FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT OCTOB ER 26, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1415 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 80 00 6- CR-KAM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us BLADYMIR SANTIAGO, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(O ct ob er 26, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T and B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Bl adym ir S an tia go ( “ Santi ag o” ) ap pe al s hi s ars on c onvi ct ionf or m al ic iou sly

dam ag ing or

de str oy ing , by

m eans o f fi re , pr ope rty

use d inint er state
com m erce or in an activity

aff ecting interstate com

m erce , in violation o f 18 U. S. C.2

§ 8 4 4 ( i )
. N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. A t tri al , the gov er

nm en t of fe re d su bst an tia l e vid en ce to pr ove S an tia go intentio nally

burned down Superior Mulch’ s baggin g war ehouse in Palm Beac h Co unty , F lor ida

by usi ng a li ght er to ign ite pa lle ts o f card

board box es c ont ai nin g plastic bags. T his evidence includ ed expert testim ony from Tom Fucci ( “ Fucci”)
an d S te phe n H ill ( “ H ill ”) on the or igi ns and c au se of the f ir e; e vid en ce of

the
co ndi tio ns at the w ar eh ouse ; a sur ve ill an ce vid eo sho w ing an in div idu al m at ch ing Santi ag o’ s de sc ri pti on e nte ri ng the w ar eh ouse , w al kin g to w ar d th e ar ea w he re the fi re b eg an , a n dl ea v i n g ju s tas th e f i re i g n i t ed ; t es t i m o n y co n ce rn i n g Sa n t i ag o ’s de m eanor and dre ss b ef

or e an d a ft er

the f ir e; an a dm iss ionby

S an tia go tha t he entered the w arehouse that night while drunk and m ay have started the fir e accidentally

by droppin g a cigare tte; and testim ony that Santiago had vandalized the war ehouse two m onth s earlier
. On appeal, Santiago argues (1) the district court err ed by

adm itting testim ony

from both o f the governm ent’ s expert witnesses; (2) the district court err ed by allowing certa in prior bad act evidence; and (3) his convictio n was based on insufficient evidence. Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i dn o terr b y ad m i t t i n g th e t es t i m o n y o f t h e g o v ern m en t ’s tw o e xpe rt

w itn es se s, F uc ci and H ill
. W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n of the a dm iss ibi lity

and r el ia bil ity of e xpe rt te sti m ony

und er Ru le 702 f

or abuse of3

di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Frazi er, 3 87 F.3d 12 44 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). An ab use of dis cr et ione xis ts o nly

w he n “ the dis tr ic t c ourt ha s m ad e a cl ear er ro r of j udgm en t, or

ha s a ppl ie d th e w ro ng l eg al standard
. ” I d. a t 12 59. I n D au be rt v. Me rr el l D owP harm s. , I nc . , 113 S
. Ct
. 278 6 ( 1993 ), and K um ho T ir e Co
. v. Carm ic ha el , 119 S
. Ct
. 116 7 ( 1999 ), the S upr em e Co urt of fe re d anon -e xhaust ive lis t of f ac tor s th at

ac ourt sh oul d c onsi de r in f ulf ill ing it s gate -k ee pin g f

unc tio n unde r Ru le 702 : (1) w hether the expert’ s theory can be and has been tested; (2) w hether the the or y ha s be ensub

j ec te d to pe er

r ev ie wand p ubl ic at ion ; ( 3) the known or potent ial rate of err or of the particular scienti fic tec hniq ue; an d ( 4) whe th er the te ch nique is ge ne ra lly a cc ep te d inthe sc ie nti fi c c o mm u n i t y. Fr az ie r, 387 F
. 3d at 12 62 ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). O ur thr ee -p ar t ana ly sis und er

Ru le 702 con siders whether (1 ) the e xpe rt is qua lif

ie d to te sti fy co m

pe te ntl y re gard ing the m atte rs he int en ds t o a ddr es s; ( 2) the m ethodo log y by w hic h the expe rt

r ea ch es his conclusio ns is sufficie ntly reliable as determ ined by the sort of inquiry m an da te d inD au

be rt ; and ( 3) the te sti m ony a ssi sts the tr ie r of

fac t, through the application of scientific, technical, or specialized e xpertise, to und erstand the evidence or to determ ine a fa ct in issue. Id
. a t 12 60 ( ci tatio ns o m itt ed ); se e Fe d. R. E vid
. 702
. The tr ial court did not abuse its discretion b y adm itting Fucci’ s expert te sti m ony . F uc ci ha d e xte nsi ve e xpe ri en ce and tra ini ng i n f ir e inv es tig at ion s,That Fuc ci was not a cer tified arson investigator is inc onclusive of whether he qualifies as an 1 e xpe rt . Ru le 70 2 li sts a

numbe r o f f

a c tor s a c ourt sh ou ld c on side r, inc lud ingkn ow le dg e , s kil l, experience , training , and educ ation. Fe d. R. Evid. 702. Santiag o points to t he National Fire Protection Association’s Guide for F ire a nd Ex plosion 2 In v es t i gat i o n s t o ar gu e t h ata p ro ce s s o f e l i m i n at i o ni s n o tan ap p ro p ri at e m et h o d o f d et erm i n i n g a fire’ s causation. This handbook, howeve r, does not pr eclude this method a s a possible investiga tory technique a

nd actua lly descr ibes the limit ed circ umstances in which it may be entire ly

appropr iate. 4 w hic h qu al if

ie d hi m a s le ad inv es tig at or

of the f ir e. A lso , F uc ci sy ste m at ic al ly 1
ex am ine d th e sc en e an d us ed the sc ie nti fi c m ethod to i de nti fy the f ir e’ s or igi n and to rule out any

accidents or ac ts of God that m ight h ave caused the fir e. A fter
ex am ini ng the bui ldi ng, r ev ie w ing the sur ve ill an ce vid eo , and c ondu ct ing interviews, Fucci c onclud ed that the fire w as incendiary . F ucci’ s finding s wer e subj ec t t o r ev ie wby

his c o- w orke rs and s upe rv iso rs . I n th e D au be rt he ar ing , the tr ia l c ourt f

ound that F uc ci ’ s pr oc es s of

e lim inatio n w as c om

m onl y use d inthe field and wa s not di sallowed by the applicable guidelin es. T he court allowed 2 F u c c i t o t e s t i f

y a b o u th i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n b u tn o tth a tth e f i r e wa s s e ti n t e n t i o n a l l y. T he tr ia l c ourt w as w ith in i ts d isc re tio n to f ind that the f ac ts and m ethods on
w hic h F uc ci r el ie d to r ea chhis opi nio n w er e of the kin d r ea sona

bly r el ie d up on b y expe rt s inthe f

ie ld o f fi re inv es tig at ion
. T he te sti m ony

of the gov er

nm en t’ s se co nd e xpe rt , H ill , w as a lso pr ope rl y adm itt ed
. H ill c ondu ct ed ase ri es of

e xpe ri m en ts t o r ec re at e the sc en e an d to te st both pr ose cu tio n and d ef en se the or ie s a

bout the f ir e’ s c au se and t im ing
. T he seDe sp ite Santi a g o’ s c omp la int s, the tr ia l c ourt a pp ro pr iate ly de te rm ine d that any dif fe re nc e s in 3 c on dit ion s b e tw e e n th e wa re ho us e and

Hi ll’ s laborator

y we re ne g lig ibl e and

oth e rw ise ha

rm le ss beca use it was likely

easie r to start a f

ire in the labor atory . We also rejec t Santiago’ s assertion that showing to the jury a video in which H ill ignites the 4 materia ls with a butane lighter was substantially and unfairly prejudicia l. This ex periment wa s one 5 tests inv olved attem

pts to u se cigarettes in diffe rent positio ns and later an open flam e to ignite cardboard, plastic w rap, bags, and tape. H ill’ s experim ents wer e 3 dupl ic ab le , his r es ult s w er e pe er -r ev ie w ed , and h is m ethodo log y w as ge ne ra lly
acce pted in th e field. Based on these tests, the surveillance video, and oth er re le vant e xpe rt

li te ratur e, H ill c onc lud ed to a re as ona

ble de gr ee of

sc ie nti fi c ce rt ai nty that a c igare tte c oul d no t have ign ite d th e fi re in the ti m e al le ge d by the defense. Considering all of these factors, Hill’ s testim ony wa s adm issib le under D au be rt . Santi ag o a lso arg ue s th at the te sti m ony

of F uc ci and H ill w as ir

re le vant,
m isl ea din g, and undul y

pr ej udi ci al in vio la tio n of F ed
. R. E vid
. 401 , 403
. T he trial court w as, how ever, within its discretion to determ ine that this exp ert te sti m ony ha d a t l ea st s om e pr oba tiv e va lue be ca use both e xpe rt s te sti fi ed on the lik el y c au se and o ri ginof

the f ir e, w hic h w er e es se nti al e le m en ts o f the tr ia l. A lso , the testim ony

wa s not m isleading o r undulyprej udicial because neither expert te sti fi ed that S an tia go i nte nti ona lly start ed the f ir e; ins te ad , both te sti fi ed about the results of their scientific investigatio ns and experim ents. T hus, the trial court w as 4of sever al experiments that H ill used to test both prosecution and de fense theories of the ca use and tim ingof the fi re . H ill ’s c on c lus ion that th e fi re wa s in c e nd iary wa s nei the r ir re le va nt n or pr e jud ic ia l. 6 w ith in i ts d isc re tio n to a dm it the e xpe rt te sti m ony

of both F uc ci and H ill
. In addition , the tr ial court did not err by allowing prior bad act evidence that Santi ag o ha d vanda liz ed

the pr ope rty

j ust tw o m onths e ar lie r. R

ule 404 (b ) pr ohi bit s “ [e ] vid en ce of

oth er c ri m es , w ro ngs, or

a ct s . . . to pr ove the c hara ct er of a person in order to show conform ity therew ith.” F ed. R . E vid. 404(b). But, such
ev ide nc e is a dm iss ibl e to p ro ve “ m oti ve , opp ortun ity , int en t, pr ep ar at ion , plan, know le dge , ide nti ty , or

abse nc e of

m ist ak e or

a cc ide nt. ” I d. T ha t the de fe ndant
co m m it te d s uc h p rio r ba d a ct s m us t b e p ro ve n b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Huddleston v . United States, 108 S. Ct. 1496 , 1501 (1988). The governm ent introdu ced testim ony that the person on th e surveillance vid eo the nig ht o f the f

ir e w as the sam e pe rs on who e nte re d th e w ar eh ouse and
vanda liz ed

aw at er c ool er and m ic ro w av e tw o m onths e ar lie r. Aj ur y c oul d
re as ona bly c onc lud e that, by

apr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce , thi s te sti m ony showed Santiago previous ly had vandalized the property
. Such evidence w as ind ic at ive of

S an tia go’ s m oti ve , int en t, ide nti ty , and l ac k of a cc ide nt i n co m m itt ing the c ur

re nt o ff en se . T ha t S an tia go h ad

c om m itt ed an a ct a ga ins t the
sam e property

of the sam e com

pany j ust two m onth s before the f ire w as7

subs tanti al ly

pr oba tiv e of

w he the r he c om

m itt ed thi s ars on. T he tr ia l c ourt, the re fo re , did

not abuse it s di sc re tio n by

a llo w ing e vid en ce of

thi s pr ior ba d a ct . Furtherm ore, Santiago’ s convictio n was based on sufficient evidence. A lth oughS an tia go m ad e a m oti on f or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l a ft er

the gov er

nm en t rested, he did no t renewthe m otion at the close of evidence or after the j ury re tu rn ed i t s v er d i ct . Th er ef o re , h e w ai v ed h i s o b

je ct i o n t o th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s de nia l of the m oti on; and w e re vie wthe suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce f

or m an if es t injustice only . United States v. Bic hsel, 156 F.3d 1148, 1150 (11th Cir. 1998). Fo llo w ing thi s st an dard , w e m ust de te rm ine “ if

the e vid en ce on a

ke y e le m en t of the of fe nse is so t enuous that a c onvi ct ionw oul d be sho ck ing
. ” I d. ( ci ta tio ns and quot ations om itted). Inthi s c as e, the e vid en ce is not so l ac kin g th at

S an tia go’ s c onvi ct ionis shoc kin g. T he e vid en ce a t tri al de m onstrate d ( 1) S an tia go w as the onl y pe rs on the surveillance video sh owed enter ing th e w arehouse j ust before the fire ; (2) the fir e wa s visib le as Santiago was leaving; (3) at the tim e of his arr est two day s later, Santi ag o w as w eari ng the sam e cl oth es and p oss es se d abut an e lig hte r but no ci gare tte s; ( 4) the appl ic at ionof af lam e to the m at er ia ls i n th e w ar eh ouse w as the
m ost li ke ly c au se of the f ir e; ( 5) the f

ir e de str oy ed

the w ar eh ouse ; and ( 6) the
w ar eh ouse w as use d inan a ct ivi ty a ff ec tin g in te rs ta te c om

m er ce . B as ed

on this8

evidence, a

j ury determ ination that each of the e lem ents of the offense w as proved b eyo n da r ea s o n ab l e d o ub ti s n o ts h o ck i n g . We c o n cl u d e t h at th e ju ry’s determ ination of guilt presents no m anifest injustice bec ause sufficient evidence supp orts S an tia go’ s c onvi ct ion
. AFFIRMED.