## 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. 08

- 1854 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J OS EP HO . L EW IS, 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 Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on. No . 07 C R 12

—Th eres a L . Sp ri ngman n, Judg e.
A RG UE D A PRI L 10, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UNE 1, 2009

Befo re B AUER, F LA UM, a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . In J anuary20 07, thr ee m en r o b b e d a b an k in For t W ay n e, Ind ian a, an d Jos ep h L ew is was pe g g ed as o ne o fthe r o bbe rs. Le wi s cl ai m ed th atthe po l i c e h a d th e wr o n gma n, b u ta tt r i a l th e g o v e r nm en t pr es ent ed ev i den ce t o the c o nt r ar y, i nc l udi ngt es ti m o ny from h is cousin, w hos e hou se w as th e site ofLe w is’ s ar re st an d th e a rre st of th e t w o ot h er m en alleg ed ly i nvol ved i n the hei st. The j ury f ou nd Lew i s guil ty of ar m ed bank ro bber y, and he a pp eal s.2 N o. 08

- 1854 Du ri ng Lew i s’ s t ri al, se ve ra l ba nk em plo yee s t est i fi ed a b o utthe da y ’ s e v e nt s . Al tho ugh the i r a c c o un t s v a r i e d a b it

— w hi ch i s n ot at al l unusual

— thi s i s the st or y that em er ged. On the a fter noon o fthe robber y, the bank w as i nfi l tr ate d by three m en

— o ne w i tha g un

— w h o e ve n tu ally g r a b b e d mon e y f r o m the v a ul t a nd o ne o f the drawers. T h e firs t w as a sh or te r b lac k m an , o fm ed iu m bu ild . H is f ace wa s c o v e r e d wi th a s k i ma s k, h e wo r e l a t e x g l o ves, and he had a dark to p o vera j er seywith a num berse ven on i t. The seco nd bandit w as a tal l, sl ender bl ack m an, al so w ear i ng a skim askand equi pp ed w i th l ate x gl ove s. He wa s we a r i n gg r e e n i s h

-b l u e win d b r e a k e r p a n t s a nd whi t e t e nn i s s ho e s . T he thi r d r o b ber we ntt o the c o py room , w he re he restraine d the ass istant m an ager. Fee l i ng fr i ghtene d, the m anage r kept her eye s cl ose d dur i ngthe e nc o unt erb utt es ti fi ed th ats he c o ul d t el l the ro bberw as b l ack f ro m “hi s v oi ce. ” S he al so re cal l ed b ru sh in g u p ag ain st th e ro b b er ’s c lot h in g, w h i c h felt so ft
. An o th e r t e l l e r c a u g h t a g l i mps e o f th e f e l l o w i n t he co py r o o m a nd de sc r ibe d hi m a s a l ar g e m an . A ba nk surve i l l ance phot o showed the tor so and l egs o fo ne o f th e m en w ho w as w earing a ta n s w e a t s hirt w ith a d ark st r i pe do wn th e sl ee ve . Anothe r tel l ert es ti fi ed th ato ne ofthe thi eve s had br ai ds ordrea dlo cks. W i th the i r l oo t in to w

— a m odest tak e o f$1 7, 049. 92 ( com plim ents to the To w erBank o fFo rtW ayne f or being so ex act!)

— th e th r ee fl ed the ba nk i n a brow n ca r. Unbe k no wnstt o the m , the y a l so l eft th e b ankwi tha hi dd en GPS tr acking device em bedded i n a s tacko f J ac k so ns . Po l i ce o ffi ce r s r ec ei ve d a p age when th e GPS un it started to m ove. I t led th em to a reside nt ialneighb or-N o. 08

- 1854 3 ho o d a c o upl e o fmil es from the b an k

. The y wer e j o hnny on the spot, ar ri vi ng atthe scene i n und er10 m in u te s. Shor tl y thereafter, the GP S unitst opped sending out a si g na l

. The po l i ce , ho wev er, wer e able t o pi npo i ntthe house w he re the GPS sto pp ed em i tti ng i ts w here abouts

. Th e r e , the y h un k e r e d d o wn t o s e e wh a tde v e l o pe d. N obo dy cam e o r l eft fro m the house untill ate r that ev en in g. A t t h at tim e, L e w is’s co u sin , K en ya tt a L ew is ( w ho w e w i l l r eferto as Kenyatta ) , r etur ned f ro m work to a bi g s urpri se

— cop car s l i ned u p in fr ont ofhi s ho use. Once he go t w in d of the s i tuati on he gave the pol i ce per m i ss i o n t o s ear chhi s ho m e. I ns i de, the po l i ce f o und thre e m en . One w as a s hor terbl ack m an wh o had a m edium bui l d. The seco nd was a t al l, s lend erbl ack m an wi thb r ai ds. The l as t, Le wi s, was a s to cky b l ac kman. The offi cer s a l so f ound a gun, so m e $ 10 ,00 0 of the $1 7, 000+ do l l ar s ta k enfr o m the b an k, a nd th e bank ’ s br o k enGPS unit
. I n the att ic and i n the m ast erbedr oo m the pol i ce di scov er ed va r i o us i te m s o fc l o th i ng

— i ncl ud i ng thr ee kni t ski m ask s or hats, a j er sey w i th the nu m b er seven o n i t, wh i t e Ni k e te nn i s s ho e s , b l ue n y l o n pa nt s , a nd a s t r iped , tan sw eatsh irt

— w hi ch m atched the cl othe s des c r ib e d b y t e l l e r s a tthe b a nk

. P a r k e d in the g a ra ge off ic er s f o und a s i l ve r c artha t was r eg i st er ed to Le w is’ s wi f e. I n th e tr unk was a bo x o f unus ed viny l gl oves, a nd i n the b ack sea t o ffi cer s di sco ver ed a di scar ded pai r of th e g l o ve s. DNA t es ting laterl i nk ed th em to o ne o fthe m en hi ding out i n K en ya tt a’s hom e. Later, the pol i ce f ound a br own car, m atchi ng the descr i pti on o fthe get
aw ay car, a f ew bl ock s fro m the bank. I t a pp ar entl y was di tc he d by th e r o bb er s an d an o th er ca r ( pr obab ly th e si l vero ne) was used to ge t t o K enyat ta’ s ho use.4 N o. 08

- 1854 K enyat ta tes ti fi ed that he had bee n at w or k o n the day of the ro bber y and that nobody, i ncl ud i ng Lew i s, h ad p erm issi on to be at h is hom e. K en yatta did , how ever, wa v e r o n wh e th e r L e wi s h a d a wa y i n t o th e g a r ag e . At firs t, he te sti fi ed that he had gi ven Lewis the g ar age dooro pener ove r Thanksgi vi ng, but on cr oss - exam i nati on he d en ied eve r doi ng so . I n any eve nt, the gar age was easily acc essible. K en yatta e x p la ined thathe left a sp are o pen eri n h i s unl o ck ed ca r, whi chwas p arked i n the dr i ve way . He a l so t esti fi ed th athe ne ve r g av e Lewi s th e key to the do o r l e a di ngfr o m t he g a r a g e i nt o the h o us e. B efo re th e ro b b er y, K en ya tt a t es tifie d , th e d oo r w as in fi ne c o ndi ti o n. The s ame c o ul d no t be s ai d a fte r the ro bber y o ccurr ed

— the doo r had been ki cked i n. Kenyatta a l s o t e s t i fi e d th a t th e c l o th e s t a k e n f r o m h i s h o me w er e no t hi s, exce pt f orthe tan, st ri ped sw eat shi rt, wh i ch ( perhaps o bvi ousl y) he ha dn ’ t worn that day. Lew i s was i nter ro gat ed by pol ice o ffi cer s l ate r that ev en i ng, t wo ofwho m a l so t es ti fi ed atthe t r i al

. Acco r di ng to the o ffi ce r s, Le wi s’ s st o r y s hifte d thr o ug ho utthe i nter ro gat i on. A t fi rs t, Lew i s deni ed that he was i nvol ved i n the ro bber y. Later, he a dm itt ed thathe was the “ l o o k o ut, ” a nd tha t he s c o pe d o ut the b a nk a f ew day s be f o r e th e r o bb er y o cc ur r ed. Event ua l l y, he cl ai m ed that on the day ofthe hei st he m et the thr ee ro bbe rs (w hi ch i ncl ud ed the othe r tw o m en f ound at Ke n y a t t a ’ s ho m e ) a ta g a s s t a t i o n n e a r th e b a n k

. He ass er ted thathe t ol d the o ther s that he n o lon gerwanted to b e i nv o l ve d. He e ve ntua l l y pa r te d way s w ith the o th erthr ee a nd he ade d b ac kt o Ken y atta ’s. Ri g hta s he r e a c h e d K e n y a t t a ’ s h o me , th e th r e e “ r e a l ” r o b b e r s c a meN o. 08

- 1854 5

H ow ever, the D V D , w hich is part ofthe rec ord, i s j ust over 1 fou r ho u rs l o ng . O ne of the o fficers w ho interr og ated L ew is and te st ifie d d uring the tr ial al so sta ted that the i nter view l a s t e d “ ov e r f ou r h ou r s , ” s ug ge st i ng c ou ns e l s m a y ha ve b e e n mi s t a k e n a b o u tth e l e n g th o fth e DVD. sc r ee ch i ngi nt o the dr i vew ay. S o m eh o w, the o th er s m an aged to drive to the b an k, rob it, and reach K en yatta ’s hom e a t the sa m e t i m e Lewis ar ri ved. L ew i s cl ai m ed that he r eached Kenyatt a’ s a t 1:57 p .m , al though o ne o f the offi cer s poi nted out that he ( al ong w i th sev er al other officers) w as alread y the re at tha t tim e and saw no cars a r r i v i n go r l e a v i n g . No n et he l e s s , L e wi s c l a i me d th a tt wo of t h e t h i e v e s ju m p ed ou t, w h ile th e t h ird sp ed off in the b r o wn g e t a wa y c a r . On e o fthe r o b b e r s the n ki cked in th e d oo r to K en ya t ta ’s h om e, an d th ey bo th h id th ere un tilun cove red by the police hou rs l ater. T h e e n tir e in te rro ga tio n w as rec or d ed on a D V D . A lth ou gh the D V D w as no t play e d for the j ury

— w e w ere told ato r ala r g um en t th ati t was s i x h o ur s l o ng

— th e 1 unredacte d D VD was adm i tte d i nto evi dence. A lthough none o ft h e poli ce o ffi cer s m enti oned i t whil e t est i fyi ng, L ew is a lso rev ea l e d o n th e D V D th at h e w as p re vio u sly c on vic te d of ba n k ro b b er y a n d th at se ve ra l of h is fa m i l y mem be r s wer e i nc ar ce r at ed. Nea r the e nd, he al so sai d he “ai ded and abe tte d” th e r obbe ry, ano ther st at em en t le ft u n m en tio n ed by th e o ffice rs d u rin g t ria l. T h e t r i a l co un s e l o b j e c t e d t o th e D V D ’ s a d mi s s i o n, c l a i mi ngtha t th i s l as t st at ementwas undu l y pr ej udi ci ala nd i m pr o pero pi ni o n t es ti m o ny b y a l ayw i tn es s. The cour t o ver rul ed the obj ecti on but i nfo rm ed the jurythat6 N o. 08

- 1854 Lew i s was nota l ega l exper t a nd i nstr ucted them that, by m enti oni ng “a i ding and abett i ng, ” Lewis w as nei ther ma k i n ga l e g a l c o n c l us i o n n o r a d mi t t i n gt o th e c r i me ch arged

. A t the end of th e pro c e e d in gs, th e cou rt r ea ss ur ed the g o ve r nm en t th atthe j ur y c o ul d v i ew the DV D d uri ng the i r del iber ati ons “[ i ] f they so chose

. ” S i nce the j u ry r oo m was equi pp ed w i th a DV D play er, they coul d “ r e v i e w a l l o fi to r p o r t i o ns o fi t, h o we v e r they se l ec t. ” Aft erde liberat i ngf o r a l i tt l e l es s th anf o ur hours, the j ury f ound L ew i s guil ty ofr obbi ng the bank

. Shor tl y a fterthe tr i al, the gov er nm ent w rote to L ew is’s tria l c ou n se l, in for m in g h im t h at it “in ad ve rt en tly f ai l ed to di sc l o se ” th e f ac t th at K eny at ta ha d a fel o ny convi c tio n f ordeal i ng co cai ne. Lew i s r esponded by fi li ng a m otion for ne w tri al, clai m ing tha t this fai lure v i o l a t e d Brady v . M aryl and, 373 U
. S. 83 ( 1963 )
. The di str i ct c o ur tc o n c l u d e d th a tth e g o v e r n me n th a d i n d e e d s u ppress ed f avo rabl e i m peachm ent e vid en ce b ut noneth el es s den i ed th e m o ti on, no tingtha t Keny at ta ’ s dr ug convi cti on, ev en i fpubli shed to the j u ry , would nothave cha n ge d the o utcom e o fthe tr i al

. Lew i s no w appeal s, w ith th e h elp of n ew ly a p p oin te d ap p ella te co u n se l. Lewi s fi r st ar g ue s th at th e ev i den ce o f hi s pr i o r ba nk ro bber y c onvi cti on , wh i ch he r epeate dlym enti oned thro ughout the re cor ded pol i ce i nter ro gat i on, was er ro neou sly ad m it t e d

. H e m ain ta in s t h at th e s ta te m en ts on ly sh ow h is p ro p en sit y t o c om m it b an k ro b b er ies , a p urp o s e at od d s w ith Fed eral Ru le ofEv iden ce 404 (b). Lew i s d i d n o t t e s t i fy a t t r i a l, th u s th e s t a t e me n t s h a d no va l ue a s i m pea ch i nge vide nc e. W e m us t fi r sta ddr es s th eN o. 08

- 1854 7 st an dar d o fr ev i ew, whi chLe w is clai m s i s a th o r ny i ss ue . Be l i ev i ngtha t th e o bj ec ti o n was made o ff th e re cor d, Lew i s u rg es us to l oo k t o the b ro ader conte xt o f th e pr o ce eding s to g l ea n the pr ec ise n atur e o ft r i alc o unsel ’ s chal l enge. Fr om that conte xt, he conte nd s, w e can s ur mi s e tha tthe R ul e 4 0 4 ( b ) o b j e c t i o n wa s p r e s e r v e d, and thus he a sks us t o re vi ew the d ec isio n f oran abuse o fdi sc r et i o n. T h er e is n o n ee d , an d n o p lac e, for su c h sp ec u lat ion
. See U nited Sta tes v. R o llins, 544 F.3d 8 20, 834 ( 7th Cir. 2008). Lewi s’ s o bj ec ti on t o the DVD was made o ut si de o fthe p resen ce of the j u r y , b u t n ot out side of th e record

. Th ere ar e tw o set s o ftr anscr i pts

— on e in c lu d es j u st th e t es tim on y ofthe w i tness es, wh i l e the o theri s m or e co m ple te an d recou nt s the exc ha ng e regard ing the obj ection
. I t’s cl ea r f r o m th e l a t t e r t r a n s c r i p t th a t L e wi s r a i s e d no Rul e 40 4(b) o bj ec ti o n: Tri alC ounsel : W el l, th en th e Court’ s rul i ng i s that th e DVD i s g o i ngi n? The Cou r t: The only obj ectio n i s to tha t st at ement tha t, y e a h, Ia i de d a nd ab e t t e d? T r i a l C o u n s e l : Ye s , I o b j e c tt o i t o n t he g r o un ds tha t i t i s o pi ni o n t e s t i mon y b y a l a y wi t ne s s . I t’ s J oe L ew is’ s m aking a le g a l con clusion

. A nd again, it’ s u n d u ly p rej u d icia l. The parti es disc ussed the adm i ssibi l i ty ofthe DV D fo r ove r 10 p ages of transc ript an d nev er m en t ioned Le w is’ s st at em en ts reg ar d in g h is p r i o r rob b er y c on vic tio n . Th is f ai l ur e to o bj ec t f o r f ei ts the a r g um en t o n a ppea l, a nd8 N o. 08

- 1854

c on se q u en tly ou r re vie w is on ly fo r p lain err or . U nited St at e s v. Gi b s on , 170 F. 3d 673, 67 7- 78 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)
. U nd er th is onerou s stan d ard , w e w ill on ly reverse if “th e errors r es ul te d i n a n a ctua l mis ca r r i ag e o fj us tice s uchtha t th e defe nd ant pr obab l y would have bee n acqui tte d but f or th e e rro n eo u sly ad m itt ed ev id en c e.” U ni t e d St at e s v. A vila , 5 57F
. 3d 80 9, 8 20 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) (citatio ns a nd qu otations om itted ). The str ange m anner i n w hi ch the DV D w as adm i tte d in to th e re c or d p re c lu d es L ew i s f ro m su c c es sfu lly m e e t in g this bu rd en . Th ere is no ev iden ce in th e record th at th e j ur y ev er he ar d Lewi s’ s st at ement abou t the pri orr obbe ry . N o port i ons ofthe DV D w er e pl aye d fo r th e j ury. And a l th o ug h t wo o ffi ce r s te st i fi ed ab o utthe i nt e r r o g a t i o n, n e i the r me nt i o ne d L e wi s ’ s p r i o r c o nv i cti o n. The unr eda ct ed DVD

— r i f e wi thr efer ence s to the pri orco nvi cti on

— w as n on et h ele ss ad m itt ed int o e vidence, and the j ury had acces s to a D VD pl aye r du ri ng i ts del ibe r ation. But th er e i s no way t o kno w ( f r o m the re cor d bef or e us) ifthe j ury actual l y w atched the DVD , l et al o ne the p arts th ati nc l ude Le wi s’ s admi ss i o ns . The j ur y de l ibe r at ed f o r a l i tt l e l es s th an f o urho ur s, whi ch, a ft e r a c c o u n t i n gf o r e v e n a m i n i ma l a mo u n to ft i me for d isc u ss ion , su gg es ts th at i t d id n ot vie w th e w h ole thi ng ev en i fi t v i ew ed any porti on ofit at al l

. Lew i s m ust prove thatth e ad m i ssi on o fthe evi dence r esul ted i n an
“ actual m isc ar ria ge of j u st ice ,” A v ila , 55 7 F
. 3d at 820 ( em phasi s a dd ed), wh i ch i s i m possibl e s i nce i t’ s quest i o nab l e wh e the r the j ur y a c t ua l l y wa t c he d the DV D. Forthe sam e r eas on, Lew i s’s s eco nd chal l enge f ai l s. D uring the interroga tion he also m en tioned his f a m ily ’sN o. 08

- 1854 9 cri m i nal bac kgr ound, an d h e no w ar gues, f orthe fi rs t t i me, tha tthi s e v i de nc e i s u nd ul y p r ej ud i c i a l

. F e d. R
. Ev i d. 40 3. Be ca us e th i s ar g um en t was ne ve r pr es en te d t o the d ist ric t c ou rt, w e a ga in rev iew o n l y for p lain err or , a st an dar d that L ewi s ca nno t m ee t sinc e th er e i s no ev i den ce i n the r ec o r d tha t th e j ur y r ev i ew ed the r e l e v a ntp a r t s o fthe DV D. T h is is n o t t o s ay th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly adm i tte d the unre dacted DV D. Lew i s’ s st atem ents re ga rd in g his p rior b an k rob b er y fl y in th e fac e o fR u le 404(b). T he eviden c e p r oves n oth ing beyon d Le w is’ s procl i vi ty f or robbing ba nks, wh i ch i s the exac t infe re nce th at th e ru le is d es ign ed to roo t o u t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. O wen s , 4 2 4 F
. 3 d 6 4 9 , 6 5 3

- 5 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 )
. A n d h i s f a mi l y ’ s cr i m i na l hi st o r y was i r r el ev an t as i t r i sk ed paint i ng Lew i s a s j ust a notherm em bero fa f am i l y that’ s no t advers e t o dabbl i ng i n cr i m i nal es cap ad es. Duri ng o ra l ar gu m en t h er e, th e A U S A ( w h o a lso trie d th e c as e) c ou ld no t ade qua te l y e xpl ain why s he de cl i ne d t o r eda ctthe DVD be f o r e se ek i ngt o a dm i t i t into ev i den ce , o r why sh e d idn’ t si m pl y pl aythe i m po r ta nts ni ppet s o fthe interrogation du ring the trial. B ut the gove rnm en t’s incom p rehe ns ibl e strategy do e s n ot exc us e trialcou ns el’ s f a i l u r e t o o b j e c tt o s uch d a ma g i n ge v i d e n c e . Wh i l e we cannot re ver se base d on thi s e rr or, we l eave op en f or anothe r day the i nquir y into tr i alco unsel ’ s e ff ecti venes s. L ew is t ak es on e la st st ab atth e D V D
. A t o n e p oin t in th e i nt er r o g at i o n, Le w is m en ti o ne d tha t he a i ded an d abet ted the bank r obbery

. Lew i s e m phasi zes hi s l ack of l ega l exper ti se and c onte nd s that hi s untr ai ned concl usi on10 N o. 08

- 1854

w as m i sl eadi ng and und ulyprej ud i cial. Because an ob j ec tio n w as lod ge d in t h e d ist ric t c ou rt, w e re vie w th is m at te r for an ab u se of d isc re tio n . U nite d State s v. P ri ce, 418 F
. 3 d 7 7 1 , 7 7 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. Ag a i n, Le wi s m ust conte nd with t h e fact that the j ury m ay not have eve n he a r d the “ a i di nga nd ab e t t i ng ” s t a t e men t s o n the DV D. B u t h er e h e h as an ad d itio n al h u rd le t o ov er c om e. In resp ons e to the objection, th e cou rt i ns tru c t e d th e j ury that Lew i s was nottr ai ned i n the l aw and that any s tat em ent about ai ding and abett i ng sho uld not be ta ken a s a l eg alc o nc l us i o n o r a n a dm i ss i o n o fthe e l ement s o fthe o ff e n s e s c h a r g e d

. Ab s e n ta n y e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y, “ we pr es um e thatthe j ur y l i m i te d i ts c o ns i der at i o n o fthe te st im on y in ac c or d an c e w ith th e c ou rt ’s in st ru c tio n .” U nite d State s v. M alle tt, 496 F. 3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 2007). Lewi s do es no t addr ess the l i m i tingi ns tr uct i o n, l eta l o ne po i ntt o a ny th i ngtha t woul d r eb utthi s pr es um pti o n; ther ef or e, we concl ud e that the di str i ct c ourtco m m i tte d no reve rsible error. Finally, Le w is asks us to review the d istrict cou rt’s den i a l o fh i s mo t i o n f o r a n e w t r i a l b a s e d o n th e g o v e r nm en t’ s f ai l ur e to di sc l o se Ken y at ta ’ s pr i or fel o ny c o nvic ti o n. W e r ev i ew the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s den i alo fthe m oti on f oran abuse o fdisc reti on, vi ew i ng the ev i dence in th e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le t o t h e p re va ilin g p ar ty , in th is cas e th e gov er n m en t. U nited Sta tes v. Wa rren , 45 4 F.3d 752 , 759 (7th C ir. 2006). I n or der to w i n a m oti on f ora new tr i albas ed on a Brady vi o l at i o n, the de f en dan t m us t es tabl i shtha t th e pr o se cuti on s up press ed i m peachi ng or excul pator y e vi denceN o. 08

- 1854 11

m ate ri alto the case . T he governm ent does no t di spute that i t w i thhel d f avo rabl e i m peachm ent evi dence. Th e focus, th en, i s on w he t h e r t he eviden ce is m aterial or, m ore precisel y, wh etheri ts ti m el y di scl osur e would have p ro d u c ed a d iffer en t v er d ict
. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wil s on , 48 1 F
. 3d 475, 4 80 ( 7th Ci r . 2 007). W he th eri m pea ch m en t evi dence i s m ate ri al depends on a num bero ff acto rs , m o sti m po r ta nt l y the s tr en gth of the c as e ag ains t th e defe nd ant. K enyat ta’ s t est i m ony i s no t the b est, o r onl y, ev i dence o f Le wi s ’ s g ui l t
. Ke ny a t t a e xp l a i ne d tha t Le wi s di d not have acces s o r p er m issi on t o be a t hi s ho use o n the day o fthe r o b b e r y . Bu te v e n i f tha t t e s t i mon y wa s di s c r e di t e d, i t wo u l d d o l i t t l e t o a l t e r th e s t r e n g th o fth e g o v e r nm ent’ s ca se. True, Kenyatta ’ s tes tim ony und er cuts Le wi s ’ s v e r s i o n o fthe da y ’ s e v e nt s

— L ew i s m ai ntai ned th at h e w as goin g t o h i s c ou sin ’s h om e t o w at c h ca b le televisi on w he n th e robbers bu rs t i n. Bu t K en yatta ’s te st i m o ny was f arfr o m the o nl y e vi den ce t o unde r m i ne L ew is’ s side of the story. Lew is h im self, du ring the inte rro gation , a cknowle dged that K enyat ta had no i dea that h e w as goin g t o b e t h er e. W h at ’s m or e, th e G P S u n it dir ecte d pol i ce, wit h in m i nutes o fthe ro bber y, to Keny at ta ’ s ho m e. The r e, the po l i ce fo und thr ee men, i nc l udi ngLe wi s, who matc he d the g en er alde sc r i pti o ns ofthe th re e bank r obbe rs , al ong w i th m oneyta ken fro m the b ank. Thi s be el i ne es cape s ugges ts t h at Lew i s was i n c ah o o ts wi ththe o th er s. Le wi s ne ve r e xpl ains why the r obbe rs w ou l d com e t o K enyat ta’ s ho use

— w hose c on n ec tio n to th e g ro u p w as th ro u gh L ew is

— to see k re fuge. There , the pol i ce a l so fou nd a gun and thre e s ets12 N o. 08

- 1854 ofcl othe s, m atchi ng descr i pti ons of th e cl othe s worn by the r o b b e r s . Addi t i o na l l y, the po l i c e f o un d a b ox o f vi nyl gl ove s

— li ke th ose u sed by the ro b b ers

— i n the si l vercar, al ong w i th a pai r ofgl ove s co ntai ni ng o ne o f th e r o bb er’s DNA
. Add to thi s th e br o k enGPS uni t an d th e e vid en c e b ec om es ve ry co n vin c in g. O n to p of th is ci rcum sta nti alev i dence, Lew i s a dm i tte d tha t h e s coped out the b ank pr i orto the ro bber y. Taki ng thi s e vi de nce i n th e l i g h tmo stf a v o r a b l e t o th e g o v e r n me n t, a s we m us t, we fi nd tha t t he g o ve r nm en t’ s i na dve r te ntwi th

hold ing of im p each ing evid en ce r egard ing K en yatta ’s drug co nvi cti on di d not pr ej ud i ce Lewis. A ccor dingly, the j ud gm ent of the distri ct court i s A FFIRMED .

6- 1- 09