt w in e d ” s ta n d a r d a s “ a d e f in itio n th a t e lu c id a te s littl e .” C ross , 30 8 F

. 3 d at320. T he Seventh C i r cui t , w hi ch has c o n sis ten tlyu se d th e tes t, ad m its th a t it is o f ten “ u n h e lp f

u lly vague. ” U

ni t ed States v. Tayl or , 5 2 2 F

. 3 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 4 (7th C ir

. 2008)

. P rofe s s or s M uel l erand K i r kpatr i ck ar gue thati t“has

13 pr oved el ast ic and i nvi t es abus e. ” 1 M uel l er& K i r kpatr i ck, supra , § 4 :3 3 . O th e rs n o te th a t it “ su b stitu tes a c a re f u l an a ly sis w ith b o ile rp la te ja rg o n ,” 1 -4 0 4 S te p h e n A

. S a ltz b u rg e t a l., Fe d e ra l R u les o

f E v id e n c e Ma n u a l § 404. 02[12] ( 9t h ed. ) , and “i nvi t es s l oppy , non- anal y t i cal deci s i on- m aki ng, ” Leonar d, supra , § 5. 2 at327. E ven Pr ofes s orI m w i nkel r i ed, w ho defe nds29 t he t es t , conce des t hat t he “vac uous natur e of [i t s ] w or di ng gi ves cour t s l i cense t o empl oys l oppyanal y s i s and al l ow s t hem qui ckl yt o s l i p fr om a conc l us or yanal y s i s t o a des i r ed c o n c lu s io n .” Im w in k e lr ie d , The Second C om i ng of R es G es t ae , supra , a t 7 2 9 -3 0

. I ndeed, t hi s cas e exe m pl i fi es how el us i ve and unhel pful t he “ine xt r i cabl yi nt er t w i ned” s t andar d can be

. A l l of the for m ul at i ons us ed byt he court s of appe al s purpor tt o embody t he same t es t , but cl ear l y t hey ar e noti nt er change abl e. W hether e v id e n c e q u a lifie s a s in trin sic in a p a rticu lar c a se m a yw e ll depend on w hi ch ver s i on of t he t es t one em pl oy s . Forexampl e, G reen’ s threatt o k i l l A

. G

. w ou l d q uali fyas i ntr i nsi c i f t he tes t i s w hetheri t“pert ai n[s ] t o t he cha i n of even t s expl ai ni ng t he c o n te x t” o f

th e c ri m e , W

r ight , 3 9 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 6 , b e c a u se it “pert ai ned t o” ( i n fac t , t r i gger ed) St ahl ’ s deci s i on t o go to the FB I and t he s ubs equent chai n of event s t hr ough w hi ch G r een w as caughtat t empt ing to pos s es s coca i ne. T he s ame t hr eat w oul d not be i nt r i ns i c, how ever , i f the t es tw er e w hethert hat t hr eatw as “an i nt egr al par tof the i m m edi at e cont extof the cr i m e cha r ged. ” H

a ll , 60 4 F

. 3d at54 3. T he D i stri ctC ou rtj ust as eas i l ycoul d have f

or ced the G ov ernm entt o s t ar tt he t al e of Gr e e n ’ s wr o n g d o i n g wi t h t h e f a c tt h a tS t a h l we n t t o t h e F BI beca us e G r een had expr es s ed i nt er es t i n buy i ng cocain e a nd d yn a mi t e . I twa s n o ts t r i c t l yn e c e s s a r y f o r t h e j u r yt o k n o w w hy G r een w ant ed dynami t e i n or derfori tt o under s t and t hat he di d, an d that h is i n q u ir ies o n that p o int d rov e S tahl to the F B I. L ik e w ise , G re e n ’s th re a t to k ill A .G . w o u ld p ro b a b lyb e in trin sic30 evi dence i f t he t ouchs t one w er e w hether t hatt hr eat“expl ai n[ed] t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng” St ahl ’ s deci s i on t o w arn t he F B I. G ibs on , 170 F. 3d at681. I tw oul d notbe i nt r i ns i c, how e v e r , i f

t h e r e l e v a n ti n q u i r yi s whe t h e rSt a h l ’ s t e s t i m ony “w oul d have be en conf

us i ng and i ncompl et e w i t houtm ent i on” o f th e th re a t a g a in s t A .G

. Johns on , 42 F. 3d at1316. W e s ee no pr i nci pl ed w ayt o choos e among t hes e compet i ng i ncarnat i ons o f th e tes t, y e t th a t ch o ice c o u ld w e ll b e d e ter m in a tiv e . “S im p ly s t at ed, t he i ndefi ni t e phr asi ng of the doctr i ne i s a vi r tual in v ita tio n f

o r a b u s e .” Im w in k e lr ie d , The Second Com i ng of R es G es t ae , supra , a t 7 3 0

. T he seco nd problem w i t h the i ne xtr i c a bl yi nt e rtw i ned t est i s t hatr es or tt o i ti s unnece s s ary . T h e m o s tcomm on ju stif ica tio n f o r a d m itt in g e v id e n c e o f “ in ter tw in e d ” a c ts is to al l ow a w i t nes s t o t es t i fy fr eel y and coher ent l y ; w e do notw ant hi m t o h a v e t o t i p t o e a r o u n d u n c h a r g e d b a d a c t s b yt he defe nd ant, and t herebyri sk d ist ort i ng his narr at i ve. T his i s a w or t hygoal , buti t can be accompl i s hed w i t houtci r cumvent i ng R ul e 404( b)

. A s t he D

. C

. C i r cui texpl ai ned i n B o w ie : I f t he so- cal l ed “i nt r i ns i c” act i s i ndeed par tof the cr i m e cha r ged, evi dence of i tw i l l , bydefi ni t i on, a lw a y s sa tisf

y R u le 4 0 4 (b ). T h e ru le b a rs b a d a c ts e v id e n c e o n ly w h e n th e e v id e n c e is o f f e re d so lely to “ p ro v e th e c h a ra c ter o f a p e rso n in o rd e r to s h o w a c tio n in c o n fo rm it y the re w ith .” Fed. R

. E vi d. 404( b)

. E vi dence t hatcons t i tut es t he v e ryc rim e b e in g p ro se c u ted is n o t o f th a t so rt.31 23 2 F

. 3d at927. T her e i s l i t t l e pr act i cal di ffe r ence betw een admi t t i ng i nextr i cabl y i nt er t w i ned evi dence as “backgr ound” p u rsu a n t to R u les 4 0 1 a n d 4 0 2 , an d a d m itt in g it u n d e r R u le 40 4(b). In bo t h cases, t he ev i den ce m ustbe rel evan t , i tm ust p a ss m u ste r u n d e r R u le 4 0 3 , a n d it m u st n o t b e in tro d u c e d so lely to p ro v e th e d e f

e n d a n t’s c rim in a l p ro p e n sity . “[ T ]h e o n ly cons equenc es of l abel i ng evi dence ‘ i nt r i ns i c’ ar e t o r el i eve the p rose cu ti o n o f R u le 40 4 (b)’s n o ti ce req u ir em en t and the c o u rt of i t s obl i gat i on t o gi ve an appr opr i at e l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on upon defe ns e couns el ’ s r eques t
. ” Id. See a l so U nited S t ates v. A m eri , 297 F. Supp. 2d 1168, 1173 ( E

. D

. A r k. 2004) ( “I ti s di ffi cul tfor m e to c o n

ju re u p a f

a c t situ a tio n w h e re ‘in e x trica b ly in ter tw in e d ’ e v id e n c e w o u ld n ’t b e a d m iss ib le u n d e r R u le 40 4(b). If t his i s true, w hydis card t he R ule 404(b) safeguards?

. . . . [ T ]h e n o tice re q u ire m e n t o f 4 0 4 (b ) is m a n if

e stlyim p o rta n t, a n d is o f ten c ru c ial i f th e D e f

e n d a n t is to m e e t th e ‘b a d a c t’ evi dence

. ”)

. St at ed anotherw ay , t he “i nextr i cabl yi nt er t w i ned” d o c trin e e x e m p ts e v i d e n c e o f wr o n g f u l a c t s t h a t e x p l ai n t he ci r cumst ance s of the cr i m e fr om t he r i gor s of R ul e 404( b)

. B ut t he s ame e vi dence w oul d al s o be adm i s s i bl e w i thi n the f r am ew or k of that rul e beca us e al l ow i ng t he j ur yt o under s t and t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he char ged cr i m e— compl et i ng th e sto ry

— is a p ro p e r, n o n -p ro p e n sity p u rp o se u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ). See, e. g. , U

nit ed S t ates v. O ’Leary , 739 F. 2d 135, 136 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( i dent i fy i ng t he nee d “t o s how t he bac kgr ound of the charges [and ] t he part i es’ fam i l i ari t y w i t h each other” as a p rop er p u rpo se); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Si m m ons , 679 F. 2d 1042, 1050 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 2 ) (c o n c lu d in g th a t p ro v id in g th e ju ryw ithSee al s o Tayl or , 522 F. 3d at736 ( des cr i bi ng t he nee d 14 to a v o id ju ro r c o n f

u sio n a s a p ro p e r p u rp o se ); U n it ed St at es v. Mast ers , 622 F. 2d 83, 86- 88 ( 4t h C i r . 1980) ( expl ai ni ng t hatt he need t o “co m plet e t he st ory ” of the cr i m e for t he fa ct fi nd er i s a pr operpurpos e under R ul e 404( b) ) ; 1 K enneth S. B r oun, McC or m i ck on Evi dence § 1 9 0 (6 th e d . 2 0 0 9 ) ( s a m e ). 32 “nece ssaryback groun d inform a ti on ” w as a proper purpo se u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b )); U

ni t ed Stat es v. D ans ker , 537 F. 2d 40, 58 ( 3d C i r . 1976) ( uphol di ng i nt r oduct i on of pr i orcr i m i nal act s by defe ndant s beca us e “the b ackgr ound i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded by t hi s t es t i m onyenabl ed the j ur yt o bet t erun d erstand [ t he w i t nes s ’ s ] r ol e i n t he br i berys cheme as w el l as hi s t es t i m onyas a w hol e”)

. A l l t hati s acc om pl i s hed by label i ng evi dence

14 “i nt r i ns i c” i s rel i evi ng t he G overnm entfr om pr ovi di ng a d e f e n d a n t w ith th e p ro c e d u ra l p ro te c tio n s o f R u le 4 0 4 (b ).
T he thi rd p robl em w i t h the i nex t ri cablyi ntert w i ned t est i s t hats om e of i ts br oaderfor m ul at i ons , t aken a tfac e val ue, c la s s if ye v id e n c e o f

v ir tu a lly a n y b a d a c t a s in tr in s ic

. See, e. g. , G i bs on , 1 7 0 F. 3d at681 ( per m i t t i ng evi dence of anyactt hat “expl ai ns t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng . . . t he cha r ged cr i m e”)

. A s w e w arned i n C ross , s u c h a re g im e w o u ld e v is c e ra te R u le 4 0 4 (b ). See 3 0 8 F .3 d a t 3 2 0

. See a l so B o w ie , 2 3 2 F .3 d a t 9 2 9 ; A m eri , 297 F. Supp. 2d at1169 ( expl ai ni ng t hat a “ lib e ra l v iew o f

th e ‘in e x trica b lyin ter tw in e d ’ e x c e p tio n to R ul e 404( b) w oul d es s ent i al l y nul l i fyt he 404( b) r es t r i ct i ons on ‘b a d a c t’ e v id e n c e ” ).33 T hi s C our thas neveradopt ed i t s ow n ver s i on of the “i nextr i cabl y i nt er t w i ned” t es t
. I n C ross , w e not ed s om e of the p r o b l e m s w i t h t h e t e s tb u t u l t i m a t e l yr e s e r v e d j u d g m e n t
. We o b s e rv e d th a t “ th e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n in tr in s ic a n d e x tr in s ic

. . . ev id e n c e is o f

ten f u z z y ” a n d n o ted th a t “m o st c irc u it co u rts v iew e v id e n c e a s intrin sic if it i s ‘in e x trica b lyin ter tw in e d ’ w ith t he charge d o ff

en s e . . . ori f i t‘ compl et es t he s t or y ’ of the char ged off

ens e. ” C ross , 308 F. 3d at320. W e poi nt ed outt hat t he for m er appr oach w as “a defi ni t i on t hat el uci dat es l i t t l e, ” and t he l at t er“s o br oad t hati tr ender s R ul e 404( b) m eani ngl es s . ” I d. H ow ever , w e found i tu n n ec ess aryt o go bey ond hi ghl i ght i ng th e se “ p e d a g o g ic a l p ro b lem s w ith u n d e rsta n d in g in trin sic e v i d e n c e . ” B eca us e C ross ar os e fr om a cr i m i nal cons pi r acy c h a r g e , t h e i n t r i n s i c / e x t r i n s i c i s s u e w a s e a s yt o r e s o l v e . We n o ted th a t, un d e r T h ird C irc u it p re c e d e n t, “a c ts a re in trin sic w hen theydi r ect l ypr ove the cha r ged cons pi r acy . ” Id

. ( ci t i ng G i bbs , 190 F. 3d at217- 18)

. W e conc l uded thatbeca use t he e v i d e n c e a ti s s u e d i d n o td i r e c t l y p r o v e t h e c h a r g e d c o n s p i r a c y, it w a s n o t in tr in s ic

. Id

. A ccor di ngl y , w e decl i ned t o deci de the b o u n d a r i e s o f

i n t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e f

o re v e r yc a s e . S p e c i f

i c a l l y , we expr es s ed “no vi ew on w hether ‘ ot heract s ’ evi dence t hatdoes notdi r ect l ypr ove an e l em en t o f the cha r ged off ens e maybe ‘in trin sic ’ . . . if [ it i s] ‘ in e x trica b lyin ter tw in e d ’ w ith th e e v e n ts under l y i ng t he cha r ge, s o t hat t he evi dence i s nece s s aryfort he j ur yt o under s t and how t he offe ns e occurr ed ort o compre hend cruci al t es t i m ony . ” Id

. a t 3 2 0 n .1 9

. O u r resist an ce to th e “ine x tr icab lyintertw ined ” stan d ard34 has notdi m i ni s hed s i nce C ross , and t odayw e m ake c l eart hat t his is n o tourt es tfori nt r i ns i c evi dence

. L i ke i t s pr edec es s or r es ges t ae, t he i nextr i cabl yi nt er t w i ned t es ti s vague, overbr oad, a n d p ro n e to a b u se , an d w e c a n n o t ig n o re th e d a n g e r i t p o se s to th e v ita lity o f

R u le 4 0 4 (b ).
T h a t is n o t to sa yw e re jec t th e c o n c e p t o f

in trin sic evi dence ent i r el y . I ns t ead, w e w i l l r es erve the “i nt r i ns i c” l abel f o r tw o n a rro w c a teg o rie s o f e v id e n c e . F irst, ev id e n c e is i n tr in s ic if

it “ d ir e c tly p ro v e s ” th e c h a rg e d o f f e n s e . S e e e . g. , C ross , 3 0 8 F .3 d a t 3 2 0 ; G i bbs , 190 F. 3d at218 ( act s of vi ol ence a d m is s ib le a s d ir e c t p ro o f o f th e c h a rg e d d ru g c o n s p ir a c y ). See a ls o B o w ie , 232 F. 3d at929 ( acknow l edgi ng t hatevi dence of

“ a n a c t thati s partof the charged off ense . . . i s properly co n side red intr insic”). T h is give s ef fe ct t o R u le 4 0 4 (b)’s appl i cabi l i t y onl yt o evi dence of “ other c ri m e s , w ro n g s , o r a c ts .” Fed. R

. E vi d. 404( b ) (em phas i s added)

. I f uncha r ged m i s conductdi r ect l ypr oves t he cha r ged off ens e, i ti s not e v id e n c e o f

s o m e “ o th e r” c ri m e . G i bbs , 1 9 0 F. 3 d at 218. Second, “unc h a r g e d a c t s p e r f o rme d c o n t empora neous l yw i t h t he char ged cr i m e maybe t erm ed i ntr ins i c i f theyfac i l i t at e the co m m i s s i on of the cha r ged cr i m e. ” B o w ie , 232 F. 3d at929. B u t a ll e ls e m u s t b e a n a lyze d u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ).
A s a p ra c tica l m a tter, it is u n lik e lyth a t o u r h o ld in g w ill ex clud e m uch, i f any , evi dence t hati s curr ent l yadmi s s i bl e as b ac k gr ound or“compl et es t he s t or y ” evi dence undert he i nextr i cabl yi nt er t w i ned t es t
. W e r ei t er at e thatt he purpos e ofO f c o u rse , t h e f

a c t th a t ev id e n c e is a d m iss ib le for 15 s om e purpos e does notnece s s ar i l ym ean thati ts houl d be admi t t ed. A s al w ay s , dist ri ct cour t s m us texcl ude evi dence under R ul e 403 w her e i t s cl ar i fy i ng val ue as “bac kgr ound” may b e s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b yth e ri s k o f u n f a irp re ju d ic e . 35 R ul e 404( b) i s “s i m pl yt o keep f r om t he j ur yevi dence t hatt he defe ndanti s pr one t o comm i tcr i m es ori s ot herw i s e a ba d per s on, i m pl y i ng t hat t he j ur yneedn’ tw or r yoverm uch aboutt he s t r ength of the governm ent ’ s evi dence

. ” Ta yl or , 522 F. 3d at 7 3 5

- 3 6 . “ N

o otherus e of pri or cri m es or other bad act s is f o rb id d e n b yth e ru le,” a n d o n e p ro p e r us e o f su c h e v id e n c e “ is t he nee d t o avoi d confus i ng t he j ur y . ” Id

. a t 7 3 6 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). See al

s o Si m m ons , 679 F. 2d at 1050 ( r ecogni zi ng t hat o ther c ri m es e v iden ce m ayb e a d m issi b le i f o ff ere d fo r any nonpr opens i t ypurp o se, and i dent i fy i ng t he nee d “t o pr ovi de nece s s arybackgr ound i nfor m at i on ” aboutt he r el at i ons hi ps a m o n g th e p layers a s a p ro p e r p u rp o se ). T h u s, m o st, if n o t all, o ther c ri m es e v iden ce cu rren tl yad m itted o u tsi d e the fra m ew o rk o f R u le 4 0 4 (b ) as “ b a c k g ro u n d ” e v id e n c e w ill r e m a in a d m iss ib le u n d e r th e a p p r o a c h w e a d o p t to d a y . T h e o n ly 15 di ffe r ence is tha tt he pr oponentw i l l have t o pr ovi de not i ce of hi s i nt ent i on t o us e t he evi dence , and i dent i fyt he s peci fi c, nonp ro p e n sityp u rp o se f

o r w h ich h e s e e k s to in tro d u c e it ( i

. e. , a llo w in g th e ju ry to h e a r t h e f u ll s to ry o f

th e c ri m e ). S e e B o w ie , 2 3 2 F .3 d a t 9 2 7 . A d d iti o n a lly , the trial c o u rt w ill b e re q u ire d to g iv e a lim itin g in s tr u c tio n u p o n re q u e s t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Ke mp , 5 0 0 F .3 d 2 5 7 , 2 9 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); B o w ie , 232 F. 3d at36 9 2 7 -2 8 (e x p lain in g th a t d e sig n a tio n o f e v id e n c e a s “ in e x trica b ly i nte r t w i ned” undul ydepr i ves t he def endantof the r i ghtt o a li m it ing instruction ).
A pp l y i ng t he st and ards s et f o rth ab ov e, t his i s a s t r a i g h t f o rwa r d c a s e . E v i d e n c e o f Gr e e n ’ s t h r e a tt o k i l l A. G. w i t h dynami t e w as noti nt r i ns i c evi dence

. Fi rst , it di d not d ire c tlyp ro v e th a t G re e n a ttem p ted to p o ss e ss c o c a in e w ith i nt entt o di s t r i but e. A ddi t i onal l y , i tdi d noti n anym eani ngful w ayfac i l i t at e hi s at t empt t o pr ocur e cocai ne thr ough “Fr anki e” a n d “ M a ri o ”

— th e o n ly cr im e w ith w h ic h h e w a s c h a rg e d

. M i ndful t hatw e may aff i r m for any r eas on s uppor t ed by t he r ecor d , h ow ever , w e tur n t o t he governm ent ’ s al t ernat i ve ar gum entt hatevi dence o f G r een’ s t hr eatt o ki l l A

. G

. w as a d m is s ib le u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ).
I V.
T o be admi s s i bl e underR ul e 404( b) , evi dence of u n ch arg ed crim es o r w ron g s m u st (1) ha v e a p rop er e v iden ti ary p u rpo se; ( 2) be r el evant ; ( 3) s at i s fyR ul e 403; and ( 4) be acc om pani ed by a l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on ( w her e r eques t ed) about th e p u rp o s e f

o r w h ic h th e ju ry m a yc o n s id e r i t. U ni t ed Stat es v. B ut ch , 256 F. 3d 171, 175 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. A s expl ai ned above , t he D i s t r i ctC our tgave a l i m it ing i ns t ruct i on t hatG r een expl i ci t l yappr oved. W e conc l ude thatt he r emai ni ng re q u ir e m e n ts w e re m e t a s w e ll.37 F i rs t , t he ev i den ce ser ved atl eastt w o p ro p er purposes. A pr operpurpos e i s one thati s “pr obat ive o f a m at er i al i s s ue ot hert han cha r act er . ” H uddl es t on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 48 5 U. S. 681, 686 ( 1988)

. T he evi dence m us t fi t“i nt o a cha i n of l ogi cal i nfer ence s , no l i nk of w hi ch maybe the i nfer ence th att he d e f e n d a n t h a s t h e p ro p e n s ity to c o m m it th e c ri m e c h a rg e d .” U ni t ed Stat es v. Hi m elw r ight , 4 2 F

. 3 d 7 7 7 , 7 8 2 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ). A s expl ai ned i n t he pr evi ous s ect i on, one pr operpurpos e under R ul e 404(b) i s s uppl y i ng hel pful backgr ound i nfor m at i on t o t he f in d e r o f f a c t. Si m m ons , 679 F. 2d at1050. H ere , evi dence of G r ee n ’ s t hr eatw as admi s s i bl e as backgr ound i nfor m at i on w hi ch compl et ed the s t or yof t he cr i m e. I texpl ai ned w hyG r een w as u n d e r in v e stig a tio n , w h y S tah l ag re e d to se rv e a s a n in f o rm a n t, a n d th e r e f

e r e n c e s to A .G . in th e irc o n v e rs a tio n s . See i d. ; O ’Leary , 7 3 9 F .2 d a t1 3 6 ; D ans ker , 5 3 7 F .2 d a t 5 8

. E vidence thatG reen th re at ened t o k i l l A

. G

. w as al so a d m iss ib le p ro o f

o f m o tiv e . F e d . R

. E v id

. 4 0 4 (b ). “M o tiv e ” is “[s ] om ethi ng . . . t hatl eads one t o act
. ” B l ack’s La w D i ct i on ary at1039 ( 8t h ed

. 2 0 0 4 )

. H er e, G r een putSt ahl ’ s m ot i ves for c o o p e ra tin g w ith th e F B I sq u a re ly a t is su e d u rin g th e trial. B o th i n h i s o p e n i n g s t a t e me n t a n d o n c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i on, he vi gor ous l ys ugges t ed thatSt ahl coop era t ed w i t h t he in v e stig a tio n in o rd e r to m a k e m o n e y , o r to g e t th e F B I to h e lp hers on w i t h hi s cr i m i nal char ges . I n l i ghtof thatat t ack, t he G overnm entw as ent i t l ed t o pr oduce evi dence of an a l t ernat i ve m oti ve fo r hercoo perat i on

— nam el y , her con cern t hat “offi cers ’ l i ves w er e i n danger ”— w hi ch i th o p ed w oul d i m pr ove herO r , t o s ki p a s t ep i n t he ana l y s i s , t he requi r ed pr oper 16 purpos e w as the re habi l i t at i on of S t ahl ’ s cr edi bi l i t y , i n l i ghtof G r een’ s s ugges ti o n s t hats he w as m ot i vat ed bym oneyand c o o p e ra te d s o le ly f

o r s e lf is h re a s o n s . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jem al , 26 F. 3d 1267, 1272 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( not i ng t hatt he l i s tof perm i s s i bl e purpos es pr ovi ded i n t he t ext of R ul e 404(b) i s not ex h au sti v e). 38 cr edi bi l i t yw i t h t he j ur y , es peci al l y i n l i ght of her t es t i m onyt hat t hree of h er br other s w ere ei t her act i ve o r r et i red st at e t roopers. 16 S e e U n itedS ta tes v . Sc a rfo , 850 F. 2d 1015, 1021 ( 3d C i r . 1988) (up h o lding d istri ct co u rtd ec isi o n to allow o ther c ri m es e v iden ce w hi ch hel ped the j ur y“eva l uat e the w i t nes s es ’ m o ti ves for cooper at i ng w i t h t he govern m ent ”)

. W e r ecogni ze thati n t he or di nary cas e t he re qui s i t e “pr oper purpos e” expl ai ns s om ethi ng aboutt he defenda nt’s m o tiv e , p lan , o r k n o w led g e . T h is c a se is u n u su a l in th a t th e p ro p e r p u rp o se w e h a v e id e n tifie d re late s to a wi t n e s s ’ s mot i v e , n o t t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s . W h i l e t hi s m aybe uncomm on, i ti s appr opr i at e. R ul e 404( b) pr ovi des t hat evi dence of othercr i m es i s i nadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove t he cha r act er o f “ a p erso n , ” b u t m ayb e a d m issi b le a s p roo f o f th at pe rson ’s “mot i ve, oppor tuni t y , i nt ent , ” et c. I tdoes nots peci fyt hat evi dence i s onl y admi s s i bl e t o p rov e the d efen da n t’s m ot i ve, o p p o rt u n ity, o r i n te n t. See, e. g. , S c a rfo , 850 F. 2d at1021; Im w in k e lr ie d , U

nchar ged Mis conduct

E vi dence , supra , § 6: 12 (n o tin g th a t o th e r c rim e s ev i den c e m a yb e a d m iss ib le “ to e x p lain th e c o n d u c t o f

th e p o lic e , . . . th e v ic tim , a n in f o r m e r, a g o v ern m en t w itn ess, or the d ef en d an t”). I n t hi s cas e, t he fa ctG r een’ s onl yar gum entagai ns t ad m is s i bi l i t yunder 17 R ul e 404( b) i s t hatevi dence of hi s t hr eatt o ki l l A

. G

. coul d not have be en admi t t ed underR ul e 404( b) beca use h i s m ot i ve for bu y i ng dy nam i t e (r et ri bu t i on ) w as enti rel y un rel at ed to h is m ot i ve fort he cha r ged coc ai ne off ens e ( m aki ng m oney )

. E ven if t rue, t he point i s i rr el evan t
. A s w e hav e exp l ai ned , R u le 4 0 4 (b ) do e s n o t re q u ire th a t th e e v id e n c e a t iss u e h e lp e x p lain the d efen da n t’s m oti ves, on l y t he m oti ve o f som e person w ho se m o tiv e is re lev a n t. 39 t hatevi dence of G r een’ s t hr eathel ped t o expl ai n St ahl ’ s m ot i ves f o r a c tin g a s a n in f

o r m a n t w a s s u f

f icie n t to sa tisf

yR u le 4 0 4 (b). 17 Second, evi dence t hat G r een thr eat ened t o ki l l A

. G

. w as r el evant
. E vi dence i s r el evanti f i thas “anyt endenc yt o m ake t he exi s t ence of anyfac tthati s of cons equence to t he det erm i nat i on of t he ac t i on m or e pr obabl e orl es s pr obabl e than it w o u ld b e w ith o u t th e e v id e n c e .” F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 1 . T h is defi n it ion i s “verybr oad. ” G i bs on v. Mayor& Counci lof W i lm i ngt on , 355 F. 3d 215, 232 ( 3d C i r . 2004)

. “Pr oof of bi as i s al m os tal w ay s r el eva n t, ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . We r me , 939 F. 2d 1 0 8 , 1 1 4 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ), b ec au se a “sh o w ing o f b ias o n the p art of a w i t nes s w oul d have a t endenc yt o m ake t he fact s t o w hi ch he t es t i fi ed l es s pr obabl e i n t he ey es of t he j ur y t han i tw oul d be w i t houts uch t es t i m ony . ” U ni t ed St at es v. A bel , 469 U

. S. 45, 49 ( 1 9 8 4 ). See al

s o Schl edw i t

z v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 6 9 F. 3d 1003, 1015 ( 6t h C i r . 1999) ( “[b] i as i s al w ay s r el evanti n as sess ing”40 c re d ib ility). If p ro o f o f b ias is a lm o st a lw a y s re lev a n t, so to o is e v i d e n c e o f

a la c k o f

b ia s . U ni t ed Stat es v. Fus co , 7 4 8 F. 2d 99 6, 99 8 (5t h C i r. 19 84 ) (“B ecause evi den ce of bias or l ack of bias i s s ubs t ant i ve, r ather t han col l at er al , i tm aybe deve l oped on di r ect
. . . [or ] cr os s - exami nat i on, j us tl i ke anyot hers ubs t ant i ve evi dence ”) ( emphasi s added)

. R ecogni t i on of the val ue of s uch evi dence s et t l es t he r el evanc e i s s ue her e. G r een a t t acke d St ahl as l es s t han cr edi bl e bec aus e s he w as bi as ed i n fa v o r of t he G o v e rn m e n t. S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . Su m lin , 271 F. 3d 274, 282 ( D

. C

. C i r . 2001) (ex p l ai ni ng t hatan ac cus at i on of bi as “i s an a c c e p table m etho d o f a tt ac k ing a w itn ess’[ s] cred ibil ity ”). T her efor e, evi dence t hatSt ahl cooper at ed not for t he purpos e of obt ai ni ng favor s fr om t he G overnm ent , butbeca us e A

. G

. ’ s l i fe w as i n danger , w as r el evant
. I tpr ovi ded an e xpl anat i on forher c o o p e ra tio n th a t, i f

b e liev e d , inc re a se d h e r c re d ib ili tyre lativ e to w hat i t w oul d have been i f G r een’ s at t acks had gone unans w er ed, and thus m ade the fa ct s t o w hi ch sh e t es t i fi ed “more pr obabl e . . . . [than theyw oul d have be en] w i t houtt he e v id e n c e .” F e d

. R

. E v id

. 4 0 1

. See al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. P or t er , 8 8 1 F

. 2 d 878, 886 ( 10t h C i r . 1989) ( beca us e the governm ent w itn e s s ’s “ c re d ib ility h a d b e e n p la c e d in is s u e b yth e d e f e n s e ,” ev ide nce c or r obor at i ng t hatw i t nes s ’ s t es t i m onyw as “r el evant forthe purpos e of ove r comi ng t hatat t ack” )

. Ind ee d, evi dence c o n c e rni ng a w i t ness’ s cr edibi l i t yi s al w ay s r el evan t , becau se c re d ib ility is a lw a y s a t is s u e , s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. U

ni ver s al R ehab. Ser vs . (

P A) , I nc. , 205 F. 3d 657, 666 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( en41 b a n c ) ( n o ti n g th a t “[j]u ro rs a re in stru c ted , . . . in a lm o st a ll cas es , t hatt hey ar e t o det erm i ne the cr edi bi l i t yof al l w i t nes s es w ho t es t i fy

. . . . even i n t he abs ence of an aff i r m at i ve cha l l enge t o w i t nes s cr edi bi l i t y ”) , es peci al l y w hen the w i t nes s i s t es t i fy i ng f o r t h e g o v e rn m e n t in a c ri m in a l tr ia l. U nit ed S tates v. G am bi no , 9 2 6 F .2 d 1 3 5 5 , 1 3 6 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (re c o g n izin g th a t, “[ i ] n anycr i m i nal t r i al , t he cr edi bi l i t yof the pr os ecut i on ’s w itn e s s e s is c e n tr a l” ).
T hi r d, and contr aryt o G r een’ s ar gum ento n ap p eal , t he D istri ct C o u rt w as no t req u ir ed to exc lud e ev iden ce o f G ree n ’s t hr eatunderR ul e 403. T hat rul e per m i t s a tr i al j udge t o excl ude re lev a n t ev id e n c e if

“ its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s u b sta n tially out w ei gh e d b yt h e d a n g e ro f u n f a i rp r e j u d i c e . ” Fe d

. R. Ev i d. 40 3. W e revi ew for abu se of d i scr et i on , w hich m eans w e m ust uphol d t he D i s t r i ctC our tunl es s i ts ru li ng w as “arbi t r aryor i r r at i onal

. ” U

niversalR eha b. Servs. , 2 0 5 F .3 d a t 6 6 5

. W e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on her e. T he evi dence at iss u e c a rrie d so m e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e . It h e lp e d e x p lain w h ytalk of d y n ami t e perm eat ed G r een a nd St ahl ’ s t aped c onver s at i ons ab o u t coc aine , an d w h yS tahl w as w o rkin g w ith the F B I. M eanw hi l e, t he r i s k of unfai r pr ej udi ce, w hi l e ce r t ai nl ypr es ent gi ven the depl or abl e natur e of G r een’ s t hr eat , w as nots o gr eat as t o r equi r e re ver s al

. W e not e thatw e have r ej ect ed R ul e 403 chal l enges t o t he admi s s i on of evi dence t hatw as j us tas p re ju d ic ia l a s th e e v id e n c e a t is s u e h e re . See, e. g. , S c a rfo , 850 F .2 d a t 1 0 2 0 (e v id e n c e o f u n c h a rg e d m u rd e rs) ; U ni t ed Stat es v.42 Sriy u th , 98 F. 3d 739, 748 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( evi dence of uncha r ged ra p e ). F u rth e rm o re , an yrisk o f u n f a ir pr ej udi ce w as m i ni m i zed b yth e D istric t C o u rt’s lim iti n g in stru c tio n , w h ich c a re f u lly ci r cumscr i bed the purpos e forw hi ch t he j ur y coul d cons i dert he e v id e n c e p e rt a i n i n g t o d yn a m ite

. S e e Sriy u th , 98 F. 3d at748 ( t rus t i ng t he j ur yt o “compar t m ent al i ze the evi dence and co ns i deri tfori t s pr operpurpos es ” i n l i ghtof tr i al cour t’ s lim itin g in s tru c tio n ).
For t hes e re as ons , w e hol d t hat t he cha l l enged e vi dence w as admi s s i bl e u n d er R ul e 404( b)

. A s a r es ul t , w e nee d not d e c id e w h e th e r i ts a d m is s io n w a s h a rm le s s e rr o r. V

. E vi dence of G r een’ s t hr eatt o m ur derA

. G

. w as not in trin sic e v id e n c e . It w a s, h o w e v e r, ad m iss ib le u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ). T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t er r b ya d m itt in g it at tria l. W e w ill a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n t.