## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

____________ N o. 07

- 2780 U NI T ED S T A T E SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M ARS HALL L. B LAN CH ARD , D ef endant-Appellant.

____________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 05 C R 20015

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Chief Judge.

____________ A RG UE D A PRI L 3, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 8, 2008

____________
Befo re F LA UM, M A NI ON, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. M arh sall B lanch ard was t r i ed an d convi cted o fo ne co unt ofm anufa cturing m etham phetam in e, in viol ation of 21 U

. S. C
. §§ 841(a)(1) , 841(b)(1) (C), and one co unt ofunl aw ful possess ion ofa fi re ar m bya c o n v i c t e d fe l o n, i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 )
. He chal l enges bo th co nvi cti ons on a var i etyo fgr ou nd s, i ncl ud i ng the deni alo fh is p re tr i alm oti ons f ora bi l l o f pa r t i c ul a r s a nd s e v e r a nc e , the a l l e g e d c o ns t r uc t i v e a men d-2 N o. 07

- 2780

Bec aus e the D efendan t, M ar s hal l Bl anc har d, an d hi s s on, 1 M ar s hal l Bl anch ard J r. , s har e the s am e nam e ( apa rtfro m the “J r. ” desi gnation) , f or the s ake ofcl ari ty, w e her ei nafterrefer to t h e D efe n d a n t a s “ B la n ch a rd ” an d to h is so n as “M a rs h a ll Jr .” m ent o fthe i nd i ctm ent, the suffi cien c y o fthe evi dence, and the intro du cti on a t t ri alo fcer tain com m ents, ori gi na l l y made ata p retr i als uppr es si o n h ea r i ng, b y the di st r i ctc o ur t j udg e. Bl an ch ar d a l so c ha l l en g es hi s se nte n c e, co n t en d in g t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr on eo u sly ap p li ed c ertain en ha nc em en ts in calcu lating the ad visory g ui del i ne s r an g e. F o r the r ea so ns s etf o r th i n th i s o pi ni o n, w e vaca te B lanch ard ’s conv iction s a nd rem an d f or a n ew tria l.

I . B a c kg r o und The Defe nd ant, M ar shal l B l anchard, o w ned tw o hom es, one i n Rober ts, I l l i noi s, and the other i n Paxton, I l l i noi s. The two towns ar e r oughl y 1 5 m i l es aparti n eas t- centr al I l l i n ois
. Bl anchard ac quir ed and m ove d i nto the Ro ber ts ho m e no l at ertha n s o m et i m e dur i ngthe y ear 2 00 1, the sam e y eari n w hi ch he s epara ted fro m hi s e x-wife. W i th the exceptio n ofa seve n-m onth per i od duri ng 20 03, Bl an ch ar d’ s so n, M ar sh al l J r . , l i ve d wi thhi m a t th e 1 Rober ts re si dence. In the f al l o f20 01, M ar shal l J r. r em ove d s e v e r a l fi r e a r ms

— f o urr i fl es a nd t wo s ho tguns

— fro m an encl ose d porch are a ofthe Rober ts re si dence and del i ver ed th e m t o a f a mi l y fr i e n d ’ s p l a c e o fb u s i n e s s f o r s t o r a g e . He l at err etur ne d the s ame fi r ea r m s to the po r cha r ea o fthe R oberts residen ce, but m ore on th at later.N o. 07

- 2780 3 Aft ermovingo uto fthe Rob erts r es i den ce i n F eb r uar y 2 003, M ar shal l J r. r etur ned som eti m e in A ugust 2 003. At tha t ti m e, he was t wenty y ea r s o l d a nd s tu dying cri m i nal j usti ce a t a l oca l co lleg e. Duri ng the sum m ero f 20 04, M ar sh al l J r . b egan u singthe po r cha r ea o fthe Rober ts resi dence as hi s be droo m . In or der t o enj oy e xc l us i v e a c c e s s t o his bed r o o m, Mar s ha l l J r . i ns t a l l e d a l ocko n the doorl eadi ng to the porch ar ea fro m the inter i or ofthe house and kept the onl y k ey f orhi m sel f

. In Octobe r o r Nov embe r o f2 00 4, M ar sh al l J r . r et r i ev ed th e afo r ementi oned fire arm s fro m the f am i l y fri end’s pla ce o fbusi ness an d r etur ned them to the porch ar ea at the Ro ber ts re siden ce . Tho se fi r ea r m s r emai ne d i n the po r cha r ea o fthe Rober ts re si dence thr oughout the r em ai nd ero f20 04. M e a nwh i l e , du r i ng the l a t e s ummer a nd f a l l o f20 04, M ar shal l J r. beg an to not i ce pecul i arphysi caland behavi or al changes i n hi s f ather

. H e noti ced that Blanchar d l ost consi derabl e wei ght, had b l em i shes and s or es on hi s f ace, d id n otsl e e p m u c h, an d se em ed u n u su ally ag ita te d . In a d d i t i o n, B l a n c h a r d r e g u l a r l y e n t e r t a i n e d v i s i t o r s , s o me of w h om M a r s h a l l Jr. d id n otkn ow ; ho w ev er , he d id kn ow th e m os t fre q u en t v isit or , C yn th ia B lan d in g. B l a n d i n ga n d B l a nc ha r d me ti n mi d

- O c t o b e r 2 0 0 4
. At that ti m e, Bl and in g w as i n the proce ss ofm oving o ut o f he r ho m e, fr o m whi chs he ha d b ee n e vi ct ed. Bl an di nga nd B lanch ard b e cam e rom an ticall y i nv olved , and Blan ch ard offer ed to l et Blandi ng st ay a t th e ho use in Paxton, wh i ch she di d on oc casi on. S he al so sta yed ov er ni ght with Blanchar d on se ver alo ccasi ons at the Ro ber ts re si dence. O ne da y i n th e last w eek of D ecem ber 2004 , M arsh allJ r. wa s h o me a l o ne at the Rob e r t s r e s i de nc e . He n o t i c e d a4 N o. 07

- 2780 str ong, am m oni a- type sm ellco m i ng fro m the si nk; upon i n s p e c t i on , he ob se rv ed a st ra in er an d so m e g las s jars in the s i nk. The f ol l owing day, he a rr i ved hom e e ar l y fro m w ork and discov ered tw o p lastic bot tles cont aining an “off

w hi te cry sta l ” s ubstance

. H e o pened one o fthe bot tl es an d enc ou nt ered a strong am m onia-typ e od or. M arsh allJ r. r e c a l l e d i n f o r ma t i o n th a th e h a d l e a r n e d ab o u tme th a mphetam i ne i n hi s cr i m i nal j usti ce s tu d ies; atthi s point, p ut ting th e off-w hite su bsta nc e togeth er w ith his father’s re cent physi caland behavi or alchange s, h e suspected th at th e sub stan ce w as m eth am p he tam ine. M arsh allJ r. photog ra phed the bot tl es w i th his dig i talcam er a a nd to ok a s poon- si zed sa m p le ofthe off

- w hi te substa nce; he then wentt o s ee hi s m o th er, Lo r i Bl an ch ar d. Af te r di sc us sing his su sp ici ons and conc erns w ith he r, M arsh allJ r. l eft Lori w i th the sa m ple o fthe off

- w hi te substa nce and a d isk conta i ni ng the photo s fro m hi s di gi talcam er a. Lor i then co nt ac te d the Ro be r ts c hi ef o f po l i ce , Ra ndy Ki nz i ng er, a nd del i ver ed thes e i tem s t o hi m . The o ff

- w hi te substa nce te st ed po si ti ve f o r e phe dr i ne , a c o m m o nl y us ed i ng r edi en t i n the m anufa cture o fm etham phetam i ne. Shor tl y there after, o n Decem ber 3 0, 20 04, l aw enf or cem en t o ffi ce r s ex ecu ted s ea r chwar r an ts a t bo ththe R oberts a nd P ax ton res iden ces. A t b oth res iden ces, offi cers se i z e d i t e ms tha t, a l tho ugh i nn o c uo us wh e n v i ew ed i nd i vi du al l y a nd i n i sol ati on, m i ght no nethel ess be us ed, as a g r o up, f o r meth amphet ami ne manufactur i ng . At the Paxton r esi dence, f orexam ple , o ffi cer s sei zed cam p fuel conta i ners, a s ulfuri c ac i d container, fi l ter s, sa l t, a gas m as k, an d p se u d oe p h ed rin e p ac ka gin g; cle an in g off icia ls l ate r encounter ed hazar dous subst ances, i nclu ding anhy-N o. 07

- 2780 5 drous am m oni a, atthatr es idence. A nd atthe Rober ts r e s i d e n c e , o ffi c e r s s e i z e d , a mo n go th e r th i n g s , n u mer o us co ffee fi l te r s, a n a nhy dr o us a m m o ni a ta nk, an d a pr o pan e tank. A nd noto nl y was the re “s m oke ,” b u t al so “fi re ”; o ffi ce r s se i ze d 9

. 8 g r ams o fa s ubs ta nc e co nt aining metham phetam i ne fro m the Paxton r esid en c e and 69 g ra m s o f a su bs ta nc e co nt aini ngmeth am p he ta m i ne fr o m the Rober ts re si dence. In additi on, atthe Rober ts re si dence, o ffi ce r s se i ze d . 01 g r ams o fmeth amphet ami ne fr om the ni ghtst and i n Bla nchard’ s be droo m and . 10 gram s o f me th a mph e t a mi n e fr o m a p l a s t i c pl a t e b e n e a th h i s b e d

. At th e Ro be rts re si den ce , o ffi ce r s al so s ei ze d f o urr i fl es a nd tw o shot guns fro m the af or em enti oned encl ose d p or ch ar ea , an d th ey se ize d a .32 -c ali b e r r e vo lve r an d am m u n it i o n fr o m u n d e r n e a th th e m a t t r e s s inB l a n c h a r d ’ s b e d r o o m. On A pri l 8, 20 05, Bl anchard was c h ar ged i n a federa l i n d i c t me n t wi th o n e c o u n t o f ma n u f a c t u r i n gme t ha mp he tam ine, in viol atio n o f 21 U

. S. C
. §§ 841(a)(1) , 84 1(b) ( 1) ( C) ( Cou ntOne ) , a nd o ne c o unto funl awful po ss es sion ofa fi re ar m bya convi cted fel on, i n vi ol ati on of18 U
. S. C. § 922( g) (Count T w o)
. T he indi ctm ent a l l ege d that both offenses o ccurr ed “ on or about Decem ber30 , 2004
. ” Bl an ch ar d’ s tr i alb eg an on M ar ch2 7, 2 00 6. At t r i al, the gov er nm ent pr ese nted the evidence sei zed fro m bo th resid ences, as wellas exper t t est i m ony opi ni ng tha t a “m eth l ab” ex ist ed atthe Paxton r esi dence and that ma t e r i a l s c o n s i s t e ntwi th th e ma n u f a c t u r e o fme th a mp h e t a m in e w er e fo u n d atth e R ob er ts res id en c e. M ar sh all J r. te stified r ega rdi ng hi s obser vati ons i n l ate 20 04 that6 N o. 07

- 2780 l ed hi m to suspectthathi s f atherw as usi ng m etham phetam i ne. H e al so tes ti fi ed re gar ding the fi re ar m s sei zed fr o m the po r cha r ea of the Rob er ts r es i den ce ; he e xp lai ne d that allbu t one of the gu ns belonged to his father, that hi s fa th er co ntro l l ed and dir ecte d both the 20 01 re m ova l and the 2004 r etr i eval/r etur n oftho se fi re ar m s, and that he st opped using the porch a re a o fthe Rober ts re si dence as hi s be droo m i n Se ptem bero r October20 04, al l owing hi s f ath er unfe tte re d acces s t o the por ch ar ea th r o ug ho utthe r emai nde r o fthe ye ar . Bl an di ng, t es ti fy i ng on be hal fo fthe gov er nm ent purs uant to an i m m unity agr eem ent, te sti fi ed that Blanchar d al l ow ed herto use th e Pax ton r esid en ce for m eth am p he tam ine m an ufac tu ri n g, a n d th a t i n e x c h a n g e , s h e s u p p l i e d h i m w i th me th a mp he tam ine . I n ad d iti on, she test ified th at B lanch ard so m et i m es s uppl ied m at er i al s an d a ss i st ed i n the manuf ac tu r i n gp r o c e s s . S h e fu r th e r t e s t i fi e d th a to n o r ab o ut Chr i st m as Ev e 20 04, s he and Bl an ch ar d c o m pl et ed th e m anuf ac tu r e o fa qua nt i tyo fmeth amphet ami ne a t th e R oberts residen ce. Fin a lly, she tes tified th at B lanch ard had sh ow n hera hand gun thathe k ept be neath the m attr es s in h is b ed ro om atth e R ob er ts res id en c e. T he tri al conclu d ed on M arch 31, 2006 , w ith th e j ury fi nd ing B lanch ard gu il ty on bo th cou nt s. T he district cou rt rej ecte d Blanchar d’s post- ver dictm oti on f orj ud gm ent o f acqui tta l, char acte ri zing the e vi dence i n supp or t o f both counts as “ov er w hel m i ng. ” Th e co urt sente nced Bl an ch ar d t o 1 50 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t o n Co untOne and 120 m on th s’ im pri sonm ent o n Count Tw o, to be ser ved co ncurr entl y. In additi on, the cour t s entence d Blanchar d to thre e y ear s o fsup er vi sed r el eas e a nd a $100N o. 07

- 2780 7 sp ec ial a ss es sm en t. B lan c h ar d t i m ely filed th is a p p ea l, chal l engi ng bo th hi s co nvi cti ons and his se ntence.

I I . Discussi on On app eal, Bl anchard chal l en ges bo th co nvi cti ons on a v ar iet y of g ro u n d s, in c l u d i n g (1 ) th e d en ial of h is pretr i alm oti ons f ora bi l l o fpart i cul ar s a n d a se ver ance; ( 2) an a l l ege d fa talvarian ce b etween the date s peci fi ed inth e in d ict m en t a n d th e e vid en c e p re se n te d attria l, re sul ti ng i n const ructi ve am endm ent o fthe ind i ctm ent; ( 3) cer tain sta tem ents m ade bythe tr i alj ud ge at a pre tr i al supp r e s s i o n he a r i ng a nd s ub s e qu e nt l y i nt r o du c e d a t tr i al ; and (4) th e s uffi ci ency ofthe evi dence. W e a dd re ss th es e a rg u m en ts i n t u rn be low . B lan c h ar d als o c h all enges hi s s entence , but i n l i gh t ofo ur co ncl usi on with re ga rd to h is c on vi c t i o n s , w e n ee d n otad d re ss th at ch all enge.

A . Pr et r i al M ot i ons f orBi l l of

Part i cular s and Sever ance B efore tri al, Blan ch ard m oved f or a bil l of particu lars pur su an tt o F e d e r a l R u l e o fC r i mi n a l P r o c e d u r e 7 ( f )
. T he i ndi ct m en t al l eg ed th atB la nc ha r d c o m m i tt ed bo ththe m etham phetam i ne m anufa cturing o ffense and the fi re ar m s o ffen se “ o n o r abo utDe ce m be r 3 0, 2 004, i n the Cen tr alDis tr i ctofI l l i no i s. ” I n m o vingf o r a bi l l o fpa r ti cul ar s, Bl an ch ar d s o ug htmor e spe ci fi c i nf o r m at i o n c o ncer ni ng th e ti m e a nd pl ace ofthe al l ege d offenses , as w ell a s th e id en tit y of t h e fire ar m (or fire ar m s) a lleg ed in8 N o. 07

- 2780 Cou ntTw o . The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed th atmot i o n, fi ndi ng th at “t h e ch ar ge s are n ot c om p lex , th e ind ict m en t is suffi ci entl y c lea r, and Defe nd ant has bee n prov i ded with disc ove ryr ega rdi ng the char ges . ” Bl anchard now appeal s, conte nd i ng that the denia l o fthi s m oti on depri ved hi m o f ana dequ ate oppo r tu ni tyt o pr epa r e f o r a nd mee t th e go ve rn m en t’s ev id en c e a t t ria l. W e r evi ew the tr i alcou rt ’s di scr eti onary deci si on t o deny a m oti on f ora bi l l o f p arti cul ar s defer enti al l y, re ve rs in g on ly u p on an ab u se of t h at d isc re tio n . U nited St at e s v. Fa s s nac ht, 332 F.3d 44 0, 44 6 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); see also U nited Sta tes v. Herna nd ez , 330 F.3d 964 , 975 (7th C ir. 2003). W e wil l r eve rs e o nl y upon a showing of a c tu al prej ud i ce to th e d efe n d an t. Herna nd ez , 33 0 F
. 3d at 975. Ourb i l l

- o f

- par ti cu la r s an aly si s i s si m i l art o o urc o nsti tuti onalsuffi ci ency- of

- the- i nd i ctm ent an alys i s; in both case s, the ke y qu est i on i s whether the defendant w as suffi cien tl y a pp ri sed o fthe charg es aga i nst hi m i n or der to en ab le a d eq u at e t ria l p re p ar at ion
. Se eFa s s nac ht, 33 2 F.3 d at44 6; see also Herna nd ez , 3 30 F.3d at97 5 (“ [A ] bill o fp a r t i c ul a r s [ i s ] u nn e c e s s a r y wh e r e the i nd i c t men ts e ts f or th the el em ents of the charg ed offenses an d p ro vides su ffi ci en t no ti ce ofthe c ha r g es t o e nabl e th e defen dan t to pr epa r e hi s defen se . ”)
. Infor m at i o n r el ev an t to the prepar ati on of a defe nse i ncl ud es the el em ents of each ch arged offen se, th e tim e and pl a c e of the accu sed ’s al l ege dlycr i m i nal co nd uct, and a c i tat i on t o the s tatute o r st at u te s v iola te d

. Se eFa s s nac ht, 3 32 F
. 3d at4 46
. W he r e th e ind ictm en t fai ls t o p rovide the full p an op ly of such i nform ation, a bi llof p articu la r s i s non eth eless un ne cess aryN o. 07

- 2780 9 i fthe i nfo rm ati on “ i s a va il abl e thro ugh ‘ som e o ther sat i sf acto ryf or m , ’ such a s di sco ver y. ” Herna nd ez , 33 0 F
. 3d at 975 ( quoti ng U ni t e d S ta tes v. Cani no , 94 9 F
. 2d 928, 94 9 (7th C ir. 1992)). Because Bl anchard had am ple acc ess to the i nfo rm ati on necess ar y t o prepar e hi s defense, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts disc re ti on her e. A l though the i nd ict m ent was so m ewha t spa r se , Bl an ch ar d w as the b en efi ci ar y o fe xt en si ve pretr i al disc ove ry . For exam ple , he re cei ved law e n f o r c e me n tr e p o r t s c o n c e r n i n gth e s e a r c h e s o fh i s t wo r e s i de nc e s , the c o rr espo nd i ngs e a r c h wa r r a nt s a nd s up port i ng docum ents, and a r epor t o fhi s sta tem ents to law en for c em en t o ffice rs . G ive n kn o w l ed ge of th e e viden ce s ei ze d fr o m b o thr es i d en ces and the t er m s o fthe i ndi ct m en t, Bl an ch ar d was undo ubt edl y a war e th atthe gov er nm ent m i ght seek t o prove thathe m anfuctured m etham phe ta m ine atei therr esi dence and that he posse ss ed firea rm s a t t h e Ro b er ts re sid en c e ona d at e a p p ro x im atin g th e “ on o r about” date al l ege d i n the i nd i ctm ent. This w as m or e than suffi ci ent t o enabl e Bl anchard t o p r ep ar e fo r tr ial. Se eFa s s nac ht, 3 32 F
. 3d at4 46 ( no ting th at“ th e defend an t’ s co ns ti tu ti o na l r i g hti s to kno w the offe n se w ith w h ich h e is ch ar g e d , n otto kn ow th e d et ails ofhow i t wil l be prove d” ( quoting U nite d State s v. Kendall, 6 6 5 F
. 2 d 1 2 6 , 1 3 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 1 ) ) )
. T he r e f o r e , the di str i ct cou rt did not ab us e i t s d iscretion in de ny ing B lanch ard ’s m oti on f ora bi l l o fpart i cul ar s. B e f o r e t r i a l, B l a n c h a r d a l s o mo v e d t o s e v e r C o u n t s One and Tw o f orse parat e t ri al s pursuant to Feder alRule s o f Cr i m i na l Pr o ce dur e 8( a) a nd 14

. He n o w appe al s th e10 N o. 07

- 2780 di st r i ctc o ur t’ s den i alo ftha t m o tion, ar g ui ngtha t th e j oi nd er of the drug and fi re ar m s offenses w as im p ro per an d un d uly p r ej ud iced him at tri al. A lthou gh Blan ch ard w ai ved the Rule 14 seve ra nce as pect o ft h is m oti on by f a i l in g t o re n ew it atth e c los e o f th e e vid en c e, s e eU nited Sta tes v. R o ss , 5 10 F
. 3d 702 , 7 11 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( ex p lain in g t h at a R u le 1 4 m o t i o n for s ev er an c e is w aiv ed if n otren ew ed at t h e c los e o f th e e vid en c e), th e R u le 8 m i sj oi nd eras pect o fthe m oti on, t h ou gh al so not re new ed, was proper l y pr ese rv ed . S e ei d. at71 0 n. 1 ( “A defe nd ant need not re new a Rule 8 m oti on at the c lose of the evid en ce to p reserve th e argu m en t for ap p eal. ”). W e r evi ew Bla nchard’ s m i sj oi nd ercl ai m de nov o, f o cus i ngo n the f ac e o fthe i nd ictm en t r athe r tha n the ev id en c e a d d u c ed attria l. Id. at71 0; s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Lan as , 32 4 F
. 3d 894, 89 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. Fe d eralRule o f Cri m i na l Pro cedure 8( a) per m i ts j oi nd ero fo ffenses w h er e t h ey a r e (1 ) “o f th e s am e o r sim ilar ch ar ac te r,” (2) “ b as ed on th e s am e a c t o r t r an sa c tio n,” or (3) “c on st itu te p ar ts of a c om m on s c h em e or p lan .” W e c on st ru e t h is rul e br oadl y i n the i nter esto fco nser vi ng j ud i ci alr eso urces an d av oid in g c os tly , d u p lica tiv e t ria ls. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Nettles , 47 6 F
. 3d 508, 51 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07); U nited St at e s v. Roll i ns , 30 1 F
. 3d 511, 51 8 n. 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. Even w he re m i sj o i nde r o cc ur s, we wi l l no t r ev er se unl es s th e defe nd ant ca n show actu alprej ud i ce

— i
. e. , thatthe er ro r “h ad substa nti al and inj uri ous effect or i nfl uence in det erm i ni ng the j ury’ s v er dict

. ” R o ss , 51 0 F
. 3d at 710- 11 ( ci ti ng U ni t e d St at e s v. La ne, 474 U .S. 43 8, 44 9 (1 98 6)); see also U nited S ta tes v. H ubb a rd, 61 F.3d 12 61, 1271 (7th C ir. 1995).N o. 07

- 2780 11 T h e firs t o b st ac le t o B lan c h ar d ’s m isjoin d er arg u m en t is ou r p re su m p tio n th at, bec au se of th e c los e re lat i on sh ip between drug t ra ffi cki ng and fi re ar m s o ffenses , j oi nd ero f such offenses i s o rdi nari l y pr op er . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sto k es , 2 1 1 F
. 3 d 1 0 3 9 , 1 0 4 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 )
. T h i s p r e s umpt i o n a r i s e s fr o m the “ na t ur a l i nfe r e nc e s tha t may be dr awn fr o m the c o nt empor an eo us po ss es si o n o fg uns and drugs or drug p ar aphernel i a: the fi re ar m i s a n i nd i cati o n o f dr ug ac ti vi ty, an d par ti ci pat i o n i n dr ugt r affi ck i ng supp l i es a m oti ve f orhaving the gun. ” Id. ( quoti ng H ubba rd, 61 F
. 3d at1 27 0)
. Al th o ug h tha t pr es um pti o n mi g ht be o ver com e by, f orexam ple , a si gni fi cant t em pora l d isc on n ec t b et w ee n th e a lleg ed offe n se s, see H ubb a rd, 61 F
. 3 d a t1 2 7 1 ( c o nc l ud i ngtha tfi r e a r ms a nd n a rco ti cs c h ar ge s w er e m isjoin ed w h er e n ea rly a y e a r an d a h alf tr anspi re d b etween the tw o offenses ) , ther e w as n o s u ch d i s c o n n e c th e r e ; th e i n d i c t me n ta l l e g e d t ha tth e me th a mphetam i ne m anufa cturing and fi re ar m s o ffenses o ccurr ed at approxi m ate ly the s am e t i m e, and evi dence ofbo th offe n s e s w as rec ov er ed from th e R ob er ts res id en c e. See Sto k es , 211 F.3d at10 42 ; U ni t e d S t ates v . Wi ndom , 19 F. 3d 1190 , 1197 (7th Cir. 1994) (ex p la in in g tha t “j oind er of a w eapons offense w i th drug charg es i s pro per u n d er R ule 8(a), esp eciall y w he n th e w eap ons a n d d rugs are foun d i n th e sam e s earch ”). Th erefore, the d istri ct cou rt did noter r i n j oi ni ng the se offe nses f ortr i alunder R ule 8(a). M o r eo ve r, eveni fthe o ffen se s ha d b ee n mi sj o i ne d, the er ro r w oul d be har m l ess bec ause Blanchar d c an not show p rej u d ice
. Se e, e . g. , R o ss , 510 F.3d a t 7 10 -11 ; H ubb a rd, 61 F. 3d at 1272
. Bl anchard poi nts o ut that, abs ent j oi nd ero f12 N o. 07

- 2780 the tw o counts, the drug offense coul d have be en tr i ed w ithout i nf o r m i ngthe j ur y tha t he was a c o nv i ct ed fel o n. C onc ed ing this p oint, w e are not con vince d th at th e j ury’s k no wl e dg e o fBl a nc ha r d’ s p r i o r fe l o nyc o nv i c t i o n ha d a “s u b st an tia l an d inj u riou s effec t or in flu en c e” o n th eir d elib er at ion s. R o ss , 510 F.3d at71 1. A s w e e x p lain in fu rt h er d et ail b elo w , th e e vid en c e o fB lan c h ar d ’s g u ilt on bo th co unts was consi derabl e, m i tig at i ng anyr i sk that the j ury’ s deci si on was i nfl uenced by knowle dge that Blanchar d had p re vi ousl y c om m i tte d a fel ony. Se e id

. F ur th er m o r e, the j ur y was pr o per l y i ns truct ed to co nsi der e ach co un t an d the co rr espondi ng ev i dence se para tel y, n o ta l l o wi ngthe i r de c i s i o n o n o ne c o un tt o c o l or th e i r d e c i s i o n o n th e o th e r . T h e r e i s n o r e a s o n t o p r e s u me th at th ey d id n otad h er e t o th e s e ins tr u c tio n s. Id; see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Col e m an , 2 2 F
. 3d 126, 13 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( ex pl aini ngtha t wher e th e “j ur y [ is ] i ns truct ed to c o nsid er ea c h co u n t a n d th e r e l a t in g e vid en c e s ep ar at ely

. . . th er e [ i s] no r ea so n t o s uppo se tha t i t woul d di sregard th is m an d ate” ( citation om itted ))
. T o re c ap , t h e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otab u se its d isc re tio n in denyi ng Bl anchard’ s m oti on f ora b illo fpart i cul ar s, becaus e B l anchard was pro perl y a pp ri sed o fthe charg es aga i nst hi m and was the benefi ci ar y of extensi ve p re tr i al disc ove rythatfi l l ed i n any gaps in the som ew hat- spa rse i nd i ctm ent; thu s, h e was notdeni ed the opportunity t o adequatel y pr epare f ortr i al

. In add i ti on, Bl anchard has d e mo n s t r a t e d n e i th e r mi sj o i n d e r o ft h e dru ga n d fi r e a r ms c ou n ts n o r p rej u d ice . A c c or d in gly , th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id not err in j oining C ou nt s O ne a nd T w o fortri al. Blan ch ard w ai ved the Rule 14 aspect ofh is m oti on byf ai l i ng toN o. 07

- 2780 13

re new i t a t the cl ose o fthe evi dence, but ev en if i t had n ot b ee n w aiv ed , h is in ab ility to sh ow p rej u d i c e w o u ld d oo m th is c laim as w ell.

B . C o ns t ruc t i v e Ame ndme nto fI ndi c t me nt Blanchar d next ar gues that ther e was a f atalvar i ance be twe en th e dat e al l eg ed i n th e indi ct m en t

— o n o r abo ut De c e mbe r 3 0 , 2 0 04

— and the e vi dence pres ented attr i al re gar ding the date ( ordates ) o n w hi ch he m anufa cture d m etha m phe ta m i ne , the r eb y c o ns truct i ve l y a m en di ngthe i nd i ctm ent i n vi ol ati on of the Fi fth A m en dm ent. B lanch ard ’s argum en t focuse s p rim aril y on B land ing’s tes t i mon y . Att r i a l, s he t e s t i fi e d tha ts he ma nu f a c t ured m etha m phe ta m i ne w ith Bl an ch ar d o n s ev er alo cc as i o ns i n N ove m berand Decem ber20 04, and that the l asto ccasio n w a s o n “C h ris tm as E ve or rig h t b efo re C h ris tm as .” H owever, o n cr oss - exam i nati on, Bl anding conceded that she c oul d b e no m or e speci fi c tha n “o n orbefor e Chri stm as Eve, ” a cknowle dgi ng tha t herm em or y was i m pai re d b ec au se sh e w as u sin g m et h am p h et am in e re gu lar ly in l a t e 2 0 0 4
. In a ddi t i o n, a g o v e r nme nte xp e r tc o nc eded on cr os s-e x am in at ion th at h e co u ld n otd efin itiv ely sta te w hen the “m eth l ab” at the Paxt on r esid en ce was cre ate d, an d that i t m i ght ha ve been cre ate d as m any a s si x months e ar l i er . Thu s, Bl anch ard a r g ue s, the g o ve r nme n t ’ s e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n gme th a mph e t a mi n e ma nuf actur i ng is too tem pora l l y ind efi ni te

— spanning a per i od o fup to s i x months

— to s us ta i n a c o nv i cti o n c o ns i st en t w i th the “o n orabo ut” date al l ege d i n the i nd i ctm ent. C ons t ruc tive am en d m en t of an i nd ictm en t occu rs w here the perm i ssibl e bases forconvi cti on a re br oadened14 N o. 07

- 2780 b ey on d th os e p re se n te d to th e g ra n d j u ry . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fol ks , 2 36 F
. 3d 38 4, 39 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. “ To a vo i d r unning afo ulo fthe F i fthAm en dm en t, the a l l eg at i o ns i n the i nd i ctm ent a nd the proo fattr i alm u st m atch in or der ‘ to i nsure that the defe nd ant i s not subj ect to a s eco nd pro secuti on, and to gi ve the defe nd ant r eas onabl e no ti ce s o that he m ay prepar e a defense. ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. M cK inn ey, 954 F.2d 471 , 480 (7th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ))
. H ow ever, w here an in d ict m ent a l l ege s that a n offense occur re d “on orabo ut” a cer tain date, “th e defendant i s deem ed to be on not i ce that the char ge i s no t l i m i ted to a speci fi c date” and “cannot m ake the re q u isite s how i ng o fprej ud i ce base d si m plyo n the f act that the g ove rnm ent has f ai l ed t o p r o v e a s pe c i fi c da t e . ” Id. at39 1 ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. Lei bow itz , 85 7 F
. 2d 373, 379 (7th Cir

. 19 88) )
. A ccor dingl y, wher e th e “ o n o r abo ut ” l an g ua g e i s us ed, the g o ve r nm en t ne ed no t pr o ve th e ex ac t dat e o f th e o ffen se “ as l o ng as a date reaso na blynea r t h at n am ed in t h e in d ict m en t is est abl i shed. ” U nited Sta tes v. R o ss , 41 2 F .3d 7 71 , 7 74 ( 7th Cir
. 20 05) ( em phasi s a dd ed) ( re ci ti ng the “ca noni cal f or m ula ” t o be a pp l i ed w hen th e “on o r about” l anguage is u se d in t h e in d i c t m e n t ); se e also Le ibowitz , 85 7 F
. 2d at 379 (citing coll ecte d cases). The questi on, then, is w hetherthe gov er nm ent pr ese nted ev i den ce tha t woul d suppo r t a dat e “ r ea so nabl y ne ar ” th e d at e s p ec ified in t h e in d ict m en t, an d w e h a ve little tr oubl e a nsw er i ng thi s quest i on in the affi rm ati ve. Bl an di ng ’ s te st i m o ny

— that she a nd Bl an c hard m anufa cture d m etham phetam i ne o n approxi m atel y Dece m ber24, 2004

— provi de d a r eas onabl e ba si s forthe j ury to concl ud e that Bl anchard m anufa cture d m etham ph et-N o. 07

- 2780 15

am in e w ith ind ay s o f th e “ on or ab o u t” d at e s p ec ified in th e i n d i c t me n t, D e c e mb e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 4
. Al th o u g h B l a ndi ng co nc ede d o n c r o ss-e xa m i na ti o n tha t sh e co ul d no t pi npoi nt the exactdate, such l ase r- l i ke preci si on was not n ec es sa ry for h er te st im on y t o s u p p or t a d at e “ re as on ab ly n ea r ” t h a t alleg ed in t h e in d ict m en t. See, e . g., Le ibowitz , 857 F. 2d at 379 ( concl ud i ng t h at 21- day va ri ance b etween d at e p ro ve d a t t r i a l an d “o n or a b ou t” d at e a lleg ed in ind ictm en t w as “reaso na bly near”). M oreover, the ju ry was e xpr es sly i ns tructe d no t to c o nv i ctunl es s th eyc o ncl ude d tha t Bl an ch ar d m an uf ac tu r ed m etha m phe ta m i ne on a day “re aso nabl y near” that al l ege d i n the i nd i ctm ent. C f . R o ss , 41 2 F
. 3d at 774- 75 (j ury i nstr ucti ons express ly perm i tting m or e than f ou r- yea r var i ance fro m “o n or ab o ut ” da t e i mpe r mi s s ib l y ame nd e d ind i c t men t )
. Ind e e d, because ev i dence w as prese nted supp or ti ng a date “ re asonab l y nea r” thatal l ege d i n the i nd i ctm ent, and beca use th e j ury w as p rop erly instru cted on th is issue , Blan ch ard ’s co m pl ainti s r ea l l y di r ec te d t o t he f ac ts f o und b y the j u ry ; ho w ev er , th at is a b at tle th at B lan c h ar d lo s t a t tria l, an d w h ich h e m ay n otre-fig h t h er e o n ap p ea l. Finally, w e note that on e o f th e prim ary con cern s un d erl ying the pr ohibi ti on o n const ructi ve am endm ents

— th e im p air m en t o f th e d efe n d an t’ s a b ility to p re p ar e h is d efense

— is s im p ly n otim p lica te d h er e. Se eFo l ks , 23 6 F.3d at 392. A s already noted , exte ns ive pretrial d iscovery aff or ded Bl anchard m or e than suffi ci ent no tice o fhow th e gov er n m en t m igh t att em p t to p ro ve its c as e a t t ria l. In d ee d , B lan c h ar d d oe s n otarg u e t h a t h e w as u n fair ly su rp rised by the evid en c e p rod uc ed or th e the ories proffered b y the govern m en t at trial

. For th ese reason s, th ere w a s n o c o ns t ruc t i v e a men dme nto fBl anchard’ s ind i ctm ent.16 N o. 07

- 2780 C . I n tr od u ction at Trial of C ou rt ’s S u p p ression -H earing S tatem en ts Blanchar d next chal l enges the i ntro du cti on at t ri alo f certa in state m ents or i gi nal l y m ade bythe tr i alj ud ge at a p re tr ial su p p re ss ion h ea rin g, st ylin g h is a rg u m en t in ter m s o fbo th j ud i ci albi as and pros ecuto ri alm i sco nd uct. Befo r e t urning t o the mer i t s o f Bl a nc ha r d’ s a r g ume nt s o n thi s point, so m e a dd i ti onalbac kgr ound is nece ssa ry . A s a l re ady di scusse d, at tr i al, M ar shal l J r. offe re d tes ti m ony that w as dam aging to hi s f ather ’ s ca se. W i th re sp ec t to the fi re ar m s char ge, he t est i fi ed that hi s f ather own ed al l but one ofthe fi re ar m s s ei zed fro m t h e porch ar e a o f the Rob e r t s r e s i de nc e ( the “ po r c h fi r e a r ms” ) , that hi s f atherdi re cted hi m to r em ove t h os e fi re ar m s fro m th e r es i den ce i n 2 00 1 an d r etur n the m i n l at e 2 00 4, a nd that hi s f ather enj oye d unfett er ed acces s to th e porch ar ea after Se p tem bero r October20 04. A nd with r espect to th e m et h am p h et am in e m an u fac tu rin g ch ar ge , M ar sh all Jr. te st ified th at h e n ot ice d ce rt ain p h ys ica l ch a n g e s in hi s f ather, i ncl ud i ng w ei ght l oss and f aci al sor es, i n late 20 04 . H e a lso te st ified reg ar d in g h is d isc o ve ry of ce rt ain i tem s in the R ob er ts re si dence, i ncl ud i ng the o ff

- w hi te substa nce that l ate r tes ted posi ti ve f or e p h edri ne, that led to th e sea rc h of Bla n c h ar d ’s tw o re sid en c es an d h is subsequent ar re st. A t t h e g ra n d ju ry h ea rin g n ea rly o n e ye ar b efo re tria l, in A p r il 20 05 , M ar sh all Jr. h ad offe re d te st im on y la rg ely consi ste n t with hi s e ventualtr i alte sti m ony. W i th r espect to the por ch fi re ar m s, h e te sti fi ed that Blanchar d ow ned them and had or dered M ar shal l J r. ’ s r em ova l o fthem from the R oberts re s id e nc e in 2001; becau se L oriN o. 07

- 2780 17 ( Blanchar d’s ex- w i fe a nd M ar shal l J r. ’ s m othe r ) had m ove d o uto fthe ho us e, Bl an ch ar d, a c o nv i ct ed fel o n, c o ul d no longer p lausi b ly d en y pos session by attribut ing ow ne rsh i p t o he r . Thu s, M ar sh al l J r. a nd h is f athe r move d the gu n s to a f am i l y fri end’s pla ce o fbusi ness. W hen that fri end die d in 2 0 0 4 , Mar s ha l lJ r . t e s t i fi e d, h e o b t a i ne d a F ir ea r m Owner ’ s I den ti fi ca ti o n ( F OI D) c ar d s o tha t he coul d r etr i eve the fi re ar m s a nd r etur n them to the Rober ts re si dence w hi l e a l l owing hi s f at h er , i n the eve nt that th e fir e ar m s w er e d isc ov er ed by au th or itie s, to p lau sib ly deny ownershi p/possessi on ( dist i nct co ncepts which B lanch ard m ay ha ve incorrec tly conflated ). H owever, f ol l owing the g ra nd j ury hear i ng, ata pretr i al su p p ression h earing on N o v e m b er 15, 2005 , M arsh allJ r. o ffe r e d a r e ma r k ab l y d i ffe r e n tv e r s i o n o fe v e n t s . He tes tifi ed that the por ch fi re ar m s o ri gi nal l y b el onge d to hi s m o th erb utha d pa ss ed do wn to hi m whens he l eft th e Ro be r ts r es i den ce ; hi s f athe r was not p art o fthe p urp orted cha in of ow ne rship

. In ad d it ion, M arsh allJ r. tes ti fi ed that he r em ove d those fi rear m s fro m the Rober ts r e s i d e n c e i n 2 0 0 1 a n d r e t u r n e d th e m in 2 0 0 4 o fh i s o wn voli tion, w ith ou t prom p ting or direction from his f ath er. F i na l l y, he t es ti fi ed th at in l at e 20 04, the po r cha r ea o fthe Ro be r ts r es i den ce s er ve d a s hi s “ap artment, ” an d he enj oye d e x c lusi ve acces s t o that ar ea by kee ping i t l ock ed and m ai ntai ni ng p oss ess i on ofthe onl y k eys . In shor t, after tes ti fyi ng atthe gr and j ury h ear i ng tha t hi s f atherbo th ow ne d a n d cont roll ed the p orch firearm s, M arsh allJ r. tes ti fi ed at the s up press i on hea ring tha t hi s f atherdi d not o wn, c o n t r o l, o r e v e n h a v e p h y s i c a l a c c e s s t o th e m.18 N o. 07

- 2780 W hen M ar shal l J r. al ter ed h is sto ryatthe N ove m ber15 supp re ssi on hea ring, the gov er nm ent ( unsurpri si ngl y) c on fro n te d h i m w ith h is in c on sis te n t g ra n d j u ry te st im ony. On cro ss- exam i nati on, the gov er nm ent r em i nd ed M ar shal l Jr . t h at he was und ero ath a nd as ked wh ether he woul d l i k e to a l te r hi s te st i m o ny i n l i g hto fhi s pr ev i o us gr and j ury tes ti m ony. Q
. D o yo u w an t t o c h an ge you r te st im on y a t a ll in re fer ence to yourte sti m ony that thi s ho use had a s epara te apart m ent under yourso l e co ntro l an d tha t th es e g uns wer e y o ur s? Do y o u wan t to alt er th at te st im on y a t a ll? A. I, I ’ m no ts ur e . Ido n’ t, Ido n’ tu nd e r s t a nd

.

. . . Q. Do y o u wa ntto be

— d o yo u w an t t o p er sis t in statin g t h a t this hou se ha d been sectione d off to w h er e there ’ s a n ar ea

— Ibel i eve [ defe nse cou ns el] referred to it as an ap artm en t of you rs th aty o u ha d so l e ac ce ss t o a nd tha t th es e g uns w er e , w e r e you rs ? D o yo u w an t t o p er sis t in that tes ti m ony? A
. Yes. ( S uppr es si o n Hr ’ gTr
. 8 5- 86
. ) Th e g o ve r nm en t th enc o nf ro nt e d Ma r s ha l l J r . wi th s pe c i fi c p o r t i o ns o fh i s p r i or in c on sis te n t t es tim on y, in c lu d in g h is in d ica tio n th at h is f athero w ned t he por ch fi re ar m s. The go ver nm ent a l so re m i nd ed M ar shal l J r. o fhi s t est i m ony that, i n or der t o pr o te cthi s f athe r ( a con vi ct ed fel o n) i n the e ve nttha t th e fire ar m s w er e d isc ov er ed by au th or itie s, h e a n d h isN o. 07

- 2780 19 f atherhad j oi ntl y r em ove d the fi rear m s fro m the Rober ts re sid en c e in 20 01 an d th en re tu rn ed th em in 20 0 4 , on ly afte r M ar sh al l J r . ha d pr o cur ed anF OI D ca r d. Dur i ngthe cou rse of th is que stioning, the c ou rt occas ionall y i nt erj ec te d its ow n q u es tio n s, se ek in g clar ifica tio n ofM a rs h all J r. ’ s a nsw er s. The t ria l j ud ge’ s co m m ents that ar e the subj ect of Blanchar d ’s c urr ent c hal l enge cam e in re sponse to a d efe n se co u n se l o bj ec tio n in t h e m id st of th is c ro ss -ex am ina ti o n. De fen se c o uns elo bj ec te d whenthe g o ve r nm en t po i nt ed o uttha t M ar sh al l J r . ha d ne ver d es cr ibe d the Rober ts re si dence p or ch area as hi s e xcl usi vel y c ontr ol l ed “apar tm ent” at the g ra nd j ury hear i ng, co ntending that th is d id n ot ten d to i m p each M arsh allJ r. Th e cou rt overrul ed that obj ecti on, and o ffer ed the f ol l ow in g explanato ry co m m en ta ry : Ibel i eve i t i s [ i m peachm ent]
. The Courtfi nd s i t t o be i m peachm ent. The Court fi nd s thi s witness not to be cre dibl e and that the te sti m ony he has gi ven today i s no t cr edibl e. The Court’ s had a chance t o obs er ve the m anner and de m ea no r o fhi s te st i m o ny . The manne r a nd d em ean or on d irect w as very assert ive.
. . . Ide term i ned that Iwould askso m e quest ion s. A nd as so on a s Ibeg an questi ons about the o w ners hi p of the guns back in 2 001

— of cou rs e, I ha ve n o kn ow ledg e o fthe g r an d j ur y t es ti m o ny

— al l o fa s udden, the dem eano r bega n changi ng dram ati cal l y, how he hangs hi s hea d, how he l oo ks, how h i s f aci al m an ne r i sms c ha ng ed; a nd i t was v ery o bv i o us20 N o. 07

- 2780 to m e a fter13 ye ar s o fbeing a c rim inall aw yer and 1 7 yea rs of bei ng a j ud ge

— 30 y ea r s o fb eing experi enced

— that hi s a nsw er s a l l o fa sudd en b ec am e d ec ep tiv e, les s t h an cr ed ible

. A nd , o fco urse , now [the pro secutor ] h as ask ed h im sp ec ific qu es tio n s th at lea d m e t o th e u n d en iab l e c o nc l us i o n tha th e h a s n o tb e e n c r e dib l e a nd , because he knew thathi s a ns w er s that he w as gi vi ng were not the s am e an sw ers he had gi ven to th e g ra n d j u ry in A p ril. ( S uppr es si o n Hr ’ g Tr
. 92

- 93
. ) And a t th e co nc l us i o n o fthe c ro ss - e x a m in at ion, th e g ov er n m en t a sk ed , “So w ou ld it be a c c urat e t o say. . . thatthe tes ti m ony you’ ve gi ven to dayunde r o ath b efo r e th i s Cou r t ha s be enf al se a nd m i sl eadi ng?” ( Id. 1 00
. ) The c o ur t i nt er ve ne d, i nt er po sing a Fifth A m en d m en t obj ection on M arsh allJ r. ’s beha lf

. Fol low ing the co ncl usi on o fthe N ove m ber15 hear i ng, M arsh allJ r. had tim e to p ond er th e com m en ts of the cou rt a n d t h e gov er n m en t, an d h e b ec am e c on c er n ed th at h is te st i m o ny mightl ea d t o l eg alt r o ubl e; s o o n the re afte r, he c on ta c te d th e g ov er n m en t’s ca se ag en t t o e x p re ss h is concern. They a gr eed that M ar shal l J r. would m eetwith th e case age nt and the p rosecu tor at the gov e r n m e nt ’s o ffi c e , a n d th a tmeet i n gt o o kp l a c e a fe w d a y s l a t e r . At that m eet i ng, the case ag ent a nd the pros ecuto r advi sed M ar sh all Jr. th at th ey b elie ve d h e h ad te st ified u n tr u th fu lly at th e sup p ress io n h earing an d thathe cou ld face p erj ury charg es. M ar shal l J r. ag re ed to pro vi de a t ape- re cor ded sta tem ent c or re cti ng tho se port i ons ofhi s Novem ber15 te st im on y t h at h ad be en u n tr u th fu l.N o. 07

- 2780 21 O n D e c e mb e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , a t a f o l l o w- u p h e a r i n gt o c o mple te ar gum ent o n B l anchard’ s pendingsuppress i on m oti ons, the cour t a l l owed th e g ove rnm ent t o re open cro ss- exam i nati on o fM ar shal l Jr . O n the re opened cr oss ex ami na ti o n, M ar sh al l J r . r ec an te d tho se po r ti o ns o fthe N o ve m be r 1 5 te st i m o ny tha t ha d con tradi ct ed hi s g r an d j ury tes ti m ony. Fo r exam ple , M ar shal l J r. te sti fi ed that h is fath er ow n ed alm os t a ll of th e p or c h firea rm s, th at h is f atherdi re cted the 20 01 re m ova l and 200 4 r etur n oftho se fi re ar m s, and that hi s f atherenj oye d u nfe tte re d acces s to the por ch ar ea beginning som eti m e ar ound Octo ber20 04 (w he n M arsh allJ r. rel ocat ed his bed room to anoth er pa rt of t h e h ou se ). M ar sh all Jr. als o t es tifie d th at, follo w in g h is gr and j ury tes ti m ony, hi s f ather h ad not
- so- subtl y pr essu r ed hi m t o c ha ng e his t es ti m o ny, t el l i nghi m tha t th e gu n s w er e h is a n d th at th e po rc h ar ea w as h is “ ap ar tm en t.” A s pre vi ousl y no ted, at tr i al, M ar shal l J r. te sti fi ed on behal fo fthe gov er nm ent a nd o ffer ed a ve rs ion ofev ents co ns i st en t wi thhi s g r an d j ur y t es ti m o ny a nd hi s te st i m o ny at the D ecem ber12 h ear i ng. In add i ti on, he e xplained that he had testi fi ed untruthfully at the N ove m ber15 hear i ng, an d tha t o n c r o ss - ex ami na ti o n th at day, the g o ve r nm en t h ad ex p os ed d isc re p an c ies be tw ee n h is t es tim on y a n d h is pri orgr and j ury tes ti m ony. H e furtherte sti fi ed that, follo w in g t h e N ov em b er 15 h ea rin g, h e d isc u ss ed h is c on c er n s a b ou t h av in g t es tifie d u n tr u th fu lly w ith h is m o th er . The n, he ex pl aine d, he co nt ac te d the g o ve r nm en t to ex p re ss h is c on c er n th at h e m igh t h av e g ot te n h im se lf i nto tr oubl e byte sti fyi ng untr uthful l y, hopi ng to “r eso l ve the i ssue. ” M ar shal l J r. furtherte st ifi ed that he was re cal l ed to the sta nd atthe Decem b er 1 2 hear i ng, and at22 N o. 07

- 2780 that ti m e, he c or re cted those port i ons ofhi s Novem ber15 te st im on y t h at w er e u n tr u th fu l. A s m i ght b e e xpected , d efense co unselthen soughtto i m peach M ar shal l J r. ’ s tes ti m ony by showing hi s incenti ve to coo perat e with the gov er nm ent b ase d up on his fe ar of pros ecuti on f orperj ury. Fi rst, defense counselas ked wheth er, f o l l o wi ngthe Nov embe r 1 5 he ar i ng, a ny o ne from th e govern m en t initi ated con tact w ith M ars h a ll Jr. ei therbefo re or as he l eft the co urtr oo m , and he ind i cate d th at th ey d id n ot. D efense cou ns el then asked w h eth er, atM ar sh al l J r . ’ s m ee tingwi ththe c ase agenta nd the pros ecuto r, the gov er nm ent t ol d him that he coul d be c h ar ge d w ith p erj u ry for lyin g u n d e r o at h, an d h e in d icate d that they di d. H e a l so tes ti fi ed th at they di scusse d p ot en tia l p en alt ies , in c lu d in g a fin e an d j ail tim e. M ar sh all J r . a c k no wl e dg e d the “ c l o ud o f a pe rj ur y c ha r g e” that follo w ed th es e c o n ve rs at ion s a n d h is d es ire to ob ta in “som e m er cyf o r what[ he ] di d” byc o o per at i ngwi ththe go ve rn m en t. On redi re ct, the gov er nm ent i m m edi ate l y s ought to c lar ify w h o h ad firstsu gg es te d th at M ar sh all Jr.’s te st im o ny a t th e N o ve m be r 1 5 he ar i ngmay ha ve b ee n un truthfu l. W h en M ar sh all Jr. res p on d ed , “T h e jud ge an d you ,” th e p ro se c u to r w as n otsa tis fied ; he as ke d M ar s h a l l Jr . i f he r e memb e r e d what the j ud ge had s ai d t o h im . D efense co unse l pr o m ptly o bj ec te d a nd r eque st ed a si deb ar, b ut th e jud ge rejec te d t h a t r eq u es t, st at in g, “N o. If I said s o mething, i twi l l b e i n the r e c o r d, a nd y o u ha v e a c o py ofthe re cor d. Everybody’ s be en ta l ki ng ab ou t what ev erybo dy sa i d. S o i fy o u ha ve whatIs ai d, i t’ s o n theN o. 07

- 2780 23

W e have previousl y expres se d ou r c oncern that a dist ri ct 2 c our t ’ s r efus al t o e nt er t ai n a ny s i deba rs , par t i c ul ar l y wher e the t ri al j udge’ s own c om m en t s or que s t i ons bec om e the s ubj ec tof a potenti al object ion, m ay pu t defense cou nseli n an “aw kw ard posit ion. ” SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. M cC ra y, 437 F. 3d 639, 644 ( 7th Cir

. 2 0 0 6 ) ( a c a s e i n w h i c h th e s a me di s t r i c tj u d g e p r e s i d e d )
. We re i t er at e that c onc er n he re ; a ful l ex pl ana t i on of defen s e c ouns e l ’ s o b j e c t i o n i n th e p r e s e n c e o fth e j u r y r i s k e d th e s a me prej udi c e t o the defen dantas the pr osecutor’ s r ec i t at i on ofthe court’ s com m ents
. Un der thes e c ir cu m st ances , a s idebar c oul d have be enpar t i c ul ar l y us eful i n “ avoi d[ i ng] the r i s k of unfore se en prej ud ic e. ” Seei d. r ec o r d. I t ca n be put be f o r e the j ur y . ” ( Tr i alTr
. 2 21
. ) The n, after a seco nd rej ecte d r equest f or a si debar, and ov er 2 defe nse c ounsel ’s r epeate d obj ecti ons, the pros ecuto r r ea d a l o ud the e nt i r ety o fthe t r ia l j udg es ’ s su ppr es si o nhe aring com m en ts ind icating his beliefthat M ar sh allJ r. wa s t e s t i fy i ngu nt r uthful l y . Al tho ugh we h a v e a l r e a dy re c ou nted thos e co m m ents abov e a nd need notr epeat them i n fullher e, the l astof thos e co m m ents, as quote d by the pr ose cutorattr i al, bea rs r epeating: A nd , o fco urse , now [the pro secutor] h as ask ed h im sp ec ific q u es tio n s th at le ad m e to th e u n d en iab le c on c lu sio n th at h e h as n otbe en cr ed ible b e ca us eh e k new thathis an s wers thathewas gi vi ng wereno tthes am ean s wers tha t h e ha d g i ve n t o the grand jury in April

. (Trial T r. 223) ( em p ha sis add ed ). A dd i ng ano therwr in kl e t o thi s a l re ady unusual ev ent, dur i ngthe pr o se cut o r ’ s r ea di ngo fthe c o ur t’ s su ppr es si o n-24 N o. 07

- 2780

G iv en R u le 60 5’s p ro hib ition on a trial jud g e offe r i n g testi- 3 m ony, this charac ter izat ion s hould have im m ediate ly r ais ed red fla g s. S ee Fed

. R. Evid. 605 (“T he j ud ge presi ding at the t ri al m ay not t es ti fy in that t ri al as a w itness . ”)
. Although Blanchard failed to ra ise this spe cific ob jection a t t r i al, he d id no t nee d to d o so in o rd er to p re se rv e t h e i s s u e fo r r ev ie w . Seei d. ( “ No o b jec tio n n ee d b e m a d e i n o rd er to p re se rv e t h is p o in t.” ). h ea rin g c om m en ts , th e t ri a l ju d ge ch ar ac te riz ed h is co m m en ts , i n r es po ns e to a de fen se c o uns elo bj ec ti o n a nd i n the pr es en ce ofthe j ur y, a s “j udi ci alt es ti m o ny . ” The cour t s tat ed, “I t’ s m y stat em ent. Y ou’ ve gotthe re cor d. H as h e m isr ea d it?
. . . It’s a d ire c t sta te m en t of th e C ou r t in a j ud i c i alp r o c e e di ng . Y o u we r e p r e s e nt
. Y o u ha v e a c o py o fi t. Has he mis r ea d what Is ai d?

. . . Thi s i s r ea di ng jud icia l testim o ny .” ( T rialTr. 222-23) (em p ha sis add ed ). 3 A fter th e p rosecu tor fi nish ed read ing th e c o u rt’s su p p ression-h earing com m en ts, he asked w he th er M arsh al l J r . r ec al l ed th e j udg e m ak i ngtho se c o m m en ts a t th e N o ve m be r 1 5 he aring, an d M ar sh al l J r . i ndi ca te d tha t he did. A nd the pros ecuto r press ed further, as ki ng: Q. [ W ] as th atthe fi r stpe r so n t o r ai se a ny i ss ue wi thy o u abo utw he th erornotyo u wer e te l l i ng th e truth? A
. Yes. Q. I t wasn’tm e, was i t? A
. N o. Q. I t wasn’t [ the gov er nm ent’ s ca se age nt] , was i t?N o. 07

- 2780 25 A
. N o. (T ria l T r. 22 4.) Dur i nga b r ea ki n th e p r o ce eding s f o l l o wi ngthe c o ncl usi on o fM ar shall Jr.’s t est i m ony, and outs i de the presence ofthe j ury, the tr i alj ud ge soughtto cl ar ify h is r ati ona l e f o r p e r mi t t i n gth e i n t r o d u c t i o n o fh i s s u p p r e s si o nhear i ng co m m entar y: The Co ur t al l ow ed [ th e pr o se cut o r ] t o r ea d the C o urt ’s statem en ts into th e record becau se th ere h a d b e e n mu c h t e s t i mo n y c o n c e r n i n g th e N o v e mb er 15 th te st im on y o fM ar sh all B lan c h ar d Jr. .
. . . [ Defe nse c ounsel ] deter m i ned as a tr i alta cti c to lead the j ur y t o beli eve th at som eh ow M r. Blanchar d Jr

. afterhe had l eft co urt w as ei ther conta cted o r dis cussed with [ the pr ose cutor ] o r [th e c as e a ge n t] fo r th e firs t t i m e c on c er n in g h is te st i m o ny . Tha t cl ea r l y ope ne d the do o r f o r [ th e p rosecu tor] to read i nt o t h e r ecord the C ou rt’s com m ents fr om N ove m ber15 th be cause that w as cl ear l y the first ti m e M ar shal l Bl anchard was confro nted w i th wh at thi s Courtbel i eve d .

. . to be perj ury. . . . Idi d not want to r ule thi s way o n the r eco rd i n fro nt o fthe j ury as t o w h y i t was al l o wi ng[ th e pros ec ut o r ] t o pr o ce ed be ca us e th e i nfe re nce o fthe Court’ s r uling co uld have bee n p r ej u d icia l to t h e d efe n d an t. So th e C ou rtm er ely w an ted [ th e p r osecu tor] to read i nt o the record accura tel y a nd cl ear l y th e C ourt ’ s co m m ents, whi chwer e no s ur pr i se t o [ defen se c ou nse l ]
. And whi l e [ defen se c o uns el ] pr ote st ed l o udl y, c au sing26 N o. 07

- 2780 the Cour t t o have to m ake i t cl ear, the on ly obj ecti on h e co uld have was w hetheri t was be i ng r ead accura tel y. I ’ m doi n g thi s o ut o fthe prese nce o f the j ur y no w so a s no t to pr ej udi ce the de fen dan t for th e trialtactic th at op en ed the d oor. (T ria l T r. 25 5-5 6.) Blanchar d now co ntends thatthe pros ecuto r’ s use attr i al of the cou rt’s sup p ression-h earing com m en tary

— whatthe tr i alj ud ge chara cter i zed as hi s “j ud i ci alte sti m ony”

— am ounted to b ot h j ud i ci albi as and prose cutor i alm i sco nduc t. Bl an ch ar d a r g ue s th atthe i nt r o duct i o n o fthe co ur t’ s st at ement s effective l y c o ns ti tu te d a j udi ci ale nd orsem en t of th e m ost d am aging version of M arsh allJ r. ’s te st im on y a n d th er eb y d ep riv ed h im of a fa ir tr ial. In add i ti on, attr i al, Bl anchard o bj ected on the gr ounds of re l ev a nc e a nd u nf a i r p r ej ud i c e . And the r e i s y e ta no ther evi denti ar y i ss u e present ed w here so - cal l ed “j ud i ci al te st im on y” is pu t be for e th e j u ry , as inth is c as e. See F ed. R. Evid. 60 5. Bef or e co nsi deri ng the br oaderfair-tr i ali ssues , w e fi rs t take u p the nar ro w er, thr esho l d evi denti ar y i ssues , w h ich w e r e v i e w fo r an ab u se of d isc re tio n . See U nited State s v. Sam uel s , 52 1 F
. 3d 804, 81 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. F ede r alRul e o fEv i den ce 60 5 pr o hibi ts a pr es i di ng dist ri ct c ourtj ud ge fro m te sti fyi ng attr i alas a w i tness o r en ga gin g in eq u iva len t c on d u c t. See U nited Sta tes v. Slik er, 751 F. 2d 477, 499 ( 2d Cir

. 19 84) ( disc ussi ng the purpose of R ule 605 in li gh t of th e ad visory com m it t e e ’s notes). A lthou gh a district cou rt j ud ge m ay fa c ili tate th e j ury’s unde r st an di ngofthe c as e byque st i o ni ngwi tn es se s an d ex p lain in g, su m m ar izin g, an d co m m en tin g on th e e vi-N o. 07

- 2780 27 d en c e, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pai va , 892 F.2d 148 , 159 (1st C ir. 1989 ) ( ci ti ng Q uercia v. U nited Sta tes , 28 9 U.S
. 46 6, 46 9- 70 (19 33 )); U ni t e d St at e s v. N i ck l , 427 F.3d 128 6, 1293 ( 10th Cir. 2005 ) , i t i s i m proper f or the j ud ge to add to the e vi dence by a s su m in g t h e ro le of a w itn es s, N i ck l , 4 2 7F
. 3 d a t1 2 9 3; Paiva , 89 2 F .2d at15 9; Slik er, 751 F. 2d at 499. W here a tr i al j ud ge’ s co m m en ts ar e ba sed upon hi s o w n pers onal k n o wl e d g e o fma t t e r s ex t e r n a l t o th e t r i a l, th o s e c o mm ents m ay const i tute i m perm i ssibl e j ud i cial tes ti m ony. Se e, e . g. , U nite d State s v. B er be r- Tonico , 51 0 F.3 d 1083, 10 91 (9t h C ir. 20 07 ) (co n c lu d in g t h at tria l j u d ge “v iola te d R u le 605 w hen he interj ecte d his o w n obs er vati ons” on f acts w hi ch w er e nei theri n the re cor d nor re aso nabl y d er i ved th er efr om , bu t d id n otvio lat e R u le 6 05 w h er e h e m er ely su m m ed u p th e e vid en c e); N i ck l , 42 7 F
. 3d at 1293

- 94 ( noti ng tha t “ presi ding j ud ge’s com m entar y . . . added new ev i de n c e which the pro secuti on was otherwis e un able to estab li sh ”). I n thi s ca se, we concl ud e that the i ntro du cti on ofthe tr i al j ud ge’ s s up press i on- hear i ng co m m ents am ounted to i mp e r mi s s i b l e j u d i c i a l t e s t i mo n y . F i r s t, th e j u d g e ’ s c o mme n t s we r e b a s e d u p o n a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d h i s o wn perso nal o bser vati ons ofM ar shal l J r. atthe N ove m ber15 supp re ssi on hea ring; i nd eed, the trial j ud ge’ s co m m ents i nd i cate d that hi s opini on o fM ar shal l J r. ’ s cr edibi l i ty w as ba se d l ar g ely upo n sh i fts in Mar sh al l J r . ’ s “manne r a nd dem eanor ” that day. S uch com m ents vi ol ate Rule 60 5 by “add[i ng] new evi dence w hi ch the pros ecu ti on was othe rwis e unabl e t o est ablish .” N i ck l , 42 7 F
. 3d at 1293

- 94; see also B er be r- Tonico , 51 0 F
. 3d at 1091
.28 N o. 07

- 2780 W hi l e i t i s true tha t th e pr o se cut o r, r athe r tha n the t r i a l j u d g e , r e a d th e j u d g e ’ s s u p p r e s s i o n - h e a r i n gc o mm en ts i nt o the record a t tr i al, thi s i n n o waya l te r s o ur concl usi on. In the prese nce o f t h e j u ry, the tr i alj ud ge ackno w l edged thatthe supp re ssi on- hear i ng co m m en ts we re h is ow n, i ns i st ed th atthe o nl y v al i d o bj ec ti o n t o the com m ents’ i ntro du cti on co uld be i ftheywere not re ad “w or d for w or d ,” an d ch ar ac te riz ed th e c om m en ts as h is “j ud i ci altesti m ony. ” U nd ersuch ci rcum sta nces, R ule 60 5 is vi olated ; the ru le w ou ld serve littl e pu rp o s e i f it w ere vio lat ed on ly w h er e a j u d ge ob se rv es all t h e fo rm aliti es

— tak i ng o fan o ath, si tting i n the w i tness chai r, et c.

— of an ord in ar y w itn es s. Cf. N i ck l , 4 27F
. 3d at12 92

- 93 ( fi ndi ng that the t ri al j ud ge vi ol ate d Ru l e 6 05 w hen he inter rupted th e c ro ss -ex am in at ion of a w itn es s a n d offe re d , in re sponse to defe nse c ounsel ’ s quest i on, h is ow n opi ni on on an ultim ate factu al i ssu e). Befo re tur ni ng to o ur har m l ess er ro r anal ysi s, we pause to c onsi derBl an ch ar d’ s addi ti o na l a r g um en t th atthe danger ofunfa i r p re j u dice fro m the “j ud i ci alte sti m ony” si g ni fi ca nt l y o ut wei g he d i ts pr o ba tive v alue , c o m pel l i ng e x c lu sio n . See F e d

. R
. E v i d

. 4 0 3
. We fi r s tn o t e th a tt he tr i alj ud ge’ s s up press ion- hear i ng co m m ents w er e o f m i ni m alr el ev an ce ; the sag a o fM ar sh al l J r . ’ s sh i fting testim ony w as alread y before the j ury, and th e j ud ge’s cre dibi l i ty evaluati on had l i ttl e, i fany, “t endency to m ake the e xi ste nce o fany [ m ate ri alf act] m or e p ro b abl e o r l ess p ro b ab le th an it w ou ld [h av e b ee n ] w ith ou t t h e e vid en c e.” See Fed. R. Evi d. 401. T h e g ove rnm ent c oncedes as m uch bynot a r g ui ngtha t th i s ev i den ce ha d a ny i nde pen den t re l evance ; i nstea d, f ol l owing the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r ati onal e,N o. 07

- 2780 29 th e g o ve r nm en t i ns i st s th atde fen se c o uns el“ o pen ed th e door ” t o thi s l i ne o fquesti oni ng. The go ver nm ent c i tes to U nite d State s v. P ec o , 784 F. 2d 798, 805 ( 7th Cir
. 19 86) , f or the pr oposi ti on that “ [ w ] hen a p ar ty opens up a subj ect, ev entho ug h i t m ayno t be s tr i ct l y r el ev an t to the case, he cannot com pla i n on a pp eali fthe opposi ng par ty i ntro
du ces evi dence on the s am e s u b j ec t. ” Id. ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. C a rter, 7 20 F
. 2d 941, 94 8 (7 thCi r . 1 98 3) )
. And the gov er nm ent a sse rt s that defe nse c ounsel ’ s cr oss - exam i nati on of M ar shal l J r. o pened the doorto i ts att em pt to show that i t was the di str i c t c ou rt, r atherthan the g over nm ent, wh o fi rs t chal l enged M ar shal l J r. ’ s t ruthfulne ss at the Novem ber15 hear i ng. W e di sag re e. A l though the tr i altr anscr i pt r eve al s that defen se c o uns ela sk ed M ar sh al l J r . wh eth er a ny o ne fro m th e g ov er n m en t in itia te d co n t a c t w ith h im f o l l o wi ngthe Nov embe r 1 5 he ar i ng, he r espo nde d i n the negat i ve. Ind eed, M ar shal l J r. i nd i cate d t h at he co ntacte d th e g o ve r nm en t o n h i s o wn, a fte r di sc us singhi s co ncer ns w i th his m othe r, in an eff or t to cor re ct hi s t est i m ony. A nd al though M ar shal l J r. then tes ti fi ed that, at h i s m eet
i ng with th e gov er nm ent, theydi scusse d potenti al perj ury charg es and cor re sponding penal ti es, thi s went to th e is su e o f M ar sh all Jr.’s m o tiv at ion for c h an gin g h is tes ti m ony, notthe i ssue ofwh o first su g g es te d that he had been untr uthfulatthe N ove m ber15 hear i ng. I n a ddi ti o n, the g o ve r nm en t’ s “o penthe do o r ” ar g um en t r es ts upo n a fl awe d f ac tu alpr emi se ; i n f ac t, it was th e gov er nm ent, notthe tr i alj ud ge, wh o firs t chal l enged M ar sh al l J r . ’ s truthful ne ss w he n the pr o se cut o r c o n-30 N o. 07

- 2780 fr o nt ed M ar sh al l J r . wi th h is pr i o r i nc o ns i st en t g r an d j ury tes ti m ony at the Novem ber15 hear i ng. In so doi ng, th e govern m en t rep eated ly asked M arsh allJ r. w he th er, i n l i g hto fhi s ea r l i ert es ti m o ny, he wi sh ed to c ha ng e an y ofhi s t est i m ony that d ay. I t was o nl y a fter defe nse cou n s e l obj ecte d to this l ine of qu estioning that the cou rt offer ed i ts own o pini on o fM ar shal l J r. ’ s t ruthfulne ss. M or eo ve r, e v e n if d efe n se co u n se l ha d so m eh ow int im ate d on cr oss -ex am i nati on that the go ver nm ent fi rs t chal l enged M ar shal l J r. ’ s t ruthfulne ss, thi s would have co m e a s no gr ea t s ur pr i se to the j ur y, b ec au se the g o ve r nm ent’ s di re ct e xam i nati on o fM ar shal l J r. se em ed to est abl i sh j ust that: Q. [ A ] fter[ defen se counsel ] fi ni shed ask i ng y ou his qu estions [ at th e N ovem ber 15 h e a r in g], did Ihave an o pp or tuni ty to as k you questi ons? A
. Yes. Q. A nd di d y ou know a t the ti m e that, wh ethero r n otth e g ov er n m en t h ad in its p os se ss ion a fu ll tran sc r i pt o fe ve r y th i ngy o u s ai d b efo r e th e gr and j ury? A
. Iwas

— Iw as p retty su re you d id, bu t I w asn ’t sure enti re l y. Q
. A n d w h en I as ke d yo u qu es tio n s t h at d ay , d id I ask you , or p oin t o u t a n d as k y ou to ex p lain th e di ffer ence b etwee n wha t y o u t o l d the g r an d j ur y unde r o ath si x m o nths ea rli er a nd w hat y ou t ol d the j ud ge und ero ath that day?N o. 07

- 2780 31 A
. Yes. Q. Did Ias k y ou those questi ons? A
. Yes. Q. W er e y ou ab l e t o expla i n the differ ence? A
. N o. Q. H o w w as tha t dayf o r y o u? A
. One ofthe w or st days o fm y l i fe. ( Tr i alTr
. 1 28

- 29
. ) The abs en ce o fa f ac tual unde r pi nni ng f o r the g o ve r nm en t’ s ar g um en t o nl y s tr en g th en s o ur concl usi on; ther e w as no com pel l i ng j usti fi cati on fo r the intro du cti on o fthe cour t’ s s tat em ents. A nd a com pel l i ng j ustificati on was r equi re d, because n o to n l y w a s th e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s s u p p r e s s i o n - h e a r i n gc o mm entar y o fdubio us r el evance , but the dange r ofun fair p re ju d ice w as u n q u es tio n ab ly h igh

. See Fed. R. Evi d. 403 ( re l evantev i dence “m ay be e xcl ud ed i fi ts proba ti ve v a l u e is su b st an tia lly ou tw eig h ed by th e d an ge r of u n fair prej ud i ce”)
. A s explained furtherbel ow, the intro du cti on of this evi d en ce risked placing t h e w eight of the cou rt’s author i ty behi nd the go ver nm ent- fri endlyve rs i on o f M ar sh al l J r. ’ s t est i m ony; thus, ther e was a si gni fi cant ri sk of u n fair p rej u d ice to th e d efe n d a n t
. Cf. U ni t e d S t at e s v. M arti n , 18 9 F
. 3d 547, 55 3 ( 7th Ci r. 199 9) ( “Because tr i al j ud ges wiel d substanti al i nfl uence ove r j uri es . . . . [ a] j ud ge can not assu m e th e role of an ad voca te for either side

. . . . ”). The r efo r e, we co nc l ude tha t th e i nt r o duct i o n o fthe tr i alj ud ge’ s s up press i on- hear i ng co m m ents w as er ro ne o us un de r Ru l e s 6 0 5 a nd 4 0 3 , a nd the o nly r e-32 N o. 07

- 2780

m ai ni ng quest i on i s wheth erthi s e rr orwas nonethel ess ha r m l es s. “ The t es t f o r ha r m l es s er r o r i s whethe r, i n the m in d of th e a v e r ag e jur or , th e p ro se c u tio n ’s c as e w ou ld have been si gni fi cantl y l ess p er su asiv e had the i m proper evi dence bee n excl ud ed. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Em e rs on , 50 1 F. 3d 804, 81 3 ( 7t h Cir

. 20 07) ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks om i tte d) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. O wen s , 424 F. 3d 649, 65 6 (7t h C i r . 2 00 5)); s e eal s o F ed. R. Cr i m . P. 5 2( a) ( “Any er ro r . . . thatdoes notaffect substa nt i alr i ghts m ust be disr ega rded. ”)
. A t the o utset, we note that i t i s di ffi cul t t o i m agine a scenar i o i n w hic h the cour t’ s pro nouncem ents on th e c re d ibilit y of a ke y g ov er n m en t w itn e s s c o u ld fail to i nfl uence t h e j u ry . Ind eed, Rule 60 5 i s intended to guar d a gainst the “pr ej ud i ce which m ay ar i se . . . bec ause ofthe j ud ge’ s infl uenti alposi ti on with the j ury. ” N i ck l , 42 7 F.3d at 129 3 (ci ting Fed

. R
. Ev id. 605 ad visory com m ittee’s note )
. A nd the m agni tude ofthi s infl uence i s di ffi cul t t o o ve r st at e; a s th e S upr eme Co ur t ha s e xpl aine d, “ The i nfl ue nc e o fthe t r i alj udg e o n the j ur y i s ne ce ss ar i l y a nd pr o pe r l y o fg r e a twe i g hta nd h i s l i g ht e s two r d o r i nti m atio n is re c eiv ed w ith d efe re n c e, a n d m ay p ro ve co n tr oll i ng. ” Q uer cia , 289 U
. S. at 470 (intern al quo tation om itted ); see also U nited Sta tes v. C urry, N o. 07

- 2455 , sl ip o p . a t 1 4 ( 7 th Ci r . Aug
. 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( no t i ngtha t, b e c a us e “ t r i a l j ud ges w ield su b st an tia l influ en c e o ve r j u rie s,” a j u d ge “s h ou ld tak e s peci alcar e no t t o i nd i cate hi s be l iefs a bout a wit

n es s’ h on es ty ” (q u ot at ion om itt ed )); M arti n , 189 F. 3d at 553 ( no tingj udg e’ s “s ubs tanti ali nfl ue nc e” o ve r j ur y a nd co ns eque ntne ed f o r the j udg e to a voi d a ss um i ngthe ro le of a d vo c at e); U ni t e d S t at e s v. H i ckm an , 59 2 F
. 2d 931, 933 ( 6th Ci r. 19 79) ( noti ng tha t a tr i alj ud ge’ s “ positio n before a j ury is overp ow ering”).N o. 07

- 2780 33 The potenti al l y “ ove rpow eri ng” infl uence o fthe tr i al j ud ge o n the j ur y t a k e s o n a dde d s i g ni fi c a nc e b e c a us e o f the nature ofM ar shal l J r. ’ s shi fti ng te sti m ony i n thi s ca se. Hi s p r e t r i a l a n d t r i a l t e s t i mo n y pr es e n t e d e s s e n t i a l l y two stori es ; fi r st, at th e g r an d j ur y he ar i ng, he to l d th e story f avo rabl e t o the g ove rnm ent. H e then r eve rs ed cour se at th e N o ve m be r 1 5 su ppr es si o n h ea r i ng, c o nt r adi ct i ng port i ons ofhi s g ra nd j ury te sti m ony i n a m anner that str engthe ned his father’ s defense. H e then r eve rs ed cour se o nc e ag ain, di sa vo wi nghi s N o ve m be r 1 5 testi m o ny a nd es se nt i al l y re- ado ptingthe s to r y he t o l d b efo r e th e gr and j ury, a sto ry that he stuck to at tr i al

. A nd natur al l y, defe nse c ounselso ught t o show on cr oss - exam i nati on that M ar shal l J r. had an i ncenti ve to change hi s Novem ber15 tes ti m ony afterdi scussing pote nti alperj ury charg es w i th the g ove rnm ent. Giv en thi s co ntext, the in troducti on o f the tria l j u d ge ’s e ar lier c om m ents

— express ing hi s unequi vo ca l b el i efthat M ar sh al l J r . was unt r uthfuli n de par ting fro m hi s g ra n d ju ry te sti m ony at the Novem ber15 he ar i ng

— conve yed, ata m i ni m um , j ud i ci aldi sapprova l of the m ost d efend an t-fr iend ly version of M arsh allJ r. ’s te st i m o ny . At wo r st, i t eff ec ti ve l y st am p ed t he g o ve r nm ent
- fr i en dl y v er si o n o fM ar sh al l J r . ’ s te st i m o ny w i th the se alo fj ud i ci ali m pri m atur
. In thi s v ein , the l ast s t a t e me n tf r o m th e c o u r t ’ s s u p p r e s s i o n - h e a r i n gc o mm ents

— i nd i cating the court’ s be l i efthatM ar shal l J r. was no t cr edibl e “b ec au se he kne w th at hi s an swe r s th athe w as gi vi ng wereno t t he s am e ans wers t hat he had gi ve n t o the grand j ury i n A pr i l ” ( Tr i a l T r . 2 2 3 ) ( e mpha s i s a dde d)

— is par ti cul ar l y da m ni ng, b ec au se i t seemi ng l y e ndo r se s th e gov er nm ent- fri endly ver si on of M ar shal l J r. ’ s test i m ony.34 N o. 07

- 2780 Thu s, i n al l owing hi s su p press i on- hear i ng co m m ents to com e in bef or e the j ury, the tr i alj ud ge pla ced not j ust a thum b, but a ve ryheav y fi st, o n the scal es ofj usti ce, tip p in g t h e b ala n c e firm ly in th e g o v e r n m en t’s fav or . C f. U nited Sta tes v. Verser, 91 6 F
. 2d 1268 , 12 72- 73 ( 7th Cir
. 19 90) (“Fun d am en tal to the right to a f air trial ” is th e cou rt’s obligati on to avo id “giv[i ng ] th e im p ression to th e j ury th at th e j udg e be l i ev es o ne v er si o n o fthe e vi den ce a nd d isbeli eves or d ou bts an oth er. ” (qu otation om itted ))
. A nd M ar shal l Jr
. w as not j ust a ke y g ove rnm ent witness, bu t, at least w ith resp ect to th e fi rearm s c h a r ge, th e star; his testim on y w a s cru cial to estab li sh ing B lanch ard ’s co nt r o l o ve r the po r chfi r ea r m s. Altho ug h the ha ndg un s e i z e d fr o m B l a nc ha r d’ s b e dr o o m mi g ht pr o v i de an i nd ependent b asi s t o susta i n the fi re ar m s co nvi cti on for su fficie n c y-o f-th e-e vid en c e p u rp os e s , see U nited State s v. A lanis , 2 65 F
. 3d 57 6, 5 92 ( 7th C ir. 20 01 ) ( fi ndi ng re cove ry of gun fro m defe nd ant’ s bedroom co nsti tuted suffi ci ent e vi dence ofco nstru c tive poss ess i on) , the gov er nm ent focuse d i ts eff or ts at tr i alo n t h e porch fi re ar m s. M a r s ha l l J r . ’ s te s t i mon y r e g a r di nghi s f a the r ’ s o wne r s hi p, c on tr ol of, an d a c c e s s t o th os e fire ar m s w as th e lyn c h p in of th e govern m en t’s case. A nd althou gh M arsh allJ r. ’s tes ti m ony w as som ew hat l ess im port ant with re spect to the m etham phetam i ne m anufa cturing char ge, i t was nonethel ess signi fi cant. W i thout hi s t est i m ony, the gov er nm ent’ s ca se w oul d have r est ed eve n m or e h eavi l y o n Blandi ng, a w i tness w hose cr edibi l i ty w as som ew hat c om prom i sed by the j ury’ s knowle dge that she w as a past m etham p h etam i ne userwh o had enter ed i nto an im m un ity a greem en t w ith th e govern m en t. B land ing’s acc ou nt of t he m an ufac tu ring a r r an g ement

— thatN o. 07

- 2780 35 Bl an ch ar d f ac i l i ta te d a nd pa r ti ci pat ed i n the manuf actur e o fm etham phetam i ne i n exchange f ora sh ar e o f the pr oduct

— was b ols te r ed byM ar sh al l J r . ’ s te st i m o ny re gar ding hi s f ather ’ s be havi oraland physi calchange s; thos e chang es supp or ted an infere nce o fthe sor t o f r egul ar m etha m phe ta m i ne us e th atmightmot i va te o ne t o e n c o u r a g e a n d p a r t i c i p a t e i n ma n u f a c t u r e a th i s o wn r es i den ce . Thu s, the preju di ci ale ffec t o fthe c o ur t’ s ar g uab l e en do r se m en t o f M ar sh al l J r . ’ s g r an d j ur y t es ti m o ny can n otbe n ea tly co n fin ed to th e fe lon -in-pos ses si on char ge. The g o ve r nm en t’ s emphas i s o n M ar sh al l J r . ’ s te st i m o ny at trialconfirm s his i m p ortan ce to th e govern m en t’s ove ra l l cas e. H e was noto nl y the fi rs t witne ss cal l ed by th e g ov er n m en t a t t ria l, b u t als o a p oin t o f em p h as is in c los in g a rg u m en t, w h er e t h e p ro se c u to r st at ed : “Fin ally an d m os t im p or ta n tly , yo u h av e to c on sid er th e t es tim o ny o fthe de fen dan t’ s o wn so n. . . . The r e ca n b e no m o r e co m pel l i nge vi den ce i n thi s ca se than th e te st i m o ny of M ar sh all Jr., th e a go n y t h at w as viv id from h is t es tim ony. ” ( Tri alTr. 87 1, 87 3. ) T h e pr ose cutorr em i nd ed th e jur y t h at M ar sh all Jr. h ad te st ified u n fav or ab ly to h is f athe r b efo r e th e g r an d j ury wi thr es pec t to b o ththe drug m anufa cturin g a nd fel on- i n-pos ses si on char ges before ch an ging his testim ony at the N ovem ber 15 h eari ng . The n, the pr o se cut o r del i ve r ed a fi na l r emi nde r o fthe t r i a l j u d g e ’ s s u p p r e s s i o n - h e a r i n gc o mme n t s : “ O n N o v e mber15 th o f l ast yea r, M ar shal l J r. co m es i nto thi s co urtr oo m b efo re [th e t ria l j u d ge ] an d lies u n d er oa th for h is d ad

. . . . A nd i t wasn’tthe gov er nm ent who sugg est ed

— w h o fi rs t su gg es te d th at h e w as n ’t t ellin g t h e t ru th

. You he ar d what happ e ne d d ur i ng t hathe ar i ng .” (T ria l T r . 8 72 ) (em p h as is ad d ed). Thi s co m m ent pr ovi ded o ne l ast, pote nti ally36 N o. 07

- 2780

The tri al j ud g e’ s f ail ure t o prov ide a t im el y li m it ing i nst ruc- 4 tion is p articu larly p u zz ling in ligh t of his d ecision to p ro m p tly “co m p lete t h e r e cor d ” at th e ne xt b rea k in the p ro ceed ing s. Out s i de the pr e s e nc e of the j ur y, he e x pl a i ne d tha t he had p erm itted the in t ro ducti on ofhi s s uppre s s i on-he arin g com m en ts solely f o r th e lim ited p u rp ose o f estab lishing w ho first cha ll enge d M ar s hal l J r. ’ s t ru thful ne s s atthe Novem ber 15 he ar i ng. Ifthe l i m i t e d p ur po s e o fthi s e vi de nc e wa s o fs uc h i m po r t ance thati t r equ ired a d etai le d explanati on in the re cord, the n s ur el y i tw as signi fi c ante nought o m er i ta t i m el y l i m i t i ng i ns t ru c t i on t o the j ur y. d ev as ta tin g rem in d er th at th e tria l j u d ge h a d e ffec tiv ely endors ed the gr and-j ury, go ver nm ent- fri endlyve rs i on o f M ar shal l J r. ’ s t est i m ony. And fi na l l y, the c o ur t di d no t i ns tr uc t the j ur y i n a m anner suffi ci ent t o re m edy the pote nti alprej ud i ce. Fi rs t, the cour t f ai l ed to pro vi de a t i m el y l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti on ( orany at al l, f orthatm att er ) di re cti ng the j ury to c on sid er th e c ou rt ’s s u p p re ss ion -h ea rin g c om m en ts on ly f orthe pu rpose o fes tabl i shi ng wh o fi rs t chal l enged M ar sh all J r. ’ s t ruthfulne ss. Se eN i ck l , 42 7 F
. 3d at 1295 4 (fin d in g R u le 6 05 vio lat ion w as n oth ar m les s p ar tly because “the j ud ge offer ed no s peci fi c cur ati ve i n st ru ctio n w h i c h c ou ld h av e o ve rc om e h is e rro r” ); cf. C urry, N o. 07- 2455 , sl i p op. at 16- 17 ( w here tr i al j ud ge’ s e xplanation of th e con cep t of he ars a y m ig h t hav e been i nt erpre t e d a s i mpugningthe c r e dib i l i t y o fthe de fe nd a nt, i m m edi ate and l engthycura ti ve i nstr ucti on hel ped to avo i d re ver sibl e err or, although itw as note d to be a “cl ose c all” ). W h er e t h e c ou rt ’s c om m en ts w er e i n t r od u c ed on lyN o. 07

- 2780 37 f orthi s l i m i ted purpose, r atherthan the broader pu rpos e ofshar ing the co urt’ s cr edibi l i ty evaluati on o fa cruci al gov er nm ent witne ss , such a n i nstructi on m ay have been h elp fu l in alle via tin g th e po te n tia l p rej u d ice
. C f. U nited St at e s v. Si m ps on , 47 9 F
. 3d 492, 500 (7th Cir
. 20 07) ( disc ussi ngf ai l ur e to pro vi de l i m i tingi ns truct i o n in a na l o g o us Rul e 40 4(b) c o nt ex t)
. I n th e fina l j ur y i ns truct i o ns , the c ou rtd id offe r th e fo llow in g g en er ic in st ru c tio n s: N o th i ngIs ayno w and no th i ngIs ai d o r di d dur i ng th e t r i a l i s me a n tt o i n d i c a t e a n y o pi n i o n o n my par t ab o utwhatthe fact s ar e o r abo utwhaty o ur verdicts ho ul d b e. The e vi den ce c o ns i st s o fthe te st i m o ny ofthe w i tness es, the exhibi ts ad m i tte d i n e vi den ce , a nd a s ti pul at i o n. See Se venth Ci rcui t Patte rn Cri m i nal J ury I nstr ucti ons 1. 01, 1
. 0 2 ( 1 9 9 9 )
. In the u n u s u a l c o n t e x tp r e s e n t e d h e r e , we fi nd the se i ns truct i o ns i ns uffi ci en t to r emedy the p o t e n t i a l p r ej u d i c e . F i r s t, a l th o u g h w e o r d i n a r i l y p r e s u me th a t ju ro rs follow ins tr u c tio n s, see Ro ss , 510 F.3d at71 1, it i s i m possibl e t o say

— parti cul ar l y in l i ght o fthe tr i al j ud ge’ s cha ra c ter i zati on o fhi s co m m ents as “j ud i ci al te st i m ony”

— w h et h er a lay p er so n j u ro r w ou ld int e r p ret the se instru ctions as a com m an d to disregard the s o- cal l ed “j ud i ci alte sti m ony” or an i nvi tat i on t o tr eat i t as evi dence. Se cond, eve n i f the tr i al j ud ge h ad n ot c h ar ac te riz ed h is c om m en ts as “jud icia l te st im on y,” it is doubtful that these ge n eri c i nstr ucti ons w oul d have bee n s uffi c i e nt, b e c a us e the y we r e “ ne i the r p r o m pt, specific, n orem phati c. ” N i ck l , 4 27F
. 3d at1 29 5 ( fi ndi ng si m i l arge neri c i nstr u c tio n i nsuffi ci ent t o cure prej ud i ce38 N o. 07

- 2780

In l ight of o ur concl usi on regarding the i m prop er i ntroduc- 5 t i on ofthe c our t ’ s suppr es s i on- he ar i ng c om m en t s , thi s m i ght (co n tin u ed ...) c au se d by R u le 6 05 vi o l a t i o n ); se e also Q uer cia , 28 9 U.S
. at 472 ( “Nordo we th i nktha t th e er r o r was c ur ed by th e st at em en t o f th e t ria l j u d ge th at h is op in ion of th e e viden ce was no t bindi ngo n the j ur y . . . . H i s defi ni te a nd co nc r et e as se r ti o n o ff ac t, whi ch he ha d m ade wi tha l l the per su as i veness ofj udi ci alut te r an ce . . . was no t wi th

d raw n.”). Insh or t, w e c on c lu d e t h a tt h e t ria l j u d ge ab u se d h is d i s c r e t i o n b y al l o wi n gth e i n t r o d u c t i o n o fh i s o wn supp re ssi on- hear i ng co m m ents on the credibi l i ty ofa key go vernm ent w i tness , and thi s er ro r w as not harm l ess. I n l i ght o fthi s co ncl usi on, we need not re ach the qu est i on ofwh ethert h is erro r const i tuted j ud i ci albi as orpro sec ut o r i almis co nduc t. Howeve r, thi s ca se s o unds a c au tio n ar y n ot e fo r d i s t r ict co u rtj u d ge s, w h o m u st rem ain al er t t o the pot enti ali m pact o fthe i r com m ents on j uri es and the co nsequent nee d to avo i d the appear an c e o f p ar tia lity to eit h er s i d e. Se eM cCray, 43 7 F
. 3d at 643; U ni t ed S t at e s v. Was hi ngt on , 417 F.3d 780 , 784 (7th C ir. 2005 ).

D . Suff i ci ency o ft he Evi den ce B efore conc lud ing, w e briefly ad d ress B lan ch ard ’s suffi ci ency- of

- th e- evi dence chal l enge to both convi cti ons. In chal l engi ng the sufficiency ofthe evi dence,

5N o. 07

- 2780 39

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 ap p ear un ne c essary . H ow ev er, ifB lan ch ard p rev ailed on this c hal l en ge , he woul d be en t i t l ed t o a j udgm en t ofac qui t t al, an d the refore , w e find it ap p ro p riate to ad d ress his arg u m en t. Blanchar d fa ces a “ daun ti ng ta sk. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wor t m an , 48 8 F
. 3d 752, 75 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( ci tat i on o m i tted)

. On revi ew o fsuch a chal l enge, we vi ew the evi dence an d a l l r ea so nabl e i nfer en ce s der i ve d t he ref r o m i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the gov ernm en t, de fert o the j ury’ s cre d ibi l i ty deter m i nati ons, and ove rturn a ver dict “onl y when the r eco rd co ntai ns no evi dence, r egardl ess of h ow itis w eig h ed , from w h ich th e jur y c ou ld find gu ilt beyo nd a re aso nabl e dou b t.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. D uran , 40 7 F. 3d 828, 83 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( quoti ng U ni ted S t at e s v. Ja cks on , 177F.3d 62 8, 63 0 (7 th C ir. 19 99 )); s e eal s o Unit ed State s v. Wantuch , 52 5 F
. 3d 505, 51 9 ( 7th Cir
. 20 08)
. In other w or ds, w e w il l r eve rs e “ onl y i fthe f act fi nd er ’ s t ake o n the e vi dence w as w h olly i rr ati onal

. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. B ust am ante, 49 3 F
. 3d 879, 88 4 ( 7th C ir. 2 007) ( i nter nal qu otation om itted ). U n d e r th i s e x c e e d i n g l y d e fe r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d o fr e v i e w, we c o n c l u d e th a t th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n de ny i ng Bl an ch ar d’ s Rul e 29 s uffi ci en cy - o f

- th e- ev i den ce mot io n. Blandin g’s te st i m ony, co upled with the m etham phetam inere lat ed ev id en c e re c ov er e d f r om bo th B lan c h ar d ’s re siden ce s, pr o vi ded ev i den ce i n s uppo r t o fCo untOne. And M ar sh al l J r . ’ s te st i m o ny, c o upl ed wi ththe sei zu r e o fthe fi re ar m s fro m Bl anchard’ s Rob er ts re si dence, pro vi ded ev idence o fco nstr ucti ve posse ssi on o fthe porch fi re -40 N o. 07

- 2780

W e bri efly add res s two add it ional argum ents t h a t were 6 inclu d ed , alm ost as an aftertho u g ht, at the clo se of the A p p ellan t’ s br ief. B lan ch ard arg u es tha t his civ il and p ossesso ry righ ts ha v e b een f u l ly re store d un d er Illino is law , p reclu d ing his convict ion und er 18 U
. S. C. § 922( g)( 1) , but ackno w le dg es that hi s ar gum en ti s f or ec l os ed by our dec i s i on i n M el vin v. U n i te d St ates , 78 F. 3d 3 27( 7th Ci r. 19 96 )
. He al s o c ont en ds ( without ex pl ana t i on or c i t at i on t o author i t y) that § 92 2( g) ( 1) e xc ee ds the s c ope o f Congr es s ’ s power unde r the Com m er c e Cl aus e. But “m ovem en t in i nter st ate com m erc e i s all the Suprem e Court (co n tin u ed ...) ar m s, insu p p or t o f C ou n t T w o. Se e U ni t e d St at e s v. Thom as , 321 F. 3d 627, 6 36 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( const ructi ve posse ssi on exi sts wh er e o ne has “the p ow er and the i ntenti on a t a g i ven t i m e t o exer ci se dom i ni on a nd co ntrol o veran obj ect, ei ther d i re ctl y o r thro ugh others ” ( quotati on om itt ed )); B ust am ante, 4 93 F
. 3d at 88 9 ( ex pl aini ngtha t th e g o ve r nm en t “c anpr o ve c o ns truct i ve po ss es si o n o fa g un bys ho wi ngtha t po li ce r ec o ve r ed th e g un a t th e defen dant’s r esi dence” ( ci ti ng U nited Sta tes v. K i t c hen , 57F. 3d 516, 52 1 ( 7th C ir. 1 99 5) )
. In sum , thi s e vi dence pro vi ded a su ffic ie n t, ra tional basis forthe ca se to go to the j ury f orde liberat i on; i nd eed, abs ent the st ra nge a nd unusual even ts d escribe d i n th e foregoi ng section, Blan ch ard ’s con viction s w ou ld be affi rm ed

. H ow ever, that th e j ury’s d ec isio n m ay h av e b ee n rat ion al d oe s n o t m ea n th at it was i ne vi tabl e, a nd b ec au se we ar e tr o ubl ed th atthe i nt r o duct i o n o fthe t r i alj ud g e’ s su ppr es si o n- he ar i ng c om m en ta ry m ay h av e in flu en c ed th e ou tc om e o f th e t ria l, Bl a nc ha r d’ s c o nv i c t i o ns c a nn o ts t a nd

. 6N o. 07

- 2780 41

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 requir es und er the s tatute, ” U ni t ed Sta t es v. Jackso n , 479 F. 3d 485, 49 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07 ) ( c i t i ng S carborou gh v . U n ite d S tat es , 431 U.S
. 563 ( 19 77 ) ) , an d Bla nc har d does no tdi s put e the e vi denc e of int ers tat e m ovem ent ofthe fir earm s pre s e nte d a tt ri al. Blanchard ind icates th at h e ha s raised thes e a rg u m en ts in ord er to p r e s e r v e th e m i n th e e v e n to fa c h a n g e i n the la w, a n d we recip ro cate h is per fun ctor y d ev elop m en t of these ar g u m en ts w ith our rej ect ion ofthe m here

.
9- 8- 08 I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we V ACATE th e D efend an t’s c o nv i c t i o ns a nd R EMA ND f ora new tr i al

. Ci rcui t Rul e 3 6 s ha l l a pp l y o n r e man d.