FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 13, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 00- 13083

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 9 9 - 0 0 1 2 5 - C R - K MM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M A R V I N B A K E R , W AY NE BAPT I ST E a .k .a . " F a t W a y n e " , M I CH A EL H A RPER a .k .a . " C u b a n M ik e " , A RTH U R PLESS a .k .a . " P le x " , K E N N E T H W I L L I A M S a .k .a . " B o o b ie " a .k .a . " B la c k " , S US AN HA L L GI B S ON a .k .a . " M is s S u e " , L E O N A R D B R O W N a .k .a . B o, E F R A IN C A S A D O a. k . a. "E -4 " a .k .a . " E f r o " , J O N A T H O N H A W T H O RN E a .k .a . " M o o s e " , M A L C O L M S H A W , B E N H . J OH NS ON a .k .a " B u s h " , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .Honora

ble L loyd D. Georg e, United States District Judge f or the District of N evada , sitti ngby * designation. 2 ________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m be r13, 2005) B ef ore B A R K E T T and M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg es , and G E O R G E , D i stri ctJudg e. * B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e: E l even defendant s app ea l thei r c on vi ct i on s f or drug tra ff

i cki ng offe nses af

t er a j u ry tri al . S ev en o f th ese d efen d an t s al so ap p eal th ei r sen t en ces. W e ad d ress e a c h of the de f e nda nt s ’ a r gum e nt s i n turn, a nd A F F I R M the c onvi c t i ons a nd se nt ence s of W i l l i am s, C as ado, H arper, L eonard B row n, M al col m S haw , B aker , B apt i st e, P l es s a nd G i bson ; R E V E R S E the conv i ct i on s of J oh nson and H aw tho rne; a n d R E M A N D th e c a s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is opi ni on. I . B AC KG RO UN D T he gove rnm e nta c c us e d f i f t e e n de f e nda nt s of

drug tr a f

f i c ki ng of f e ns e s i n a s e ve nt e e n- c ounti ndi c tm e nt : K e nne th W i l l i a m s , E f r a i n C a s a do, L e ona r d B r ow n, L e n a r d B r o wn , S u s a n Ha l l Gi b s o n , B e rn a r d S h a w, Ma r v i n B a k e r , Ma l c o l m S h a w, R ona l d R a y e , W a y ne B apt i s t e , M i c ha e l H a rpe r , A r thurP l e s s , B e n J ohns on,Count 1 : Cha rg e d Wil liams a

nd Ca sado wi th eng ag ingin a c ontin uingc rimin al enterp ri se 1 (C CE) , in

vio latio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. § § 8 48 (a), (b )( 2) (A), ba se d o n p re dic ate violations under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)( 1), 846, and 963; Count 2 : Cha

rg e d all f if te e n d e fendantswi th c on sp ira c y to p os se ss withint e nt to distribute and to distribute in excess of 5kgof coc aine a nd 50gof coc aine ba se, from in or about J anuar

y 1990, and continuingthrough in or about January 1998, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)( 1) and 846; Count 3 : Cha

rg e d Wil liams, L e on ard

B ro wn , L e na

rd B ro wn , a nd Cha rlton Da rc e s w ith c on sp ira c y

to impo rt in e xce ss o f 5 kgof

c oc aineinto th eUnite d St ate s, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 963; Count 4: Charg ed Willi ams with distributi on of in excess of 500gof coc aine a nd 50gof cocaine base , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) a nd 18 U.S.C. § 2; Count 5: Charg ed Ha rper with distributi on of in excess of 50gof coc aine ba se, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1) and 18 U .S.C. § 2; Count 6: Charg ed Willi ams with distributi on of in excess of 5kgof coc aine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; Count 7: Charg ed Shaw with distribution of in ex cess of 500gof coc aine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; Count 8: Charg ed Casado with distribution of in excess of 500gof coc aine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; Count 9 : Cha

rg e d Wil liams, L e on ard

B ro wn , a nd L e na rd B ro wn wi th dist ributio n o f in excess of 500gof coc aine a nd 50gof coc aine ba se, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) a

nd 18 U.S.C. § 2; Count 10: Charg ed Casado with distribution of in excess of 500gof coc aine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; Count 11: Charg ed Shaw with distribution of in ex cess of 500gof coc aine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; Count 12: Charg ed Shaw with distribution of in ex cess of 5kgof coc aine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; Count 1 3: Cha

rg e d Wil liams w ithdis tributio n o f in e xce ss o f 5 0gof c oc aineba sein violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; Count 14: Charg ed Ha rper with distributi on of in excess of 50gof coc aine ba se, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1) and 18 U .S.C. § 2; Count 15: Charg ed Pless with distributi on of in excess of 50gof coc aine ba se, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1) and 18 U .S.C. § 2; Count 16: Charg ed Willi ams, Casado, L eonard Brown, L enard Brown, Pless, J ohnson, and

Hawthor ne with conspiracy

to use and c arr

y a fire arm duringand in re lation to a drugtraff ickingcrime a s set forth in Count 2, in viol ation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 942(o) and its prede cessor , 18 U.S.C. § 924(n); and Count 1 7: Cha

rg e d G ibs on

wi th k no wing ly maint aininga

plac eat 72 85 NW 1 7th

Court , Miami, FL , for the pur

pose of manuf

acturing, distributing , and usingcocaine and cocaine base , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) a nd 18 U.S.C. § 2. 3 J o n a th o n Ha wth o rn e , a n d C h a r t o n Da r c e s . T h r e e d e f e n d a n t s , B e rn a r d S h a w, 1L e na

rd B ro wn wa s L e on ard

B ro wn ’stw in b ro ther. To avo id c on fu sio n, were fer to all 2 defendants by

their last names e x cept f

or the B rown twins and Malcolm and B erna rd Shaw. 4 R on al d R ay e, and C harl t on D ar ce s, pl ed gu i l ty bef ore the st artof tri al . L enar d B r o w n d ie d o f

a c o n g e n ita l h e a r t d e f

e c t b e f o r e tr ia l. 2 T he ce nt erpi ec e of the go vernm ent ’ s c as e- i n-chi ef w as i t s e vi dence im p lic a tin g th e r e m a in in g e le v e n d e f e n d a n ts in th e c o n s p ir a c y to d is tr ib u te a n d to pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne a l l e ge d i n C ount2. T ha te vi de nc e , pa r tof a thi r ty - one da y tr i a l f

e a tur i ng ove rone hundr e d w i tne s s e s , a c c us e d the m of be i ng partof a gang t hatthe m edi a, ri ff i ng on W i l l i am s’ ni cknam e “ B oo bi e, ” had du bb ed the “ B oo bi e B oys. ” H ow ever , the go vernm ent ’ s w i tness es , m any of them i nc a r c e r a t e d f

or m e ra s s oc i a t e s of

W i l l i a m s orhi s c o- de f

e nda nt s , de s c r i be d the

“ B oo bi e B oys” no tas a s t er eotypi ca l “ gang ” w i th col ors, hand si gn al s, or ot her vi s i bl e s i gns of

m e m be r s hi p, butr a the ra s a n i nf or m a l a s s oc i a t i on of

pe opl e f r om the M i am i ar ea . T he ov er al l thrustof the hu nd re ds of ho urs of w i tness t es t i m on y w as that W i l l i a m s a nd C a s a do, w ho ha d be e n ope r a t i ng the i row n, i nde pe nde ntdrug di s tr i but i on ne tw or ks w i th the i rf r i e nds i n the M i a m i a r e a , m e ti n pr i s on i n 1992 a n d c o m b in e d f

o r c e s to c r e a te a m a s s iv e d ru g d is tr ib u tio n o p e r a tio n b a s e d in S o u th F l ori da, i n w hi ch the re m ai ni ng thi rt ee n d ef endant s pl ay ed a part . R ay e, B ernard a nd M a l c ol m S ha w , H a rpe r , the B r ow n tw i ns , a nd the i rm othe rS us a n H a l l G i bs onAlthough therelevant conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. § 846, does not requireproof of an over t 3 act in fur thera nce of the conspiracy, United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 13, 115 S. Ct. 382, 130 L . Ed. 2d 225 (1994), theg overnment list ed in the indictment twenty-six“over t acts,” ma

ny of them ho mic ide s, alle g e dly do nein f ur thera nc eof theCount 2 c on sp ira c y . A s w edis c us s inf ra , th eg ov e rnment c ann ot re nd e r evide nc eof a n o therwiseinadmi ssibleov e rt a c t admi ssible sim ply by plac ingit intotheindic tment itse lf . Theov e rt

a c ts c ite d a

rea s f oll ow s: 1. In o r a

bo ut ea rly Janu ary, 1 99 2, in M iami, Mia mi- DadeCou

nty, d e fendants KENNET H WILLIAMS, BERNARD SHAW and RONALD RAYE delivere d approximately

one kilogram of c ocainebase, o r “c ra ck”, to a n individual who was later

arrested in St. Lucie County , Florida in possession of the c rac k. 2. On

or a bo ut D e c e mber 23, 19 93 , in Miami, Mia mi- DadeCounty, d e fendants ARTHUR PLESS and BEN J OHNSON participated in the shooting de ath of Roo seve lt D avis . 3. On

or a bo ut Janu ary

29 , 1 99 4, in Mia

mi, Mia mi- DadeCounty, d e fendants WAYNE BAPTI STE a

nd EFRAI

N CASADO distributed one-half kilogram of c oc aineto a

no ther indivi du al. 4. On or a

bout March 17, 1994, in M i ami, Miami-DadeCounty , defendant KENNET H WILLIAMS and others pa rticipated in the shootingdeath of Benny Brownlee. 5. In or about mid-May, 1994, in Miami, Miami-Dade County , defendant 5 w ere al l fri en d s o f W i l l i am s fro m th e M i am i n ei g h b o rh o o d s o f C aro l C i ty, O v ert o w n , an d L i b erty C i ty. B ap t i st e w as C asad o ’ s cl o se fri en d an d b u si n ess p a r tn e r . P le s s a n d J o h n s o n , th e m s e lv e s f r ie n d s , k n e w b o th C a s a d o a n d W illia m s . H a w th o rn e , a p a id lo o k o u t f o ra s m a ll- tim e d ru g d e a le rw h o d id b u s in e s s w ith W i l l i am s, al l egedl y s t art ed t o d ea l drug s di re ct l y w i th the “ B oo bi e B oys. ” C ha r l t on D a r c e s w a s a P or tof M i a m i l ongs hor e m a n w ho, a c c or di ng t o the evi dence, hel ped t he “ B oo bi e B oys” i m po rtcoca i ne. T he go vernm ent ’ s c as e w as a l s o r e pl e t e w i th e vi de nc e , s om e of i tqui t e gr aphi c , tha tW i l l i a m s , C a s a do, L eonard B row n, B apt i st e, H arper, P l es s, John son, and H aw tho rne c om m i tt ed m u rd ers i n fu rth eran ce o f th i s co n sp i racy. 3KENNET H W ILLIAMS delivered a pproxi mately

500 grams of pow der cocaine and 1.13 kilograms of c ocainebase or “c ra ck” to a courier who transporte d the crack to Augusta, Georg ia at the de fenda nt’s direc tion. 6. On

or a bo ut Jun e22 , 1 99 4, in M iami, Mia mi- DadeCou

nty, d e fendants KENNET H WILLIAMS and EFRAI N CASADO par

ticipate d in thes h o o ting de ath o f Walter B e tters on and Derric k H arris. 7. On

or a bo ut Sep te mber 18, 19 94 , in Miami, Mia mi- DadeCou

nty, d e fendants ARTHUR PLESS and BEN JOHNSON shot to death Everett Cooper. 8. On or a

bout November

4, 1994, in Miami, M i ami-Dade County , defendant ARTHUR P L ESS and others participated in the shooting de ath of Johnny Be liard. 9. In o r a

bo ut late No vember of 19 94 or De c e mber of 19 94 , in Miami, MiamiDadeCounty , defendant M I CHAEL HARPER delivere d approximately two kilograms of coc aine ba se, or “ crack ” t o anindividual who in turn transporte d the crack to Ge org ia, a p o rt i o n of which w as later seized by a uth oriti e s. 1 0 . Ino r

a b o ute arl y t o m i d - M arc ho f 1 9 9 5 , i nM i am i , M i am i - D a d eC o unty, defendant KENNETH WILLIAMS de l ivere d several kilograms of coc aine to a courier wh o transported the c ocaineto Pensacola, F lorida at WILLIAMS’ direc tion. 11. In or about mid-May of 1995, in Miami, Miami-Dade C o unty , defendant MAL COLM SHAW delivere d several kilograms of coc aine to an individual who transpor

ted the coc aine to Columbia, South C arolina f or distribution. 12 . On or a

bo ut May 17 , 19 95 , in Mia mi, Mia mi- Dade County, d efendants EF RA I N CA SAD O, ARTHUR

PLESS a nd B ENJOHN SONpa

rtic ipate d in the shooting de aths of Otis Gre en, Alice Mae Gardner, a nd Michae l Frazier. 13 . In o r abo utlateOc tob e r o f 1 99 5 o r e arly No vember o f 1 99 5, in M iami, Miami-DadeCounty , defendant EF RAI N CASADO delivered se v eral kilograms of coc aine ba se, or “ crack” to a n individual. Approx imately two and one- half kilograms of crack which remained from this crac k were seized by law enf orcement auth o ri ties in W est Palm Beach, F lorida on November 2, 1995. 1 4 . Ino r

a b o utl at eD e c e mb e ro f

1 9 9 5 , i nM i am i , M i am i - D a d eC o unty, de fendantsKENNET H WILLIAM S, LEONARD B RO WN a nd LENARD BROWN delivered cocaine and cocaine base, or “crac k” to an individual, a portion of which was later s eized by law enf orcement authorities on March 6, 1996. 15. In or about early J anuar y of 1996, in Miami, Miami-Dade County, defendant MAL COLM SHAW delivered approximately one and one -half kilograms of cocaine to an individual who transporte d the cocaine to Tallahasse e, F lorida fo r d i s tri bution, a portion of which wa s later se ized by law enf orcement authorities on J anuar

y 7, 1996. 16. In or about early Februar y of 1996, defendant M AL COLM SHAW delivered approximately

two kilograms of cocaine to an individual, which were se ized

6by law enf orcement authorities on Februar y 7, 1996. 17. In or about e arly

Marc h of 1996, in Miami, Miami-Dade County , defendant KENNET H WILLIAMS delivered c ocaine t o an individual who in turn transporte d the coc aine to Tallahassee , Florida , a portion of whic h was later seized by law enf orcement authorities on March 6, 1996. 18. In or about late April of 1996 or early May of 1996, in Miami, Miami-Dade County , defendant MI CHAEL HARPER delivered several kil ograms of cocaine base , or “cra ck ” t o an individual who in turn transporte d the crack to No rth Carolina, a

portion of which wa s later se ized by law enf orcement authorities on May

3, 1996. 19 . On

or a bout May

19 , 1 99 6, in M iami, Mia mi- DadeCou

nty, d e fendants WAY N EB APT I ST Ean d

ART HUR P LE SS p arti c ip ate d in th es h o o ting death of Moses Brown. 20. On or a

bo ut November

5, 1996, in Miami, Miami-Dade County , defendant EFRAI N CASADO par

ticipated in the shootingdeath of Tarvis Miller. 21. In or about mid-March of 1997, in Miami, Miami-Dade C o unty , defendant ART HUR P LE SS d e liv e re d a p p ro xim ate ly

o n e - h alf kil o gram o f

c o c aine ba se , o r “ c rac k”to a

n in div idu al who in t

ur n transpo rt e d the crack

to J acksonville, F lorida, a por tion of which wa s later seized by law enf orcement authorities on March 18, 1997. 22 . On or a

bo ut May 23 , 19 97 , in Mia mi, Mia mi- Dade County, d efendants KENNET H WILLIAM S and EF RA I N C ASADO trave le d in a stolen c ar in possession of high powered assault rifles, ski ma sks a nd camouf

lag e clothing t o ro b i n di v i d

u al s o f dr u g s an d m o n e y. 23. On or a

bout June 24, 1997, in Holly wood, B rowa

rd County , defendant CHARL TON DARCE S a pp lie d for a Unite d Stat e s p a ssp or t w ithDARCE S’ picture, but in the name of a nother individual, to me et with cocaine suppliers in Panama to fac ilitate future c ocaineimportations for eventual distribution i nM i am i , M i am i - D a d eC o unty. 24. On or a

bout September 13, 1997, in Miami, Miami-DadeCounty , another indivi du al re tur

ne d f ro m Panama

havingme t w ith cocainesu pp liersto fac ilitate future dr

ugimportations into the Port o f M i am i and Port Everg lades. Theindividual used th e false passport issued to def endant CHARL TON DARCES on this occasion. 25 . On

or a bo ut F ebr ua ry 11 , 19 98 , in

Mia mi, Mia mi- DadeCounty, d e fendants EFRAI N C ASADO, LEONARD B ROWN, LENARD B ROWN and J ONATH ON HAWTHORNE pa rticipated in the s h ooting de aths of Rog er Davis and Ty

rone Ta rver . 26 . On

or a bo ut F ebr ua ry 24 , 19 98 , in

Mia mi, Mia mi- DadeCounty, d e fendants LEONARD B RO WN a

nd LENARD B RO WN s ho t tode ath John D avis . 7 T h e c r im e s a lle g e d in th e o th e rs ix te e n c o u n ts w e r e lin k e d to th e C o u n t 2The g overnment dismi ssed Counts 5, 7, and 13, duringtrial. The jury acquitted Gibson on 4 C o unt1 7 . A f

t e r tri al , th eg o v e r

nm e ntdi s m i s s e d

C o unt2 w i thre s p e c tt o d e f e n d antC a s a d o o n l y. 8 c o n s p ir a c y . C o u n t 3 a c c u s e d W illia m s a n d L e o n a r d B r o w n o f a c o n s p ir a c y to im p o r t c o c a in e th a t, a c c o r d in g to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e , w a s r e la te d to th e ir d ru g p o s s e s s io n a n d d is tr ib u tio n a c tiv itie s c h a r g e d b y th e C o u n t 2 c o n s p ir a c y . C ount s 4- 15 a l l e ge d i ns t a nc e s of drug di s tr i but i on dur i ng the t i m e f r a m e of the C ount2 c ons pi r a c y . C ount16 a c c us e d s i x de f e nda nt s of

c ons pi r i ng t o us e a nd ca rry afi re arm du ri ng and i n rel at i on t o the C ou nt2 con spi ra cy . C ou nt17 ac cuse d G ib s o n o f

m a in ta in in g a p la c e f

o rm a n u f a c tu r in g , d is tr ib u tin g , a n d u s in g c o c a in e . C o u n t 1 e s s e n tia lly a c c u s e d W illia m s a n d C a s a d o o f m a s te r m in d in g th e C o u n t 2 c ons pi r a c y , the r e l a t e d i m por t a t i on a nd f i r e a r m s c ons pi r a c y , a nd the di s tr i but i on c ha r ge s l i s t e d i n C ount s 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, a nd 10. T he j ury r e turne d gui l ty ve r di c t s a s t o a l l de f e nda nt s on C ount s 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 4 , 1 5 , an d 1 6 . T h e d efen d an t s ap p eal fro m th ese co n v i ct i o n s, 4 a nd W i l l i a m s , C a s a do, B apt i s t e , H a rpe r , M a l c ol m S ha w , P l e s s , a nd H a w thorne a ls o c h a lle n g e th e irs e n te n c e s . W e a d d r e s s e a c h o f th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ a r g u m e n ts in turn, gr oupi ng the m w he ne ve rpos s i bl e t o a voi d r e pe t i t i on. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . E vi d en ti ary E rr ors W e f ir s t a d d r e s s th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ a r g u m e n ts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in9

a dm i tt i ng tw e nty i t e m s of e vi de nc e i n vi ol a t i on of F e de r a l R ul e s of

E vi de nc e 802 ( he a r s a y ) , 404( b) ( othe rc r i m e s , w r ongs , ora c t s ) , 701 ( l a y opi ni on t e s t i m ony ) , a nd 106 ( rul e of

c om pl e t e ne s s ) ; the F i f

th A m e ndm e ntr i ghta ga i ns ts e l f - i nc r i m i na t i on; a n d th e Si x th A me n d me n t ’ s Co n f r o n t a t i o n Cl a u s e . M o s to f th e d e f e n d a n t s ’ c l a i ms a r e gr ounde d i n R ul e s 802 a nd 404( b) , a nd the C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e , a nd ch al l en g e ev i d en ce p ert ai n i n g t o v i o l en tact s al l eg ed l y co m m i tt ed b y W i l l i am s, C as ado, L eonard B row n, B apt i st e, P l es s, and H aw tho rne. W e r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s f o ra b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e nde r s on, 409 F . 3d 1293, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A n a bus e of di s c r e t i on a r i s e s w he n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on r e s t s upon a c l e a r l y e rr one ous f in d in g o f f a c t, a n e rr a n t c o n c lu s io n o f la w , o ra n im p r o p e rap p lic a tio n o f la w to fa ct . U ni t ed S t at es v. F ra zi er , 38 7 F . 3d 12 44 , 12 76 n. 12 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( en banc) ( T j of l a t , J . , s pe c i a l l y c onc urr i ng) . W e r e vi e w pr e s e r ve d e vi de nt i a ry obj e c t i ons f or harm l es s e rr or. U ni t ed S t at es v. H ands, 18 4 F . 3d 13 22 , 13 29 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ), co rrect ed b y 1 9 4 F . 3 d 1 1 8 6 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ). H o w ev er, w h en a p arty rai ses a c l a i m of e vi de nt i a ry e rr orf

orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , w e r e vi e w i tf orpl a i n e rr or onl y . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e rni ga n, 341 F . 3d 1273, 1280 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . U nde rthe pl ai n err or st andard, “ before an app el l at e c ou rtca n correc tan error notra i se d at tri al , th ere m u stb e (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th ati s p l ai n , an d (3 ) th ataffects s u b st an t i al ri g h t s. I f a ll th r e e c o n d itio n s a r e m e t, a n ap p e lla te c o u r t m a y th e n e x e r c is e its d is c r e tio n toIn B onner v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), theEl e venth 5 Circuit adopted as bindingprec edent all Fifth Circuit decisions hande d down prior to the c lose of business on September 30, 1981. 10 n o t i ce a fo rfei t ed erro r, b u to n l y i f (4 ) th e erro r seri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ott on, 53 5 U . S . 62 5, 63 1-32 (200 2) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). F u rth er, w e m u strev i ew th e p rej u d i ci al effect of all ev i d en t i ary erro rs, eval uat ed un der bot h p re se rved and p l ai n err or st andards, i n the aggregat e. U ni t ed S t at es v . L ab arb era, 5 8 1 F . 2 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 0 (5 th C i r. 1 9 7 8 ). W e w i l l th erefo re rev erse 5 i f the c um ul a t i ve e f

f e c tof the e rr or s i s pr e

j udi c i a l , e ve n i f

the pr e j udi c e c a us e d by e a c h i ndi vi dua l e rr orw a s ha r m l e s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B l a s c o, 702 F . 2d 1315, 1329 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 3 ) (“ A p i ecem eal rev i ew o f each i n ci d en td o es n o ten d o u r i n q u i ry. W e m ustconsi der the cum ul at i ve ef fe ctof these i nci dent s and det erm i ne w hether, vi e w i ng the tr i a l a s a w hol e , appe l l a nt s r e c e i ve d a f a i rtr i a l a s i s the i rdue unde rour C ons t i tut i on. ” ) . F orc onve ni e nc e ’ s s a ke , the r e f or e , w e de f

e rourc um ul a t i ve pr e j udi c e a na l y s i s unt i l the e nd of thi s s e c t i on. 1. L aw a ) H ea rsa y a n d th e C o n fro n ta ti o n C l a u se T he de f e nda nt s c ol l e c t i ve l y c ha l l e nge the a dm i s s i on of f i f t e e n i t e m s of e v id e n c e o n th e b a s e s th a t ( 1 ) th e y w e r e in a d m is s ib le h e a r s a y a n d ( 2 ) th e ir adm i ss i on vi ol at ed the C on fr on t at i on C l ause . H ea rs ay “ i s ast at em ent , other than“In all criminal prose cutions, the ac cused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the 6 w i tn e s s e s ag ai n s th i m . ”U . S . C o n s t . am e n d . V I. 11 o n e m a d e b y th e d e c la r a n t w h ile te s tif y in g a t th e tr ia l o rh e a r in g , o f f e r e d in evi dence t o p rove the truth o f the m att eras se rt ed. ” F ed. R . E vi d. 80 1(c) . H ea rs ay i s i na dm i s s i bl e unl e s s the s t a t e m e nti s nothe a r s a y a s pr ovi de d by R ul e 801( d) , or f a l l s i nt o one of

the he a r s a y e xc e pt i ons e num e r a t e d i n R ul e s 803, 804, a nd 807. M oreover, i f hea rs ay i s “ t es t i m on i al , ” thati s, for e xam pl e, “ m ade und er c i r c um s t a nc e s w hi c h w oul d l e a d a n obj e c t i ve w i tne s s r e a s ona bl y t o be l i e ve tha tthe s t a t e m e ntw oul d be a va i l a bl e f orus e a ta l a t e rtr i a l , ” C r a w f or d v. W a s hi ngt on, 541 U . S . 3 6 , 5 2 (2 0 0 4 ) th e C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se p ro h i b i t s i t s ad m i ssi o n attri al u n l ess 6 ( 1) the de c l a r a nti s una va i l a bl e , a nd ( 2) a nd the de f e nda ntha s ha d a pr i or o p p o r tu n i ty t o c r o s s - e x a mi n e th e d e c l a r a n t . Se e i d . a t5 9 , 6 8 . W h i l e th e Su p r e me C ou rthas notcl ar i fi ed w hi ch st at em ent s a re i n fac t“ t es t i m on i al ” i thas provi ded som e gui dance on t he t erm ’ s m ea ni ng . Itdefi ned “ t es t i m on y” as “ typi ca l l y ‘ [a ] s ol e m n de c l a r a t i on ora f f i r m a t i on m a de f

orthe purpos e of

e s t a bl i s hi ng orpr ovi ng s om e f a c t . ’ ” I d. a t51 ( quot i ng 1 N . W e bs t e r , A n A m e r i c a n D i c t i ona ry of the E ng l i sh L angu age ( 18 28 )) . T hu s, “ form al st at em ent [s ] t o g ov ernm entoffi ce rs ” a re general l y t es t i m on i al . C ra w ford, 54 1 U . S . at51 . S o i s “ ex part e i n-court t est i m o n y o r i t s fu n ct i o n al eq u i v al en t– th ati s, m at eri al su ch as affi d av i t s, cu st o d i al ex am i n at i o n s, p ri o r t est i m o n y th atth e d efen d an tw as u n ab l e t o cro ss-12

e x a m in e , o rs im ila rp r e tr ia l s ta te m e n ts th a t d e c la r a n ts w o u ld r e a s o n a b ly e x p e c t to b e u s e d p r o s e c u to r ia lly .” I d . S im ila r ly , “e x tr a ju d ic ia l s ta te m e n ts ... c o n ta in e d in f or m a l i z e d t e s t i m oni a l m a t e r i a l s , s uc h a s a f f i da vi t s , de pos i t i ons , pr i ort e s t i m ony , or c o n f e s s io n s ,” a n d “s ta te m e n ts th a t w e r e m a d e u n d e rc ir c u m s ta n c e s w h ic h w o u ld l e a d a n obj e c t i ve w i tne s s r e a s ona bl y t o be l i e ve tha tthe s t a t e m e ntw oul d be a va i l a bl e f

orus e a ta l a t e rtr i a l , ” f

a l l w i thi n the “ c or e c l a s s ” of t e s t i m ony . I d. a t51- 5 2 .

“ S t at em ent s t aken by po l i ce offi ce rs i n the course of i nt errogat i on s” ar e defi ni t i vel y “ t es t i m on i al . ” I d. at52 . A s the C ra w ford C ou rtused the t erm “in te rr o g a tio n ” in th e “c o llo q u ia l” a n d n o t “te c h n ic a l le g a l” s e n s e , s ta te m e n ts g iv e n in a f

o r m a l in te rr o g a tio n s e ttin g a t a p o lic e s ta tio n a n d w itn e s s s ta te m e n ts gi ve n t o a n i nve s t i ga t i ng pol i c e of f i c e ra r e both c ons i de r e d “ t e s t i m oni a l . ” I d. a t53 n .4 ( h o ld in g th a t p o s t- M ir a n d a s ta te m e n t “k n o w in g ly g iv e n in r e s p o n s e to s truc tur e d pol i c e que s t i oni ng” w a s t e s t i m oni a l ) , 58 n. 8 ( c ha r a c t e r i z i ng s t a t e m e nt gi ve n by vi c t i m t o a n i nve s t i ga t i ng pol i c e of f i c e ri n W hi t e v. I l l i noi s , 502 U . S . 346 ( 1 9 9 2 ) , a s te s tim o n ia l) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . A rn o ld , 4 1 0 F .3 d 8 9 5 , 9 0 3 - 0 4 ( 6 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a c c u s e r ’s 9 1 1 c a ll, in itia l s ta te m e n t to p o lic e u p o n th e ir arri val atthe cr i m e s ce ne, and st at em ent s m ade t o p ol i ce a s ho rtt i m e l at erw er eWe note that Crawf ord ca utions that “[i ]nvol vement of g overnment officers in the produc tion 7 of testimony

with an eye toward trial presents unique potential for prose cutorial a buse-- a fact borne out time and ag ain throughout a history with which the F ramers were keenly familiar. This consideration does not evaporate when te stimony happens to fall within s ome broad, modern he arsa

y exception, even if that exception might be justifiable in other c ircumstance s.” Crawf ord, 541 U.S. at 56 n.7. We n otethat whil eCrawf ord doe s su

perc e deRob e rt s in so fa

r a s te stimonial he ars ay

is 8 concerned, theRoberts formulation remains applicableto non-testimonial statements. See United States v. Fra

nklin, 415 F.3d 537, 546 (6th Cir. 2005) (e xplaining that with respec t to nontestimonial statements, the Roberts formulation remains the controllingprec edent, under which non-testimonial statements areconstitutionally admissible if they

“bea r independent guara

ntees of trustworthiness”) ; United States v. Sag et, 377 F.3d 223, 227 ( 2d. Cir. 2004) (statingthat “Craw ford lea

ves the Rober

ts approach untouched with re spect to non-testimonial statements”) .

13 t es t i m on i al ). 7 A dm i s s i on of

non- t e s t i m oni a l he a r s a y a ga i ns tc r i m i na l de f e nda nt s i s not gove rne d by C r a w f

or d, buts t i l l vi ol a t e s the C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e unl e s s the st at em en tfal l s w i th i n a fi rm l y ro o t ed h earsay ex cep t i o n , o r o th erw i se carries a pa r t i c ul a r i z e d gua r a nt e e of trus tw or thi ne s s . O hi o v. R obe r t s , 448 U . S . 56, 66 (198 0). A hear sa y e xcept i on i s f i rm l y r oo t ed i f, “ i n l i gh tof l on gst andi ng j ud i ci al 8 and l egi sl at i ve experi ence [the except i on ] re st s on such a sol i d fou nd at i on that a dm i s s i on of

vi r tua l l y a ny e vi de nc e w i thi n i tc om por t s w i th the s ubs t a nc e of the const i tut i on al prot ec t i on . ” L i l l y v. V i rgi ni a, 52 7 U . S . 11 6, 12 6 (19 99 ). b ) R u l e 4 0 4 (b ) E v i d en ce o f “ O th er C ri m es, W ro n g s, o r A cts” A l l e l e ve n de f

e nda nt s a l s o c ha l l e nge the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a dm i s s i on of f our t e e n i ns t a nc e s of

“ othe rc r i m e s , w r ongs , ora c t s ” unde rF e de r a l R ul e of E vi dence 404 (b), m uch o f w hi ch i m pl i ca t ed them i n att em pt ed and con sum m at edNevertheless, in this Circuit “evidenc e of other crimes, wrong s, or ac ts” falls outside the scope 9 of Rule 404(b) when it is: “(1) a n uncharg ed off

ense which arose out of the same transaction or series of transac tions as the charg ed off ense, ( 2) nec essar

y to complete the story

of the c rime, or (3) inextricably

intertwined with the evidencereg ardingthe cha rg ed off ense.”United States v. Veltmann, 6 F .3d 1483, 1498 (11th Cir. 1993). This so-called “re s g estae ” often arises during trials f or c on sp ira c ie s wherethe“ oth e r crime s, wron g s, or a c ts”de sc ribethec o- c on sp irator s’ behavior within the scope a

nd in furtheranceof the c harg ed conspiracy . See, e.g ., United States v. J iminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1249-50 (11th Cir. 2000); United States v. Ramsdale, 61 F .3d 825, 82 9- 30 (1 1th

Cir . 1 99 5) . A lth ough n ot s ub je c t to Rul e40 4(b) , admi ssi on of re s g e staemus t still satisfy Rule 403. United States v. Church, 955 F .2d 688, 700 (11th Cir. 1992). 14 h o m i ci d es. R u l e 4 0 4 (b ) fo rb i d s th e ad m i ssi o n o f an y ev i d en ce o f “ o th er cri m es, w r o n g s , o ra c ts ... to p r o v e th e c h a r a c te ro f a p e r s o n in o r d e rto s h o w a c tio n in c onf or m i ty the r e w i th. ” F e d. R . E vi d. 404( b) . H ow e ve r , s uc h e vi de nc e “ m a y ... be a d m is s ib le f

o ro th e rp u rp o s e s , s u c h a s p r o o f o f m o tiv e , o p p o r tu n ity , in te n t, p r e p a r a tio n , p la n , k n o w le d g e , id e n tity , o ra b s e n c e o f m is ta k e o ra c c id e n t.” I d . R ul e 404( b) i s a rul e of

i nc l us i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e r e z - T os t a , 36 F . 3d 1552, 1562 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( not i ng tha t“ [ t ] he s e c ond s e nt e nc e of rul e 404( b) i s a rul e of i nc l us i on, a nd 404( b) e vi de nc e , l i ke othe rr e l e va nte vi de nc e , s houl d notl i ght l y be e x c lu d e d w h e n it is c e n tr a l to th e p r o s e c u tio n ’s c a s e ” ) . I f th e p r io ra c t e v id e n c e is r e le v a n t to a n is s u e o th e rth a n th e d e f e n d a n t’s c h a r a c te r , it m a y b e a d m is s ib le prov i ded thatthe go vernm ent(1) has suff i ci entproo f thatthe defendantcom m i tt ed the pr i ora c t , a nd ( 2) c a n s how tha tthe pr oba t i ve va l ue of the e vi de nc e i s not s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b y its u n d u e p r e ju d ic e , a n d m e e ts th e o th e rr e q u ir e m e n ts of R ul e 403 . U ni t ed S t at es v. M i l l er , 95 9 F . 2d 15 35 , 15 38 (11t h C i r. 19 92 ) ( en banc); se e a l so H ud dl es t on v. U ni t ed S t at es , 48 5 U . S . 68 1, 68 9-92 (198 8). 915

E xtri nsi c e vi dence of other c ri m es , w rong s, or ac t s i s i nh er ent l y pre j ud i ci al t o the defendant . U ni t ed S t at es v. B ee chum , 58 2 F . 2d 89 8, 91 0 (5t h C i r. 19 78 ) ( en banc). “ O ne of the dang er s i nh er enti n the adm i ss i on of extri nsi c off ense evi dence i s tha tthe j ury m a y c onvi c tthe de f e nda ntnotf

orthe of f e ns e c ha r ge d butf

orthe e xtr i ns i c of

f e ns e . ” I d. a t914. A ddi t i ona l l y , e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e “ m a y l e a d [ the j ury ] t o c onc l ude tha t , ha vi ng c om m i tt e d a c r i m e of the ty pe c ha r ge d, [ the defe nd ant ] i s l i kel y t o repeati t . ” I d. (quo t at i on m arks om i tt ed). E i ther i nfer ence m a y b e in im ic a l to th e lo n g - s ta n d in g ru le th a t p r o p e n s ity to c o m m it c r im e s s h o u ld notbe the ba s i s of

a c onvi c t i on. M or e ove r , the non- c ha r a c t e rpr obi ty of 404( b) e vi de nc e i s nota bs ol ut e , but r a the rr e l a t i ve t o the othe re vi de nc e i n the pr opone nt ’ s c a s e . I d. T hus , w e ha ve

“ general l y hel d thati f the extri nsi c a ctre qu i re s the sa m e i nt entas the charged of f e ns e s a nd i f

the s e a c t s a r e pr oxi m a t e i n t i m e t o the c ha r ge d of f e ns e s , the n the e xtr i ns i c a c ti s hi ghl y pr oba t i ve . ” C hur c h, 955 F . 2d a t702 ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) . “ I n i t s R ul e 403 a na l y s i s , the tr i a l c our ts houl d [ a l s o] c ons i de r. . . the pr oba bl e e f

f e c t i ve ne s s orl a c k the r e of of a l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M ee st er , 76 2 F . 2d 86 7, 87 5 (11 th C i r. 19 85 ). T he pr oba t i ve va l ue of

e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e a l s o de pe nds on the s tr e ngth of the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e c onc e rni ng the e l e m e ntof i nt e ntof the c ha r ge d c r i m e . T he s tr o n g e rth e g o v e rn m e n t’s c a s e o n in te n t, th e le s s th e e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e w ill a d d .16

U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P ol l oc k, 926 F . 2d 1044, 1049 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ; B e e c hum , 582 F .2 d a t 9 1 4 . I t f

o llo w s th a t if

in te n t is u n d is p u te d b y th e d e f e n d a n t, th e e v id e n c e is of negl i gi bl e probat i ve w ei gh tcom pare d t o i t s i nh er entprej ud i ce and i s there fore uni f or m l y i na dm i s s i bl e . B e e c hum , 582 F . 2d a t914- 15 ( “ I f the de f e nda nt ’ s i nt e nt i s n o tco n t est ed , th en th e i n crem en t al p ro b at i v e v al u e o f th e ex tri n si c o ffen se [off er ed t o p rove i nt ent ] i s i ncon se qu ent i al w hen com pare d t o i t s pre j ud i ce ; th e r e f o r e , i n th i s c i r c u m s t a n c e th e e v i d e n c e i s u n i f o r m l y e x c l u d e d . ” ) . F i n a l l y , we r e v ie w th e a d m is s ib ility o f e v id e n c e u n d e rR u le 4 0 4 ( b ) f o ra n a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U ni t ed S t at es v. G i ordano , 26 1 F . 3d 11 34 , 11 40 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ). 2 . T h e De f

e n d a n t s ’ E v i d e n t i a r y Cl a i ms H avi ng se tforth the re l evantl egal st andards, w e f i rs tdi sc uss e ac h al l eged e vi de nt i a ry e rr ort o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by a d m ittin g th e te s tim o n y a t is s u e . S e c o n d , in th o s e c a s e s w h e r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id e rr , w e c ons i de rw he the rthe e rr or s w e r e s uf f i c i e nt l y pr e

j udi c i a l t o w a rr a nt r e v e r s a l. a ) G a r y C o l e y H o m i c i de Attr i a l , S e r g e a n tS i n g e ro f th e Mi a m i - Da d e P o l i c e De p a r tm e n t( MDP D) t es t i fi ed thathi s i nv es t i gat i on of an O ct ob er19 87 shoo t i ng thatki l l ed G ary C ol ey and w ou nd ed S t even Jones a nd R ob ertF i t zpatri ck “ re veal ed” thatW i l l i am s w as the gu nm an. S i ng eral so t es t i fi ed thatS t even Jones, w ho di d n ott es t i fy attri al , hadTh edis tric t c ourt state d b e fo retrial th at th eob je c tio ns of

on ede fendant w ould a

uto matic ally 10 be adopte d by

the other c o-def

endants, unless a

defendant expressly

stated that he or

she wa nted to “opt out.” Any asser tion that this evidenc e provide d “bac kground” f or Singer’s testimony

about 11 Willi ams’ su

bs e qu e nt guilty

ple a mis se s th epo int

that th eon ly

re le va nc eof Willi ams’ guilty plea is to establish that he did in fac t attempt to kill J ones and F itzpatrick. “ Background” e vide nc eof

thefac ts s uppo rtinga

guilty ple a is t hu s re le va

nt f or thesamere a so n th eple a its e lf is relevant – to prove Williams was the shooter, a nd is thus more likely

to have c ommitt ed the charg ed crimes. That is prec isely what Rules 802 and 404(b) for bid. 17 id e n tif ie d W illia m s a s th e s h o o te r . S in g e ra d d e d th a t W illia m s la te rp le d g u ilty to an att em p t ed seco n d -d eg ree m u rd er ch arg e ari si n g fro m th e i n ci d en t . D efen se co u n sel l o d g ed t i m el y h earsay an d 4 0 4 (b ) o b j ect i o n s. 10 S in g e r ’s s ta te m e n t ab o u t w h a t J o n e s to ld h im is u n q u e s tio n a b ly h e a r s a y ; it ha s no pr oba t i ve va l ue othe rtha n t o e s t a bl i s h tha tW i l l i a m s s hotC ol e y , J one s , a nd F i t zpatri ck. S i ng er ’ s s t at em ent s abo utw hathi s i nv es t i gat i on “ re veal ed” a re

11 s i m i l a r l y he a r s a y ; e ve n though the y do note xpl i c i t l y pa r aphr a s e the w or ds of o th e r s , th e o n ly c o n c e iv a b le e x p la n a tio n f o rh o w S in g e rd is c o v e r e d th is i nf or m a t i on i s thr ough l i s t e ni ng t o the s t a t e m e nt s of othe r s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S hi ver, 41 4 F . 2d 46 1, 46 3 (5t h C i r. 19 69 ) ( st at i ng thata det ec t i ve’ s t es t i m on y that hi s i nv es t i gat i on “ re veal ed” thata c ert ai n carw as st ol en w as “ pu re hear sa y, si nce he c oul d notha ve know n the f a c t s of hi s ow n know l e dge . ” ) . A s the s t a t e m e nt s do notf a l l unde ra ny of

the he a r s a y e xc e pt i ons , the di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n a d mi tt i n g th e m. D efen se co u n sel d i d n o t , h o w ev er, l o d g e a t i m el y C o n fro n t at i o n C l au seIn fac t, the defense did not raise Confrontation Clause objections to any of the c ontested 12 evidenc e at trial. Several circuits haveheld that a he arsa y objection does not in itself preserve a Confrontation Clause objec tion. United States v. Dukag jini, 326 F.3d 45, 60 (2d Cir. 2003); United States v. L aHue , 261 F.3d 993, 1009 ( 10th Cir. 2001) (trial counse l had raised hea rsay ob je c tio n, but “ [w]herea

Con frontatio n Cl a

us eob je c tio n isno t e xplic itly

madebe low

wewi ll not addre ss the constitutional iss ue in the absence of a conc lusion that itwas plain error for the district court to fail to raise [it ] sua sponte”) (quotingUnited States v. Perez, 989 F.2d 1574, 1582 (10th Cir. 1993) (en banc) ); cf. Greer v. Mitchell, 264 F.3d 663, 689 ( 6th Cir. 2001) (re jectingdefendant' s argument that “trial c ourt' s ruling on he arsa y objections were significant e no ugh toimp lic atetheCon frontatio n Cl a us e ” ). We h avehe ld t

hat an obje c tio n p roperly characterized as either

an evidentiary

objection or a

sufficiency-of- the-evidenceobjection does not constitute a constitutional objection for purpose s of appe llate review. United States v. Candelario, 240 F.3d 1300, 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). Thus, de fensecounsels’ he arsa y objections areins uf fi c ient to p re serv ean obje c tio n o n Co nf ro ntatio n Cl a

us egroun ds . 18 obj ec t i on , and so w e r evi ew thi s c l ai m for pl ai n err or on l y. T he di stri ctcourt

12 erre d u nd erC ra w ford by adm i tt i ng S i ng er ’ s s t at em ent s bec ause : (1) the hears ay st at em ent s, m ade by a cc user s t o a l aw enforc em entoffi ce r i n the course of a c r i m i na l i nve s t i ga t i on, w e r e “ t e s t i m oni a l ; ” a nd ( 2) the de f e nda nt s ha d no o p p o r tu n ity to c r o s s - e x a m in e th e d e c la r a n ts . S e e C r a w f o r d , 5 4 1 U .S . a t 5 8 n .8 ( c ha r a c t e r i z i ng s t a t e m e ntgi ve n by vi c t i m t o a n i nve s t i ga t i ng pol i c e of f i c e ra tthe sc ene of the cr i m e i n W hi t e v. Il l i no i s, 50 2 U . S . 34 6 (19 92 ), as “ t es t i m on i al ”) . T h is e rr o rw a s a ls o “p la in .” E rr o ris “p la in ” w h e n , a t th e tim e o f ap p e lla te r e vi e w , i ti s “ obvi ous ” or“ c l e a r ” unde rc ur r e ntl a w , e ve n i f the l a w a tthe t i m e of tr i a l w a s s e tt l e d t o the c ontr a ry . J ohns on v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 520 U . S . 461, 467- 68 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . C r a w f

o r d ’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t th e a c c u s e r ’s s ta te m e n ts to th e p o lic e in W hi t e v. I l l i noi s w e r e t e s t i m oni a l m a ke s i tobvi ous tha ta dm i tt i ng S e r ge a nt S i ng er ’ s a cc ou nt s of the ac cuse rs ’ st at em ent s i n the C ol ey m urder i nt o evi denceWe emphatically reje ct the g overnment’s argument that the def endants’ uncharg ed criminal 13 a c tiv ity is re le va nt b e c a us eit t e nd s tosh owint e nt, motive , k no wl e dg e , a

nd mod us op e ra ndi to commit one of the twenty-six“over t acts,” ma

ny of them homicides, alleg ed in furtheranc e of theCount 2 c on sp ira c y . A s n ote d s up ra , th ealle g e d o vert a c ts a reno t e le mentsof

theCount 2 conspiracy

beca use 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not requireone. Shabani, 513 U.S. at 13. In other words, the jury

could haveconvicted all eleven de fenda nts on Count 2 even if it had found that they did not commit any

of the twenty-sixovert acts alleg ed. Justbeca use the g overnment place s those acts in the indictment does not mag ically make them e lements of the c onspiracy c rime . In re ality , th ea dmi ssibil ity of 40 4(b) e vide nc esta

nd s a nd falls on theba sis of

its relevanceto the elements of thecharg ed crime, and nothingelse. 19 vi ol at ed the C on fr on t at i on C l ause . T hu s, the fi rs ttw o el em ent s nec es sa ry t o sat i sf y p la in e rr o rr e v ie w a r e s a tis f ie d h e r e . W e c o n s id e rth e r e m a in in g tw o e le m e n ts ( i.e ., w h e th e rth e e rr o ra f

f e c te d th e d e f

e n d a n t’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts a n d w h e th e rit s e r i ous l y a f

f e c t e d the i nt e gr i ty of

j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs ) w he n w e l a t e rdi s c us s the p r e ju d ic ia l e f

f e c t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e rr o r s . M o r e o v e r , a s th e d e f

e n s e c o n te n d e d a t tr ia l, a d m is s io n o f th is e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e a ls o v io la te d R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) . A lth o u g h th e g o v e rn m e n t a r g u e s th a t th is e vi de nc e i s r e l e va ntt o e s t a bl i s h W i l l i a m s ’ i nt e nt , m ot i ve , know l e dge , a nd m odus o p e r a n d i in th e d ru g - r e la te d o f f e n s e s , w e a r e u n p e r s u a d e d . T h e C o le y m u r d e ris u n r e la te d to a n y o f

th e c h a r g e d d ru g - o rf

ir e a r m - r e la te d c r im e s , a n d p r e d a te s b o th 13 o f th e c h a r g e d c o n s p i r a c i e s a n d th e c o n t i n u i n g c r i m i n a l e n t e rp r i s e . Al th o u g h we have rec og ni ze d a conn ec t i on betw ee n n ar cot i cs tra ff i cki ng and v i ol entcr i m e, se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T hom a s , 242 F . 3d 1028, 1032- 33 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( f i ndi ng pri or drug sa l es re l evantt o sho w defe nd ant ’ s m ot i ve i n fel on i n p osse ss i on char ge), th e e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e m u s t h a v e a t le a s t s o m e p la u s ib le n o n - c h a r a c te rr e le v a n c e toThe district cour t did give a

404(b) limiting instruction as to this evidence , but as the evidence 14 was admitted for an improper purpose , the limiti nginstruction’s eff ect on the evidence ’s prejudicial effe ct is irrelevant to the propriety of its admission. 20 the charged condu ctt o b e a dm i ss i bl e und er40 4(b). T he evi dence never s peci fi ed w hatW i l l i am s’ i nt ent , m ot i ve, or m od us op er andi w as i n carry i ng ou tthe C ol ey shoo t i ng s, and t hu s thi s i nci denti s onl y r el evantt o sho w thatW i l l i am s i s m ore l i ke l y t o c om m i tc r i m e s be c a us e he ha s done s o i n the pa s t , w hi c h i s e xa c t l y the in f e r e n c e th a t R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) f o rb id s . M oreover, even i f thi s e vi dence w er e r el evantt o sho w som ethi ng other than a c tio n in c o n f

o r m ity w ith p a s t c r im e s , a n y s u c h r e le v a n c e is s u b s ta n tia lly outw e i ghe d by the e vi de nc e ’ s dr a m a t i c pr e j udi c i a l e f

f e c t . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a nc he z , 722 F . 2d 1501, 1507- 08 ( 11th C i r . 1984) ( hol di ng t e s t i m ony tha tthe de f e nda nt , w ho w a s c ha r ge d w i th c ons pi r a c y t o i m por t , i m por t a t i on of , a nd pos s e s s i on of

c oc a i ne , ki l l e d tw o pe opl e i n f ur the r a nc e of

the c ons pi r a c y a f

t e rhe r e c e iv e d a b a d c o c a in e s h ip m e n t w a s in a d m is s ib le u n d e rR u le 4 0 3 ) ; s e e a ls o , C hur c h, 955 F . 2d a t702. T he di s tr i c tc our tthus a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n a dm i tt i ng thi s e vi dence. 14 b ) Do me s t i c V i o l e n c e Co mp l a i n t a g a i n s t W i l l i a ms T h e d i stri ctco u rtp erm i tt ed F l o ri d a S t at e T ro o p er R o d n ey P o l i t e t o t est i fy thathe re ce i ved a com pl ai ntfr om W i l l i am s’ gi rl fr i end i n 1 99 3 thatW i l l i am s “ had s l appe d he ra nd be a the rup, ” ove rthe he a r s a y obj e c t i ons of the de f e ns e . T heWe need not address whether admission of this evidenceconstituted plain error under the 15 Confrontation Clause and Rule 404(b), as the te stimony was obviously

inadmissible hearsa

y not subject to any

exception. 21 de f e nda nt s a l s o r a i s e C onf

r ont a t i on C l a us e a nd R ul e 404( b) c ha l l e nge s f orthe 15 f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the he a r s a y obj e c t i on on the ba s i s tha tthe s t a t e m e nt w a s n o t o f

f e r e d to p r o v e th e tru th o f th e m a tte ra s s e r te d . W e d is a g r e e . T h e o n ly c o n c e iv a b le p r o b a tiv e v a lu e o f P o lite ’s te s tim o n y is to e s tab lis h th a t W illia m s d id b e a t u p h is g ir lf

r ie n d , a n d w a s th u s m o r e lik e ly to c o m m it th e c h a r g e d c r im e s . A nd be c a us e P ol i t e ’ s s t a t e m e ntc l e a r l y doe s notf a l l i nt o a ny he a r s a y e xc e pt i on, the d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n u n d e rR u le 8 0 2 in a d m ittin g it. c) P al m et to E xp re ss w ay T ri p l e M u rd er T h e g o v e rn m e n t in tr o d u c e d e v id e n c e , o v e ra h e a r s a y o b je c tio n , a b o u t a tr ip le h o m ic id e c o m m itte d o n M a r c h 2 4 , 1 9 9 5 , th a t it c o n te n d e d w a s r e la te d to W i l l i a m s ’ a nd C a s a do’ s drug bus i ne s s . M D P D D e t e c t i ve J ua n C apot e , w ho re spon ded t o the ho m i ci de thatni gh t , t es t i fi ed thatfour m en i n a re d carhad b ee n s h o t o n th e P a lm e tto E x p r e s s w a y in M ia m i b y b u lle ts f r o m a n A K - 4 7 a s s a u lt r if le . T hr e e m e n di e d; one s ur vi ve d. C apot e s t a t e d tha the l a t e r“ r e c e i ve d i nf or m a t i on” f r o m a n a n o n y m o u s c a lle rth a t in d ic a te d th a t W illia m s , C a s a d o , a n d M a r v in R og er s, an as soci at e of W i l l i am s, w er e i nv ol ved i n the shoo t i ng , and i nd i ca t ed that the thr e e vi c t i m s w e r e “ s tr e e tl e ve l na r c ot i c s de a l e r s ” w ho ha d be e n s e l l i ng drugsThe g overnment also admitted photos of the crime sc ene into evidence. 16Statements by

out of court witnesse s to law enforcement officials may be admitted as non- 17 hear say if they arerelevant to explain the course of the offic ials’ subsequent investig ative a c tio ns , a nd theprob ativ evalueof

thee vide nc e ’sno n- he ars ay purp os eis n ot s ub sta

nti ally outweighed by

the dang er of

unfair prejudice c aused by the impermissible hear say use of the statement. Ryan v. Miller, 303 F .3d 231, 252-53 (2d Cir. 2002); seealso United States v. Valenc ia, 957 F.2d 1189, 1198 ( 5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hawkins, 905 F .2d 1489, 1495 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. L ove, 767 F .2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Lubrano, 529 F .2d 633, 637 (2d Cir.1975). 22 o n R o g e r ’s d ru g tu r f

. H e f u r th e rte s tif

ie d th a t th e s u r v iv o ro f

th e s h o o tin g to ld h im tha tW i l l i a m s a nd tw o othe rm e n w e r e the gunm e n. 16 T he di stri ctcourtexpl ai ned t hati tal l ow ed thi s t es t i m on y bec ause i tbel i eved tha tthe s t a t e m e nt s w e r e r e l e va ntnott o pr ove the i rtruth, butr a the rt o e xpl a i n how C ap o te c o n d u c te d h is in v e s tig a tio n . W e d o n o t u n d e r s ta n d th is r e a s o n in g . 17 C apot e ’ s i nve s t i ga t i on w a s nota c om pl e x e nde a vor ; he r e s ponde d t o a hom i c i de c a l l , e xa m i ne d the s c e ne of the c r i m e , a nd i nt e r vi e w e d w i tne s s e s . N othi ng the w i tne s s e s s a i d s he d a ny a ddi t i ona l l i ghton w hy C apot e c onduc t e d hi s i nve s t i ga t i on i n the m anner thathe di d, no r di d C apot e’ s i nv es t i gat i on turn u p any evi dence othe rtha n e y e w i tne s s e s ’ s t a t e m e nt s a c c us i ng W i l l i a m s a nd C a s a do of c om m i tt i ng th e h o m ic id e s . R a th e r , th e o n ly r e le v a n c y o f th e w itn e s s e s ’ s ta te m e n ts w a s to e s t a b l i s h th a tWi l l i a m s , C a s a d o , a n d R o g e r s d i d i n f a c tc o m m i tth e h o m i c i d e s . As th e s ta te m e n ts a ls o d o n o t f a ll in to a n y h e a r s a y e x c e p tio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n a l l ow i ng the i ra dm i s s i on. d) 1 9 9 2 M i a m i St r i p C l ub Sho o t o utAppellants argue that Casas’ statements conc erningWil liams’ failureto speak with the police 18 about the shootingconstitute impermissible lay opinion testim ony

under F ederal Rule of Ev idenc e70 1. Ev e n a ssumingthat th edis tric t c ourt a bu se d it s discretio n in

a dmittingthi s e vide nc e , w edo no t f

ind its a dmi ssi on

su ff ic iently pre judic ial e ith e r alon eor

in c on c e rt

wi th other error s to merit reversal of Williams’ conviction, as discussed infra. 23 M D P D S e r ge a ntA l e xa nde rC a s a s t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d r e s ponde d t o a re po rt ed shoo t i ng atthe C l ub R ol ex, a M i am i -a re a s tri p cl ub . H e f ou nd . 40 ca l i ber shel l ca si ng s, bl oo d, and cl othi ng atthe cr i m e s ce ne, bu tno tthe vi ct i m , w ho had a l r e a dy be e n t a ke n t o the hos pi t a l . H ow e ve r , he s t a t e d tha the a l s o l e a rne d upon hi s a rr i va l tha tW i l l i a m s ha d tr i e d t o s hoots om e one i n the pa r ki ng l otof the c l ub w h e n h is g u n ja m m e d , a n d w a s s h o t b y h is in te n d e d v ic tim . F in a lly , C a s a s s a id tha the thoughti ts tr a nge tha tW i l l i a m s ne ve rt a l ke d t o the pol i c e a boutthe s hoot i ng, be c a us e s hoot i ng vi c t i m s a r e us ua l l y c oope r a t i ve , a nd opi ne d tha tthe vi ct i m of a s ho ot i ng w ou l d n otse ek ou tthe po l i ce i n cas es w here the vi ct i m w as the a ggr e s s or . T he di s tr i c tc our tove rrul e d de f e nda nt s ’ he a r s a y a nd R ul e 701 o b j ect i o n s t o th i s t est i m o n y. C a s a s ’ s ta te m e n ts a b o u t w h a t h e le a rn e d a r e u n q u e s tio n a b ly in a d m is s ib le h e a r s a y , a s th e iro n ly p r o b a tiv e v a lu e is to e s tab lis h th a t W illia m s h a d a tte m p te d to shoo tsom eone, and are notcovered by a hea rs ay exce pt i on . T he di stri ctcourt abused i t s di sc re t i on un der R ul e 802 i n adm i tt i ng thi s e vi dence. 18 e ) 1 9 9 2 M ur de r o f

“ A nk e y” A w i tness for the go vernm entt es t i fi ed thatW i l l i am s a nd R i char d S t i tki l l ed24

a m em ber of the ri val “ T ho m as gang ” i n V i rgi ni a, because W i l l i am s bel i eved T h o m a s g a n g m e m b e r s r e s p o n s ib le f o rs h o o tin g W illia m s ’ b u s in e s s a s s o c ia te s . T he defense m ade no o bj ec t i on t o thi s t es t i m on y a ttri al , bu tar gu es on appeal that its a d m is s io n v io la te d R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) . T he “ A nk ey ” m urder w as com m i tt ed du ri ng the sc op e of a nd i n furthera nce of the C ount2 c ons pi r a c y . I ti s s o c l os e l y r e l a t e d t o W i l l i a m s ’ pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the conspi ra cy thati tm ustbe consi dere d “ i next ri cabl y i nt ertw i ned” w i th the evi dence o f th e c o n s p ir a c y , s e e V e ltm a n n , 6 F .3 d a t 1 4 9 8 , a n d is th u s n o t 4 0 4 ( b ) e v id e n c e . I ta l s o s a t i s f

i e s R ul e 403 be c a us e i tw a s s i gni f i c a nt l y pr oba t i ve of

W i l l i a m s ’ m odus ope r a ndi i n hi s drug tr a ns a c t i on — us i ng vi ol e nc e t o e l i m i na t e hi s c om pe t i t or s a nd avenge att ac ks on hi s busi ness as soci at es . A dm i ss i on of thi s t es t i m on y w as no tan a bus e of di s c r e t i on. f ) J e t i e r H o m i c i de M D P D O f

f ic e rD a v id S a n c h e z in v e s tig a te d th e 1 9 9 1 s h o o tin g o f W illie J e tie r , w h o w a s h o s p ita liz e d f o ra s h o r t w h ile b e f

o r e s u c c u m b in g to h is w o u n d s . S a nc he z t e s t i f

i e d tha the s us pe c t e d tha tC a s a do a nd B apt i s t e w e r e the s hoot e r s a nd, f e a r i ng tha tJ e t i e rw oul d di e be f or e ha vi ng a n oppor tuni ty t o i de nt i f y the pe rpe tr a t or s , he br oughtthe m t o the hos pi t a l , w he r e J e t i e ri de nt i f i e d the m a s the m en w h o sh o th i m . T h e d efen d an t s o b j ect ed o n h earsay an d 4 0 4 (b ) g ro u n d s. O f f ic e rS a n c h e z ’s te s tim o n y a b o u t w h a t J e tie rto ld h im is in a d m is s ib leThe statement was not excepted from the g eneral prohibition ag ainst hear say as a “ dying 19 decla ration” under Rule 804(b)( 2) bec ause theg overnment produce d no evidenc e esta blishing that Jetier m a dehisstate ment “be lievingthat [hi s] de ath w a s immin e nt. ”No r i s it c la ssi fi e d a s a non-hea rsay statement of identific ation under Rule 801( d)(1) (C), bec ause Jetier did not testify at thetrial and

wa s n ot s ub

je c t toc ro ss- e xaminatio n c on c e rningthat st ate ment.

25 hear sa y. It s onl y probat i ve val ue w as t o est abl i sh thatC as ado and B apt i st e w er e th e s h o o ters , an d d id n o t ex p lain an y in d ep en d en tl y r elev an t asp ec t o f S an ch ez ’s i nve s t i ga t i on. N ordoe s i tf a l l unde ra he a r s a y e xc e pt i on. I t s a dm i s s i on w a s thus 19 a c l e a ra bus e of

di s c r e t i on. F in a lly , S a n c h e z ’ te s tim o n y is e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e u n d e rR u le 4 0 4 ( b ) , a s it is nota n unc ha r ge d of

f e ns e w hi c h a r os e outof the s a m e tr a ns a c t i on ors e r i e s of tra nsac t i on s a s the charged offe nses , nece ss ary t o com pl et e the st ory of the charged cr i m es , no r i next ri cabl y i nt ertw i ned w i th the evi dence re gardi ng the charged offe nses . M oreover, i ti s onl y r el evantt o p rove C as ado’ s a nd B apt i st e’ s bad c ha r a c t e ra nd t o s how the i ra c t i on i n c onf orm i ty the r e w i th, w hi c h R ul e 404( b) cl ea rl y prohi bi t s. Itw as thu s a n abu se of di sc re t i on t o adm i ti ti nt o evi dence. g) A m oco D ou b l e M u rd er M D P D D et ec t i ve Je ff

L ew i s t es t i fi ed abou thi s i nv es t i gat i on of the m urder o f R o g e rD a v is a n d T y r o n e T a r v e ra t a n A m o c o s ta tio n o n F e b ru a ry 1 1 , 1 9 9 8 . A l tho ug h h e di d n otw i tness the shoo t i ng s, L ew i s t ol d the j ury thatey ew i tness es ha d t ol d hi m the f

ol l ow i ng dur i ng hi s i nve s t i ga t i on: D a v is a n d T a r v e ra rr iv e d a t th e A m o c o s ta tio n a t ab o u t th e s a m e tim e , inAt this ti me the g overnment admitted graphic photographs of the crime scene . 20Witnesses de scribed a

“skully” as a

knit stocking c ap. 21 26 s e pa r a t e c a r s . S hor t l y the r e a f t e r , a bl ue - gr e e n N i s s a n A l t i m a dr ove i nt o the s t a t i on a f te rth e m . T w o m e n c lo th e d in c a m o u f la g e , s k i m a s k s , a n d b u lle tp r o o f v e s ts e x ite d th e c a rto tin g A K - 4 7 s a n d b e g a n s h o o tin g a t th e tw o m e n . D avi s a nd T arver f

l ed thei r a ss ai l ant s, bu tt o n o avai l . T he gu nm en hu nt ed D a v is d o w n n e a ra f

e n c e , a n d s h o t h im w h ile h e w a s ap p a r e n tly try in g to s u rr e n d e r . A f te rD a v is c o llap s e d , th e s h o o te rp r e s s e d th e g u n b a rr e l to h is h e a d a n d s h o t h im a ga i n. T a r ve r , on the othe rha nd, w a s gunne d dow n a s he f l e d a c r os s the s tr e e t , but d id n o t d ie im m e d ia te ly . I n s te a d , h e la y o n th e r o a d , c ry in g o u t in a g o n y th a t “it burne d. ” A tthe s c e ne of the c r i m e , L e w i s f

ound 43 s pe ntA K - 47 s he l l c a s i ngs on 20 the gr ound, i n l oc a t i ons i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe gunm e n tr a c ke d the i rvi c t i m s a c r os s the A m o co st at i o n p rem i ses as th ey fi red . O n e-an d -a-h al f b l o ck s aw ay, p o l i ce al so r e c o v e r e d th e N is s a n A ltim a , a n d f o u n d tw o A K - 4 7 a s s a u lt r if le s , f o u rs k i m a s k s , a

“ skul l y, ” and som e t oo l s thatL ew i s opi ned h ad been used t o st artthe vehi cl e,

21 w hi ch had b ee n report ed st ol en. P ol i ce al so di sc ov er ed thatthe st ol en ca r’ s ow ner had h i s or herce l l ul art el epho ne t aken al on g w i th the ca r. A ca l l m ade f rom that p h o n e aft er th e th efth ad o ccu rred w as traced t o th e g i rl fri en d o f C o rey “ F i sh G rease” M u rch erso n , an asso ci at e o f W i l l i am s. L e w is th e n s ta te d th a t a n o th e r“s o u r c e ” in f o r m e d h im th a t a r e n te d w h iteCasado is a Hispanicmale. 22 27 T oyot a C am ry had al so been i nv ol ved i n the A m oco sho ot i ng . T he car w as tra ce d t o a M i am i re nt al ou t l et . T he re nt al paperw ork l i st ed on e R i char d S t i tas a dri ver, w ho , L ew i s t ol d the court , the U ni t ed S t at es A tt orney’ s N orfol k o ff i ce i dent i fi ed as an “ enforce r” for W i l l i am s. P ol i ce l at erl ocat ed the C am ry , w hi ch had b ee n destroye d b y f

i re . L e w is c o n tin u e d , s ta tin g th a t u n n a m e d w itn e s s e s id e n tif ie d o n e p a s s e n g e rin th e A l t i m a as a h eav ysetb l ack m al e, o v er 6 ' t al l , w i th l o n g , fl o w i n g d read l o ck s, and t he dri ver a s ashort erbl ac k m al e w i th a m edi um bu i l d. H e s ai d thatanot her eyew i tn ess, M ari o F razi er, t o l d h i m th atth e car’s driver w as C asad o . H e al so 22 de t a i l e d the c ont e nt s of

a M i a m i H e r a l d a r t i c l e , a dm i tt e d i nt o e vi de nc e , de s c r i bi ng one gunm a n a s a 25- 30 y e a r - ol d, 250- l b bl a c k m a l e , 5' 9" t o 6' t a l l , w i th a l i ght c om pl e xi on, a nd a l ong ha i r c ut— a de s c r i pt i on s om e w ha tc ons i s t e ntw i th phot os of a m a n L e w i s i de nt i f

i e d a s H a w thorne . I tde s c r i be d the othe rgunm a n a s a 20- 25 ye ar -ol d, 16 0-17 5l b b l ac k m al e, 5' 9" - 6' t al l , w i th a l i gh tcom pl exi on and A fr o hai rc ut . H aw tho rne’ s i nv ol vem ent , L ew i s a l so t es t i fi ed, w as corr ob orat ed by an i nt ervi ew he had w i th a pri soner, K evi n B ov i an. B ov i an al l egedl y t ol d L ew i s that H aw tho rne s ai d h e w as the dri ver of the re nt al ca r, thathe cuthi s dre adl ocks af t er the pr e s s c ove r a ge de s c r i bi ng the gunm e n, a nd tha tthe s hoot i ng w a s i n r e t a l i a t i on f o ra s h o o tin g in w h ic h H a w th o rn e w a s w o u n d e d th e m o n th b e f o r e .28

A c c or di ng t o L e w i s , J e s us W i l s on a l s o t ol d hi m tha the s a w L e ona r d a nd L enar d B row n i nsi de the A l t i m a. W i l son cl ai m ed thatthe A l t i m a had been hi dd en a t th e h o u s e o f

a W illia m s ’ a s s o c ia te , e a r lie ro n th e d a y o f th e s h o o tin g , a lo n g w ith th e b u lle tp r o o f

v e s ts a n d A K - 4 7 s W ils o n s a id w e r e u s e d to k ill D a v is a n d T a r v e r . L e w i s s a i d tha tW i l s on t ol d hi m tha tthe tw i ns a s ke d hi m t o buy da r k, f ul l - f a c e s ki m a s ks f orthe m , be c a us e the y di d notw a ntt o dr a w a tt e nt i on t o the m s e l ve s by m aki ng such a purchase . H ow ever , W i l son con tra di ct ed B ov i an’ s s t at em entthat H a w thorne w a s a gunm a n, t e l l i ng L e w i s i ns t e a d tha tthe tw i ns ki l l e d D a vi s a nd T a r v e r . L e w is c o n c lu d e d b y o p in in g to th e c o u r t th a t “b a s e d o n h is in v e s tig a tio n ,” he thoughttha tthe A m oc o m ur de r s w e r e the r e s ul tof a tur f w a rbe tw e e n the “B o o b ie b o y s ” a n d a r iv a l g a n g c a lle d “V o n d a ’s g a n g .” F i nal l y, L ew i s t ol d the courtthatW i l l i am s’ fr i end and as soci at e C orey M urchers on , w as ki l l ed short l y a ft erthe A m oco d ou bl e m urder i n w hi ch he had a l l e g e d l y p a r t i c i p a t e d . L e wi s t e s t i f i e d th a th e b e l i e v e d Wi l l i a m s a n d B r o wn th o u g h t M u r c h e s o n w a s a liab ility a f te rth e A m o c o m u r d e ra n d s o u g h t to h a v e h im ki l l ed. L ew i s’ spec ul at i on abou tW i l l i am s’ m ot i ves bec am e m ore c on vi nci ng af t er M ur c he r s on’ s f

or m e rl a w y e r , K a r e n M i l l s - F r a nc i s , t e s t i f i e d f orthe de f

e ns e tha ton N o v e m b e r1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , M u r c h e r s o n a d m itte d to h e rth a t h e w a s in f a c t a g u n m a n in the A m oco m urders . T he defendant s r ai se d a hears ay obj ec t i on t o thi s e vi dence at tr ia l, b u t a ls o a r g u e f

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l th a t its a d m is s io n v io la te d R u leIn fac t, the article s arelikely a reporter’ s acc ount of what eyewitnesses reporte d; in other 23 words, double he arsa

y forbidden by

Rule 805. 29 40 4(b). L e w is ’ r e c o lle c tio n o f

w h a t e y e w itn e s s e s to ld h im a b o u t th e m u r d e ris in a d m is s ib le h e a r s a y , a s a r e h is s ta te m e n ts a b o u t w h a t B o v ia n a n d W ils o n to ld hi m . T hey w er e off

er ed t o est abl i sh thei r truth — w ho ki l l ed D avi s a nd T arver, a nd how — a nd do notf a l l i nt o a ny he a r s a y e xc e pt i on. T he di s tr i c tc our tthus a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n in a llo w in g th is te s tim o n y . T he M i a m i H e r a l d a rt i c l e s a r e a l s o i na dm i s s i bl e he a r s a y , a s the y a r e r e l e va nt pr i m a r i l y t o e s t a bl i s h the truth of the i rc ont e nt s — the i de nt i ty of the gunm e n. 23 T he ar t i cl es m i gh tbe perm i ss i bl e f or the no n-hears ay pu rpose of e st abl i shi ng that the de s c r i pt i ons of

the gunm e n ha d be e n m a de publ i c , buti n the a bs e nc e of a ny no n-hears ay evi dence concerni ng the desc ri pt i on of the gu nm en, the prej ud i ce s t e m m i ng f

r om the he a r s a y us e of

the e vi de nc e s ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghs the a r t i c l e s ’ pr oba t i ve va l ue t o e s t a bl i s h the m ur de r s ’ publ i c i ty . T hus , the i ra dm i s s i on c ons t i tut e s a n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on unde rR ul e 802. L ew i s’ st at em entabou tthe w hi t e C am ry , on the ot her hand, w as no thear sa y be c a us e i tw a s pr oba t i ve t o e s t a bl i s h w hy he pr oc ur e d the c a r ’ s pape rw or k, a nd w as p ro p er ly ad m itted . N o n eth eles s, h is ac co u n t o f w h at th e U .S . A tt o rn ey ’s of f i c e t ol d hi m a boutR i c ha r d S t i tw a s of f e r e d t o pr ove the truth of i t s c ont e nt s , a ndWe addre ss hereonly the first two elements of plain er ror review: ( 1) admission of the 24 testimony concerningthe Amoco murders was error under Rule 404(b); (2) that error is now plain. We addre ss the remaining two e lements in our discussion of the pre judicial eff

ect of the dis tric t c ourt ’se rror s. As noted above , we reser ve our discussion of theremaining two e lements of plain er ror review 25 (i.e., the impac t the evidenc e had on thedefendants’ substantial rights and on the integrity of judicial proce eding s) as pa rt of our prejudice discussion, infra.

30 is in a d m is s ib le h e a r s a y , th e a llo w a n c e o f w h ic h w a s a n a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . F i na l l y , the e nt i r e t e s t i m ony c onc e rni ng the A m oc o m ur de r s a nd M urchers on ’ s m urder pl ai nl y vi ol at es R ul e 404 (b). A l l three ki l l i ng s occ urre d 24 o u ts id e th e te m p o r a l s c o p e o f a ll o f th e c h a r g e d c r im e s , in c lu d in g th e C o u n t 2 c ons pi r a c y , a nd the r e i s ha r dl y a ny e vi de nc e , be y ond D e t e c t i ve L e w i s ’ r a nk s p e c u la tio n , lin k in g th e s h o o tin g s to a n y o f th e c h a r g e s in th e in d ic tm e n t. I ts o n ly r e a l p r o b a tiv e v a lu e is to e s tab lis h th e c r im in a l p r o p e n s itie s o f th o s e in v o lv e d . A nd even i f thi s e vi dence di d h ave s om e probat i ve w orth, the det ai l s of the A m oco doubl e hom i c i de a r e s o c hi l l i ng tha ti t s pr e j udi c i a l i m pa c ts ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghs a ny s uc h pr oba t i ve va l ue . T he a dm i s s i on of thi s e vi de nc e thus c ons t i tut e s e rr or thati s pl ai n. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. L ej ar de-R ada, 31 9 F . 3d 12 88 , 12 91 (11t h C i r.

25 20 03 ) ( “ Iti s the l aw of thi s c i rc ui tthat , atl ea stw here the expl i ci tl angu age of a s t a tut e orrul e doe s nots pe c i f i c a l l y r e s ol ve a n i s s ue , the r e c a n be no pl a i n e rr or w h e r e th e r e is n o p r e c e d e n t f r o m th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o rth is C o u r t d ir e c tly r e s ol vi ng i t . ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G or e , 298 F . 3d 322, 324- 25 ( 5th C i r . 2002) ( h o ld in g th a t e rr o rw a s “p la in ” w h e n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ru lin g w a s o b v io u s lyAlthough L ewis’ statements about the white Camry and his statements about what he observe d 26 at the scene of thecrime w erenot hear say, these statements would have be en nonsensical and irrelevant under

Rule 401 if considere d separately from the inadmissible hea rsay, and thus the jur y never w ould h avebe e n p e rmitt e d tohe ar t hem out of

c onte xt. Mo re ov e r, a dmi ssi on of the se statements still pl ainly

violated Rule 404(b). Photos of Brownle e’s body were admitted into evidenc e over objection. 27 31 c o n tr a ry to th e te x t o f

a f e d e r a l s ta tu te ) . I n s u m , a d m is s io n o f

th is e v id e n c e w a s a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n u n d e rR u le 80 2, and repres ent ed an err or thatw as pl ai n u nd erR ul e 404 (b). 26 h ) B en n y B row n l ee M u rd er T he gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e a c c us e d W i l l i a m s a nd othe runna m e d i ndi vi dua l s of the 1994 m ur de rof

B e nny B r ow nl e e , a l l e ge dl y c a rr i e d outi n r e t a l i a t i on f orthe m ur de rof

W i l l i a m s ’ a s s oc i a t e a nd f r i e nd G a ry D uke s . D uke s w a s ki l l e d i n a dr i ve - by s hoot i ng w hi l e a ta ba rbe r s hop run by J e s us W i l s on, a drug de a l e ra nd b a rb e rw h o b o u g h t c o c a in e f r o m W illia m s a n d H a rp e r . J o h n n y H a n k in s , a W illia m s a s s o c ia te w h o w a s a ls o s h o t in th e d r iv e - b y , te s tif ie d th a t W illia m s to ld hi m thatW i l l i am s a nd M arvi n R og er s a veng ed D uk es ’ m urder by ki l l i ng a m em ber of the T hom a s ga ng, a nd tha tH a rpe rha d dr i ve n the c a rthe y us e d i n c om m i tt i ng the m urder. T he gove rnm e nta l l e ge d tha tthi s m e m be rof the T hom a s ga ng w a s B e nny B r ow nl e e , w ho w a s ki l l e d hour s a f t e rthe D uke s ki l l i ng. T he M D P D de t e c t i ve 27 w ho ha d r e s ponde d t o the B r ow nl e e hom i c i de , G us B or ge s , ga ve ade t a i l e d a c c ount32

o f th e k illin g o n th e b a s is o f s ta te m e n ts h e to o k f

r o m th r e e e y e w itn e s s e s . H e s a id tha the l e a rne d f

r om one e y e w i tne s s , M a r l i n R a nda l , tha tm e n i n a be i ge H onda shotB row nl ee as he fl ed fr om hi s a tt ac kers . R andal then report edl y s ai d that B r o w n le e f

e ll “o n th e g r o u n d a n d d e f e n s e le s s , [ a n d ] tw o s u b

je c ts w a lk e d u p to h im a nd c ont i nue d s hoot i ng hi m . ” T hi s c om m e nt a ry , B or ge s s t a t e d, w a s c onf i r m e d by tw o s e c ur i ty gua r ds pr e s e nta tthe s hoot i ng. M or e ove r , he t e s t i f i e d tha tthe doc t or w ho perf orm ed B row nl ee ’ s aut op sy cl as si fi ed the death as aho m i ci de. T here w as n o e v id e n c e th a t th e s e th r e e e y e w itn e s s e s w e r e u n a v a ilab le to te s tif y a t tr ia l. B or ge s a l s o f

ound a be e pe ra tthe B r ow nl e e c r i m e s c e ne tha tha d t e l e phone nu m bers fr om re ce i ved cal l s s t ored i n i t s m em ory. P ol i ce ca l l ed the st ored nu m bers and st at ed thatthe pers on s w ho answ er ed the ph on e t ol d h i m thatthey had pa ge d the be e pe rtry i ng t o r e a c h M a r vi n R oge r s . B or ge s f ur the rt e s t i f

i e d tha the “le a rn e d ” th a t M a r v in R o g e r s w a s p a r t o f a “g r o u p o p e r a tin g in th e C a r o l C ity a r e a ” know n a s the pr i m a ry s tr e e t - l e ve l drug de a l e r s i n tha ta r e a . H e c onc l ude d by t el l i ng the j ury thatW i l l i am s, R og er s, R ay e, and B ernard S haw em er ged as p r im a ry s u s p e c ts in th e s la y in g , b u t th a t th e r e w a s n e v e rs u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to a rr e s t a n y o n e f

o rth e c r im e . T h e d e f

e n s e r a is e d a h e a r s a y o b je c tio n to th is e v id e n c e a t tr ia l. A lth o u g h B o r g e s ’ te s tim o n y a b o u t th e r e c o v e r e d b e e p e ra n d th e n u m b e r s it c o n ta in e d r e m a in u n o b

je c tio n a b le , B o r g e s ’ te s tim o n y a b o u t w h a t o th e r s to ld h im33

o ra b o u t w h a t h e h a d “le a rn e d ” in th e c o u r s e o f h is in v e s tig a tio n is o n ly r e le v a n t to e s t a bl i s h i t s truth, tha tW i l l i a m s , R oge r s , R a y e , a nd B e rna r d S ha w ki l l e d B e nny B r o w n le e . T h e f

a c t th a t it e x p la in s w h a t B o r g e s d id in th e c o u r s e o f h is i nve s t i ga t i on i s i m m a t e r i a l , be c a us e B or ge s ’ i nve s t i ga t i on i s onl y r e l e va ntt o pr ove the ve ry s a m e i m pe r m i s s i bl e thi ng — tha tthe s e m e n i n f a c tki l l e d B e nny B row nl ee . L i kew i se , B orges’ t es t i m on y thatW i l l i am s, R og er s, R ay e a nd B ernard S h a w e m e r g e d a s th e p r im a ry s u s p e c ts in th e s h o o tin g its e lf r e m a in s in a d m is s ib le hear sa y, as i ti s f

ou nd ed on the hears ay st at em ent s of others . T he st at em ent s a re the r e f or e he a r s a y , a nd be c a us e the y do notf a l l i nt o a ny he a r s a y e xc e pt i on, the d i s tr i c tc o u r ta b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n a d mi tt i n g th e m. i ) F atso an d H ol l y w oo d M u rd er s A boutone m onth a f

t e rthe B r ow nl e e hom i c i de , tw o m or e T hom a s ga ng m e m be r s w e r e m ur de r e d: W a l t e r“ F a t s o” B e tt e r s on a nd D e rr i c k “ H ol l y w ood” H arri s. B ett er son’ s m other a nd H arri s’ fa ther bot h t es t i fi ed thatthei r c hi l dren had to ld th e m s h o r tly b e f

o r e th e y w e r e s h o t th a t th e y w e r e h a v in g p r o b le m s w ith W illia m s a n d f

e a r e d th a t W illia m s w a s g o in g to k ill th e m . H ow ever , the go vernm enti ntrodu ce d o ther non -hea rs ay evi dence attri al lin k in g W illia m s a n d C a s a d o w ith th e m u r d e r s . W illia m s ’ f r ie n d a n d a s s o c ia te John ny H anki ns t es t i fi ed thatW i l l i am s t ol d h i m thatB ett er son and H arri s had k ille d a w itn e s s to th e D u k e s m u r d e r , a n d th a t W illia m s , C a s a d o , a n d M a r v in34

R oge r s ha d ki l l e d the m i n r e ve nge . H a nki ns ’ t e s t i m ony w a s c or r obor a t e d by B ett er son’ s nei gh bo r J oh nn y H am pt on . H am pt on t es t i fi ed thathe sa w a C hevrol et I m pa l a c ha s e B e tt e r s on’ s c a ri nt o hi s ne i ghborhood. B e tt e r s on’ s c a rc r a s he d i nt o a p o le o n th e s id e o f

th e r o a d n e a rh is h o u s e , a n d th e I m p a la p u lle d u p a lo n g s id e it. S om e one i ns i de B e tt e r s on’ s c a rgotouta nd r a n, pur s ue d by a n oc c upa ntof the I m p a l a . I m m e d i a t e l y a f t e rwa r d s , th r e e m e n a rr i v e d i n a De l t a ‘ 8 8 . T wo pa s s e nge r s e m e r ge d, f

i r e d s hot s i nt o B e tt e r s on’ s a ut om obi l e , a nd the n f l e d the sc ene i n the D el t a. M i nu t es l at er , H am pt on approached B ett er son’ s c arand saw tw o b od i es i n the ca r, l at eri dent i fi ed as H arri s a nd B ett er son. H am pt on further id e n tif ie d W illia m s a n d L e o n a r d B r o w n a s tw o o f th e s h o o te r s f

r o m th e D e lta ‘8 8 . T he de f e nda nt s r a i s e d a he a r s a y obj e c t i on a ttr i a l , a nd a l s o r a i s e a R ul e 404( b) c h a lle n g e f

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. T he pa r e nt s ’ s t a t e m e nt s a boutw ha tthe i rc hi l dr e n t ol d the m a r e he a r s a y , but a r e e x c e p te d a s p r e s e n t s e n s e im p r e s s io n s u n d e rR u le 8 0 3 ( 1 ) o ra s s ta te m e n ts e x p r e s s in g th e n - e x is tin g m e n ta l, e m o tio n a l, o rp h y s ic a l c o n d itio n u n d e rR u le 8 0 3 ( 3 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t th u s d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in a llo w in g th is t est i m o n y. M o r e o v e r , th e p a r e n ts ’ te s tim o n y is n o t 4 0 4 ( b ) e v id e n c e b e c a u s e it is i next ri cabl y i nt ertw i ned w i th the evi dence re gardi ng the charged offe nse. S ee V e l tm a nn, 6 F . 3d a t1498. E vi de nc e a ttr i a l t i e d the s e m ur de r s t o W i l l i a m s ’ f e ud35

w i th the ri val T ho m as gang and t he T ho m as gang ’ s m urder of G ary D uk es , w hi ch in tu rn w a s p a r t o f

th e p r o s e c u tio n ’s c a s e a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n ts in th e C o u n t 2 c ons pi r a c y . M or e ove r , i ts a t i s f i e s R ul e 403 be c a us e i ti s s i gni f i c a nt l y pr oba t i ve of th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o d u s o p e r a n d i in th e ird ru g b u s in e s s . T h e a d m is s io n o f th is t es t i m on y w as thu s noterror und erR ul e 404 (b), m uch l es s pl ai n err or. j) C ol ors A p artm en t T ri p l e M u rd er s D e t e c t i ve S i m m ons ’ t e s t i m ony a l s o l i nke d P l e s s t o the 1995 tr i pl e m ur de rof O t i s G r e e n, G r e e n’ s gi r l f r i e nd A l i c i a , a nd A l i c i a ’ s f i ve - y e a r - ol d s on M i ki e , a tthe C ol or s A pa r tm e ntc om pl e x i n M i a m i . G r e e n w a s a s m a l l - t i m e drug de a l e rw ho so l d atth e C o l o rs co m p l ex , w h i ch w as co n si d ered h i s “ sp o t . ” H o w ev er, P l ess al so s o ld d ru g s th e r e , a s d id D a v id P a g a n , P le s s ’s s u p p lie ra n d a n a s s o c ia te o f C a s a d o . W i tness es t es t i fi ed thata di sput e had ari se n b etw ee n P agan and G re en, and t hat P a ga n ha d puta hi touton hi m . P a ga n hi m s e l f t e s t i f i e d tha tP l e s s ha d e nga ge d i n a s hoot outw i th G r e e n’ s w or ke r s a tthe C ol or s c om pl e x a f e w m onths be f

or e the m u rd ers. B ri an G i bson , a C ol ors r es i dentw ho w as w i th G re en, A l i ci a, and M i ki e a t the t i m e of the shoo t i ng , t es t i fi ed thatthey w er e parked n ea r the C ol ors c om pl ex w he n m e n i n s ki m a s ks appr oa c he d the c a rw i th l a r ge guns a nd ope ne d f i r e , ki l l i ng e ve ry one buthi m . H e a l s o s t a t e d tha te a r l i e rtha tni ghthe ha d s e e n C a s a do a nd B ap tis te a r o u n d th e C o lo r s c o m p le x , a n d h a d s e e n P le s s ’s tru c k n e a rb y .Be causewe determine that this testimony was inadmissible hea

rsay, we ne ed not re ach 28 defendants’ alter

native argument that the testimony violated their rights under the Confrontation Clause. 36 D et ec t i ve S i m m on s t es t i fi ed thathe l ea rned fr om A ntho ny B ra nt l ey that P l es s, C as ado, and Joh nson had p l anned and ca rr i ed ou tthe m urders . B ra nt l ey o s te n s ib ly to ld S im m o n s th a t P le s s s o lic ite d h im to d r iv e th e g e ta w a y c a r . S im m o n s s tated th at B ra n tl ey sa id h e m et P less an d Jo h n so n at C as ad o ’s w a r e h o u s e , w h e r e th e y r e tr ie v e d a s to le n c a ra n d e q u ip p e d th e m s e lv e s w ith a s s a u lt w e ap o n s , d a r k c lo th e s , a n d b u lle tp r o o f v e s ts , a n d th e n c a rr ie d o u t th e k illin g s w h ile C a s a d o w a tc h e d f

r o m a d is ta n c e . T he go vernm ental so i ntrodu ce d i nt o evi dence a phot o o f at att oo P l es s had de pi c t i ng a y oung boy pr a y i ng ove ra c ruc i f i x- s hape d t om bs t one e ngr a ve d w i th the l ett ers “ R IP ” th atread , “ D ear G o d C an Y o u S av e M e. ” S i m m o n s sai d th atP l ess ha d t ol d hi m he gotthi s t a tt oo a f t e rthe C ol or s m ur de r s t o de f l e c ts us pi c i on tha the ha d be e n i nvol ve d. T he de f e nda nt s di d notr a i s e a n obj e c t i on t o thi s t e s t i m ony a ttr i a l , butnow a r gue tha ta dm i s s i on of

A nthony B r a nt l e y ’ s s t a t e m e nt s vi ol a t e d R ul e 802 a nd the C on fr on t at i on C l ause . A dm i ss i on of the st at em ent s di d p l ai nl y vi ol at e the hears ay rul e . S i m m ons ’ t e s t i m ony w a s c l e a r l y a dm i tt e d f ori t s truth, a nd c onc e rns 28 st at em ent s B ra nt l ey m ade i n the course of a pol i ce i nt errogat i on — i n thi s c as e, anAlthough theavailablerec ord is essentially silent as to the details of B rantley ’s “inter view,” 29 his involvement in the murders and theconfe ssional nature of his statements indicates that the questioning w as likely

more than c asual. More over, in e x amining Simmons at trial, counsel for bo th t hede fens eand

theg ov e rnment emph a size d th eov e rl a p b e tw e e n th eint e rv iew s tate ments and B ra ntl e y ’s“ sw or

n”(i .e . gra

nd jur y ) s tate ments , f

or whic h B ra

ntl e y wa s gra nte d immunity from prose cution. 37 i nt e r vi e w w i th D e t e c t i ve S i m m ons a s pa r tof a c r i m i na l i nve s t i ga t i on. 29 H ow ever , i ti s app ar entfr om the re cord thatcoun se l for A rthu r P l es s i nv i t ed th is e rr o rw h ile a tte m p tin g to u n d e r m in e th e c r e d ib ility o f S im m o n s ’ in v e s tig a tio n . D uri ng cr oss- exam i nat i on , P l es s’ s a tt orney a sked S i m m on s w hether B ra nt l ey w as a m ong the “ qua l i ty pe opl e ” tha tS i m m ons ha d r e l i e d on i n hi s i nve s t i ga t i on of the m u rd ers an d su b seq u en tq u est i o n i n g o f P l ess: Q : A nd A nthony B r a nt l e y , C e dr i c k’ s br othe r , tha t ’ s the w or d of a nothe rpe r s on upon w hom y ou w er e ge tt i ng r e a dy t o i nt e rr oga t e m y c l i e nt t o d et erm i n e i f

he w a s goi ng t o i nc r i m i na t e hi m s e l f i n the tr i pl e hom i c i de ove rthe r e i n the C ol or s apa r t m en t s o f O t i s G r e e n, hi s gi r l f r i e nd, a nd M ic h a e l F r a z ie r , c o rr e c t? A : W ha tw a s the f

i r s tpa r tof

y ourque s t i on? Q : A nthony B r a nt l e y i s the pe r s on upo n w hom y ou a r e r e l y i ng for y ou r i nform at i on th at yo u g otbefore my cl i entsurr endered and you st art ed t al ki ng t o h i m abou tthatho m i ci de? A : In pa r t . A nthony B r a nt l e y w a s a y oung m a n r e c rui t e d by E fr ain C as ado, A rthu r P l es s a nd B enj am i n Joh nson t o d ri ve a v e h ic le . H e w a s th e g e ta w a y d r iv e rin th e C o lo r s ap a r t m e n ts c o m p le x in w h ic h th e little b o y w a s k ille d a lo n g w ith h is m othe r . H e dr ove the ve hi cl e a nd pr ovi de d s w or n t e s t i m ony before th e g ra nd j ury w hi ch w as corr ob orat ed i n every re spec t t hr ou gh ou ri nv e s t i ga t i on , a nd othe r s . I tw a s no tt ot a l l y ba se d on on e per son’ s t es t i m on y, si r.38

Q : A n d A n th o n y B r a n tle y d id n ’ t g e t a rr e s te d o rc h a r g e d w ith it e ve n though he c l a i m e d t o y ou unde rs w or n t e s t i m ony tha the w as the dri ver, thathe w as t aki ng hi m to an d fr om a hi tw here t h ese p eopl e w e r e ki l l e d. H e w a s n’ ta rr e s t e d a nd c ha r ge d or i ndi c t e d dow nt ow n t o s t a nd tr i a l f orf i r s tde gr e e m ur de ra nd l oo k atdeath i n the el ec tri c c hai r or a leth al in j ec t i on no w , w as he? A : N o, si r. C o u n s e l a ls o n o te d th a t A n th o n y B r a n tle y h a d r e c e n tly b e e n r e le a s e d f r o m ja il. O n re- di re ctexam i nat i on , D et ec t i ve S i m m on s r el at ed thatA ntho ny B ra nt l ey had spo ken t o h i m i n the course of the i nv es t i gat i on , and h ad t es t i fi ed before a g r a n d ju ry , b o th tim e s d e s c r ib in g h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e C o lo r s m u r d e r s . A c c or di ng t o S i m m ons , A nthony B r a nt l e y ha d c onf e s s e d tha the w a s r e c rui t e d by C as ado t o ass i sti n the m urder of O t i s G re en, and h ad dri ven t he ca r f rom w hi ch J ohns on a nd P l e s s e m e r ge d be f or e c om m i tt i ng the m ur de r s , a nd i n w hi c h C a s a do, B ap tis te , J o h n s o n a n d P le s s ap p a r e n tly e s c ap e d a f te rth e m u r d e r s .

“ [I ] ti s aca rdi nal rul e of app el l at e r evi ew thata par ty m ay no tchal l enge as error arul i ng or ot her tri al proceedi ng i nv i t ed by thatparty. T he do ctri ne of i nv i t ed error i s i m pl i ca t ed w hen a party i nd uces or i nv i t es the di stri ctcourti nt o m aki ng an e rr or . W he r e i nvi t e d e rr ore xi s t s , i tpr e c l ude s a c our tf r om i nvoki ng the pl a i n e rr or rul e a nd re vers i ng . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S i l vestri , 40 9 F . 3d 13 11 , 13 27 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t at i on s a nd i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed); U ni t ed S t at es v. M art i nez,39

604 F . 2d 361, 366 ( 5th C i r . 1979) ( “ T he a c c e pt e d rul e i s tha tw he r e i nj e c t i on of a lle g e d ly in a d m is s ib le e v id e n c e is a ttr ib u tab le to th e a c tio n o f th e d e f e n s e , its i ntr oduc t i on doe s notc ons t i tut e r e ve r s i bl e e rr or. ” ) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D oran, 56 4 F . 2d 11 76 , 11 77 (5th C i r. 19 77 )) . M oreover, a def endantca n “ i nv i t e” n o n - r e s p o n s iv e te s tim o n y w h e n h e in s is ts o n p u r s u in g a lin e o f q u e s tio n in g a f

te rit be c om e s appa r e nttha tf ur the rc r os s - e xa m i na t i on w i l l e l i c i tpot e nt i a l l y da m a gi ng t es t i m on y, and fai l s t o o bj ec tt o the no n-re spon si ve answ erw hen i ti s gi ven. S ee id . ( f in d in g n o n - r e s p o n s iv e te s tim o n y in v ite d w h e n c o u n s e l “p u r s u e d h is q u e s tio n in g u n til h e d r a g g e d th e p r e ju d ic ia l s ta te m e n ts o u t o f th e w itn e s s ” ) . Itca n b e f

ai rl y s ai d thatP l es s’ s c ou nsel el i ci t ed the A ntho ny B ra nt l ey t es t i m on y f

rom S i m m on s on cross . P l es s’ s c ou nsel spec i fi ca l l y r ef erre d t o “ sw orn t es t i m on y” i n w hi ch B ra nt l ey supp osedl y s t at ed that“ he w as the dri ver, thathe w as ta k in g h im [ P le s s ] to a n d f r o m a h it w h e r e th e s e p e o p le w e r e k ille d .” H e a ls o d id no tobj ec tw hen S i m m on s gave hi s non -r es po nsi ve answ er . T he re -di re ct t es t i m on y m er el y e l aborat ed on S i m m on s’ re spon se t o thi s quest i on , w hi ch pr e s e nt e d the ba s i c out l i ne of the B r a nt l e y s t a t e m e nt . T hus , P l e s s c a nnotnow c o m p la in a b o u t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e rr o r . H ow e ve r , the othe rde f

e nda nt s m a y s t i l l f

a i r l y obj e c tt o the i ntr oduc t i on of thi s t e s t i m ony on appe a l , a s the e rr or s of P l e s s ’ s c ouns e l a r e notthe i row n, a nd the y i n no w a y w e r e r e s pons i bl e f orS i m m ons ’ t e s t i m ony on c r os s . M or e ove r , a nySimm ons’ testimony was c onfirmed by

Cedric himself, who te stified on Pless’s behalf a nd 30 stated that Casado a

nd Ba ptiste werenear

by when Pless solicited Anthony to car ry out the murder. Ce dric also testified that his brother told him that after killingBe lliard, Anthony returne d to Casado’s wa

rehousewhere he met up with Casado and Johnson.

40 obj e c t i on tha tthe y c oul d ha ve m a de on r e di r e c tw a s f or e c l os e d, a s the pr os e c ut or w as en t i t l ed t o el ab o rat e o n th e i n fo rm at i o n yi el d ed i n cro ss. H o w ev er, b ecau se the y r a i s e d no obj e c t i on a tthe tr i a l c our t , the i rc l a i m s a r e s ubj e c tonl y t o r e vi e w f or pl a i n e rr or . S i m m ons ’ t e s t i m ony tha tB r a nt l e y t ol d hi m tha tC a s a do a nd J ohns on c a rr i e d o u tth e m u r d e r s wa s i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a r s a y . T h a te rr o rs a t i s f i e s th e f i r s ttwo p r o n g s o f

th e p l a i n e rr o rt e s t . We r e s e r v e o u rd i s c u s s i o n o f th e r e m a i n i n g two pron gs for our di sc ussi on of prej ud i ce . k) Joh n n y B el l i ard M u rd er T he gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e a l s o c onne c t e d P l e s s t o the m ur de rof J ohnny B e l l i a r d, a drug de a l e rw ho ha d be e n thr e a t e ni ng t o s t e a l m one y a nd drugs f r om P l ess. M D P D D et ect i v e D av i d S i m m o n s t o l d th e j u ry th ath e w o rk ed o n a t ask f o r c e in v e s tig a tin g h o m ic id e s “th a t w a s [ s ic ] c o m m itte d b y m e m b e r s o f th e B o o b ie boy s . ” H e t e s t i f

i e d tha tC e dr i c B r a nt l e y , a n a s s oc i a t e of P l e s s ’ s w ho s ol d drugs f or hi m i n P ensa col a, t ol d h i m i n a pri son i nt ervi ew thatP l es s a nd C as ado h i re d B r a nt l e y ’ s br othe rA nthony t o ki l l B e l l i a r d. 30 T he defense di d n otobj ec tt o thi s t es t i m on y a ttri al bu tno w ar gu es that a d m is s io n o f

th e s ta te m e n ts v io la te d R u le 8 0 2 a n d th e C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e . W eThe g overnment asserts that this error, like admission of Simmons ’ testimony about Pless and 31 J ohnson’s involvement in the Colors triple murder, w as invited. However, it does not appe ar that Pless’s counsel introduce d the content of the objectionablestatement itself, and did not invite the particula r er ror of which Pless now complains. We reser ve discussion of the remainingtwo elements of plain error review for our

discussion 32 of pre judic e . M ore ov e r, be c a

us ea dmi ssi on

of thi s te stimony

wa s error that w a s p lain u

nd e r R ule 802, we ne ed not address def endants’ additional argument that this testim ony was plain error under theConfrontation Clause. 41 th e r e f o r e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n f o rp la in e rr o ro n ly . T h e s ta te m e n ts 31 a r e p la in ly h e a r s a y ; th e y w e r e m a d e b y a n o u t- o f - c o u r t d e c la r a n t a n d th e iro n ly p r o b a tiv e v a lu e is f

o rth e irtru th . I n s u m , a d m is s io n o f th is e v id e n c e v io la te d R u le 802; tha te rr ori s now pl a i n. 32 l ) 1 9 9 7 C a r C ha s e a nd R o be r t Sa w ye r Sho o t i ng R ob ertS aw ye r w as a drug d ea l erw ho se bu si ness i nt er es t s s om et i m es confl i ct ed w i th W i l l i am s’ and C as ado’ s. A ttri al , Je sus W i l son t es t i fi ed that S a w y e rha d thr e a t e ne d t o ki l l both W i l l i a m s a nd C a s a do ove ra drug di s put e , a nd tha tC a s a do ha d r e turne d the thr e a t . L a t e r , S a w y e rs hot , butdi d notki l l , C a s a do ou t si de C as ado’ s hou se . W i l son al so t es t i fi ed thathe, W i l l i am s, and o thers had l ea rned thatS aw ye r had ki l l ed M arvi n R og er s, W i l l i am s’ as soci at e w ho had pa r t i c i pa t e d i n the c l a s he s w i th the T hom a s ga ng. I n r e s pons e , W i l l i a m s pl a c e d a pri ce on S aw ye r’ s l i fe . O f f i c e rA r i e l S a ud t e s t i f

i e d tha ton M a r c h 23, 1997, he ha d a tt e m pt e d t o s t op a bl ac k H on da i n the O vert ow n sec t i on of M i am i . T he ca r f l ed, prom pt i ng a c arOffic er Sanchez also testified that he re cognized Casado from when he had a rre sted him for 33 the J etier shootingin 1991. Wil liams was ar

rested on charg es of grand the ft auto, flee ing to e lude a policeofficer, and 34 re sis tingarre st. 42 chas e. S aud t es t i fi ed thathe sa w w eapo ns bei ng t osse d from the ca r, and t hat eventual l y the occupants of the ca r f l ed on foot . S aud and fe l l ow O ff i ce rs M i gu el R odr i gue z , S t e ve n W a l the n, a nd D a vi d S a nc he z t e s t i f i e d tha tthe y pur s ue d the f l e e i ng s us pe c t s a nd e ve ntua l l y c aptur e d W i l l i a m s , C a s a do, a nd J a m e s D e l e ve a ux, a W i l l i a m s a s s oc i a t e . T he pol i c e f ound W i l l i a m s be hi nd a w oodpi l e , a nd C a s a do 33 a nd D e l e ve a ux i n the s how e rof a ne a rby r e s i de nc e . T he of f i c e r s t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe 34 ow ne r s of

the pr ope r t i e s w he r e the thr e e m e n w e r e f ound s a i d tha tthe y di d not have perm i ss i on t o b e there . V ar i ou s w eapo ns, i ncl ud i ng as saul tri fl es , as w el l as c a m ouf l a ge c l othi ng a nd a r m or e d ve s t s w e r e r e c ove r e d f r om the s c e ne . R e ne T exi do r, C as ado’ s f

ri end, t es t i fi ed thatW i l l i am s, C as ado, and D el eveaux had b ee n o n th e irw a y to k ill S a w y e rw h e n th e y w e r e c ap tu r e d . Je sus W i l son al so t es t i fi ed thati n F ebruary19 98 , he had b ee n i n an apa r tm e ntw i th W i l l i a m s , C a s a do, L e na r d B r ow n, R os ha w n D a vi s , a nd othe r s , w ho ha d a s s e m bl e d w e apons a nd w e r e pl a nni ng t o ki l l S a w y e r . L a t e r , W i l s on s a i d, L e na r d B r ow n a nd R os ha w n D a vi s t ol d hi m tha tL e na r d, W i l l i a m s , a nd C a s a do had sho tS aw ye r f

rom thei r c arw hi l e tra vel i ng nextt o h i m on the hi gh w ay , bu tthat S a w y e rs u r v iv e d . T h e d e f e n s e r a is e d h e a r s a y a n d 4 0 4 ( b ) o b je c tio n s to th is43

e v id e n c e a t tr ia l. W ils o n ’s s ta te m e n ts r e la tin g w h a t L e n a r d B r o w n a n d R o s h a w n D a v is to ld hi m a r e nothe a r s a y be c a us e unde rR ul e 801( d) ( 2) ( E ) the y a r e c o- c ons pi r a t or s t a t e m e nt s m a de dur i ng the c our s e a nd i n f ur the r a nc e of

the C ount2 drug c ons pi r a c y . H ow e ve r , the of f i c e r s ’ t e s t i m ony a bouts t a t e m e nt s m a de by the ow ners of the prop ert i es w here W i l l i am s, C as ado, and D el evaux w er e f ou nd ar e hear sa y, and d o n otfa l l i nt o a hears ay exce pt i on . T hei r a dm i ss i on there fore w as an a bus e of di s c r e t i on. H ow e ve r , the i ra dm i s s i on di d notvi ol a t e the C onf r ont a t i on C la u s e . T h e s ta te m e n ts w e r e n o t “te s tim o n ia l” u n d e rC r a w f o r d b e c a u s e th e r e is i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s a y tha tthe y w e r e a c c us a t or y i n na tur e . T he r e i s no i nd i ca t i on as t o w hether the decl ar ant s knew thatthei r s t at em ent s w ou l d b e use d at tr i a l l a t e r . R obe r t s the r e f or e gove rns the i ra dm i s s i on. B e c a us e the de t a i l s of the s u rr o u n d in g te s tim o n y m a k e it a lm o s t im p o s s ib le f o rth e o w n e r s ’ s ta te m e n ts to h av e b een fal se, th e st at em en t s carry a p art i cu l ari zed g u aran t ee o f tru stw o rth i n ess, and t hei r a dm i ss i on do es no tvi ol at e the C on fr on t at i on C l ause . F i nal l y, w e nee d n otanal yz e w hether a dm i ss i on of thi s e vi dence vi ol at ed 4 0 4 (b ) b ecau se n o n e o f i ti s “ ex tri n si c. ” Itcl earl y co n cern s an “ u n ch arg ed o ffen se w hi ch ar ose outof the sa m e tra nsac t i on or se ri es of tra nsac t i on s a s the charged of f e ns e . ” S e e V e l tm a nn, 6 F . 3d a t1498. T he di s put e w i th S a w y e ra r os e outof the de f e nda nt s ’ i nvol ve m e nti n the C ount2 drug c ons pi r a c y . M or e ove r , the t e s t i m ony44

d o e s n o t p o s e a s ig n if

ic a n t e n o u g h r is k o f

u n f a irp r e ju d ic e to s u b s ta n tia lly outw e i gh i t s pr oba t i ve va l ue i n de m ons tr a t i ng the m odus ope r a ndi of the de f e nda nt s ’ drug bus i ne s s . I t s a dm i s s i on w a s thus nota n a bus e of di s c r e t i on. In sum , on l y a dm i ss i on of the st at em ent s by the prop erty ow ners that W i l l i a m s a nd C a s a do l a c ke d pe r m i s s i on t o be on the i rl a nd w a s a n a bus e of di s c r e t i on unde rR ul e 802. m ) 199 7 A rm ed R ob b er y M D P D O ff

i ce r S t even W al tham and D et ec t i ve D avi d R i char ds t es t i fi ed that a s t ol e n A T M c a r d a nd c he c kbook w e r e f ound i n the bl a c k H onda us e d by W i l l i a m s , C a s a do, a nd D e l e va ux i n the M a r c h 23, 1997 c a rc ha s e . D e t e c t i ve R i c ha r ds s t a t e d tha ts e ve r a l m onths e a r l i e r , the ow ne rof the A T M c a r d a nd c he c kbook ha d r e por t e d tha ts he ha d thos e i t e m s s t ol e n f r om he ra tgunpoi nt , by so m eo n e sh e l at er i d en t i fi ed i n a p h o t o g rap h i c l i n eu p as W i l l i am s. T he di s tr i c tc our ta l l ow e d thi s t e s t i m ony ove ra he a r s a y obj e c t i on, be l i e vi ng th a t it w a s n o t h e a r s a y b e c a u s e it w a s a s ta te m e n t o f id e n tif ic a tio n . R u le 80 1(d)(1)(C) do es st at e thatst at em ent s of “ i dent i fi ca t i on of a per son m ade a ft er pe r c e i vi ng the pe r s on” a r e nothe a r s a y , butonl y i f the de c l a r a ntt e s t i f

i e s a ttr i a l a nd i s s ubj ec tt o cross exam i nat i on concerni ng the st at em ent . S ee , e. g. , U ni t ed S t at es v . B r e w e r , 3 6 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 ( 2 d . C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( “U n d e rR u le 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( C ) , a s t a t e m e ntof

pr i ori de nt i f

i c a t i on m a y be r e c e i ve d i n e vi de nc e onl y i f the de c l a r a ntA bloody photo of Cooper’s body

was also admitted into evidence. H owever, Malott’s 35 testimony was bolstere d by

David Pag an, who testified that Pless admitt ed to killing Cooper.

45 t e s t i f i e s a ttr i a l a nd i s s ubj e c tt o c r os s - e xa m i na t i on c onc e rni ng the pr i or i dent i fi ca t i on . ”) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). T he vi ct i m of the theftnever t est i fi ed attri al , so th e t est i m o n y i s h earsay. S i n ce n o h earsay ex cep t i o n ap p l i es, i t s a dm i s s i on w a s a n a bus e of di s c r e t i on. n ) E vere tt C oo p er M u rd er T he gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e a c c us e d P l e s s a nd C a s a do of ki l l i ng s m a l l - t i m e drug d e a le rE v e r e tt C o o p e r( a .k .a . “C h a r lie P au l” ) in S e p te m b e r1 9 9 4 . C o o p e rd e a lt d ru g s a t th e S ilv e rB lu e L a k e s ap a r tm e n t c o m p le x in M ia m i, w h e r e P le s s a ls o s o ld coca i ne. D et ec t i ve M i chae l M al ot t , w ho i nv es t i gat ed the m urder, st at ed that ey ew i tness es t ol d h i m thata m an go tou tof a L i ncol n T ow n C arand sho tC oo per w ith a c h r o m e r e v o lv e r . M a lo tt f u r th e rs ta te d th a t C a s a d o “h a d b e e n k n o w n ” to d ri v e a b l u e T o w n C ar, an d th atsh el l casi n g s fo u n d atth e scen e m at ch ed th o se foun d atthe sc ene of the C ol ors tri pl e m urder. T he defense l od ged a hears ay 35 o b je c tio n a t tr ia l, a n d a ls o r a is e s a 4 0 4 ( b ) c h a lle n g e f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. M al ot t ’ s t es t i m on y abo utw hatey ew i tness es t ol d h i m and abo utw hat C a s a do “ ha d be e n know n” t o do i s i na dm i s s i bl e he a r s a y be c a us e i ti s onl y r e l e va nt fo r its tru th — to es tab li sh th at C as ad o an d P less w er e r es p o n sib le fo r C o o p er ’s d eath . A s n o h earsay ex cep t i o n s ap p l y, ad m i ssi o n o f th i s t est i m o n y w as an ab u se46

of di s c r e t i on. H ow ever , adm i ss i on of M al ot t ’ s t es t i m on y di d n otvi ol at e R ul e 404 (b), m uch l es s c on st i tut e pl ai n err or, because l i ke the go vernm ent ’ s e vi dence c onc e rni ng the “ A nke y ” m ur de r , e vi de nc e tha tP l e s s a nd C a s a do ki l l e d a r i va l drug d e a le rd u r in g th e s c o p e o f th e C o u n t 2 c o n s p ir a c y is in e x tr ic a b ly in te r tw in e d w ith the evi dence of thei r i nv ol vem enti n thatconspi ra cy . S ee V el tm ann, 6 F . 3d at 1498. A nd a l though the e vi de nc e i s c e r t a i nl y pr e j udi c i a l , i ts t i l l s a t i s f

i e s R ul e 403 b e c a u s e th e d a n g e ro f

u n f a irp r e ju d ic e d o e s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h its s i gni f i c a ntpr oba t i ve va l ue i n e s t a bl i s hi ng P l e s s ’ s i nvol ve m e nti n the C ount2 drug co n sp i racy. o) A m er i ca’s M ost W an te d / C ri m es top p er s D e puty U . S . M a r s ha l M i c ha e l M or a n t e s t i f i e d tha tW i l l i a m s ha d appe a r e d on th e te le v is io n p r o g r a m s C r im e s to p p e r s a n d A m e r ic a ’s M o s t W a n te d a r o u n d 1 9 9 8 . T h e d e f e n s e m a d e a n o b

je c tio n a t tr ia l b a s e d o n h e a r s a y , a n d R u le s 4 0 3 a n d 4 0 4 ( b ) . A l though the gove rnm e ntof f e r e d thi s t e s t i m ony t o pr ovi de ba c kgr ound on W illia m s ’ s ta tu s a s a f

u g itiv e , it is n o n e th e le s s in a d m is s ib le h e a r s a y . T h e o n ly re l evance of the t es t i m on y i s t o sho w thatW i l l i am s w as , i n fac t , w ant ed by l aw e nf or c e m e nt . A s i tf

a l l s unde rnone of

the he a r s a y e xc e pt i ons , i tw a s a n a bus e of di sc re t i on t o adm i ti ti nt o evi dence. F i na l l y , a l though thi s e vi de nc e m a y be “ i ne xtr i c a bl y i nt e r tw i ne d w i th theEv e n th ough in e xtri c a bly int e rt wine d evide nc eis n ot s ub je c t to Rul e40 4(b) , it

mus t still 36 satisfy Rule 403. Church, 955 F .2d at 700. Americ a’s Most Wanted is “a nationally sy ndicated te levision show that profiles unsolved 37 c rime s and

so lic its a ssi sta

nc efrom t

hepu bli c in i denti fy

ingand tra c kingdo wn

thesu sp e c ts portrayed on its episodes.” United States v. Henderson, 241 F.3d 638, 642 ( 9th Cir. 2000). 47 evi dence re gardi ng the charged offe nse” si nce i tdem on stra t es thatW i l l i am s w as try in g to e lu d e c ap tu r e f o rth e c h a r g e d o f

f e n s e s a n d th u s te n d s to s h o w h is c ogni z a nc e of

hi s ow n gui l t , s e e P e opl e v. S l a t e r , 268 A . D . 2d 260, 260 ( N . Y . A pp. D i v. 20 00 ), i tdo es no tsa t i sf y R ul e 403 i n thi s c as e. W hi l e thi s e vi dence has 36 v ir tu a lly n o p r o b a tiv e v a lu e , it is in c r e d ib ly a n d u n f a ir ly p r e ju d ic ia l – e s s e n tia lly t el l i n g th e j u ro rs t o b el i ev e th atW i l l i am s i s g u i l ty o f th e ch arg ed o ffen ses b ecau se he appeare d o n tw o w el l -kno w n t el evi si on prog ra m s f ea turi ng i nd i vi du al s that pol i c e c ons i de rr e s pons i bl e f orc om m i tt i ng c r i m e s . S e e F or d v. C ur t i s , 277 F . 3d 37 8 0 6 , 8 1 1 (6 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) (fi n d i n g “ referen ces t o th e F . B . I’ s T en M o stW an t ed L i st a nd t o A m e r i c a ’ s M os tW a nt e d” i n the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e c ons t i tut e d 404( b) e vi de nc e tha tw a s “ of

nom i na l r e l e va nc e a nd pr e j udi c i a l ” ) ; W i l di ng v. S t a t e , 674 S o. 2d 114, 119 ( F l a . 1996) , ove rrul e d on othe rgr ounds by D e vone y v. S t a t e , 717 S o. 2d 50 1 (F l a. 19 98 ) ( “ T he fa ctthat[the defendant ] w as the subj ec tof [the] w i de l y vi e w e d t e l e vi s i on pr ogr a m [ A m e r i c a ’ s M os tW a nt e d] c l e a r l y w a s i rr e l e va nt and h i gh l y pre

j ud i ci al . ”) . P erm i tt i ng the adm i ss i on of thi s e vi dence w as thu s a n a bus e of di s c r e t i on. p ) 199 7 S taged D ru g R i p -O ff48

G ov ernm entw i tness es t es t i fi ed thatdefe nd antB aker , an M D P D offi ce r, had b e e n h ir e d b y W illia m s , S h a w , a n d H a rp e rto s te a l d ru g s a n d m o n e y f r o m th e ir cust om er s. M D P D offi ce rs al so t es t i fi ed thatB akerpart i ci pat ed i n an u nrel at ed drug r i p- of

f f ora di f f e r e ntdrug de a l e ri n 1997 tha tha d be e n s t a ge d by the M D P D ’ s I nt e rna l A f

f a i r s D e pa r tm e nt . I n pa r t i c ul a r , D e t e c t i ve J oe G r os s , w ho supervi se d a survei l l ance op er at i on agai nstB aker , t es t i fi ed as t o w hatother off i ce rs w ho w e r e w a t c hi ng B a ke rt ol d hi m ove rpol i c e r a di o a boutB a ke r ’ s a c t i ons . T he de f e ns e m a de a he a r s a y obj e c t i on t o G r os s ’ t e s t i m ony a ttr i a l , a nd r a i s e s a 404( b) c h a lle n g e to its a d m is s io n f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. W e n e e d n o t r e a c h th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ 4 0 4 ( b ) c o n te n tio n s , a s G r o s s ’ s ta te m e n ts w ere i n ad m i ssi b l e h earsay. A l th o u g h th ey w ere relevan tt o ex p l ai n h o w G ro ss cond uct ed hi s s t i ng op er at i on , thei r pri m ary probat i ve val ue w as t o p rove that B a k e rw a s a c c e p tin g m o n e y in r e tu rn f o rh e lp in g d ru g d e a le r s r ip o f f th e ir c u s to m e r s . T h e te s tim o n y d o e s n o t f a ll in to a n y h e a r s a y e x c e p tio n , a n d th u s its a dm i s s i on w a s a n a bus e of di s c r e t i on. q) Thr e a t s M a de By W i l l i a m s , Ba pt i s t e , a nd Br o w n t o W i t ne s s e s i n H o l di ng C e lls E rr ol S a w y e r , a n a c qua i nt a nc e of m a ny of the de f e nda nt s , t e s t i f

i e d f orthe g o v e rn m e n t th a t L e o n a r d B r o w n , B ap tis te , S h a w , a n d W illia m s th r e a te n e d h im w h ile h e w a s in a h o ld in g c e ll w a itin g to te s tif y . S a w y e rs a id th a t B r o w n to ld h imAs an initi al matter, weno tethat th e sethre ats a reno t a c ts c ommitt e d in

thec ours eand

in 38 furtheranceof the c harg ed conspiracies, such that they would be admissible ag ainst all of the de fendants . Wec a

nn ot inf e r f ro m th ethre ats that a

su bs idi ary c on sp ira c y

to inju reSawye r, his friends or his family

or to prevent Sawyer f

rom testifying w as consummated over two year s after the underlining criminal enterprisewas dissolved. See g enerally United States v. Mag luta, 418 F.3d 1166, 1178- 79 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Acts of c overingup, even though done in the conte x t of a mutually understood nee d for se cre cy, cannot themse lves constitute proof that c oncealment of the crime after its commission was part of the initial agreement amongthe conspirators.”) (quotingGrunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 402 (1957) ). Pursuant to the Third S u p er s ed i n g In di ctm ent , th e c o n s p i ra ci es ch argedi nC o unt s 1 , 2 , 3 , an d 1 6 co nt i nu edthro u gh J anuar y 1998, while the alleg ed thre ats occurre d on Marc h 1, 2000. Moreover, evidence did not support the proposition that the orig inal conspiracy included a " subsidiary

conspiracy " to injure Sawyer, his friends or his family or to prevent Sawyer f

rom testifying two year s after the c on c lus ion

of theorig inal c on sp ira c y . Se eMag lut a , 4 18 F .3 d at 11 79 . A c c ording ly, th ethre ats w e ren o ti nf

urth e ran c eo f

th eun d e rl i n i n gc o n s p i ra c y.

49 th a t “b la c k g r e a s e - a s s k id ’s m o th e ris s ittin g o v e rth e r e [ in th e c o u r tr o o m ] w ith h is k id ” a n d to “b e c a r e f

u l ab o u t y o u rs o n ‘c a u s e w e ’r e g o in g to g e t h im o n th e s tr e e ts a nd [ f uc k] hi m . ” H e s a i d tha tS ha w a s ke d hi m w hy he l e tthe “ w hi t e pe opl e ” m a ke h im star t t alk in g , th at W il li am s m ad e “sly r em ar k s,” a n d th at b o th sa id , “ Y o u ain ’t g o i n g t o g etfo rty years o ff o f m e. ” W i tn ess R eg g i e W h i t e t est i fi ed th ath e al so o v erh eard W i l l i am s an d B ro w n m ak e th reat en i n g rem ark s t o S aw yer. T h e d efen se o b j ect ed t o th i s t est i m o n y o n R u l e 4 0 4 (b ) g ro u n d s. 38 A lth o u g h p r e

ju d ic ia l, “[ c ]o u r ts m a y c o n s id e re v id e n c e o f th r e a ts to w itn e s s e s a s r e le v a n t in s h o w in g c o n s c io u s n e s s o f g u ilt” u n d e rR u le 4 0 4 ( b ) . U ni t ed S t at es v. G on za l ez , 70 3 F . 2d 12 22 , 12 23 (11t h C i r. 19 83 ). H ow ever , “[ b ]e c a u s e th e p o te n tia l p r e ju d ic e f r o m d e a th th r e a ts m a y b e g r e a t, the gove rnm e nt m us tha ve a n i m por t a ntpurpos e f ori ntr oduc i ng the e vi de nc e i n or de rt o s a t i s f y the50

b a la n c in g te s t o f

R u le 4 0 3 .” I d . ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ) . W e h a v e h e ld th a t a tr ia l c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n w h e n it a llo w e d a g o v e rn m e n t in f o r m a n t to t e s t i f y i n a m ul t i - de f

e nda nttr i a l tha tone de f e nda ntthr e a t e ne d hi s l i f e tw o w e e ks before tri al , w hen t he courthad g i ven a l i m i t i ng i nstruct i on t o the j ury t o con si der th e te s tim o n y o n ly w ith r e s p e c t to th e d e f e n d a n t w h o h a d m a d e th e th r e a t. I d . A l though w e r e a l i z e tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tha s w i de di s c r e t i on i n a dm i tt i ng e v id e n c e , id . a t 1 2 2 4 , it is c le a rto u s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d th a t d is c r e tio n in a l l ow i ng the e vi de nc e of the thr e a t s i n thi s c a s e , t o the e xt e nttha ti tr e f us e d t o gi ve s uc h a l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on t o the j ur y c om m a ndi ng the m t o onl y c ons i de rthe e vi de nc e a ga i ns tS ha w , W i l l i a m s , L e ona r d B r ow n, a nd B apt i s t e , i n l i ghtof the e xtr e m e pr e

j udi c e tha ts uc h e vi de nc e c a n c r e a t e w i th r e s pe c tt o othe rc od e f e n d a n ts . S e e id . a t 1 2 2 3 - 2 4 ( p r e s e n c e o f lim itin g in s tru c tio n im p o r ta n t in d e te r m in a tio n th a t d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in a d m ittin g th is evi dence w i th res pectt o the defendant s thatdi d n otm ake threa t s) . T he di stri ctcourtthere fore abused i t s di sc re t i on i n adm i tt i ng thi s e vi dence as t o C a s a do, H a rpe r , P l e s s , J ohns on, H a w thorne , G i bs on, a nd B a ke r . A s t o the f our defe nd ant s thatac tual l y m ade the threa t s, w hether a dm i ss i on of thi s t es t i m on y w as p r o p e rr e m a in s a c lo s e c a ll, b u t w e u ltim a te ly c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id no tabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n adm i tt i ng i tas t o W i l l i am s, S haw , B apt i st e, and L eonard51

B r ow n. r) G i b son ’s 19 80 s D ru g S al es S e v e r a l g o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s e s te s tif ie d th a t G ib s o n , w ith th e h e lp o f h e rtw in s o n s , e n g a g e d i n ma n y d ru g tr a n s a c t i o n s i n O v e r t o w n i n th e 1 9 8 0 s , b e f o r e th e t i me pe r i od c ove r e d by the C ount2 c ons pi r a c y . T he s e w i tne s s e s s a i d tha tG i bs on ha d a

“ s pot ” i n O ve r t ow n ne a rhe rhous e w he r e s he w oul d gi ve s m a l l qua nt i t i e s of c oc a i ne a nd he r oi n t o s m a l l c hi l dr e n, t o s e l l on the s tr e e tf orhe r . L e ona r d a nd L enar d B row n, w ho atthatt i m e w er e s t i l l i n thei r e ar l y t ee ns, al l egedl y hel ped G i bson pack cocai ne, cook i ti nt o cra ck, and sel l coca i ne and h er oi n o n the stre et a lo n g w ith o th e rc h ild r e n . T h e d e f e n s e r a is e d a 4 0 4 ( b ) o b

je c tio n a t tr ia l. T h is e v id e n c e o f

G ib s o n ’s d ru g s a le s b e f o r e a n y o f

th e c h a r g e d c o n d u c t in th e in d ic tm e n t is “e x tr in s ic ” e v id e n c e w h o s e a d m is s io n is r e g u la te d b y R u le 404( b) . U nde rtha tR ul e , thi s e vi de nc e w a s pr oba t i ve of G i bs on’ s i nt e nton the C ount17 c ha r ge of

know i ngl y m a i nt a i ni ng a pl a c e f orthe purpos e of m a nuf a c tur i ng, di s tr i but i ng, a nd us i ng drugs . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a r de na s , 895 F . 2d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( h o ld in g th a t “w h e n a d e f e n d a n t c h a r g e d w ith c ons pi r a c y e nt e r s a notgui l ty pl e a , he m a ke s i nt e nta m a t e r i a l i s s ue i n the c a s e a nd i m po se s asubst ant i al bu rden on the go vernm ent . T hu s, the go vernm entm ay in tr o d u c e e x tr in s ic o f

f e n s e s w h ic h q u a lif

y u n d e r4 0 4 ( b ) to p r o v e d e f e n d a n t's s ta teMr . M attersis Pl e ss’ s c ouns e l. 39 52 of m i nd, unl e s s de f

e nda ntt a ke s a f

f i r m a t i ve s t e ps t o r e m ove the i s s ue of i nt e ntf r om the ca se . ”) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). T hu s, the di stri ctcourt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in a d m ittin g te s tim o n y c o n c e rn in g G ib s o n ’s e x tr in s ic d ru g sal es. s) R ef er en ce to P l es s’ s P ost- M i ran d a S i l en ce P l e s s r a i s e s a F i f

th A m e ndm e ntdue pr oc e s s c ha l l e nge t o D e t e c t i ve S i m m o n s’ t est i m o n y reg ard i n g S i m m o n s’ p o st -arrest qu est i o n i n g o f P l ess r e g a r d in g th e E v e r e tt C o o p e rm u r d e ra n d P le s s ’s r e f u s a l to a n s w e rc e r ta in que s t i ons . T he f

ol l ow i ng e xc ha nge e ns ue d: Q [ A U SA ] : D i d t here com e a t i me tha tyour i nt er vi ew of M r.

P le s s te r m in a te d , to ld y o u h e d id n ’t w a n t to ta lk to you any further? A [ S I M M O N S ] : Y e s . B utpr i ort o doi ng s o, he m e nt i one d – M R. M A TT ER S: O bj ec t i on . I w ou l d l i ke t o p re se rve t hatfor a 39 si debar. T H E C O U R T : S us t a i ne d. T H E W IT N E S S : Y es , si r. Q : W hat subj ec t m att er w er e you re l at i ng t o h im w hen

the i nt e r vi e w e nde d? M R . M A T T E R S : O bj ec t i on , Judg e. T H E C O U R T : O ve rrul e d. T H E W I T N E S S : W e s ta r t e d t o i n q u ir e o f M r . P le s s a s to h is i n v o l v em en ti n h o m i ci d es. Q : A nd w as the i nt ervi ew ended atthatt i m e? A : Y es , si r. C o u n sel fo r P l ess m o v ed fo r a m i stri al , arg u i n g th atth e t est i m o n y w as a53

d ir e c t r e f le c tio n u p o n P le s s ’s F if th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t a g a in s t s e lf - in c r im in a tio n . T he c our tde ni e d the m ot i on. U s e of the de f e nda nt ' s s i l e nc e a tthe t i m e of a rr e s ta nd a f

t e rr e c e i vi ng M i ran d a w arn i n g s i n an effo rtt o i m p each h i m attri al v i o l at es th e D u e P ro cess C l ause and i t s guara nt ee agai nstfund am ent al un fa i rnes s. U ni t ed S t at es v. M i l l er , 2 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c itin g D o y le v . O h io , 4 2 6 U .S . 6 1 0 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ) . S u ch im p ro p eru se o cc u rs w h en a p ro se cu to r “ca ll [s ] att en ti o n ” to th e d ef en d an t’ s s i l e nc e . I d. O n the ot her hand, “ [w ] hi l e asi ng l e c om m ental on e m ay som et i m es c o n s titu te a D o y le v io la tio n , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t[ ] . . . [ m a d e ] c le a rth a t a s in g le m e nt i on doe s nota ut om a t i c a l l y s uf f i c e . . . w he n the gove rnm e ntdoe s not s pe c i f i c a l l y a nd e xpr e s s l y a tt e m ptt o us e . . . the i m pr ope rc om m e ntt o i m pe a c h the de f e nda nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S tubbs , 944 F . 2d 828, 835 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( c i t i ng G r e e rv. M i l l e r , 483 U . S . 756 ( 1987) ) . T hus , w e ha ve he l d tha ti f the pr os e c ut i on m e nt i ons the de f

e nda nt ’ s s i l e nc e onl y i n pa s s i ng, a nd m a ke s no s pe c i f i c i nqui ry or arg u m en tab o u tth e d efen d an t ’ s p o st -arrest si l en ce, th ere i s n o d u e p ro cess vi ol a t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a y a s s o, N o. 04- 14867, 2005 W L 1038772 a t**3 (11t h C i r. M ay 4, 20 05 ). H er e, w hi l e the G ov ernm ent ’ s quest i on w as un nece ss ary a nd i napp ropri at e,54

be c a us e i ts ugge s t e d tha tP l e s s ha d r e f us e d t o a ns w e ra ny que s t i ons a boutthe m u r d e r s b e c a u s e o f

h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e m , th e r e f e r e n c e w a s to o b r ie f

to c ons t i tut e a F i f

th A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on unde rC a y a s s o a nd S tubbs . T he G o v e rn m e n t e lic ite d o n ly a s in g le r e f e r e n c e to P le s s ’s r e f

u s a l to r e s p o n d to que s t i oni ng, a nd appa r e nt l y ne ve rr e f e rr e d t o the m a tt e ra ga i n, e i the ri n s ubs e que nt w i tne s s e xa m i na t i on ori n c l os i ng a r gum e nt . T hus , the de ni a l of a m i s tr i a l w a s not error. t) P l es s’ s E xcu l p atory P ost- A rr es t S tate m en ts P l e s s a l s o c ha l l e nge s the c our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o c r os s - e xa m i ne D e te c tiv e S im m o n s o n th e e x c u lp a to ry p o r tio n s o f P le s s ’s p o s t- a rr e s t s ta te m e n ts . A ttr i a l , the G ove rnm e ntobj e c t e d t o the r e que s ton he a r s a y gr ounds . A l though S i m m ons ha d be e n pe r m i tt e d t o t e s t i f y r e ga r di ng i nc ul pa t or y por t i ons of the s t a t e m e nt s , the c our ts us t a i ne d the G ove rnm e nt ’ s obj e c t i ons . T he pr os e c ut i on now c orr e c t l y c onc e de s tha tthe de ni a l of P l e s s ’ s r e que s tw a s e rr or . F e de r a l R ul e of E v id e n c e 1 0 6 s ta te s th a t “[ w ]h e n a w r itin g o rr e c o r d e d s ta te m e n t o rp a r t th e r e o f is i ntr oduc e d by a pa r ty , a n a dve r s e pa r ty m a y r e qui r e the i ntr oduc t i on a ttha tt i m e of a n y o th e rp a r t o ra n y o th e rw r itin g o rr e c o r d e d s ta te m e n t w h ic h o u g h t in f a irn e s s to be c ons i de r e d c ont e m por a ne ous l y w i th i t . ” F e d. R . E vi d. 106; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R ange, 94 F . 3d 61 4, 62 0-21 (11t h C i r. 19 96 ). W e have ext ended R ul e 106 t o o ra l55

t est i m o n y i n l i g h to f R u l e 6 1 1 (a)’ s req u i rem en tth atth e d i stri ctco u rtex erci se “r e a s o n a b le c o n tr o l” o v e rw itn e s s in te rr o g a tio n a n d th e p r e s e n ta tio n o f e v id e n c e to m ake them ef

fe ct i ve vehi cl es “ for the as ce rt ai nm entof truth. ” R ange, 94 F . 3d at 621 ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a s tr o, 813 F . 2d 571, 576 ( 2d C i r . 1987) ) . T hus , the e xc ul pa t or y por t i on of

a de f e nda nt ’ s s t a t e m e nts houl d be a dm i tt e d i f i ti s r e l e va nt to a n is s u e in th e c a s e a n d n e c e s s a ry to c la r if y o re x p la in th e p o r tio n r e c e iv e d . R a nge , 94 F . 3d a t621. I n thi s c a s e , P l e s s ’ s e xc ul pa t ory s t a t e m e nt s w e r e r e l e va nt t o h i s i nv ol vem enti n act s i m pl i ca t i ng hi m i n the C ou nt2 con spi ra cy , and w er e nece ss ary t o cl ar i fy tho se po rt i on s r el at ed by D et ec t i ve S i m m on s. T he di stri ct c our tthe r e f

or e a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng P l e s s ’ s m ot i on. 3. P reju d i ce A l l el even defendant s a rgue thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s e vi dent i ary e rr ors w er e no tharm l es s, consi dere d i nd i vi du al l y or c um ul at i vel y, and ent i t l e them t o a new tr i a l . T he c um ul a t i ve e rr ordoc tr i ne “ pr ovi de s tha ta n a ggr e ga t i on ofnonrev ersi b l e erro rs (i . e. , p l ai n erro rs fai l i n g t o n ecessi t at e rev ersal an d h arm l ess e rr or s ) c a n y i e l d a de ni a l of the c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o a f a i rtr i a l , w hi c h c a l l s f

or rev ersal . ” U n i t ed S t at es v . M u n o z, 1 5 0 F . 3 d 4 0 1 , 4 1 8 (5 th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ); see al so L a ba rbe r a , 581 F . 2d a t110; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N e c oe c he a , 986 F . 2d 1273, 1282- 83 (9th C i r. 19 93 ) ( “ In re vi ew i ng for c um ul at i ve error, the courtm ustre vi ew al l errors56

p r e s e r v e d f

o rap p e a l a n d a ll p la in e rr o r s .” ) .

“ T he ha r m l e s s ne s s of

c um ul a t i ve e rr ori s de t e r m i ne d by c onduc t i ng the s a m e in q u iry a s f

o rin d iv id u a l e rr o r - - c o u r ts lo o kto s e e w h e th e rth e d e f e n d a n t's s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s w e r e a f f e c t e d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R i ve r a , 900 F . 2d 1462, 1470 ( 10th C i r . 1990) ( e n ba nc ) ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K a r tm a n, 417 F . 2d 893, 894, 89 8 (9t h C i r. 19 69 )) . H ow ever , the cum ul at i ve prej ud i ci al ef fe ctof m any e rr ors m a y b e g r e a te rth a n th e s u m o f th e p r e ju d ic e c a u s e d b y e a c h in d iv id u a l e rr o r . U ni t ed S t at es v. S epul veda, 15 F . 3d 11 61 , 11 95 -96 (1stC i r. 19 93 ). T he t ot al ef fe ct of the e rr or s on the tr i a l w i l l de pe nd, a m ong othe rthi ngs , on “ the na tur e a nd nu m ber of the errors com m i tt ed; thei r i nt erre l at i on shi p, i f a ny, and com bi ned e f f e c t ; how the di s tr i c tc our tde a l tw i th the e rr or s a s the y a r os e ( i nc l udi ng the e f f i c a c y – orl a c k of

e f f i c a c y – of

a ny r e m e di a l e f

f or t s ) ; [ ] the s tr e ngth of

the gove rnm e nt ' s c a s e , ” a nd the l e ngth of tr i a l . I d. a t1196; H a nds , 184 F . 3d a t1329 ( “ W e de t e r m i ne w he the ra n e rr orha d s ubs t a nt i a l i nf l ue nc e on the out c om e by w ei gh i ng the re cord as a w ho l e, exam i ni ng the fa ct s, the tri al cont extof the error, and t he prej ud i ce cr ea t ed there by as j ux t aposed agai nstthe stre ng th o f the evi dence of defendant ’ s gui l t . ”) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s m arks and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). K ott e a kos v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 328 U . S . 750, 764 ( 1946) , pr ovi de s tha tnonco n st i tu t i o n al erro r i s h arm l ess57

“ i f one cannotsa y, w i th fai r a ss urance, af t erpo nd er i ng al l thathapp ened w i thouts tr i ppi ng the e rr one ous a c t i on f r om the w hol e , tha tthe j udgm e nt w a s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly s w a y e d b y th e e rr o r... . T h e in q u iry c a n n o t b e m e r e ly w hether there w as enou gh t o sup po rtthe re sul t , apar tfr om the ph as e a ff ec t ed by the error. Iti s r ather, even so, w hether the error i t se l f had subst ant i al in f lu e n c e . I f

s o , o rif o n e is le f

t in g r a v e d o u b t, th e c o n v ic tio n c a n n o t st and. ” S ee al so U ni t ed S t at es v. F ra zi er , 38 7 F . 3d 12 44 , 12 66 n. 20 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( en banc) (“ E rr ors do aff

ec ta s ub st ant i al ri gh tof a par ty i f they have a ‘ subst ant i al i nfl uence’ on the ou t com e of aca se or l ea ve ‘ grave dou bt ’ as t o w hether they a f f e c t e d the out c om e of

a c a s e . ” ) . T he s a m e s t a nda r d i s e m pl oy e d t o r e vi e w the pr e j udi c i a l e f

f e c t s of a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s pl a i n e rr or , be i tof c ons t i tut i ona l ornonc o n s titu tio n a l d im e n s io n s . U n ite d S ta te s v . M a th e n ia , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) ( “ T he non- c ons t i tut i ona l ha r m l e s s e rr ors t a nda r d i s note a s y f orthe g o v e rn m e n t to m e e t. I t is a s d if f ic u lt f o rth e g o v e rn m e n t to m e e t th a t s ta n d a r d a s it i s f ora de f e nda ntt o m e e tthe thi r d- pr ong pr e j udi c e s t a nda r d f

orpl a i n e rr or r e v ie w .” ) . M o r e o v e r , w e n o te in p a s s in g th a t “[ a ]n e rr o rm a y s u b s ta n tia lly i nf l ue nc e a n out c om e a nd thus w a rr a ntr e ve r s a l e ve n i f the e vi de nc e , ha d no e rr or oc c urr e d, w oul d ha ve be e n s uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tthe c onvi c t i on. ” H a nds , 184 F . 3d a t1329. W e a l s o r e vi e w the r e c or d de novo w he n c onduc t i ng a ha r m l e s s e rr or a n a l y s i s , u n l i k e o u rr e v i e w o f s u f f i c i e n c y o f

th e e v i d e n c e c h a l l e n g e s , i n wh i c h we vi e w w i tne s s c r e di bi l i ty i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the gove rnm e nt . I d. a t1330Of c ourse, the de fenda nt stil l bear s the burden of provingthe pre

judicial eff

ect of all non- 40 preserved error s. United States v. Rodrigue z, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005). 58 n. 23. B y c ontr a s t , a s di s c us s e d a bove , unde rthe pl a i n e rr ors t a nda r d w e m a y not c o rr e c t a n e rr o ru n le s s : ( 1 ) th e r e is e rr o r ; ( 2 ) th a t is p la in ; a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . I f

the s e thr e e c ondi t i ons a r e m e t , w e m a y e xe r c i s e ourdi s c r e t i on to c o rr e c t th e e rr o r , if

( 4 ) it s e r io u s ly a f

f e c ts th e f a irn e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic re pu t at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. C ot t on , 53 5 U . S . at63 1-32 (200 2). T hu s, because the defendant s di d n otpres erve any of thei r c on st i tut i on al ev id en ti ar y c laim s, w e r ev iew th e a g g re g ate e ff ec t o f th e d istrict co u rt’s const i tut i on al and n on -c on st i tut i on al errors un der the K ot t ea ko s s t andard for ea ch d e f e n d a n t. I f

w e f in d th e e rr o r s ’ c u m u la tiv e e f f e c t in s u f f ic ie n t to n e c e s s ita te 40 r e v e r s a l, w e n e e d n o t c o n s id e re a c h in d iv id u a l e rr o r ’s im p a c t a s to a d e f e n d a n t. a ) W i l l i a ms T he e rr one ous l y a dm i tt e d e vi de nc e i m pl i c a t i ng W i l l i a m s c ons i s t e d of: ( 1) S erg ean tS i n g er’ s t est i m o n y reg ard i n g th e G ary C o l ey m u rd er an d W i l l i am s’ su b se q u en t g u il ty p lea to attem p ted se co n d d eg re e m u rd er ; (2 ) O ff icerP o li te’s t e s t i m ony tha tW i l l i a m s ha d be a t e n hi s gi r l f r i e nd; ( 3) D e t e c t i ve C apot e ’ s t e s t i m ony a b o u t th e w itn e s s id e n tif ic a tio n o f

W illia m s a n d C a s a d o in th e P a lm e tto E xpr e s s w a y m ur de r ; ( 4) S e r ge a ntC a s a s ’ t e s t i m ony a boutW i l l i a m s ’ i nvol ve m e nt i n a 1992 s hoot outa ta M i a m i s tr i p c l ub; ( 5) t e s t i m ony tha tW i l l i a m s di d notha ve59

perm i ss i on t o b e on t he prop erty w here he w as foun d fol l ow i ng a 199 7 carchas e; (6) O ff i ce r W al tham and D et ec t i ve R i char d’ s t es t i m on y abo utan arm ed robb ery W i l l i am s co m m i tt ed i n 1 9 9 7 ; (7 ) D et ect i v e L ew i s’ t est i m o n y ab o u tW i l l i am s’ conn ec t i on t o the A m oco d ou bl e m urder a nd subsequentm urder of C orey M urchers on ; (8) L ew i s’ t es t i m on y thathe w as t ol d R i char d S t i tw orked as a n

“ en fo rcer” fo r W i l l i am s; (9 ) D et ect i v e B o rg es’ t est i m o n y ab o u tW i l l i am s’ in v o lv em en t i n th e B ro w n lee m u rd er ; an d (1 0 ) D ep u ty U .S . M ar sh al M o ra n ’s t est i m o n y ab o u tW i l l i am s’ ap p earan ce o n C ri m est o p p ers an d A m eri ca’ s M o st W a nt e d. T w o of the s e i t e m s of

e vi de nc e w e r e i nde pe nde nt l y c or r obor a t e d by a dm i s s i bl e e vi de nc e . F i r s t , J ohnny H a nki ns c or r obor a t e d C apot e ’ s t e s t i m ony concerni ng the P al m ett o E xp re ss w ay m urders , re coun t i ng a c on vers at i on i n w hi ch W illia m s c o n f

id e d th a t h e a n d C a s a d o k ille d s e v e r a l in d iv id u a ls o n a n e x p r e s s w a y . Se c o n d , Le w i s ’ s t e s t i mo n y c o n c e rn i n g St i t ’ s r o l e a s “ a n e n f o r c e r ” f o rW i l l i a ms w a s c orr obor a t e d by B e c t on, w ho t e s t i f i e d tha tboth he a nd S t i tw or ke d f or W i l l i am s i n V i rgi ni a. T hi s i nd ependentt es t i m on y m i t i gat es the prej ud i ci al ef fe ct of the i na dm i s s i bl e L e w i s a nd C apot e t e s t i m ony . C f . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e L oa c h, 654 F . 2d 763, 771 ( D . C . C i r . 1980) ( hol di ng tha ta dm i s s i on of he a r s a y t e s t i m ony w as harm l es s w here the j ury hea rd adm i ss i bl e t es t i m on y f rom three other s ou rc esMiche lleF e lic iano , Pe dro F e lic iano , Ari al B arria s, Kevin B e c ton , N ora

B y rd , Ch arl e s Ro yal, 41 J ohnny Hankins, Herber

t McCrea , Steve McGriff, Wimon Nero, Jesus W ilson, Errol Sawyer, Rob e rt Raye , D arre n Co c hran, Pranc ina Mac intos h, Ne lso n D arb y , Z a c ha ry B utl e r, Re g g ie Whit ea nd Sam Jone s. 60 t o the sa m e e ff

ec t ). M o reo v er, th e cu m u l at i v e effect of the d i stri ctco u rt ’ s erro rs w as h arm l ess g i v e n th e a v a l a n c h e o f

a d mi s s i b l e , i n c u l p a t o ry e v i d e n c e a d mi tt e d a g a i n s tW i l l i a ms attri al w i th resp ectt o ev ery co u n tfo r w h i ch h e w as i n d i ct ed . S p eci fi cal l y, n in e te e n w itn e s s e s te s tif ie d th a t th e y p e r s o n a lly w itn e s s e d o rp a r tic ip a te d in 41 W i l l i am s’ drug sa l es op er at i on . B ec t on al so t es t i fi ed thathe, S t i t , and o thers tr a n s p o r te d d ru g s to G e o r g ia f o rW illia m s . L ik e w is e , H a n k in s s a id th a t M a r v in R o g e r s a n d G a ry D u k e s tr a n s p o r te d d ru g s to G e o r g ia o n W illia m s ’ b e h a lf . M c Cr e a f

u r th e rt o l d th e j u ry th a tW i l l i a ms h a d “ l i e u t e n a n t s ” d e l i v e rd ru g s f o rh i m, w hi l e bot h B yr d and R oyal t es t i fi ed thatB yr d tra nspo rt ed drug s f or W i l l i am s. In addi t i on t o con ce di ng hi s ow n i nv ol vem ent , H anki ns al so t es t i fi ed that M ur c he r s on, W i l s on, a nd a n i ndi vi dua l na m e d “ D onke y K ong” a l s o w or ke d f or W illia m s . V o lu m in o u s e v id e n c e a ls o im p lic a te d W illia m s in v io le n c e c o m m itte d in f ur the r a nc e of

the c ons pi r a c y , i nc l udi ng: ( 1) t e s t i m ony f r om both B e c t on a nd H a nki ns c onc e rni ng W i l l i a m s ’ i nvol ve m e nti n the R ol e x s hoot out ; ( 2) t e s t i m ony f r om B e c t on c onc e rni ng W i l l i a m s ’ r ol e i n the “ A nke y ” m ur de r ; a nd ( 3) J ohnny61

H a m pt on’ s t e s t i m ony tha the pe r s ona l l y w i tne s s e d W i l l i a m s ’ i nvol ve m e nti n the H a rr i s /B e tt e r s on m ur de r s . T e xi dora nd W i l s on a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha tW i l l i a m s a nd C a s a do pl a nne d t o m ur de rR obe r tS a w y e r . P ol i c e O f f i c e r s S a ud, R odr i gue z , a nd W a l th e n e x p l a i n e d th a tth e y a rr e s t e d W i l l i a ms ( a l o n g w i th Ca s a d o ) a f t e rf i r e a r ms w e r e thr ow n f

r om the c a ri n w hi c h the y w e r e tr a ve l l i ng. F i na l l y , num e r ous w i tn esses t est i fi ed th atW i l l i am s reg u l arl y carri ed fi rearm s. In th i s l i g h t , ev en g i v en th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s n u m ero u s ev i d en t i ary m i st ak es, w e c a n s t i l l s a y w i th “ f

a i ra s s ur a nc e , a f

t e rponde r i ng a l l tha thappe ne d w i thout s tr i ppi ng the e rr one ous a c t i on f r om the w hol e , tha tthe j udgm e ntw a s not subst ant i al l y s w ay ed by the error. ” K ot t ea ko s, 32 8 U . S . at76 5. T he di stri ct co u rt ’ s ev i d en t i ary erro rs are th u s h arm l ess as t o W i l l i am s. b) C a s a do T he di s tr i c tc our te rr one ous l y a dm i tt e d e vi de nc e of C a s a do’ s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n: (1) the P al m ett o E xp re ss w ay m urders ; (2) the Je t i erm urder; (3) the C ol ors tr i pl e m ur de r ; ( 4) the E ve r e ttC oope rm ur de r ; ( 5) a nd the A m oc o m ur de r s . T he l ow e rc our ta l s o i nc orr e c t l y a l l ow e d the j ur y t o he a re vi de nc e tha tC a s a do di d not have perm i ss i on t o b e on t he prop erty w here he w as foun d fol l ow i ng a 199 7 car chas e, and err ed by fa i l i ng t o g i ve a l i m i t i ng i nstruct i on abou tthe threa t s that W i l l i am s, S haw , L eonard B row n, and B apt i st e m ade t o E rr ol S aw ye r.Be cton, Hankins, Raye, Pag an, McGriff, a nd Wil son. 42 62 T he prej ud i ce re sul t i ng fr om these errors i s t em pere d b y the fa ctthat i nde pe nde nta dm i s s i bl e t e s t i m ony c orr obor a t e d tw o of the i m pr ope rpi e c e s of e v id e n c e . F ir s t, a s d is c u s s e d a b o v e , th e te s tim o n y lin k in g C ap o te to th e P a lm e tto E xpr e s s w a y m ur de r s w a s c orr obor a t e d by J ohnny H a nki ns . S e c ond, the i na dm i s s i bl e t e s t i m ony c onc e rni ng C a s a do’ s i nvol ve m e nti n the J e t i e rs hoot i ng w a s c onf i r m e d by O f

f i c e rS a nc he z ’ s t e s t i m ony tha the hi m s e l f w i tne s s e d the shoo t i ng and t hatC as ado h ad been the shoo t er . T hough the r e m a i ni ng e vi de nt i a ry e rr or s r e m a i n tr oubl i ng, the r e w a s s uc h a m ount a i n of

a dm i s s i bl e e vi de nc e i m pl i c a t i ng C a s a do i n a l l of the of f e ns e s f or w hi c h he w a s c onvi c t e d tha tw e c a n f a i r l y s a y tha tthe e vi de nt i a ry e rr or s di d not a f f e c thi s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . I nde e d, s i x w i tne s s e s t e s t i f i e d tha tC a s a do a nd 42 W i l l i am s c ol l aborat ed i n sel l i ng coca i ne. H anki ns spec i fi ca l l y t es t i fi ed that w h e n e v e rW illia m s a n d H a rp e rh a d n o c o c a in e to s e ll, h e b o u g h t f r o m C a s a d o . S i m i l a r l y , M c C r e a t e s t i f i e d tha tW i l l i a m s s a i d he w a s “ t a ki ng ove re ve ry thi ng” re gardi ng drug sa l es w hi l e C as ado served a pri son sent ence . N um er ou s w i tness es a ls o te s tif

ie d th a t B ap tis te w o r k e d s e llin g d ru g s f o rC a s a d o . S a n c h e z - C a r illo te s tif ie d th a t h e s o ld c o c a in e to C a s a d o ; T e x id o rs a id th a t th e C ru z b r o th e r s s o ld c o c a in e to C a s a d o ; a n d S a m J o n e s a d d e d th a t C a s a d o d is tr ib u te d d ru g s to63

P e n s a c o la . T he go vernm ent ’ s e vi dence al so l i nk ed C as ado t o the vi ol entac t i vi t i es com m i tt ed i n furthera nce of the charged conspi ra cy . B ri an W i l son t es t i fi ed that C as ado w as pres entatthe C ol ors M urders , w hi l e M cC ul l ou gh t ol d the j ury that ac cordi ng t o H aw tho rne, H aw tho rne a nd C as ado w er e i nv ol ved i n the A m oco m ur de r s . O f

f i c e rS a nc he z s t a t e d tha the obs e r ve d tha tJ e t i e rw a s s hotby i n d i v i d u al s i n a car i n w h i ch C asad o w as trav el l i n g w i th B ap t i st e. S i m i l arl y, T exi do r s t at ed thatC as ado sai d h e ( C as ado) had sho tJe t i er . A s di sc usse d abo ve, T exi do r a nd W i l son b oth exp l ai ned t hatC as ado and W i l l i am s pl anned t o m urder R ob ertS aw ye r. W i l son further t es t i fi ed thathe had b ee n rob bed of drugs by a s s a ila n ts tr a v e lin g in C a s a d o ’s c a r . H a n k in s to ld th e ju ry th a t W illia m s s a id C as ado h ad been i nv ol ved i n the H arri s /B ett er son m urders . A s not ed abov e, O ff i ce rs S anchez, R od ri gu ez , S aud, and W al then al so t es t i fi ed thatthey a rr es t ed C as ado aft erfi re arm s a nd other i t em s w er e throw n from the ca r i n w hi ch they w er e tra vel i ng . F i nal l y, nu m er ou s w i tness es t es t i fi ed thatC as ado regul ar l y c arri ed fi rearm s. I n l i ghtof

thi s ove rw he l m i ng a dm i s s i bl e e vi de nc e , the pr e j udi c e r e s ul t i ng f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e v id e n tia ry e rr o r s p r o v e s in s u f f ic ie n t to n e c e s s ita te r e ve r s a l of

C a s a do’ s c onvi c t i on.64

c) H arp er T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y a d m ittin g e v id e n c e o f H a rp e r ’s in v o lv e m e n t in th e B r o w n le e m u r d e r , a n d b y f a ilin g to g iv e alim itin g in s tru c tio n a b o u t th e th r e a ts th a t W illia m s , S h a w , L e o n a r d B r o w n , a n d B ap tis te m a d e to E rr o l S a w y e r . H o w e v e r , th is e v id e n c e p r o v e s h a r m le s s in lig h t o f th e la r g e v o lu m e o f

a d m is s ib le e vi de nc e the pr os e c ut i on a m a s s e d a ga i ns tH a rpe r . T ha te vi de nc e i nc l ude d: ( 1) H a nki ns ’ t e s t i m ony tha tH a rpe rs ol d c oc a i ne a tthe M a t c hbox w i th W i l l i a m s ; ( 2) B e c t on’ s t e s t i m ony tha tH a rpe rs uppl i e d W i l l i a m s w i th c oc a i ne ; a nd ( 3) t e s t i m ony fr om T exi do r a nd H al l thatH arper bou gh tcoca i ne fr om C as ado. H al l and N er o al so t ol d the j ury thatthey bou gh tcoca i ne fr om H arper, w hi l e K erry S m i th st at ed thatH arper s ol d cra ck i n A t l ant a a nd W es tP al m B ea ch. P agan al so t es t i fi ed that he sol d cocai ne t o H arper. R ose’ s t es t i m on y thatshe overhear d N er o and H arper di sc ussi ng drug deal s bol st er ed thi s e vi dence. A d m is s ib le e v id e n c e a ls o lin k e d H a rp e rto s o m e o f th e v io le n t in c id e n ts com m i tt ed i n furthera nce of the conspi ra cy . H anki ns t ol d the j ury thatH arper w as p r e s e n t w h e n W illia m s f o u g h t w ith a m e m b e ro f th e r iv a l T h o m a s g a n g , w h ile B ec t on sa i d thatH arper w as pres entatthe R ol ex w hen W i l l i am s f ou gh tw i th o ther m em bers of the T ho m as gang . H al l further t es t i fi ed thatH arper oft en ca rr i ed f ir e a r m s .65

In sum , w hen v i ew ed agai nstthe qu antum of adm i ss i bl e e vi dence c onc e rni ng H a rpe r ’ s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n a l l of the of f e ns e s f orw hi c h he w a s c ha r ge d, w e can fai rl y say th atth e ev i d en t i ary erro rs rem ai n h arm l ess. d ) L e o n a r d B r o wn T he onl y e vi de nt i a ry e rr ora f f e c t i ng L e ona r d B r ow n’ s c onvi c t i ons w a s the adm i ss i on of D et ec t i ve L ew i s’ t es t i m on y abo uthi s i nv ol vem enti n the A m oco doubl e m ur de r . A s a n i ni t i a l m a tt e r , thi s e vi de nc e r e l a t e s onl y t o C ount s 2 a nd 16 of the i ndi c tm e nt , a s i tbe a r s no di s c e rna bl e r e l a t i ons hi p t o the i m por t a t i on c o n s p i r a c y c o u n t( C o u n t3 ) . Mo r e o v e r , th e g o v e rn m e n t ’ s c a s e a g a i n s tB r o wn c onc e rni ng C ount s 2 a nd 16 w a s hi ghl y c om pe l l i ng. W i l s on, E rr ol S a w y e r , a nd R e ggi e W hi t e a l l t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe B r ow n tw i ns w or ke d f orW i l l i a m s i n s e l l i ng drug s. W hi t e a l so t es t i fi ed thathe ob se rved W i l l i am s del i ver drugs t o the tw i ns at G i bson ’ s hou se , w hi l e S aw ye r t es t i fi ed thathe pi cked up drug s f rom the tw i ns at G ib s o n ’s h o u s e . W ils o n e x p la in e d th a t th e B r o w n tw in s w o r k e d f o rG ib s o n in se l l i ng , prepari ng , and o bt ai ni ng drug s. F i nal l y, W hi t e, M cC ul l ou gh , and M cC re a al l st at ed th atth ey b o u g h td ru g s fro m th e B ro w n tw i n s. A s f ort e s t i m ony r e l a t i ng t o vi ol e nc e , W i l s on t e s t i f i e d tha tj us tpr i ort o the A m o c o m u r d e r s , h e p u r c h a s e d s k i m a s k s f o rB r o w n a n d s a w h im w ith w e ap o n s . Jo h n n y H am p t o n al so t o l d th e j u ry th ath e saw B ro w n co m m i to n e o f th e H arri s /66

B e tt e r s o n m u r d e r s . T e s t i m o n y f r o m s e v e r a l wi tn e s s e s a l s o i n d i c a t e d th a tB r o wn o ft en carri ed fi rearm s. I n lig h t o f

th is c o n s id e r a b le a m o u n t o f a d m is s ib le e v id e n c e a d d u c e d in supp ortof B row n’ s c on vi ct i on , w e c anno tsa y thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s e rr or af fe ct ed h i s su b st an t i al ri g h t s. e ) M al c ol m S h aw As n o n e o f

th e e rr o n e o u s l y a d m i tt e d e v i d e n c e i m p l i c a t e d Ma l c o l m S h a w, th ere i s n o q u est i o n th atth e ev i d en t i ary erro rs d i d n o taffect hi s su b st an t i al ri g h t s. f) B ak er T he di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed tw o err ors thataf fe ct ed B aker : (1) i tadm i tt ed D e t e c t i ve G r os s ’ he a r s a y s t a t e m e nt s tha tde t a i l e d hi s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n a 1997 drug r i p- of f s t a ge d by M D P D I nt e rna l A f f a i r s ; a nd ( 2) i tf

a i l e d t o gi ve a l i m i t i ng in s tru c tio n a b o u t th e th r e a ts th a t W illia m s , S h a w , L e o n a r d B r o w n , a n d B ap tis te m ade t o E rr ol S aw ye r. H ow ever , these errors prov e harm l es s w hen w ei gh ed ag ai n stth e ad m i ssi b l e ev i d en ce su p p o rt i n g B ak er’ s co n v i ct i o n . S p eci fi cal l y, R aye a nd M a c i nt os h both t e s t i f i e d tha tW i l l i a m s a rr a nge d f orB a ke rt o pe r f

or m he i s t s of drug m on ey , w hi l e M cC re a a nd K enneth L urry t es t i fi ed thatS haw m ade s i m i l ar a rr a nge m e nt s w i th B a ke r . W i l s on a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d be e n s ubj e c tt o one of B aker ’ s “ ri p-offs ”; R ay e’ s t es t i m on y r evea l ed thatB aker ’ s W i l son “ ri p-off” had67

been arr anged b y W i l l i am s. M cC re a a nd W i l son al so sa i d thatthey had se en B aker w i th S ha w , W i l l i a m s , a nd othe r s i n the gr oup on a num be rof oc c a s i ons . I n l i ghtof th is e v id e n c e , w e a r e p e r s u a d e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e rr o r s w e r e h a r m le s s a s to B aker . g) B ap ti st e T he di s tr i c tc our te rr one ous l y a dm i tt e d e vi de nc e of B apt i s t e ’ s i nvol ve m e nt i n the Je t i erm urder and the C ol ors tri pl e m urder. H ow ever , these errors , t oo , w er e ha r m l e s s gi ve n the a bunda nta m ount s of a dm i s s i bl e tr i a l e vi de nc e i nc r i m i na t i ng B apt i st e. S peci fi ca l l y, T exi do r t es t i fi ed thatC as ado sup pl i ed cocai ne t o cust om er s tha tB apt i s t e ha d l i ne d up. P a ga n a nd H a l l a l s o a dm i tt e d ha vi ng boughtdrugs f r om B ap tis te , w h o a c te d o n C a s a d o ’s b e h a lf w h e n C a s a d o w a s u n a v a ilab le . C onve r s e l y , S a nc he z - C a r i l l o t e s t i f i e d tha the s ol d drugs t o B apt i s t e w he n C a s a do w a s i nc a r c e r a t e d. A ddi t i ona l w i tne s s e s i ndi c a t e d tha tB apt i s t e w or ke d f orC a s a do in c o u n tin g m o n e y , d e liv e r in g d ru g s , a n d a c tin g a s a w a tc h - m a n . A c c o r d in g to t e s t i m ony f

r om B e c t on a nd W i l l i a m s , B apt i s t e a l s o i nt e r a c t e d f r e que nt l y a nd cl o sel y w i th th e o th er co n sp i rat o rs. T h e r e w a s a ls o e v id e n c e o f B ap tis te ’s in v o lv e m e n t in th e v io le n t in c id e n ts desc ri bed attri al . A s di sc usse d abo ve, O ff i ce r S anchez t es t i fi ed thathe ob se rved th a t J e tie rw a s s h o t b y in d iv id u a ls r id in g in a c a ro c c u p ie d b y B ap tis te a n d C a s a d o .As discussed above , Simm ons’ testimony reg ardingAnthony

Brantley ’s statements wa s invited 43 by Ple ss. 68 T exi do r c orrobo ra t ed thatt es t i m on y. B ri an G i bson al so st at ed thatB apt i st e w as p resen tatth e C o l o rs m u rd ers. T hi s a dm i ss i bl e t es t i m on y a gai nstB apt i st e thu s outw ei gh s a ny prej ud i ce r e s u ltin g f

r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e v id e n tia ry e rr o r s . h ) P l ess T he di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d f oure vi de nt i a ry e rr or s tha ta f f e c t e d P l e s s : ( 1) a dm i tt i ng D e t e c t i ve S i m m ons ’ t e s t i m ony c onc e rni ng C e dr i c k B r a nt l e y ’ s s t a t e m e nt tha tP l e s s r e c rui t e d hi m t o m ur de rJ ohnny B e l l i a r d; ( 2) a dm i tt i ng D e t e c t i ve M a llo t’s te s tim o n y im p lic a tin g P le s s in th e E v e r e tt C o o p e rm u r d e r ; ( 3 ) f a ilin g to gi ve a l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on a boutthe thr e a t s tha tW i l l i a m s , S ha w , L e ona r d B r ow n, an d B ap ti ste m ad e to E rr o l S aw ye r; an d (4 ) r ef u sin g to allo w ad m issio n o f P less ’s e x c u lp a to ry p o s t- a rr e s t s ta te m e n ts . H ow ever , tw o p i ec es of thi s e rr on eousl y- adm i tt ed evi dence w er e i nde pe nde nt l y c orr obor a t e d by a dm i s s i bl e e vi de nc e . S pe c i f i c a l l y , D e t e c t i ve S i m m ons ’ t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng C e dr i c k B r a nt l e y ’ s s t a t e m e ntw a s c or r obor a t e d by testim o n y f

ro m b o th P ag an an d B ra n tl ey h im se lf. L ik ew ise, D etec ti v e M allo t’ s t e s t i m ony l i nki ng P l e s s t o the C oope rm ur de rw a s c or r obor a t e d by P a ga n a nd by S i m m o n s’ t est i m o n y reg ard i n g A n th o n y B ran t l ey’ s st at em en t s. 4369

M o r e o v e r , th e r e c o r d c o n ta in s a c o n s id e r a b le v o lu m e o f a d m is s ib le i ncri m i nat i ng evi dence re l at i ng t o P l es s. S peci fi ca l l y, D et ec t i ve S i m m on s t es t i fi ed tha tP l e s s t ol d hi m he boughtdrugs f r om P a ga n a nd s ol d drugs both i n M i a m i a nd J a c ks onvi l l e . P a ga n t oo t e s t i f i e d e xt e ns i ve l y c onc e rni ng P l e s s ’ s i nvol ve m e nti n the char ged con du ct , expl ai ni ng that : (1) P l es s a nd John son w er e c l ose a nd sol d cra ck t oge the ra tS i l ve rB l ue L a ke s ; ( 2) P a ga n a nd C a s a do s ol d c oc a i ne t o P l e s s ; ( 3) P l e s s s ol d drugs i n G e or gi a a nd J a c ks onvi l l e ; ( 4) P l e s s ha d tr a ve l e d w i th A nthony B ran t l ey an d P ag an t o i n v est i g at e a d i stri b u t o r’ s l o ss o f P l ess’ s d ru g s; an d (5 ) P l ess t ol d P agan thathe had m urdered E vere ttC oo per, a B oo bi e B oys’ ri val . In addi t i on , C edri ck B r a nt l e y t e s t i f i e d tha tP l e s s pa i d hi m t o ki l l J ohnny B e l l i a r d a nd thatP l es s oft en ca rr i ed fi re arm s. B ec t on al so expl ai ned t o the j ury thatP l es s w as c l os e t o B apt i s t e a nd C a s a do. S i m i l a r l y , the gove rnm e nti ntr oduc e d e vi de nc e of P l ess’ s rap C D , w h i ch co n t ai n ed referen ces t o C asad o , P ag an , A n th o n y B ran t l ey, John son and B apt i st e. F u rth erm o re, D E A an al ystJean ett e D av i s d escri b ed w i re tran sfers th atP l ess h a d m a d e f

r o m G e o r g ia ( w h e r e s o m e o f th e g r o u p ’s d is tr ib u tio n to o k p la c e ) to C as ado, B apt i st e, John son, and A ntho ny B rant l ey i n M i am i . F i nal l y, O ff i ce r Q u i n t e r o t e s t i f

i e d th a th e s t o p p e d Pl e s s o n O c t o b e r1 2 , 1 9 9 3 a n d f o u n d f o u rg r a msSome testimony adduce d at trial indicate d that Pless and J ohnson wereinvolved in the murder 44 of Roosevelt Davis. While the g overnment argues that this murder wa s committed in retaliation for Da vis’s theft of money

and drug s from Pless’s home, some testimony indicated that the murder w as ca

rried out to aveng e Da

vis’s assault of Pless’s wife . Even if weacc ept the g overnment’s claim that Pless was re sponding to the the ft, thereis no evidencelinking the thef t or the items stolen to the BoobieBoys’ operations. As such, wecannot we igh evidenceof the Da vismurder in f

avo r o f P le ss’ s c onvic tio n o n th edr ugc on sp ira c y

c ount. 70 of c r a c k c oc a i ne a nd $575 i n s m a l l bi l l s on P l e s s ’ s pe r s on. 44 I n de t e r m i ni ng ha r m l e s s ne s s , w e m us tc ons i de rthe i nc e nt i ve tha tP a ga n a nd other gov ernm entw i tness es had t o p rovi de t es t i m on y thatw ou l d sec ure r educed se nt ence s or other f

avorabl e tre atm ent . S ee H ands, 18 4 F . 3d at13 29 . H ow ever , thi s doe s nota f

f e c tthe hi ghl y i nc r i m i na t i ng t e s t i m ony pr ovi de d by A ge ntD a vi s or O f f i c e rQ ui nt e r o, nordoe s i ti m pa c tthe pa r t i c ul a r l y da m ni ng t e s t i m ony f r om D e te c tiv e S im m o n s c o n c e rn in g P le s s ’s o w n s ta te m e n ts a g a in s t h is p e n a l in te r e s t. In l i gh tof thi s t es t i m on y, and con si deri ng the re cord as a w ho l e, w e a re pers uaded th atth e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ev i d en t i ary erro rs w ere h arm l ess as t o P l ess. i ) Joh n s on T he e rr one ous l y a dm i tt e d e vi de nc e i m pl i c a t i ng J ohns on c ons i s t e d of D et ec t i ve S i m m on s’ t es t i m on y thatA ntho ny B ra nt l ey t ol d h i m thatJohn son w as one of the s hoot e r s i n the C ol or s m ur de r s . A s J ohns on di d notobj e c tt o a dm i s s i on o f th a t e v id e n c e a t tr ia l, h e m u s t p r o v e th a t th e e rr o ra f f e c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts a nd tha ti f

unc orr e c t e d the e rr orw oul d s e r i ous l y a f f e c tthe i nt e gr i ty orr e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . C ott on, 535 U . S . a t631- 32. H e c a n do s o be c a us e theOn cross-examination, the government aske d J eff rey Gibson about his knowledg e of G ibson’s 45 past convictions. J eff

rey Gibson responde d that Gibson had told him about her manslaughter conviction. The de fenseobjected a nd moved for a

mistrial. The district court then g ave thejury a curative instruction in which it direc ted them to disreg ard theref erence to the prior conviction. On appe al, the g overnment properly conce des that the admission was error , as the c onviction dates from 1974. See Fe d. R. Evid. 609(b). However, w e must nonetheless de termine whether the impermissible ref

erence to Gibson’s prior conviction wa s harmless in light of the district court’s curative instruc tion and the other admissibl e evidence adduced in support of Gibson’s conviction. See United States v. L eQuire , 943 F.2d 1554, 1571- 72 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding harmless a

n inadmissible comment, as prejudicial effe ct was removed by district court’s curative instruction). 71 t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the C ol or s m ur de r s w a s the pr i m a ry e vi de nc e l i nki ng J ohns on t o b o th th e fi rearm s co n sp i racy an d th e d ru g co n sp i racy. T h e r e m a in in g a d m is s ib le t e s t i m ony c onc e rni ng J ohns on’ s i nvol ve m e nti s l i m i t e d t o: ( 1) P a ga n’ s t e s t i m ony thatP l es s a nd John son w er e c l ose a nd thatthey s ol d cra ck t og ether; and (2) E m ery M o o n ’s a n d C r e d r ic k B r a n tle y ’s te s tim o n y th a t J o h n s o n r e g u la r ly c a rr ie d f ir e a r m s . T hi s t es t i m on y f

ai l s t o est abl i sh a l i nk betw ee n Joh nson and any conspi ra t or ot her th an P less . In an y e v en t, th e g o v er n m en t’ s r elativ ely th in ev id en ce o f J o h n so n ’s part i ci pat i on w as cl ea rl y outw ei gh ed by the very prej ud i ci al ef fe ctof hear sa y e vi de nc e i m pl i c a t i ng J ohns on i n the m ur de r s of tw o a dul t s a nd a y oung c hi l d a tthe C o l o rs ap artm en t s. T h i s erro r th u s req u i res th atJo h n so n ’ s co n v i ct i o n s o n C o u n t s 2 a n d 1 6 b e r e v e r s e d . j ) G i b s on T he di s tr i c tc our tm a de tw o e vi de nt i a ry e rr or s tha ta f f e c t e d G i bs on: ( 1) J e f f r e y G i bs on’ s t e s t i m ony c onc e rni ng G i bs on’ s 1974 m a ns l a ught e rc onvi c t i on ; 4572

an d (2 ) th e fai l u re t o g i v e a l i m i t i n g i n stru ct i o n ab o u tth e th reat s th atW i l l i am s, S h a w , L e o n a r d B r o w n , a n d B ap tis te m a d e to E rr o l S a w y e r . T h e r e c o r d in d ic a te s th a t th e s e e rr o r s p r o v e in s u f f ic ie n tly p r e

ju d ic ia l to w a rr a ntr e ve r s a l of

G i bs on’ s c onvi c t i on. T he gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e a ga i ns tG i bs on i nc l ude d t e s t i m ony f

r om M c C ul l ough, H a nki ns , a nd K e nne th J ohns on tha tG i bs on sol d cocai ne. John son al so adm i tt ed thathe sol d cocai ne for G i bson on a num ber of oc c a s i ons . E rr ol S a w y e rs t a t e d tha tG i bs on’ s s ons ( the B r ow n tw i ns ) s ol d drugs f o rh e r , a n d M c Cu l l o u g h s t a t e d th a tth e tw i n s p r e p a r e d c r a c k i n G i b s o n ’ s h o me w hi l e s he w a s pr e s e nt . A s di s c us s e d a bove , w i tne s s e s a l s o t e s t i f i e d a s t o drug de l i ve r i e s m a de t o a nd f r om G i bs on’ s hom e . K e nne th J ohns on, E rr ol S a w y e r , a nd R e g g ie W h ite a ls o te s tif ie d to G ib s o n ’s in v o lv e m e n t in d ru g s a le s in th e 1 9 8 0 s . W h ite a d d e d th a t h e h a d s e e n f ir e a r m s in p la in v ie w a t G ib s o n ’s h o u s e w h ile G i bson w as pres ent , w hi l e H anki ns and T heod i e B row n sai d thatG i bson oft en c a rr ie d f ir e a r m s . T h e ju ry w a s a ls o m a d e a w a r e th a t G ib s o n is W illia m s ’ a u n t. W hi l e G i bs on a r gue s tha tthe e rr one ous a dm i s s i on of he rpr i orc onvi c t i on p r e v e n te d h e rf

r o m c o n v in c in g th e ju ry th a t s h e w a s u n in v o lv e d in th e v io le n t a c ts com m i tt ed by her co-def endant s, the go vernm entprod uced a dm i s s i bl e t e s t i m ony w hi c h i t s e l f

s i gni f i c a nt l y unde r m i ne d a ny a tt e m ptby G i bs on t o pr e s e nta nonvi ol enti m age t o the j ury. S peci fi ca l l y, as no t ed abov e, tw o w i tness es t es t i fi ed that73

G ib s o n o f

te n c a rr ie d f

ir e a r m s ; a th ir d in d ic a te d th a t h e s a w a s s a u lt r if le s in p la in v ie w in G ib s o n ’s h o m e w h ile G ib s o n w a s p r e s e n t. T h is m o r e r e c e n t e v id e n c e d id a tl e a s ta s m uc h da m a ge t o G i bs on’ s e f f or tt o pr e s e nta non- vi ol e nti m a ge t o the ju ry a s d id th e e rr o n e o u s a d m is s io n o f h e r1 9 7 4 m a n s la u g h te rc o n v ic tio n . M or e ove r , the f

a c ttha tthe j ury a c qui tt e d G i bs on on the c ha r ge s i n C ount17 s ugge s t s tha tthe e vi de nt i a ry e rr ordi d nots o pr e j udi c e the j ur y a s t o pr e ve nti tf r om in d e p e n d e n tly w e ig h in g th e e v id e n c e a s to e a c h c h a r g e a g a in s t h e r . I n th is lig h t, w e f i nd the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e vi de nt i a ry e rr or s ha r m l e s s a s t o G i bs on. k) H a w t ho r ne T h e erro n eo u sl y ad m i tt ed ev i d en ce ag ai n stH aw th o rn e w as D et ect i v e L ew i s’ h ig h ly in flam m ato ry an d w h o ll y in ad m issib le testim o n y a b o u t H aw th o rn e’s part i ci pat i on i n the A m oco d ou bl e m urders . A l tho ug h thi s t es t i m on y w as c o rr o b o r a te d b y R o g e rM c C u llo u g h , H a w th o rn e ’s h a lf - b r o th e r , it w a s c a lle d in to qu es t i on by t es t i m on y f rom K ar en M i l l s- F ra nci s thatC orey “ F i sh G re as e” M u r c h e r s o n , a n d n o t H a w th o rn e , h a d a d m itte d to b e in g th e s e c o n d g u n m a n . T h is a lte rn a te th e o ry w a s s u p p o r te d b y e v id e n c e th a t M u r c h e r s o n lo o k e d v e ry s im ila rto H a w thorne , a nd ha d be e n s ubs e que nt l y m ur de r e d f orhi s i nvol ve m e nti n the s hoot i ng. T he L e w i s t e s t i m ony w a s vi t a l , how e ve r , be c a us e he w a s the onl y one ab l e t o rel at e th e A m o co sh o o t i n g t o th e o v eral l p u rp o ses o f th e co n sp i racy,Whil e the g overnment’s initial brief claims that Ha wthorne w as the “ Moose” who robbed 46 J esus Wils on of 40 kilograms of c ocaineat the Port of Miami in early 1998, uncontroverted trial te stimony e sta bli sh e d th at H awtho rn ewa s n ot. “ When w ea sse ss t

hestre ngth o f t

heg ov e rnment' s c a sefo r pur po se s o f h armle ss error

analysis 47 ...we may take into ac count factors – such a s incentives to lie – that would haveaff ecte d the jury ’s assessment of

a witness’s testimony .” Ha nds, 184 F.3d at 1331. 74 th e r e b y m a k in g its a d m is s ib ility a ll th e m o r e u n f a ir ly p r e ju d ic ia l. T h atasi d e, ad m i ssi b l e t est i m o n y est ab l i sh i n g H aw th o rn e’ s p art i ci p at i o n as a c o n s p ir a to rin th e s p e c if ic d ru g a n d f

ir e a r m c o n s p ir a c ie s c h a r g e d is v e ry w e a k . S a w y e ra nd W hi t e both t e s t i f i e d tha tH a w thorne ha d a c t e d a s a c us t om e r , w a t c hm an , an d sal es ag en tfo r S aw yer. B ect o n st at ed th ath e saw H aw th o rn e p u rch ase w hatappeare d t o b e drugs fr om C as ado and B apt i st e. T ri al t es t i m on y e st abl i shed th a t H a w th o rn e f

r a te rn iz e d w ith th e B r o w n tw in s a n d o th e ra s s o c ia te s o f W illia m s . O f f i c e rR obi n S t a r ks t e s t i f

i e d tha tH a w thorne ha d be e n a rr e s t e d f orc oc a i ne p o s s e s s io n a n d th a t s h e o n c e w itn e s s e d H a w th o rn e g iv e a c o c a in e - lik e s u b s ta n c e to a n o th e ri n d i v i d u a l . O f

f i c e rD a v i d W i l l i a ms s a i d th a th e o n c e o b s e r v e d f i r e a r ms t os s e d f r om a c a ri n w hi c h H a w thorne w a s tr a ve l i ng. 46 T he r e c or d i s not a bl y de voi d of e vi de nc e di r e c t l y i ndi c a t i ng tha tH a w thorne us e d f i r e a r m s i n r e l a t i on t o the c ha r ge d drug c r i m e s . F ur the r m or e , m uc h of the t e s t i m ony l i nki ng H a w thorne t o hi s a l l e ge d c o- c ons pi r a t or s w a s e l i c i t e d f r om i nc a r c e r a t e d w i tne s s e s w ho m a y ha ve ha d a m ot i ve t o pr ovi de i nc r i m i na t i ng te s tim o n y in r e tu rn f

o ra p o s s ib le s e n te n c e r e d u c tio n . T h e r e m a in in g a d m is s ib le 47We decline to re ach H awthorne ’s suffic iency of the evidenceclaims as he is entitled to a new 48 trial on oth e r groun ds . This Circuit has at times applied a morelenient “slight evidence ” standa rd of review f

or 49 sufficiency

of the evidencechalleng es, such a s in United States v. Calderon, 127 F .3d 1314, 1326 (11th Cir. 1997) (“ [O] nce theg overnment establishes the existence of theunderly ing conspiracy , [] it only

needs to c ome forw ard w ith sli ght evidenceto connec t a par ticular 75 e vi de nc e i ndi c a t i ng tha tH a w thorne a s s oc i a t e d w i th s e ve r a l of the c ons pi r a t or s a nd ha d be e n i m pl i c a t e d i n i s ol a t e d drug de a l s pr ove s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o r e nde rthe extre m el y pre

j ud i ci al i nadm i ss i bl e e vi dence of part i ci pat i on i n the A m oco m urders ha r m l e s s . P a r t i c ul a r l y i n l i ghtof c r e di bl e e vi de nc e tha tM ur c he r s on ( a nd not H aw tho rne) w as the se cond shoo t eri n the A m oco m urders , the hi gh l y pre j ud i ci al na tur e of L e w i s ’ i na dm i s s i bl e t e s t i m ony s ugge s t i ng tha tH a w thorne w a s the shoo t erca st s gra ve do ub ton H aw tho rne’ s c on vi ct i on s f or C ou nt s 2 and 1 6, w hi ch m us tbe r e ve r s e d. B . S u ff i ci en cy of th e E vi d en ce S i x d ef endant s ( B aker , B apt i st e, P l es s, W i l l i am s, C as ado, and H aw tho rne) ar gu e thatthe evi dence attri al w as i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rtthei r c on vi ct i on s. W e 48 r e vi e w the s uf

f i c i e nc y of

e vi de nc e s uppor t i ng a c onvi c t i on de novo t o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe r e w a s s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , vi e w e d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the g o v e rn me n t , t o s u p p o r tth e j u ry ’ s g u i l ty v e r d i c t . G l a s s e rv . U n i t e d St a t e s , 3 1 5 U . S. 60 , 80 (194 2); U ni t ed S t at es v. T ol er , 14 4 F . 3d 14 23 , 14 26 -27 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a l a t e s t a , 590 F . 2d 1379, 1382 ( 5th C i r . 1979) ( e n ba nc ) . T he 49defendant to the conspiracy .” (quotingUnited States v. Har ris, 20 F.3d 445, 452 ( 11th Cir. 1994)). Such a

standard is inconsistent with Glasser ’s and Malatesta’s requirement that the g overnment provide “substantial evidence ” of a defendant’s guilt at trial. Malatesta, 590 F .2d at 1381-82 (“ The ‘slight evidence ’ rule a s used and a pplied on appeal in conspiracy case s since 1 9 6 9 s h o u l d

n o th av eb e e nal l o w e d

t o w o r mi t s w ay i nt o th ej uri s p r

u d e n c eo f th eF i f thC i rc u i t . It is acc ording ly

banished a s to all appeals herea fter to bedecide d by this Court.” (citing G lasser, 315 U.S. at 80)); seealso United States v. Clavis, 977 F.2d 538, 539 (11th Cir. 1992) (withdrawing opinion dec ided using“slight evidence ” standa rd). 76 evi dence attri al i s s uffi ci entt o sup po rta gui l ty ver di ctso l on g as are as on abl e tri er o f f a c t, c h o o s in g a m o n g r e a s o n a b le in te rp r e ta tio n s o f th e e v id e n c e , c o u ld f

in d g u ilt b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. T o le r , 1 4 4 F .3 d a t 1 4 2 8 . I n o th e rw o r d s , a g u ilty ve r di c tw i l l notbe di s turbe d on appe a l unl e s s no r e a s ona bl e tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f ound gui l tbe y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubton the e vi de nc e be f or e i t . I d. 1. B ak er B a k e r ’s c h a lle n g e to th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e s u p p o r tin g h is c onvi c t i on f

orthe C ount2 c ons pi r a c y i s m e r i t l e s s i n l i ghtof the ove rw he l m i ng evi dence of hi s gui l tprod uced attri al . T o sup po rta c on spi ra cy conv i ct i on un der 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 , the go vernm entm ustprov e, beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt : (1) a n agre em entbetw ee n the defendantand o ne or m ore pers on s, (2) the obj ec tof w hi ch i s a n of f e ns e unde rT i t l e 21 of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s C ode . S e e T ol e r , 144 F . 3d a t1426 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a rr a do, 911 F . 2d 1567, 1570 ( 11th C i r . 1990) (“ T o su p p o rta co n sp i racy co n v i ct i o n u n d er 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 6 , th e g o v ern m en tm u st p r o v e th a t th e r e is a n a g r e e m e n t b y tw o o rm o r e p e r s o n s to v io la te th e [ f e d e r a l]We n otethat so meof ou r c a se law h a s a

naly zed su ff ic ienc y of thee vide nc ec halleng e s to 50 conspiracy

convictions under 21 U .S.C. § 846 usi nga thre e-prong“shorthand”test that asks whether the g overnment has ade quately proven: “ (1) a

n agreement exis ted amongtwo or more persons; (2) that the def

endant knew of the g eneral purpose of the agreement; and (3) that the defendant knowing ly

and voluntarily

participated in the agreement.” United States v. High, 117 F.3d 464, 468 ( 11th Cir.1997). This shorthand, we ha ve noted, is “somewhat re dundant and incomplete” – redundant be causethe exist enceof an agreement nece ssarily implies that the de fendant k

new o f t heagre e ment’ s o bje c tiv eand vo luntari ly

a ssente d ( i.e . “ agre e d” ) to participate in it, and incomplete bec ause it does not mention that the objec t of the agreement must be illegal, in this casea violation of an of fenseunder Title 21 of

the United States Code. Toler, 144 F .3d at 1425-26 &n.3. Thus, we opt for the more accurate two-prongtest elaborated in Toler and Par

rado. 77 narc ot i cs l aw s. ”) . W hen a charged conspi ra cy ce nt er s a roun d a ce ntra l organi ze r 50 o r o rg an i zers (a so -cal l ed “ h u b -an d -sp o k e” co n sp i racy), th e G o v ern m en tm u st e s tab lis h th a t a g iv e n d e f e n d a n t w a s p a r ty to th a t c e n tr a l c o n s p ir a c y , r a th e rth a n to a s e p a r a te a n d u n c h a r g e d c o n s p ir a c y w ith o n e o f th e o r g a n iz e r s . S e e , e .g ., K o tte a k o s , 3 2 8 U .S . a t 7 5 5 ( 1 9 4 6 ) . H o w e v e r , th e d e f e n d a n t n e e d n o t p a r tic ip a te in al l the ac t i vi t i es form i ng the l ar ger c on spi ra cy , so l on g as he i s a w ar e of the general s c ope a nd purpos e of

the c ons pi r a t or i a l a gr e e m e nt . T ol e r , 144 F . 3d a t1427- 28 ( “[ N ]o tw ith s ta n d in g th a t th e r e m a y b e a la r g e n u m b e ro f c o - c o n s p ir a to r s , a de f e nda nt ’ s gui l tc a n be e s t a bl i s he d i f hi s orhe rc ont a c te xt e nds t o onl y a f e w or e ve n one of

the c o- c ons pi r a t or s s o l ong a s the a gr e e m e nt , w i th i t s c onc om i t a nt k n o w le d g e o f

th e g e n e r a l s c o p e a n d p u rp o s e o f th e c o n s p ir a c y a n d th e d e f e n d a n t's in te n t to p a r tic ip a te in a c h ie v in g its ille g a l e n d s , is p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t . ”). T h u s,78

“[ i]t is o f

te n p o s s ib le , e s p e c ia lly w ith d ru g c o n s p ir a c ie s , to d iv id e a s in g le conspi ra cy i nt o sub -a gree m ent s. T hi s does not , ho w ever , m ea n thatm ore tha n one c ons pi r a c y e xi s t s . T he ke y i s t o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe di f f e r e nt s ub- gr oups a r e a c t i ng i n f ur the r a nc e of

one ove r a r c hi ng pl a n. C a ld e r o n , 1 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 9 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . In thi s c as e, there i s a m pl e e vi dence for the j ury t o h ave f ou nd thatB aker a g r e e d w ith h is o th e rc o - d e f e n d a n ts to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te a n d to di stri bu t e c ocai ne and cocai ne base . T he go vernm ent ’ s c as e i ncl ud ed evi dence that W i l l i a m s , H a rpe r , a nd S ha w pa i d B a ke r , the n a n M D P D of f i c e r , thous a nds of d o lla r s to s te a l d ru g s a n d m o n e y f r o m th e irc u s to m e r s b y p u llin g th e m o v e rin h is s qua d c a ra nd s e a r c hi ng the i rve hi c l e s . T he e vi de nc e a l s o s how e d tha ts uc h “ r i pof f s ” w e r e i nt e nde d t o r e c ove rm one y s pe nton drugs a nd thus i nc r e a s e the c ons pi r a t or s ’ r e ve nue . M or e ove r , a l though B a ke r ’ s i nvol ve m e ntw i th the conspi ra cy w as l i m i t ed t o these “ ri p-offs , ” t es t i m on y f rom go vernm entw i tness es e s tab lis h e d th a t B a k e rw a s w e ll- a c q u a in te d w ith W illia m s , S h a w , a n d H a rp e r . A r e a s ona bl e j ury c oul d the r e f or e ha ve i nf

e rr e d tha tB a ke rkne w of the s c ope a nd obj e c tof the l a r ge rC ount2 c ons pi r a c y , a nd j oi ne d tha tc ons pi r a c y , e ve n though hi s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n tha ts c he m e w a s l i m i t e d. S e e T ol e r , 144 F . 3d a t1428- 30. 2. B ap ti st e B apt i st e a l so cont ends thatthe evi dence attri al w as i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rt hi s c on vi ct i on for the C ou nt2 con spi ra cy . T he vo l um e of i ncri m i nat ory e vi dence79

a t tr ia l b e lie s h is a r g u m e n t. A s d is c u s s e d a b o v e , m u ltip le w itn e s s e s te s tif ie d to B ap t i st e’ s i n v o l v em en ti n sal es o f l arg e v o l u m es o f n arco t i cs, h i s cl o se b u si n ess r e la tio n s h ip a n d f

r ie n d s h ip w ith C a s a d o , a n d h is f r e q u e n t a s s o c ia tio n w ith W i l l i a m s a nd H a rpe r . V i e w i ng thi s e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the g o v e rn m e n t, it w o u ld b e im p o s s ib le to c o n c lu d e th a t B ap tis te d id n o t a g r e e to vi ol a t e f e de r a l drug l a w s w i th a tl e a s tone othe rc o- c ons pi r a t or , a nd tha the di d not k n o w o f th e sco p e an d o b j ecto f th e l arg er co n sp i racy. 3 . P l ess P l e s s a r gue s tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o c onvi c thi m of

C ount15 of the i nd i ctm ent , w hi ch charged di stri bu t i on of fi fty gra m s or m ore of c ocai ne base , i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) . A c onvi c t i on unde r§ 841 r e qui r e s the go vernm entt o p rove thatthe defendantpo ss es se d a cont rol l ed subst ance kn ow i ng l y a nd w i l l ful l y a nd thathe di d so w i th the i nt entt o d i stri bu t e i t . U ni t ed S t at es v. A nd er son, 28 9 F . 3d 13 21 , 13 25 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). P l es s a rgues thatsuch e vi de nc e w a s l a c ki ng, a s the e vi de nc e s how e d tha t : ( 1) the s ubs t a nc e w a s c oc a i ne b a s e ( r a th e rth a n p o w d e rc o c a in e ) ; a n d ( 2 ) th e s u b s ta n c e w e ig h e d le s s th a n f if ty gram s. P l es s a l so as se rt s thatthe go vernm entfa i l ed t o est abl i sh thathe w as i nv ol ved i n d i stri bu t i ng coca i ne. P l es s’ s f i rs ttw o argum ent s a re fore cl osed by C i rc ui tprec edent , w hi ch m akesPless argues that the g overnment is not entit led to rely on Detec tive Simm ons’ testimony 51 c on c e rningstate mentsmadeby Antho ny B ra ntl e y be c a us esu c h te stimony

is inadmi ssible he ars ay . H ow e ver, a s discus se d a bo ve , Pl e ss’ s c ouns e l invit e d this error during c ro sse xamina tio n o f S imm on s. 80 c l e a rtha tbe c a us e the s pe c i f i c a m ounta nd ty pe of

drugs a r e note l e m e nt s of the of f e ns e , the gove rnm e nt ’ s f a i l ur e t o pr ove the a m ountorty pe c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e ntdoe s notm e r i tr e ve r s a l . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R uthe r f or d, 175 F . 3d 899, 90 6 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. A dam s, 1 F . 3d 15 66 , 15 82 -83 (11 th C i r. 19 93 ). M oreover, the re cord cont ai ns suff i ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch the j ury co u l d reaso n ab l y co n cl u d e th atP l ess en g ag ed i n co cai n e d i stri b u t i o n . S p eci fi cal l y: ( 1) P a ga n t e s t i f

i e d tha tP l e s s s uppl i e d drugs t o a c us t om e ri n J a c ks onvi l l e ; ( 2) D et ect i v e S i m m o n s t est i fi ed th atA n th o n y B ran t l ey t o l d h i m th ath e (B ran t l ey) c o n tin u e d to s e ll d ru g s f o rP le s s a f

te rth e C o lo r s m u r d e r s ; a n d ( 3 ) S im m o n s to ld the j ury tha tB r a nt l e y ha d be e n a rr e s t e d i n 1997 i n pos s e s s i on of c oc a i ne tha the o b ta in e d f

r o m P le s s . W h e n th is e v id e n c e is v ie w e d in th e g o v e rn m e n t’s f a v o r , it 51 pr ovi de s s uf

f i c i e nt evi dence of P l es s’ s i nv ol vem enti n d i stri bu t i on t o sup po rt P l e s s ’ s c onvi c t i on on C ount15. 4 . W i l l i a ms W i l l i a m s a r gue s tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o c onvi c thi m on the C C E c ha r ge a l l e gi ng vi ol a t i ons of 21 U . S . C . §§ 848( a ) a nd ( b) ( 2) ( A ) i n C ount1 of the i ndi c tm e nt . T o s uppor ta j ury ve r di c tunde r21 U . S . C . §§ 848( a ) a ndThe CCE statute imposes a mandatory minimumprison term of at least 20 year s upon a per son 52 who eng ag es in a “ continuing criminal enterprise.” 21 U.S.C. § 848(a) (2005). It imposes a life sentenc eon

“ [a]ny pers on wh o eng ag e s in

a c ontin uingc rimin al enterp ri se ”if (1) suc h person is the princ ipal administrator, orga nizer, or leader of thee nterp ri seor

is o neof

several suc h p rinci pal adminis trator s, org anizers, or leaders; and (2) (A) the violation refe rr ed t o in subsection (c) (1) of this section inv olv e d at le a st 3 00 tim e s th equantity of a subs tan c ede sc ribe d in subsection 841(b)( 1)(B ) of this title. I d. § 848(b). Sub se c tio n ( c ) o f t

hat sa mestatut eprov ide s: [A] person is eng ag ed in a c ontinuing criminal enterpriseif-- (1) he v io late s any

p ro v is io no f

[th ef e d e ral d r u gla w s , i. e . , ] th iss u

b c h a p ter or subchapter IIof this chapter the punishment for whic h is a felony, and (2) suc h violation is a part of a continuing series of v i olations of [the fe deral drug laws, i.e.,] this subchapter or subchapter IIof this chapter-- (A) which are under

taken by such per son in c oncer

t with five or moreother persons with respec t to whom suc h person oc cupies a position of org anizer [or supervisor or manag er] and (B ) f ro m which s uc h p e rs on

ob tainssu

bs tanti al in c omeor

re so urc e s. I d. § 848(c) . 81 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) th e G o v e rn m e n t m u s t s h o w :

52 (1 ) a fel o n y v i o la tio n o f th e fed eral n arco t i cs l aw s i n v o l v i n g atl east 3 0 0 tim e s th e q u a n tity o f a s u b s ta n c e d e s c r ib e d in 2 1 U .S .C . § 84 1(b)(1)(B); (2 ) as p arto f a co n t i n u i n g seri es o f v i o l at i o n s; (3 ) i n co n certw i th fi v e o r m o re p erso n s; (4) f or w ho m the defendanti s the pri ncip al ad m i ni stra t or, organi ze r, or l ea der of the ent erpri se or i s on e of se vera l such pri nci pal a dm i ni s tr a t or s , or ga ni z e r s , orl e a de r s ; a nd (5 ) fro m w h i ch h e d eri v es su b st an t i al i n co m e o r reso u rces. In fi nd i ng W i l l i am s gui l ty on the C C E coun t , the j ury r eturned a speci al82

v erd i ctfi n d i n g th atth e th ree sep arat e “ v i o l at i o n s” co n st i tu t i n g W i l l i am s’

“ c ont i nui ng s e r i e s ” i nc l ude d ( 1) “ drug tr a f f i c ki ng t o G e or gi a ” ; ( 2) “ M a t c hbox apa r tm e nt s drug s a l e ” ; a nd ( 3) “ P or tof M i a m i i nc i de nt . ” W i l l i a m s c l a i m s tha tthe e vi de nc e di d notde m ons tr a t e tha the s upe r vi s e d, or ga ni z e d orm a na ge d a ny one w ho s ol d drugs a tthe M a t c hbox c om pl e x. T hi s a r gum e ntc l e a r l y f a i l s . T e s t i m ony f r om m ul t i pl e w i tne s s e s de m ons tr a t e d W i l l i a m s ’ s upe r vi s or y r ol e i n the M a t c hbox s a l e s . O ne w i tne s s , K e vi n B e c t on, e ve n t e s t i f i e d tha tW i l l i a m s dr e w up a bl ue pr i nt f orthe ope r a t i on of

a drug tr a f

f i c ki ng or ga ni z a t i on w hi l e i n pr i s on. T hus , w e f i nd the evi dence s uffi ci entt o sup po rtW i l l i am s’ conv i ct i on on C ou ntI. 5 . C a s a do C as ado al so chal l enges hi s C C E conv i ct i on on the basi s thatthere w as i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e tha the s upe r vi s e d, or ga ni z e d orm a na ge d drug s a l e s a tthe M at chbo x com pl ex, on e of the three predi ca t e a ct s the j ury f ou nd on i t s s peci al verdi ctform . T here i s, i n fac t , no evi dence i nd i ca t i ng thatC as ado w as an i m m e di a t e “ pr i nc i pa l a dm i ni s tr a t or , or ga ni z e r , orl e a de r ” of a ny drug s a l e s a tthe M a tc h b o x c o m p le x — b u t th e r e is p le n tif u l e v id e n c e th a t W illia m s w a s . M oreover, atthatt i m e C as ado and W i l l i am s w er e c l ea rl y j oi nt“ pri nci pal a dm i ni s tr a t or s , or ga ni z e r s , orl e a de r s ” of a l a r ge rc ont i nui ng c r i m i na l e nt e rpr i s e of w h ic h th e M a tc h b o x s a le s w e r e a r e a s o n a b ly f o r e s e e a b le p a r t. T h a t is e n o u g h to83

attri bu t e r es po nsi bi l i ty f or bei ng a pri nci pal organi ze r of the M at chbo x d rug sal es t o C a s a do f

orthe purpos e s of

the C C E s t a tut e . C o- c ons pi r a t or s a r e l i a bl e f orthe r e a s o n a b ly f

o r e s e e a b le a c ts o f

a n o th e rc o - c o n s p ir a to rta k e n in th e c o u r s e o f a n d in furthera nce of the un l aw ful agre em ent , re gardl es s of w hether they had actual know l e dge of

thos e a c t s , s o l ong a s the y pl a y e d m or e tha n a m i norr ol e i n the c ons pi r a c y orha d a c tua l know l e dge of a tl e a s ts om e of

the c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd e ve nt s c ul m i na t i ng i n the r e a s ona bl y f or e s e e a bl e e ve nt . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a l l o, 195 F . 3d 1278, 1282 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( s e nt e nc i ng c ont e xt ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B roadw el l , 87 0 F . 2d 59 4, 60 3-04 (11t h C i r. 19 89 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. A l vare zV al enzuel a, 23 1 F . 3d 11 98 , 12 03 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). B ec ause a c on t i nu i ng cr i m i nal e nt e rpr i s e r e qui r e s the l e a de r ( s ) t o a c t“ i n c onc e r t ” w i th othe r s , i ti s a ty pe of conspi ra cy . T here fore , w e have hel d thata l ea der of acont i nu i ng cr i m i nal en t erp ri se i s l i ab l e fo r th e reaso n ab l y fo reseeab l e act s o f th o se h e ad m i n i strat es, or ga ni z e s , orl e a ds . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i c he l , 588 F . 2d 986, 999 ( 5th C i r . 1979) ( “[ T h e P in k e r to n v ic a r io u s - liab ility r a tio n a le ] s h o u ld b e n o le s s s tr ic tly ap p lie d to hol d the or ga ni z e rors upe r vi s orof a c r i m i na l e nt e rpr i s e r e s pons i bl e f orthe a c t s of h is c o - c o n s p ir a to r s d o n e in f u r th e r a n c e o f

th e o p e r a tio n h e m a n a g e s . ... [ W ]e h o ld P i nk ert on and i t s progeny equal l y app l i cabl e t o d ef endant s c harged w i th ei ther conspi ra cy t o v i ol at e the drug l aw s or ase ct i on 84 8 con t i nu i ng cr i m i nalWe n otethat w ehaverevers e d th ec onvic tio ns of John so n a

nd Ha wtho rn eon

oth e r groun ds . 53 84 ent erpri se . ”) . S i m i l ar l y, i f one l ea der of aC C E ac t s j oi nt l y w i th ano ther l ea der, as c o n te m p la te d b y 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) , e a c h is v ic a r io u s ly r e s p o n s ib le f o ra ll r e a s o n a b l y f

o r e s e e a b l e a c t s c o mmi tt e d i n f u r th e r a n c e o f

th e CCE b y th e o th e r . By 1993- 94, W i l l i a m s a nd C a s a do w e r e j oi nt l y or c he s tr a t i ng a drug ope r a t i on of suff i ci entsc op e thatW i l l i am s’ organi za t i on of M at chbo x sal es atthatt i m e c an r e a s o n a b ly b e c o n s id e r e d in f u r th e r a n c e o f

th e C C E , a n d a r e th u s a ttr ib u tab le to C a s a d o . C . S ever an ce N i ne de f e nda nt s ( B a ke r , B apt i s t e , L e ona r d B r ow n, H a w thorne , G i bs on, H a rp e r , C a s a d o , J o h n s o n , a n d S h a w ) c h a lle n g e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f th e ir 53 m o t i o n s t o sev er th ei r tri al s fro m th o se o f th ei r co -d efen d an t s. A cco rd i n g t o th ese defe nd ant s, the i ntrodu ct i on of evi dence concerni ng the vari ou s m urders and o ther ga ng vi ol e nc e , i n w hi c h the s e de f e nda nt s c l a i m the y w e r e noti nvol ve d, ha d a “s p illo v e re f

f e c t” th a t p r e

ju d ic e d th e ju ry a g a in s t a ll o f th e d e f e n d a n ts – n o t m e r e ly tho se re spon si bl e f

or the vi ol ence . F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 8(b) prov i des that T h e in d ic tm e n t o rin f

o r m a tio n m a y c h a r g e 2 o rm o r e d e f e n d a n ts if the y a r e a l l e ge d t o ha ve pa r t i c i pa t e d i n the s a m e a c tortr a ns a c t i on, or i n the sam e s e r i e s of

a c t s ortr a ns a c t i ons , c ons t i tut i ng a n of f e ns e or o f f e n s e s . T h e d e f

e n d a n t s m a y b e c h a r g e d in o n e o rm o r e c o u n ts85

t og ether or s epar at el y. A ll d ef en dant s nee d n otbe charged i n eac h c o u n t. F ed. R . C ri m . P . 8(b). R u le 1 4 ( a ) p r o v id e s th a t If the j oi nd erof offe nses or defendant s i n an i nd i ctm ent , an i nf orma t i on , or a c on s ol i da t i on f or tr i a l app e a r s t o pr e j ud i ce a defen d an torthe gove rnm e nt , the c our tm a y or de rs e pa r a t e tr i a l s of coun t s, se ver the defendant s' tri al s, or prov i de any other r el i ef that j u st i ce req u i res. F ed. R . C ri m . P . 14 (a ). In pract i ce , the general rul e i s thatdefe nd ant s w ho ar e j oi nt l y i nd i ct ed s houl d be tr i e d t oge the r , pa r t i c ul a r l y i n c ons pi r a c y c a s e s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e dr i c k, 181 F . 3d 1264, 1272 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A l va r e z , 755 F . 2d 830, 857 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) . S e v e r a n c e m a y b e g r a n te d a t th e d is c r e tio n o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t if the courtdet erm i nes thatprej ud i ce w i l l re sul tfr om the j oi nd er . Id. A di stri ct c our t ’ s de ni a l of

a m ot i on f

ors e ve r a nc e i s r e ve r s i bl e onl y f ora bus e of

di s c r e t i on, a nd w e ha ve e xpl i c i t l y not e d tha tappe l l a t e c our t s a r e ge ne r a l l y r e l uc t a ntt o s e c ond gue s s a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on on s e ve r a nc e . I d. I n de c i di ng a s e ve r a nc e m ot i on, a di s tr i c tc our tm us tba l a nc e the r i ghtof the d e f e n d a n t to a f

a irtr ia l a g a in s t th e p u b lic ’s in te r e s t in e f f ic ie n t a n d e c o n o m ic a d m in is tr a tio n o f

ju s tic e . A lv a r e z , 7 5 5 F .2 d a t 8 5 7 . S e v e r a n c e is g r a n te d o n ly w he n the de f

e nda ntc a n de m ons tr a t e tha ta j oi nttr i a l w i l l r e s ul ti n “ s pe c i f i c a nd86

c o m p e llin g p r e

ju d ic e ” to th e c o n d u c t o f h is o rh e rd e f

e n s e , id ., r e s u ltin g in “f u n d a m e n ta l u n f

a irn e s s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . K n o w le s , 6 6 F .3 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . I t is n o t e n o u g h f o ra d e f e n d a n t ap p e a lin g a d e n ia l o f s e v e r a n c e to show thatac qu i tt al w ou l d h ave been m ore l i kel y had the defendantbeen tri ed s e pa r a t e l y , s i nc e s om e de gr e e of bi a s i s i nhe r e nti n a ny j oi nttr i a l . A l va r e z , 755 F .2 d a t 8 5 7 . M o r e o v e r , a d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t s u f

f e r“c o m p e llin g p r e

ju d ic e s im p ly b e c a u s e m u c h o f

th e e v id e n c e a t tr ia l is ap p lic a b le o n ly to h is c o d e f e n d a n ts ,” id ., e ve n w he n the di s pa r i ty i s “ e nor m ous . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c hl e i , 122 F . 3d 944, 984 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . I n o r d e rto m itig a te a n y “s p illo v e re f f e c t” o n c o - d e f

e n d a n ts , a c o u r t s h o u ld o r d in a r ily g iv e c a u tio n a ry in s tru c tio n s to th e ju ry , a d v is in g th a t c e r ta in e v id e n c e is to b e c o n s id e r e d r e le v a n t o n ly a s to c e r ta in d e f e n d a n ts o rc e r ta in c h a r g e s . S e v e r a n c e is ju s tif

ie d a s a r e m e d y o n ly if

th e p r e ju d ic e f lo w in g f r o m a jo in t tr ia l is c le a r ly b e y o n d th e c u r a tiv e p o w e r s o f s u c h in s tru c tio n s . A lv a r e z , 7 5 5 F .2 d a t 8 5 7 . A n app el l at e c ou rtre vi ew i ng the deni al of se vera nce m ustdeci de w hether the j ury c oul d f ol l ow the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c a ut i ona ry i ns truc t i ons a nd de t e r m i ne the gui l tor i nn ocence of e ac h d ef

endantsol el y on the basi s of thatdefe nd ant ’ s c on du ct(i . e. w ith o u t c u m u la tin g th e g u ilt o f a ll th e d e f

e n d a n ts a n d im p u tin g it to e a c h o f th e m ) . I d . a t 8 5 8 .87

I n e v a lu a tin g a ju ry ’s a b ility to s if t th r o u g h th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a n d to m ake i nd i vi du al i ze d i nt erpret at i on s of gui l t , an appel l at e c ou rtm ay consi der w he the rthe j ury i s s ue d a “ s pl i t ” ve r di c t , f i ndi ng gui l ta s t o s om e de f e nda nt s or c ha r ge s butnota s t o othe r s . S pl i tve r di c t s w e i gh a ga i ns ta f i ndi ng of undue

“ s pi l l ove r . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a s s a no, 132 F . 3d 646, 651- 52 ( 11th C i r . 1998) S chl ei , 12 2 F . 3d at98 4; U ni t ed S t at es v. Ja coby, 95 5 F . 2d 15 27 , 15 42 (11t h C i r. 19 92 ). A s de t a i l e d a bove , the tr i a l i n thi s c a s e i nc l ude d a gr e a tde a l of t e s t i m ony a n d o th e re v id e n c e r e la te d to th e v io le n t a c tio n s o f v a r io u s c o n s p ir a to r s in c onne c t i on w i th the drug di s tr i but i on ope r a t i on. W i tne s s e s t e s t i f i e d t o a tl e a s t23 s e pa r a t e s hoot i ngs pe rpe tr a t e d by m e m be r s of W i l l i a m s ’ or ga ni z a t i on, m os tof th e m r e s u l t i n g i n d e a th s . A p p r o x i ma t e l y 1 0 o f th o s e i n c i d e n t s s t e mme d f r o m a c onf l i c tbe tw e e n W i l l i a m s ’ gr oup a nd the T hom a s ga ng. O the rt e s t i m ony d e s c r ib e d s e v e r a l o f

th e w itn e s s e s a s “a lw a y s a r m e d ” o ra s p o s s e s s in g f ir e a r m s in the i rr e s i de nc e s . P hot os of the body of

one of the vi c t i m s ( B e nni e B r ow nl e e ) a nd a v i d e o o f o n e o f th e c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s ( L e n a r d B r o wn ) “ s h o o t i n g p e o p l e ” we r e s h o wn t o the j ury . F ur the rm or e , w e apons , a m m uni t i on, a nd othe re qui pm e ntus e d i n the c o- c ons pi r a t or s ’ vi ol e nta c t i vi t i e s w a s di s pl a y e d be f or e the j ur y , a l ong w i th a p a r tic u la r ly v iv id d e m o n s tr a tio n o f a n a m m u n itio n c lip b e in g in s e r te d in to a g u n .88

F i nal l y, E rr ol S aw ye r t es t i fi ed thatB apt i st e, B row n, S haw and W i l l i am s threa t ened v io le n c e a g a in s t S a w y e rin th e h o ld in g a r e a d u r in g th e tr ia l. T h e a lle g e d “s p illo v e re f f e c t” o f th e e v id e n c e o f

v io le n c e is in s u f

f ic ie n t to j us t i f y r e ve r s a l of

the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s e ve r a nc e m ot i on. F i r s t , c ontr a ry t o the as se rt i on s of s ever al of the D ef endant s, m ostof the w i tness t es t i m on y c on ce rned the di s tr i but i on of

drugs r a the rtha n s hoot i ngs orpos s e s s i on of w e apons . T he vi ol e nta c t i vi t i e s , m or e ove r , w e r e pr i m a r i l y a i m e d a tthe pr ot e c t i on of the di s tr i but i on e nt e rpr i s e a nd i t s m e m be r s f r om r i va l or ga ni z a t i ons . T hus , the evi dence of vi ol ence w as pl ai nl y r el evantt o the charge thatthe D ef endant s w er e i n v o l v ed i n a b ro ad co n sp i racy. S ec on d, m ostof the D ef endant s c hal l engi ng the deni al of se vera nce w er e im p lic a te d to s o m e e x te n t in th e v io le n t a c tiv itie s . S h a w w a s a lle g e d ly in v o lv e d in the thr e a t s a ga i ns tthe w i tne s s S a w y e r . B apt i s t e w a s i nvol ve d i n the 1991 i nc i de nt in v o lv in g th e f

ir in g o f s h o ts f r o m o n e v e h ic le to a n o th e ra n d th e c ap tu r e o f s e m ia ut om a t i c f

i r e a r m s ( de s c r i be d a ttr i a l by O f f i c e rS a nc he z ) , the 1995 i nc i de nt i nv ol vi ng the m urder of three peop l e a tthe C ol ors A partm ent s ( desc ri bed b y B ri an G ib s o n ) , a n d th e th r e a ts a g a in s t w itn e s s S a w y e r . L e o n a r d B r o w n w a s a lle g e d ly i nv ol ved i n the sa m e threa t s a gai nstS aw ye r a nd a pri or ef fortt o k i l l hi m , the C orey M u r c h e r s o n mu r d e r , a n d a 1 9 9 8 i n c i d e n ti n w h i c h p o l i c e r e c o v e r e d f i r e a r ms89

thr ow n f r om the ve hi c l e i n w hi c h he w a s tr a ve l i ng. O the rw i tne s s t e s t i m ony i nd i ca t ed thatB row n w as fr equent l y a rm ed. T es t i m on y a ttri al i nd i ca t ed that C a s a do w a s i nvol ve d i n the P a l m e tt o e xpr e s s w a y m ur de r s . H a rpe rw a s pr e s e ntf or s e v e r a l v io le n t in c id e n ts , in c lu d in g th e s h o o tin g o f W illia m s a t th e R o le x . H a w th o rn e w a s i n v o l v e d i n th e 1 9 9 8 i n c i d e n ti n v o l v i n g th e th r o w i n g o f f i r e a r ms fr om a vehi cl e ( no t ed abov e) . T he on l y def endant s noti nv ol ved i n the al l eged v i o l e n c e we r e Gi b s o n , J o h n s o n a n d B a k e r . As t o Gi b s o n , t e s t i m o n y f r o m two defe nd ant s ( R og erM cC ol l ou gh and T heod i e B row n) i nd i ca t ed thatG i bson ca rr i ed w eapo ns re gu l ar l y a nd kept(or w as aw ar e of the pres ence of) other w eapo ns ather ho use. L i kew i se , t es t i m on y f rom E m ery M oo n and C edri ck B ra nt l ey i nd i ca t ed that Jo h n so n reg u l arl y carri ed fi rearm s. In A l v arez, tw o fed eral ag en t s w ere sh o t– o n e o f th em fat al l y – i n th e co u rse o f a s tin g o p e r a tio n c o n d u c te d a g a in s t a g r o u p o f d ru g d e a le r s . I n th e e n s u in g tr ia l, s e v e r a l d e f

e n d a n ts w e r e c h a r g e d w ith m u r d e rin a d d itio n to c o n s p ir a c y to d is tr ib u te drug s. T he w eapo ns used i n the i nci dentw er e i ntrodu ce d i nt o evi dence, as w as t es t i m on y r egar di ng the shoo t i ng , al tho ug h p ho t os of the agent ’ s bod y w er e s uppr e s s e d. A l though tw o of the c o- de f

e nda nt s m ove d f

ora s e pa r a t e tr i a l , a r gui ng thatthey w er e notac cuse d o f i nv ol vem enti n the shoo t i ng and w ou l d suffe r i ncurabl e pre

j ud i ce fr om a j oi nttri al w i th the ac cuse d m urderer , the courtel ec t ed90

i nst ea d t o g i ve a c urat i ve i nstruct i on pri or t o the i ntrodu ct i on of the evi dence c onc e rni ng the m ur de r , a nd a ga i n a tthe c l os e of the e vi de nc e . W e he l d tha tthe c our t ’ s i ns truc t i on w a s s uf f i c i e ntt o m i t i ga t e a ny s pi l l ove re f f e c t , a nd a f

f i r m e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of s e ve r a nc e . A l va r e z , 755 F . 2d a t858. A l though the evi dence of vi ol ence i n thi s c as e w as consi derabl y m ore e xt ensi ve than t hat pres ent ed i n A l vare z, the defendant s i n A l vare z w er e noti nv ol ved i n any al l eged vi ol entac t s. T hatthe prej ud i ce i nfl i ct ed up on the A l vare z def endant s w as i ns uf f i c i e nt l y “ c om pe l l i ng” t o m a nda t e s e ve r a nc e s ugge s t s tha tthe R ul e 14 ch al l en g es o f th e D efen d an t s – m an y o f w h o m w ere i m p l i cat ed i n v i o l en tact i v i ty – m u s t s im ila r ly f

a il. T hi rd, the j ud i ci al ec on om y c on si dera t i on s w ei gh i ng i n favor of a j oi nttri al a r e s i gni f

i c a nt . T hi s c a s e i nvol ve d 15 i ndi c t e d c o- c ons pi r a t or s , a17- c ount in d ic tm e n t, a n d a 7 - w e e k tr ia l w ith 9 4 w itn e s s e s a n d s u b s ta n tia l p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e . T he bul k of

the e vi de nc e w a s r e l e va ntt o de m ons tr a t i ng the e xi s t e nc e a nd s c ope of the c ons pi r a c y i t s e l f

. I n or de rt o c om pl e t e l y s hi e l d e a c h de f e nda ntf r om the po t ent i al l y pre

j ud i ci al ef

fe ctof evi dence of vi ol ence i n w hi ch such defendantw as notdi r e c t l y i nvol ve d, the c our tw oul d ha ve ha d t o or de rs e pa r a t e tr i a l s f ore a c h of th e d e f e n d a n ts , a n d m a n y o f

th e w itn e s s e s w o u ld h a v e h a d to te s tif y in m u ltip le p r o c e e d in g s . T h e n e e d to a v o id s u c h w a s te f u l e x p e n d itu r e o f

ju d ic ia l r e s o u r c e s is91

the basi s f

or the defaul trul e thatco-c on spi ra t ors s ho ul d b e tri ed t og ether. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. P epe, 74 7 F . 2d 63 2, 65 1 (11 th C i r. 19 84 ) ( st at i ng thatj ud i ci al e c o n o m y w e ig h e d “h e a v ily ” a g a in s t s e v e r a n c e in a c a s e in v o lv in g s ix d e f e n d a n ts , a se ven-coun ti nd i ctm ent , and a fi ve-w ee k tri al ). T hu s, the po t ent i al “ spi l l ov eref fe ct ” of the w i tness t es t i m on y a nd other e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g th e v a r io u s c o - d e f e n d a n ts ’ v io le n t a c tiv itie s d id n o t a m o u n t to

“ com pel l i ng prej ud i ce ” s uffi ci entt o render the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of se vera nce an abuse of di sc re t i on . T hi s i s part i cul ar l y c l ea r a s t o tho se defe nd ant s w ho w er e i m pl i ca t ed t o som e e xt enti n the vi ol ence . B akerhas asom ew hatstrong er a r gum e nt , s i nc e i tw a s nota l l e ge d tha the pa r t i c i pa t e d i n a ny of the s hoot i ngs or pos s e s s e d a ny of

the r e c ove r e d w e apons . N e ve r the l e s s , gi ve n the r e l e va nc e of the e v id e n c e to th e b r o a d e rc o n s p ir a c y c h a r g e , th e ju ry ’s s p lit d e c is io n , th e n e e d to p r o m o te ju d ic ia l e c o n o m y , a n d o u rd e c is io n in A lv a r e z , B a k e r ’s “s p illo v e r ” c la im m u s t f a il a s w e ll. B a k e ra s s e r ts a n o th e rb a s is f o rr e v e r s in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is se vera nce m ot i on , ar gu i ng thatthe court ’ s r ef usal t o severhi s tri al prevent ed B aker fr om ob t ai ni ng excul pat ory t es t i m on y f rom M al col m S haw . A cc ordi ng t o B aker , S haw w as w i l l i ng t o t es t i fy thathe never as ked B akert o “ ri p o ff ” drugs or m on ey fr om other pers on s, and t hatw hi l e i n S haw ’ s pre se nce, B akerhad n everob se rved92

a ny drugs i ns i de the r e s i de nc e of P r a nc i na M c I nt os h, B a ke r ’ s e x- gi r l f r i e nd a nd S haw ’ s c ou si n. B akerprod uced a s w orn aff i davi tfr om M al col m S haw i n sup po rt o f th is c la im . I n th e a f

f id a v it, S h a w s ta te d th a t h e in te n d e d to e x e r c is e h is F if th A m e ndm e ntr i ghta nd r e f r a i n f r om t e s t i f

y i ng i n hi s ow n tr i a l , butw oul d be w i l l i ng to te s tif y f o rB a k e rin a s e p a r a te tr ia l. B a k e ra r g u e s th a t S h a w ’s te s tim o n y w o u ld have ref ut ed t es t i m on y f

rom M cI nt osh st at i ng thatS haw had t ol d h erthatB aker had com m i tt ed the “ ri p-offs , ” a nd thatw hi l e i nsi de M cI nt osh’ s r es i dence, B aker h a d o b s e r v e d d ru g s b e l o n g i n g t o S h a w. A de f e nda nta r gui ng f

ors e ve r a nc e on the gr ound tha ti tw i l l pe r m i tthe e xc ul pa t or y t e s t i m ony of a c o- de f e nda ntm us ts how : ( 1) a bona f i de ne e d f

orthe t es t i m on y; (2) the subst ance of the desi re d t es t i m on y; (3) the excul pat ory nature a nd e f f e c tof the de s i r e d t e s t i m ony ; a nd ( 4) tha tthe c o- de f e nda ntw oul d ha ve te s tif ie d a t a s e p a r a te tr ia l. U n ite d S ta te s v . C o b b , 1 8 5 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 7 - 9 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 99 ). E v e n if th e d e f e n d a n t e s tab lis h e s a ll f

o u ro f th e a b o v e e le m e n ts , th e c o u r t, in de c i di ng w he the rt o gr a nts e ve r a nc e , m us ts t i l l : ( 1) e xa m i ne the s i gni f i c a nc e of the t e s t i m ony i n r e l a t i on t o the de f e nda nt ’ s the or y of

the c a s e ; ( 2) a s s e s s the e xt e ntof prej ud i ce caused by the abse nce of the t es t i m on y; (3) c on si der j ud i ci al a d m in is tr a tio n a n d e c o n o m y ; a n d ( 4 ) g iv e w e ig h t to th e tim e lin e s s o f th e m o tio n .93

Id. S haw ’ s a ff

i davi ti s i nsuffi ci entt o requi re re vers al of the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al o f s e v e r a n c e , f

o rf o u rr e a s o n s . F i rs t , the m ot i on w as un t i m el y. F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 1 2 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( D ) r e q u ir e s th a t R u le 1 4 s e v e r a n c e m o tio n s b e m a d e p r io rto tr ia l. A l tho ug h w e a l l ow som e l ee w ay for def endant s w ho se se vera nce m ot i on s a re ba s e d on gr ounds notknow n be f or e tr i a l , s e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e w e s , 729 F . 2d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) , a n d B a k e rr e a s o n a b ly a r g u e s th a t h e d id n o t k n o w in ad v an ce w h at testim o n y M cI n to sh w o u ld g iv e a t trial (a n d th u s w h at S h aw ’s affi d av i tm i g h tu sefu l l y co n t ai n ), C o b b req u i res th atw e w ei g h u n t i m el i n ess as a fact o r. H ere, B ak er’ s m o t i o n w as n o tfi l ed u n t i l F eb ru ary 1 6 , 2 0 0 0 – n i n e d ays a f t e rthe tr i a l be ga n. N othi ng pr e ve nt e d B a ke rf r om obt a i ni ng f

r om hi s c od e f e n d a n ts , b e f

o r e th e tr ia l, a g r e e m e n ts to te s tif y o n h is b e h a lf

in as e p a r a te tr ia l, e ve n i f the pr e c i s e c ont e ntof

s uc h t e s t i m ony c oul d notbe c onc l us i ve l y s pe c i f i e d. S e c o n d , th e S h a w a f

f id a v it w a s c o n c lu s o ry a n d s e lf - s e r v in g . W e h a v e h e ld thatw hen an affi davi ti n sup po rtof a s ever ance m ot i on proffe rs t es t i m on y that “c o n s is t[ s ] o f

b a r e e x c u lp a to ry d e n ia ls , d e v o id o f a n y s p e c if

ic e x o n e r a tiv e f

a c ts . . . [ a n d ] in n o w a y c o n tr a ry to [ th e c o - d e f e n d a n t’s ] o w n in te r e s ts ,” a d is tr ic t c o u r t is j ust i fi ed i n ref

usi ng t o g ra ntse vera nce on t he basi s of the af fi davi t . U ni t ed S t at es v . N o v a to n , 2 7 1 F .3 d 9 6 8 , 9 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o tin g P e p e , 7 4 7 F .2 d a t 6 5 1 ) .94

“ T he r e f or e , s t a t e m e nt s c onc e rni ng the t e s t i m ony tha tw oul d be c om e a va i l a bl e by se veri ng tri al s m ustbe spec i fi c a nd exon er at i ve, ra ther than con cl usory or s el fs e r v in g , in o r d e rto ju s tif y s e v e r a n c e .” N o v a to n , 2 7 1 F .3 d a t 9 9 0 . T h e a f f id a v it s ubm i tt e d i n N ova t on s t a t e d s i m pl y tha tthe a f f i a nta nd the de f

e nda ntdi d not e n g a g e in th e a lle g e d c o n s p ir a c y ; w e h e ld th a t th is s ta te m e n t w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to re qu i re se vera nce. Id. In P epe, w e a ff i rm ed a di stri ctcourt ’ s r ef usal t o severa tri al base d o n an aff

i davi ti n w hi ch the af

fi ant s prom i se d t o t es t i fy thatthe af fi ant s had notbe e n i nvol ve d i n a ny i l l e ga l l oa n s ha r ki ng, tha tthe de f e nda ntw a s not a s s oc i a t e d w i th a ny s uc h a c t i vi ty , a nd tha tthe a f f i a nt s ha d ne ve ra s ke d the d e f e n d a n t to a tte n d a m e e tin g c o n c e rn in g s u c h a c tiv ity . P e p e , 7 4 7 F .2 d a t 6 5 0 . S i m i l a r l y , i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e S i m one , 660 F . 2d 532 ( 5th C i r . U ni tB N ov. 1 9 8 1 ) , w e a f

f ir m e d a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r e f u s a l to s e v e ra c a s e b a s e d o n a n a f f id a v it s t a t i ng tha tthe a f

f i a ntha d notc ons pi r e d w i th hi s c o- de f e nda nt s , a nd tha tne i the rhe n o rth e y h a d p o s s e s s e d m a r iju a n a a s c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. I d . a t 5 4 0 . I n a ll thr e e c a s e s , w e not e d tha tthe pr of f e r e d t e s t i m ony c ons i s t e d of ba r e de ni a l s , a nd te n d e d to e x c u lp a te th e a f f ia n t, th u s p r o m o tin g h is /h e rs e lf - in te r e s t. S ha w ’ s a f

f i da vi t , on w hi c h B a ke rba s e d hi s r e ne w e d s e ve r a nc e m ot i on, s t a t e s S ha w ’ s w i l l i ngne s s t o t e s t i f y tha tB a ke rdi d not“ c om m i t [ ] c r i m e s i nvol vi ng d ru g s a n d o rmo n e y r i p - o f f s a t[ Sh a w ’ s ] r e q u e s t , ” n o r“ o b s e r v e [ ] d ru g s i n my95

pres ence . ” T hese st at em ent s, l i ke tho se i n N ov at on , P epe, and D eS i m on e, ar e s i m pl y ge ne r a l de ni a l s of the gove rnm e nt ’ s a l l e ga t i ons a ga i ns tB a ke r , a nd s e r ve S h a w ’s in te r e s t b y d e n y in g h is c u lp a b ility . T h ir d , th e a b s e n c e o f

S h a w ’s te s tim o n y w a s in s u f f ic ie n tly p r e

ju d ic ia l. A n u m b e ro f

o th e rw itn e s s e s te s tif

ie d to B a k e r ’s in v o lv e m e n t in th e c o n s p ir a c y . R ona l d R a y e t e s t i f

i e d tha tB a ke rha d pul l e d ove ra c a ri n w hi c h R a y e a nd J e s us W i l s on w e r e tr a ve l i ng, a nd ha d s t ol e n m one y ( the pr oc e e ds of a drug s a l e ) f

r om the trunk . A cc ordi ng t o R ay e, he and W i l l i am s had arra ng ed for B akert o st op the ca r a s p a r t o f a f a k e “b u s t,” a n d to s te a l th e m o n e y s o th a t R a y e a n d W illia m s c o u ld c ol l e c tW i l s on’ s s ha r e . W i l s on c orr obor a t e d the a c c ountof the f a ke “ bus t ” ( though n o t o f th e a d v a n c e p la n n in g ) , a n d a d d e d th a t B a k e rr e g u la r ly s o c ia liz e d w ith W i l l i am s a nd thatB akerw as kn ow n as a“ di rty c op . ” K enneth L urry t es t i fi ed that M a l c ol m S ha w ha d a dvi s e d hi m tha tB a ke rc oul d he l p hi m “ r i p of f ” c e r t a i n drug supp l i er s by a rr angi ng a f ake bustand t aki ng the supp l i er s’ m on ey . H erbert Mc C r e a s i m i l a r l y t e s t i f

i e d r e g a r d i n g two i n s t a n c e s i n wh i c h h e , Ma l c o l m S h a w, and B akerpl anned si m i l arfa ke bu st s t o “ ri p o ff ” m on ey fr om drug supp l i er s. E ven i f S haw ’ s proff

er ed t es t i m on y w er e a dm i tt ed, i ti s dub i ou s thati tw ou l d h ave been en o u g h t o o v erco m e th e co n fl i ct i n g an d i n cri m i n at i n g t est i m o n y fro m th ese m u l t i p l e g o v ern m en tw i tn esses.96

F our th, a s di s c us s e d a bove , c ons i de r a t i ons of j udi c i a l e c onom y w e i gh agai nstho l di ng a s epar at e tri al for B aker . T hu s, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng B aker ’ s m ot i on t o sever . D . Sha c k l i ng A w ee k p ri or t o tri al , the U ni t ed S t at es M ar shal ’ s off i ce for the S ou thern D i s tr i c tof

F l or i da r e c om m e nde d a ddi t i ona l s e c ur i ty m e a s ur e s f ortr i a l . I n a ddi t i on t o c a l l i ng f

orthe pr e s e nc e of

m a ny a ddi t i ona l s e c ur i ty of f i c e r s i n the c our tr oom a nd a n a ddi t i ona l m a gne t om e t e r( m e t a l de t e c t or ) di r e c t l y out s i de the c our tr oom door s , the M a r s ha l ’ s of

f i c e r e c om m e nde d s ha c kl i ng a l l of the de f e nda nt s e xc e pt B aker(apo l i ce offi ce r w ho w as ou ton bo nd ), and Joh nson (aparapl egi c c on fi ned t o a w heel chai r) . T he re m ai ni ng ni ne defendant s w ou l d b e bou nd by l eg i rons. E ac h shackl ed de f e nda ntw oul d ha ve hi s orhe row n s e pa r a t e s e tof i r ons ; the y w oul d notbe s h a c k le d to o n e a n o th e r . T o p r e v e n t th e ju ry f r o m d is c o v e r in g th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts ha d be e n s ha c kl e d, the M a r s ha l ’ s of f i c e r e c om m e nde d pl a c i ng a n opa que bunt i ng ordr ape a r ound the de f e ns e c ouns e l t a bl e t o pr e ve ntthe j ury f r om s e e i ng the shac kl es on ce the defendant s w er e s ea t ed. M oreover, the M ar shal s a ctual l y draped a n o p a q u e b u n tin g a r o u n d g o v e rn m e n t c o u n s e l’s tab le a n d a lo n g th e r a ilin g to m a ke s ur e the bunt i ng w a s notf oc us e d on a ny one s i de of the c our tr oom . T he97

defe nd ant s w ou l d al so be brou gh ti n and ou tof the courtroom w hi l e the j ury w as notpr e s e nt , s o tha tthe y w oul d a l w a y s be s e a t e d be hi nd the bunt i ng w hi l e the j urors w er e i n the j ury box . F i nal l y, the M ar shal ’ s off i ce re com m ended t hatthe l eg i rons be padd ed w i th styr ofoam for the defendant s’ com fortand t o p re ventthem f r om m a ki ng noi s e w he n the de f e nda nt s m ove d. T he defendant s obj ec t ed t o the shac kl i ng re com m endat i on , and t he di stri ct courtordered an evi dent i ary hea ri ng t o d et erm i ne w hether the l eg i rons w er e a n appr opr i a t e m e a s ur e . T hr e e w i tne s s e s c a l l e d by the gove rnm e ntt e s t i f i e d a tthe he a r i ng: ( 1) J a m e s T a s s one , the M a r s ha l f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da ; ( 2) S e r ge a ntA nthony M onhe i m of the M i a m i P ol i c e D e pa r tm e nt ; a nd ( 3) C hr i s t i na F er n an d ez , S u p er v iso r o f C o u rt S ec u rity fo r th e M ar sh al’s O ff ice a n d T as so n e’s supervi sor. T he defendant s c ross -e xam i ned each of them bu tca l l ed no w i tness es of thei r ow n, al tho ug h g i ven t he op po rtun i ty. T as sone t es t i fi ed thathi s off i ce vi e w e d the c a s e a s a “ hi gh thr e a ttr i a l , ” be c a us e of the “ s he e rnum be r ” of de f e nda nt s , the i r“ e xt e ns i ve ” c r i m i na l hi s t ory , the e xi s t e nc e of uni ndi c t e d c oc ons pi r a t or s w ho w e r e s t i l l f ugi t i ve s , a nd the f

a c ttha tthe i ndi c tm e ntc ha r ge d the defe nd ant s w i th v i ol entcr i m es and fi re arm s off ense s, som e i nv ol vi ng w eapo ns that h ad n o tb een reco v ered . A n o th er factor su p p o rt i n g th e sh ack l i n g o f th ese defe nd ant s, T as sone added, w as a r ec ent , un re l at ed m ul t i -def endanttri al i n w hi ch98

un shac kl ed defendant s c ause d tw o v i ol entcourtroom di sturbances, as w el l as al t er ca t i on s w hi l e bei ng transpo rt ed t o tri al and w hi l e i n h ol di ng ce l l s a tthe fe dera l d e te n tio n c e n te r . T h e s h a c k lin g in th is c a s e , h e s ta te d , w a s “p r e c a u tio n a ry .” H ow e ve r , on c r os s - e xa m i na t i on T a s s one a dm i tt e d tha the ha d not det erm i ned, on an i nd i vi du al basi s, thatea ch of the ni ne shac kl ed defendant s w as da nge r ous e nough t o r e qui r e l e g i r ons , w hi c h he de s c r i be d a s a “ m i nor i ncon veni ence . ” H e di d, ho w ever , t es t i fy thatw hi l e he di d n otm ake i nd i vi du al a s s e s s m e nt s of

e a c h de f e nda nt , hi s s t a f

f i n the M a r s ha l ’ s O f

f i c e di d, r e s e a r c hi ng the hi s t or i e s of

e a c h of the de f e nda nt s , a nd a l s o c ons i de r i ng the hi s t or y of the grou p as aw ho l e. H e t ol d the courthi s off i ce vi ew ed the defendant s “ on a t ot al basi s. ” T as sone conceded kn ow i ng l i tt l e abo utthe i nd i vi du al defe nd ant s hi m se l f, i nc l udi ng f

a c t s tha tw oul d be hi ghl y r e l e va ntt o hi s of f i c e ’ s s ha c kl i ng r e c o m m e n d a tio n . F or i nst ance , T as sone di d n otkn ow thatbo th W i l l i am s a nd C as ado h ad a l r e a dy be e n tr i e d t oge the rf orothe rc r i m e s i n the S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da a nd had n ott o anyon e’ s kno w l edge cause d a di sturbance, al tho ug h h e “ bel i eve[ d] ” that hi s s t af f “ w ou l d h ave t aken [thi s i nform at i on ] i nt o con si dera t i on . ” H e a dm i tt ed thathe w as no tpers on al l y a w ar e thatL eonard B row n h ad st oo d tri al i n st at e c ou rt on fi rs t -degree m urder char ges ( thatw er e a l l eged i n the i nd i ctm entas an ov ertac tThe third super sedingindictment alleg ed that sixof the shac kled def endants had committed at 54 least one homicidein furtheranceof the c onspiracy : Pless (five), Willi ams (two), Casado (four), Ba ptiste (one), B rown (two) , and Ha wthorne ( one).

99 i n f ur the r a nc e of

the C ount2 c ons pi r a c y ) appr oxi m a t e l y one y e a rpr i orw i thout in c id e n t. H e d id n o t k n o w th a t G ib s o n w a s a 4 7 - y e a ro ld w o m a n w h o s e o n ly r e c or d of vi ol e ntc r i m i na l a c t i vi ty w a s a 26- y e a rol d m a ns l a ught e rc onvi c t i on re l at ed t o a do m es t i c i nci dent . N or di d T as sone kn ow thathi s off i ce had re com m ended t hatB akerand Joh nson no tbe shac kl ed. In fa ct , T as sone st at ed that he “ [di dn ’ t ] kn ow any of the defendant s i nd i vi du al l y” and “ prob abl y” di dn ’ teven k n o w th e irn a m e s . N o n e th e le s s , T a s s o n e d e f e n d e d h is o f

f ic e ’s “g r o u p a s s e s s m e n t” o f th e n e e d to s h a c k le n in e o f e le v e n d e f

e n d a n ts o n th e b a s is th a t “it r e a lly w ou l dn ’ tbe pract i ca l t o n otshac kl e s om e [ defe nd ant s] and shackl e others ” — even th o u g h h is o f

f ic e h a d n o t r e c o m m e n d e d s h a c k lin g B a k e ro rJ o h n s o n b a s e d o n th e ir in d iv id u a l c h a r a c te r is tic s . S e r ge a ntM onhe i m , a hom i c i de i nve s t i ga t orw ho ha d be e n i nve s t i ga t i ng the d e f e n d a n ts s in c e F e b ru a ry o f 1 9 9 8 , te s tif

ie d a b o u t th e d a n g e rh e f e lt th e d e f

e n d a n ts po se d attri al . H e s t at ed thatthe “ ov er al l pi cture” of the defendant s w as “ an or ga ni z a t i on i nvol ve d i n na r c ot i c s tr a f f i c ki ng, ” w i th num e r ous a tt e nda nta c t s of vi ol e nc e “ i nc l udi ng dr i ve - by s hoot i ngs , s hoot i ngs of i nnoc e ntpe r s ons a nd 15 m ur de r s tha t. . . [ w e r e ] c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt . ” H e a dde d tha tm os tof the 54100

m u r d e r s w e r e c o m m itte d w ith a s s a u lt w e ap o n s s u c h a s A K 4 7 a s s a u lt r if le s . S er geantM on hei m added t hatB apt i st e a nd other unn am ed i nd i vi du al s had thr e a t e ne d pr os pe c t i ve w i tne s s e s , tha tB apt i s t e ha d be e n di s rupt i ve dur i ng a m edi ca l exam i nat i on , and t hathe bel i eved thatun i nd i ct ed co-conspi ra t ors w ho had ac ce ss t o ass aul tw eapo ns w er e s t i l l atl ar ge. S peci fi ca l l y, M on hei m t es t i fi ed that m a n y d e a th th r e a ts w e r e m a d e to w itn e s s e s , in c lu d in g “th r e a ts o f h a r m to f a m ilie s .” S e r ge a ntM onhe i m the n de t a i l e d the c r i m i na l hi s t or i e s of e i ghtof the ni ne defe nd ant s t o b e s hackl ed — everyone exceptL eonard B row n. H e s t at ed thatAside from the violent activities Wi lliams had been accuse d of in the indictment, he had been 55 convicted of

attempted sec ond-degreemurder ( albeit thirteen year s before the he aring), batter y on a police of

ficer, possession of coc aine, a nd several fire arms cha

rg es, includinga cha

rg e of f e l o ni np o s s e s s i o no f

a f i re ar man d u s eo f a f i re ar mi nth ec o mm i s s i o no f

a f e l o ny. Casado wa s convicted of attempted first de greemurder, useof a f irea rm by a convic ted fe lon, 56 battery on a police of

ficer, ag gravated assault, esc ape, a nd other fe deral firea

rms offenses. He also had adjudication withheld with respec t to charg es of possession of c ocaine , ag gravated a ssa ult , b urg lary, gra

nd the ft , a nd re sis tingarre st. B a pti stehad b e e n c onvic te d o f attempt e d f ir st- de gre emurder, c arr

yinga c on c e ale d f

ire arm , 57 po sse ssi on

of a fire arm by a c onvic te d f

e lon , a nd prob atio n v iol atio ns . Har per’ s criminal re cord c ontained a c onviction for use of a fire arm in the c ommissi on of a 58 felony, and a 14- year-old juvenile convic tion for ag gravated batter y . However, he had also been arre ste d f or ag gra vate d a ssa

ult , b attery

on a po lic eof fi c e r, re sis tingarre st, and dis orderly conduct, a

nd had cha

rg es outstandingfor c ocainetraff icking . A motion filed by the g overnment before the shacklinghearing also stated that Har per had been a

rre sted for posse ssion of cocaine, p o s s e s s i o no f

m ari j u an a , e s c a

p e , di s o rd e rl y c o n d

u c t , gran d th e f t , an d b att e r y. Pless had been c onvicted of obstruc tion of justice, possession of marijuana , and providing 59 false inf ormation to police. Hehad been charg ed with ca rry ing a conce aled f

irea rm, coc aine possession (four times), a nd resistingarrest with violence, f or which adjudication had been withheld, and had be en ar rested f or obstruction of justice, battery, possession of coc aine, a nd c arr yinga c on c e ale d f

ire arm . Hawthor ne had be en convic ted of possession of c ocaine(thrice ), possession of marijuana, 60 petty theft, obstruction of justice, battery on a police of

ficer, re sisting [arre st] with violence, resisting[arrest] without vi olence(twice ), threateninga public ser vant, possession of a f

irea rm by a c onvic te d f

e lon , s aleand

po sse ssi on

of mari jua na (t wi c e ), saleof

c oc aine , a

nd tre sp a ss. 101 W i l l i a m s , C a s a do, B apt i s t e , H a rpe r , P l e s s , a nd H a w thorne — a l l of w hom 55 56 57 58 59 60 h a d b e e n a c c u s e d o f

p a r tic ip a tin g in h o m ic id e s in f u r th e r a n c e o f

th e C o u n t 2 conspi ra cy — had an ext ensi ve hi st ory of i nv ol vem entw i th v i ol entcr i m i nal ac t i vi ty. G i bson and S haw , nei ther of w ho m w er e a cc used of any vi ol entac t i vi t i es i n the go vernm ent ’ s i nd i ctm ent , had com para t i vel y l es s e xt ensi ve cr i m i nal ba c kgr ounds f

ors ha c kl i ng purpos e s . G i bs on’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c ons i s t e d of a 26-102

ye ar -ol d m ansl augh t erconv i ct i on (a ri si ng ou tof ki l l i ng her husband i n 1 97 4), an a rr e s tf orpos s e s s i on of

c oc a i ne , a nd untr i e d c ha r ge s of a ggr a va t e d a s s a ul ta nd as saul tand b att ery. S i m i l ar l y, S haw ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory l i st ed a m ansl augh t er c onvi c t i on ove rt e n y e a r s ol d, a c onvi c t i on f orpos s e s s i on of

m a r i j ua na , a nd a c h a r g e o f c o c a in e p o s s e s s io n o n w h ic h a d ju d ic a tio n w a s w ith h e ld . F in a lly , C h r is tin a F e rn a n d e z r e ite r a te d m u c h o f w h a t T a s s o n e h a d s a id r e ga r di ng the M a r s ha l ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on, ba s e d noton he rpe r s ona l know l e dge but on he rs t a f

f’ s a s s e s s m e nt , s t a t i ng tha ti tw a s m a de : ( 1) l ooki ng a te a c h of the de f e nda nt s ’ c r i m i na l hi s t or i e s a nd the c r i m i na l hi s t or y t a ke n “ a s a w hol e ” ; ( 2) the nu m ber of defe nd ant s on tri al ; and (3) rec ent , un re l at ed tri al s i n the S ou thern D i s tr i c ti n w hi c h uns ha c kl e d de f e nda nt s ha d c a us e d di s rupt i ons i n c our t . S he a c know l e dge d tha the rof f i c e ha d de c i de d, on a n i ndi vi dua l ba s i s , tha tB a ke ra nd John son d i d n otneed shackl es because the form erw as ou ton bo nd and t he l att er w as a par apl egi c. S he al so st at ed on cr oss- exam i nat i on thati tw ou l d b e a“ sa fe a s s um pt i on” tha ti f

G i bs on w e r e tr i e d a l one , the M a r s ha l ’ s of f i c e w oul d not r e c om m e nd tha ts he be s ha c kl e d. P ri or t o h ea ri ng the fi rs tw i tness i n thi s m att er , the di stri ctcourt ac kn ow l edged t hati thad t o m ake i nd i vi du al i ze d fi nd i ng s a s t o eac h d ef endant , as w e l l a s e xa m i ni ng the t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s . M or e ove r , the di s tr i c tj udge103

e x p r e s s ly r e c o g n iz e d th a t th e d e c is io n w h e th e rto s h a c k le w a s u ltim a te ly h is i nd ependentdet erm i nat i on t o m ake. T he di stri ctcourtal so expres sl y r ec og ni ze d th a t s h a c k lin g is a r e s tr a in t th a t s h o u ld r a r e ly b e u s e d . A f te rta k in g a r g u m e n ts fr om ea ch of the defense l aw ye rs , the di stri ctcourtfoun d thati n thi s c as e, shac kl i ng w as “ the approp ri at e, l ea stre stri ct i ve[, ] and n ec es sa ry se curi ty m ea sure t o be e m pl oy e d” a ttr i a l . I tdi d s o on the ba s i s of the num be rof

de f e nda nt s t o be tr i e d ( e l e ve n, t e n of

w hom w e r e he l d w i thoutbond) , the “ e xt e ns i ve ” vi ol e nt cri m i n al h i st o ri es o f “ a n u m b er o f” th e sh ack l ed d efen d an t s (i n cl u d i n g “ h o m i ci d es, att em pt ed ho m i ci des, shoo t i ng s a nd threa t s, w hi ch . . . gi ves r i se t o add i t i on al se curi ty c on ce rns” ), and t he di srup t i on s c ause d b y unshackl ed defendant s a tpri or, u n r e la te d tr ia ls in th e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t. T he di stri ctcourtdi sa gree d w i th d ef ense coun se l ’ s a rgum entthatthe j ury m i gh tbe abl e t o see the shac kl es throu gh a gap betw ee n the bu nt i ng and t he fl oo r, det erm i ni ng thatthe bu nt i ng w ou l d eff ec t i vel y pre ventthe j ury f rom se ei ng the l eg i r ons f r om the j ury box. I tf

ur the rs t a t e d tha tthe r e w a s l i tt l e c ha nc e tha tthe bu nt i ng w ou l d l oo k o utof pl ac e i n the courtroom , and t hu s s ug gestt o the j ury that i tw a s c onc e a l i ng s om e thi ng of i m por t a nc e , be c a us e : ( 1) the bunt i ng’ s c ol or m a t c he d the c ourtr oom ’ s c a rpe t i ng; a nd ( 2) the bunt i ng w a s pl a c e d a r ound the g o v e rn m e n t c o u n s e l’s tab le , to o , a s w e ll a s o n th e r a ilin g th a t s e p a r a te d b o th104

c ouns e l t a bl e s f

r om the c our tr oom ga l l e ry . T he c our tc onc l ude d tha tthe bunt i ng w a s a s “ unobtrus i ve ” a s pos s i bl e gi ve n the c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd w oul d nota r ous e the j ury’ s c uri osi ty a s i tw as no t“ focuse d o n any on e s i de of the room ”. A rev i ew o f th e p ert i n en tcase l aw , i n cl u d i n g th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s m o st recen tfo ray i n t o th i s area i n D eck v . M i sso u ri , 1 2 5 S . C t . 2 0 0 7 (2 0 0 5 ), yi el d s th ese i m po rt antpri nci pl es : F i rs t , the deci si on t o u se shac kl es t o res tra i n a defendantat tr i a l s houl d r a r e l y be e m pl oy e d a s a s e c ur i ty de vi c e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a y e s , 158 F . 3d 1215, 1225 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . T he S upr e m e C our tha s obs e r ve d tha t“ no pe r s on s houl d be tr i e d w hi l e s ha c kl e d . . . e xc e pta s a l a s tr e s or t . ” I l l i noi s v. A l l e n, 3 9 7 U . S . 3 3 7 , 3 4 4 (1 9 7 0 ). S eco n d , th e acto f sh ack l i n g a d efen d an ti m p l i cat es a de f e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o a f

a i rtr i a l . A m ong the i m por t a nti nt e r e s t s i m pl i c a t e d by sh ack l i n g are th e p resu m p t i o n th ata d efen d an ti s i n n o cen tu n t i l p ro v en g u i l ty, D ec k, 12 5 S . C t . at20 13 , the ri gh tof the ac cuse d t o sec ure am ea ni ng ful defe nse, id ., a n d th e n e e d to m a in ta in a ju d ic ia l p r o c e s s th a t is n o t a n a f f r o n t to th e d ig n ity a n d d e c o ru m o f

th e p r o c e e d in g its e lf

. I d .; M a y e s , 1 5 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 5 . T h ir d , if a ju d g e in te n d s to s h a c k le a d e f e n d a n t, h e m u s t m a k e a c a s e s p e c if ic a nd i ndi vi dua l i z e d a s s e s s m e ntof e a c h de f e nda nti n tha tpa r t i c ul a rtr i a l . D e c k, 125 S . C t . at2 0 1 5 . T h atassessm en tm ay i n cl u d e co n si d erat i o n o f, am o n g o th er th i n g s, the cr i m i nal hi st ory a nd backgrou nd of ea ch of the defendant s, i ncl ud i ng w hether105

the defendanthas ahi st ory of vi ol entac t s; the nu m ber of defe nd ant s bei ng tri ed t oge the r ; the na tur e of

the c ha r ge s pe ndi ng a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt s , i nc l udi ng w he the rthe c ha r ge d of

f e ns e s i nc l ude vi ol e ntc r i m i na l c onduc t ; a ny pa s thi s t ory of cond uctby a def

endantthatm ay have di srup t ed a c ri m i nal proceedi ng ; and o ther c ir c u m s ta n c e s , s u c h a s th r e a te n in g b e h a v io ra g a in s t w itn e s s e s o rc o u r t p e r s o n n e l, tha tm a y r e a s ona bl y be a rupon the s a f e ty of the c our tr oom a nd i t s oc c upa nt s or u p o n th e d a n g e ro f

e s c ap e . A s th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o b s e r v e d in D e c k , [t ] here w i l l be ca se s, of course , w here these peri l s of s hackl i ng ar e una voi da bl e . W e do notunde r e s t i m a t e the ne e d t o r e s tr a i n da nge r ous defe nd ant s t o p re ventcourtroom att ac ks, or the need t o g i ve tri al c o u r ts la titu d e in m a k in g in d iv id u a liz e d s e c u r ity d e te r m in a tio n s . W e a r e m in d f

u l o f th e tr a g e d y th a t c a n r e s u lt if ju d g e s a r e n o t ab le to prot ec tthem se l ves a nd thei r c ou rtroom s. B utgi ven t hei r pre j ud i ci al e f f e c t , due pr oc e s s doe s notpe r m i tthe us e of vi s i bl e r e s tr a i nt s i f

the tri al courthas nott aken acc ou ntof the ci rc um st ance s of the part i cul ar ca se . D e c k, 125 S . C t . a t2014 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A s s uc h, i n m a ki ng the c a l c ul us w h e th e rto s h a c k le , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y n o t b o ls te rits d e te r m in a tio n o n th e b a s is of othe r , unr e l a t e d c a s e s . S e e D e c k, 125 S . C t . a t2009 ( hol di ng tha tthe us e of v is ib le s h a c k le s is p r o h ib ite d u n le s s “th a t u s e is ju s tif ie d b y a n e s s e n tia l s ta te i nt e r e s t- - s uc h a s the i nt e r e s ti n c our tr oom s e c ur i ty - - s pe c i f i c t o the de f

e nda nton tri al ”) (em p h asi s ad d ed ). R ath er, D eck h as m ad e cl ear th atth e d i stri ctco u rtm u st i dent i fy part i cul arse curi ty c on ce rns, re l at ed t o the defendant s on tri al , thatj ust i fy106

s ha c kl i ng. I d. a t2014- 15. F i na l l y , w e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s ha c kl i ng de t e r m i na t i on f ora bus e of d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . D u rh a m , 2 8 7 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 3 - 0 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T hus , “ w e m us ta f

f i r m unl e s s w e f

i nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tha s m a de a c l e a re rr or of j ud gm ent , or has app l i ed the w rong l egal st andard. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. F ra zi er , 38 7 F . 3d 12 44 , 12 59 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( en banc). H a vi ng l a i d outthe s e pr i nc i pl e s , w e tur n t o the s ha c kl i ng de t e r m i na t i on m a d e in th is c a s e . A s n o te d a lr e a d y , o f th e e le v e n n a m e d d e f

e n d a n ts s ta n d in g tr ia l, ni ne w e r e s ha c kl e d ( B apt i s t e , H a rpe r , P l e s s , W i l l i a m s , G i bs on, L e ona r d B r ow n, C a s a do, H a w thorne , a nd S ha w ) , a nd tw o w e r e not( B a ke r , w ho w a s outon bond a n d w a s a p o lic e o f

f ic e r , a n d J o h n s o n , a w h e e lc h a ir - b o u n d p a r ap le g ic w h o w a s in cust od y) . T he di stri ctcourtfoun d thatshac kl i ng w as the l ea stre stri ct i ve and n ec es sa ry s e c u r ity m e a s u r e to b e e m p lo y e d b a s e d u p o n : ( 1 ) th e f a c t th a t th e r e s tr a in ts w o u ld n o t b e v is ib le to th e ju ry a n d th e c o v e r in g b u n tin g w a s a d o rn e d u n if o r m ly thr oughoutthe c our tr oom ; ( 2) the l a r ge num be rof vi ol e ntde f

e nda nt s t o be tr i e d; ( 3 ) th e f a c t th a t “a n u m b e ro f

d e f e n d a n ts p r e s e n t e x te n s iv e c r im in a l h is to r ie s . . . i nvol vi ng hom i c i de s , a tt e m pt e d hom i c i de s , s hoot i ngs a nd thr e a t s ” ; a nd ( 4) d is ru p tio n s c a u s e d b y d e f e n d a n ts a t a n u n r e la te d tr ia l th a t w a s ap p a r e n tlySimi larly , th at th edis tric t c ourt " g avede fens ec ouns e l th eoppo rt unity to re sp on d toits 61 c on c e rn s and

theprop os e d ac tio ns , a

nd to raisealtern ativ eprop os als, " a s th ec ourt did here , is also a factor in determining whether the cour t abused its discretion. Mayes, 158 F .3d at 1225 (internal quotation marks omitted). 107 cond uct ed ea rl i eri n the S ou thern D i stri ctof F l ori da. T he di stri ctj ud ge st at ed that he tr i e d t o pr ovi de a n i ndi vi dua l i z e d de t e r m i na t i on “ by l i s t e ni ng t o e a c h one of [ the d e f e n d a n ts ] in d iv id u a lly .” W e h a v e s a id th a t th e f

ir s t tw o r e a s o n s m a y w e ig h in f a v o ro f s h a c k lin g . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . B a ttle , 1 7 3 F .3 d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 4 6 - 4 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( n o n - v is ib le re stra i nt s) ; M ay es , 15 8 F . 3d at12 25 -26 (l ar ge nu m ber of defe nd ant s bei ng tri ed t og ether) . M oreover, the vi ol entcr i m i nal hi st ori es of part i cul ardefe nd ant s m ay al so supp orta dec i si on t o shackl e. 61 I t w a s , h o w e v e r , im p r o p e rf o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t to s h a c k le th e d e f e n d a n ts b a s e d u p o n w h a t h ap p e n e d in o th e r , u n r e la te d tr ia ls in v o lv in g d if f e r e n t d e f e n d a n ts an d d i fferen tch arg es. D eck , 1 2 5 S . C t . at2 0 1 5 . A “ o n ce b i tt en , tw i ce sh y” r a t i o n a l e i s n o ta n ap p r o p r i a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n th e s h a c k l i n g c o n t e x t . D e c k , 1 2 5 S. C t. a t 2 0 1 5 ( A g a in , “a n y [ s h a c k lin g ] d e te r m in a tio n m u s t b e c a s e s p e c if ic ; th a t is to say, i tsh o u l d refl ectp art i cu l ar co n cern s, say sp eci al secu ri ty n eed s o r escap e ri sk s, r e l a t e d t o the de f

e nda nton tr i a l . ” ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he di s tr i c tc our tm us tthus c o n n e c t its s e c u r ity c o n c e rn s to th e p a r tic u la rd e f e n d a n ts a n d th e c a s e o n tr ia l. D es pi t e our concerns thatthe di stri ctcourterroneou sl y r ef er ence d o ther108

u n r e l a t e d tr i a l s , a n d d i d n o tm a k e e x p r e s s d e f e n d a n t - b y - d e f

e n d a n tf i n d i n g s , we c a n n o t s a y th a t th is e n title s W illia m s , C a s a d o , B ap tis te , H a rp e r , P le s s , o rB r o w n to a ne w tr i a l . T he i ri ndi vi dua l c r i m i na l hi s t or i e s , i nc l udi ng m a ny vi ol e ntc r i m e s , the v io le n t c r im e s f

o rw h ic h th e y w e r e in f

a c t in d ic te d , th e s h e e rn u m b e ro f d e f e n d a n ts on tr i a l , the f

a c ttha te a c h of

the de f e nda nt s ha d a f

ul l oppor tuni ty t o r e s pond t o the court ’ s c on ce rns a nd ra i se al t ernat i ve prop osal s, and t he l ac k o f a ny re cord evi dence thatthe j ury c ou l d see the shac kl es , conv i nces us thatthe di stri ctcourt d i d n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n s h a c k l i n g th e m. A r gua bl y , S ha w pr e s e nt s a c l os e rc a s e . T he i ndi c tm e ntdi d nota l l e ge tha the w as di re ct l y i nv ol ved i n any vi ol entcr i m i nal ac t i vi ty; and w hi l e hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory di d i ncl ud e one vi ol entac t– a m ansl augh t erconv i ct i on – thatac toccurre d m or e tha n a de c a de e a r l i e r . H ow e ve r , the c om bi na t i on of the s he e rnum be rof d ef en d an ts, th e f

ac t th at th e d ef

en se h ad a f

u ll o p p o rtu n ity to re sp o n d to th e c o u rt’s concerns a nd ra i se al t ernat i ve prop osal s, and t he l ac k o f a ny re cord evi dence that the j ury c oul d s e e the s ha c kl e s , a ga i n c onvi nc e s us tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d not a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in s h a c k lin g h im . W e h a v e m o r e r e s e r v a tio n s a b o u t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to s h a c k le G i bs on. T he i ndi c tm e ntdi d nota l l e ge tha tG i bs on w a s di r e c t l y i nvol ve d i n a ny v io le n t c r im in a l a c tiv ity . A n d a lth o u g h s h e e n g a g e d in a v io le n t a c t in th e p a s t,109

tha thi s t ory w a s l i m i t e d t o a tw e nty - s i x y e a r - ol d m a ns l a ught e rc onvi c t i on a r i s i ng ou tof a dom es t i c di sput e. Indeed, the di stri ctcourtdeci ded t o shackl e G i bson af t er h e a r in g e v id e n c e f

r o m th e U .S . M a r s h a l’s o f f ic e — w h ic h it ap p e a r e d to c r e d it — thatthe M ar shal w ou l d n othave rec om m ended t hatG i bson be shac kl ed i f s he had been tri ed se para t el y. N or di d the di stri ctcourti n any w ay sugg es tthati f s he w er e n o t s h a c k le d , w h ile th e o th e r s w e r e , th is w o u ld p r e s e n t a s e r io u s r is k o rd a n g e rto the courtor i t s occ up ant s. M oreover, as w e have not ed al re ady, the di stri ctcourt di d notm a ke a ny e xpr e s s , i ndi vi dua l i z e d a s s e s s m e ntof G i bs on’ s da nge r ous ne s s or r is k , a n d e rr o n e o u s ly r e f e r e n c e d o th e ru n r e la te d tr ia ls . N o n e th e le s s , e v e n a s s u m in g a r g u e n d o th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to s h a c k le G ib s o n w a s a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n , w h e n c o n s id e r e d in c o m b in a tio n w ith th e o th e re v id e n tia ry e rr o r s a lr e a d y o u tlin e d , th e p r e ju d ic e w a s n o t s u f

f ic ie n tly grea tt o m er i tre vers al of G i bson ’ s c on vi ct i on . U nl i ke D ec k, the shac kl es used he r e w e r e notvi s i bl e t o the j ury , a nd thus di d notunde r m i ne the pr e s um pt i on of i nnoc e nc e i n the j ur or s ’ m i nds s uc h tha tthe y w e r e “ i nhe r e nt l y pr e j udi c i a l . ” D e c k, 12 5 S . C t . at20 15 . N or i s there any i nd i ca t i on on thi s r ec ord t hatG i bson w as ever i m pe de d f

r om c ons ul t i ng f

ul l y w i th c ouns e l . R a the r , a s di s c us s e d a bove , the s ubs t a nt i a l a dm i s s i bl e e vi de nc e a dduc e d i n s uppor tof G i bs on’ s c onvi c t i on, com bi ned w i th the j urors’ re turn o f ano t -gui l ty ver di cton C ou nt17 , dem on stra t esWe do not address the e ffe ct of shac kling on Ha wthorne be causehe is entitled to a newtrial on 62 oth e r groun ds . 110 th ato n th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces o f th i s case, an y su ch erro r w o u l d b e h arm l ess be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . W e r e c ogni z e the s e e m i ngl y i nc r e a s e d thr e a t s t o our co u rtro o m s, an d th e d i scret i o n rep o sed i n th e d i stri ctco u rt s, b u tw e n o n eth el ess r e m i nd the di s tr i c tc our t s tha tthe y a r e r e qui r e d t o m a ke c a s e s pe c i f i c a nd i ndi vi dua l i z e d f

i ndi ngs w he n i m pos i ng the s e ki nds of s e r i ous a nd one r ous restrai n t s. 62 E. D e ni a l o f

W i l l i a m s ’ a nd C a s a do ’ s C o nt i nua nc e M o t i o ns O n J une 11, 1999, G e or gi a - ba s e d a tt orne y J . M a l i k F r e de r i c k f i l e d a m ot i on f ora dm i s s i on t o the S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da pr o ha c vi c e t o r e pr e s e nt W il li am s, w ith M iam i att o rn ey N eil N am er o ff ac ti n g as lo ca l co u n se l. F re d er ick ’s a nd N a m e r of

f’ s appe a r a nc e s w e r e e nt e r e d on the s a m e da y . O n J une 17, 1999, F re deri ck w as arre st ed i n G eorgi a on m on ey l aund er i ng char ges; he w as re l ea se d o n b o n d o n J u n e 2 5 . O n S e pt e m be r1 a nd 8, 1999, r e s pe c t i ve l y , the G ove rnm e ntr e tur ne d s e c ond a nd thi r d s upe r s e di ng i ndi c tm e nt s . O n S e pt e m be r30, 1999, F r e de r i c k e nt e r e d a pe r m a ne ntappe a r a nc e a s W i l l i a m s ’ l e a d c ouns e l . O n O c t obe r14, 1999, C l a y t on R . K ai se r f

i l ed an appeara nce a s l ocal coun se l , re pl ac i ng N am er off. T he di stri ct c o u r t s e t tr ia l to b e g in o n F e b ru a ry 7 , 2 0 0 0 .111

O n N ove m be r11, 1999, J a m e s B e nj a m i n w a s appoi nt e d t o r e pr e s e nt C a s a do. O n D e c e m b e r6 , 1 9 9 9 , th e G o v e rn m e n t m o v e d to r e v o k e F r e d e r ic k ’s b o n d in hi s m one y l a unde r i ng c a s e , c l a i m i ng tha the ha d vi ol a t e d the c ondi t i ons of the bond. O n D e c e m be r17, 1999, a U . S . M a gi s tr a t e r e voke d the bond, a nd on D e c e m be r22, F r e de r i c k w a s a rr e s t e d; he r e m a i ne d i nc a r c e r a t e d thr oughout W illia m s ’ tr ia l. O n D e c e m b e r3 0 , 1 9 9 9 , F r e d e r ic k ( th r o u g h a n a s s o c ia te ) f ile d a m o tio n to c ont i nue W i l l i a m s ’ tr i a l a tl e a s tone m onth. A ta J a nua ry 7, 2000 he a r i ng on the m o tio n , W illia m s s ta te d th a t h e h a d n o t b e e n in v o lv e d in th e ap p o in tm e n t w ith K ai se r, had n o rel at i on shi p w i th K ai se r, and w i shed t o app oi nta di ff er entl ea d coun se l ; K ai se r i nd i ca t ed thathe had d on e not hi ng up t o thatpo i ntother than m o n ito r in g e v e n ts lo c a lly a n d f o rw a r d in g d is c o v e ry to F r e d e r ic k ’s o f f ic e in G e or gi a . T he c our tde ni e d the m ot i on, not i ng the di f f i c ul ty of bl oc ki ng outthe l e ngth of t i m e on i t s c a l e nda rne c e s s a ry t o try the c a s e , the f a c ttha tthe r e w a s one m on th l ef

tbefore tri al , as w el l as the fa ctthatK ai se r w as re spon si bl e a s l ocal coun se l “ for a l l pu rposes ”. T he courtadded t hatW i l l i am s w as fr ee t o sel ec tan a lte rn a te le a d c o u n s e l. O n F eb ru ary 1 , 2 0 0 0 , K ai ser m o v ed t o b e ap p o i n t ed t o rep resen tW i l l i am s;112

the m ot i on w as grant ed on F ebruary3. O n the sa m e day thatK ai se r w as ap p o in te d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld a s ta tu s c o n f e r e n c e , a t w h ic h K a is e ra g a in r e que s t e d a c ont i nua nc e . A n a s s oc i a t e of F r e de r i c k’ s , w ho w a s s t i l l a s s i s t i ng W i l l i a m s i n the c a s e , s t a t e d t o the c our ttha tno w or k of s ubs t a nc e ha d be e n done on the ca se si nce the Ja nu ary 7 hear i ng , and thatW i l l i am s a nd K ai se r had never m e ti n tha tpe r i od. A nothe ra tt orne y , P e t e rH e l l e r , appe a r e d a tthe he a r i ng a nd s ta te d th a t h e w o u ld a g r e e to ap p e a ra s le a d c o u n s e l if a c o n tin u a n c e w e r e g r a n te d . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd en i ed th e ren ew ed m o t i o n . B en j am i n (C asad o ’ s att o rn ey) al so r e q u e s te d a c o n tin u a n c e , s ta tin g th a t h e to o w a s u n p r e p a r e d f o rtr ia l. O n F ebruary7, 20 00 , the fi rs tday of tri al , K ai se r r enew ed hi s c on t i nu ance m o tio n . K a is e rin d ic a te d th a t in th e m o n th s in c e h e w a s e le v a te d to le a d c o u n s e l, he had b ee n u nabl e t o adequ at el y pre pare for the tri al , no t i ng thathe had b ee n f or c e d t o r e a rr a nge hi s w or k on othe rm a tt e r s a nd ha d noty e tr e c e i ve d a l l of the ca se fi l es fr om F re deri ck’ s off i ce i n G eorgi a. T he courtdeni ed the re new ed m o tio n , a n d th e c a s e p r o c e e d e d to tr ia l. F ol l ow i ng di r e c te xa m i na t i on of the G ove rnm e nt ’ s thi r d w i tne s s , D e t e c t i ve C apot e , C a s a do’ s c ouns e l s t a t e d tha the w a s unpr e pa r e d t o c r os s - e xa m i ne , a nd a g a in r e q u e s te d a c o n tin u a n c e o rr e c e s s . T h e c o u r t d e n ie d th e r e q u e s t. B o th W illia m s a n d C a s a d o c h a lle n g e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f th e ir113

vari ou s c on t i nu ance m ot i on s. W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a tri al c o n t i n u a n c e f

o ra b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n . Qu i e tT e c h . DC - 8 , I n c . v . Hu r e l - Du b o i s UK L t d. , 32 6 F . 3d 13 33 , 13 40 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). T h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to c o u n s e l g u a r a n te e s a d e f e n d a n t “b o th a f

a ir o p p o r tu n i ty t o b e r e p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l o f h i s o w n c h o i c e a n d as u f f i c i e n tt i me w ith in w h ic h to p r e p a r e a d e f e n s e .” G a n d y v . A lab a m a , 5 6 9 F .2 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 1 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ) . W h ile th e d e n ia l o f a c o n tin u a n c e r e q u e s t c a n in s o m e c a s e s a m o u n t to a vi ol a t i on of

thi s due pr oc e s s r i ghtt o c ouns e l , i d. a t1322, the r i ghtt o c ouns e l of c hoi c e i s nota s a bs ol ut e a s the r i ghtt o the a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l . I d. a t1323 ( c i t i n g , i n t e ra l i a , Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Gr a y , 5 6 5 F . 2 d 8 8 1 , 8 8 7 ( 5 th C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) ) . As such, the S up re m e C ou rthas m ade i tcl ea r thatno tevery deni al of a r equestfor a co n t i n u an ce i s a d en i al o f d u e p ro cess: T he m a tt e rof

c ont i nua nc e i s tr a di t i ona l l y w i t hi n the di s c r e t i on of the tr i a l j ud ge , a nd i t i s no t e ve ry de ni a l of a r e qu e s t f orm ore t i m e that vi ol at es du e proces s even i f the party fa i l s to o ffer e v id e n c e o ris c o m p e lle d t o d e f e n d w ith o u t c o u n s e l. C ontr a r i w i s e , a m y opi c i ns i s t e nc e upon e xpe di t i ous ne s s i n t he f a c e o f a ju s ti f iab le r e q u e s t f

o rd e la y c a n r e n d e rth e r ig h t to de f e nd w i th co u n sel a n e m pty f or m a l i ty . T he r e a r e no m e c h a n ic a l te s ts f

o rd e c id in g w h e n a d e n ia l o f a c o n tin u a n c e is s o a r bi t r a ry a s t o v i o l a t e d u e p r o c e s s . Th e a n s w e r mu s tbe f o u n d in th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s p r e s e n t in e v e ry c a s e , p a r tic u la r ly in th e r e a s o n s p r e s e n te d to th e tr ia l ju d g e a t th e tim e th e r e q u e s t is de ni e d. U n g a rv . S a r a f

ite , 3 7 6 U .S . 5 7 5 , 5 8 9 - 9 1 ( 1 9 6 4 ) .114

T h e p r o p e re x e r c is e o f

th e tr ia l c o u r t’s d is c r e tio n th u s r e q u ir e s a d e lic a te b a la n c e b e tw e e n th e d e f e n d a n t’s r ig h t to a d e q u a te r e p r e s e n ta tio n b y c o u n s e l o f h is c h o ic e a n d th e g e n e r a l in te r e s t in th e p r o m p t a n d e f f ic ie n t a d m in is tr a tio n o f

ju s tic e . G a n d y , 5 6 9 F .2 d a t 1 3 2 3 ( c itin g U n ite d S ta te s v . U p ta in , 5 3 1 F .2 d 1 2 8 1 , 1 2 9 1 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 6 ) ) . D e f

e n d a n ts a r e o n ly g u a r a n te e d a f a iro rr e a s o n a b le o p p o r tu n ity to s e l e c tthe a tt orne y of

the i rc hoi c e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ow e , 221 F . 3d 1183, 1190 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( ci t i ng G andy, 56 9 F . 2d at13 23 -24)). W he n de c i di ng w he the ra de ni a l of a c ont i nua nc e i m pi nge d on the d e f e n d a n t’s “f

a ira n d r e a s o n a b le o p p o r tu n ity ” to c h o o s e c o u n s e l, r e v ie w in g c o u r ts s houl d c ons i de ra num be rof f a c t or s , i nc l udi ng: ( 1) the l e ngth of the de l a y ; ( 2) w h e th e rth e c o u n s e l w h o b e c o m e s u n a v a ilab le f o rtr ia l h a s a s s o c ia te s p r e p a r e d to try the c a s e ; ( 3) w he the rothe rc ont i nua nc e s ha ve be e n r e que s t e d a nd gr a nt e d; ( 4) the i ncon veni ence t o al l i nv ol ved i n the tri al ; (5) w hether the re qu es t ed cont i nu ance i s f or a l egi t i m at e r ea son; and (6) any uni qu e f ac t ors. B ow e, 22 1 F . 2d at11 90 . It i s of no rel evance thatsubst i tut e c ou nsel has notbeen show n t o h ave perf orm ed i nc om pe t e nt l y ori ne pt l y . T he c l a i m e d de pr i va t i on i s a n a rbi tr a ry e nc r oa c hm e nton the r i ghtt o c ouns e l of

c hoi c e , nota c l a i m of

i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e r e nde r e d i n the pe r f or m a nc e by the s ubs t i tut e c ouns e l . G a ndy , 569 F . 2d a t1326. W e ha ve pr e vi ous l y f

ound tha ta tr i a l c our t ’ s de ni a l of a c ont i nua nc e m ot i on115

vi ol a t e d a de f

e nda nt ’ s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c ouns e l . I n G a ndy , the de f e nda nt w a s c ha r ge d w i th c a rna l know l e dge of a m i nor , i ndi c t e d a nd s e r ve d w i th a c opy of the i nd i ctm enton M ay21 , 19 70 , and arr ai gn ed i n the pres ence of re t ai ned cou nsel on D ec em ber 2, 19 70 . A ta hea ri ng on F ebruary22 , 19 71 , fr om w hi ch the coun se l w as abse nt , the courtse tthe tri al for the nextday. A tthe begi nn i ng of the 2-day tr ia l, th e d e f

e n d a n t’s c o u n s e l a d v is e d th e c o u r t th a t o n th e f o llo w in g d a y h e w o u ld be e nga ge d i n a c i vi l tr i a l a ta nothe rc our t , a nd w oul d be una bl e t o r e pr e s e ntthe d e f e n d a n t. T h e c o u n s e l s o u g h t a c o n tin u a n c e u n til th e c o n c lu s io n o f th e c iv il tr ia l, bu thi s r equestw as deni ed. T here af t er , the coun se l arra ng ed for hi s l aw partner, w ho w a s pr e s e ntbutha d no f a m i l i a r i ty w i th the c a s e , t o a s s i s ti n the c a s e ; the or i gi na l c ouns e l w oul d t a ke the l e a d on the f i r s tda y , a nd hi s pa r tne rw oul d t a ke ov erthe ca se on the se cond day. P ursuantt o arr angem ent , the tri al t oo k p l ac e a s s c he dul e d, a nd the de f

e nda ntw a s c onvi c t e d. I d. a t1320. In h o ld in g th at th e d en ial o f th e c o n ti n u an ce m o ti o n v io lated th e d ef en d an t’ s ri gh tt o cou nsel , w e not ed that : (1) the re qu es t ed cont i nu ance w as of a f ai rl y s ho rt du ra t i on ; (2) the re pl ac em entcoun se l w as “ com pl et el y unp re pare d and un fa m i l i ar w ith th e c a s e ” ; ( 3 ) o th e rc o n tin u a n c e s h a d b e e n r e q u e s te d b y a n d g r a n te d to b o th s id e s ; ( 4 ) lo s in g th e s e r v ic e s o f r e ta in e d c o u n s e l o u tw e ig h e d a n y in c o n v e n ie n c e to th e co u rto r o th er p art i es; (5 ) th e req u est ed d el ay d i d n o tap p ear t o b e a d efen se116

stra t egy or di l at ory t ac t i c; and (6) the tri al courtw as ful l y a w ar e of the pl anned a ba ndonm e nta nd a l l the othe rf a c t or s w he n the r e que s tw a s de ni e d. I d. a t1324. I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V e r de r a m e , 51 F . 3d 249 ( 11th C i r . 1995) , w e f ound a ri gh tt o cou nsel vi ol at i on base d p urel y on the fa ctthatthe defendant ’ s c ou nsel w as g iv e n in s u f

f ic ie n t tim e to p r e p a r e . I n th a t c a s e , th e d e f e n d a n t w a s c h a r g e d w ith conspi ra cy t o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e m ar i j uana and cocai ne. H e w as a rr a i gne d on M a y 4, 1993, a nd the tr i a l da t e s e tf orJ une 3. H e r e t a i ne d c ouns e l on M a y 7, a nd f

i l e d a c ont i nua nc e m ot i on on M a y 13. T he m ot i on w a s de ni e d on M a y 26; s uc c e s s i ve c ont i nua nc e m ot i ons w e r e a l s o de ni e d, the l a s ton J une 3. T he tr ia l b e g a n o n J u n e 7 , a n d th e d e f e n d a n t w a s u ltim a te ly c o n v ic te d . I d . a t 2 5 0 - 5 1 . W e f ou nd thatthe 34 days the defendanthad b etw ee n arr ai gn m entand t ri al w as i ns uf f i c i e ntt i m e f

orthe de f

e nda nt ’ s c ouns e l t o pr e pa r e hi s c a s e , gi ve n tha t : ( 1) the go vernm enthad spentye ar s i nv es t i gat i ng the ca se ; (2) the prop erty f orfe i ture as pectof the ca se grew t o encom pass addi t i on al prop erty duri ng thatpre- tri al p e r io d ; ( 3 ) th e c o c a in e c o n s p ir a c y c h a r g e w a s d r o p p e d f o u rd a y s b e f

o r e tr ia l, s hi f t i ng the f oc us t o the m a r i

j ua na c ha r ge ; a nd ( 4) the gove rnm e ntc oul d not prov i de adequat e pre -tri al di sc l osure of i t s docum ent s t o the defense w i thi n that t i m e. Id. at25 2. T hu s, w e hel d thati n d enyi ng the cont i nu ance m ot i on , the court ha d a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on a nd vi ol a t e d the de f e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o c ouns e l . I d.We further observe d that although the remaining c ounsel represente d that they had no trial 63 experience , the def

endant c ould have retained a replacement trial counsel. B owe, 221 F .2d at 1191, n.8. 117 I n othe rc a s e s , w e ha ve he l d tha tthe tr i a l c our tdi d note rri n de ny i ng a de f e nda nt ’ s m ot i on t o c ont i nue i n or de rt o s e e k r e pl a c e m e ntc ouns e l . I n B ow e , f or e x a m p le , th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s c h a r g e d w ith c o n s p ir a c y to im p o r t c o c a in e . W ith sl i gh t l y over tw o and a hal f m on ths t o g o b ef ore the tri al , hi s l ea d cou nsel w as arre st ed, and l at erent er ed a drug rehabi l i t at i on prog ra m . T he defendant ’ s other c ouns e l r e que s t e d a c ont i nua nc e unt i l the l e a d c ouns e l c om pl e t e d r e ha bi l i t a t i on, a n d a t a S e p te m b e r1 4 s ta tu s c o n f e r e n c e e x p la in e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a n te d to e ns ur e tha tthe l e a d c ouns e l pa r t i c i pa t e d i n hi s de f e ns e . T he c our tde ni e d the m o tio n , th e c a s e w e n t to tr ia l o n N o v e m b e r1 , a n d th e d e f e n d a n t w a s c o n v ic te d . B ow e , 221 F . 3d a t1188. I n tha tc a s e , w e he l d tha tthe de ni a l of c ont i nua nc e di d notvi ol a t e the de f e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o c ouns e l . A s s uppor tf orthe hol di ng, w e not e d tha t : ( 1) the re qu es t ed cont i nu ance w as “ l engt hy and o pen-ended”; (2) the defendantst i l l had tw o othe rde f

e ns e a tt orne y s w ho ha d be e n w or ki ng on the c a s e f ors i x m onths pr i or t o the tri al ; (3) the defendanthad t w o and a hal f m on ths af t erthe l ea d cou nsel 63 beca m e unavai l abl e, and n ea rl y one m on th aft erthe deni al of the cont i nu ance m ot i on , t o fi nd addi t i on al coun se l for hi s def ense t ea m ; (4) the defendanthad b ee n118

a rr a i gne d m or e tha n a y e a rbe f or e tr i a l ; a nd ( 5) the c our tdi s m i s s e d tw e l ve of the thi rt ee n cou nt s i n the i nd i ctm ent , there by ea si ng the defense ’ s tri al bu rden. Id. at 1190- 91. I n U n ite d S ta te s v . B a rr e n tin e , 5 9 1 F .2 d 1 0 6 9 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) , th e d e f e n d a n ts w er e c harged w i th con spi ra cy t o tra nspo rtgam bl i ng paraph ernal i a a nd t o con du ct an i l l eg al g am b l i n g b u si n ess. T h ey w ere i n d i ct ed , al o n g w i th 1 6 o th er d efen d an t s, on S ept em ber 27, 19 77 , i nform ed of the i nd i ctm enttw o d ay s l at er , and ret ai ned c ouns e l tw o da y s a f

t e rtha t . T he y w e r e a rr a i gne d on O c t obe r7, a nd on O c t obe r12 w er e not i fi ed thatthe tri al w as se tfor O ct ob er31 . O nce the tri al dat e w as a n n o u n c e d , d e f

e n d a n ts a n d th e irc o u n s e l r e a liz e d th a t c o u n s e l h a d a c o n f lic t w ith anot her c as e, and o n O ct ob er14 they m ov ed for acont i nu ance . T he m ot i on w as de ni e d on O c t obe r18 a nd the tr i a l be ga n a s s c he dul e d ( l a s t i ng 10 da y s ) . A tthe tri al ’ s openi ng , the ori gi nal coun se l ’ s l aw partner app ea re d, anno un ce d that or i gi na l c ouns e l w oul d notbe a va i l a bl e f orthe tr i a l , a nd pr oc e e de d t o r e pr e s e ntthe tw o d ef endant s hi m se l f. T he defendant s, as w el l as thei r 16 co-defendant s, w er e c o n v ic te d . W e he l d tha tthe de ni a l of the c ont i nua nc e m ot i on di d notvi ol a t e the de f e nda nt s ’ r i ght s t o c ouns e l , obs e r vi ng tha t( 1) the de f e nda nt s kne w of

the l i kel i ho od they w ou l d b e prose cut ed som e 4 1⁄2 m on ths before the tri al ; (2) the tri al119

in v o lv e d 4 7 g o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s e s a n d 1 8 d e f e n d a n ts , a n d w o u ld th u s b e d if f ic u lt t o res chedul e; (3) the ot her 16 d ef endant s w er e r ea dy t o g o t o tri al on the arra ng ed da t e ; ( 4) the r e pl a c e m e ntc ouns e l w a s a s e xpe r i e nc e d a s the or i gi na l c ouns e l , a nd appeare d rea sonabl y f

am i l i arw i th the ca se ; (5) the att orneys for the ot her de f e nda nt s w e r e pr e pa r e d a nd vi gor ous l y a tt a c ke d the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e ; a nd ( 6) th e d e f e n d a n ts h a d tim e a f

te rth e d e n ia l o f

th e irm o tio n to a rr a n g e f o ra n a c c e p tab le re pl ac em entcoun se l , bu tfa i l ed t o d o so. M oreover, w e s t at ed that“ [t ] he re cord supp ort s the i nfer ence that[def endant s a nd thei r a tt orney] m ade aca l cul at ed attem p t t o fo rc e a co n ti n u an ce n o tw ith stan d in g th eir k n o w led g e o f th e trial ju d g e’s s tr ongl y voi c e d c ontr a ry rul i ng. ” I d. a t1074- 75. F i na l l y , i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D a vi s , 967 F . 2d 516 ( 11th C i r . 1992) , the de f e nda nt , a s t a t e l e gi s l a t or , w a s a c c us e d of t a ki ng br i be s i n vi ol a t i on of the H obbs Ac t , 1 8 U. S . C . § 1 9 5 1 . S h e wa s i n d i c t e d o n Oc t o b e r6 , 1 9 8 9 , a n d tr i a l b e g a n two m o n th s latero n D ec em b er4 , afterth e d istrict co u rt d en ied th e d ef en d an t’ s c ont i nua nc e m ot i on. A l though w e not e d tha tthe c a s e i nvol ve d “ e xt e ns i ve di s c ove ry , ” i nc l udi ng 40- 50 hour s of a udi ot ape s , 750 w i r e t appe d t e l e phone conv er sa t i on s, 30 w i tness es and 3 00 subp oenaed do cum ent s, w e a l so ob se rved that the t ape s a nd tr a ns c r i pt s w e r e a va i l a bl e f orm os tof

the pr e tr i a l pe r i od, a nd tha tthe c our tha d a va l i d i nt e r e s ti n try i ng the c a s e be f or e the ne xts t a t e l e gi s l a t i ve s e s s i on,120

i n o r d e rt o a l l o w o th e rs t a t e l e g i s l a t o r s t o t e s t i f y . I d . a t5 1 8 . F i n d i n g th a tth e two m onth pe r i od w a s a de qua t e t i m e f orthe de f

e ns e t o pr e pa r e , w e a f

f i r m e d the c onvi c t i on. U nde rthi s c a s e l a w , C a s a do’ s c ha l l e nge m us tf a i l . O n the one ha nd, the i ns t a ntc a s e i nvol ve d a gr e a tde a l of w i tne s s t e s t i m ony a nd othe re vi de nc e . T he a lle g e d c o n s p ir a c y c o v e r e d a n e ig h t y e a rp e r io d , a n d in v o lv e d m u ltip le a lle g e d a c ts in f u r th e r a n c e . O v e ro n e h u n d r e d w itn e s s e s te s tif ie d a t tr ia l; m a n y o f

th e m d ir e c tly i ncri m i nat ed C as ado. O n the ot her hand, m ostof the w i tness es had cri m i nal r e c o r d s th a t w e r e r e a d ily a v a ilab le to th e d e f e n s e f o ru s e in c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n . M o r e o v e r , th e c o u r t’s c o n c e rn o v e rth e d if f ic u lty o f f in d in g a d e q u a te s p a c e in its c a l e nda rf

ors uc h a l e ngthy tr i a l , a nd of c oor di na t i ng the s c he dul e s of the c odefe nd ant s’ coun se l s a nd the m any w i tness es , w as l egi t i m at e: T h e cal en d ar co n tro l o f m o d ern cri m i n al co u r t d o ck et s, es peci al l y i n m etropo l i t an com m un i t i es , i s asoph i st i ca t ed ope r a t i on c ons t a nt l y buf f e t e d by c onf

l i c t i ng f or c e s . T he a c c us e d’ s r i ght s . . . a r e c ons t a nt l y i n . . . co n f l i c tw i th the pr os e c ut i on’ s l e gi t i m a t e d e m a nds f ors om e s t a bi l i ty i n the sc hedu l i ng of ca se s. T he avai l abi l i ty of prose cut i on w i tness es is o f te n c r itic a lly d e p e n d e n t o n t h e p r e d ic tab ility o f th e tr ia l lis t.

. . . [ D ] e l a y s a nd pos tpone m e ntonl y i nc r e a s e the r e l uc t a nc e of w itn e s s e s to ap p e a rin c o u r t, e s p e c ia lly in c r im in a l m a tte r s . . . . T o p e r m it a c o n t i n u a n c e to a c c o m m o d a te o n e d e f e n d a n t m a y in its e lf p r e ju d ic e th e r ig h ts o f a n o th e r d e f e n d a n t w h o s e t r i a l is del ay ed because of the cont i nu ance . G andy, 56 9 F . 2d at13 25 n. 9. F urther, C as ado w as i nd i ct ed nearl y aye arbefore121

tr i a l , a nd hi s c ouns e l w a s appoi nt e d thr e e m onths be f or e tr i a l . T he r e i s no i ndi c a t i on tha tC a s a do’ s c ouns e l w a s i m pe de d i n hi s a tt e m pt s t o a c c e s s e vi de nc e or o th e rw is e p r e p a r e . T h o u g h W illia m s h a s a s o m e w h a t s tr o n g e rc la im , h e s till c a n n o t p r e v a il. F i r s t , the una va i l a bi l i ty of hi s c ouns e l – M r . F r e de r i c k – appe a r s t o be bona f i de and n otattri bu t abl e t o any stra t agem of del ay . S ec on d, W i l l i am s w as the pri m ary defe nd antattri al , ca stas the ri ng l ea der of the conspi ra cy . M ore t es t i m on y ( fr om at le a s t th ir ty w itn e s s e s ) a n d o th e re v id e n c e im p lic a te d h im th a n a n y o th e rd e f e n d a n t. T hi rd, K ai se r onl y had on e m on th’ s not i ce thathe w as bei ng el evat ed t o l ea d co u n sel – l ess t i m e th an C asad o ’ s l ead co u n sel , o r th e co u n sel i n G an d y, V e r d e r a m e , B a rr e n tin e , a n d D a v is , h a d . O n the ot her hand, as ea rl y a s J un e 17 (w hen F re deri ck w as arre st ed), W i l l i a m s ha d not i c e tha tthe r e w a s a pos s i bi l i ty hi s l e a d c ouns e l w oul d ha ve di f f i c ul ty i n pr e pa r i ng a nd try i ng hi s c a s e . T he gove rnm e nts oughtt o ha ve F re deri ck’ s bon d revok ed on D ec em ber 6, and t he bo nd w as re vo ked o n D ec em ber 1 7 . Th u s , W i l l i a ms c o u l d h a v e b e g u n s h o p p i n g f o ra n e w l e a d c o u n s e l s o me t i me pri or t o January 20 00 – p erhaps as m uch as 6 1⁄2 m on ths ea rl i er . K ai se r app ea re d as l oc a l c ouns e l on O c t obe r14 – ove r3 1⁄2 m onths be f or e the tr i a l be ga n. A l though he st at es thathi s part i ci pat i on w as extre m el y l i m i t ed pri or t o January , he atl ea sthad122

an ea rl i erop po rtun i ty t o p re pare for the po ss i bi l i ty thatF re deri ck’ s ow n cri m i nal p r o s e c u tio n w o u ld in te r f e r e w ith F r e d e r ic k ’s a b ility to c o n d u c t th e d e f e n s e . F urther, l i ke the defendanti n B ow e, W i l l i am s gave no i nd i ca t i on as t o h ow m uch t i m e he w oul d ne e d t o pr e pa r e the c a s e . F i na l l y , the tr i a l ’ s l e ngth, a nd num be rof p a r tie s a n d w itn e s s e s , m a d e r e s c h e d u lin g p a r tic u la r ly d if f ic u lt. W hi l e the i nc onve ni e nc e tha ta c ont i nua nc e w oul d ha ve c a us e d the c our ta nd th e o th e rp a r tie s a lo n e w o u ld n o t lik e ly ju s tif y a d e c is io n to f

o r c e W illia m s to g o to tri al w i th b ra nd -new , un desi re d cou nsel w ho had n o o pp ortun i ty t o p re pare , other f a c to r s p la in ly s u p p o r t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to d e n y W illia m s ’ c o n tin u a n c e . I n d e e d , W illia m s is n o t a s b la m e le s s a s th e d e f e n d a n ts in G a n d y a n d V e r d e r a m e . I n f a i l i ng t o m a ke a rr a nge m e nt s f ora ba c kup c ouns e l be tw e e n the t i m e of F r e de r i c k’ s i ni t i a l a rr e s ta nd the de ni a l of hi s c ont i nua nc e m ot i on on J a nua ry 7, W illia m s to o k a g a m b le s o m e w h a t a k in to th a t o f th e d e f e n d a n ts in B a rr e n tin e . W ith o v e rs ix m o n th s o f n o tic e th a t s u c h a p r o b le m w a s s u b s ta n tia lly lik e ly to occur, w i th the adm i tt ed m ea ns t o o bt ai n al t ernat e c ou nsel , and w i th a l ocal c ouns e l r e t a i ne d ove rthr e e m onths be f or e tr i a l , W i l l i a m s pr e

j udi c e d hi m s e l f

by w ai t i ng un t i l the el eventh (or atl ea stthe t enth) ho ur t o see k a sol ut i on . T he di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o rc o n tin u a n c e . F . I m p r op e r C l os i n g A r gu m e n t s b y t h e P r os e c u t i on123

S e ve n de f

e nda nt s ( W i l l i a m s , C a s a do, G i bs on, S ha w , B apt i s t e , H a rpe r , a nd John son) al l ege thatthe prosecut or m ade i m prop ercl osi ng ar gu m ent s thatvi ol at ed th e ird u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts a n d e n title th e m to a n e w tr ia l. S p e c if ic a lly , th e y c la im tha tthe pr os e c ut ori m pr ope r l y : ( 1) bol s t e r e d w i tne s s t e s t i m ony ; ( 2) c om m e nt e d on the i rr i ghtt o r e m a i n s i l e nt ; ( 3) a s ke d the j ur y t o a c ta s the “ c ons c i e nc e of the c om m uni ty ” by r e turni ng gui l ty ve r di c t s ; a nd ( 4) a s ke d the j ur y t o c onvi c tthe d e f e n d a n ts b a s e d o n th e irb a d c h a r a c te r . W hether prose cut ori al st at em ent s, w hi ch w er e obj ec t ed t o attri al , vi ol at ed du e proces s i s am i xed q uest i on of l aw and factthatw e r evi ew de no vo . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. E ys t er , 94 8 F . 2d 11 96 , 12 06 (11t h C i r. 19 91 ). W e w i l l re vers e a de f e nda nt ’ s c onvi c t i on ba s e d on a pr os e c ut or ’ s s t a t e m e nt s w he n the y a r e : ( 1) im p r o p e r ; a n d ( 2 ) p r e

ju d ic e th e d e f

e n d a n t. I d . a t 1 2 0 6 . I m p r o p e rs ta te m e n ts pr e j udi c e the de f

e nda ntw he n the r e i s “ a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha t , butf orthe pr os e c ut or ' s of

f e ndi ng r e m a r ks , the out c om e of the . . . [ pr oc e e di ng] w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nt . [ A ] r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty i s apr oba bi l i ty s uf f i c i e ntt o unde r m i ne c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tc o m e .” I d . ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T hus , w e e xa m i ne w he the ra ny of the pr os e c ut or ’ s s t a t e m e nt s w e r e i m pr ope r , a nd then revi ew thei r pre

j ud i ci al ef

fe cti n the aggregat e. H a v in g d o n e s o o n th is r e c o r d , w e f

in d th a t th e c h a lle n g e d s ta te m e n ts , w h e n r e a d in c o n te x t, a r e m e r e lyWe do not reach the sentenc ing a rguments made by

Hawthor ne bec ause heis entitled to a new 64 trial on oth e r groun ds . At thetim eof

sentenc ing , 1 8 U .S. C. § 11 11 de fine d mu rde r a s: 65 [T] he unlawf

ul killi ngof a huma

n beingwith malice af

orethought . E v ery

murder perpetrated by p o i s o n , lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and preme ditated killing; or committed in the perpe tration of, or attempt to perpe trate, a

ny ars on, esca

pe, murder, kidnaping , trea son, espionag e, sabotag e, ag gravated sexual abuse or se xual abuse , burg lary, or r o bbery ; or perpetrated f rom a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously

to e ffe ct the death of any human beingother than him who is killed, is murder in the fir st degree . Any other murder is murder in the se cond degree . 124 p er m issib le d iscu ss io n s o f th e e v id en ce p re se n ted at trial, th e p ro se cu to r’s c r e d i b i l i ty a r g u m e n t s , a n d th e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s a r g u m e n t s th a tth e e v i d e n c e h a s s h o wn the defendant s’ gu i l t . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. A dam s, 79 9 F . 2d 66 5, 67 0 (11 th C i r. 19 86 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. E l ey , 72 3 F . 2d 15 22 , 15 26 (11th C i r. 19 84 ). G . Se nt e nc i ng S even defendant s ( H arper, W i l l i am s, C as ado, B apt i st e, S haw , H aw tho rne, a n d P le s s ) a ls o c h a lle n g e th e irs e n te n c e s o n ap p e a l. 64 1. H arp er T he j ury c on vi ct ed H arper of vi ol at i ng 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1) a nd 84 6 as a l l e ge d i n C ount2 of

the i ndi c tm e nt . S e c t i on 2D 1. 1 of the U . S . S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes gov erns the pu ni shm entfor vi ol at i on s of § 84 6. H ow ever , that g u id e lin e p r o v id e s th a t “[ i]f a v ic tim w a s k ille d u n d e rc ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t w o u ld c ons t i tut e m ur de runde r18 U . S . C . § 1111 ha d s uc h ki l l i ng t a ke n pl a c e w i thi n the 6518 U.S.C. § 1111(a) (2000) .

Hankins’ testimony

stated: 66 Q : D i d

B o o b i e[ W i l l i am s ] t e l lyo uwh o s h o tan d ki l l e d B e nny? A: Yes hedid. Q: What did he tell you? A : H i man d

M ar v i nRo g e r s ki l lB e nny. Q: Who is M arv in Rog e rs ? A: Marvin Rog ers also perished this present time. Q: He’ s dece ased? A: Ye s. Q: I s he also one of

the individuals that you identified who wa s driving thevehicle? A: Chico. Q: Who is Chico? A: Mike Har

per. Q: Who tol d you

that? A: Boobietold me, Mike also related that information to me. 125 t erri t o ri al o r m ari t i m e j u ri sd i ct i o n o f th e U n i t ed S t at es, ” th e d i stri ctco u rtm u st i nst ea d sent ence the defendantun der § 2A 1. 1, the gu i del i ne appl i cabl e f or fe dera l f ir s t- d e g r e e m u r d e rc o n v ic tio n s . U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( 2 0 0 0 ) . S e c tio n 2 A 1 .1 , in tu rn , s e t th e d e f

e n d a n t’s b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l a t 4 3 , w h ic h m a n d a te d a lif e s e n te n c e . U .S .S .G . § 2 A 1 .1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tba s e d i t s de c i s i on t o s e nt e nc e H a rpe runde r§ 2A 1. 1 on t e s t i m ony f

r om J ohnny H a nki ns , a n a s s oc i a t e of W i l l i a m s , H a rpe r , a nd othe rc ode f e nda nt s , w ho t e s t i f

i e d a ttr i a l tha tW i l l i a m s t ol d hi m H a rpe rha d dr i ve n the ge t a w a y c a rf

orthe 1994 B e nny B r ow nl e e m ur de r . H a rpe robj e c t e d t o r e c e i vi ng 66 a n e nha nc e d s e nt e nc e f

orm ur de rba s e d on he a r s a y t e s t i m ony by one w i tne s s , but the di s tr i c tc our tf

ound H a nki ns ’ t e s t i m ony c r e di bl e a nd de ni e d the obj e c t i on.“Although Booker established a ‘re asonableness’ standa

rd for the sentenc e finally

imposed on 67 a def endant,”Booker does not alter the standards we use to review a district court’s a

pplication of the U.S. Sentenc ing Guidelines. United States v. Crawf ord, 407 F .3d 1174, 1178 (11th Cir. 2005). 126 W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s de novo a nd i t s f

i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r a nt , 397 F . 3d 1330, 13 32 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). 67 T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n s e nt e nc i ng H a rpe runde r§§ 2D 1. 1( d) ( 1) a nd 2 A 1 .1 b a s e d o n H a n k in s ’ te s tim o n y , r e g a r d le s s o f w h e th e rit w a s h e a r s a y . A s e nt e nc i ng c our tm a y c ons i de ra ny i nf or m a t i on, ( i nc l udi ng he a r s a y ) , r e ga r dl e s s of i t s a dm i ss i bi l i ty a ttri al , i n d et erm i ni ng w hether f ac t ors e xi stthatw ou l d enh ance a d efen d an t ' s sen t en ce, p ro v i d ed th atth e ev i d en ce h as su ffi ci en ti n d i ci a o f rel i ab i l i ty, the courtm akes expl i ci tfi nd i ng s of f ac tas t o cre di bi l i ty, and t he defendanthas a n oppor tuni ty t o r e butthe e vi de nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Z l a t ogur , 271 F . 3d 1025, 1031 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ; s e e a l s o W i l l i a m s v. O kl a hom a , 358 U . S . 576, 584 ( 1959) ( “ [ O ] nc e the gui l tof

the a c c us e d ha s be e n pr ope r l y e s t a bl i s he d, the s e nt e nc i ng j udge , i n de t e r m i ni ng the ki nd a nd e xt e ntof puni s hm e ntt o be i m pos e d, i s not r e s tr i c t e d t o e vi de nc e de r i ve d f r om the e xa m i na t i on a nd c r os s - e xa m i na t i on of w i tne s s e s i n ope n c our t. ” ) ; W i l l i a m s v. N e w Y or k, 337 U . S . 241, 246- 51 ( 1949) (“ [M ] od ern con ce pt s i nd i vi du al i zi ng pu ni shm enthave m ade i tal l the m ore ne c e s s a ry tha ta s e nt e nc i ng j udge notbe de ni e d a n oppor tuni ty t o obt a i n pe r t i ne ntThe re cent Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Booker and Cra wford v. Washington 68 do no t a ff e c t ou r r ulethat th edis tric t c ourt

may ba sesentenc ingde terminatio ns on re lia ble hear say . Booker held that when a district cour t sentence s a def

endant under mandatory sentenc ingguide lin e s, any fac t ( oth e r t

ha n a prior c onvic tio n) whic h isne c e ssa ry to s uppo rt

a sentenc e excee ding themaxi mum authorized by the facts established by

a plea of guilty or a jury verdic t must be admitted by the def endant or proven to a

jury beyond a re asonabledoubt. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756. The Booker Court then struck down as unconstitutional the portions of the Guide lines that made them mandatory and provide d for standa

rds of review on appe al, id. at 76 4, and

retaine d th eremaining , adv iso ry, guide lin e s whil eins tr uc tinga pp e llatec ourt s to review sentenc es for

“re asonableness.” Id. at 765-67. Nota bly , the B ooker Court did not strike down 18 U.S.C. § 3661, which provides that, “ [n] o limit ation shall be plac ed on the infor mation concerningthe bac kground, cha rac ter, a nd conduct of

a per son convicted of

an off ense which a c ourt of theUnite d St ate s ma

y re c e iveand

c on side r f

or thepurp os eof

imp os ingan a

pp ropriate sentenc e.” I

n fac t, Justice Scalia’ s dissent in Booker indicates that the ma

jority ’s holding did not alter a sentenc ing c ourt’s ability to rely upon hear say

to make sentencingdeter minations. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 789-90 (Scalia, J., diss entingin part) ( “Inexpli cably, however, the [m ajority] opi nion concludes that the manner of achievinguniform sentenc es wa s more imp or tant to Co ngre ss t

ha n ac tually a c hievingunif

or mity-- that Co ngre ss w a s soattac he d to havingjudge s determine ‘ real conduct’ on thebasis of bure aucratically prepa red, he arsa

y-riddled pre sentenc erepo rt s th at it wo uld rather l os ethebin dingnatureof theGuide lin e s th an adh e reto the old-fa shioned proce ss of havingjuries find the facts that expose a def endant to increase d prison time.”) Nor doe s Crawford, absent a more de finitive decision from the Supreme Court, alter the rule that may

base sentencingdeter

minations on reliable hea rsay . Crawf

ord, as state d above, ho ldsthat th eCon frontatio n Cl a us efo rb idstheint

ro du c tio n o f t e stimonial he ars ay at trial unle ss (1 ) t hede c lara

nt i s unavaila

ble , a nd (2 ) a nd thede fendant h a s h a d a

prior oppo rt unity to cro sse xaminethede c lara

nt. Crawf

ord, 54 1 U .S. at 68 . H ow e ver, Crawf ord doe s n ot add

re ss t heus e of hea rsay, testimonial or otherwise, at sentencing , and wewill not ex tend its holding to the 127 i nform at i on by a r equi re m entof ri gi d adh er ence t o res tri ct i ve rul es of evi dence p r o p e r ly ap p lic a b le to th e tr ia l.” ) . T h e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s m a k e th e s a m e p o in t. U . S . S . G . § 6A 1. 3( a ) ( 2004) ( “ I n r e s ol vi ng a ny di s put e c onc e rni ng a f a c t or i m por t a ntt o the s e nt e nc i ng de t e r m i na t i on, the c our tm a y c ons i de rr e l e va nt i nform at i on w i tho utre gard t o i t s a dm i ss i bi l i ty und erthe rul es of evi dence ap p lic a b le a t tr ia l, p r o v id e d th a t th e in f o r m a tio n h a s s u f

f ic ie n t in d ic ia o f

r e liab ility t o sup po rti t s probabl e a cc urac y. ”) . 68sentenc ing c ontextto overruleZ latogur without further guidance . See Ga

rrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham B d. of Trs., 344 F .3d 1288, 1291 n.6 (11th Cir. 2003) (“ Whil e an inter vening decision of the Supreme Court can overrule thedecision of a prior pane l of our cour

t, the Supreme Court dec ision mustbe cle arly on point.”); Fla . L eague of Prof ’l L obbyists, Inc. v. Meg g s, 87 F.3d 457, 462 (11th Cir. 1996) ( “We are not at liberty to disreg ard bindingcaselaw that is so closely

on point and has been only weakened, rather

than direc tly

overr uled, by the Supreme Court.”) . Thus, our holdingin Z latogur that a sentencingcourt may base sentencing deter minations on reliable hea rsay is stil l good la

w. See United States v. Ma rtinez, 413 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Chau, 426 F .3d 1318, 1323 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147, 1177 n.7 ( 10th Cir. 2005). To the extent that Harper make s his Apprendi/Booker argument with respec t to the district 69 court’s f indings a bout his invol vement in the B rownleemurder, heis not entitl ed to re lief. Har per raised his Apprendi/Booker argument for the f

irst time on appeal, so wereview it for 128 T he di stri ctcourtthu s di d n oterr i n app l yi ng § 2 A 1. 1 t o H arper’ s c on du ct b a s e d o n H a n k in s ’ te s tim o n y , n o rd id it c le a r ly e rrin d e te r m in in g th a t H a rp e rin fa ctdrov e the get aw ay ca r. T here i s no i nd i ca t i on thatH anki ns’ st at em entl ac ked su ffi ci en ti n d i ci a o f rel i ab i l i ty t o su p p o rti t s p ro b ab l e accu racy. N e x t, H a rp e ra r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d w h e n it f o u n d h im re spon si bl e f

or cocai ne base i n exces s of 50 g ra m s bec ause (1) the evi dence before th e c o u r t w a s in s u f

f ic ie n t to m a k e s u c h a f

in d in g ; a n d ( 2 ) th a t d e te r m in a tio n s h o u ld ha ve be e n m a de by a j ury , c ons i s t e ntw i th A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, ( 2 0 0 0 ) , a n d R in g v . A r iz o n a , 5 3 6 U .S . 5 8 4 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , a n d th u s b y e x te n s io n , B la k e ly v. W as hi ng t on , 54 2 U . S . 29 6 (20 04 ), and B oo ker. W e nee d n otre ac h ei ther ar gu m entbecause a ny error w ou l d n ec es sa ri l y be harm l es s. T he di stri ctcourt prop er l y s ent ence d H arper und erU . S . S . G . §§ 2D 1. 1(d)(1) and 2A 1. 1, w hi ch m andat es a l i fe se nt ence re gardl es s of the qu ant i ty of drugs i nv ol ved. S ee U ni t ed 69plain error only . United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005). To satisfy

the third prongof plain-error review in the B ooker c ontext , the def endants must prove that “there is a rea sonable proba

bility of a diff erent result if the guidelines had be en applied in a n advisory instead of bindingfashion by the sentenc ing judg e in this case.”I d. at 1301. This Har per c annot do; there is nothingin the rec ord that would indicatethat the sentenc ing judg e would have imposed a lesser

sentenc e on Ha

rper had the Guide lines been only advisory . I d. An d a s in

Ha rp e r’ s c a se , Wil liams c ann ot m e e t th ethird pron gof theplain- e rror

te st w ith 70 re sp e c t to hisB oo ker- re late d c laim, whic h w a s raise d f or thefirs t timeon

a pp e al. 129 S t at es v. P adro B urgo s, 23 9 F . 3d 72 , 76 -77 (1stC i r. 20 01 ). 2 . W i l l i a ms W i l l i a m s m a ke s the s a m e thr e e c ha l l e nge s t o hi s l i f e s e nt e nc e r a i s e d by H a rp e r . A s in H a rp e r ’s c a s e , W illia m s w a s s e n te n c e d to lif e in p r is o n p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § § 2 D 1 .1 ( d ) ( 1 ) a n d 2 A 1 .1 , a n d a s in H a rp e r ’s c a s e , w e f in d n o e rr o rw ith th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s ap p l i c a t i o n o f th e s e g u i d e l i n e s b a s e d o n e v i d e n c e th a tW i l l i a ms h a d p a r tic ip a te d in s e v e r a l m u r d e r s c o n n e c te d to th e C o u n t 2 c o n s p ir a c y . M or e ove r , a ny e rr orw i th r e s pe c tt o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e r m i na t i on of drug qu ant i ty i s harm l es s gi ven W i l l i am s’ l i fe se nt ence un der § 2A 1. 1. S ee P adro B ur gos , 239 F . 3d a t76- 77. 70 3 . P l ess P le s s a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in s e n te n c in g h im p u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . §§ 2D 1. 1(d)(1) and 2A 1. 1, cl ai m i ng thatthere w as i nsuffi ci entevi dence c o n n e c tin g h im to a n y o f th e h o m ic id e s c o m m itte d in f u r th e r a n c e o f

th e C o u n t 2 c ons pi r a c y . I n pa r t i c ul a r , P l e s s a r gue s tha tthe R oos e ve l tD a vi s hom i c i de c a nnotWhil ePle ss raise d a c laim b a se d o n B lake ly

fo r t hefirs t timein his reply

brie f, hisfailureto 71 raise theissue in his ini tial brief render s the issue aba ndoned. See United States v. L evy, 416 F.3d 1273, 1276 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 130 s u p p o r t th e § 2 A 1 .1 s e n te n c e , a s th a t h o m ic id e w a s u n r e la te d to th e C o u n t 2 c ons pi r a c y . H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c tc our tr e l i e d on t e s t i m ony f r om P a ga n a nd T e xi dort o r e a c h the c ontr a ry c onc l us i on. A s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i on s a tis f ie s th e p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e s ta n d a r d , w e f in d n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . S e e P a dr o B ur gos , 239 F . 3d a t77. 71 4 . C a s a do C a s a do di s put e s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs w i th r e s pe c tt o drug qua nt i ty on the ba s i s tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tthe f

i ndi ngs . T hi s a r gum e nt f a i l s f orthe s a m e r e a s ons tha tH a rpe r ’ s i de nt i c a l drug qua nt i ty a r gum e ntf a i l e d — C a s a d o w a s s e n te n c e d to lif e in p r is o n u n d e rU .S .S .G . § § 2 D 1 .1 ( d ) ( 1 ) a n d 2 A 1 .1 . C a s a d o d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e ap p lic a tio n o f § 2 A 1 .1 , a n d th u s a n y e rr o rin de t e r m i na t i ng the qua nt i ty of drugs f orw hi c h he w a s r e s pons i bl e w oul d be ha r m l e s s . S e e P a dr o B ur gos , 239 F . 3d a t76- 77. C a s a do a l s o f

i l e d a m ot i on pur s ua ntt o E l e ve nth C i r c ui tR ul e 27- 1( c ) ( 16) a dopt i ng H a rpe r ’ s A ppr e ndi / R i ng a r gum e ntw i th r e s pe c tt o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s drug qu ant i ty f

i nd i ng s. W e gra nt ed C as ado’ s s ub se qu entm ot i on for l ea ve t o fi l e a s u p p le m e n ta l b r ie f

a d d r e s s in g B la k e ly , lim ite d to d is c u s s in g B la k e ly ’s r e le v a n c e to131

the i ss ue adop t ed. In hi s s up pl em ent al bri ef , C as ado argues thatthe di stri ctcourt vi ol at ed the S i xth A m endm entby enhanci ng hi s s ent ence base d o n i t s f i nd i ng s that he w a s r e s pons i bl e f

orthe di s tr i but i on of

ove r150 kg of

c oc a i ne a nd 1. 5 kg of c oc a i ne ba s e a nd tha the ha d pl a y e d a l e a de r s hi p r ol e i n the drug di s tr i but i on s c h e m e , f

a c ts w h ic h w e r e n o t f

o u n d b y th e ju ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. T he c ha l l e nge t o the l e a de r s hi p r ol e f i ndi ng i s ba rr e d be c a us e C a s a do di d not r a i s e th e Si x th A me n d me n ti s s u e i n h i s i n i t i a l b r i e f a n d th e ma tt e ro f

th e f i r e a r ms f i ndi ng ( unl i ke tha tof

the drug a m ount ) w a s notpe r m i tt e d by ourgr a ntof C as ad o ’s m o ti o n to file a s u p p lem en tal b rief (s in ce itw as n o t raise d in H arp er ’s br i e f a nd thus nota dopt e d i n C a s a do’ s i ni t i a l br i e f ) . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D oc ke ry , 401 F .3 d 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 6 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . A s to th e d ru g a m o u n t f in d in g , C a s a d o ’s c h a lle n g e is s u b je c t to p la in e rr o rr e v ie w , s in c e h e n e v e rr a is e d a S ix th A m e n d m e n t/A p p r e n d ity p e o b j e c t i o n a tth e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g . Un d e ra p l a i n - e rr o rs t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w, C a s a d o ’s c h a lle n g e f

a ils , s in c e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g a v e n o in d ic a tio n th a t it w o u ld ha ve gr a nt e d a l e s s e rs e nt e nc e unde ra non- m a nda t or y gui de l i ne s r e gi m e , a nd thus C as ado canno tes t abl i sh thatany B l akel y/ B oo ker e rr or af fe ct ed hi s “ subst ant i al r i g h t s . ” Se e Ro d r i g u e z , 3 9 8 F. 3 d a t1 2 9 8 - 1 3 0 1 . M o r e o v e r , Ca s a d o ’ s CCE c onvi c t i on i t s e l f

m a nda t e d a l i f

e s e nt e nc e , r e ga r dl e s s of the a ddi t i ona l e nha nc i ng f a c to r s , s o a n y e rr o rw o u ld h a v e b e e n h a r m le s s .Se c tio n 4 B 1. 1 ( 20 00 ) o f t heSe ntenc ingGuide lin e s p ro vide s th at: 72 A de fendant i s a

c are e r o ff

e nd e r i f ( 1) thede fenda

nt w a s at lea st ei ghte e n ye arsold at the time the defendant committed the instant offenseof convic tion, (2) the instant offense of c onviction is a felony that is either a cr i m e of violenc e or a controlled substance of

fense , and (3) the defendant has at l east two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or

a controlled substance of fense . 132 5. B ap ti st e B apt i st e w as conv i ct ed of the conspi ra cy char ge al l eged i n C ou nt2, and w as s e n te n c e d to 3 6 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. O n ap p e a l, h e r a is e s th r e e c h a lle n g e s to h i s sen t en ce. H e fi rstarg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred b y cl assi fyi n g h i m as a c a r e e rof f e nde rpur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 1, ba s e d on tw o pr i orc onvi c t i ons : ( 1) 72 a c onvi c t i on f

ora tt e m pt e d f

i r s t - de gr e e m ur de rba s e d on hi s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the M ar ch 12 , 19 91 Je t i erho m i ci de; and (2) a convic t i on for c arry i ng a c on ce al ed f i r e a r m on J ul y 28, 1991. B apt i s t e c ont e nds tha tthe s e tw o c onvi c t i ons c a nnot form the basi s f

or the ca re eroffe nd erenhancem entbecause they w er e f or cond uct th a t o c c u rr e d d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y a n d th u s d id n o t c o n s titu te

“ pri or se nt ence s” for purpo se s of U . S . S . G . §§ 1B 1. 3, 4B 1. 1 and 4A 1. 2(a) (1). A p p lic a tio n o f

th e c a r e e ro f

f e n d e rp r o v is io n d o e s tw o th in g s . F ir s t, it s e ts the de f e nda nt ’ s ba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l a c c or di ng t o a t a bl e ba s e d on the m a xi m um pu ni shm entse tby the st atut e und erw hi ch the defendantw as conv i ct ed, i f that of f e ns e l e ve l i s hi ghe rtha n the ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l the de f

e nda ntw oul d r e c e i ve w i tho utthe ca re eroffe nd erenhancem ent . U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 1 (20 00 ). H er e,133

ho w ever , B apt i st e’ s bas e off ense l evel w as al re ady hi gh erw i tho utthe ca re er o ffen d er en h an cem en tth an i tw o u l d h av e b een u n d er th e t ab l e i n § 4 B 1 . 1 , so ap p lic a tio n o f

th e e n h a n c e m e n t h a d n o e f f e c t o n h is b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l. S e c ond, the e nha nc e m e nta l s o a ut om a t i c a l l y pl a c e s the de f e nda nti n the hi gh es tcr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory, L evel V I. Id. H ow ever , B apt i st e’ s c ri m i nal r e c or d w a s s o e xt e ns i ve tha te ve n i gnor i ng the tw o c onvi c t i ons a ti s s ue a nd the c a r e e ro f f e n d e rp r o v is io n , h is c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry w o u ld s till b e C a te g o ry V I . T h u s, an y erro r cl assi fyi n g B ap t i st e as a career o ffen d er w o u l d b e h arm l ess. N e xt , B apt i s t e a r gue s tha tthe c our te rr e d i n hol di ng hi m a c c ount a bl e f or ov er15 0 k g o f c ocai ne and 1 . 5 k g o f c ocai ne base . S peci fi ca l l y, B apt i st e a rgues tha tthe e vi de nc e a dduc e d a ttr i a l onl y i ndi c a t e d hi s r e s pons i bi l i ty f orbe tw e e n 50 an d 1 0 0 k g o f co cai n e, an d n o co cai n e b ase, w h i ch w o u l d co rresp o n d t o a b ase o f f e n s e le v e l o f

3 6 in s te a d o f

3 8 ( a n d a to ta l o f

f e n s e le v e l o f

3 8 in s te a d o f

4 0 ) . A cc o rd in g to B ap ti ste, th e c o u rt im p ro p er ly h eld h im re sp o n sib le fo r C as ad o ’s in d e p e n d e n t d is tr ib u tio n o f c o c a in e a n d c o c a in e b a s e . A cc ordi ng t o the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, a def endant ’ s bas e off

ense l evel shal l be det erm i ned i n p arton the basi s of: [ I ] n the c a s e of

aj oi nt l y u n d ert a ke n c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty ( a c r i m i na l pl a n, s c h e m e , e n d e a v o r , o re n te rp r is e u n d e r t a k e n b y th e d e f e n d a n t in c o n c e r t w i th o th ers, w h eth er o r n o tch arg ed as a co n sp i racy), all r e a s ona bl y f

o res e e a bl e a c t s a nd om i s s i ons of othe r s i n f

ur the r a nc e of134

the j oi nt l y unde r t a ke n c r i m i n a l a c t i vi ty , tha toc c ur r e d dur i ng the com m i ss i on of th e offe nse of c on vi ct i on , i n p re para t i on for that of f e ns e , ori n the c our s e of a tt e m pt i ng t o a voi d d e t e c t i on or re sp o n sib il ity f

o r th at o ff

en se [.] U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 3(a) (1)( B ) ( 20 00 ). A ppl i c a t i on N ot e T w o t o § 1B 1. 3 c l a r i f i e s a tw o- pr onge d t e s tf orc oconspi ra t or l i abi l i ty, un der w hi ch such l i abi l i ty e xt ends t o the cond uctof ot hers tha tw a s both: ( 1) i n f

ur the r a nc e of

the j oi nt l y unde r t a ke n c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty ; a nd ( 2) r e a s ona bl y f

or e s e e a bl e i n c onne c t i on w i th tha tc r i m i na l a c t i vi ty . U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3, c m t. n . 2 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e n o te f u r th e re x p la in s th a t to d e te r m in e th e d e f e n d a n t's acco u n t ab i l i ty fo r th e co n d u cto f o th ers u n d er su b sect i o n (a)(1 )(B ), th e co u rtm u st f ir s t d e te r m in e th e s c o p e o f th e c r im in a l a c tiv ity th e p a r tic u la rd e f e n d a n t a g r e e d to j oi nt l y und ert ake ( i . e. , the sc op e of the spec i fi c c on du ctand o bj ec t i ves e m brac ed by the de f

e nda nt ' s a gr e e m e nt ) . I d. ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H unt e r , 323 F . 3d 1314, 1319 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). I n th is c a s e , it is c le a rth a t B ap tis te , w h o w a s o f te n d e s c r ib e d a s in s e p a r a b le f r om C a s a do, a gr e e d t o j oi n the w i de rdrug c ons pi r a c y or ga ni z e d by C a s a do a nd W i l l i a m s . I nde e d, the gove rnm e nte s t a bl i s he d tha tB apt i s t e w a s pr e s e ntf orm a ny o f C a s a d o ’s s a le s a n d a c te d a s C a s a d o ’s s a le s a g e n t w h ile C a s a d o w a s in c a r c e r a te d . T h u s, th e co u rtd i d n o terr i n h o l d i n g B ap t i st e acco u n t ab l e fo r C asad o ’ s sal es, w hi c h w e r e m a de i n f

ur the r a nc e of

the c ons pi r a c y tha tB apt i s t e a gr e e d t o j oi n, a nd135

w h i ch w ere reaso n ab l y fo reseeab l e as p arto f th atco n sp i racy. F i nal l y, B apt i st e c on t ends thathi s s ent ence vi ol at es B l akel y a nd B oo ker. In hi s i ni t i al bri ef

, B apt i st e a do pt ed by re fe re nce ( un der F ed. R . A pp . P . 28 (i )) M i c ha e l H a rpe r ’ s A ppr e ndi / R i ng a r gum e nt , a ddr e s s i ng the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s drug qua nt i ty f

i ndi ngs . O n S e pt e m be r2, 2004, w e gr a nt e d B apt i s t e ’ s m ot i on f orl e a ve t o f i l e a s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f a ddr e s s i ng B l a ke l y , a l though w e l i m i t e d the s c ope of th e b r ie f to d is c u s s in g B la k e ly ’s r e le v a n c e to th e is s u e a d o p te d . I n h is s u p p le m e n ta l b r ie f

, B ap tis te a r g u e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t v io la te d th e S ix th A m endm ent/ B l akel y pri nci pl e by e nh anci ng hi s s ent ence base d o n i t s f i nd i ng s that he w a s r e s pons i bl e f

orthe di s tr i but i on of

ove r150 kg of

c oc a i ne a nd 1. 5 kg of c oc a i ne ba s e a nd tha the pos s e s s e d a f i r e a r m dur i ng the c our s e of the drug c o n s p ir a c y – f

a c ts n o t f o u n d b y th e ju ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. L ik e C a s a d o ’s B la k e ly c h a lle n g e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s le a d e r s h ip - r o le f in d in g , B ap tis te ’s c h a lle n g e to th e f ir e a r m s f in d in g is b a rr e d u n d e ro u rd e c is io n in D ockery , because he di d n otra i se the S i xth A m endm enti ss ue i n h i s i ni t i al bri ef a nd the m a tt e rof

the f i r e a r m s f i ndi ng ( unl i ke tha tof

the drug a m ount ) w a s not p e r m itte d b y o u rg r a n t o f B ap tis te ’s m o tio n to f

ile a s u p p le m e n ta l b r ie f ( s in c e it wa s n o tr a i s e d i n Ha rp e r ’ s b r i e f a n d th u s n o ta d o p t e d i n B ap t i s t e ’ s i n i t i a l b r i e f ) . As to th e d ru g a m o u n t f

in d in g , B ap tis te c o n c e d e s th a t h is c h a lle n g e is s u b je c t to p la inWe s umm ari ly re je c t th efo llo wingargumentsa s meritle ss: 73 1. Arguments made by Gibson, Casado, Will iams, and B aptiste that the district court improperly

allowed the g overnment to go beyond the scopeof cross-examination on re dire c t; 2. Arguments made by Casado and B aptiste that the district court erre d by ref using to allow Casado to call Officers Walthen and Mende z as witnesses to impeach Of ficer Mende z’s 136 error r evi ew , si nce he never r ai se d a S i xth A m endm ent/A pp re nd i -type obj ec t i on at th e s en ten cin g h ea rin g . U n d era p lain -e rr o r s tan d ar d o f r ev iew , B ap ti ste’s c ha l l e nge f

a i l s , s i nc e the di s tr i c tc our tga ve no i ndi c a t i on tha ti tw oul d ha ve g r a n te d a le s s e rs e n te n c e u n d e ra n o n - m a n d a to ry g u id e lin e s r e g im e . T h u s B ap tis te ca nn otes t abl i sh thatany B l akel y/ B oo ker e rr or af fe ct ed hi s “ subst ant i al ri gh t s. ” S e e R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1298- 1301. 6. M al c ol m S h aw L i ke B apt i s t e , M a l c ol m S ha w w a s c onvi c t e d of the c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge a lle g e d in C o u n t 2 , a n d w a s s e n te n c e d to 3 6 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. O n ap p e a l, S h a w a d o p ts B ap tis te ’s a r g u m e n t a s to “r e le v a n t c o n d u c t a t s e n te n c in g ,” pr e s um a bl y r e f

e rr i ng t o the c our t ’ s f

i ndi ng tha the w a s r e s pons i bl e f orove r150 kg o f c o c a in e , r e s u ltin g in a b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

3 8 p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2D 1. 1(c) (1). T hi s f

i nd i ng w as no terroneou s, ho w ever , because the di stri ctcourt w as ent i t l ed t o cre di tH erbertM cC re a’ s tri al t es t i m on y thathe had o bt ai ned

“ hundr e ds of

ki l os ” of c oc a i ne f

r om S ha w be tw e e n 1994 a nd 1996. H . C on c l u s i on 73prior testimony for the g overnment; and 3. Gibson’s argument that the district court errone ously denied a mistrial after the prosecution improperly

impeache d defense witness Jeffrey Gibson, Gibson’s husband, by eliciting that defendant Gibson had be en convic ted of manslaughter in 1974, 26 year s prior to t ri al, even th ough th edis tric t c ourt su staine d th ede fens e ’sob je c tio n, str

uc k this te stimony , a

nd tol d th ejur

y to disre g ard

it. 4. Arguments made by Wil liams that the admission of his jailhouse letters constituted error under Rules 401, 403, a

nd 404(b). 137 B e c a us e w e f

i nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e vi de nt i a ry e rr or s de ni e d J ohns on a nd H a w thorne a f

a i rtr i a l , w e R E V E R S E the i rc onvi c t i ons . B utbe c a us e w e f i nd the di stri ctcourt ’ s e rr ors harm l es s w i th res pectt o W i l l i am s, C as ado, H arper, Le o n a r d Br o w n , M a l c o l m Sh a w , Ba k e r , Bap t i s t e , Pl e s s a n d G i b s o n , w e A FFI RM the i rc onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s , a nd R E M A N D the c a s e t o the di s tr i c tc our tf or pr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. AF F I RME D i n p a r t , RE V E RS E D i n p a r t , a n d RE MAND E D.