FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 9, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 13713 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 7 - 0 0 0 2 5 - C R - T - 2 7 MAP U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s T Y D E A R A I N S M I T H , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 9, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A M id d le D is tr ic t o f

F lo r id aju ryc o n v ic te d T y d e a r a in S m ith o n b o th c o u n ts2

of atw o- c ounti ndi c tm e nt : C ountO ne , pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve or m or e gr a m s of

am i xtur e c ont a i ni ng c oc a i n ba s e ( “ c r a c k c oc a i ne ” ) , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) ; C ountT w o, us i ng a nd c a rry i ng af i r e a rm i n r e l a t i on t o the C ou ntO ne offens e, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c )( 1)(A )( i i ). T he di stri ctcourt the r e a f t e rs e nt e nc e d S m i th t o c onc urr e ntpr i s on t e rm s : 210 m onths on C ountO ne a nd 84 m onths on C ountT w o. H e now appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd hi s s e nt e nc e on C o u n t O n e . S m i th’ s appe a l of

hi s c onvi c t i ons s e e ks tw o f orm s of r e l i e f , aj udgm e ntof a c qui tt a l on the gr ound tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o c onvi c t , a nd, a l t e rna t i ve l y , ane w tr i a l on the gr ounds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on in b a rr in g u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 6 0 8 ( b ) s ta te m e n ts O f f ic e rK e n n e th G o e b e l p r e v io u s lym a d e , w h ic h p u rp o rte d lys h e d lig h t o n h is tru th f u ln e s s , a n d in l i m i t i ng S m i th’ s c ross -e xam i nat i on of G oebel . F or conv eni ence , w e a dd re ss these n e w tr ia l g r o u n d s f

ir s t. F eder al R ul e of E vi dence 608 (b) s t at es i n rel evantpart : “ S peci fi c i nst ance s o f th e co n d u cto f a w i tn ess, fo r th e p u rp o se o f att ack i n g o r su p p o rt i n g th e w i tn ess' c ha r a c t e rf

ortruthf ul ne s s , othe rtha n c onvi c t i on of c r i m e a s pr ovi de d i n rul e 609, m a y n o t b e p r o v e d b y e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e .” F e d . R . E v id . 6 0 8 ( b ) . “[ E ]x tr in s ic e v id e n c e o f

aw itn e s s ' p r io rm is c o n d u c t s h o u ld b e e x c lu d e d w h e r e th a t e v id e n c e is3

prob at i ve on l y of the w i tness ' generalprop ensi ty f or truthful ness ; such evi dence shou l d b e a dm i tt ed, ho w ever , w here i ti s i ntrodu ce d t o d i sprove a s peci fi c f ac t m a t e r i a l t o the de f

e nda nt ' s c a s e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a l l e , 822 F . 2d 1016, 1021 ( 11th C i r . 1987) . I n othe rw or ds , the rul e “ pr ohi bi t s apa rtyf r om i ntr oduc i ng e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e of

pr i orm i s c onduc tm e r e l yt o i m pe a c h the ge ne r a l c r e di bi l i tyof aw i tne s s . ” I d. G o e b e l w a s r e p r im a n d e d in 2 0 0 2 f o rc o m m e n ts h e m a d e ab o u t in ap p r o p r ia te po l i ce prac t i ce s. D uri ng the i nv es t i gat i on thatl ed t o the re pri m and, S m i th st at ed th a t s o m e o f

h is c o m m e n ts w e r e m a d e in je s t. A c c o r d in g to S m ith , th e c o m m e n ts c o n s titu te d f

a ls e s ta te m e n ts a n d , th u s , e v id e n c e th a t G o e b e l w a s u n tru th f u l a s to anythi ng he m i gh tsay – i ncl ud i ng the t es t i m on y he w as gi vi ng i n the i nst antca se . U nd erR ul e 608 (b), ou t -of- courtw i tness st at em ent s s uch as G oebel ’ s – even i f they s how untruthf

ul ne s s – a r e e xc l udabl e . S e e e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P ope , 132 F . 3d 68 4, 68 8 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. C as tro, 89 F . ed 14 43 , 14 58 (11th C i r. 1996) . I n s hort , the di s tr i c tc ourtc om m i tt e d no abus e of di s c r e t i on i n e xc l udi ng th e p ro ffered st at em en t s. S m i th arg u es th atth e co u rtab u sed i t s d i scret i o n i n l i m i t i n g h i s cro ssexam i nat i on of G oebel abou tthe re pri m and, sayi ng thatthere exi st s a“ subst ant i al li k elih o o d ” th e lim it atio n in flu en ce d th e ju ry ’s v er d icts b ec au se G o eb el’s4

t es t i m on y w as the on l y e vi dence tyi ng hi m t o the cr ac k cocai ne.

“ S ubj ec tt o the S i xth A m endm ent , the di stri ctcourthas the di sc re t i on ary author i ty t o l i m i tc r os s - e xa m i na t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e a l e , 921 F . 2d 1412, 1424 ( 11th C i r . 1991) . A ddi t i ona l l y , s pe c i f i c i ns t a nc e s of

c onduc t , “ i f

pr oba t i ve of tru th fu l n ess o r u n tru th fu l n ess, b e i n q u i red i n t o o n cro ss-ex am i n at i o n o f th e w i tn ess

. . . c o n c e rn i n g th e w i tn e s s ' c h a r a c t e rf o rtru th f u l n e s s o ru n tru th f

u l n e s s . . . . ” Fe d . R. E v i d . 6 0 8 (b ). W e h av e reco g n i zed th e i m p o rt an ce o f th e ri g h tt o fu l l cro sse xa m i na t i on w he n appl i e d t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s s t a rw i tne s s oraw i tne s s w ho pr ovi de s a n e s s e nt i a l l i nk i n the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L a nkf or d, 955 F . 2d 1545, 1548 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . N e ve rthe l e s s , the r i ghti s notw i thoutl i m i t a t i on, as the S i xth A m endm enton l y prot ec t s c ross -e xam i nat i on thati s r el evant . U ni t ed S t at es v . L yo n s, 4 0 3 F . 3 d 1 2 4 8 , 1 2 5 5 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). O n e p u rp o se o f cro ssexam i nat i on i s, of course , “ t o i m peac h the cr edi bi l i ty of opp osi ng w i tness es . ” U n i t ed S t at es v . L i n d stro m , 6 9 8 F . 2 d 1 1 5 4 , 1 1 6 0 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 3 ). S u ch cro sse x a m in a tio n in c lu d e s th e “g e n e r a l c h a r a c te rf o rtru th f u ln e s s ” o f

th e w itn e s s . L y o n s , 4 0 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 6 . E v e n r e le v a n t e v id e n c e , h o w e v e r , “m a yb e e x c lu d e d if i t s probat i ve val ue i s s ub st ant i al l y outw ei gh ed by the dang erof un fa i r pre j ud i ce , c onf us i on of the i s s ue s , orm i s l e a di ng the j ury , orbyc ons i de r a t i ons of undue d e l a y , w a s t e o f

t i me , o rn e e d l e s s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f c u mu l a t i v e e v i d e n c e . ” Fe d . R.5

E vi d. 403. I n C a l l e , w e f ound no abus e of

di s c r e t i on i n l i m i t i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on on col l at er al m att er s. 82 2 F . 2d at10 20 (hol di ng di stri ctcourtprop er l y l i m i t ed c r os s - e xa m i na t i on aboutque s t i ons c onc e rni ng c om pl i a nc e w i th pl e aa gr e e m e nta nd t ax re turns, as they w er e c ol l at er al t o core i ss ue). E vi dent i ary dec i si on s do n otconst i tut e r ever si bl e e rr or “ un l es s asubst ant i al r i ghtof the pa rty i s a f

f e c t e d. ” F e d. R . E vi d. 103( a ) . F urthe rm or e , e rr or s tha tdo n o t “a f f e c t s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts m u s t b e d is r e g a r d e d .” F e d . R . C r im . P . 5 2 ( a ) . A d e f e n d a n t’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts a r e p r e ju d ic e d w h e n th e r e e x is ts “ar e a s o n ab le prob abi l i ty that. . . the ou t com e of the tri al w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. N e w s om e , 475 F . 3d 1221, 1227 ( 11th C i r . ) c e rt . de ni e d, 128 S . C t . 218 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n the c ourt ’ s l i m i t a t i on of S m i th’ s c r os s - e xa m i na t i on of G oe be l . T he onl yi ndi c a t i on of f a l s e hood r e ga r di ng the r e pr i m a nd i s tha tG oe be l s t a t e d c om m e nt s he m a de w e r e m a de i n j e s t . T he s t a t e m e nt s w e r e r e m ot e i n t i m e a nd w e r e c ol l a t e r a l t o the m a i n i s s ue s . T he us e of the c om m e nt s dur i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on w oul d l i ke l yha ve c onf us e d the j urya s the j u ry w o u l d n eed t o u n d erst an d th atG o eb el ’ s rep ri m an d w as n o tfo r m ak i n g fal se st at em en t s.6

S m i th a r gue s ha d the c ourtnote xc l ude d the s t a t e m e nt s G oe be l m a de dur i ng th e r e p r im a n d in v e s tig a tio n , th e e v id e n c e o f g u ilt w o u ld h a v e b e e n in s u f f ic ie n t to c onvi c thi m on C ountO ne , a nd on C ountT w o a s w e l l , s i nc e c onvi c t i on on the C ou ntT w o o ff

ense depend ed on hi s c om m i ss i on of the C ou ntO ne offens e. S i nce w e uph ol d the court ’ s e xcl usi on of the st at em ent s a ti ss ue, hi s s uffi ci ency -of- theevi dence ar gu m entdepend s on the suff i ci encyof the other e vi dence i n the ca se . In o u rv ie w , th e e v id e n c e o f g u ilt w a s m o r e th a n n e c e s s a ryto c o n v ic t. I n a d d itio n to G o eb el, S m ith w as co n fr o n ted w ith th e tes ti m o n y o f tw o o th ero ff icer s –G o eb el’s p a rtn e r , S te v e H e a v e n , a n d R o n a ld R o b in s o n . H e a v e n , lik e G o e b e l, s a w S m ith w i th a gu n i n h i s hand; R ob i nson foun d the pi l l bo tt l e and cr ac k cocai ne that G oebel desc ri bed. W e turn n ow t o S m i th’ s C ou ntO ne se nt ence . S m ith a s k s th a t w e r e m a n d h is C o u n t O n e s e n te n c e f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n .

“ U nde r18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) , adi s tr i c tc ourtha s di s c r e t i on t o r e duc e the t e rm of i m pri sonm entof an al re ady i ncar ce ra t ed defendantw hen thatdefe nd antw as s e nt e nc e d ba s e d on as e nt e nc i ng r a nge tha tw a s s ubs e que nt l yl ow e r e d bythe S ent enci ng C om m i ss i on . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B ra vo , 20 3 F . 3d 77 8, 78 0 (11 th C i r. 2000) . “ A l though ade f e nda ntm us tor di nar i l ype t i t i on the di s tr i c tc ourtf or m odi f i c a t i on of

hi s s e nt e nc e , [ w e ha ve he l d w he r e the de f e nda nt ] r a i s e d the s e n te n c in g is s u e o n ap p e a l . . . it is u n n e c e s s a ryto r e q u ir e h im to ta k e th is7

a ddi t i ona l s t e p. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a z que z , 53 F . 3d 1216, 1228 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( va c a t i ng the s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a ndi ng the c a s e t o the di s tr i c tc ourtt o de t e rm i ne w hether t o adj ustse nt ence un der an am ended g ui del i ne). T he N ove m be r1, 2007, S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s l i s taba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

26 f o rp o s s e s s i n g g r e a t e rth a n 2 0 b u tl e s s th a n 3 5 g r a m s o f c o c a i n e b a s e . U. S . S . G. § 2D 1. 1( c ) ( 7) ( 2007) . S m i th w a s s e nt e nc e d unde rthe N ove m be r1, 2006, G ui de l i ne s , w hi c h l i s t e d ahi ghe rba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

28 f orpos s e s s i on of

the sam e am o u n t s. U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1 . 1 (c)(6 ) (2 0 0 6 ). T h e am en d m en tred u ci n g th e b ase of f e ns e l e ve l by tw o i s l i s t e d i n the c a t e goryof c ove r e d a m e ndm e nt s f

orw hi c h 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) appl i e s r e tr oa c t i ve l y . U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 10( c ) ( a m e nd. 706) (M ar ch 3, 20 08 ); U . S . S . G . (a m end. 71 3) (M ar ch 3, 20 08 ). T here fore , the di stri ct c ourtm a y r e duc e the t e rm of i m pr i s onm e ntupon m ot i on of the de f e nda nt . 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) . T he tw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on author i z e d bythe a m e ndm e ntc oul d red u ce S m i th ’ s sen t en ce o n th e crackco cai n e co n v i ct i o n t o as l o w as 1 6 8 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nt . S e e U . S . S . G . a tS e nt e nc i ng T abl e . W he the rS m i th’ s C ountO ne s e n te n c e s h o u ld b e r e v e r s e d is am a tte rf o rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt to c o n s id e r . W e the r e f or e va c a t e hi s C ountO ne s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd the s e nt e nc e on tha tc ountf or r e c ons i de r a t i on. S m i th’ s c onvi c t i ons , how e ve r , a r e a f f i rm e d. S O O R DE R E D.