## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 4056 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. A LEXA ND ER V ASQUEZ, J R ., D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:08- cr-00625- 3

— Charle s R. Norgle, Sr. , Judge
.
A RGUED N OVE MBE R 5, 2010

— D ECIDED M AR CH 14, 2011

Befo re E VANS, S YKES, an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . E V A NS, Cir cu i tJudg e . A j ury convi cted Alexander V a s q u e z o fc o n s p i r i n g to p o s s e s s mo r e th a n 5 0 0 g r a ms of c oc ain e w ith int en t t o d ist rib u te . H e w as s u b se q u en tly se n te n c ed to se rv e a te rm of 24 0 m o n t h s . On ap p ea l, Vas que z as k s us to r ev er se hi s co nv i ct i o n and rem an d th e ca se f o r a ne w tr i alo n s ev er alg r o unds : tha t th e j ud ge ( 1) shoul d hav e excl ud ed evi dence of his pri or drug co nvi cti on; ( 2) sho uld have g ra nted hi s m oti on t o2 N o. 09

- 4056 supp re ss evi dence f ound in a w ar ra ntl ess se ar ch ofan a ut om obile; ( 3) dep rived h im of a m ean ingful opp ort u n i t y t o c r o s s - e x a mi n e a g o v e r n me n twi tn e s s ; a nd ( 4) s ho ul d no t ha ve a dm i tt ed r ec o r di ng s o ft el ep hone co n v e r s a t i o n s b e t we e n a d e fe n s e wi tn e s s a n d a c o - def en dant. W e be gi n w i th the f acts
. Vasque z an d t wo c o - defen dan ts , J o elPe r ez a nd Carl os Cruz, were arre ste d i n A rl i ngto n H ei ghts, I l l i noi s, f ol l o wi nga f a i l e d c o c a i ne t r a ns a c t i o n. T he da y ’ s e v ents sta rt ed i n the parking l ot ofa Shel l g as st ati on, m ove d to a n ea rb y p ar kin g l otata D en n y’s R es ta u ra n t, an d fina lly to the s hare d parki ng l ot ofa W al m ar t an d M cDonal d’s. The dealthatfl opped began s eve ra ldays ear l i erwh en Pere z contact ed Cruz abo ut o btaini ng a ki l ogr am o f co ca i ne . Cr uz the n c al l ed Alej an d r o Di az , who m he kn ew to be i nv olved i n coc aine d e a ls. Cru z, how ever, didn’tkno w thatDia z was co oper ating with l aw enf or c em en t agents
. Cruz, Per ez, and Dia z a rr anged f ora deal to go dow n i n A rl i ngto n H ei ghts on Au gust 5, 20 08. On the da y tha t i t al lc am e tum bl i ngdo wn, Cr uz a nd Pere z, with Cru z dri vi ng, went to the S hel lst ati on f or the deal

. There , theym et Diaz wh o i ns tructed them to f ol l ow him to ano therl oca ti on t o getthe c oca i ne. I ns te ad, Pe r ez w al k ed to the De nny ’ s par k i ngl o t ne xt doorwh e r e V a s qu e z wa s wa i t i ngf o r h i m i n a b l ack Bonne vill e. Per ez sl i d i nto the pass engerse at ofthe car and cal l ed Cruz o n a cel lphone t el l i ng hi m thathe was not w il l i ngt o f o l l o w Di az ; he want ed to c o m pl et e th e dea la t th e curr en t l o ca ti o n. Cr uz the n wen t to the D en n y’s lot w h er e h e w as in tr od u c ed t o V as q u ez . Sh or tlyN o. 09

- 4056 3 th ereafter, D iaz call ed C r u z to find out w hy they w ere n ot fol l owing hi m . Cruz t ol d D i az that Pere z wanted to c o m pl et e th e d ea li n the pa r k i ngl o t. Pe r ez t o l d Cr uz to tel lDia z that “ w e g ot the m oney h er e. ” Vasquez re p ea ted the st ate m ent, “t el lhi m we gotthe m oneyh er e.” Cruz hung up w i th the understa nd i ng tha t Diaz w as re tu rn in g t o c om p let e t h e d ea l. Se ve ra l m i n u te s la te r, an d aft er D iaz co n ta c te d h is ha ndl er, DEA A g en t J am es Chupi k, l aw e nf o r ce m en t ag en ts s ur r o unde d the pa r k i ngl o t an d a ppr o ac he d the B on n ev ille to ar re st C ru z, P er ez , an d V as q u ez . In a d d iti on t o seve ra lunm ar ked ca rs , si x offi cer s a pp ro ached the Bo nn e v i l l e o n f o o t
. As the o ffi c e r s a pp ro a c he d, C r u z , w h o w as ou ts id e o f th e c ar , rais ed h is h an d s in surr end er . Vasquez’ s r eact i on was notnear l y a s s ubmi s s i v e . He p u tth e B o n n e v i l l e i n re v e r s e , s t r i k i n gt wo A rlin g t o n H eights p oli ce cars . H e the n sh ifted gears and headed fo r th e e xi t. A gent Ch up i k m ove d i n fro nt o f th e Bo nn e v i l l e , p o i n t e d h i s g u n a tV a s q u e z , a n d c o mm anded hi m to st op. But Vasque z sh ow ed no s i gns o f st op p ing so Age ntChupi kj um ped o uto fthe waya s th e Bonnevi l l e s ped out o fthe park in g l ot headi ng west o nt o the e a s tb o un d l a ne s o fAl g o nquin Ro a d. A few m i nutes l ate r, pol i ce l oca ted the Bonneville abandoned i n a ne arby W al m ar t par king l ot. A by sta nd er to ld th e p olic e h e s aw tw o m en ru n f r o m t h e ve h icle toward a M c D on al d’s. A n A rl i ngto n H ei ghts detect i ve pur su ed Vas que z an d Pe r ez a s th eyr anthrough the kitche n of the M cD ona ld’s an d then out th e back door. A t tha t po i nt, Va s qu e z a nd Pe r e z s pl i t up , ea ch run nin g i n a d iffe rent direction. Bu t the cha se w as sh ort4 N o. 09

- 4056 l i ved

— they w er e qui ckl y a pp re hended byA rl in gt on H ei ghts pol i ce. The pol i ce f ound a cel lphone o n Vasquez, an d t wo c el lpho ne s o n the ground ne arPe r ez . Ph o ne r e c o r ds s ho we d tha tthe r e we r e c a l l s b e t we e n Vasquez and both of Per ez’ s phones the day bef or e a nd the day ofthe ar re st. The A rl i ngto n H eig h ts pol i ce t owed the Bonnevi l l e t o the pol i ce s tat i on. Duri ng a sear ch ofthe carl ate r that day, theyf ound a hi dd en co m partm ent in the p as senge r si de o fthe da shbo ar d c o nt aini ng$ 23 , 00 0 i n c as h. Based on thi s e vi dence, a federa lgr and j ury re turned an i nd i ctm ent c harg i ng Vasquez w i th c on spi ring to poss ess wi th i nt en t to di st r ibut e m o r e th an5 00 g r ams o fc o ca i ne and w i th at tem pti ng t o p ossess with intent to dist ribute m or e than 500 gr am s o fco cai ne, ea ch i n vi ol ati on o f 21 U

. S. C. § 8 46. As the c a s e pr o g r e s s e d, Va s qu e z fi l e d a mot i on t o su ppr es s th e ev i den ce r ec o ve r ed fr o m the s ea r cho fthe Bonnevi l l e a nd the go ver nm ent fi l ed a m oti on t o ad m it, pu rsu an t to Fed era l R ule of Evid en ce 404 (b), evi dence ofVasquez’ s invol vem ent in a c oca i ne tr an saction i n 20 02. Th e d istri ct ju d ge d en ied V asq ue z’s m o ti o n a nd g r an ted th e m o ti o n fi l ed bythe g o ve r nm ent. T he j ud ge f ound that the pol i ce ha d probabl e ca use to sea rch the Bonev i l l e a nd thatthe 2002 co cai ne tra n sa cti on, wh i ch r esul ted i n a c onvi cti on, was adm i ssibl e t o sh ow V asq ue z’s kn ow ledge a nd i nt en t un d er Ru le 404(b). A t t ri al, A gent Chu pikte sti fi ed f orthe gov er nm ent. A m ong othe r thi ngs, he t est i fi ed that h e ins tr ucted Dia z to have Cruz and hi s “ cu st om er s” com e t o a g as sta ti onN o. 09

- 4056 5 i n Ar l i ng to n Hei g ht s f o r the t r an sa ct i o n. Buta cc o r di ng to th e ac tu al tr an sc r i pt o f th e ca l l, whi ch th e gove r nm ent l ate r pu bl i shed, C ru z r efer re d to a s i ngl e custo m era s “h i m ” an d “ th i s dude. ” On c r o ss-ex ami na ti o n, V as q u ez ’s c ou n se l at te m p te d to i m p ea c h A ge n t C h u p ik on thi s poi nt by re fre shi ng hi s m em or y. The j u d ge l i m i te d c r o ss - ex am in at i o n, ho wev er, fi ndi ngtha t th e d iffer en c e b et w ee n “c u st o m e rs ” a n d “c u st om er ” in th is in st an c e w as a tr ivia l d et ail. Lateri n the trial, Vasquez cal l ed sev er alwitnes ses , i ncl ud i ng Per ez’s w i fe, M ar i na. Laterst i l l, the j ud ge al l o wed the g o ve r nm en t to r ec al lM ar ina to the s ta nd an d, a m o ngo th erthi ng s, que st ion h erabo utt el eph o ne c on ve rs ati ons she had with her husband w hi l e the cas e w as sti l lpending. Ult i m at ely, the j ur y f o und Va sque z g ui l tyo n th e co nspi ra cy count and no t gui l ty on the att em pt charg e. I ssues co nc erni ngthe r ec al lo fM ar ina to the s ta nd a nd the tel ephone co nver sa tio ns she had w i th herspouse ar e a t the he ar t o fVasquez’ s a pp ea l, but w e wil lput them asi de f o r the mo men ta s we c o ns i de r the o the r i s s ue s ra ise d on V as q u ez ’s a p p ea l. W e b eg inw ith V as q u ez ’s c laim th at th e jud ge sh ou ld h av e pr ec lu d ed th e gov er n m en t from in tr od u c in g h is pr i o r dr ug c o nv i c t i o n t o s ho w hi s k no w l edge a nd m odus o p erandi pur su an t to Rul e 40 4(b)

. W e r ev i ew the j udg e’s ru lin g for an ab u se of d isc re tio n . U nited Sta tes v. C o nley, 29 1 F .3d 46 4, 47 2 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ). W e w i ll rev er se on ly i fthe re cor d contains no evidence on wh i ch the j ud ge ra tio n ally co u ld h av e b as ed h is ru lin g. Id

.6 N o. 09

- 4056 Ru l e 4 0 4 ( b ) p r o v i de s tha te v i den c e o fp r i o r a c t s i s a dmi s s ib l e t o p r o v e “ mot i v e , o pp o r t un i t y, i nt e nt, p r e parati on, pl an, kno w l edge, i denti ty, o r abse nce o fm i sta ke or ac c id en t,” bu t n ot“t o p ro ve th e c h a ra c te r of a p er so n in o r de r t o s ho w a c t i o n i n c o nfo r m i ty the r e wi th. ” F e d. R. Ev i d. 4 0 4 ( b )

. W e a pp l y a f o ur - pa r t t e s t to dec i de w he th er Rule 40 4( b) ev i dence w as proper l y a dm i tte d an d w il l fi nd no error i f: ( 1) the evid en ce i s di re cted t oward est abl i shi ng a m att eri n i ssue othe r than the defendant’s pro pensi ty to com m i t th e c rim e char ged; ( 2) the evi dence shows that the o theracti s s i m i l areno ugh and c l ose enough in ti m e t o be r el evantto the m att er in i ssue; ( 3) the e vi den ce i s su ffi cient to s uppo r t a j ur y fi ndi ng th at th e defen dan t co m m i tt ed th e si m i l ara ct; a nd ( 4) t h e evi dence has proba ti ve val ue thati s no t s ubst an ti al l y o ut weighed bythe da ng ero funf ai r pr ej udice

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vargas , 552 F.3d 550 , 554 (7th C ir. 2008). H er e, the gov er nm ent int roduced Vasquez’ s pri or convi cti on t o sh ow thathe ha d previ ousl y c ar ri ed out a co ca i ne de alwi thPe r ez us i nga hi ddenc o m par tmenti n a ca r . The ev i den ce was no t us ed to sh o w pr o pensity, b ut r a th e r t o s h o w m odus ope r andi

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ont oya , 891 F. 2d 1273 , 12 85 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89) (u p h ol ding adm i ssi on ofev i dence und era m odu s o perandi theo rywh en pri or dr ug o ffen se i nv o l ve d th e defen dan t wor k i ng wi ththe sa m e per so n, us i ng a ca r r eg i st er ed to an o th er pers o n, an d using a hidd en com p artm en t in the ca r).N o. 09

- 4056 7 The pr i o r dr ugde alwi thPe r ez was c er ta i nl y i m po r ta nt as it sh ow ed th at V as q u ez ’s p os itio n th at h e w as m e r e ly an inn oc en t b ys ta n d er w a s a s m ok e s c re en . See U nited State s v. C hav is , 42 9 F

. 3d 662, 66 8 ( 7th Cir

. 2005 ) ( evi dence ofa pri ordrug convi cti on i s a dm i ss ibl e when a defendant cl ai m s that he w as “si m plyin th e w ro ng pl ace at th e w ro n g t im e” ); Va rgas , 552 F. 3d at 555- 56 ( evi dence th at d efe n d an t h a d p re vio u sly tra n sp or te d n ar c ot ics in a tr ai l ermade i t m o re l i k ely tha t he kne w ab o utthe drugs hi dd en in t h e tr ai l eri n the i nstant case , and l ess li kely that h e w as an i nn ocen t victim ). F i na l l y, l i m i ting“ i ns truct i o ns ‘ ar e effec ti ve i n r edu cing o r e l i m i na tinga ny po ss ibl e unf ai r prej ud i ce fr o m the i ntro du cti on o fRule 40 4( b) ev i dence. ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jo nes , 4 55 F

. 3d 80 0, 8 09 (7th C ir
. 2 00 6) ( i nt erna lc i ta ti o ns om itted ). H ere, th e j u d ge p rop erly instru cted the j ury re gar ding the purpos es f orw hi ch the Rule 404(b) ev i dence wa s i nt r o du c e d. The r efo r e, the i nt r o duct i o n o fVa sque z’ s pr i o r c o nv i c t i o n c l e a r l y p a s s e s the a dmi s s ib i l i ty t e s t
. I twa s a dm i ssibl e to sh ow Vasquez’s kno w l edge, i ntent, abs ence o fmi s t a k e a nd m odus ope r andi

. The j ud ge did notabuse hi s di sc r et i o n in a dm i tt i ngthe 2 00 2 co ca i ne - r el at ed co nvi ct i o n. N ext, Vasquez ar gues th at the j ud ge shoul d have gr anted hi s m oti on t o supp re ss the m oneydi scov er ed dur i ngthe s ea r cho fthe B onne vi l l e. He a r g ue s th atthe pol i ce v i olat ed hi s F ourth A m endm ent r i ghts w hen they conducted a warr antle ss sea rch ofthe carafterhe was tak en i nto c ustody. W e r evi ew a dist ri ct j ud ge’ s deni alo f8 N o. 09

- 4056

a su p p ression m otion un d e r a d u al stand ard : “the Cou rt r ev i ews l eg alc o nc l us i o ns deno vo and fi nd i ngs of fa ct f orcl earer ro r. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 59 8 F

. 3d 3 40, 34 4 (7th C ir. 2010). The sea rch iss u e i s a dead-b ang l ose r. Fo r one thi ng, the Bonneville w as abandoned, and i t’ s har d to see , unde r the c i r cumst an ce s he r e, ho w Vas que z co ul d a r g ue w i th a straig h t fa ce that he m ai ntai ned an expectat i on o fpr i va cyi n i t afte r he di tc he d i t and b olt ed o ffo n the run. On top o fthat , it’ s cl earthatthe pu rs uingpol i ce h a d ab u n d a n t p r o b ab l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e th a t dr ug m oney w as i n the car . W hat was the pro babl e ca use? W el l, ( 1) Cr uz t o l d Di az tha t Vas quez a nd P er ez ha d the m one y wi ththe m ; ( 2) no mone y was f o und dur i ng the s ear ches o f Vasquez a nd Per ez; and ( 3) two drugd et ecti on dogs i nd i cate d that ther e w er e narco ti cs i n the pass enger - si de dashboar d ofthe c ar . The m oti on t o s up pr e s s wa s p r o pe r l y de ni e d. Vas que z al so cl ai m s th atthe j udg e den i ed hi m a mean in gfu l op p or tu n ity to cr os s-e x a m in e A ge n t C h u p ik, in vi ol ati on o fhi s Sixth Am endm ent r i ght t o confro nt witnesse s a gainst hi m . “Li m i tat i ons on cr oss - exam i nati on ri se t o the l e v e lo fa S i xth Am e nd men tv i o l a t i o n w hen they preve nt the exposur e ofa w i tness ’ bi as and m oti vati on t o l i e. ” U nite d State s v. Sm ith , 30 8 F. 3d 726, 73 8 ( 7th Ci r 2 00 2)

. Butthe ri gh t t o c r o ss - ex ami na ti o n i s no t wi th

o utl i m i ta ti o n: [ T] r i alj udg es r et ain wi de l at i tu de i ns of ara s th e Con

fro n ta tio n C lau se is co n c er n ed to im p os e re as on ab le l i m i ts o n s uchc r o ss - ex ami na ti o n b as ed o n c oncernsN o. 09

- 4056 9 about, a m ong othe r thi ngs, har ass m ent, prej ud i ce, confusi on o fthe i ssues , the witness’ sa fety, o r i nter ro gat i on that i s r epeti ti ve oro nl y m ar gi nal l y r el evant
. D ela w a re v. Va n A rsda ll, 475 U .S. 673, 67 9 ( 1986 )

. A S i xth Ame n d me n tv i o l a t i o n o c c u r s wh e n th e d e fe n d a n ts h o ws that he was denie d the o pp or tuni ty to el i ci t t est i m ony that w oul d be “ re l evantand m ate ri alto the defense .” U nited Stat e s v. Wi l l i am s on , 2 0 2 F

. 3 d 9 74 , 9 7 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 00) ( i nt erna lc i ta ti o n o m i tt ed)

. In thi s cas e, the j udg e f o und that the info rm ati on Vasquez h oped to el i ci t fro m A gent Ch up i k, wh i ch Vasqu ez ar gues shows bi as, was tr i vi aland a c ol l ate ra li ssue, and ther ef or e no t r el evant
. W e re vie w th e jud ge ’s ru lin g for ab u se of d isc re tio n . Id

. Vasquez ar gues th at the j ud ge er re d by r efusi ng to allo w h is c ou n s e l t o a tt em p t t o im p ea c h A ge n t C h u p ik w i th a supp ose dly in c onsis tent sta tem ent he m ade i n an affi davi t. S peci fi cally, wh en di scussing the cal l s be tw een Cruz a n d D i az, A gent Ch up i k s ai d i n hi s a ffi davi t that ther e were “custo m er s. ” In f act, the cal l s o nl y re ferto a single cus tom er. Th e govern m en t po ints ou t, how ever, that i n the re st ofthe affi davi t, A gent C h up i k r efer s t o a si ngl e cust om er, undercutting V asqu ez’ s a rgum ent that A ge n t C h u p ik w as d elib er at ely lyin g. If an yt h in g, it su ggests that A gen t C hu p ik sim p ly m isspok e. M oreover, Ag e ntCh up i k ’ s a ffi da v i twa s b a s e d o n a dr a fttr a ns c r i pt th atha d b ee n t r an sl at ed fr o m S pan i sht o Eng l i sh, a nd nei therthe draft t ra nscri pt northe affi davi t were prese nted to the j ury. I t i s with in t h e disc re ti on o fa tr i alj ud ge to l i m i t cr oss exam i nati on, es peci al l y when, as here , the disc re pancie s10 N o. 09

- 4056

are m inor. Se e U nite d S ta te s v. M ojica , 18 5 F

. 3d 780, 78 8- 89 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d n o tab us e di s c r e t i on i n l i m i tingc r o ss - ex aminat io n o fa wi tn es s r eg ar di ng p riordru g use w he n th e incon sisten cies w ere “no m ore than m i nordi scr epanci es” )

. Thus, t h e j ud ge did not abuse hi s di scr eti on wh en he l i m i te d Vasquez’s cr oss exam i nati on o fA gent Ch upik. Vas qu e z a l s o a r g ue s tha t the j ud g e e r r e d i n r ul i ng tha t th e h e cou ld n ot us e trans cripts to refresh A gen t C hu p ik’ s m em or y. The Governm ent a cknowle dges that thi s was an er r o r, but r es po nds th at i t was ha r m l es s be ca us e the j ud ge rul ed i rr el evantthe poi nt o n w hi ch Vasquez w as try in g t o re fr e s h A ge n t C h u p ik’s m em or y. E viden ti ary r ul i ng s ar e r ev i ewe d f o r a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. U nite d State s v. Schalk, 515 F.3d 768 , 774 (7th C ir. 2008). Vasquez i s co rr ect

— the j ud ge i ncorrectl y s tat ed that ther e was “no bas i s t o cro ss- exam i ne with re spect to som ethi ng noti n evi dence. ” A d oc u m en t doe s no t nee d to be “ adm iss ible as substa nti ve evi dence i n or der t o be use d fo r the purpos es ofi m peachi ng a w i tness ( or re fre shi ng his re col l ecti on)

. ” P ec oraro v. Walls , 28 6 F

. 3d 439, 44 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)

. But the gov ern m en t is co rr ect tha ti ti s wi thin the j ud g e ’ s di s c r e t i o n t o p r e c l ud e co uns elfr o m r efr es hi nga witnes s’ mem o r y o n a po i nt the j ud ge h as rul ed tr i vi aland a c ol l ate ra li ssue. There

f or e, wh i l e the j ud ge’ s r uling was i n er ro r, i t was harm l ess er ro r at besti n thi s ca se. F i na l l y, we tu r n t o Va sque z’ s pr i m ar y a r g um en t, the r es o l ut i o n o fwhi chi s wher e we pa r t co m pan y wi tho ur diss enti ng co l l eague. V asquez ass er ts that the di str i ctN o. 09

- 4056 11 j ud g e e r r e d i n s e v e r a l r e s pe c t s r e g a r di ng the r e c a l l i ng o f M ar i na as a w i tness i n the gov er nm ent’ s re butta l ca se an d, mor e i m po r tant l y, i n a dm i tt i ngi nt o e vi den ce the M etr opol i tan Cor re cti onalCenter( M CC ) r eco rdin gs o f he r t e l e ph o ne c o nv e r s a t i o ns wi th he r h usb a nd

. There’ s no doubt that Vasquez’ s t ri alwould have be enc l ea ne r ha d M arina Pe r ez no t be eni nj ec te d i nt o the show. Bu t t o pu t thi ngs in pers pecti ve, i t’ s be st to ste p backf ora m om ent a nd l oo k a t the bigpi cture
. J oel P e r e z a n d C r u z p l e d g u i l t y t o th e ch a r g e s a g a i n s tth e m. Vas que z, ho wev er, e l ec te d t o g o to t r i al

. Ins te ad o fr ely i ng on a gener al i zed d efense

— that the g ove rnm ent f ai l ed to prove h is gu i l t be yond a re aso nabl e doubt

— Vasquez elec ted to o fferso m ethi ng i n the nature o fan a ctual affi r m at i ve “ defen se ” o n the mer i ts
. I t would be th athe w as onl y a n i nnocent byst ander who j ust happened to be in t h e w ro ng pl ace at the wrong ti m e. In the re al w or ld o fc r i m in al c ou rttria ls, th at so rtof “d efe n se ” is di ffi cul t to s el l

. And i t’ s es pec i al l y ha r d t o se ll w he n a defend an t, l i k e Vas que z he r e, e l ec ts no t to t ak e th e st an d and tel lthe j ury hi s v er si on o fh ow h e j ust happened to be where the dr ug dealwas abou t to g o dow n. S o how does he ge t thi s “ defe ns e” b efore the j ury? En terM ar i na. She w as hi s o nl y ho pe, and a s l i m o ne atthat

. W h en ca lled by V as q u ez a s a w itn es s, M ar in a s aid tha th e r h usb a nd , e a r l i e r i n the da y, a s k e d h e r t o p i ck him up at the p lac e w h e re the d rug d eal died

. Bu t later, sh e as k ed Vas que z to g o i n h erpl ac e. He a g r ee d, a nd h e t oo k t h e B on n ev ille, r a t h er th an h is ow n ca r, on ly bec au se it w as m o r e c onv en ient to d o so. So i fb e l i e v e d,12 N o. 09

- 4056 th e j ur y mightthi nktha t Vas que z ha d no i dea a dr ug d e a l w a s in p lay and that he j us t show ed up by pu re ha ppen st an ce w ith a carful lo fc as h s ta sh ed awayi n a hi dd en co m partm ent. The if i s a m igh ty bi g if

, esp ec ially w hen one consi ders that the j ury knew that Vasqu ez ha d pa r ti ci pat ed i n a r em ar k ab l y s i m i l ardr ugde ali nvol vi ng co cai ne, Per ez, so m e $ 15, 000 i n cash, and a c ar i n 200 2. The go ver nm en t obvi ousl y thought M ar i na’ s t al e was a fi shs to r y . Ba se d o n the waythe c as e st o o d a t th e ti m e, the g o vern m en t co ul d ha ve l etM ar i na l ea ve the sta nd aftera shor t cr oss - exam i nati on. T hat m i ght ha ve be enthe s af es t co ur se t o t ak e. Buti ns te ad, the g o ve r nm en t fi l ed a m o ti o n t o c o nt i nue the t r i alo ve r the w eek end base d on r eco rdi ngs i t had o btained ofte l eph o ne c o nv e r s a t i o ns b e tw e e n M a r i na a nd h e r h usb a nd , w ho was i ncarc er ated a t th e M CC atthe ti m e. The go vernm en t ar g ue d tha t th e conve r sa ti o ns b etwee n the tw o w ent di re c tly to the tr uthful ness and accura cy of M arina’s testim ony and rai sed p oten tial con fl ict-of

i nter esti ssues . Vasqu ez’s counselo bj ecte d to the g overnm en t’ s m o ti o n t o no a va i l. The j udg e he l d tha t th e M C C r eco rdi ngs were adm i ssibl e a s e xtrinsi c ev i dence ofM ar i na ’ s i nt e r e s t, b i a s a nd p r ej ud i c e , a nd o fh e r p r i or i nconsi ste nt st ate m ents. W hen the tr i alr esum ed, the gov er nm ent c al l ed M ar i na i n i ts re butta l ca se and pu bl i shed f our re cor ded co nv er sa ti o ns be twe en he r an d he r hus ba nd. Duri ng questi oni ng, M ar i na acknow l edged thatshe had m et w i th Va s qu e z ’ s l a wy e r s e v e r a l t i mes b e f o r e Aug us t20 ,N o. 09

- 4056 13 20 09 (th e o n ly m ee tin g s h e m en tio n ed in h er d ire c t t es tim ony)

. S he al so ad m i tte d that s he underst oo d that Vas que z’ s l awy er co ul d g etPe r ez a l o wers en te nc e an d th at th e la w ye r w an te d P er ez to en t e r a p lea an d av oid i m pli cating Vasquez. Defense counsel ’ s obj ecti on to M ar i na ’ s t e s t i mon y w as o v e r r ul e d. And the n the MCC re cor dings cam e in. They incl ud ed thi s e xchange: M ar in a: So w h at ’d B ea u [V as q u ez ’s la w ye r] te ll

h im [V as q u ez ]? W h at d id B ea u te ll h i m? Pe r ez : A bli nd pl ea woul d b e g o o d, the n h e

can guarant ee thi s a nd that

. You kno w w hat Im ean? Just ce rt ai n thi ngs, yo u k no w? Ig o t to e xpl ain t o y o u. M ar i na: H e’ s t el l in g hi m abo ut a bl i nd pl ea

al so? Pere z: Yeah, he i s. Igo tta expl ai n to yo u. You

know w h at Im ean. H e s ays , i fyo u w ant, have hi s wife t alk to m e, thi s o r th at. Ihav e to ex p lai n to you tom orr o w. The j ury al so hear d M ar i na tel lherhusband that Vasquez’ s l aw yeral so sai d “eve rybody is g oi ng to l ose ” if th ey go t o t ria l. V as q u ez arg u es th at th e jud ge ab u se d h is d isc re tio n in al l owing the g ove rnm ent t o re call M ar i na duri ng i ts r e b u t t a lc a s e s o l e l y f o r th e p u r p o s e o fi mpe a c h me n t
. He i s co r r ec t th at“a pa r tymay no t ca l la wi tn es s f o r the14 N o. 09

- 4056 sol e purpose o fi m peachi ng hi m . ” U nit ed S ta tes v. G iles , 24 6 F.3d 96 6, 9 74 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)

. ButRul e 61 1 g i ve s th e dist ri ct c ourta u th or i ty to “exer ci se re aso nabl e co ntro l o ve r the mode a nd o r dero fi nt er r o g ating wi tn es se s an d prese nti ng ev i dence so as to
. . . m ake the i nter ro gat i on an d pr es en ta ti o n effe ct i ve f o r the a sc er ta i nm en t o fthe tr uth. ” F ed R. Evi d. 611. Further m or e, the j ud ge has “ bro ad d isc re tio n to d et er m in e w h e t h er th e g ov er n m en t’s ev idence [ f al l s] withi n the propersco pe ofr ebutta l

. ” U nited St a t e s v . L iefer, 77 8 F

. 2d 1236 , 12 49 n. 11 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85) ( n o e r r o r wh e n c o u r t a l l o we d g o v e r n me n t t o r e c al l t wo d efense w itness es as govern m en t rebu ttal w itness es). H er e, the gov er nm ent r ecal l ed M arina afteri t di scove re d the r eco rded conve rs atio ns be cause i t be l i eve d that they prov ed she w as bi ase d. Vasquez ar gues that th e j udg e ab us ed hi s di sc r et i o n in a l l o w ing the g o ve r nm en t to r ecal lM ar i na bec ause i t had an opportunity to c r o ss - ex ami ne he r pr ev i o us l y . But th ere i s no author i ty f orthe odd p ro posi ti on that a l lowing a par ty to re cal la w i tness bas ed on new i nform ati on i s a n abuse of disc re ti on. The go ver nm ent s ought to i ntro
du ce e vi dence thato ne o fVasquez’ s m ai n w i tn es ses w a s b i a s ed . Th e jud ge d id n otab u se h is d isc re tio n in al l owing the gov er nm ent t o re cal lM ar i na f orthi s purpose . Secon d , Vas qu e z argu es th at th e M C C record ings w ere i nadm i ssa b l e hea rs ay. Extri nsi c ev i dence ofa w i tness ’ bi as , ho wev er, i s admi ssible t o i m pea chtha t wi tn es s an d is n ev er a c olla te ra l issu e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Li nde m ann , 85 F. 3d 1232 , 12 43 (7 th Ci r. 19 96)

. In the re cor dings , M arina sa ys she t al ked with Vasquez’ s co unselse ver alN o. 09

- 4056 15 ti m es about the fut ure ofbo th Vasquez and her husband, and that s he be l i eve d counselco uld he l p her husband get a l ower sen tence
. The go ver nm ent o ffer ed the r eco rdi ngs t o prove thatM ar in a h ad an i ncenti ve to lie

— to getherh usband a lo w ersentence. M or eov er, wh en the g ove rnm ent quest i oned M ar i na abo ut the cal l s, her answ ersupporte d the g ove rnm ent’ s theor y: G overn m en t: A nd you th ou gh t th at th e d e fend an t’s

att or ney was r eco m m ending that y ou r husba nd e nt era pl ea wher e he did not adm i t the ro l e of A l exander Vasquez, i sn’ t that r i ght? M ar i na Pere z: W here [ Pere z] did not ad m it, yes, bec au se [V as q u ez ] is go in g t o t ria l. A ccor dingl y, M ar i na’ s t est i m ony and t h e M CC r ecor dings were ad m i ssibl e a s e xtrinsi c ev i dence to sh ow M ar i na’ s bi as and i nter esti n tr yi ng to ge t her husband a l ower s entence
. The r ec o r di ng s ar e al so a dm i ss ibl e as pr i o r i nc o ns i st en t sta tem ents. Vasq u ez ar gues that pri ori nconsi ste nt st ate
m en t s m u st be “in fac t in c on sis te n t” u n d er Fe d er al R u le of E vid en c e 6 13

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cr ove di, 46 7 F .2d 10 32, 1037( 7th Ci r. 19 72)

. But “two st ate m ents n ee d n ot be diam etr i cal l y opposed to be i nconsi ste nt. ” U ni t e d St at e s v. Jones , 8 08 F

. 2d 56 1, 5 68 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 6)

. Her e, the g o ve r nm ent a rgued that M ar i na’ s s tat em ents to her husba nd

— that he and Vasq u ez w er e in tr oubl e a nd l i kel y t o be c onvi cted

— is argu ably i nc ons istentw ith he r story that i t was heri dea thatVasquez too k the Bon n ev il l e o n the day ofthe d ea l. W h il e there m ay w el lbe othe r w ays16 N o. 09

- 4056
to l o o ka t th i s si tu at ion, w e d o no t be l i ev e th atthe j u dge ab used hi s di scr eti on in perm i tting herto be questi oned on the point. The adm i ssi on into evi dence oft h e M CC r eco rdi ngs th emse l ve s, ho wev er, i s a ho r se o fa di ff eren t co l o r . The go ve rn m en t a r g u e s t h at th e jud ge d id n oterr be c au se it n e v e r s o u g h tt o a d mi tth e r e c o r d i n g s f o r th e i r t r u th. Bu t the gov ernm ent’ s a rgum ent i gnor es the f act that the j ud ge sai d, w i thout questi on, that“[ w ]i th r espectto i nter est, bi as, and pre j u d ice
. . . i fany ofthes e s tat em ents can be i nter prete d as s uch to i nd i cate an inter es t, bi as or p rej u d ice , they w o u ld go in for thei r tr uth .” (em p h as is add ed). Vasquez i s co rr ect

— on thi s poi nt, th e judge m ade the w ro ng ca l l

. But Vasquez g ets n o tra cti on o n thi s point i fthe er ro r i n adm i tting the M CC r eco rdi ngs for th eir tru th w as h ar m les s. Se eU nited St at e s v. O l ano , 50 7 U .S. 72 5, 73 4 (19 93 ). “T h e tes t for h ar m les s err o r is whethe r, i n the min d of th e ave r ag e j ur o r, the pr o se cuti on’ s ca se w oul d have be en ‘ si gni fi cantl y l ess per suasi ve’ had th e im p ro per evi dence bee n excl ud ed. ” U nited Sta tes v. E m erson , 501 F.3d 80 4, 81 3 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). O n ap p ea l, the b urden l i es on the go ver nm ent t o p ro ve that a r easonab l e j ury w ou l d have r eached the sa m e v er dict w ith ou t t h e c h alle n ge d e v i d en c e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l l i a ms , 493 F.3d 763 , 766 (7th C ir. 2007). Lo o k i nga t th e e vide nc e as a who l e, a l th o ug h the i ss ue i s cl ose , we bel i eve thatthe er ro r w as harm l ess . W hat w a s the e v i de nc e ? We s t a r twi th Va s qu e z ’ s fl i g htas po ss ibl e ev i den ce o fg ui l t. W hi l e we a g r ee wi tho ur diss enti ng co l l eague that flight ev i dence m ust be vi ew edN o. 09

- 4056 17

w i t h ca u tio n, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob i ns on , 1 6 1 F

. 3 d 4 6 3 , 46 9 (7th C ir. 1998), w e t h in k i t’s i m p ortan t to note th at th ere ar e degr ees o fflig ht. A defendant w al ki ng down a str eet who r un s i nt o a y ar d a nd the n int o a ho us e afte r he he ar s ano ffi ce r sa y, “S to p, po l i ce ” i s o ne thi ng . The fl i g ht here goes f arbey ond that. I fther e were degre es offl i ght, w hat happened here would be fl i ght in the fi rs t degr ee. H ow el se do yo u descr ibe th ro w i ng the Bonnevi l l e into re verse, endanger i ng o ffi cer s ( re cal lthatA gent Ch up i k, wi th g un dr awn, ha d to j um p o ut o f th e way), hi tt i ng tw o pol i ce squad c ar s, and gunning i t the w ro n g w ay into a road w ay from the p arking lot, ditch ing the car a few mom en ts l at er a nd t r y i ngt o e sc ape b y r unning th r o ugh th e k i tc he n a nd o utthe b ac kdo o r o fa M cDo nal d’s? Ad d t o tha t, w e ha ve the c el lpho ne l o g s sh o wi ng seve ra lPer ez\Vasquez conta cts l eadi ng up to the abor ted dea la nd Va sque z sa y i ngt o Cr uz “ tel lhi m we g o t th e m oneyher e. ” A n d then ther e’ s the st ri ki ng si m i l ar i ty between thi s ca per and the o ne ( al so w ith Per ez) that l ead to Vasquez’ s drug convi cti on in 200 2. The $2 3, 000 i n c as h fo und in the h idd enc o m par tmento fthe Bo nnev il l e ( r ec al l$ 15 , 00 0 was hi ddeni n the c ardur i ng th e 2 00 2 d ea l) p u ts a l i t t l e f r os tin g on th e c ak e. T h is evi dence, we bel i eve , would h ave m ove d the j ury to c on vic t V as q u ez w ith ou t a n u d ge from an yt h in g it hear d i n the gov er nm ent’ s r ebutta lcas e. For t he se reason s, th e j ud gm en t of th e d istri ct cou rt i s A FFI RMED .18 N o. 09

- 4056 H A MI L T ON, Cir cu i tJudg e, d i s s e n tin g. I re sp ec tfu lly diss ent. Iag re e with m y c ol l eagues that the di stri ct cour t di d not abuse i ts disc re ti on byal l owing evi dence ofVasquez’ s 2 002 co n victi on, byal l owing evi dence f o und in the s ea r cho fthe a ut o m o bi l e, o r b y l i m i tingthe c r o s s - e xa mi na t i o n o f Ag e nt Ch up i k

. I a l s o a g r ee that th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s er r o r i n pr ev en tingthe de fen dan t fr o m r e fr e s h i n gA g e n tC h u p i k ’ s r e c o l l e c t i o n w a s h a r ml e s s . Ho we v e r, I c a nn o t a g r e e tha t the MCC t a pe s we r e a dm i ss ibl e or tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s er r o r s i n a dm i tt i ng th e M CC ta pes wer e ha r m l es s. I woul d r ev er se th e con vic tio n an d rem an d for a n ew tria l. M ar in a Pe re z’s se c on d vis it to th e w itn es s s t a n d in the g ove rnm ent’ s r ebutta lcas e, to expl or e a phantom i nconsi ste ncy a nd to adm i t er ro neousl y the M CC ta pes, cau sed un fai r prej ud ice to the d efend an t. T he j ury h eard ev id en c e t h at th e d efe n d an t’s law ye r h ad ad vis ed h im to ple ad g u ilty and had sai d that i fthe thre e defendants w ent t o tr i al, “e ver yone i s g oi ng to l ose . ” That evi dence had no ge nuine proba ti ve val ue, and i t i s difficul t t o i m ag ine m o r e pr ej udi ci ale vi den ce . Ev eni fa l i m i ting i nstr ucti on t el l i ng the j ury that such dam aging ev i d en ce sh ou ld no t be c o ns i der ed f o r the t r uth o fthe matt ers as se r te d c o ul d ha ve been eff ec ti ve , whi chIdo ubt, no i ns truct i o n was g i ve n. The di st r i ctc o ur t a d m i tt ed th e rebu ttal ev iden ce as p roof of the trut h of the m atters a s s e r t e d i n the ta p e d MC C t e l e p h o n e c a l l s , w h i c h my coll eagu es an d Iallagree w as an error. T h e wh o l e e p i s o d e ma d e f o r a f a i r l y d r a ma t i c c o nc l usi on f orth e tr ial. The defense case co ncl ud ed on a Thurs-N o. 09

- 4056 19

The fur the r dra m a i nc l uded the gove rn m ent thr ea t en i ng 1 V asquez’ s lawy er with i nvesti gati on and prosec u tio n , Tr. 571, an d the co u rt ho ld ing J oe l Per ez in con tem p t of cou rt b eca u se he refused t o t e st i fy an d telling him tha t he faced life in pri s on i fhe c ont i nue d t o r efus e. Tr

. 57 8- 79
. Aft erthatfi ndi ng and thre a t, th e governm ent sai d: “I don ’ t know i fw e need M r. Pe re z s t i l l or no t
. ” Tr

. 57 9. He di d nott es t i fy. day, and the tr i alr eces sed for the weeke nd

. On Sunday, th e go ve r nm en t fi l ed ane m er g en cymot i o n fo r a c o nti nuance to p re p ar e a r ebutta lcas e using the M CC ta pes o fMar i na P e r e z ’ s c o nv e r s a t i o ns wi th he r h usb and. On M ond ay, th e cou rt all ow ed the d elay and sent the j ury hom e. M rs . P erez w as cal l ed to te sti fy a gain on Tuesday. I n h ert es ti m o ny, s he a dm i tt ed the k ey l eg i ti m at e po i nt th atthe governm en t was e nt i tl ed to make : tha t sh e ex p ec te d or a t le a s t h o p ed th at V as q u ez ’s la w ye r c ou ld hel p he r husband rece i ve a l i ghterse ntence. But the gov er nme nt ’ s r e b ut t a ldi d n o ts t o p the r e . Aft e r Mr s . P e r ez tes t i fi e d, the g o v e r nme ntp l a y e d the t a pe s thr o ugh anothe r w i tness
. On W ednesday, afterfurtherdram a, th e c ase was g i ve n t o the j ur y . M r s. Pe r ez ’ s te st i m o ny 1 and the g ove rnm ent’ s a tte m pted i m pe ac hm ent fi gure d prom i nentl y in the governm ent’ s cl osing ar gum ent t o th e j ury. Th en, after the j ury h ad heard that Vas qu ez’s att or ney ha d tol d him to ta ke a p lea a nd thathe was go in g t o los e a t t ria l, th at sa m e a tt or n ey ros e, w ith h is cre dibi l i ty destr oye d, to gi ve cl osing ar gum ent o n V asq ue z’s beh alf

. On e the o r y f o r que s t i o ningMr s. P er ez ab o utthe MCC tap es an d then ad m itti ng the tap es w as th at th ey w ere20 N o. 09

- 4056 pr i o r s ta te m en ts b y M r s. Pe r ez tha t wer e i nc o ns i st en t wi thhe r tria lt es ti m o ny f o r the de fen se . Buti nc o ns i st en t w i th wh at? M rs . P er ez tes ti fi ed that Vasquez dro ve to the s i te ofthe drug m eet i ng be cause sh e aske d him to p ick u p h er h u sb an d w ith th e P er ez ’s c ar . N ot h in g in th e M CC t ape s i s i nc o ns istentwi ththa t te st i m o ny . The gover nm ent’ s theor y was thatM rs . Per ez’ s be l i efthat Vasquez would be convi cted was i nconsi ste n t w i th her tes ti m ony that i t was herf aul t that Vasquez hap p en ed upo n the s ce ne o fthe t r an sa ct i o n. S ee Go v’ t Br

. 1 8. The th e o r y s e e ms t o b e th a ti fMr s . P e r e z ’ s t r i a lt e s t i mo ny w er e ho nest, s h e nec ess ar i l y would have bel i eve d that as long as sh e testifi ed truth full y , t h e jury w ou ld u ne rringly find Vas qu ez n o t guilty. Be cau se sh e w as very wor r i ed th atVa sque z woul d be co nv i ct ed, g o es the the o r y, the j ur y s ho ul d c o nc l ud e tha t s he l i e d i n her tr i alte sti m ony. That theo ryo fthe supp ose d i nconsi ste ncy m ake s se ns e o nl y i fw e a ss um e tha t, i fM r s. Pe r ez was t el l i ngthe truth, s he a l so mustha ve ha d a n e xt r ao r di na r y a nd ev en n aiv e c on fid en c e in th e in fallib ility of j u rie s in tel l i ng the di ffer ence between tr ue and f al se tes tim ony. A ny ci t i z e n who h a s f o l l o we d r e c e ntn e ws o fe xo ne r ati ons ofi nnocent but co nvi cted d efe n dants would be en ti tl ed to wor r y . One c anb e a g r ea t be l iev eri n the w isdom of j uries, as I a m , w ith ou t assu m ing the y are i nfa l l ibl e. Let’ s a ssum e forpurposes of ar gum ent that M rs . Pe r ez ’ s te st i m o ny abo uta sk i ngVa sque z to dr i ve the Pere z’ s ca r to pickup her h u sb an d w as tr ue. Even so , anyo ne as f am i l i aras she w as w i th the ev i dence ag ai nst b ot h h erhusband and Vasquez

— w ho were then bo th inN o. 09

- 4056 21

M y c ollea g u es also su g g est tha t M rs. P erez f ailed to d isclose 2 sev era l m eetin g s w ith V asqu ez’s la w y er w he n sh e testified in the defen s e c as e. Sl i p op. at 12

- 13

. Sh e t es t i fi ed about the on ly m eet ing s he w a s asked abou t. Tr. 419. The f actthats he had othe r m ee t i ngs , whi c h s he was no tas ke d about, w as not i nc on s i s t e ntwi th he r t e s t i m on y. A wi tne s s s ho ul d not be i m pe a c h e d f o r h a v i n g f a i l e d t o v o l u n t e e r i n f o r mat i o n n ot sought by the quest ioner. In f act, in a cri m inal tr ial, volunteere d i nf or m at i on often pos es a gr ea t erdang ert o the f ai rn es s of the t ri al thanom i s s i ons do. th e fede r all o ck

- up un derfeder ali ndi ct m en t

— c ou ld reason ably w orry that she m ight not be beli eve d . I f a wi tn es s’ s ex pr es si o n o fthe v i ew tha t a tr i almightc o m e o ut th e wro ngwayc anb e tr ea te d a s i nc o ns iste ntwi ththe w itness ’s testim ony for th e “right” resu lt, w e w il l see m ore case s with att em pted i m peachm ent l i ke thi s. Ir eco gni ze that a pri orst ate m ent ne ed not be “ diam etr i cal l y o pp ose d” w i th a w i tness ’ s t est i m ony to be i nconsi ste n t, but genui ne i nconsi ste ncy i s s ti l lnece ssar y. S ee U nite d State s v. Hale, 422 U

. S. 171, 1 7 6 (1 9 7 5 ); U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 808 F.2d 561 , 568 (7th C ir. 1986); ac c or d , U ni t e d St at e s v. Cody, 114 F.3d 772 , 776-77 (8th C ir. 1997 )

. The supposed i nconsi ste ncy her e was non- exi ste nt. I t was an abuse o fdi scr eti on t o ad m i t the ev i dence on that theo ry . 2 T he govern m en t’s bias th eory also does n ot j us tify ad m is s ionof th e M C C tap es. E vide nc e of a w itness ’s b ias is alw ay s re lev an t, of c ou rs e. Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d St at e s v. Li nde m ann , 8 5 F

. 3d 12 32 , 1 243 (7th Ci r . 1 99 6)

. Butthe fi rst p roblem here is that be fore th e M C C tap es w ere22 N o. 09

- 4056 adm i tte d, M rs . Per ez had alr eady a dm i tte d the as ser ted bi as: she hoped that Vasquez’ s l aw yer w oul d he l p her husband rece i ve a l ower s ente nce. There was no nee d for fu rt h er ex tr in sic ev id en c e o f th e p oin t, es p ec ially wh e r e th a te x t r i n s i c ev i d e n c e p o s e d a l lth e p r o b l e ms th at th e M C C tap es d id h ere. I n lig h t of M rs. Pe rez’s candid ( i fper haps nai ve) adm i ssio n, the tapes provi ded no o r l i ttl e a dd i ti onalpro bati ve val ue, bu t ca used substa nti alunfa i r prej ud i ce t o defe nd ant Vasquez. N ei thertheo ryo fadm i ssi on

— pri ori nconsi ste nt st ate
m ents orevidence ofbi as

— su ppo r te d a dm i ss i o n o fthe M CC ta pe s a t a l l

. M y c ol l eagues a nd Iag re e a t l eas t, ho wev er, tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t e r r ed i n a dm i tt i ngthe M CC t ape s f o r the t r uth of th e m at te r s as se r te d b y the speake rs . Bi as is n ot an excepti on t o the he ar sayr ule , a nd e v e n g e nuinel y i nc o ns i s t e nts t a t e men t s a r e n o ta dm iss ible for th e t ru th of th e m at te rs as se rt ed . In th is case , the tapes i ncl ud ed hear say, doubl e hea rs ay, an d e ve n t r i pl e he ar sa y . In the mos t ex tr ao r di na r y a nd p rej u d icia l ex am p le, th e ju r y h e ar d Joe l Pe re z t ell M ar in a P e rez tha t Va sq ue z ha d told him that Vas qu ez’s l aw yerhad to l d Vasquez thathe s houl d plea d gui l ty: M ar in a: So w h at ’d B ea u [V as q u ez ’s la w ye r] te ll

h im [V as q u ez ]? W h at d id B ea u te ll h i m? J o el : A bl i nd pl ea woul d b e g o o d, then he

can guarant ee thi s a nd that

. You kno w w hat Im ean? Just ce rt ai n thi ngs, yo u k no w? Ig o t to e xpl ain t o y o u. M ar i na: H e’s tel l i ng hi m abo ut a bl i nd pl ea

al so?N o. 09

- 4056 23

The governm ent argues f or a dif ferent int erpret atio n , that 3 Joel Pe rez w as telling M arin a t h a t V asqu ez’s l aw y er h ad told J oel thatJ oel should ente r a bl ind gu il ty plea ( i .e . , a p l e a wi thou t an ag reem en t). In co nte xt, the b etter rea d ing , an d certain ly a perm issible i nte rp reta tion av ailab le to the jury , is th a t b oth J oel’ s lawy er and V asquez’ s lawy er were te lli ng thei r re specti ve cl ie nts thatthey s hould ent er bl ind gu il ty pleas

. That ex pl ai ns Mari na’ s “a l s o, ” s i nc e J oe l ’ s l awyer was advi s i ng him at the ti m e t o ente r a bl ind plea. J oel : Yeah, he i s. Igo tta expl ai n to yo u. You

know w hat Im ean. H e says, i fyo u w ant, have hi s w ife ta l k t o m e, thi s o r th at. Iha v e to exp lai n to you tom orr o w. Supp. A pp . 13

. The j ury al so hear d M ar i na Per ez tel lher 3 husband tha tV a s qu e z ’ s l a wy e r ( who wa s h i s l e a d t r i al at to r ne y ) ha d t o l d he r tha t i fthe thre e defen dan ts went to t r i al, “ ev erybo dy i s g o i ngt o lose.” S upp. App. 1 1. The g o ve r nm en t hi g hl i g ht ed th atc o m m en t i n i ts que sti oning ofM rs . Per ez. Tr. 52 8- 29. The er ro neou s a dm i ssi on o f th i s hi g hl y prej udi ci alhe ar sa y a nd t r i pl e he ar sa y f o r the tr u th of th e m at te rs as se rt ed sh ou ld req u ire a n ew tria l. M y c o l l ea g ue s co nc l ude , ho wev er, tha t th e er r o ne o us tr eat m ent o fthe M CC ta pes evid en c e was har m l ess because the go ver nm ent had s o m uch otherev i dence ag ain stV as q u ez . Ires p ec tfu l ly d isa gr ee . Th e is su e is w he th er the r eview ing cou rt i s “con vince d that the j ury w ou ld have co nvi cted e ven absent the e rr or . ” U nited St at e s v. Si m m ons , 5 99 F

. 3d 77 7, 7 80 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( ho l di ng24 N o. 09

- 4056 th at a r g u a ble errors in ad m itti ng eviden ce w ere ha r m l es s i n l i g ht o f defen dan t’ s o wn admi ss i o ns abo ut hi s invol vem ent in c rim e)

. The st andard cal l s upon an ap p ella te co u rtn otto “b ec om e in e ffec t a se c on d j u ry ,” see Neder v . U nited Sta tes , 52 7 U.S

. 1, 19 ( 1999), b ut to d et er m in e “ w h et h er it ap p e ar s ‘b ey on d a re as on ab le doub t th at the e rr orco m pla i ned ofdi d not co ntribute to the v er dicto btained. ’ ” Id

. at 15, q uoti ng Chapm an v. C alif ornia , 3 86 U .S. 18 , 24 (1 96 7). A c c or d , e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. M cGowan , 590 F .3d 44 6, 45 6 n .1 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ); U nited S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 493 F.3d 763 , 766 (7th C ir. 2007). T he st an d ard is n ot easy to satisfy, a nd f ou r f acto rs here l ea d m e to c o nc l ude t hi s er r o r was no t ha r m l es s: the m odest str ength ofthe re st ofthe gov er nm en t’s case ag ains t Vas que z, the pr ej udi ci alc ha r act ero fthe evi dence thatwas adm i tte d err oneo usl y, the f act that th e j ur y a cqui tt ed Vas que z of on e o ft wo c ha r g es , a nd the i m port ance that the go ve rn m ent i tse l fat tr ibuted to i ts fl aw ed rebuttalev i dence. L o o k i n gfi r s ta tth e s t r e n g th o fth e r es to fth e c a s e , we can al lag re e that t h e go ver nm ent had a sol i d case ag ains t bo thPe r ez a nd Cr uz . Bo thwere r ec o r ded m ak i ng ar ra ngem ents f orthe coca i ne purchase , and both sh ow ed up at the ag re ed ti m e a nd pl ace. The cas e aga i ns t Va s qu e z wa s no t a s c l e a r . Va s qu e z wa s no t r ecor ded atal l . H e w as n ot eve n m enti oned i n any of the r eco rded cal l s. The agents, the confi denti ali nfo rm ant, and even Cruz w er e e xpecti ng o nl y a singl e cust om er to s ho w up f o r the meet ing. The y kne w no th i ngabo ut Vasquez unti ltheysa w hi m ar riv e in the Pere z’ s ca r atN o. 09

- 4056 25 th e n ea rb y D en n y’s p ar kin g lo t, fro m w h er e h e c ou ld se e Pe r ez an d Cr uz . H e ne ve r g o t o ut o f th e ca r, a nd the a gents di d not hea r hi m ta l k with anyo ne. On the o th erha nd, o fc o ur se , Va sque z ar r i ved atthe sc en e o fa p l a n n e d d r u gme e t i n gd r i v i n ga c a r c a r r y i ng $23,000 in a hid d en com p artm en t. H e fl ed in th e car, dram ati cal l y a n d danger ousl y, as the age nts t ri ed to m ake the ar re sts
. H e ha d p revi ousl y b een c onvi cted o f a drug deal w i th Pere z usi ng a car w i th a sim i l ar hid d en com p artm en t. A nd Cru z testifi ed t h a t he h eard Vas que z te l lPer ez o n the t el eph o ne : “ te l lhi m we g o t th e m on ey h er e.” Let ’ s p ut as i de th e fl i g hte vi den ce f o r a mom en t an d f o c u s o n th e o th e r e v i d e n c e . Ma r i n a P e r e z ’ s t e s t i mon y provi ded an innocent expla nati on f orVasquez’ s pre sence on th e s c en e in th e c ar w ith t h e h id d en m on ey . Sh e s aid sh e pl a n n e d t o p i c ku p h e r h u s b a n d b u th a d a n a r g um en t wi thhi m . S he a sk ed Vas que z to pi ckhi m up an d to ta ke th e P er ez ’s c ar be c au se h is ow n w as p ar ke d in by that car . The cr edibi l i ty of her tes ti m ony i s a t l eas t d e b a t ab l e . An d C r u z , th e c o - d e fe n d a n twh o s e tu p the m eet i ng with the info rm ant, te sti fi ed that Pere z was not eve n supp ose d to bring anym oneyto the m eet i ng, Tr. 23 7- 38, wh i ch i s a t l eas t co nsi ste nt with her tes ti m ony. C ru z’s te st im on y a b ou t V as q u ez ’s s ta te m en t, “t ell h im we g o t t he mone y he r e, ” was i m po r ta nt
. Apar t fr o m the fl i ght e vi dence, i t w as the s tr onge st evi dence ag ai nst V a s q u e z , a n d i twa s a c t u a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n twi thMa r i na Pe r ez ’ s te st i m o ny . M y c o l l ea g ue s tr ea t the s ta te m en t a s a n u n d i s p u te d f a c t, b u tth a ti s ami s t a k e wh e n we26 N o. 09

- 4056

ar e e va lu at in g w h et h er an err or w as h a rm les s. T h e c re d ibi l i tyo ftha t k eyb i t o ft es ti m o ny was s ubj ec t to s tr o ng att acks , f arstro ngerthan the g ove rnm ent’ s a tta cks on M rs . Per ez’ s t est i m ony. Cruz was a coo perat i ng defen dan t wi thpo wer ful inc en ti ve s to he l p the g o ve r nm en t pr ove it s ca se a g ains t Vas que z, the o nl y o ne o fthe th r ee who wentt o t r i al

. On th e witn ess s ta nd, Cr uz adm i tte d hav i ng l i ed to the gov er nm ent abou t Vasquez and seve ra lo thersubj ects
. Tr. 2 50- 52, 25 4- 56, 26 8- 72, 28 9. M o sti m po r ta nt, Cr uz a dm i tt ed th athe first t o l d the g o v e r n me n tab o u tV a s q u e z ’ s s u p p o s e d “ mo n e y ” c o mmen tl e s s tha n o ne we e kb e f o r e t r i a l

. T r . 2 6 3

- 6 4

. By that tim e, Cruz had al re ady be en debr i efed by the g overnm ent s ev er alt i m es , a l lwi th o ute ve r ment i o ni ng th e sing l e m o stda m ag i ngpa r t of h is t es ti m o ny ag ain stV as q u ez . O n th is re c or d , th e jur y c ou ld ea sily have tr eat ed the “m oney ” co m m ent a s a l ate and f al se i nventi on byCruz. The Rul e 4 04(b) evid en ce

— th e pr i o r c o nv i c ti on

— w as str ong evi dence, but i t r em ai ned 404(b) evide nc e tha t cou ld n ot m ake th e case by i tself. W i th ou t th e fl i ght e vi dence and the M CC ta pes er ro neo us l y a dm i tt ed f o r the i r truth, the n, the g o ve r nm en t had evid en ce that was l ega l l y s uffi ci ent t o convi ct Vas que z, b utthe c as e was f arfr om a s l am- dunk

. The dram ati c ev i dence ofthe dangero us fl i gh t s tr engthe ned th e c a s e su b st an tia lly an d m ak es it ea sie r for m y c oll eagues to describe the dist ri ct cour t’ s er ro r as h ar m l ess . Bu t the fl i ght e vi dence cannotcar rythatm uch w eig ht, i n m y v iew
. The S up re m e Cour t a nd we have r epea te dl y c au ti o ne d a g ains t to o much rel i an ce o n fl i g htN o. 09

- 4056 27 as evid en ce of guil t for th e crim e c ha rged becau se th ere ar e s o m any l i nks in the chai n ofi nfe re nces: W e ha ve l o ngadhe r ed t o the Supr eme Co ur t’ s ca ut i o nar y l anguage urg i ng co urts to be w ar y o fthe proba

ti ve val ue o ffl igh t ev i dence. S ee Wo ng Su n v . U nited Sta tes , 3 71 U. S

. 4 71 , 4 83 n. 10 ( 19 63 ) ( “[ W ] e ha ve c o nsi ste ntl y doubte d the probati ve val ue i n cr i m i nal tr i al s o fev i dence thatthe accused fl ed the scene of an a c t u a l or su p p os ed cr im e.” ). W h ile w e a llow ev idence offl i ght t o be pr ese nted , c ou rts m ust e ngage i n car efu ldel iber ati on wh en co nsi deri ng i ts adm i ssi o n. De te r m i na ti o n o fthe pr o ba ti ve v alue o ffl i g ht as e vi den ce o fa de fen dan t’ s g ui l t depe nd s o n the degre e o fco nfi dence w i th wh i ch f our infer ences can be dr awn: ( 1) fr o m b eh av i o r t o fl i g ht; ( 2) fr o m fl i g ht to consci ousness of gui l t; ( 3) fro m co nsci ousness o fg ui l t to c o ns ci ou sn ess o fg ui l t co nc erni ngthe c rim e c h ar ge d ; an d (4) fro m co n sc iou sn es s o f gu ilt co nc erni ngthe c r i m e cha r g ed to a ctua lg ui l t o fthe cri m e cha rg ed. S ee U nite d S t at e s v. Le vi ne, 5 F. 3d 1100 , 1107( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ; se e a l so U ni t e d S t a tes v
. Jac ks on , 57 2 F .2d 63 6, 63 9 (7 th C ir. 19 78 ) (ad op tin g t h is an aly si s as se t f o r th i n U nited Sta tes v. M yers , 55 0 F.2d 103 6, 1049 ( 5th Cir. 1977)). U ni t e d S ta tes v. Rob i ns on , 161 F.3d 463 , 469 (7th C ir. 1998). I fwe f ol l ow t h at cauti ous a pp ro ach to fl i ght e vi dence, w e s houl d not r el y o n i t t o sa ve t h e j ury’ s v er dictfro m th e er r o r we al la g r ee was made i n a dm i tt i ngthe hi ghl y pr ej ud i ci alev i dence fro m the M CC ta pes.28 N o. 09

- 4056 W e m us t al so c o ns i derthe pr ej udi ci ale ffec t o fthe im p roper evi dence. The ev i dence fro m the M CC ta pes, admi tt ed he r e er rone o us l y f o r the i r t r uth a nd wi thno true pr o ba ti ve v alue , was j us t ab outa s pr ej udi ci ala s o ne cou ld ex p ect to en c o u n t er i n a trial. Th e j ury h eard that Vasquez’ s l aw yer

— the man who wo ul d s o on m ake a c los in g a rg u m en t a sk in g th em to find rea so n ab le doubt i n the gov er nm ent’ s ca se

— had tol d Va squez that he sho uld pl ead gui l ty and had sai d that if h e a nd hi s co d efe nd ants w ent t o tr i al, “e ver yone i s g oi ng to l ose.” A j u ro r w h o h ea rd a n d b e liev ed th at ev id en c e w ou ld su rely d iscoun t any th ing she heard fro m t ha t law yer. I n te r ms o fp r ej u d i c e , th e s e h a r p o o n s a r e c o mp a r ab l e t o e v i d e n c e o fa d e fe n d a n t ’ s o wnwi th d r a wn gu ilty p lea . Su c h a p lea is vir tu ally n ev er ad m is s ible bec au se of it s p o w erful force. S ee Fed

. R. Evid

. 410(1); Kerchev a l v. U nited Sta tes , 274 U

. S. 220, 223-24 (1927 ). W e also have stron g i nd ic a t io n s from both the j ury an d the gov er nm ent i tse l fthatthe er ro neous adm i ssi o n o fthe M CC t ape s was no t ha r m less. Ev enwi ththe pr ej udi ci ala nd e r r o ne o us e vi den ce , the j ur y s ti l lf o und Vasquez notgui l ty on the char ge ofat tem pted posses si on w i th i ntent to dist ribu te. That v er dicti s har d to re conci l e with the j ury ’s convi cti on o n the conspi ra cy ch arge, an d th e s p li t verd ict certainly has th e w hiff of a com p rom ise verdi c t i n a close case. Suc h ve rd icts are p erm issible i n crim inal cases, o f c o urs e, bu t w he n d eterm i ni ng wh et her, bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt, a conceded er r o r wa s h a r ml e s s , we s h o u l d n o ti g n o r e th a ts t r o ng si gnalthatthe j ury v iew ed the case as a cl ose o ne, ev enN o. 09

- 4056 29

w i th the ev i dence offlight and the i m properr ebutta l evi dence. T h e g ov er n m en t a lso sh ow ed h ow im p or ta n t it bel i eve d the i m properr eb u tt al evi dence w as by i ts extr aor dinar y e ff or ts to obt ai n i ts adm i ssi on . The t ri alse em ed near l y o verwh en the go ver nm ent fi l ed i ts em er gency Sun d ay m otion for a con tinu a n c e t o en able it to p rep are thi s r ebutta lcas e. The ev ents ofthe n ext s eve ra ldays, i nc l udi nge spe ci al l y the g o ve r nm en t’ s emphas is on the i m properev i dence i n i ts cl osing ar gum ent, sho w ed that th e g ov er n m en t b elie ve d th at M rs . Pe re z h a d se riou sly w eak ened i ts case and that the i m properr ebutta l ev id en c e s t r en gt h en ed its ca se co n sid er ab ly. M y c oll ea g ue s di sa g r ee wi ththa t as se ss m en t, b uti n a ppl y i ng th e ha r m l es s er r o r s ta nda r d, we sh o ul d g i ve mor e wei g ht to the v i ews o fthe pa r tywho s o ug hta dm i ss i o n of the i m properev i dence, as sho w n by that party ’ s co nd u ct at tria l. I a m n ot tr yi ng to sugg estthatVasquez i s a ctual ly inn ocen t or that I ne cess aril y b eli eve M arina P erez’s te st im on y about w hy he w as i n the caratthe scene of th e bus t. Thos e a r e que st i o ns f o r the j ur y . Buti n l i g hto fthe cl o se ne ss o fthe c as e, the hi g hl y pr ej udi ci alna tu r e ofthe i m properev i dence, the j ury’ s s p lit verdict, and the gov er nm ent’ s e m phasi s o n the i m properev i d en c e, Iam not con vince d beyon d a reasona ble d o ub t tha t the j ury woul d ha ve c o nv i ct ed Vas que z i n the ab se nc e o fthe i m properand hi ghl y pr ej ud i ci alM CC ta pe evi dence. I w ou ld va c at e t h e jud gm en t a n d ord er a n ew tria l.

3- 14- 11