2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-9-2009 

# U SA v . Anthon y B i zzell P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3689

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Anthon y B i z z e ll " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 477. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/477NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 08- 3689

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. AN THO NY BI ZZELL a /k /a A n th o n yV izz e ll AN THO NY BI ZZELL, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 07- cr - 00256- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M i chae l M . B ay l s on

____________ A r gued Sept ember22, 2009 B e f o re : B A R R Y , F IS H E R a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: O ct ober9, 2009 ) K ei t h M . D onoghue ( A r gued) B r et tG . Sw ei t zer D e f e n d e r A ss o c iatio n o f

P h ilad e lp h ia Feder al C our tD i vi s i on 601 W al nutSt r eet T he C urt i s C enter , S uit e 54 0 W est Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ant2

W i l l i am L . I nden J eff eryW . W hi t t( A r gued) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ee

____________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . A nt honyB i zze l l appea l s fr om hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence forone countof p o ss e ss in g a f

ire a rm a s a c o n v icte d f

e lo n in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). B izz e ll ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orw hen i tr efus ed t o s uppr es s an in c u lp a to rysta tem e n t B izz e ll m a d e to a n o f f ice r p rio r to th e iss u a n c e o f a p p ro p ria te w a r n i n g s , a s r e q u i r e d b y Mi r anda v. A r iz ona , 38 4 U . S . 43 6 (196 6). B i zzel l al so rai ses a pr ocedur al chal l enge t o hi s s ent ence and a c ons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o t he appl i cat i on and val i di t yof 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . B eca us e w e fi nd the Mi r anda v io latio n w a s re v e rsib le err or, w e w i l l no treach t hese l at t er ar gu m ents . I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s.3

In the earl ym orni ng of F ebruary24 , 20 07 , three Ph i l adelphi a po l i ce of fi cers , G e o rg e M a rk o , Jo se p h K e lly , an d B ra n d o n B ry a n t, res p o n d e d to a ra d io c a ll o f g u n sh o ts and obs erved A nt honyB i zze l l s t andi ng nearthe s cene hol di ng a bee r . M arko gotoutof t he ca rt o t al k t o B i zze l l , w ho t hen fl ed. T he off i cer s gave c has e, eventual l ycat chi ng B i zze l l i n an al l eyw ay . O ffi cerM arko i ndi cat ed t o hi s fel l ow offi cer s thathe had s een B iz z e ll p u ll a g u n f

ro m h is w a is tb a n d . T h e o f f ic e rs ta c k le d B iz z e ll a n d re s tr a in e d h im . T he off i cer s r ecove r ed a gun f

r om the s cene of the arr es t . I n t he cour s e of the s t ruggl e, B izz e ll su sta in e d in

ju rie s to h is f

a c e a n d m o u th , w h ich re q u ire d m e d ica l trea tm e n t. O n M ay8, 2007, a gr and j ur yi n t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a r eturned a on e-coun ti nd i ct m ent agai nstB i zzel l , chargi ng him w i t h p ossess i ng a fi rearm as a c o n v icte d f

e lo n in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). B izz e ll p lea d e d n o t g u ilty . P rio r to hi s j ur yt r i al , B i zze l l fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s a s t at ementthathe made t o a pol i ce offi ceraft erhe had be en arr es t ed and w hi l e bei ng tr eat ed i n a hos pi t al forthe i nj ur i es he r ece i ved as a r es ul tof thatarr es t . Speci fi cal l y , he as s ert ed thathe had notbeen i nform ed of hi s r i ght s pur s uantt o Mi r anda and that , ther efor e, the off i cerhad t aken thats t at ement i n v i olat i on of h i s Fifth an d S i xth A m end m ent r i gh t s. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a s uppr es s i on hear i ng on D ece m ber3, 2007. A tthe hear i ng, O ffi cerJ ames O ’ C onnel l of the Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce D epart m entt es t i fi ed thaton F e b ru a r y2 4 , 2 0 0 7 , a ta r o u n d 2 : 0 0 a . m. , h e tr a n s p o r t e d Bi z z e l l t o th e Ge r ma n t o wn H os pi t al . O ’ C onnel l s t at ed thatw hi l e B i zze l l w as atthe hos pi t al , B i zze l l as ked4

O ’ C onnel l w hathe w as bei ng arr es t ed for , t o w hi ch O ’ C onnel l r es ponded, “Y ou had a gun. ” ( A pp. 50- 51. ) O ’ C onnel l t hen as ked hi m , “W hatw er e y ou doi ng w i t h a gun?” (A p p . 5 1 .) B iz z e ll a n s w e re d th a t h e a lw a y s c a rr ie d a g u n . (I d. ) O ’C o n n ell d id n o t r ec o rd t hi s i nform at i on, butl at err el ay ed hi s conver s at i on w i t h B i zze l l t o one of the arr es t i ng offi cer s , O ffi cerJ os eph K el l y . A tno poi ntpr i ort o t hi s s t at ementdi d O ’ C onnel l orany otherpo l i ce of

fi cer i nfo rm B i zzel l of h i s Mi r anda ri gh t s. T he D i s t r i ctC our t , rul i ng fr om the benc h, deni ed B i zze l l ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he s t at ement . I texpl ai ned: A s faras t he hos pi t al goes , m yhol di ng i s that[B i zze l l ] w as notunder goi ng cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on. T hathe as ked the ques t i on, w hathe w as arr es t ed for , and the off

i cert ol d hi m . A nd then he vol unt eer ed the s t at ementof [s i c] t h a th e a l wa y s c a r r i e s a g u n . E v e n i f th e o f f i c e ra s k e d h i m, we l l , y o u k n o w, y o u ’re b eing arrested fo r ca rry ing a g u n , w h yd o y o u ca rrya g u n ? T h at’s nota cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on, i n m yvi ew . So t he mot i on t o s uppr es s w i l l be deni ed. (A p p . 6 0 .) A tt ri al , t he G ov ernm ent i ntr od uced the tes t i m on yof the three arr est i ng off i cers , w hi ch w as nei t heri n per fec tagr eementnori n i r r econc i l abl e di s put e. A m ong t he tes tim o n yw a s O f

f ice r M a rk o ’s s tate m e n t th a t, du rin g th e p u rsu it, h e sa w B izz e ll p u ll a gu n from his w ai stban d w hich prom pted hi m t o y el l “gu n” to hi s partner. M arko al so t es t i fi ed thathe s aw B i zze l l br i ng “the gun behi nd hi m l i ke thi s , and poi nt [] i tback t ow ar ds [M arko] . ” ( A pp. 134- 35. ) N ei t herof the othertw o offi cer s s t at ed thattheys aw a gun unt i l aft erB i zze l l w as for ced t o t he gr ound. B r y antt es t i fi ed thatw hen he t ackl ed5

B i zze l l , he “he ar d s om ethi ng hi tt he gr ound, l i ke a met al type hi t t i ng the gr ound. ” ( A pp. 2 0 1 . ) M a r k o a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a tt h e o f

f i c e r s s t ru g g l e d w i t h B i z z e l l “ f o ra p p r o x i m a t e l y a m i nut e, t r y i ng t o gett he gun outof hi s hand. ” ( A pp. 135. ) M arko and K el l yt es t i fi ed t hat , aft erB i zze l l w as handcuf fed, K el l yl ocat ed a gun i n t he nea rbyvi ci ni t yand unl oaded i t , al t hough B r y antdi d nots ee K el l ypi ck i tup. T he G overnm entt hen i nt r oduced the t es t i m onyof O ffi cerO ’ C onnel l , w hi ch m i r r o r e d t h e t e s t i m o n y h e h a d g i v e n a tth e e a r l i e rs u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g . S p e c i f i c a l l y, O ’ C o n n e l l t o l d t h e j u r y: W h ile w e w e re a t th e h o s p ita l, [ B iz z e ll] a s k e d w h yh e w a s b e in g lo c k e d u p . A n d I to ld h im it w a s b e c a u se h e h a d a g u n . A n d I a sk e d h im , w h yw o u ld he have a gun? A nd he s ai d, I al w ay s have a gun, beca us e I w as s hot befor e. (A p p . 2 0 9 -1 0 .) T he theor i es pr es ent ed byt he def ens e ce nt er ed on var i ous al l eged i ncons i s t enci es in th e a rre stin g o f

f ice rs’ tes tim o n y : n e ith e r B ry a n t n o r K e llyo b se rv e d th e g u n p rio r to B i zze l l bei ng t ackl ed byt he off i cer s and B r y antdi d notobs erve w her e K el l ypi cked up the g u n . A d d it ion all y , the d ef en se se t fo rth a “ sec o n d incid en t” th eo ryb ase d o n M ark o ’s t e s t i mo n yi n a n e a r l i e rs t a t e c o u r tp r o c e e d i n g th a tth e e n c o u n t e rt o o k p l a c e a t1 1 : 4 5 p . m. o n F e b ru a ry2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , an d v a rio u s c o rro b o ra tin g n o tes in th e a rre st re p o rt. I n t he cour s e of j ur ys um m at i ons , the G overnm entar gued: A n d , th e n w e h a v e th e d e f e n d a n t a c tu a lly a d m ittin g to h a v in g th e g u n . . . . [P] erhaps he thoughtt hat , bythe fa ctthathe w as havi ng – havi ng a gun for s el f def ens i ve purpos es , i tw as okayt o have the gun. I t ’ s i m pos s i bl e forus6

t o know . N one of us ar e i n t he def endant ’ s head. B ut , the poi nti s thathe a d m itt e d to th e p o lice th a t h e h a d th e g u n , w h ich a g a in is c o n sis ten t w ith a ll of the otherevi dence i n t hi s cas e. ( A p p . 2 8 0 - 8 1 . ) I n i t s r e b u t t a l , t h e G o v e r n m e n td i s p l a ye d th e a r r e s tm e m o t o th e j u r y, s t at i ng: T her e i ti s i n bl ack a nd w hi t e, as theys ay . T hi s w as the mem o t hatw as w r i t t en by[O ffi cer ] M arko. C l ear l yi t ’ s been r ecor ded bythe pol i ce. T he d e f e n d a n ts t a t e s t o P o l i c e [ O f f i c e r ] O ’ C o n n e l l o n P . W . 1 4 0 0 th a th e a l w a ys carr i es a gun bec aus e he’ s been s hotbefor e, l oaded w i t h s even r ounds i n t he ch am b er. (A p p . 2 9 4 -9 5 .) A ft er del i berat i ng for a l i t t l e ov er an ho ur, the juryreturned a gu i l t yverdi ctagainst B izz e ll. F o llo w in g se n ten c in g , B izz e ll file d th is tim e lya p p e a l. II. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have juri sd ict ion u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). “W e r evi ew a deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s forcl earerr oras t o t he under l y i ng fac t s , butexer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew as t o i t s l egal i t yi n l i ghtof the court ’ s pr oper l yfound fac t s . ” U

nited S tates v. Sh ab azz , 564 F. 3d 280, 286 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and s el ectpunctuat i on om i t t ed) . W e r evi ew the r ecor d de novo t o det erm i ne w h e th e r a c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r i s h a rm le s s . A riz o n a v . Fu lm in a n te , 499 U . S. 279, 295 (19 9 1 ).7 III . B izze ll arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rtco m m itted re v ersible e rror u n d er Mi r anda by r efus i ng t o s uppr es s the s t at ementhe made t o O ’ C onnel l i n w hi ch B i zze l l i ndi cat ed that h e a lw a y s c a rrie d a g u n b e c a u se h e h a d b e e n sh o t b e f o re . H e c o n ten d s th a t th is c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r w a s n o t h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t an d , as a re su lt, th is C our tm us tvaca t e the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence . I n r es pons e, the G overnm ent , des pi t e havi ng ar gued t o t he contr aryi n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , conce des on a p p e a l th a t it w a s , in f

a c t, c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r t o h a v e a d m itte d th e s ta te m e n t a t tr ia l. N evert hel es s , acc or di ng t o t he G overnm ent , thi s C our ts houl d hol d t hatthe err orw as h a rm les s in lig h t o f

th e re st o f

th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted a g a in st B izz e ll.

A. A l t hough t he G overnm entconce des the Mi r anda v io latio n o n a p p e a l, w e w ill addr es s i tbr i efl yher e. “U ndert he pr ophy l act i c rul es announce d i n Mi r anda , a s t a t e m e n tm a d e b y a su sp e c t in re sp o n se to c u sto d ial in ter ro g a tio n a f ter h e o r sh e h a s e lec ted to re m a in sile n t is i nadmi s s i bl e att r i al . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B r ow nl ee , 454 F. 3d 131, 146 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he Mi r anda sa f

e g u a rd s a re trig g e re d w h e n a p e rso n w h o is in c u sto d yis s u b jec ted to in te rr o g a tio n . R h o d e Isla n d v . In n is , 446 U . S. 291, 300- 01 ( 1980) . B eca us e B i zze l l w as u n d er a rrest atthe tim e o f th e q u esti o n ing , h e w as c learlyin “c u stod y ” f o r Mi r anda p u rp o s e s . S ta n sb u ry v . C a lif o rn ia , 51 1 U . S . 31 8, 32 2 (199 4). T he G ov ernm ent al so8

conce des , and the r ecor d s uppor t s , thatno Mi r anda w arni ngs w er e i s s ued pr i ort o t he conver s at i on i n ques t i on. T he onl yques t i on, t hen, i s w hetherO ’ C onnel l ’ s ques t i on w as an “i nt err ogat i on. ” A n int err og at i on i ncludes “anyw ords or act i on s on the partof the po l i ce (other than t ho se n o rm a llya tten d a n t to a rre st a n d c u sto d y ) th a t th e p o lice sh o u ld k n o w a re re a so n a b ly l i kel yt o el i ci tan i ncr i m i nat i ng r es pons e fr om the s us pect . ” In n is , 4 4 6 U .S . a t 3 0 1 . T h o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t O ’C o n n e ll’s q u e stio n re g a rd in g th e g u n w a s m e re ly r e s p o n s i v e t o Bi z z e l l ’ s q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g h i s a r r e s ta n d th u s n o ta n i n t e r r o g a t i o n , we di s agr ee. I n B r ow nl ee w e hel d t hatan off i ceras ki ng “W hyw oul d y ou do s om ethi ng d u m b lik e th is? ” a n d “ W ith a g u n ? ” c o n stitu ted a n in ter ro g a tio n . W e re a so n e d , “It is di ffi cul tt o i m agi ne ques t i ons t hatar e more l i kel yt o evoke a n i ncr i m i nat i ng r es pons e – t hati s , a ‘ s t at ementamount i ng t o admi s s i ons of partoral l of the off ens e’ ” 454 F. 3d at 146- 47 ( quot i ng In n is , 4 4 6 U .S . a t 3 0 1 n .5 ) ( s e le c t in te rn a l p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ). A lth o u g h B izz e ll i n iti a llya sk e d O ’C o n n e ll w h a t h e w a s b e in g a rre ste d f o r, O ’C o n n e ll, aft erans w er i ng t hatques t i on, expr es s l yas ked hi m w hyhe had a gun. T hi s l at t erques t i on w a s re a so n a b lylik e lyto – a n d , in f a c t, did – e licit a n in c rim in a tin g re sp o n se f ro m B izz e ll. A c c o rd in g ly, w e h o ld th a t O ’C o n n e ll’ s q u e s tio n in g w a s a c u s to d ia l in te rr o g a tio n . B e c a u s e B i z z e l l h a d n o tb e e n i s s u e d a n y Mi r anda w a rn in g s, h is s tate m e n ts re g a rd in g h is p o ss e ss io n o f

th e g u n w e re n o t ad m iss ib le a g a in st h im a t trial. T h e D istric t C o u rt, th e re f o re , err e d in d e n y in g B izz e ll’s m o tio n to su p p re ss th e sta tem e n t.9 B. B e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in a d m itt in g in to e v id e n c e a sta tem e n t o b tain e d in vi ol at i on of Mi r anda , w e mustr ever s e unl es s w e ca n s aythatthe admi s s i on of the d e f e n d a n t’ s s ta te m e n t w a s h a rm le s s . B r ow nl ee , 4 5 4 F .3 d a t 1 4 8 . In m a k in g th is det erm i nat i on, w e appl yt he fa m i l i art es ts etfor t h i n C h a p m a n v . C a lif

o rn ia , 386 U . S. 18 (19 6 7 ), fo r asse ssing the h arm lessn ess o f a co n sti tuti o n al error. U n d er C hapm an , the G overnm entm us t“pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe err orcompl ai ned of di d not c o n trib u te to th e v e rd ict o b tain e d .” 3 8 6 U .S . at 2 4 ; B r ow nl ee , 454 F. 3d at148 ( appl y i ng t he harm l es s - bey ond- a- r eas onabl e- doubtt es tt o a Mi r anda v io latio n ). “T h e q u e stio n ‘is notw hether , i n a tr i al t hatoccurr ed w i t houtthe err or , a gui l t yver di ctw oul d s ur el yhave b e e n re n d e re d , b u t w h e th e r th e g u iltyv e rd ict a c tu a llyre n d e re d in th is tria l w a s s u re ly unat t r i but abl e t o t he err or . ’ ” G o v ’t o f V .I. v. D a v is , 561 F. 3d 159, 165 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. Kor ey , 4 7 2 F . 3 d 8 9 , 9 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 )). In th is case , w e c an n o t con clud e tha t th e e rron eo u s ad m issi o n o f B izze ll ’s s t at ementw as harm l es s . T he ana l y s i s her e cl os el ytr acks ouropi ni on i n B r ow nl ee , 454 F. 3d 131. I n B r ow nl ee , t he def endantw as i ndi ct ed forhi s al l eged i nvol vementi n a car j acki ng. H i s defe ns e att r i al w as m i s t aken i dent i t y . T he G overnm ent ’ s pr i nci pal evidence ag ai nstt he d efen dan tw as the tes t i m on yof f ou r ey ew i t nesses, w ho se i dent i fi cat i on w as bol s t er ed bys t at ement s m ade bythe def endantpr i ort o r ece i vi ng Mi r anda w arni ngs . O urhol di ng t hatthe err ori n admi t t i ng the s t at ement s w as not10

harm l es s tur ned on tw o pr i nci pl es : fi r s t , thatthe s t at ement s w entt o t he hea r tof the governm ent ’ s evi dence agai ns tt he def endant ; and s econd, thatthe governm ent ’ s r el i ance o n t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s b e l i e d a n y a r g u m e n tth a tth e i ra d m i s s i o n d i d n o ti n f l u e n c e th e j u r y. H e re , B izz e ll’s sta tem e n t th a t h e a lw a y s c a rrie d a g u n w e n t d ire c tlyto th e o n ly iss u e in d isp u te a t trial – w h e th e r B izz e ll w a s in p o ss e ss io n o f a g u n – a n d se rio u sly underm i ned B i zze l l ’ s defe ns e. T he G overnm entat t empt s t o avoi d t hi s obs ervat i on by ar gui ng t hatt he s t at ementw as a “mi norfac t or ” i n the ca s e and thatthe ver di ct“di d not r es tupon” i t s admi s s i on. T hi s anal y s i s does nots at i s fythe s t r i cts t andar d s etby C hapm an . C hapm an r equi r es us t o concl ude thatther e i s no “r eas onabl e p o ss ib ili ty t hat t he evi dence compl ai ned of m ighthave c ontr i but ed t o t he convi ct i on. ” C hapm an , 386 U .S . at 2 4 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). If th e e rro n e o u slya d m itt e d sta tem e n t w a s a f a c to r, alb e it even a m i no r one, i n the j ury ’s verdi ct , then the err or w as not harm l ess and w e m ust r ever s e. A d d it ion all y , the G o v ern m en t’ s reli an ce o n B izze ll ’s st atem en t i n it s jury s um m at i on and r ebut t al i s a s t r ong i ndi cat orthatthe G overnm enti nt ended the j uryt o gi ve w ei ghtt o t he s t at ement . A s w e not ed i n B r ow nl ee , “[ I]t is d if f icu lt fo r th e G o v e rn m e n t to ar gue w i t h eff

ectt hatt he admi s s i on of the conf es s i on di d notcontr i but e t o [the defe ndant ’ s ] convi ct i on w hen i ts ubm i t t ed j us tthe oppos i t e vi ew t o t he j urydur i ng the t r i al . ” 454 F. 3d at148.11

I n ar gui ng t hati thas s at i s fi ed i t s bur den, the G overnm entr el i es on U ni t ed Stat es v. Sh ab azz , 564 F. 3d 280 ( 3d C i r . 2009) , butthatcas e i s r eadi l ydi s t i ngui s habl e. I n Sh ab azz , w e hel d t hata r obberydefe ndant ’ s pr e- Mi r anda st at em ent that he had “plentym ore” cash t han the amountfound i n hi s w al l etw as harm l es s i n l i ghtof the overw hel m i ng amount of evi dence pr es ent ed aga i ns thi m att r i al , i ncl udi ng s ur vei l l ance vi deo foot age a nd the te s tim o n yo f

s e v e ra l o f

th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ a c c o m p lic e s . I d. at286. U nl i ke i n Sh ab azz , there w a s n o f o re n s ic e v id e n c e o r c iv ilia n th ir d -p a rt yte s tim o n ya d m itte d a g a in s t B iz z e ll. R ather , t he G overnm ent ’ s cas e l ar gel yhi nged on the off i cer s ’ cr edi bi l i t y , w hi ch the d e f e n s e a r g u e d w a s u n d e r m i n e d b y v a r i o u s i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n th e o f f i c e r s ’ t e s t i m o n y. Per haps m or e i m por t ant l y , t he s t at ementi n Sh ab azz w as m er el yevi dence fr om w h ich a jurym igh t i n fe r th e d ef en d an t’ s p arti cipa ti o n in crim inal ac ti v ity . H ere , B izze ll ’s sta tem e n t th a t h e a lw a y s c a rrie d a g u n w a s ta n tam o u n t to a c o n f e ss io n w h e re th e o n ly i s s ue att r i al w as B i zze l l ’ s pos s es s i on of a gun. T hus , i n di s t i ngui s hi ng Sh ab azz , w e a re cogni zantof the Supr eme C our t ’ s admoni t i on that“[a ] confe s s i on i s l i ke no other evi dence . ” Fu lm in a n te , 4 9 9 U . S . at 29 6 . A s the C o u rtex p lai n ed , “[ T ]he d ef en d an t’ s ow n confe s s i on i s pr obabl yt he mostpr obat i ve and da m agi ng evi dence thatcan be admi t t ed aga i ns thi m . ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “C ert ai nl y , confe s s i ons h a v e a p ro f

o u n d im p a c t o n th e ju ry , so m u c h so th a t w e m a yju stif iab lyd o u b t it s a b ili tyto pu tt hem ou tof m i nd even i f t old t o d o so”; accordi ng l y , a revi ew i ng cou rtm ust“exerci se extr eme caut i on befor e det erm i ni ng t hatthe admi s s i on of the conf es s i on attr i al w as12

harm l es s . ” I

d. (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ); s ee al s o B r ow nl ee , 454 F. 3d at148 ( r ej ect i ng t he governm ent ’ s harm l es s err orar gum entand r efe r r i ng t o Fu lm in a n te ). W e c an n o t con clud e f

rom this reco rd th at th e a d m issi o n w as h arm less. B izze ll ’s s t at ementt hathe al w ay s carr i ed a gun w as a hi ghl yi nfl uent i al pi ece of evi dence that s poke di r ect l yt o t he cor e i s s ue i n t he G overnm ent ’ s cas e. Sur el yaw ar e of i t s pow er , t he G overnm entr ei t er at ed the s t at ementt o t he j uryi n i t s s um m at i on and r ebut t al . T he G o v ern m en t has thu s fa il ed to m ee t i ts bu rde n o f d em o n str ati n g that the D istri ct C o u rt ’s e rro r in a d m itt in g th e sta tem e n t d id n o t co n trib u te to th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict. I V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the convi ct i on and s ent ence , r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng t he mot i on t o s uppr es s the s t at ement , and r emand for pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.