FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 87 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 02 86 -RWS-JF K-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DW IGHT DARYL OWENS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 3, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Dwig htDary l Owen s ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r (1 ) ro bb ery of a bu si ne ss op erat in g i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce , invi ol at io n o f th e Hob bs Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 19 51 ,an d (2 ) di sc ha rg in g afir earm du rin g c omm is si onof arob be ry , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A)(i ii ). He rai se s fo urcla im s o n app eal . Firs t, h e arg ue s t ha t th e g ov ern m en t fa il edto pre se ntsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce tha t h e was th e in di vi du al id en ti fie d a s “ Ro bb er Nu m be r One .” Seco nd , he a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng hi s p ro ffer edex pe rt wi tn es s o n e y ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n. Th ird , he c la im s t ha t the co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d ecl in in g t o gi ve hi s re qu es te d ju ry

in st ru ct io n o n e y ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n. Fi na ll y , he co nt en ds th atth e co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n a ndvi ol at edhi s due pro ces s ri gh t t o th e p res um

pt io n o f in no cen ce wh enitadm it te d areco rd in g o f a t el ep ho ne co nv ers at io n –a reco rd in g t ha t h e co nt en ds was p reju di ci al be cau se itin di cat ed th athe was i n jai l atth e ti m e o f th e cal l. Fo r th e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we affi rm . I. Owens was i nd ic te d i n 2 00 9 a ndpro ceed edto tri al . Prio r to tri al , th e go ve rn m en t m ov edto ex cl ud e th e te st im on y of Owen s’s p ro po se d e xp ertwitne ss , Jo hn C. Bri gh am , who was t o b e o ffer edas a n e xp erton th e al le ge d u nr el iabi li ty of ey ewit ne ss tes ti m on y . He wou ldoff er o pi ni on s as to (1) th e d iff ic ul ty of en co di ng a go odm em ory of a n a rm edrob be r’s face , (2) th e eff ectof t he de te ct iv e’s in st ru ct io ns on th e ch an ce tha t the witne ss m ad e anerro ne ou s 2id en ti fic at io n fr om th e li ne up , (3) th e fac t tha t the witne ss ’s in co ns is te nt es ti m at io ns of t he rob be r’s ag e il lu st rat edth e d iff ic ul ty of m ak in g a n a ccu rat e ey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n, an d (4 ) th e “ co ns id erab le po ss ib il it y th atanerro ne ou s id en ti fic at io n c ou ldoc cu r un de r th es e co nd it io ns .” Owens , m ean whi le , m ov edto ex cl ud e a rec or di ng of aph on e cal l tha t h e ha d m ad e o n M ay

27 , 20 09 , fro m

hi s p retria l d et en ti on faci li ty, whe n h e sp ok e to hi s u nc le ab ou t h iri ng anatt orne y . The ca ll m ad e cl ear t ha t Owen s was inpre tri al in carc erat io n, wh ic h, h e arg ue d, re nd eredithi gh ly prejud ic ia l u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of Evi de nc e 4 03 an d t he Due P ro ces s C laus e, m uc h l ik e d is pl ay in g ade fen da ntin pr is on clo th in g o r ot he rwis e in fo rm in g t he jury of th e d efen da nt ’s pre tri al de te nt io n. In pa rti cu la r, Owens m ad e two st at em en ts du rin g t he ph on e cal l. Fi rs t, he sai d t o h is un cl e, “ [T]hey go t m e in – i n t he fed eral – p en it en ti ary . . . for a cri m e th atI – I c omm it te d b y th ey tryin’ to gi ve m e a l ife sen te nc e.” Lat er i n t he co nv ers at io n, h e sa id , “ I’m no t try in ’ to ge t n o l ife sen te nc e . . . for s om ethi n’ I ai n’t re al ly don e.” Owens als o s ub m it te d t o t he co urt a s etof p ro po se d ju ry in stru ct io ns , in cl ud in g afiv e-an d- a-h al f-p ag e in stru ct io n o n e y ewitne ss id en ti fic at io n. In pa rt, th e reque st edey ewit ne ss -id en ti fic at io n i ns tru ct io n i nc lu de d t he fol lo win g st at em en ts : 3• Yoush ou ldals o c on si de r ho w well th e eyewitn es s co ul d s ee an d h ear a t the ti m e. Fo r ex am pl e, if a wit ne ss is afra idor di st ract ed , hi s o r he r cap aci ty to p erce iv e an d re m em be r is reduc ed . A pers on un de r st res s i s m or e li ke ly to i na ccu rat el y rem em be r a fac e. Sim il arl y , a pe rs on is m or e li ke ly to in accu rat el y

rem em be r a fac e if

th ere i s a we ap on pre se nt du rin g t he in ci de nt .

• Yoush ou ldco ns id er h ow m uc h t im e p as se d b etweenth e in ci de ntan d t he id en ti fic at io n. Fo r ex am pl e, id en ti fic at io n erro rs in crea se as t im e p as se s.

• Yoush ou ldals o c on si de r ho w cert ai n t he ey ewit ne ss was i n m ak in g [t he ] id en ti fic at io n. Ce rta in ty m ay or m ay no t m ean th atth e id en ti fic at io n i s ac cu rat e.

• The law re co gn iz es th atey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n i s n otalwa y s rel iabl e, an d t ha t ca se s o f m is ta ke n i de nt it y have be enkn own to oc cu r. Yoush ou ld , th eref or e, vi ew ey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n te st im on y with c au ti on , andev al ua te itcare fu ll y inli gh t o f th e fact or s I s ha ll di sc us s.

• Am on g t he m or e im po rta ntfact or s t o c on si de r are th e fo ll owi ng : . . . Didth e wit ne ss ha ve anad equa te op po rtu ni ty to ob se rv e th e p ers on who co m m it te d t he cri m e? In a ns weri ng th is qu es ti on , y oush ou ldtak e in to acco un t m at te rs su ch as t he le ng th of t im e th e wit ne ss saw t he off en de r, th ei r po si ti on s an d th e d is ta nc e b etweenth e . . . lig ht in g c on di ti on s, an d t he pr es en ce o r ab se nc e o f an y cir cu m st an ces th atm ig htfoc us or di st ractth e wit ne ss ’s att en ti on .

• Inge ne ral , peo pl e are be tt er atid en ti fy in g p ers on s t he y alr eady kn ow t ha n p ers on s wi th who m th ey ha ve ha d n o p rev io us co nt act .

• Stud ie s s ho w th atwhen th e wit ne ss an d t he pe rs on he is id en ti fy in g a re o f di ffer en t ra ces , th e id en ti fic at io n t en ds to be 4le ss rel iabl e th anif b oth p ers on s ar e o f th e sa m e rac e.

• Didth e wit ne ss gi ve a de sc rip ti on of t he off en de r imm ed ia te ly aft er the all eg edcri m e? If so , ho w well do es th e d efen da ntfit th atde sc rip ti on ?

• Mem ory

ten ds to fad e o ve r ti m e. Andstud ie s s ho w th ata witne ss m ay

subc on sc io us ly inc or

po rat e in to hi s m em ory in fo rm at io n fr om

othe r so ur ces , su ch as d es cri pt io n b y ot he r witne ss es .

• . . . [W ]ere th e p ho to gr ap hs or l in eup s ug ge st iv e inan y way ? An i de nt ifi cat io n m ad e fro m a li ne up ten ds to be m or e rel iabl e th ananid en ti fic at io n fr om ph ot og rap hs .

• Inth e ex pe rie nc e o f m an y , itis m or e d iff ic ul t t o i de nt ify m em be rs of adi ffer en t ra ce tha n m em be rs of o ne ’s own . Ps y ch ol og ic al stud ie s s up po rt t hi s i m pr es si on . In ad di ti on , labo rat ory

stud ie s re ve al th atev enpe op le with n o p reju di ce ag ai ns t o th er ra ces an d s ub st an ti al co nt actwith p ers on s o f ot he r rac es st il l ex pe rie nc e d iff ic ul ty in ac cu rat el y

id en ti fy in g m em be rs [o]f a d iff

eren t ra ce. Qui te oft enpe op le do no t reco gn iz e th is di ffi cu lt y

inth em se lv es . Yoush ou ldco ns id er th es e fac ts in ev al ua ti ng th e wit ne ss ’s tes ti m on y , bu t you m us t al so co ns id er wh ethe r th ere a re o th er fa ct or s p res en t i n t hi s cas e th atov erco m e an y

su chdi ffi cu lt y

of i de nt ifi cat io n.

• [Reg ard in g t he ne edfor“ do ub le -b li nd ” li ne up s i n wh ic h t he adm in is tra to r do es no t kno w th e id en ti ty of th e su sp ect :] Sci en ti fic ev id en ce s ho ws tha t i f th e p ers on sh owi ng th e li ne up to th e wit ne ss kn ows whi ch pe rs on inth e li ne -up i s t he su sp ect , th atth is wil l i nf

lu en ce the ou tc om e. The p res en te r of th e li ne up wil l u ni nt en ti on al ly, an d o fte n wi th ou t re al iz in g, gi ve no n- ve rb al si gn al s t ha t ca n i nf lu en ce the witne ss to pi ck th e su sp ect . Fail ur e to us e th is pro cedur e is a si gn ifi can t fl aw in co nduc ti ng a ph ot og rap hi c li ne -up.

5The di stric t co urt g ran te d the go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n t o e xc lu de th e ex pe rt

witne ss , fin di ng th atth e m at te r was withi n t he jury’ s ro le of d et erm in in g wi tn es s cred ib il it y

an d t ha t Owen s wo ul d b e p erm it te d t o c ro ss -ex am in e th e wit ne ss es fu ll y as t o t he accu racy of th ei r id en ti fic at io ns . As to th e rec or de d p ho ne cal l, the co urt fo un d t ha t p reju di ce m ig htari se fro m th e “ li m it edin di cat io n” th atitha d be enm ad e fro m

jail , bu t tha t the pre

jud ic e d idno t o utweig h t he tap e’s pr ob at iv e va lu e, pa rti cu larly in l ig htof t he jury’ s ex pe ct at io n t ha t Owen s wo ul d h av e b een arre st edat s om e p oi ntan d t he lac k o f an y in di cat io n t ha t Owen s re m ai ne d i n cu st od y at t he ti m e o f tr ia l. At tria l, Se o Ah n, the own er o f cel l-p ho ne st or e Skyta lkCo m m un ic at io ns , te st ifi edth at“ Ro bb er Nu m be r One ” en te redth e st or e aro un d 7 :0 0 p .m . onMay 13, 20 08 . Ahntu rn edto wardth e cas h re gi st er, the n h earda gu ns ho t. Ah n turne d t o se e th e ro bb er ra is in g agun i n the airinhi s ri gh t h an d. Atab ou t the same tim e as th e g un was fi red , ano th er i nd iv idua l, “ Ro bb er Nu m be r Two,” c am e in si de an d gr ab be d Ah n’s n ep he w, EunYou l “ Mark” Ok, wh o h adbe encle an in g n ear t he en tra nc e. The ro bb ers to ldAhn an d Okto kn eel do wn an d n otto m ov e, th en op en edth e cas h d raweran d t oo k a ll of t he m on ey . The drawer co nt ai ne d ap pr ox im at el y

$2 ,50 0 t o $ 3,0 00 . Rob be r Num be r Two the n t oo k Ah n t o t he st or ero om

in th e b ack , wher e th e ro bb er g rab be d s om e p ho ne s. Be twee n t he 6ph on es fro m th e st or ero om

an d s om e ad di ti on al ph on es fro m th e d is pl ay

cas e, th e ro bb ers to oka to ta l o f ab ou t 2 0 p ho ne s. Aft er Ro bb er Nu m be r Two t oo k t he ph on es fro m

th e st or ero om , he b ro ug htOk i nt o t he st or ero om . The ro bb ers th en fle d t he st or e. Ahn de sc rib edRo bb er Nu m be r One as asl en de r bl ackm anwho weig he d ap pr ox im at el y

14 0 t o 1 50 po un ds an d was sl ig ht ly sho rte r th anAhn , who was 5'7 ". Ro bb er Nu m

be r One was wea rin g aha t an d apl ai n wh it e T-s hi rt. Aft er the go ve rn m en t p la y eda vi de o o f th e ro bb ery fo r th e jury, Ahn co nt in ue d t ha t Ro bb er Num be r One was h ol di ng anex ti ng ui sh edcig aret te bu ttwhen he en te redth e st or e. Refe rri ng to st il l i m ag es th atha d b een pri nt edfro m th e v id eo , Ahnpo in te d o utth e pi st ol inRo bb er Nu m

be r One ’s han d, as well as t he lo cat io ns of t he cas h d rawer , st or ag e ro om , anddi sp la y cas e. Ahnackno wled ge d t ha t a p ol ic e o ffi cer s ho wed hi m a li ne up at s om e p oi ntbu t tha t h e was no t ab le to id en ti fy jus t o ne pe rs on as Ro bb er Nu m

be r One . On cr os s- ex am in at io n, Ah n re it erat edth atRo bb er Num be r One was s li gh tl y sh orte r an d s li m

m er tha n Ah n, an d h e st oo d i n t he witne ss bo x s o t ha t the jury co ul d o bs erv e h is bu il d. He re cal le d t el li ng th e o ffi cer a t the sce ne th atRo bb er Num be r One ’s sk in co lo r “ was no t ex tre m el y da rk ” an d t ha t h e was ap pr ox im at el y 30 y ears ol d, al th ou gh Ahnad de d t ha t h e h addi ffi cu lt y gaug in g t he ag e o f 7Am eri can s. Co un se l cr os s- ex am in edAhn , inpa rt, abo utth e qua li ty of th e

vi de ot ap e an d wh ethe r th e li gh ti ng on th e v id eo wou ldha ve m ad e th e p eo pl e ap pe ar d ark er. Ok t es ti fie d t ha t, p rio r to th e ro bb ery, he saw R ob be r Num be r One sm ok in g a ci ga ret te ou ts id e an d R ob be r Num be r Two l ean in g a ga in sta wall . After R ob be r Num be r One en te redth e st or e, Ok s aw th athe was h ol di ng th e sa m e ci ga ret te bu t was no lo ng er s m ok in g i t. Okwas o ut si de th e st or e whe n h e h eardth e g un sh ot an d l oo ke d i ns id e to see whatwas h ap pe ni ng . Rob be r Num be r One grabb edOk aro un d t he ne ck

with h is lef

t h an d a ndpu ll edhi m

in to th e st or e. The ro bb er was ho ld in g t he gu n i n h is ot he r ha nd . After R ob be r Num be r One pu ll edOk i nt o t he st or e an d m ad e h im

kn eel be hi ndth e d is pl ay cas e, Ro bb er Nu m

be r Two en te red th e st or e. Ro bb er Num

be r One sh ou te d a t Okto si t d own an d n otto cal l the po li ce, an d h e co ll ect edall of the cas h fr om th e cas h drawer . Mean whi le , Rob be r Num be r One to ldRo bb er Nu m be r Two t o t ak e Ahn to th e in ve nt ory roo m . Ok s ai d tha t Ro bb er Nu m be r One was Afr ic an -Am eri can , app ro xi m at el y 5'6 ", ab ou t 1 60 to 18 0 p ou nd s, an d ali tt le y ou ng er tha n 4 0 years o ld . Ok te st ifi ed th athe ha d fi ni sh edswee pi ng th e d oo rm atan d the areajus t o ut si de th e d oo r whe n Ro bb er Nu m

be r One pu ll edhi m

in to th e st or e, so no tra sh rem ai ne d i n t ha t ar ea be fo re the rob be ry . After t he rob be ry , Ok n ot ic edth atth ere was on e ci ga ret te in 8th e d oo rway area . He po in te d i t o utto th e p ol ic e o ffi cers an d s ug ge st edth atit m ig htha ve be lo ng edto on e o f th e ro bb ers . Duri ng th e ti m e th athe was o ut si de aft er the rob be ry , Ok d idno t s ee an y on e smoki ng . At a la te r ti m e, anoff ic er sh owe d Oka ph ot o l in eup. Okto ldth e o ffi cer t ha t o ne of t he ph ot og rap hs was o f Ro bb er Nu m

be r One , andhe ran ke d h is cert ai nt y as “ m ay be si x o r se ve n” on a sc al e o f te n, o r 60 to 70 pe rcen t. On cr os s- ex am in at io n, Oksai d t ha t h e o rig in al ly tol d the po li ce o ffi cers th at Ro bb er Nu m

be r One ha d ali gh t co m

pl ex io n andth atRo bb er Nu m be r Two was in hi s l at e 2 0s . He sai d t ha t Ro bb er Nu m be r One was n otsk in ny, buthe ha d de sc rib edRo bb er Nu m

be r One as b ei ng sk in ny in c om pa ris on to Ro bb er Nu m

be r Two. He th ou gh t h e h adto ldth e o ffi cer t ha t Ro bb er Nu m be r One weig he d abo ut 13 5 p ou nd s. Co un se l cr os s- ex am in edOk as to th e cl ari ty of hi s m em ory of the ev en ts an d a s t o wh ic h o f th ree c ig aret te s i n acri m e-s cen e p ho to gr ap h was th e o ne he po in te d o utto th e o ffi cers . On red ire ctex am in at io n, Okst at edth atno ne of t he ci ga ret te s wer e in th e are a p rio r to th e ro bb ery. The go ve rn m en t re ada st ip ul at io n i nd ic at in g t ha t o ffi cers co ll ect eda ci ga ret te fro m

th e si de walkin fro ntof t he st or e an d t ha t the sal iv a o n t he cig aret te was fou ndto co nt ai n Owen s’s DNA. Den is e LaSo nd e, a cri m e sc en e te ch ni ci anwith t he Atl an taPo li ce 9Dep artm en t (“ APD”), t es ti fie d t o fi nd in g aho le “ rel at edto a gu ns ho t” ina cei li ng

ti le . She reco ve redth e o nl y cig aret te bu ttth atwas i n t he si de walkareainfro ntof th e st or e. The o th er tras h i n t he area , in cl ud in g ano th er ci ga ret te bu tt , were away fro m th e si de walkin th e p ark in g l ot . She di d n otreco ve r an yth in g fr om th e pa rk in g l ot . In ve st ig at or

Furd ge Turn er t es ti fie d t ha t h e in he rit edth is cas e inFeb ru ary 20 09 aft er the ori gi na l i nv es ti ga to r le ft t he APD. He firs t s ta rte d wo rk in g o n t he cas e whe n t he cri m e lab d is co ve redth e id en ti ty of th e in di vi du al who se DNA was on th e rec ov eredcig aret te bu tt . Upo n re cei vi ng th atrep ort, Tu rn er as se m bl eda ph ot o l in eup t ha t i nc lu de d aph ot og rap h o f Owen s atPo si ti on 5. He m etwith Ah n an d Oka few d ay s l at er. Ahn va ci ll at edbe twee n P ho to gr ap hs 5 an d 6 . Ok se le ct edPh ot og rap h 5 rig htaway . Turn er co ul d n otreca ll whet he r Ok i nd ic at eda pe rcen ta ge or aran ge of n um be rs refl ect in g h ow s ur e h e was of h is id en ti fic at io n. On cr os s- ex am in at io n, co un se l que st io ne d Tu rn er ab ou t h is rev ie w of t he ev id en ce, the qu al it y

of t he su rv ei ll an ce v id eo , th e acc ur acy of Ahn ’s andOk’s id en ti fic at io ns , th e ab se nc e o f an y ot he r ph y si cal ev id en ce co nn ect in g Owen s t o th e cri m e, an d t he factth atOwens , who was a ccu se d o f be in g R ob be r Num be r One , was a 4 7- y ear- ol d, 5 '7" m anwho weig he d 1 90 po un ds . The go ve rn m en t re ada st ip ul at io n t ha t ev ery cel l p ho ne inth e st or e’s 10in ve nt ory

ha d b een sh ip pe d i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce fro m

Ind ia nato Geor gi a, an d i t pl ay edth e rec or de d p ho ne cal l fo r th e jury. The co urt g av e th e fo ll owi ng cau ti on ary in st ru ct io n t o t he jury: Youwil l re cal l b efo re we t oo k o urbre ak , y ouwere p la y eda tape fro m a ph on e cal l m ad e b y

th e d efen da ntfro m

a de te nt io n fa ci li ty. Let m e in st ru cty outh aty ouare n otto dra w any inf eren ces fro m

th e factth atth e d efen da ntwas i n ade te nt io n fa ci li ty at th e ti m e th athe pl acedth atcal l. Sp eci fic al ly, y ou ’re no t t o i nf er fro m th atan y m at te rs reg ard in g g ui ltof t he de fen da ntor any inf eren ces co nc ern in g whe th er h e p os edan y

saf ety ris k o r an y

ot he r m at te r of

th atso rt. Ess en ti al ly, y ou ’re to dra w no in fere nc es fro m th e fac t tha t the cal l was pl acedfro m

a de te nt io n fa ci li ty. Dur in g h is cas e-i n- ch ie f, Owens no te d t ha t the go ve rn m en t h adpl ay eda sl owe d- do wn v ers io n o f th e su rv ei ll an ce v id eo , andhe pl ay edth e o rig in al ve rs io n fo r th e jury. His wife th entes ti fie d o n h is be ha lf, s pe ci fic al ly dis cu ss in g h is ag e, he ig ht , andweig ht . She in di cat edth atOwens di d n otown clo th es li ke th os e o f Ro bb er Nu m

be r One an d h adno t h adex tracas h, ce ll ph on es , or o th er re la te d it em s af te r th e d at e o f th e ro bb ery. Afte r th e d efen se res te d, the co urt i nf orm edth e p art ie s t ha t i t h adde ci de d t o gi ve th e p at te rnjury in st ru ct io n o n i de nt ifi cat io n. Itco nc lu de d t ha t the pa tt ern in st ru ct io n a de qu at el y

ad dr es se d Owen s’s co nc ern s an d t ha t g iv in g Owen s’s reque st edin st ru ct io n wo ul d c on st itut e co m m en ti ng on th e ev id en ce. Owen s co ul d arg ue Ahn ’s andOk’s u nc ert ai nt y ab ou t the ir p ho to -li ne up id en ti fic at io ns , th e 11po ss ib il it y

th atth e o ffi cer u ni nt en ti on al ly gav e subt le hi nt s as to whi ch an swe r he wan te d, an d t he fai lu re o f m em ory ov er t im e, bu t the co urt was un co m fo rtabl e gi vi ng anin st ru ct io n abo utsci en ti fic res earc h i nt o d iff eren t m etho ds for adm in is te rin g l in eups . Add it io na ll y , Ahnha d t es ti fie d t o h is di ffi cu lt y in di st in gu is hi ng be twee n Afr ic an -Am eri can s, s o t he re was a ba si s fo r Owen s t o m ak e anarg um en t ab ou t the in crea se d d iff ic ul ty of cro ss -rac ia l i de nt ifi cat io n. Th e co urt re it erat edth atth e reque st edin st ru ct io n “ wen t t oo far” an d wo ul d h av e am ou nt edto “ co m

m en ti ng on th e ev id en ce an d s ta ki ng ou t p os it io ns ,” whi le th e pa tt ernin st ru ct io n m ad e cl ear t ha t the jury co ul d c on si de r al l fa ct or s t ha t co ul d weig h o n t he rel iabi li ty of th e id en ti fic at io ns . Dur in g t he go ve rn m en t’s cl os in g a rg um en t, the reco rd edph on e cal l was pl ay edag ai n fo r th e jury. Dur in g Owen s’s cl os in g a rg um en t, co un se l d es cri be d Owens as “ in hi s l at e 4 0s , . . . no t s ki nn y , . . . fiv e se ve n, 1 90 po un ds , dark s ki nn ed an d [wi th ] ta tt oo s o n h is arm s.” He re it erat edth e wit ne ss es ’ co nt rad ic to ry de sc rip ti on s o f Ro bb er Nu m be r One , hadOwens sh ow h is tat to os to th e juro rs , an d a rg ue d, “ Youcansee Dwig htOwens is no t the m anwho is de sc rib edon th at vi de o.” He furth er ar gu edth at(1) no on e sa w Rob be r Num be r One dro p h is ci ga ret te , (2) th e ci ga ret te reco ve redby offi cers fro m th e cu rb m ig htha ve be en on e th atOk fa il edto swee p a ll th e way off of t he si de walkbe fo re the rob be ry , (3) 12Ok t es ti fie d t ha t the rob be r’s ci ga ret te was d ire ct ly in fr on t o f th e d oo r, no t o n t he

cu rb , and(4) th e o ffi cers on ly retri ev edon e o f th e th ree c ig aret te s i n t he area . He ad de d tha t o ne of t he ph ot og rap hs sh owe d R ob be r Num be r One with acig aret te be hi ndhi s ea r, an d t ha t the cig aret te ap pe aredto be anall -wh it e, fu ll -s iz ed ci ga ret te , no t a s m al l o ne with abro wn fi lt er l ik e th e o ne on th e cu rb . Fin al ly, co un se l ra is edco nc ern s ab ou t In ve st ig at orTurn er’s t es ti m on y , whet he r Ok c ou ld be co ns id eredto ha ve m ad e a p os it iv e id en ti fic at io n, the effe ctof s tre ss on m em ory , Owens ’s con fli ct in g s ta te m en ts du rin g t he ph on e cal l, an d t he ab se nc e o f an y ot he r ph y si cal ev id en ce co nn ect in g Owen s t o t he cri m e. The co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury, inc lu di ng th e p at te rney ewit ne ss -id en ti fic at io n in st ru ct io n. Th e jury fou ndOwens gu il ty on b ot h c ou nt s. Owen s was co nv ic te d an d s en te nc edto a to ta l t erm of 3 00 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. II. W e rev ie w a ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of the ev id en ce de no vo , “ vi ewin g th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t an d d rawi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces infav orof t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Fu lf

or d , 26 7 F .3d12 41 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). W e wil l af firm a gu il ty verd ic t u nl es s n o re as on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d h av e fo un d g ui ltbe y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Uni te d Sta tes v. To le r , 14 4 F .3d14 23 , 14 28 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). 13“ [T]he jury is fr ee t o c ho os e b etweenor a m on g t he reas on ab le co nc lu si on s t o b e

dr awnfro m

th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l.” Uni te d Sta tes v. El liso r , 52 2 F .3d 12 55 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) .

“ To o bt ai n aco nv ic ti on forco ns pi rin g t o i nt erfe re wi th in te rs ta te co m m erce th ro ug h ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n o f th e Hob bs Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 19 51 (a), the go ve rn m en t n eedon ly pro ve a ro bb ery an d e ffec t o n c omm erce .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Dea n , 51 7 F .3d12 24 , 12 27 -2 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . In o rd er t o c on vi ctOwens un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A)(i ii ), th e g ov ern m en t was requi redto pro ve be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t tha t (1 ) th e d efen da ntco m m it te d afed eral cri m e o f vi ol en ce an d (2 ) he di sc harg eda fi rearm “ du rin g a ndinrel at io n t o” th atcri m e. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A), (c)( 1) (A)(i ii ). Here, Owen s co nt en ds on ly tha t h e was m is id en ti fie d a s t he in di vi du al who co m

m it te d t he ch arg edoff

en se s, n otth atth e g ov ern m en t fa il edto pr ov e an y ot he r el em en t o f th e o ffen se s. Whe n v ie wedin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, the ev id en ce sh owe d t ha t Oksaw R ob be r Num be r One sm ok in g acig aret te ou ts id e th e st or e du rin g t he rob be ry . He to okth e ci ga ret te with h im in si de th e st or e, an d Ok fin is he d s weep in g t he tra sh off th e si de walkan d i nt o t he park in g l ot . After t he ro bb ery, a ci ga ret te bu ttco nt ai ni ng Owens ’s DNA was fo un d o n t he si de walk . Ok pi ck edOwens ’s pi ctur e o utof aph ot o l in eup, an d Ah n v aci ll at edbe twee n 14ph ot og rap hs of Owen s an d a no th er m an , th ou gh he ul ti m at el y was unabl e to m ak e a p os it iv e id en ti fic at io n. Owen s t ol d h is fam il y du rin g atel ep ho ne cal l tha t h e was be in g h el d fo r a cri m e th athe co m m it te d. Fu rth erm or e, th e jury was sh own m ul ti pl e v id eo s an d s cree n s ho ts of R ob be r Num be r One , andth ey

ha d t he op po rtu ni ty to co m

pa re tho se im ag es to Owens durin g t ria l. Alt ho ug h Owen s arg ue s t ha t the ey ewit ne ss es ’ de sc rip ti on s o f Ro bb er Nu m be r One were in co ns is te ntwith Owen s’s ap pe aran ce, an d tha t the cig aret te co ll ect edat the sce ne di d n otres em

bl e th e ci ga ret te he ldby Rob be r Num be r One inth e v id eo , th e jury was free to rev ie w th e d ep ic ti on s o f Ro bb er Nu m be r One an d h is cig aret te an d ev al ua te whet he r th ey

m at ch edOwens an d t he reco ve redcig aret te . Se e Ell is or , 52 2 F .3dat 1 27 1. Th e jury als o l is te ne d t o t he en ti re re le va ntsec ti on of t he te le ph on e cal l an d was free to ch oo se whi ch of Owen s’s s ta te m en ts , if ei th er, was a cre di bl e d es cri pt io n o f hi s co nn ect io n t o t he off en se . Se e id. Und er the ci rcu m st an ces , Owens ha s fa il edto sh ow t ha t n o re as on ab le juro r co ul d h av e co nc lu de d t ha t h e was Ro bb er Nu m be r One . Se e To le r , 14 4 F .3dat 1 42 8. III. The “ di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to adm itor e xc lu de ev id en ce wi ll no t b e di sturbe d o n app eal ab se nta cl ear abu se of d is cret io n.” Uni te d Sta tes v. S mith , 12 2 F .3d13 55 , 13 57 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . Und er the pri or 15pa ne l p rece de ntrul e, we are b ou ndto earl ie r pane l h ol di ng s unl es s an d u nt il th ey

are o ve rtu rn edby thi s C ou rt s it ti ng en ba nc or b y th e Supr em e Co urt. Id. at 1 35 9. If s ci en ti fic , tec hn ic al , or o th er s pe ci al iz edkn owl ed ge wil l as si stth e tr ie r of factinun de rs tand in g t he ev id en ce o r de te rm in in g afactat i ss ue , a witne ss qu al ifi edas a n e xp ertm ay tes ti fy to th ateffe ct , inth e fo rm of a n o pi ni on or ot he rwis e. Fed .R.Evi d. 7 02 . W e h av e “ co ns is te nt ly loo ke d u nf av or ab ly on” ex pe rt t es ti m on y

ab ou t eyewitne ss rel iabi li ty andhe ldth at“ a d is tri ctco urt d oe s no t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh enitex cl ud es ex pe rt t es ti m on y on ey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n.” Smi th , 12 2 F .3dat 1 35 7, 1 35 9. As b ot h p art ie s ac kn owl ed ge on ap pe al , Smi th cle arl y in di cat es th atth e di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y ex cl ud in g B rig ha m ’s tes ti m on y . Se e Smi th , 12 2 F .3dat 1 35 9. Al th ou gh Owens arg ue s atlen gt h t ha t thi s h ol di ng sh ou ldbe rev is it ed , we curren tl y are b ou ndto th e Smi th ho ld in g b y th e p rio r pa ne l pr eced en t ru le . Se e id. Acco rd in gl y , Owens ha s n otest ab li sh edrev ers ib le erro r in th is reg ard . IV. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e a reque st edjury in st ru ct io n fo r anab us e of

di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Pa lma , 51 1 F .3d13 11 , 13 14 -1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 20 08 ). “ W e wil l fi ndrev ers ib le erro r on ly if (1 ) th e reque st edin st ru ct io n c orrect ly 16st at edth e la w; (2 ) th e actua l ch arg e to th e jury didno t s ub st an ti al ly cov er the

pr op os edin st ru ct io n; an d (3 ) th e fai lu re t o g iv e itsubs ta nt ia ll y im pa ire d t he de fen da nt ’s abi li ty to p res en t aneffe ct iv e d efen se .” Id. at 1 31 5 (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) .

“ A cri m in al de fen da ntha s t he rig htto have th e jury ins tru ct edon [hi s] th eo ry of d efen se , sep arat e an d apa rt f ro m in st ru ct io ns gi ve n o n t he ele m en ts of th e ch arg edoff

en se .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ru iz , 59 F.3d11 51 , 11 54 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Yet “ [a] tri al co urt i s n otbo un d t o u se th e ex actword s an d p hr as in g re qu es te d b y de fen se co un se l i n i ts jury ch arg e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 97 5 F .2d15 14 , 15 17 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). In d eci di ng whet he r a d efen da nt ’s reque st edin st ru ct io n was subs ta nt ia ll y

co ve redin th e actua l ch arg e g iv en , we “ ne edon ly ascerta in whe th er the ch arg e, whe n v ie wedas awho le , fai rly andco rrec tl y st at es th e is su es an d t he law.” Id. Furth er, “ a d efen da ntis no t au to m at ic al ly ent it le d t o ath eo ry of th e d efen se in st ru ct io n i f th atarg um en t i s ad equa te ly cov eredinan ot he r in st ru ct io n.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Blan to n , 79 3 F .2d15 53 , 15 61 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). The pa tt ernjury in st ru ct io n o n i de nt ifi cat io n t es ti m on y read s as fol lo ws: The Gov ern m en t m

us t p ro ve be y on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t the Defen da ntwas t he pe rs on who co m m it te d t he cri m e. If a wi tn es s i de nt ifi es a Defen da ntas t he pe rs on who co m m it te d th e cri m e, y oum

us t fi rs t d eci de whet he r th e wit ne ss is tel li ng th e tru th . Butev enif you b el ie ve th e wit ne ss is tel li ng th e trut h, you 17m

us t s ti ll de ci de ho w accu rat e th e id en ti fic at io n was . I su gg es t tha t y ouasky ou rs el f qu es ti on s:

• Didth e wit ne ss ha ve anad equa te op po rtu ni ty to o bs erv e th e pe rs on at t he ti m e th e cri m e was co m m it te d? • How m

uc h t im e d idth e wit ne ss ha ve to ob se rv e th e p ers on ? • How cl os e was th e wit ne ss ? • Didan yth in g a ffec t the witne ss ’s abi li ty to s ee? • Didth e wit ne ss kn ow o r se e th e p ers on at an e arl ie r ti m e? Youm ay als o c on si de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of the id en ti fic at io n o f th e Defen da nt , su ch as t he way th e Defen da ntwas p res en te d t o t he witne ss forid en ti fic at io n a ndth e le ng th of t im e b etweenth e cri m e an d t he id en ti fic at io n o f th e Defen da nt . Afte r ex am in in g a ll th e ev id en ce, i f y ouha ve a reas on ab le do ub t th atth e Defen da ntwas t he pe rs on who co m m it te d t he cri m e, y ou m us t fi ndth e Defen da ntno t g ui lt y . 11 th Cir . Pat te rnJu ry

Ins tru ct io ns (Cri m in al ), Sp eci al Ins tru ct io ns § 3 (20 10 ). Inup ho ld in g t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to ex cl ud e anex pe rt wi tn es s o n ey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n, the Smi th Co urt n ot ed , Of co ur se , def

en da nt s wh o wan t t o a tt ackth e rel iabi li ty of ey ewit ne ss reco ll ect io n a re fre e to us e th e p owe rfu l t oo l o f cro ss -ex am in at io n t o do so . They m ay

als o re qu es t jury

in stru ct io ns th athi gh li gh t pa rti cu la r pr ob le m s i n e y ewit ne ss reco ll ect io n. Sm ith d idinth e pr es en t ca se an d was su cces sf ul inge tt in g t he di stric t co urt t o i ns tru ct th e jury abo utcro ss -rac ia l i de nt ifi cat io n, p ot en ti al bi as inearl ie r id en ti fic at io ns , del ay

be twee n t he ev en t an d the ti m e o f id en ti fic at io n, an d s tre ss . Smi th , 12 2 F .3dat 1 35 9. Th e Smi th Co urt d idno t, h owe ve r, de sc rib e th e sp eci fic in st ru ct io ns th atwere g iv enin Sm it h’s ca se or i nd ic at e th atth e co urts m us t g ran t

18su ch reque st s.

Here, the pa tt ernin st ru ct io n a de qu at el y co ve redm an y

of Owen s’s co nc ern s, su ch as the ad equa cy

of t he op po rtu ni ty to o bs erv e th e d efen da nt , th e ci rcu m st an ces of the ph ot o l in eup, an d t he len gt h o f ti m e b etweenth e o ffen se an d th e id en ti fic at io n. Se e Bla nt on , 79 3 F .2dat 1 56 1. Al th ou gh th e p at te rn in st ru ct io n d idno t s pe ci fic al ly dis cu ss cro ss -rac ia l i de nt ifi cat io n, d oubl e-b li nd li ne up pro cedur es , or the effe ctof s tre ss an d weapo ns on id en ti fic at io ns , Owens was ab le to cro ss -ex am in e an d a rg ue ab ou t ea ch of t he se po in ts , andhe ha s n ot sh own th atth e co urt cl earl y ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d ecl in in g t o a ccep t Owen s’s vi ew of th e sc ie nc e as un co nt ro ve rte d fa ctaft er h av in g e xc lu de d e xp erttes ti m on y to th ateffe ct . Se e Palma , 51 1 F .3dat 1 31 4- 15 ; Smi th , 12 2 F .3dat 1 35 7, 1 35 9. Viewe d a s a wh ol e, th e jury ins tru ct io ns fai rly andco rrec tl y st at edth e is su es an d la w, andth ey

di d n otsubs ta nt ia ll y

im pa ir Owen s’s ab il ity

to pre se nthi s d efen se . Se e Palma , 51 1 F .3dat 1 31 5; Gon za le z , 97 5 F .2dat 1 51 7. Acco rd in gl y , Owens ha s n otsh own anab us e o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is cret io n. V. Aga in , evi de nt ia ry

rul in gs wil l n otbe di sturbe d o n app eal ab se nta cl ear ab us e o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is cret io n. Smi th , 12 2 F .3dat 1 35 7. Anev id en ti ary ru li ng wil l n otbe rev ers edun le ss th e erro r affe ct edth e d efen da nt ’s subs tant ia l 19rig ht s. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ste ph en s , 36 5 F .3d96 7, 9 76 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Thu s, th e d efen da ntm

us t s ho w th atth e err orpro babl y ha d asubs ta nt ia l i nf

lu en ce o n t he jury’ s v erd ic t. Id. at 9 77 . A purp orte d due pro ces s v io la ti on is rev ie wedfor ha rm le ss ne ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha rr is , 70 3 F .2d 50 8, 5 12 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). Dis tri ctco urts ha ve bro addi sc ret io n t o a dm itpro ba ti ve ev id en ce, wh erea s th ei r di sc ret io n t o e xc lu de ev id en ce u nd er Fe d.R .Evi d. 4 03 is li m it ed . Uni te d St at es v. Ter

za do -Ma dr uga , 89 7 F .2d10 99 , 11 17 (11 thCir . 19 90 ). “ [E]vid en ce m ay be ex cl ud edif i ts pro ba ti ve va lu e is subs tant ia ll y ou twei gh edby the da ng er o f un fai r pr ejud ic e, co nf

us io n o f th e is su es , or m is le ad in g t he jury, or b y co ns id erat io ns of u ndue de la y , wast e o f ti m e, orne ed le ss pre se nt at io n o f cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce.” Ru le 40 3. In Har ris , we hel d t ha t a d efen da nt ’s rig htun de r th e Due Pro ces s C laus e to th e p res um

pt io n o f in no cen ce was vi ol at edwhenhe was re qu ire d t o a tt en d t he ven ir e in cle arl y

m ark edpri so n c lo th in g. Har ris , 70 3 F .2dat 5 09 -1 0. We drew a di st in ct io n b etweenpri so n c lo th in g a ndth e m ere a dm is si on of e vi de nc e th atth e de fen da ntha d b eenarre st edfor th e in st an t ch arg e o r ear li er o ffen se s: Inm os t tria ls , itis ap pa ren t tha t the de fen da ntwas a rres te d fo r th e cri m e wit h wh ic h h e h as be ench arg ed . Evenwher e th e d et ai ls of t he arre stare n otrev eal eddu rin g the co ur se of t he tri al , th e jury can 20eas il y in fer t ha t the de fen da ntwas a rres te d. Th e m ajor it y of c riminal pr os ecu ti on s ar e in it ia te d b y anarres t; co nt em

po rary Am eri can juri es are a ware o f th is fact . Thatth e jury woul d l earnof Ha rri s’[s] arres t as well as o f hi s p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on s t hu s d oe s n otad dr es s t he co nc ern s v oi cedby the [Supr em e] Cou rt [ reg ard in g p ris on clo th in g].

. . . . Fo rci ng a de fen da ntto ap pe ar attri al so dre ss edno t o nl y is de m ean in g; itrei nf

or ces th e fac t tha t the de fen da ntha s b een arre st edan d p ro

jects to th e jury the m arkof g ui lt , th us ero di ng th e pr in ci pl e th atth e d efen da ntis pre su m edin no cen t u nt il pro ve n g ui lt y . . . . T ha t the jury wil l l earn of h is arre stdu rin g the co ur se of t he tri al do es no t m it ig at e th e h arm oc cas io ne d b y

pa rad in g t he de fen da nt cl ot he d i n ash ro udof g ui lt . Id. at 5 11 -1 2. The m ere a dm is si on of e vi de nc e th atOwens ha d b een arre st edan d d et ai ne d aton e ti m e d idno t cr eat e due pro ces s co nc ern s, p art ic ul arl y as t he re was no in di cat io n tha t h e rem ai ne d i nc arce rat edat t he ti m e o f tr ia l. Se e Har ris , 70 3 F .2d at51 1- 12 . Furt he rm or e, Owens ’s reco rd edst at em en ts reg ard in g h is gu il t o r in no cen ce o f th e o ffen se were h ig hl y pro ba ti ve an d, thu s, the co urt h adbro ad di sc ret io n t o a dm itth e rec or di ng . Se e Ter za do -Ma dr ug a , 89 7 F .2dat 1 11 7. Th e pu rp orte d c on fli ctbe twee n the two st at em en ts di d n otren de r ei th er o ne irr el ev an t to th e que st io n o f hi s g ui ltbu t, ra th er, requi redth e jury to e va lu at e whe th er ei th er st at em en t was a cred ib le de sc rip ti on of h is co nn ect io n t o t he off en se . Se e Ell is or , 52 2 F .3dat 1 27 1 (s ta ti ng th atth e jury is fr ee t o c ho os e b etweenor a m on g t he reas on ab le in te rp ret at io ns of t he ev id en ce). Fi na ll y , th e d is tri ctco urt m it ig at ed

21an y

po te nt ia l p reju di ce b y

is su in g a n e xp li ci t, d et ai le d i ns tru ct io n t ha t the jury sh ou lddra w no in fere nc es fro m th e fac t tha t Owen s was injail at the ti m e o f th e cal l. Un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces , Owens ha s n otsh own th atth e ev id en ce o f hi s arre stan d d et en ti on was s o p reju di ci al as t o s ub st an ti al ly out weig h t he pro ba ti ve va lu e o f hi s s ta te m en ts . Se e Ru le 40 3. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm Owens ’s con vi ct io ns . AFFIRMED.

22