FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 7, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 64 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :1 0- cr-0 00 10 -WT M-GRS -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us JOHN RAYMOND REEDY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 7, 2 01 0) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BLACK andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Jo hn Reed y

ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of afir earm by a co nv ic te d fe lo n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). The s ol e is su e o n app eal iswhe th er t he di st ric t co urt p la in ly erredwhen itall owe d t he Gov ern m en t t o

qu es ti on hi s g irl fri en d, Sh an te ll Dun ba r, ab ou t the pre se nc e o f th ei r so n, ag e el ev en , in th e car

du rin g t he po li ce ch as e. Reedy arg ue s t ha t t he se qu es ti on s wer e irr el ev an t an d p reju di ci al witho utan y pro ba ti ve va lu e. W e rev ie w “ ev id en ti ary ru li ng s o f th e d is tri ctco urt fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Ho ff man -Vai le , 56 8 F .3d13 35 , 13 40 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ W e rev ie w rul in gs to whi chth e d efen da ntob jecte d u nd er a h arm le ss erro r st an da rd .” Id
. An err oris ha rm le ss if t he re i s n o re as on ab le li ke li ho odth atit

“ affe ct edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts .” Uni te d Sta te s v. K ha na ni , 50 2 F .3d 12 81 , 12 92 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . A defe nd an t’s s ub st an ti al rig ht s are n otaffe ct edif t he ve rd ic t i s s up po rte d b y pro pe rly-adm it te d e vi de nc e an d t he erro r di d n otsubs ta nt ia ll y in flu en ce t he ou tc om e. Se e id
. Evi de nt ia ry erro rs rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal are re vi ewedforpl ai n e rro r. Hof fma n- Vai le , 56 8 F.3 d a t 1 34 0. Pl ai n e rro r ex is ts “ whe re (1 ) th ere i s an erro r; ( 2) th atis pl ai n o r ob vi ou s; (3) affe ct in g t he de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts in th atitwas p reju di ci al an d n otha rm le ss ; an d (4 ) th atser io us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id
. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) .

“ All rel ev an t ev id en ce i s ad m is si bl e, ex cep t as ot he rwis e p ro vi de d b y . . . th es e ru le s.” Fe d. R. Ev id . 40 2. Re le vantev id en ce i s tha t wh ic h h as “ an y 2te nd en cy

to m ak e th e ex is te nc e o f an y factth atis of c on se qu en ce t o t he de te rm in at io n o f th e act io n m or e p ro babl e o r le ss pro babl e th an itwou ldbe wit ho utth e ev id en ce.” Fe d. R. Ev id . 40 1. Re le va ntev id en ce “ m ay be ex cl ud edif it s p ro ba ti ve va lu e is subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh edby the da ng er o f un fai r pr ejud ic e.” Fed . R. Evi d. 4 03 . W e lo ok“ atth e ev id en ce i n ali gh t m os t fa vo rab le to it s ad m is si on , m ax im iz in g i ts pro ba ti ve va lu e an d m in im iz in g i ts un du e p reju di ci al im pa ct ” whe n a n app el la ntass ert s erro r un de r Ru le 40 3. Uni te d Sta te s v. Al fa ro Mon ca da , 60 7 F .3d72 0, 7 34 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . In a c lo se cas e, we rel y on th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t b ecau se th ere a re d iff

ic ul t ev id en ti ary ru li ng s t ha t turn o n m at te rs un ique ly wit hi n t he pu rv ie w of t he di st ric t co urt, wh ic h h as fir st -h an d a cces s t o do cu m en ta ry

ev id en ce an d i s p hysic al ly pro xi m at e to tes ti fy in g wit ne ss es an d t he jury. Forth es e rea so ns , th e d is tri ctco urt i s un ique ly situa te d t o m ak e nua nc edjud gm en ts on qu es ti on s t ha t requi re t he care fu l b al an ci ng of f act -s pe ci fic co nc ep ts li ke pr ob at iv en es s an d p reju di ce, an d we a re l oa th e to di sturb t he so un d ex erci se of i ts di sc ret io n i n t he se area s. Uni te d Sta te s v. Br ad

be rr y , 46 6 F .3d12 49 , 12 53 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Add it io na ll y , th e d is tri ctco urt m ay adm itev id en ce ai m edat u nc ov eri ng a wit ne ss ’s bi as es . Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. N or ie ga , 11 7 F .3d12 06 , 12 17 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (s ta ti ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a ll owi ng th e go ve rn m en t t o c ro ss -ex am in e a wit ne ss ab ou t m at te rs “ rel ev an t t o s ho w th e
3wit ne ss ’s lo y al ty towar d a ndbi as in fav or of” th e d efen dantbe cau se an y pre jud ic e fro m th es e que st io ns “ di d n otou twei gh subs tant ia ll y th e p ro ba ti ve va lu e o f th e” ev id en ce). Ree dy has , at m os t, p ro pe rly pres erv edhi s o bjec ti on as t o o nl y on e que st io n th e Gov ern m en t as ke d o f Dun ba r. Reed y di d n otob

ject t o t he Gov ern m en t’s qu es ti on s re ga rd in g h is so n u nt il th e Gov ern m en t h adask edDun ba r ab ou t t he ir so n’s n am e, ag e, an d l oc at io n i n t he car; whet he r th ei r so n was fas te ne d i n ababy se at ; wh ethe r Dunba r sa idan yth in g t o R eedy ab ou t t he sp eedhe was d riv in g co ns id eri ng th e fac t t ha t t he ir s on was i n t he car; why Dun ba r di d n otsay anythi ng to Reed y ab ou t h is dri vi ng ; an d wh en du rin g t he car ch as e Dun ba r was ab le to see ho w herso n was do in g. On ly the n d idReed y ob ject t o t he qu es ti on s re ga rd in g h is ch il d. Th eref

or e, Ree dy’ s ap pe al is subjec t t o p la in erro r rev ie w, alt ho ug h t he si ng le qu es ti on he ob

jecte d t o wi ll be rev ie wedforab us e o f di sc ret io n. Ho wev er, th e res ul t i s t he same un de r ei th er s ta nd ardbe cau se Reed y ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts were n otaffe ct edby thi s l in e o f qu es ti on in g. The ev id en ce ab ou t t he pre se nc e o f Ree dy andDun ba r’s so n i n t he car du rin g t he po li ce ch as e was rel ev an t. The se qu es ti on s atis su e wen t t o wh ethe r Dun ba r was bi as eden ou gh to wardReed y th atsh e wou ldli e fo r hi m reg ard in g h is kn owi ng po ss es si onof t he gu n. Ev id en ce re ga rd in g awit ne ss ’s bi as an d l oyalt y 4to warda de fen da ntis rel ev an t. Se e No ri ega , 11 7 F .3d12 06 at 1 21 7. Se co nd , th e

pr ob at iv e v al ue of t hi s re le va ntev id en ce was no t s ub st an ti al ly out weig he d b y th e da ng er o f un fai r pr ejud ic e to wardReed y . W hi le th ere was a ri skth atth e jury wou ldbe pre

jud ic edag ai ns t Re edy

aft er l earn in g t ha t h is so n was in th e carwit h hi m du rin g ahi gh -s pe edpo li ce ch as e, itwas wi th in th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is cret io n to de te rm in e th atth e p ro ba ti ve va lu e o f de lv in g i nt o Du nb ar’s b ia s t owa rdReed y was no t s ub st an ti al ly outweig he d b y th e ri skof p reju di ce. We are “ lo athe to di sturb t he so un d e xe rci se of [ th e co urt’s] di sc ret io n.” Bra db er ry , 46 6 F .3dat 12 53 . Fu rth erm or e, ev en if the di st ric t co urt h aderre d i n a ll owi ng th is li ne of qu es ti on in g, Re edy ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts ha ve no t b een affe ct edbe cau se Reed y ’s gu il ty verd ic t was st ro ng ly sup po rte d b y th e rem ai nd er o f th e ev id en ce. Se e Kh an an i , 50 2 F .3dat 1 29 2. Th e ev id en ce atReed y ’s tri al sh owe d t ha t h e le d t he po li ce o n ahi gh -s pe edch as e; th atat t he en d o f th e ch as e, he ran fro m hi s ca r carry in g aba ck

pa ck ; an d t ha t a l oa de d fi rearm was fo un d i n t he ba ck

pa ckwhen th e b ackpa ckwas re co ve redfro m a du m ps te r. Furth erm or e, th e Gov ern m en t refu te d Du nb ar’s t es ti m on y ab ou t wh ere R eed y

was d riv in g tha t d ay

an d h er te st im on y th atno sh eri ff’s d ep ut ie s h adsp ok en to he r aft er Re edy was a rres te d. Thu s, the jury co ul d h av e d is cred it edhe r te st im on y th atsh e p utth e g un , whi ch sh e 5cl ai m eddi d n otbe lo ng to Reedy , in th e b ackpa ckwit ho uthi s kno wled ge , eve n

wit ho uthe r te st im on y

rel at edto Reed y ’s par en ti ng sk il ls . There fo re, the di st ric t co urt co m

m it te d n o e rro r, ha rm fu l o r ot he rwis e, inadm it ti ng th is tes ti m on y . AFFIR MED.

6