# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 21 57

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ro m an D. Hell em s, al so kn own as J es t Ro m an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 7 , 20 17
Fil ed : Au gu st 4, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge , and FENNER, Dis tri ct 1

Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ro m an D. Hell em s was co nv ic te d of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), an d s e n t e nc ed to 12 0 m on th s im pr is on m en t.

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.He no w c ha ll en ge s th ree of th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s at tri al

. Hell em s

al so cl ai m s th at th e co ur t vi ol at ed hi s co ns ti tu ti on al an d pr oc ed ur al rig ht to be pr es en t

at tri al . W e aff

irm th e d is tri ct co ur t on all gro un ds an d d en y Hell em s’s ap pe al

. 2

I. Back gr ou nd

The fact s of th is cas e be gi n wit h a ph y si cal al te rcat io n be twee n th ree m en

. On

th e da y of th e al te rcat io n, Hell em s call ed hi s ad ul t s on , DeAnd re Brown

, an d ask ed

to m eet hi m at a pa rk

. De A n d r e a s k e d Ro nd al e Bro wn, hi s br ot he r, to acco m pa ny

h i m

. DeAnd re an d Ro nd al e arri ve d fir st

, fo ll owe d by Hell em s. Hell em s th e n

pu nc he d b ot h m en wit ho ut pro vo cat io n a nd a fi gh t s oo n b ro ke ou t.

DeAnd re la te r te st i f

i e d th at Hell em s ha d th ree gu ns on hi s pe rs on du rin g th e fig ht , b ut no sh ot s were fir ed

. An ey e wit ne ss , S h i r l e y B ol de n, cal le d fo r po li ce as

th e fi gh t co nt in ue d. Sh e la te r te st ifi ed to see in g Hel le m s wi th th ree g un s.

Offi cer Mat t Hark in res po nd ed to th e cal l fo r po li ce. Upo n hi s arri va l, Offi cer

Hark in sa w th e th ree m en ne ar a Fo rd Exp lo rer. On th e gr ou nd ne ar th e Exp lo rer was

a Tau ru s .4 0 c al ib er p is to l an d a ni ne -m il li m et er m ag azi ne

. Offi cer Harki n ord ered

th e m en to th e g ro un d, an d DeAn dr e an d R on da le bo th co m pl ie d. Hell em s jum

pe d

in to th e Exp lo rer a nd fle d t he pa rk

.

Offi cers Ada m Lem ek an d Si di k Be c i ro vi c, dr iv in g in se pa rat e sq ua d cars , ch as ed Hell em s th ro ug h a res id en ti al area

. Dur in g th e ch as e, Offi cer Bec iro vi c

ob se rv ed Hell em s to ss in g a bl ack ob ject ou t o f hi s win do w. As he dr ov e by th at

ob ject se co nd s la te r, he sa w it was a bl ack ha nd gu n. The ch as e co nt in ue d fo r se ve ral

m in ut es un ti l He l l e ms s to pp ed , ju m pe d ou t of th e Exp lo rer, an d ran in to hi s ho us e.

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ja rv ey , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 2

th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-A sh or t whi le la te r, po li ce arre st ed Hell em s. Offi cer Bec iro vi c ret ur ne d to whe re he

ha d s een th e b la ck ha nd gu n a nd reco ve red a .38 cal ib er Sm it h & W es so n re vo lv er.

The ne xt da y , Of

fic er Lem ek rece iv ed a rep or t of a fir earm lo cat ed al on g t he

ro ut e of th e pr ev io us da y ’s c ha se

. Alo ng th e st reet , n ear th e si de walk , h e lo cat ed a

Hi-P oi nt ni ne -m il li m et er p is to l wi th ou t i ts m ag azi ne

.

Late r, Hell em s was ch arg ed wit h fel on y po ss es si on of two fir earm s (th e Tau ru s

.40 cal ib er pi st ol an d th e .38 cal ib er Sm it h & W es so n r e v o l v e r ) i n vi ol at io n of 18

U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). Hell ems i n v o k ed hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to rep res en t hi m se lf.

The co ur t ap po in te d s ta nd by cou ns el un de r th e Cri m in al Ju st ic e Act

.

Dur i n g a pr et ria l co nf

eren ce, th e co ur t as ke d Hell em s if he wou ld li ke to

st ip ul at e to el em en t on e of th e ch arg e—t ha t he ha d a pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on —s o th at

th e jury wou ld no t he ar th e na tu re of hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on s. Hell em s de cl in ed

, st at in g

th at he “ wou ld li ke to in vo ke al l [h is ] rig ht s on th e reco rd [an d] rem ai n si le nt at th is

po in t i n t im e.”

On th e m or ni ng of th e fir st da y of tri al

, pr os pe ct iv e juro rs were br ou gh t in to

th e co ur tro om an d se at ed in th e ga ll ery. The di st ric t cou rt beg an to ex pl ai n th e jury

se le ct io n pr oc es s whe n Hell em s ob jecte d. Hell em s pr oc eed ed to rep eat ed ly in te rru pt

th e co ur t, ev en aft er m

ul ti pl e in st ru ct io ns to rem ai n qu ie t. The co ur t ad vi se d Hell em s

th at he wou ld ha v e a n op po rtu ni ty to sp eak la te r, an d th at co ur tro om pr oc ed ur es

req ui red hi m to rem ai n si le nt fo r th e ti m e b e i n g

. H e ll em s ig no red th e co ur t an d

co nt in ue d to lo ud ly in te rru pt

. The co ur t warn ed Hell em s th at if he co nt in ue d to sp eak

he wou ld be ex cl ud ed fro m th e co ur tro om

. H e ll em s rep li ed

, “ Tha t’s fin e,” an d

c o n t i n ue d to sp eak

. The co ur t rem ov ed th e pr os pe ct iv e juro rs fro m th e co ur t r o o m

an d offe red Hell em s on e fin al op po rtu ni ty to co m pl y wit h it s in st ru ct io ns

. Hell em s

refu se d an d co nt in ue d hi s ve rb al ou tb ur st s. Fi na ll y , th e co ur t rem ov ed Hell em s fro m

th e ro om an d a pp oi nt ed st an db y co un se l t o re pr es en t h im for th e tri al

. As m ars ha ls

-3

-e s c o r t e d H el le m s fro m th e co ur tro om , t he co ur t ad vi se d th at he co ul d ret ur n at a n y

ti m e as lo ng as h e ab id ed by cou rt r ul es

.

Eve ry ha lf ho ur fo r th e res t of th at da y , m ars ha ls as ke d Hell em s if he (1 ) wou ld

li ke to vi ew th e tri al vi a cl os ed ci rcu it TV an d (2 ) wis he d to at te nd th e tri al in pe rs on

. Hell em s of

fere d no res po ns e to th es e rep eat ed of fers

. The ne xt da y , Hell em s refu se d

to le av e hi s cel l at th e co un ty jail

. The co ur t to ld th e m ars ha ls t ha t, un de r th es e

ci rcu m st an ces , th ey sh ou ld no t fo rci bl y rem ov e Hell em s fro m hi s cel l. The co ur t di d

no t co nv ers e d ire ct ly w it h Hel le m s.

At tri al

, se ve ral ey e wit ne ss es an d la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers te st ifi ed as to th e ph y si cal al te rcat io n an d th e gu n s f o u n d at th e sc en e. Bec au se Hell em s refu se d to

st ip ul at e, th e go ve rn m en t al so pr es en te d ev i d e n ce th at Hell em s ha d pr io r fel on y

co nv ic ti on s. A f

ed eral la w enf

or cem en t ag en t t es ti fie d t ha t Hel le m s was co nv ic te d

of (1 ) de li ve ry of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e an d/ or po ss es si on of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e

wit h in te nt to de li ve r, in vi ol at io n of Io wa Co de se c t i o n 1 2 4.4 01 (1 )(c) (3 ) an d

pu ni sh ab le by a te rm of m or e th an on e y ear; an d (2 ) rece ip t, tra ns po rta ti on , do m in io n,

an d co nt ro l of fir earm s an d of fen si ve weap on s by a fel on , in vi ol at io n of Io wa Co de

se ct io n 72 4.2 6 an d pu ni sh ab le by a te rm of im pr is on m en t ex ceed in g on e y ear. Befo re

th is ev id en ce was ad m it t e d at tri al

, Hell em s’s st an db y co un se l req ue st ed th at th e

go ve rn m en t st ip ul at e to th e pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s. The go ve rn m en t de cl in ed to do

so in th e ab se nc e o f Hel le m s’s co ns en t t o s uc h a st ip ul at io n.

Afte r a two -d ay tri al

, th e ju r y ret ur ne d a gu il ty ve rd ic t, fin di ng th at Hell em s

po ss es se d th e .38 cal ib er Sm it h & We s s o n rev ol ve r. The jury di d no t fin d th at

Hell em s po ss es se d th e Tau ru s .40 cal ib er pi st ol

. Th e co ur t de la y ed se nt en ci ng

be cau se Hell em s ag ai n refu se d to ap pe ar in co ur t. Ult im at el y , th e di st ric t co ur t

se nt en ced Hell em s, in ab ste nti a, to th e st at ut or y m ax im um 12 0 m on th s im

pr is on m en t.

-4

-II. Evi de nt ia ry Ru li ng s

Our an al y si s be gi ns wit h Hell em s’s ch al le ng e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary

ru li ng s. “ Evi de nt i a r y r u l i n g s are rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, an d we affo rd

de fere nc e to th e di st ric t ju d g e w h o sa w an d he ard th e ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v.

Jo hn so n, 86 0 F.3 d 11 33

, 11 39 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. An

ap pe ll at e co ur t m ay

rev ers e “ on ly whe n an im pr op er evi de nt ia ry ru li ng affe ct ed th e

de fen da nt ’s su bs t an ti al rig ht s or ha d m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t.”

Uni te d St at es v. Pi card i, 73 9 F.3 d 11 18

, 11 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d)

.

A. Nam e an d Nat ur e o f Pri or Fel on y Co nv ic ti on s

Hell em s arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in al lo win g th e na m e

an d na tu r e of hi s pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s in to ev id en ce. He id en ti fie s two reas on s why th e na m e an d na tu re sh ou ld no t ha ve be en id en ti fie d. Fi rs t, th e pr io r co nv ic ti on

f o r po ss es si on of a fir earm by a fel on —a si m il ar of fen se to th e pr es en t

ch arg e—wo ul d po te nt ia ll y “ lu re a juro r in to a se qu en ce of ba d ch arac te r reas on in g”

an d crea te un fai r pr ejud ic e in vi ol at io n of Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 3. See Old

Ch ie f v. Uni te d St at es , 51 9 U.S. 17 2, 18 5 (1 99 7)

. Seco nd

, th e pr io r dr ug co nv ic ti on

is

, al le ge dl y , hi gh ly pr ejud ic ia l be cau se it in di cat es a wil li ng ne ss to br eak la ws. See

Uni t e d S t a te s v. Co rs m ei er, 61 7 F.3 d 41 7, 42 2 (6 th Ci r. 20 10 ). The di st ric t co ur t,

Hell em s co nt in ue s, sh ou ld ha ve acce pt ed hi s tri al co un se l’s of fer to s t ip ul at e an d

de cl in ed to ad m it th e na m e an d na tu re of hi s pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s in to th e reco rd

.

The fir st el em en t of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ) is a sh owi ng th at th e de fen da nt ha s

pr ev io us ly be en co nv ic te d of a cri m e pu ni sh ab le by a te rm of i mp r i s o n ment

ex ceed in g on e ye a r. See Uni te d St at es v. Dan ie ls

, 62 5 F.3 d 52 9, 53 2- 33 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ). “ The go ve rn m en t ne ed on ly pr ov e a pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on —n ot it s sp eci fic

ci rcu m st an ces .” Uni te d St at es v. Je nk in s, 79 2 F.3 d 93 1, 93 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). In Old

-5

-Ch ie f, th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at a di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n if it reject s a

de fen d a n t ’s o f

f e r to st ip ul at e as to hi s pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on “ whe n th e na m e or

na tu re of th e pr io r of

fen se rai se s th e ris k of a ve rd ic t t a i n t e d b y im pr op er

co ns id erat io ns , an d when th e pu rp os e of th e ev id en ce is so le ly to pr ov e th e el em en t

of pr io r co nv ic ti on .” 51 9 U.S. at 17 4. The Co ur t reas on ed th at th e pr io r-co nv ic ti on

el em en t of § 92 2( g) (1 ) rai se d a su bs ta nt ia l “ ris k of un fai r pr ejud ic e to th e de fen da nt ,”

es pe ci al ly whe n “ a pr io r co nv ic ti on was f o r a gu n cri m e.” Id

. at 18 5. Gen eral ly,

th eref or e, if a de fen da nt is wil li ng to st i p u l at e to hi s pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on , th e

di st ric t co ur t m

us t ke ep ev id en ce of th e na m e an d na tu re of th e co nv ic ti on ou t of th e

reco rd

.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng th e na m e an d na tu re

of Hell em s’s pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s be cau se Hell em s ne ve r ag reed to a st ip ul at io n.

Old Ch ie f in vo lv ed a reject io n by th e tr ia l co ur t o f t h e d e fen da nt ’s st ip ul at io n to a

pr io r fe l o ny, no t a reject io n by th e de fe nd an t of th e tri al co ur t’s of fer to al lo w a

st ip ul at io n

. H e r e th e di st ric t co ur t, at a pr et ria l co nf eren ce, as ke d Hell em s if he

wou ld li ke to en te r a st ip ul at io n so th at th e jury wou ld no t kn ow th e na m e or na tu re

of hi s pr io r fel on ie s. Hell em s refu se d. As a res ul t

, h e l o s t th e pr ot ect io ns of Old

Ch ie f. W he n a de fen da nt refu se s to st ip ul a t e, th e go ve rn m en t m ay in tro du ce th e

na m e an d na tu re of th e pr io r co nv ic ti on s to pr ov e th e pr io r-co nv ic ti on el em en t of th e

ch arg e. See Uni te d St at es v. Ban ks

, 55 3 F.3 d 11 01

, 11 06 -0 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). In de ed

,
te st im on y at tri al rev eal ed on ly two th in gs ab ou t Hell em s’s pr ior co nv ic ti on s: (1 ) th ei r

na m es ; an d (2 ) th e fact th at vi ol at io n of ei th er was pu n i s h a b l e by a te rm of

im pr is on m en t lo ng er th an on e ye a r. Bo th are ad m is si bl e to pr ov e th at th e pr io r

co nv ic ti on fal ls wit hi n th e am bi t of § 92 2( g) (1 ). Id

. at 11 06 (rec og ni zi ng th at th e jury

ne ed ed to he ar th e na m es of th e pr io r co nv ic ti o n s b e c a u se fed eral la w ex cl ud es

cert ai n pr io r co nv ic ti on s fro m tri gg eri ng § 92 2( g) (1 )); Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 26 6

F.3 d 80 4, 81 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (p erm it ti ng te st im on y ab ou t th e te rm of im pr is on m en t

ex ceed in g on e ye a r b e c a u s e it is an es se nt ia l el em en t of fel on y po ss es si on of a

fir earm ).

-6

-The arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve acce pt ed tri al co un se l’s of fer

to st ip ul at e, wit ho ut an y ev id en ce o f Hell em s’s co ns en t, fai ls to pa ss co ns ti tu ti on al

m us te r. Thi s co ur t ha s lo ng he ld th at a st ip ul at io n is th e “ fu nc ti on al eq ui va le nt of a

gu il ty pl ea,” req ui rin g th e di st ric t co ur t “ to de te rm in e whe th er [th e de fen da nt ]

kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly a g r eed to th e st ip ul at io n.” Co x v. Hut to

, 58 9 F.2 d 39 4,

39 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 79 ). To ad m it in to ev id en ce a st ip ul at io n wit ho ut fir st in qu iri ng in to

a de fen da nt ’s kn owl ed ge an d co ns en t wou ld vi ol at e hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Id .; se e

al so Ro bi ns on v. Leap le y , 26 F.3 d 82 6, 83 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (“ Treat in g a de fen da nt ’s

ad m is s i o n o f h is pr io r of fen se s as a gu il ty pl ea is co ns ti tu ti on al so lo ng as th e

ad m iss io n was kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary. ”). Hell em s ne ve r co ns en te d to th e st ip ula tio n,

no r is th e r e e vi de nc e in th e reco rd th at tri al co un se l ha d hi s co ns en t to en te r in to a

st ip ul at io n. As a res ul t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n refu si ng to

acce pt tri al co un se l’s of

fer to st ip ul at e. See Uni te d St at es v. Hol m an , 31 4 F.3 d 83 7,

84 4 (7 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (n ot in g th at tri al co un se l m ay no t st ip ul at e to a de fen da nt ’s pr io r

co nv ic ti on —o ne of t he ele m en ts of t he off en se —ab se nt th e d efen da nt ’s con se nt ).

B. Adm is si on of Two Pri or Fel on y Co nv ic ti on s

Hell em s ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng

two pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s whe n fed eral la w req ui res jus t on e. The fir st el em en t of

18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ) is a sh owi ng th at th e de fen da nt ha s be en co nv ic te d of “ a cri m e

pu ni sh ab le by im

pr is on m en t fo r a te rm ex ceed in g on e ye a r .” (em ph as is ad de d)

. Hell em s co nt en ds th at th e ev id en ce of a se co nd pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on was bo th

irr el ev an t un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 1 an d un fai rly p r e ju d i c ia l un de r Ru le

40 3.

Co nt rary to Hell em s’s arg um en t, it is se tt le d la w in th is c i r c ui t th at th e

go ve rn m en t can in tro du ce ev id en ce of m ul ti pl e pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s. See Uni te d

St at es v. Garn er, 32 F.3 d 13 05

, 13 11 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). W e pe rm it th e in tro du ct io n of

su ch ev id en ce “ to en su re th at th e go ve rn m en t [can ] sa ti sf y it s bu rd en of pr oo f in th e

-7

-ev en t [th e de fen da nt is ] su cces sf ul in co nt es ti ng on e or m or e of t h e c on vi ct io ns in

fro nt of th e jury.” Jo ne s, 26 6 F.3 d a t 8 1 2

. I n J on es , we up he ld th e in tro du ct io n of

fiv e pr io r fel on ie s in to ev id en ce. Id

. at 81 1- 12

. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t act ed

wit hi n i ts di sc ret io n i n a ll owi ng two pri or fel on y co nv ic ti on s i nt o e vi de nc e. 3

C. Adm is si on of t he Hi-Po in t Pi st ol

The la st ev id en ti ary ru li n g ch al le ng ed by Hell em s is th e di st ric t co ur t’s

ad m is si on of a th ird gu n— th e Hi- Po in t n in e-m il li m et er p is to l— in to ev id en ce. The

Hi-P oi nt pi st ol was reco ve red by Offi cer Lem ek th e d ay aft er th e al te rcat io n an d

ch as e, bu t di d no t se rv e as a ba si s fo r th e c h a r g e o f fel on y po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Bec au se of th is

, Hell em s arg ue s th at th e gu n was irr el ev an t ev id en ce un de r Ru le 40 1

be cau se it di d no t m ak e an y fact of th e cri m e ch arg ed m or e or le ss pr ob ab le

. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 1( a) (“ Evi de nc e is rel ev an t

. . . if it ha s an y te nd en cy to m ak e a fact m or e

or le ss pr ob ab le th an it wou ld be wit ho ut th e ev id en ce.”)

. He fu rth er al le ge s th at th e

in tro du ct io n of a th ird gu n pe rm it te d th e jury to en ga ge i n ba d ch arac te r reas on in g

ag ai ns t hi m

. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 3 (“ The co ur t m ay ex cl ud e rel ev an t ev id en ce if it s

pr ob at iv e va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y ou t w e i g h e d b y a da ng er of

. . . un fai r pr ejud ic e,

co nf us in g t he is su es , [or ] m is le ad in g t he jury

. . . . ”).

Decl in in g to ad dr es s Hell em s’s arg um en t on th e m eri ts

, we fin d th at an y erro r

in ad m it ti ng th is ev id en ce was ha rm le ss

. See Jo hn so n, 86 0 F.3 d at 11 45

. “ An erro r

is ha rm le ss if, aft er rev ie win g t h e en ti re reco rd

, we de te rm in e th at th e su bs ta nt ia l
rig ht s of th e de fen da nt were un affe c t e d

, a n d t ha t th e erro r di d no t in flu en ce or ha d

on ly a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. Ada m s, 82 0 F .3d 31 7, 32 4

Hell em s ack no wled ge s, in hi s r e p l y br ie f, th at Eig ht h Ci rcu it pr eced en t 3

pe rm it s th e in tro du ct io n of m ul ti pl e pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s. He as ks us to ov erru le

ou r pr io r de ci si on s. Bu t “ [t]hi s pa ne l is bo un d by Eig ht h Ci rcu it p r e ced en t, an d

can no t ov erru le an earl ie r de ci si on by an ot he r pa ne l.” W on g v. W el ls Farg o Ban k N.A., 789 F.3d 88 9, 8 98 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

-8

-(8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (i n t ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. As reco un te d ab ov e, th e

go ve rn m en t pr es en te d su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce th at Hell em s po ss es se d th e .38 cal ib er

Sm it h & W es so n rev ol ve r. Sev eral ey e wit ne ss es te st i f i e d to se ei ng Hell em s wit h

m ul ti pl e gu ns du rin g th e al te rcat io n wit h DeAnd re and Ro nd al e. DeAnd re te st ifi ed

t h at he ha d se en Hell em s wit h a rev ol ve r jus t a few da y s be fo re th e al te rc a t i o n

. Offi cer Bec iro vi c wit ne ss ed Hell e ms t o s s a gu n ou t of hi s car du rin g th e ch as e.

Mi nu te s l at er, Offi cer B eci ro vi c ret rie ve d t ha t gu n— th e Sm it h & W es so n re vo lv er.

In vi ew of th is co ns id erab le ev id en ce, wha te ve r im pa ct th e Hi-P oi nt pi st ol ha d on th e jury was un do ub te dl y sl ig ht

. The jury’ s ve rd ic t, whi ch fo un d th at Hell em s po ss es se d

on ly th e rev ol ve r an d no t th e Tau ru s pi st ol

, rev eal s ho w sl ig ht th e in flu en ce of th e HiPo in t pi st ol was

. Su ch a fin di ng m ars ha ls ag ai ns t th e arg um en t th at in tro du ci ng th e

th ird gu n en co ur ag ed th e jury to en ga ge in ba d ch arac te r reas on in g. In st ead

, th e jury

co ns id ered al l of th e ev id en ce an d cam e to a reas on ab le co nc lu si on

. “ [Hel le m ’s]

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s were no t affe ct ed an d th eref or e rev ers al is un warra nt ed .” Jo hn so n,

86 0 F .3d at 1 14 5.

III. Re m ov al of He ll em s fr om th e Co ur tro om

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to rem ov e a reca lc it ran t de fe nda nt unde r

an ab us e of di sc ret io n st an da rd

. Uni te d St at es v. W ard

, 59 8 F.3 d 10 54

, 10 58 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ). “ Thi s cou rt rev ie ws the lo wer cou rt’s fi nd in g o f vo lu nt ary ab se nc e fo r cl ear

erro r, an d th e de ci si on to co nt in ue wit h th e tri al in ab se nt ia fo r a n ab us e of

di s c r e t i o n .” Uni te d St at es v. W as hb ur n, 72 8 F.3 d 77 5, 78 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). A

vi ol at io n of Ru le 43 of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ce d u r e may be su bjec t to

ha rm le ss erro r an al y si s. Id

.

Hell em s co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s un de r th e U.S.

Co n s t it ut io n an d Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e whe n th e co ur t or de red hi m

rem ov ed fro m th e co ur tro om du rin g jury se le ct io n. Hell em s su bm it s th at hi s be ha vi or

was “ m erel y di sr up ti ve ” an d th eref or e in su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy rem ov al

. See W ard

, 59 8

-9

-F.3 d a t 1 05 8. Th e co ur t’s d eci si on to rem ov e h im , he c on cl ud es , vi ol at ed hi s Si xt h

Am en dm en t rig ht to be pr es en t at ev ery st ag e of hi s tri al

. Hell em s fu rth er arg ue s th e

co ur t vi ol at ed th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced u r e b y al le ge dl y rem ov in g hi m

be fo re tri al ha d co m

m en ced

. See Cro sb y v. Uni te d St at es , 50 6 U.S. 25 5, 26 2 (1 99 3)
(n ot in g th at Ru le 43 “ pr oh ib it s th e tri al in ab se nt ia of a de fen da nt who is no t pr es en t

at th e be gi nn in g o f t ria l” ). Last ly, Hell em s cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to

m ak e a su ffi ci en t fin di ng in th e reco rd th at hi s co nt in ue d ab se nc e f r o m tri al was

vo lu nt ary.

A c riminal de fen da nt ha s th e co ns ti tu ti on a l r i gh t to be pr es en t at ev ery st ag e

of hi s tri al

. See W ard

, 59 8 F

. 3 d at 10 58

. Bu t he fo rfei ts th at rig ht if, “ aft er he ha s

be en warn ed by th e jud ge th at he w il l be rem ov ed

. . . he ne ve rth el es s in si st s on

c o n d u c t i n g hi m se lf in a m an ne r so di so rd erl y , di sr up ti ve , an d di sr es pe ct fu l of th e

co ur t th at hi s tri al can no t be carr ie d on wit h hi m in th e co ur tro om .” Ill in oi s v. All en , 39 7 U.S. 33 7, 34 3 (19 70 ). And tri al jud ge s “ m us t be gi ve n su ffi ci en t di sc ret io n” to

d e a l w i t h un ru ly de fen da nt s an d m ai nt ai n th e pr op er di gn it y an d de co ru m of a

c ou rtr oo m .” Id

. Tho ug h, to be su re, “ [b ]ehav io r th at is m erel y di s r u p t i v e i s

in su ffi ci en t un de r All en to jus ti fy rem ov al .” W ard

, 59 8 F.3 d at 10 58 (al te rat io n in

or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Ru le 43 al so pr ot ect s a de fen da nt ’s rig ht

to be pr es en t at ev ery st ag e of hi s tri al

. Si m il ar to th e Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht

, ho wev er, “ [a] de fen da nt who was in it ia ll y pr es en t at tri al ” can waiv e th at rig ht “ whe n

th e co ur t warn s th e de fen da nt th at it wil l re m ov e th e d efen da nt fro m th e co ur tro om

fo r di sr up ti ve be ha vi or , b ut th e de fen da nt pe rs is ts in co n d u c t t h at jus ti fie s rem ov al

fro m th e co ur tro om .” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 43 (c)( 1) (C).

W he n a co ur t de ci de s whe th er to pr oc eed w i t h t r ia l in ab se nt ia

, it “ m us t

de te rm in e an d m ak e ap pr op ria te fin di ng s (1 ) whe th er th e de fen d a n t ’s a b se nc e is

kn owi ng a n d v o l u nt ary, an d (2 ) if so , whe th er th e pu bl ic in te res t in th e ne ed to

pr oc eed cl earl y ou twei gh s th at of th e v o l u n t a r i l y ab se nt de fen da nt in at te nd in g th e

tri al .” W as hb ur n, 72 8 F.3 d at 78 6 (in te rn al qu ot at io n mar k s om it te d)

. In ad di ti on ,

-1 0-a “ di st ric t cou rt sh ou ld

, at th e ti m e m ak e a reco rd in qu iry to at te m pt to as cert ai n th e

ex pl an at io n fo r th e ab se nc e of th e accu se d.” Uni te d St at es v. Cri te s, 17 6 F.3 d 10 96

, 10 97 -9 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ Howev er, it is cl ear th at

a vi ol at io n of Ru le 43 m ay in so m e ci rcu m st an ces be ha rm le ss erro r.” Uni te d St at es

v. W al li ng fo rd

, 82 F.3 d 27 8, 28 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

.

Afte r a care fu l rev ie w of th e tri al reco rd

, we de te rm in e th at Hell em s vo lu nt ari ly

fo rfei te d hi s c on st it ut io na l rig ht to be pr es en t at hi s tri al

. Hell em s’s co nd uc t wen t

well be y on d th e m erel y di s r u p t i v e co nd uc t we fo un d in su ffi ci en t fo r rem ov al in

W ard

. 59 8 F.3 d at 10 59 (h ol di ng th at a de fen da nt lo ud ly co nv e r s i n g wit h hi s tri al

co un se l, in th e ab se nc e of th e jury, di d no t warra nt rem ov al ). Hell e m s rep eat ed ly

in te rru pt ed an d ob

jecte d to ev ery st at em en t th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e, al l in fu ll vi ew of

th e jury. His un ru ly co nd uc t pr ev en te d th e co ur t fro m co nt in ui ng th e pr oc es s of jury

se le ct i o n t h a t ha d jus t be gu n. See Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 43 1 F.3 d 11 15

, 11 20
(8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (n ot in g th at “ ge ne ral ly ob jecti ng to ev ery qu es ti on an d st at em en t th e jud ge m ad e

. . . th reat en ed th e co nt in ua ti on of th e tri al ”). W he n co nf ro nt ed wit h su ch

di sr up ti ve be ha vi or , a co ur t is well wit hi n it s di sc ret io n to rem ov e th e de fen da nt

. See

W ard

, 59 8 F.3 d at 10 58 (rec og ni zi ng th at we wil l up ho ld de c i s i on s to rem ov e a

de fen da nt fro m a cri m in al tri al whe n th at de fen da nt ’s “ co nd uc t th reat en ed th e co ur t’s

ab il it y to co nd uc t t he tri al ”).

W e al so di sm is s Hell em s’s Rul e 43 arg um en t th at he was rem ov ed be fo re hi s

tri al be ga n. As Hell em s ad m it s in hi s br ie f, “ a tri al ha s co m m en ced w h e n t h e ju ry

se le ct io n pr oc es s ha s be gu n.” See Uni te d St at es v. Brad fo r d

, 2 3 7 F

. 3 d 13 06 , 1 31 0
(1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (i n t e r n a l qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The reco rd sh ows th e di st ric t

co ur t br ou gh t th e jury m em be rs in to th e co ur tro om , gr eet ed th e juro rs , an d st art ed to

ex pl a in th e cas e whe n Hell em s be ga n to in te rru pt th e pr oc eed in gs

. W e ha ve li tt le

tro ub le fin di n g t h a t th es e act io ns co ns ti tu te th e be gi nn in g of jury se le ct io n an d

co m m en cem en t of tri al

. Th u s th e di st ric t co ur t’s rem ov al of Hell em s at th at ti m e

fai le d t o v io la te Ru le 43

.

-1 1-Turn in g to th e co ur t’s de ci si on to pr oc eed wit h tri al in ab se nt ia , we fin d th at

th e reco rd de m on st rat es Hell em s’s ab se nc e was bo th kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary. W he n

th e co ur t warn ed Hell em s th at co nt in ue d di sr up ti on s wou ld fo rce th e co ur t to rem ov e

hi m , h e rep li ed , “ Tha t’s fi ne . Excl ud e m e fro m th e co ur t.” Afte r th e co ur t de ci de d

to rem ov e Hell em s, it ex pl ai ne d th at he co ul d ret ur n at an y ti m e so lo ng as he ab id ed
by th e co ur t’s rul es

. Hell em s resp on de d, “ No, I wil l no t.” Thro ug ho ut th e fir st da y

o f t r i al

, m ars ha ls as ke d Hell em s ev ery ha lf ho ur if he wou ld li ke to watc h t h e

pr oc eed in gs on TV or ret ur n to th e co ur tro om

. He ne ve r ga ve a res po ns e. The n th e

ne xt m or ni ng , he refu se d to le av e hi s jail cel l. The se act io ns rep res en t a kn owi ng an d

vo lu nt ary de ci si on by H el le m s t o re m ai n a bs en t fro m hi s t ria l. Cf. Cr it es , 17 6 F .3d

at 10 98

. W e th eref

or e fin d th at th e co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in co nt in ui ng th e

tri al in ab se nt ia

. 4

Hell em s co un te rs wit h an arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s rel ia nc e on th e wor d

of th e m ars ha ls gu ard in g H e l l em s, rat he r th an Hell em s hi m se lf, pr ev en te d Hell em s

fro m recl ai m in g hi s rig ht to be pr es en t, res ul ti ng in a co ns ti tu ti on a l v i o l at io n.

Hell em s rel ie s on ou r de ci si on in W ard

, whe re we co nc lu de d th at th e lo wer co ur t ha d

vi ol at ed th e de fen da nt ’s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht

, in pa rt, b ecau se th e jud ge ne ve r

co nv ers ed wit h th e de fen da nt ag ai n aft er rem ov al

. 59 8 F.3 d at 10 59 -6 0. In st ead

, th e

co ur t rel ie d on de fen se co un se l to act as an in te rm ed ia ry

. Id

. at 10 59

. Her e , th e

di st ric t co ur t rel ie d on a ph on e cal l fro m th e m ars ha ls ex pl ai ni ng th at Hell em s refu se d

to l e a v e hi s cel l. The co ur t th en to ld th e m ars ha ls no t to fo rci bl y rem ov e Hell em s

fro m hi s ce ll

.

Eve n if we were to fin d th at t h e c o ur t erre d in fai li ng to m ak e a su ffi ci en t 4

reco rd reg ard in g Hell em s’s co nt in ue d ab se nc e, su ch erro r was ha rm le ss be cau se Hell em s ha s ne ve r m ad e a sh owi ng , or ev en at te m pt ed to sh ow, th at hi s ab se nc e was in vo lu nt ary. See W al li ng fo rd

, 82 F.3 d at 28 0 (fi nd in g h a r m le ss erro r whe n th e de fen da nt co ul d n ot sh ow t ha t h is ab se nc e was in vo lu nt ary, ev en ass um in g t ha t t he

co ur t h ad m ad e an in su ffi ci en t re co rd fin di ng on th e is su e).

-1 2-H e l l e m s’s rel ia nc e on W ard is m is pl aced

. Our op in io n in W ard br ie fl y

ad dr es se d ho w to de al wit h an un ru ly de fen da nt who refu se s to le av e hi s cel l. “ The re

m ay be si tu at io ns whe n it is ap pr op ria te to ob ta in a rel ia bl e waiv er of th e rig ht to be

pr es en t wit ho ut ret u r n i n g a da ng ero us or reca lc it ran t de fen da nt to th e co ur tro om .”

Id

. at 10 60 n.4

. Co ns id eri ng Hell em s’s be ha vi or i n c o u r t th e da y be fo re, an d th e

m ars ha ls ’ rep or t o f h i s r e f u sa l to ev en le av e hi s cel l fo r th e se co nd da y of tri al

, we

fin d n o e rro r in th e co ur t’s d eci si on

.

IV. Co nc lu si on

Fo r al l th e reas on s d i s c us se d he rei n, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t an d de ny

Hell em s’s ap pe al

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-