2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-8-2010 

# Govt of the VI v

. K wan z a M ar t ine z
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-2694

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Go vt of the VI v

. K wa nza M a r t inez " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 526. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/526P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_________________ N o. 08- 2694

_________________ G O V ER N M EN T O F TH E V I RG I N I SLA N D S

v. KW AN ZA M AR TI NEZ, A ppel l ant

_________________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e D istric t C o u rt of the V i r gi n I s l ands , A ppel l at e D i vi s i on ( C r i m . N o. 1: 04- cr - 00148- 1) J u d g e s : H o n . C u rt is V . G o m e z , H o n . R a ym o n d L . F in c h ,

and H on. A udr eyL

. T hom as Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay4, 2010

_________________ B e f o re : S M IT H , C H A G A R E S , a n d J O R D A N , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

( Fi l ed: Sept ember 8, 2010)
M ar t i al A W ebs t er , Sr

. , E s q. 116 Q ueen Cros s St r eet Fr eder i ks t ed, St

. C r oi x, V

. I

. 00851 C ouns el forA ppel l ant T i ffa nyV

. R obi ns on, E s q. O ffi ce of t he A t t or neyG ener al of the V i r gi n I s l ands 34- 38 K r onpr i nds ens G ade, G E R S C om pl ex, 2nd Fl oor C har l ot t e A m al i e, St

. T hom as , V I 00802 C ouns el forA ppel l ee2 __________________ OP I NI ON

__________________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge.
K w anza M ar t i nez w as convi ct ed i n t he Terr i t or i al C our tof th e V irg in Isla n d s o f k id n a p p in g f o r ra p e , an d h e w a s s e n ten c e d to thir tyy ea rs i n p ri so n . T h e A p p ell ate D ivisi o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rt o f th e V ir g in I slan d s af

firm ed the co n v ict ion

. T h ree m o n ths later, M ar t i nez f

i l ed a not i ce of appea l i n t hi s C our t
. C oncl udi ng t hatt he G o v e rn m e n t h a s f

o rf e ited its a b ili tyto a ttac k th e a p p e a l as u n tim e ly pu rs uan tt o F ederal R ule of A pp el l at e P rocedu re 4( b), w e exerci se j u r i s d i c t i o n . Be c a u s e we r e j e c tM a r t i n e z ’ s c l a i ms o n t h e me r i t s , we w i l l aff i r m t he or derof the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on. I

. T aken i n t he l i ght m o st f avor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , t he per t i nentfac t s ar e as fol l ow s . O n t he ni ghtof J une 16, 2003, C henae H ar vey , w ho w as t hen si xt een, l eft her hom e i n t he H arbor V i ew hous i ng comm uni t yon t he i s l and of St

. C r oi x. I n a nearby par ki ng l ot , s he bumped i nt o M ar t i nez, herfi r s tcou sin, w ho w as t h e n t w e n t y- o n e . H a r v e y e n t e r e d M a r t i n e z ’ s c a rv o l u n t a r i l y, ex p e c tin g that h e w o u ld d ri v e h er to h er f ri en d A m an d a’s apart m ent , al s o l ocat ed i n H arborV i ew . I ns t ead, M ar t i nez unexpec t edl ypas s ed A m anda’ s apart m entata hi gh r at e of s peed, and H ar veyqui ckl y r eal i zed t hat he di d not i nt end t o t ake hert her e. H ar v ey ask ed M ar t i nez w her e he w as t aki ng her , buthe di d not ans w er . She tw ic e as ked hi m t o t ake he rhom e, butagai n he w as unr es pons i ve. W hen theyr eached the Pr i nces s e ar ea, H ar vey began t o c r y , a n d s c r e a me d t o M a r t i n e z t h a ts h e wan t e d t o go hom e. Y etagai n, he di d notr es pond. Fi nal l y , H ar veygr abbed the s t eer i ng w heel i n an att empt t o s t op t he ca r . A tt hatpoi nt , M ar t i nez o rd e re d H a rv e yn o t to g ra b th e w h e e l, a n d sa id th a t h e h a d a g u n in t he ca rand di d not w ant t o be st opped by t he pol i ce. M ar t i nez then re m o v e d a f

ire a rm f ro m th e g lo v e c o m p a rtm e n t an d p lac e d it i n h is lap. T h e g u n rem aine d p rese n t fo r th e d u rati o n o f th e e n co u n ter.3 M ar t i nez’ s exce s s i ve s peed caus ed H ar vey t o be “a fr ai d [for h e r] lif e .” Jo in t A p p e n d ix (“ JA ” ) 1 5 2

. H e c o n tin u e d h is f re n e tic pace unt i l he r eac hed a de s ol at e ar ea pa s tt he Sal t R i ver , 10. 8 m i l es fr om H arborV i ew . M ar t i nez dr ove up a s t eep hi l l know n as “The Be a s t , ” tu r n e d t h e c a r a r o u n d a ta d e a d e n d s o t h a ti tf a c e d d o wn t he hi l l , and tur ned off t he l i ght s . W i t h t he gun s t i l l i n hi s l ap, M arti n ez t hen demanded thatH ar veyhave s ex w i t h hi m . She decli ned , st at i ng , “N o, I don’tw ant t o h ave sex w i t h y ou becau se y o u is m y cous i n. ” I d. W hen s he di d notacqui es ce, M ar t i nez o rd e re d H a rv e yo u t o f

th e c a r a n d s p e d a w a y . Fi ve mi nut es l at er , M ar t i nez r etur ned, atw hi ch t i m e H ar vey o p e n e d th e re a r p a s s e n g e r d o o r a n d re e n ter e d th e c a r. It is undi s put ed thatats om e poi nt the r eaf t er , M ar t i nez a nd H ar vey en g ag ed in se x u al i n terco u rse. T h e na ture of the sex u al en co u n ter, how ever , i s vi gor ous l ydi s put ed: M ar t i nez clai m ed thati tw as c o n se n su a l, an d H a rv e ya lleg e d th a t itw a s n o t. I n a n ye v e n t, w h a tev e r h a p p e n e d in f a c t is n o t cr iti c a l to re so lu tio n o f th is a p p e a l.
T he r ecor d i s notent i r el ycl earhow l ong t he epi s ode l as t ed, b u t i t app ea rs t o h av e tak en p lace o v er a p e ri o d o f a b o u t an h o u r. T w o day s l at er , H ar veyt ol d herm ot her , Fay e M ar t i nez ( w ho i s t he defe ndant ’ s aunt ) , about t he i nci dent , and herm ot hert hen t ook her t o t he hos pi t al

. H ar vey g av e a s t at ement t o pol i ce of fi cer s att he ho sp ital, aft er w hich t he o ffi cers recovered he r undergarm ents
. A n a ly sis o n th e c lo th in g tes ted p o sitiv e f o r D N A c o n sis ten t w ith M art i nez’s.
M a rtin e z w a s a rre ste d o n Ju ly9 , 2 0 0 3 , an d w a s c h a rg e d in a si x-co u n t cri m i nal i nfo rm at i on w i t h ag gravat ed rape in the fir st degr ee ( i n vi ol at i on of V

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t
. 14, § 1700) ; aggr avat ed ra p e in th e s e c o n d d e g re e (i n v io la tio n o f V .I. C o d e A n n . tit. 1 4 , § 1700a) ; ki dnappi ng for r ape ( i n vi ol at i on of V

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t
. 14, § 1 052( b) ) ; t w o c ou nt s of un l a w fu l s e xu a l c on t a c t i n t he fi rs t degr ee ( i n vi ol at i on of V

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t
. 14, § 1708) ; and p o ss e ss io n o f

a d e a d lyw e a p o n d u r in g a c rim e o f v io len c e (in vi ol at i on of V

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t
. 14, § 2251( a)). M ar t i nez di d not di s put e thathe had s exual i n terc our s e w i t h H ar vey , butcl ai m ed t hatt he enc ount erhad bee n ent i r el ycons ens ual

. A ft era thr ee- dayB ef o re th e cas e w as sub m itted t o the j u ry , the t ri a l c o u rt 1 di s m i s s ed the cha r ge of a ggr avat ed r ape i n t he s econd de gr ee. 4 tr ial , the ju ry co n v ict ed h im o f kid n ap p ing fo r rap e (C o u n t T h ree ), butacqui t t ed hi m of t he otherchar ges . T he tr i al cour ts ent ence d 1 hi m t o t hi r t yy ear s i n pr i s on. T he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on aff i r m ed the convi ct i on, and thi s appea l fol l ow ed.
II. W e fi r s tcons i der ourj ur i s di ct i on. T he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on exer ci s ed appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on under48 U

. S. C

. § 1613a( a) , and ent er ed i t s or deraff

i r m i ng t he convi ct i on on Febru ary 27, 2008. O n M a y2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , the A p p e llate D iv is io n e n te re d o n its d o c k e t a handw r i t t en l et t er fr om M ar t i nez, dat ed M ay15, 2008, i n w hi ch he averr e d t h a th e h a d o n l yr e c e n t l yl e a r n e d t h a th i s c o n v i c t i o n h ad been a ffi r m ed. H e expl ai ned thathi s at t or neyhad bee n di s barr ed an d h ad n o t fo rw ard ed h im a c o p yo f th e A p p ell ate D ivisi o n ’s opi ni on and or der

. T he courtappoi nt ed new couns el , w ho fi l ed a not i ce of appea l on J une 10, 2008, 104 day s aft er en tr y of the A p p e lla te D iv is io n ’s f

in a l o rd e r. O n J une 17, 2008, t he C l er k of t hi s C our t i s s ued an or der( 1) advi s i ng t he part i es t hat w e m ay l ack appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on, and ( 2) di r ect i ng t hem t o fi l e r es pons es addr es s i ng t he i s s ue. T he G overnm entdi d notfi l e a r es pons e ( and has neveraddr es s ed the j uri sdi ct i on a l is sue i n thi s C ou rt ); M art i nez f i l ed a respon se th ro u g h c o u n se l. A m o tio n s p a n e l th e re a f ter re f e rre d th e iss u e to t hi s m er i t s panel t o cons i der w hether t he t i m e l i m i t at i on i n Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 4( b) i s a j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ement , or a cl ai m - pr oces s i ng rul e s ubj ectt o for fei tur e.

“ T h e F e d e ra l R u les o f

A p p e llate P ro c e d u re g o v e rn a p p e a ls t o our[C ] our tfr om t he D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands [, A ppel l at e D i vi s i on]

. T her efor e, the t i m e l i m i t s fort he fi l i ng of a not i ce of appea l i n a cr i m i nal cas e ar e thos e s etouti n Fed. R

. A pp. P. 4( b)

. ” G ov’ tof th e V

. I. v . C har l es w el l , 24 F. 3d 571, 575 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( ci t at i on an d footnot e omi t t ed)

. R ul e 4( b) r equi r ed M ar t i nez t o fi l e a not i ce o f appe al w i t hi n t en day s of the entr yofR ul e 4(b) now pr es cr i bes a four t een- dayw i ndow t o fi l e a 2 n o ti ce o f a p p ea l i n a c ri m inal ca se. F ed

. R

. A p p . P

. 4 (b). S ee , e.g., U n it ed S tat es v. N ef f, 59 8 F

. 3 d 3 2 0 , 3 2 3 (7th C ir

. 3 2 0 1 0 ); U n it ed S tat es v . U ruty an , 5 6 4 F

. 3 d 6 7 9 , 6 8 5 (4th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ); U n it ed S tat es v . L o p ez , 5 6 2 F .3 d 1 3 0 9 , 1 3 1 3 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ); U n it ed S tat es v . B y field, 52 2 F

. 3 d 4 0 0 , 4 0 3 n . 2 (D

. C

. C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ); U ni t ed St at es v. Fr i as , 521 F. 3d 229, 233 ( 2d C i r. ), ce rt
. deni ed, 129 S. C t
. 289 ( 2008) ; U n it ed S t at es v. G ar duno, 506 F. 3d 1287, 1290- 91 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M ar t i nez, 496 F. 3d 387, 388- 89 ( 5 th C ir

. 2007) ( percur i am); U ni t ed St at es v. Sadl er , 480 F .3 d 9 3 2 , 9 3 4 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 5 th e A p p e ll a te D iv isio n ’s f in a l o rd e r. It is u n d isp u ted th a t h e d id

2 n o t d o so . O u r d e c isio n s h a v e re p e a ted lyn o ted th a t th e f a ilu re to fi l e a t i m el ynot i ce of

appea l i n a cr i m i nal cas e de p ri v es us of appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. C ar el ock, 459 F. 3d 437, 440- 43 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ; U ni t ed St at es v. K r es s , 944 F. 2d 155, 161 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ; U ni t ed St at es v. V as t ol a, 899 F. 2d 211, 2 2 0 (3d C ir

. ), v ac ated o n o ther g rou n d s, 4 9 7 U

. S

. 1 0 0 1 (19 9 0 ); U n ite d S ta te s v . G ra n a , 8 6 4 F .2 d 3 1 2 , 3 1 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ).
W hi l e a pa nel of ourC ourt is b ound byt he pr ece dent i al deci s i ons of ea r l i erpanel s , t hatrul e does notappl y “w hen the pr i or deci s i on[s ] confl i ct [] w i t h a S u p r eme C our tdeci s i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. T ann, 577 F. 3d 533, 541 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed S tat es v . S ing let ary , 2 6 8 F

. 3 d 1 9 6 , 2 0 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ); T h ir d Ci r c u i tI n t e r n a l Op e r a t i n g P r o c e d u r e 9

. 1

. Thr e e r e c e n tS u p r e me C our t deci s i ons compel us t o r evi s e ourpr i orj ur i s di ct i onal vi ew of R ul e 4( b) : K ont r i ck v. R y an, 540 U

. S. 443 ( 200 4 ); E berhar tv. U ni t ed St at es , 546 U

. S. 12 ( 2005) ( percur i am); and B o w l es v. R u ssel l , 551 U

. S. 205 ( 2007)

. I n acc or dance w i t h t he uni form ho l dings of o ur si st er court s of app eal s fo l l ow i ng t hese de ci si on s, 3 w e n o w h o ld th a t R u le 4 (b ) is n o t ju risd ictio n a l an d is s u b jec t to f o rf e itu re . I n K ont r i ck, t he Supr eme C o u rthel d t hatFeder al R ul e of B ankrupt cy Pr ocedur e 4004 – w hi ch s et s for t h a s i xt y - dayw i ndow fora cr edi t ort o fi l e a compl ai ntobj ect i ng t o a debt or ’ s di s char ge – i s notj ur i s di ct i onal

. 540 U

. S. at 447. T he C our texpl ai ned that6 t he t er m “j ur i s di ct i onal” pr oper l yappl i es onl yt o “pr es cr i pt i ons del i neat i ng th e c l a s s es of ca s es ( s ubj ect
- m at t erj ur i s di ct i on) and the p erso n s (pe rson al j u ri sd ict ion )” im p li ca ti n g “a co u rt ’s ad j udi cat ory au tho ri ty
. ” Id

. at 45 5

. W ith resp ec t t o the f o rm er, th e C o u rt emphasi zed, “[o] nl yC ongr es s m aydet er m i ne a l ow erfede r al c o u rt’s s u b

jec t-m a tter ju risd ictio n .” Id . at 4 5 2 (c iti n g U .S . C o n st. a rt . II I, § 1 ).
T h o u g h o th e r b a n k ru p tcy-rela ted tim e c o n stra in ts a p p e a r in the ju d ici al co d e, th e C o u rtn o ted th at t h e sp ec ifi c statuto ry
“ p ro v is io n c o n f

e rr in g ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r o b je c tio n s to d is c h a rg e . .

. c o n t a i n s n o t i me l i n e s s c o n d i t i o n . ” I d

. a t 4 5 3

. I n s t e a d, t he t i me l i m i t at i on governi ng obj ect i ons t o di s char ge i s governed s ol el yby R ul e 4004, a court
- pr es cr i bed rul e est abl i s hed fort he “pr act i ce a nd pr ocedur e” i n bankrupt cyact i ons . I d. T he C our tr ecogni zed that it an d o th e r c o u rts h a d b e e n “ les s th a n m e ticu lo u s” in di s t i ngui s hi ng betw een s t atut or ypr ovi s i ons ci r cums cri bi ng a c o u rt’s a u th o rity to h e a r a c a se a n d “ e m p h a tic tim e p re sc rip tio n s in rules of court
. ” I d. at454. C l ar i fy i ng t he di s t i nct i on, t he C ourt expl ai ned thatw hi l e “s ubj ect
- m at t erj ur i s di ct i on cannotbe ex p an d ed to ac co u n t fo r th e p arti es’ li ti g ati o n co n d u ct[,] a claim -pro ce ssing ru le,

. . . ev en if u n alt era b le on a p arty ’s appl i cat i on, can none t hel es s be for fei t ed i f the part yas s er t i ng t he rule w ait s too lon g to raise the p o int. ” Id. B ec au se the d eb tor th ere had not r ai s ed t he obj ect or ’ s unt i m el i nes s unt i l aft ert he obj ect i on had bee n l i t i gat ed on t he mer i t s , t he C our thel d t hatt he ar gum ent h a d b e e n f

o rf e ited a n d th a t ju risd ictio n h a d b e e n p ro p e rly exer ci s ed.
I n E berhar t , t he C our t , r el y i ng on K ont r i ck, hel d t hat Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 33 – w hi ch att he t i m e gave a c rim in a l d e f

e n d a n t se v e n d a y s to f

ile a m o tio n f

o r a ne w trial –is n o t ju risd ictio n a l. 54 6 U .S . at 1 3 . R e jec tin g th e n o tio n th a t co u rtpr es cr i bed rul es byt hemsel ves pr ovi de the “key s t o t he ki ngdom of su b jec t-m a tter ju risd ictio n ,” id

. a t 1 7 , th e C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t R u le 4004 and R ul e 33( a) ar e “vi r tual l y i dent i cal pr ovi s i ons . ” Id. at16. T h e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e latte r, li k e th e f o rm e r , is a rig id c laim -p ro c e ss in g ru le, b u t o n e w h o se p ro tec tio n is s u b jec t to f o rf e itu re if n o t p ro p e rl yin v o k e d

.7 Fi nal l y , i n B ow l es , t he Suprem e C our thel d t hatFeder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 4( a) ( 6) – w hi ch governs a d is t r i ct c o u rt’s a u th o rityto e x ten d th e tim e to a p p e a l in c iv il c a s e s

– is ju risd ictio n a l. 55 1 U .S . at 21 3

. T h o u g h th e C o u rt sta ted g e n e ra lly th a t “tim e lim its f

o r f ili n g a n o tice o f

a p p e a l ar e ju risd ictio n a l in natur e, ” i d. at206, i tr ep eat edl ygr ounded i t s hol di ng on “the j ur i s di ct i onal s i gni fi canc e of t he fac t t hat a t i m e l i m i t ati o n is s et for t h i n a st atut e. ” I d. at 210 ( emphasi s added) ; s ee a l s o i d. ( s t at i ng th a t K o n trick , E b e rh a rt, an d o th e r c a se s h a d n o t “c a ll[e d ] in to ques t i on ourl ongs t andi ng t r eatm entof s t atut or yt im e l i m i t s for t aki ng an appe al a s j u r i s di ct i onal

. ” ( emphasi s added) ) ; i d. at211- 12 ( not i ng t he “j ur i s di ct i onal di s t i nct i on betw een c our t
- pr om ul gat ed rul e s a nd l i mi t s e na c t e d b yCongr e s s ” ) ; Li z a r do v. U ni t e d St a t e s, __ F. 3d __, __, N o. 08- 2044, 2010 U

. S. A pp. L E X I S 16489, at*9 ( 3 d Ci r . Au g . 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 ) ( “ Th e Bo wl e s Cou r t e x p l a i n e d t h a tt i me l i m i t s that ar e no t based on a st atute .
. . are not j uri sdi ct i on al rul es, b u t cl aim -pro ce ssing rules.”).
B eca us e 28 U

. S. C

. § 2107 pr escri bes t i m e l i m i t s forfi l i ng a c iv il ap p e a l – a n d b e c a u se th e c o n stra in ts im p o se d b yR u le 4 (a)(6) a re a lso req u ir ed b ythe s tatu te

– th e B o w les C o u rt concl uded thatt he t i m e t o fi l e a not i ce of appe al i n a ci vi l cas e and the s tatu toryp rov isi o n s g o v ern ing ex tens ion s o f th at t im e li m itare j ur i s di ct i onal

. N ot abl y , t he C our tbol s t er ed i ts hol di ng by contr as t i ng R ul e 4 (a) w i t h i t s cr i m i nal count erpar t : “w e have t r e a t e d t h e ru l e - b a s e d t i m e l i m i tf o r c r i m i n a l c a s e s d i f

f e r e n t l y, s t at i ng t hat i t m ay be w ai ved bec aus e the pr ocedur al rul es adopt ed byt he C our tfort he or der l yt r ans act i on of i t s busine s s ar e not j ur i s di ct i onal

. . . . ” 551 U

. S. at212 ( quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) ; s ee al s o L i zar do, __F. 3d at__, 2010 U

. S. A pp. L E X I S 16489, at*10 ( not i ng t he B ow l es C our t ’ s di s t i nct i on betw een t he rul es governi ng c iv il a n d c ri m in a l a p p e a ls ). U n til 1 9 4 8 , the d e a d lin e to f ile a n o tice o f

a p p e a l in b o th ci vi l and cr i m i nal cas es w as pr es cr i bed by28 U

. S. C

. § 2107. See U ni t ed St at es v. Fr i as , 521 F. 3d 229, 233 ( 2d C i r . ) , ce rt
. d eni ed, 1 2 9 S . C t. 2 8 9 (2 0 0 8 ). S in c e th e n , h o w e v e r, § 2 1 0 7 – to g e th e r w ith R ule 4( a) – has governed on l y t he deadli ne t o ap peal i n civi l cases. R ul e 4( b) , b y contr as t , has governed the t i m e t o fi l e a not i ce ofF e d e r a l Ru l e o f Cr i mi n a l P r o c e d u r e 3 3 g o v e r n e d t h e t i me 4 to f ile a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l in c ri m in a l c a s e s f ro m 1 9 4 8 to 1 9 6 8

. I n U ni t ed St at es v. C ar el ock – deci ded befor e B ow l es but 5 a f ter K o n trick a n d E b e rh a rt

– w e h e ld th a t an a p p e llan t’s f a ilu re to fi l e a not i ce of

ap p eal compl i antw i t h R ul e 3( c) ( governi ng t he cont ent s o f a not i ce of appea l ) depr i ved us of j ur i s di ct i on. 459 F. 3d at441- 43. B yt h e ti m e a p ropernot i ce of appea l had bee n f i l e d , R u l e 4 ( b ) ’ s d e a d l i n e h a d ru n . I d

. a t 4 4 3

. I n a f o o t n o t e , we i dent i fi ed the i s s ue thatK ont r i ck and E berhar t r ai s ed w i t h r es pect t o R ul e 4( b)

. I d. at440 n. 6. W e not ed i n di ct a that“the l anguage and comm ent ary o f the rul es , al ong w i t h t hei rpr i ort r eatm entby t he Supr eme C our tand t hi s C our t , s t r ongl ys uppor tt he conc l us i on t h a t Rul e s 3 a n d 4 g o v e r n s u b j e c t
- ma t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . ” I d. B ut beca us e the G overnm enthad r ai s ed a pr oper obj ect i on t o the noncompl i antnot i ce of appea l , w e di d not ans w er t he ques t i on att hat t i m e. Id. In l i gh t of B ow l es and t he holdi ng s of our si st er ci rcui t s, w e bel i eve i ti s cl eart hatR ul e 4( b) can no l onger be cons i der ed a j ur i s di ct i onal l i m i t at i on. B eca us e i t i s not befor e us, w e nee d not co n side r th e jurisdicti o n al i m p li ca ti o n s o f R u le 3(c ). I tr emai ns an open ques t i on w hether t hi s C our tm ayi nvoke 6 R ul e 4( b) ’ s t i m e l i m i t s ua s pont e and di s m i s s an unt i m el ycr i m i nal a p p e a l a b s e n t a m o tio n b y a p a rt y . S e e F ri a s , 5 2 1 F .3 d a t 2 3 4 n .5 ( decl i ni ng t o ans w ert he ques t i on)

. A tl eas tone o thercour tof appea l s has ans w er ed thatques t i on aff i r m at i vel y , r et aining 8 appea l i n cr i m i nal cas es s i nce 1968 – a bs ents t atutor ym andat e. 4 B eca us e R ul e 4( b) i s notgr ounded i n s t atut e, t her efor e, w e ar e not d e p riv e d o f

a p p e llate ju risd ictio n if a p a rty f a ils to in v o k e th e ru le p ro p e rlyu p o n a n u n tim e lyn o tice o f a p p e a l. 5
W e r epea tt hatR ul e 4( b) ’ s deadl i ne i s r i gi d. U pon pr oper i nvocat i on of the rul e w hen a not i ce of appea l i s fi l ed out of t i m e, w e mustdi s m i s s t he appe al

. I n t hi s cas e, how ever , t he G overnm ent h as n ev er inv o k ed R u le 4(b ). It d id n o t r esp o n d to the C lerk’s or derdi r ect i ng i t t o advi s e us on i t s pos i t i on, and i tdi d notm ent i on th e iss u e in its m e rits b rie f. B e c a u se th e G o v e rn m e n t h a s c lea rly forfei t ed the un t i m el i ness ar gu m ent avai l able t o it , w e exerci se juri sd ict ion

. W e d o so p u rsua n t t o 4 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 1 3 a(c ).

6di s cr et i on t o i nvoke the ru le “w hen j udi ci al r es our ces and admi ni s t r at i on ar e . . . i m pl i cat ed and the del ay h as . . . been in o rd in a te.” U n ited S tate s v . M itch e ll, 5 1 8 F .3 d 7 4 0 , 7 5 0 (1 0 th C i r . 2008) ; s ee a l s o i d. at752- 55 ( L ucer o, J

. , di s s ent i ng) ( agr eei ng t hatcour t s of appea l s have di s cr et i on t o di s m i s s an unt i m el yappea l w hen an a ppel l ee f

ai l s t o i nvoke R ul e 4( b) , butdi s agr eei ng t hat s uch di s cr et i on s houl d be s o narr ow l yci r cumscr i bed)

. W e l eave t h i s q u e s t i o n f

o ra n o t h e rd a y. 9

III

. M a rtin e z a rg u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e is in su f f icie n t to su sta in th e k id n a p p in g f

o r r a p e c o n v ic tio n u n d e r V .I. C o d e A n n . tit. 1 4 , § 1052( b)

. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overM ar t i nez’ s s uffi ci ency ch all en g e, U n it ed S tat es v . B o rnm an , 5 5 9 F

. 3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 (3d C ir

. 2009) , y ett hatr evi ew i s narr ow . U ni t ed St at es v. R aw l i ns , 606 F. 3d 73, 80 ( 3d C i r . 2010)

. W e w il l ac ce p tt he j ur y ’ s ver di cti f, vi ew i ng the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overn m ent , “‘ anyr at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t he ess e n tia l elem en ts of

the c ri m e b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t. ’” U ni t ed S t at es v. V oi gt , 89 F. 3d 1050, 1080 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( quot i ng Ja c k so n v . V irg in ia, 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (1 9 7 9 )) (e m p h a sis in J acks on)

. “[W ] e exa m i ne the t ot al i t yof t he evi dence , bot h di r ect and ci r cumst ant i al , and m us t cr edi t al l avai l abl e i nfer ence s i n favor of the [G ] overnm ent
. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Spa rrow , 3 71 F. 3d 851, 8 5 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). S e c tio n 1 0 5 2 (b ) o f

th e V irg in I s la n d s C o d e p ro v id e s in its e n t i r e t y: W hoeverabduct s , t akes orcarr i es

aw ayanyper s on byfor ce ort hr eat w ith th e in ten t to c o m m it ra p e is g u ilty of ki dnappi ng and s hal l be i m pr i s oned fornotl es s t han 15 y ear s and s hal l not be e l i g i b l e f

o r p a r o l e u n t i l h e has s er ved atl eas tone- hal f of [ t he] s ent ence i m pos ed.T he V i r gi n I s l ands C ode s peci fi es s ever al cl as s es of r ape. 7 A sid e f ro m th e in d e p e n d e n t o f

f e n se s o f u n law f

u l se x u a l co n tac t in t he fi r s tand s econd de gr ees , see V

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t
. 14, §§ 1708- 09, t he C ode del i neat es t he cr i m es of r ape i n t he fi r s t , s econd, and t hir d degrees, and agg ravat ed rape in the fir stand second deg rees . See V

. I

. C ode A n n . t i t
. 14, §§ 1700- 03. B ut§ 1052( b) does not sp e c if yw h ich v e r s io n o f

ra p e a d e f

e n d a n t m u st in ten d to c o m m it d u ri n g a k idn ap p ing to v iolate t h e statute. W e c an rea d il yd iscern th e a n sw e r. T h e sta tu te d o e s n o t re q u ire a d e f e n d a n t to in ten d to c o m m it a g g ra v a ted ra p e , f o r i t p lain ly sa y s o n ly“ in ten t to c o m m it rap e.” C o n v erse ly , the c ri m es o f ra p e in th e sec o n d an d thir d d e g re e s a re sta tu to ry -ra p e p ro h ib iti o n s, in w h ic h th e c rim e is defi ned bas ed on the r es pect ive ages of the perpetr at orand the vi ct i m , noton t he perpetr at or ’ s i nt ent ort he vi ct i m ’ s cons ent
. See G o v ’to f th e V

. I. v . R icha rds, 4 4 V .I. 4 7 , 5 5 (T err. C t. 2 0 0 1 ). A ccor di ngl y , w e bel i eve i ti s i tcl eart hat § 1052( b) r equi r es t he G overnm entt o pr ove thatt h e d ef en danti nt ended t o comm i t( at least) r ap e in th e f

ir st de g ree . R elev an t here , su ch a c ri m e o cc u rs w h e n a d e f

e n d a n t en g a g e s in se x u a l in te r c o u r se o r so d o m yw ith an o ther “ w h en the [ v ict im ’s] resi stan ce is fo rcibly o v erc o m e.” V

. I. C o d e A n n . tit. 1 4 , § 1 7 0 1 (2 ). I n B err y , w e i nt erpr et ed § 1052 ( t hen a ge ner al ki dnappi ng 8 s ta tu te ) n a rr o w ly to p re c lu d e its “ o v e rz e a lo u s e n f o rc e m e n t . . . [aga i ns t ] per s ons w ho have c om m i t t ed s uch s ubs t ant i ve cr i m es as rob b eryo r assa u lt [, an d ] w h ich in h ere n tl yinv o lv e th e tem p o rary de ten tio n o r se i zure of the vi ct i m . . . . ” 60 4 F

. 2d at22 6. L est t ho se defen dan t s be pu nis hed for ki dn app i ng w hen “i n realit y 10 V

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t
. 14, § 1052( b)

. Sect i on 1052( b) re qui r ed the G overnm ent t o pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt : ( 1) t hatM ar t i nez abduct ed, t ook, orcarr i ed aw ayH ar veyagai ns t her w i l l ; ( 2) t hathe di d s o byfor ce ort hr eat ; and ( 3) t hathe i nt ende d to co m m itr ape w hi l e doi ng s o. W i t h r es pectt o t he ki dnappi ng component of the 7 cr i m e, w e mustconsi d er (1) t he dur at i on and di s t ance of as por t at i on of the vi ct i m , and ( 2) w hethert he as por t at i on cr eat ed a s i g n i f i c a n td a n g e rt o t h e v i c t i m i n d e p e n d e n to f t h a tp o s e d b y a s epar at e ongoi ng offe ns e. G ov’ tof the V

. I

. v. V entur a, 775 F. 2d 9 2 , 9 6

- 9 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 5 ) (m o d if y in g f o u r-f a c to r te st s e t f

o rth in G o v ’to f th e V

. I. v . B erry , 6 0 4 F

. 2 d 2 2 1 , 2 2 7 (3d C ir

. 1 9 7 9 )). 8[th ey ] co m m itted lesse r o r d iffe ren t of fe n ses, of

w h ich tem p o rary s ei zur e ordet ent i on pl ay ed an i nci dent al par t , ” i d. , w e set for t h four f a c to rs to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a d e f e n d a n t w a s g u iltyo f

th e se p a ra te cr i m e of ki dnappi ng: ( 1) t he dur at i on and di s t ance of the det ent i on oras por t at i on; ( 2) w hethert he det ent i on oras por t at i on occurr ed dur i ng t he comm i s s i on of a s ep ara t e off ens e; ( 3) w hethert he d e ten tio n o r a sp o rta tio n w h ich o c c u rre d is in h e re n t in th e se p a ra te offe ns e; and ( 4) w h ethe r the as por t at i on ordet ent i on cr eat ed a s i gni fi ca n t d an gert o t he vi ct i m i ndepende ntof thatpos ed byt he se p a ra te o f

f e n se . Id . at 2 2 7 . A f

ter w e d e c id e d B e rry , the V irg in I s l ands l egi s l atur e adde d § 1052( b) , ul t i m at el ypr om p ti n g our deci s i on i n V entur a. T her e, w e expl ai ned t hatbyenac t i ng t he ki dnappi ng- for

- r ape s t atut e, “the l egi s l atur e w as not conce r ned, as w as t he B err ycour t , aboutt he r i s k of over

- zea l ous appl i cat i on of t he ki dnappi ng char ge t o i m pos e a s ent ence s ubs t ant i al l ygr eat er t h a n t h a ta t t a c h e d t o t h e u n d e r l y i n g c r i m e . ” 7 7 5 F

. 3 d a t9 6

. We hel d t hatw hi l e the s t atut or yamendm en t mar gi nal i zed the s econd and thi r d B err yfac t or s , t he fi r s tand fourt h fac t or s r emai ned ap p li ca b le t o § 1 0 5 2 (b). I d

. at 97 -98

. W e e m p h asize d , h o w ev er, th a t “th e m o d if

ied B e rrytes t u se d in § 1 0 5 2 (b ) c a se s is n o t a str ing en t on e.” Id

. at 9 8 n . 1 2

. H ere , M arti n ez arg u es th at B erry c o m p e l s r e v e r s a l o f

h i s c o n v i c t i o n . H e i g n o r e s V e n tu r a e n t i r e l y. In th is o p inion , w e re fe r t o the “ first ” a n d “se co n d ” V en tura fa ctors, w h ich a re sy n o n ym o u s w ith the f ir st an d fo u rth B erry fact ors. S ee , e.g., U n it ed S tat es v. T ian, 33 9 F

. 3 d 1 4 3 , 1 5 2 (2d C ir

.

9 2 0 0 3 ) (“T h e H o stag e T ak ing A ct .
. . d o es n o t r eq u ir e tha t a seizu re 11 M ar t i nez f

i r s tar gues t hatbeca us e H ar veyent er ed the ca r vol unt ar i l yatt he H arborV i ew par ki ng l ot , t he evi d ence w as i n s u f f i c i e n tt o p r o v e t h a th e t o o k h e ra w a ya g a i n s th e rw i l l

. We di s agr ee. N o l anguage exi s t s i n § 1052( b) t hat w oul d abs ol ve the ab d u cti o n o f a n u n co n sen tin g v ict im m ere lyb ec au se th e v ict im ’s i ni t i al i nt er act i on w i t h t he perpetr at orw as vol unt ary . W e hol d – as have the maj or i t yof court s cons i deri ng s i m i l arpr opos ed i nt erpr et at i ons of t he fe der al ki dnappi ng s t atut es – t hat§ 1052( b) reaches the ab du ct i on of a n in d i vidual du ri ng an o t herw i se cons ens ual encount eri f cons enti s w i t hdr aw n ats om e poi ntaft er t he enc ount ercomm ence s. H ar vey ’ s t es t i m onyt hats he s ever al 9o r de tention b e a g ains t a ho stag e’s w il l from it s inc ep ti o n . ”); U ni t ed St at es v. C arr i on- C al i z, 944 F. 2d 220, 226 ( 5t h C i r . 1991) (“ T h e d isp o sitiv e q u e stio n is n o t w h e th e r [ th e h o sta g e s] in iti a lly agr eed t o go t o [the hos t age t aker ’ s ] hous e, butr atherw hether[the h o stag es] later w ere d etaine d o r co n fin ed there ag ains t th eir w il l. ”); U ni t ed St at es v. E agl e T hunder , 893 F. 2d 950, 952 ( 8t h C i r . 1990) ( “Even i f [the vi ct i m ] had i ni t i al l y cons ent ed t o acc om pany i ng [the defe ndanti n hi s car ] , t hat fac t w oul d notpr eventt he occ ur r ence of a ki dnappi n g b ecaus e [the def endant ] t her eaf

t erdet ai ned [the vi ct i m ] des pi t e herr epea t ed r eques t s t o be t aken home ort o her m o ther.”); U n it ed S tat es v . R ed m o n d , 8 0 3 F

. 2 d 4 3 8 , 4 3 9 (9th C ir

. 1986) ( “The fac tt hatone or i gi nal l yacc om pani es anotherw i t hout bei ng for ced doe s n o t p r eventthe occ ur r ence of a ki dnappi ng w her e for ce i s l at er u sed t o s ei ze orconfi ne the vi ct i m . ”) ; U ni t ed S t a t e s v . M c Br y a r , 5 5 3 F

. 2 d 4 3 3 , 4 3 4 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1 9 7 7 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( ki dnappi ng convi ct i on uphel d w her e def end an tagr eed t o t ake vi ct i m t o o n e d e s t i n a t i o n b u td r o v e i n o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n and ref u sed h er req u ests to b e let ou t of au tom o b il e). 12 t i m es pl eade d w i t h M ar t i nez t o t ake he rhom e ea s i l ys uppor t ed the j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng t hat s he had been det ai ned agai ns t her w i l l dur i ng t he c a r r id e . M a rtin e z n e x t ar g u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to s us t ai n t he elem en t tha tfor ce ort hr eatbe us ed t o carr youtt he ki dnappi ng. W e d is agr ee. H ar vey ’ s t es t i m onyt hatM ar t i nez br andi s hed the gun i n t he car ( w her e i t r emai ned on hi s l ap fort he dur at i on of the r i de) w as s uffi ci entt o per m i tt he j ur yt o fi nd t hat M ar t ine z det ai ned H ar veybyfor ce orthr eat
. I nt r oduct i on of the gun i nt o t he equat i on s t opped H arvey ’ s at t empt t o gr ab the s t eer i ng w heel i ns t an tl y . A l t ernat i vel y , i m m edi at el ybefor e M ar t i nez actual l ybr andi s hed the gun, he o r der ed H ar veynott o gr ab the s t eer i ng w heel beca us e he ha d a gun and di d not w antt o be s t opped byt he pol i ce. T hi s t hr eatal one es t abl i s hed the el ement of for ce or t hr eat , w hethert he gun i t s el f w as everi nt r od u ce d o r n ot
. See U ni t ed St at es v. M ackl i n, 671 F. 2d 60, 64 ( 2d C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) (not i ng t hata ki dnappi ng offe ns e r equi r es a defenda nt t o us e “s om e means of for ce – a ctual or t hr eat ened, phy s i cal orm ent al – . . . s o t hatt he v ictim i s t aken , held and t ransport ed ag ai nsthis or her w ill ”13 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ))

. M ar t i nez next ar gues t hatanyas por t at i on i n t hi s cas e w as “m i nim al

. ” W e dis agree. T he ev i den ce r eadil y est abli shed the fir st V entur a fa ct or( di s t ance ordur at i on of t he as por t at i on)

. M ar t i nez t r anspor t ed H ar vey10. 8 m i l es fr om H arborV i ew t o t he s ecl uded ar ea w her e the s exual encount eroccurr ed, and the en ti r e epi s ode a p p e a rs to h a v e las ted a b o u t an h o u r. T h is is p lain lysu f f icie n t. See G ov’ tof the V

. I

. v. A l m ent , 820 F. 2d 635, 638 ( 3d C i r . 1987) (c o n c lu d in g th a t e v id e n c e o f a sp o rta tio n f

ro m “ o n e e n v iro n m e n t .

. . to anot her ” overa di s t ance of appr oxi m at el ys eventyfee tw as s uffi ci ent ) ; V entur a, 775 F

. 2 d at98 ( expl ai ni ng t hatdr aggi ng vi ct i m i ndoor s , over a per i od of s ever al m i nut es and for a di s t ance of ei ght y - ei ghtfee tw as s uffi ci entdegr ee of as por t at i on undert he le s s -s tr in g e n t m o d if

ie d B e rr yf

ra m e w o rk ).
M art i nez a l s o cl ai m s t hat“no evi dence r egar di ng [ in d e p e n d e n t] s ig n if

ic a n t d a n g e r w a s e v e r p re s e n te d a t tr ia l.” M ar t i nez Br. at19. W e di s agr ee. T he s econd V entur a fa ct orw as s at i s fi ed byt es t i m onyr egar di ng: ( 1) M ar t i nez’ s reckl es s dr i vi ng en rou te t o the S altR iver a rea ; ( 2 ) th e p rese n ce o f th e f ir ea rm t hr oughout t he epi s ode; and ( 3) t he fa ctt hatt he al l eged ki dnappi ng occurr ed s ever al m i nut es befor e the s exual en co u nt eri t s el f. See V entur a, 775 F

. 2 d at 98 ( expl ai ni ng t hathar m of bei ng dr agged “thr ough t he bushes by t he ea rw hi l e [the def endantw as ] carr y i ng a gun” i s s i gni fi cantdanger, an d i ndepende ntof the r ape co m m itted). T h e thre at po sed b ythe f irea rm an d M arti n ez ’s dr i vi ng cl ear l ypr es ent ed a da ngeri ndepende ntof anyhar m pos ed b yth e a lleg e d se x u a l as sa u lt. Fi nal l y , M ar t i nez a r gues that t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci ent t o es t abl i s h t hathe form ed the s peci fi c i nt entt o comm i tr ape dur i ng t he as por t at i on beca us e the ac qui t t al on t he r ape cha rge r emoves anypos s i bl e i nfer ence t hat he had for m ed the i nt entt o comm i tr ape atan ant ece dent m om ent
. W e di s agr ee. A s an i ni t i al m at t er , even acc ept i ng fort he m om ent t hat t he j ur yacqui t t ed M ar t i nez of r ape b e c a u se it d e ter m in e d th a t th e se x u a l in ter c o u rse w a s c o n se n su a l, w e r ej ect t he under l y i ng pr emi s e of the cl ai m . T her e i s no l ogi cal ort empora l i ncons i s t encybetw een a fi ndi n g th a tM a rt i nez i nt ended t o r ape H ar vey at one poi nti n t i m e, and a f i ndi ng t hatH ar vey14 nevert hel es s acqui es ced t o M ar t i nez’ s s exual advanc es s ever al m in u te s la te r. I n any event , M ar t i nez a ppear s t o ar gue that , havi ng found t he s exual actvol unt aryas t o t he r ape c har ge, t he juryw as not per m i t t ed t o us e H ar vey ’ s t es t i m ony about t hat acti n det er m i ni ng hi s ear l i er i nt ent as t o t he ki dnappi ng char ge. A gai n w e di s agr ee. E ach c ountof the cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on w as i ndepende nt o f the next ; t he j ur yw as per m i t t ed – i ndeed, r equi r ed – t o as s es s al l of the evi dence as i tper t ai ned t o eac h i ndi vi dual count
. H ypot hes i zi ng aboutcontr ad ict o r yj ur yver di ct s does notaff or d a bas i s for r ever s i ng a convi ct i on on s uffi ci ency - of- t he- evi dence r evi ew . See U ni t e d St a t e s v . Po wel l , 4 6 9 U. S. 5 7 , 6 2 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( r e a f f i r mi n g t h at “[c ] ons i s t encyi n t he ver di cti s notnece s s ary ” ( qu o ti n g D unn v. U ni t ed St at es , 284 U

. S. 390, 393 ( 1932) ) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M u ssare , 405 F. 3d 161, 167 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “[T] her e i s no re q u ir e m e n t th a t a ju ry’s v e rd ic t b e c o n s is te n t.” ).
I f, as M ar t i nez pr es um es , t he j ur y det er m i ned thatt he s exual actw as cons ens ual as i tcons i der ed the r ape c har ge, it w as not behol den t o t hatconcl us i on w hen i tcons i der ed the ki dnappi ng ch arge. W e, i n tur n, m aynotr ever s e pur el ybeca us e the j u ry ’s re so lu tio n o f

th e h isto ric a l f

a c ts m ig h t se e m in c o n sis ten t: [A ] cr i m i nal defe ndantal r eadyi s aff or d e dp r ot ect i on agai ns tj ur y i r r at i onal i t y or err or byt he i ndepende nt r evi ew of the s uffi ci ency of t he evi dence under t aken b yth e trial a n d a p p e llate c o u rts. T h is re v iew sh o u ld notbe co n fus ed w i t h t he pr obl ems ca us ed by i ncons i s t ent ver di ct s . Suffi ci ency - of- t h e evi dence r evi ew i nvol ves as s es s m entby t he court s of w hether the evi dence adduce d att r i al coul d s uppor tany ra tio n a l d e ter m in a tio n o f g u iltyb e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt

. T hi s r evi ew s houl d be i ndepende ntof the j ur y ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat evi dence on anothercount w as i ns uffi ci ent
. T he G overnm entm us tconvince the juryw i t h i t s pr oof, and mustal s o s at i s fyt he c o u rts th a t g iv e n th is p ro o f th e ju ryc o u ld ra tio n a lly h a v e re a c h e d a v e rd ict o f g u iltyb e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt

. W e do notbel i eve thatfur t hers afe guar dsSi m i l ar l y , al t hough i tacqui t t ed M ar t i nez of unl aw ful 10 p o sses sion o f a d ea d ly w ea p o n d u ri n g a crim e o f v iolen ce , the ju ry w as ent i t l ed t o acc eptH ar vey ’ s t es t i m ony t hat M ar t i nez use d a gun t o carr youtt he ki dnappi ng. 15 a g a i n s tj u r y i r r a t i o n a l i t y a r e n e c e s s a r y. Pow el l , 469 U

. S. at 6 7 (em p has i s added, ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee also U n it ed S tat es v . A li ce a, 2 0 5 F

. 3 d 4 8 0 , 4 8 4 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ) (“In a s i ngl e, m ul t i

- countt r i al , acqui t t al on one orm or e count s does not pr ecl ude convi ct i on on ot hercount s bas ed upon t he s ame evi dence , as l ong as t hat evi dence i s l egal l ys uffi ci entt o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of gui l ton t he count ( s ) of convi cti on. ” ( emphasi s added) ) ; U ni t ed S ta te s v . C h u rc h , 9 5 5 F .2 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 5 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ).
T hus , w hi l e the j ur yfound thatt he G overnm ent had not pr oved the cr i m es of aggr avat ed r ape a nd unl aw ful s exual cont act bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , i tw as fr ee t o us e H ar vey ’ s t es t i m ony t hatM ar t i nez r aped he rw hen cons i der i ng w hetherhe had f or m ed t he s peci fi c i nt entt o r ape a t an ear l i erpoi nti n t i m e. See U ni t ed St at es v. Sr i yut h, 98 F. 3d 739, 747 ( 3d C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) (hol di ng e v id e n c e o f se x u a l as sa u lt rele v a n t to sh o w d e f e n d a n t’s m o tiv e in ki dnappi ng vi ct i m ) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. B r ads haw , 690 F. 2d 704, 708 ( 9t h C i r . 1982) ( “Thi s C our t has pr evi ous l yhel d evi dence of s exual r el at i ons admi ssi bl e bec aus e of i t s r el evanc e t o m ot i ve i n a k id n a p p in g c a se .”). In su m , th e ju ry ’s a c q u itt a l o n th e o th e r c o u n ts “i s i r r el evant t o our s i ngul ar focus on and det er m i nat i on of w hether t h e e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d a tt r i a l s u p p o r t s ” t h e c o n v i c t i o n o n Count T h ree . U n it ed S tat es v . V ea l, 1 5 3 F

. 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 5 3 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ). 10
V iew in g a ll o f th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e G o v e rn m e n t, w e c o n c lu d e th a t itw a s s u f f icie n t to su p p o rt a fi ndi ng t hatM ar t i nez pos s es s ed an i nt ent t o r ape H ar veydur i ng t he carr i de. W i t hi n a s pan of s ever al m i nut es , M ar t i nez t ook H ar vey agai ns ther w il l t o a s ecl uded ar ea, br andi s hed a f i r earm and t hr eat ened he ri n doi ng s o, i m m edi at el ydeman d ed t hats he have s ex w i t h hi m ( a demand sh e r efus ed) , w her eupon he or der ed her outof the ca rbefor e dr i vi ng aw ay . A ddi t i onal l y , D aw n C al l w ood,16 M ar t i nez’ s unr el ated “aunt , ” t es t i fi ed thats om e t i m e af t ert he i ncident , M art i nez c a lled her and adm i t t ed that“som et hing j ust happene d .

. . [s ] o m ethin g jus tcame overhi m . . . . [S] om ethi ng j ustpo pp ed .

. . j ust w ent po p i n hi s head.” J A 11 6. C al l w oo d als o t es t i fi ed that M ar t i nez at t empt ed t o “j us t i fyhi m s el f” t o her , i d. , and t hat h e admi t t ed that“s om ethi ng happene d t o C henae

. ” J A 117. C or r obor at i ng t hi s acc ount w as Fay e M ar t i nez’ s t es t i m onyt hatt he d ef en d an t ca ll ed h er after the i n cide n t an d , “so u n d [in g ] v e ry afr ai d, ” s ai d t hat he knew H ar vey ’ s fatherand uncl e w er e l ooki ng for hi m , but t hat i t w as “not goi ng t o go dow n l i ke that

. ” J A 217.
D raw ing all rea so n ab le i n fe ren ce s in the G o v ern m en t’ s f a v o r, th e e v id e n c e su rro u n d in g th e se x u a l en c o u n te r, alo n g w ith M ar t i nez’ s ow n s t at ement s and the evi dence of hi s aggr es s i ve, th re a ten in g , o v e rb e a rin g , an d v io len t co n d u c t, w a s s u f f icie n t to s us t ai n t he j ur y ’ s det er m i nat i on of M ar t i nez’ s s peci fi c i nt entatt he t i m e of the ki dnappi ng. See R at zl af v. U ni t ed St at es , 510 U

. S. 135, 1 4 9 n .1 9 (1 9 9 4 ) (“ A ju rym a y , o f c o u rse , fin d th e re q u isite k n o w led g e o n [ th e ] de f e n d a n t’s p a rt b y d ra w in g re a so n a b le inf ere n ce s fro m the e v iden ce o f [ the] d ef en d an t’ s co n d u ct .
. . . ”). * * * *
For the s e r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatt he evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he ki dnappi ng forr ape c onvi ct i on. I V.
M a rtin e z c laim s th a t th e G o v e r n m e n t v io late d h is rig h t to d u e p r o c e ss b yq u e stio n in g h im o n h is p o st-a rre st s ilen c e , in vi ol at i on of the rul e announc ed i n D oy l e v . O h io, 426 U

. S. 610 ( 1976)

. T he fa ct s under l y i ng t hi s cl ai m ar e as fol l ow s . M ar t i nez t es t i fi ed i n hi s ow n defe ns e t hat ear l i er i n t he day on J une 16, 2003, H ar veyas ked hi m for$500 or$600 and s ai d t hati f he ga ve hert he m oneys he “w oul d m ake i tw or t h [hi s] w h il e. ” J A 338- 39. M ar t i nez t es t i fi ed thathe under s t ood t hi s t o m ean thatH ar vey “w ant ed t o have s ex. ” J A 339. H e then t es t i fi ed: ( 1) t hatt he s exual epi s ode l at ert hateveni ng w as cons ens ual ; ( 2) t hatH ar vey t h e r e a f t e r d e ma n d e d t h e mon e y s h e h a d r e q u e s t e d ; ( 3 ) t h a ts he t hr eat ened t o t el l every one that h e h ad ra ped heri f he di d not17 pr ovi de the money ; and ( 4) t hatw hen he di d n o t g ive her t he m o n e y , s h e a c c u s e d h im o f ra p e . T h e G o v ern m en t so u g h t to dispe l M arti n ez ’s e x c u lpato ry a c c o u n t o n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n . T h e p ro se c u to r f irst a sk e d : “D id y ou m ake a s t at ement t o O ffi cerB err i os aboutw haty ou t ol d us h ere tod ay ? ” JA 3 5 0

. T h e tri al co u rtsu stai n ed d ef en se c o u n sel’s obj ect i on, and bef

or e M ar t i nez coul d ans w er , i ti nt er j ect ed, “Y ou don’ thave t o ans w er . ” I d. A ft ert he pr os ecut orpr es s ed M ar t i nez a s to w h e th e r H a rv e yh a d e v e r b e f o re re q u e ste d m o n e yf

ro m h im ( M ar t i nez a dm i t t ed that sh e had not ) , t hi s di s j oi nt ed exc hange ens ued: Q

. D i d y ou as k C henae i f she had s om e type of pr obl em t hats he w oul d need thi s 5 or$600?
A

. N o , sir

. Q

. D i d y ou t el l [Fay e] M ar t inez t hat C henae m i g h tbe i n s om e tr oubl e and neede d 5 or$600?
A

. N o , sir

. Q

. D i d y ou t el l y our m ot hert hatC henae demanded 5 or $600 fr om y ou? [ De f e n s e Co u n s e l ] : Obj e c t i o n , Y our

H o n o r. T he C our t : O verrul ed. Q

. D i d y ou t el l y ou r m o the rt hatC henae w as t r y i ng t o s hake y ou dow n for5 or$600? [ De f e n s e Co u n s e l ] : O bj ect i on a s t o s hake

dow n. T he C our t : Sust ai ned.18 Q

. D i d y ou t el l y ourm ot hert hatC henae demanded 5 o r$600 fr om y ou and s ai d s he w oul d m ake i tw or t h y ourw hi l e? A

. N o , sir

. Q

. D i d y ou t el l any one other t han t odayt hat C henae demanded 5 or$600 fr om y ou? [D ef en se C o u n sel]: O b

jecti o n , y o u r H o n o r. T he C our t : O verrul ed. Q

. O t h e rt h a n yo u ra t t o r n e y – [D ef en se C o u n sel]: O b

jecti o n , y o u r H o n o r. T h e C o u r t : S u s t a i n e d a s t o t h e a t t o r n e y. Q

. D i d y ou t el l any one – [ Def e n s e Cou n s e l ] : O b je c tio n . M a y w e

ap p roa ch , Y o u r H o n o r?
T h e C o u r t : Y o u m a y. J A 3 5 1 -5 3

. A ts i d e b a r , d e f

e ns e couns el obj ect ed t o t he ques t i on w hether M ar ti nez ha d t ol d “any one” hi s s t or y , butt he tr i al cour tw as unconvi nced: [D ef

en se C o u n sel]: Y o u r H o n o r , t h e

defe ndan thas a r i ght n o t to sa ya n y th in g to an y o n e, y o u r H o n o r; h a s a rig h t to re m a in sile n t. H e h a s a rig h t to pr i vi l ege a gai ns tsel fi ncri m i nati on . H e has a19 r i ght not t o s a y anyt hi ng. T he C our t : H e has a r i ght not t o s ay

a n y thing t o l a w enfo rce mentoffi cers , b u t

– a s I s e e i t , t he o b ject of t h e g o v ern m ent ’ s [ q u e sti o n s ] i s to i ndi cat e t h a t t h e defe ndantrecent l ym ade u p t h e s t o r y. [ De f e n s e Co u n s e l ] : W ell , th at m ay v ery

w e ll b e so if

th a t’s th e ir o b jec t. If the yc a n g e t it in , theycan’tget i tin t hr ough t hi s ki nd of qu est i on i ng . H e has a r i ght not t o s ayanyt hi ng t o any one. Th e Co u r t : I un de r s t a nd he has a

r i ght not t o s ayanyt hi ng t o any one, butt heycan a sk h im if

h e sa id it.
J A 353. A ft ert he s i debar , t hi s col l oquyfol l ow ed: Q

. Si r , di d y ou t el l any one thatC h en ae demanded 5, $600 fr om y ou? A

. E x cu se m e, si r? Q

. D i d y ou t el l any one thatC henae demanded 5 t o $600 fr om y ou? A

. M y a t t o r n e y.20 [D efen se C ou nsel ]: I cont i nu e m yobj ect i on s. T he C ou rt : Y es. J A 354. T h e G overnm entt hen moved t o anotherl i ne of ques t i oni ng. D u ri n g h is sum m ati o n , the p rose cu to r c h a lle n g e d M arti n ez ’s s t or yt hatH ar veyhad fa lsel yi m pl i cat ed hi m of r ape. T he pr os ecu toremphasi zed M ar t i nez’ s admi s s i ons t hathe had ne ver b efor e fl i r t ed w i t h H ar veyand thatH ar veyhad neve rbef o re r eques t ed moneyfr om hi m . A cc o rdi ngl y , t he pr os ecut orar gued, i tw oul d be nons ens i cal t o bel ieve t hatH ar veys oughtfr om her cous i n m oneyi n excha nge fors ex outof the bl ue. T he pr os ecut or n e v e r re f e rre d , h o w e v e r, to th e f

a c t th a t M a rtin e z h a d p ro f f e re d h is excul pat or y ac co untfort he fi r s tt i m e att r i al , nordi d he ment i on M a rt in e z ’s p o s t- a rr e s t s ile n c e m o re g e n e ra lly. “[P] ar t i cul ar l yconce r ned” w i t h t h e br eadth of the pr os ecut or ’ s ques t i ons w hetherM ar t i nez ha d evert ol d “any o ne” hi s excul patoryacc ount , t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on hel d t hatt he G overnm enthad vi ol at ed D oy l e. J A 578. B ut t he courtconcl uded t hatt he cons t i tut i onal err or w as har m l es s beca us e “ove r w hel m i ng” evi d e n c e e x i s t e d s u c h t h a t“ t h e j u r yc o u l d h a v e d e t e r mi n e d t h at M a rtin e z [ to o k ] H a rv e ya w a yb yth re a t o r f o rc e w ith th e in ten t to ra p e h e r.” J A 5 8 1

. O u r rev iew o f this c o n sti tuti o n al q u esti o n is p lena ry . G o v ’t o f t h e V. I

. v . Da v i s , 5 6 1 F

. 3 d 1 5 9 , 1 6 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )

. As we expl ai n bel ow , vi ol at i ons of D oy l e ar e s ubj ectt o h arm l es s err or anal y s i s . A ccor di ngl y , w e ask fi r s tw hethera vi ol at i on occurr ed and, i f i t di d, w e as k w hetheri thad an e ffe cton t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. S e e id . W e s h a r e th e A p p e llate D i v i s i o n ’ s c o n c e r n wi t h s o m e o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s q u e s t i o n s . We al s o agr ee, al bei tfordi ffe r ent r eas ons , t hat any D oy l e vi ol at i on w as h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. A

. O n c e a c rim in a l d e f

e n d a n t re c e iv e s th e p ro p h y lac ticT he G overnm entar g u es t hatD oy l e i s l i m i t ed onl yt o a 11 defe n d a n t’s s ilen c e im m e d iate lya f ter re c e iv in g M ira n d a w a rn in gs, nott o hi s gener al s i l ence i n t he l ead- up t o t r i al

. T he G overnm ent ar gues t hatt hi s cas e i s contr ol l ed inst ead byR aff el v. U ni t ed St a t e s , 2 7 1 U. S. 4 9 4 , 4 9 6 ( 1 9 2 6 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a tFi f t h Am e n d me nt “i m m uni t yfr om gi vi ng t es t i m onyi s one w hi ch the def endantm ay w a iv e b yo f

f e rin g h im se lf

a s a w itn e ss ” ) , a n d th a t in q u iryin to Ma r t i n e z ’ s g e n e r a l p r e t r i a l s i l e n c e w a s t h e r e f o r e p r o p e r . We r ej ect ed an i dent i cal ar gum enti n D avi s , and ther efor e w e need not ad d ress the claim at l en g th h ere . S ee 5 6 1 F

. 3 d at 16 4 -65 ; acc o rd H as s i ne, 160 F. 3d at947- 49; U ni t ed St at es v. B al t er , 91 F. 3d 427, 4 3 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ). T he G overnm entar gues t hatM ar t i nez f ai l ed t o l ayan 12 evi de n t i a ryf

o u n d a t i o n t h a th e r e c e i v e d M i r a n d a warn i n g s , and a c c o rd in g lyth a t n o D o y le v io latio n o c c u rre d u n d e r F letc h e r. It is 21 w a rn in g s re q u ire d b y M ira n d a v . A riz o n a , 3 8 4 U .S . 4 3 6 (1 9 6 6 ), it i s i m pr operunderD oy l e “f ora pr os ecut ort o caus e the j ur yt o dr aw an im perm i ssi ble i nference of guil t from a def end ant’ s post -arres t sil en ce . ” H assin e v . Z im m erm an , 1 6 0 F

. 3 d 9 4 1 , 9 4 7 (3d C ir

. 1998)

. T hi s i s s o becaus e M i r anda w arni ngs carr yt he G overnm ent ’ s “i m pl i ci tas s ur ance ” that an arr es t ee’ s i nvocat i on of t he Fi fth A m en d m ent r i ghtt o r emai n s i l entw i l l notl at erbe us ed agai ns thi m . D av is , 561 F. 3d at163- 64 ( quot i ng W ai nw r i ghtv. G r eenf i el d, 474 U

. S. 284, 2 9 0 -91 ( 1986) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Jo h n so n , 3 0 2 F

. 3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). B ec au se a d ef en d an t’ s pos t
- M i r anda w arni ng s i l ence coul d be nothi ng m ore t han an in v o c a tio n o f

h is rig h t to sile n c e , itw o u ld b e f u n d a m e n tallyu n f

a ir t o per m i ta br each of thatas s ur ance byal l ow i ng i m peac hi ng ques t i ons as t o w hyhe fa i l ed t o gi ve an e xcul pat or yacc ountt o t he pol i ce a ft err ece i vi ng t he w arni ngs . See D avi s , 561 F. 3d at163. 11 N o t eve ryref

ere n ce to a d ef

en d an t’ s s ile n ce , h o w ev er, r es ul t s i n a D oy l e vi ol at i on. W her e “no gove r nm ent al act i on i nduce[ s ] t he def

endantt o r emai n s i l ent , ” Fl et cher v . W ei r , 455 U

. S. 603, 606 ( 1982) , t he M i r anda- bas ed fa i r nes s r at ion al e does notcontr ol

. C ons equent l y , t he G overnm entper m i s s i bl ym ay i m peac h a defenda nt ’ s t es t i m onyus i ng hi s pr e- arr es ts i l ence , J enki ns v. A nder s on, 447 U

. S. 231, 240 ( 1980) ; hi s pos t
- arr es t , pr eM i r anda w arni ng s i l ence , Fl et cher , 455 U

. S. at605- 07 ; and any 12t he G ov ern m ent , how ever , t hatbear s t he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng t hat no M i r anda w arni ngs w er e gi ven i f pos t
- arr es ts i l ence i s t o be u sed

. U n it ed S tat es v . C u m m iske y , 7 2 8 F

. 2 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 6 (3 d C ir

. 1 9 8 4 )

. Be c a u s e i td o e s n o tu l t i ma t e l ya f f e c to u rd i s p o s i t i o n , we w ill a s s u m e a rg u e n d o th a t M a rt in e z re c e iv e d th e w a rn in g s . If the q u e s tio n w as im p rop er, th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s 13 deci s i on i n G r eerdoes notcure it

. W hi l e def ens e couns el i m m edi at el yand s ucce s s ful l yi nt erpos ed an o bject i on t o t he ques t i on ( t hus pr ecl udi ng M ar t i nez’ s s i l ence fr om actual l ybei ng 22 vo l un t ary po st -M i randa w arni ng st at em ents , A nd ers on v. C harl es, 4 4 7 U

. S

. 4 0 4 , 4 0 8 -09 (19 8 0 ). A d d it ion all y , u n d er G ree r v. M il ler, 483 U

. S. 756 ( 1987) , “ther e m ay be no D oy l e vi ol at i on w her e the t r i al cour t s us t ai ns an obj ect i on t o t he i m pr oper ques t i o n and pr ovi des a cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on t o t he j ur y , t her eby b arr i ng t he pr os ecut orfr om us i ng t he sil ence fori m peac hm ent
. ” D avi s , 561 F

. 3 d at 16 4 (cit ing G ree r, 4 8 3 U

. S

. at 76 4 -65 ).
H av ing scru p u lou slyrev iew ed the tri al t ran script, w e sh are the A p p ell ate D ivisi o n ’s c o n ce rn w ith so m e o f th e G o v ern m en t’ s questi ons . R efe r r i ng t o M ar t i nez’ s excul pat or yacc ount , t he pr os ecut orfi r s tasked: “D i d y ou m ake a s t at ement t o O ffi cer B err i os aboutw h at y o u t ol d us her e t oday ?” JA 350. T he p rose cu tor clea rl y so u g h t bythis qu esti o n to u n d erm ine M arti n ez ’s s t or ybyhi ghl i ght i ng hi s fai l ur e t o t el l t he off i cert hats ame ver s i on at an ea rl ier p o int in ti m e. W e c an n o t sayw ith ce rt ainty , h o w ev er, th a t th e q u e stio n w a s im p ro p e r, b e c a u se a c ru c ial a m b ig u itye x ists i n t he r ecor d r egar di ng O ffi cerB err i os . H ar vey ’ s test im onyon cr os s - exami nat i on r evea l s ci r cumst ant i al l y t hat t he off i cert ook her s t at ement at t he hos pi t al t w o day s aft er t he i nci den t. JA 181- 85, 189. B utO ffi cerB err i os di d nott es t i fyat t r i al , and the r ecor d does notdi s cl os e w hatr ol e he pl ay ed i n M ar t i nez’ s arr es t , orw hether M ar t i nez’ s fai l ur e t o gi ve the exc ul pat or ys t or yt o h i m occurr ed befor e or aft er t he arr es t , or befor e oraft erM i r anda w arni ngs had been gi ven. A cc o rdin g ly , w e c an n o t discern w h ethe r th e p rose cu tor’s ques t i on w as per m i s s i bl e underJ enki ns , Fl et cher , orA nder s on on t he one han d , o r w hetheri tvi ol at ed D oy l e on the other

. T he 13su b m itted to the ju ry , see Jo h n so n , 3 0 2 F

. 3 d at 1 4 7 ), the tri al co u rt f a iled to p ro v id e a c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n to th e ju ry th a t it w a s n o t to cons i derM ar t i nez’ s pos t
- arr es ts i l ence aga i ns thi m . W e have emphasi zed on s ever al occa s i on s the i m por t ance of s uch an i ns t ruct i on i n or derforG r eert o appl y . See D avi s , 561 F. 3d at164; J ohns on, 302 F. 3d at148 n. 10; H as s i ne, 160 F. 3d at948. A d d itio n a lly , the p ro se c u to r w e n t o n to a sk o th e r p o ten tially p ro b le m a tic q u e s tio n s . M ar t i nez does not t ake i s s ue w i t h t he ques t i ons r egar di ng 14 wh e t h e rh e t o l d h i s s t o r yt o F a y e M a r t i n e z o rh i s moth e r , a n d we t h e r e f o r e d o n o ta d d r e s s t h e m. 23 cont extof the quest i on and the l ack of r el evantevi dence under l y i ng i tgi ve us p au se, and ouranal y s i s bel ow i s m i ndful of t hes e unce r t ai nt i es . U n abl e t o ans w erdefi ni t i vel yw hethert he ques t i on vi ol at ed D oy l e, w e tur n t o t he ques t i ons t hatM ar t i nez cen t r a l l yc h a l l e n g e s o n a p p e a l – t h o s e i n whi c h t h e p r o s e c u t or ask ed w h ethe r M arti n ez h ad ev er told “ an y o n e” h is ex cu lpato ry a c c o u n t. 14
W e al so share the A pp el l at e D i vis i on ’s con cern t hat these q u e stio n s “ w e re o v e rlyb ro a d a n d [ th e ir] b re a d th a n d o b sc u rity aff ect t he appl i cabl e r evi ew . . . . ” J A 578. B eca us e the pr os ecut or pl ace d no per s onal ort empora l s peci fi cat i ons on t he qu e s t i o ns , t hey m ig h t w e ll h a v e b e e n c o n stru e d a s ta rg e tin g M a rtin e z ’s p o st-a rre st, pos t
- M i r anda w arni ng fai l ur e t o pr offe r hi s s t or y t o t he pol i ce. See U ni t ed St at es v. D odd, 111 F. 3d 867, 86 9 (11 th C i r . 1997) ( per cu ri am ) (“A co m m en t i s d ee m ed to b e a ref ere n ce to a d ef

en d an t’ s sile n c e if

. . . it w a s o f su c h a c h a ra c terth a t th e ju ryw o u ld n a tu ra lly an d n ec essa ri ly u n d erstan d it to be a co m m en t o n a d e f e n d a n t’ s s ile n c e .” (q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ))

. T he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on w as hes i t antt o cons t rue s uch openended a nd ambi guous ques t i ons agai ns tM ar t i nez. S o are w e. U n d er the circu m stan ce s, w e thin k that th e p rose cu tor’s ques t i oni ng i n t hi s cas e appr oache d t he cons t i tut i o n al line , and lik e lyc ro ss e d it. H o w e v e r, w e n e e d n o t d e c id e d e f in iti v e ly wh e t h e rt h e Go v e r n me n t ’ s q u e s t i o n s v i o l a t e d Do y l e , b e c a u s e we w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s j udgm enteven a s s um i ng thatt hey24 d id. Se e U n it ed S tat es v . R o d ri g u ez , 4 3 F

. 3 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 2 (5th C ir

. 1995) ( as s um i ng for the s ake of ar gum entt hata D oy l e vi ol at i on occurr ed w her e the “pr os ecut or ’ s ques t i ons w er e s uffi c i ent l ybr oad a s to b e c o n stru e d a s c o m m e n tar yo n [ th e d e f e n d a n t’ s ] f

a ilu re to come for w ar d w i t h hi s al i bi ( 1) pr i ort o arr es t , ( 2) i m m edi at el yaft er arr es tand M i r anda w arni ngs . . . , and (3) dur i ng t he t i m e per i od p ri o r t o tr ial b u t fo ll o w ing h is arrest”); cf

. U n it ed S tat es v . B alt er, 91 F. 3d 427, 440 ( 3d C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( as s um i ng ar guendo thatt he prosecutor ’s qu est i on s vi olat ed D oy l e and proceed i ng t o h arm l esserro r an aly sis)

. B

. W e hol d t hat any D oy l e vi ol at i on her e w as har m l es s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt

. See C hapman v. C al i forn ia, 386 U

. S. 18, 24 ( 1967) ( hol di ng t hat a cons t i tut i onal err ori s har m l es s w her e i tcan be “pr ove[d] bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt t hat t he err orcompl ai ned of di d notcontr i but e t o t he ver di ctobt ai ned”) ; B al t er , 91 F. 3d at 4 4 0 (“ T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld ‘th a t D o y le e rro r f its sq u a re ly i nt o t he ca t egoryof cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons w hi ch [i t ] has char act er i zed a s t r i al err or . ’ ” ( quot i ng B r echtv. A br ahamson, 507 U .S . 6 1 9 , 6 2 9 (1 9 9 3 )) (a lte ra tio n in B a lte r) ).
B e f o re e x p lain in g w h y , w e p a u se to n o te th a t th e A p p e llate Di v i s i o n ’ s a n a l y s i s s u f f e r s f r o m th e s a me d e f

i c i e n c i e s t h a twe r ece nt l yi dent i fi ed in D avi s . T he courthel d i n t hi s cas e thatany D oy l e err or w as harm l ess b e c ause “t he ev i den ce of M art i nez’[s] gui l t
. . . w as overw hel m i ng” and a ccor di ngl yt hat “e v en w i t hout t he pr os ecut or ’ s i nappr opr iat e quest i on, t he j ur ycoul d have determ i ned t hat M art i nez [ com m i t t ed k i dn app i ng for r ape]. ” JA 581. B ycompar i s on, i n D avi s , t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on hel d t hatt he D oy l e err orw as har m l es s because ther e exi s t ed “s i gni fi cant evi dence fr om w hi ch the j ur ycoul d have f ound gui l t
. ” 561 F. 3d at 1 6 5 ( q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d )

. Re j e c t i n g t h a tf

o r mu l a t i o n , we re m in d e d th e c o u rt th a t th e re lev a n t q u e stio n u n d e r C h a p m a n “ is n o t w h e th e r, in a tr ial th a t o c c u rre d w ith o u t th e e rro r, a g u ilty v e rd ict w o u ld su re lyh a v e b e e n re n d e re d , b u t w h e th e r th e g u ilty v e rd ict a c tu a llyre n d e re d in th is tria l w a s s u re ly u n a tt rib u tab le to t he err or . ” I d. ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. K or ey , 472 F. 3d 89, 96 ( 3d C i r . 2007) )

. O urens ui ng expl anat i on appl i es equal l yher e:25 [W ] e ar e unsat i s fi ed w i t h t hi s concl us i on i ns ofaras t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i o n fo cus ed on w hethert he ev iden ce w as su ff

ici en t t o co n v ict d esp it e the erro r, a s o p p o se d to w h e th e r th e re w a s a re a so n a b le p o ssib ilitythat the e rror co n tr ibu ted to the ju ry ver di ct
. See Sat t erw hi t e v. T exas , 486 U

. S. 249, 258- 59 ( 1988) ( “The ques t i on, how ever , i s not w hether t he l egal l yadmi t t ed evi dence w as s uffi ci ent

. . . but r ather , w hether t he [G overnm ent ] has pr oved

‘ bey ond a r eas onabl e d o u b tt hatt he err orcompl ai ned o f d id n o t con tr ib u te t o the v erd icto b tai n ed

. ’” (qu o ti n g C h ap m an , 3 8 6 U

. S

. at 24 )).
I d. at166. W e ar e compel l ed t o r eit era te t hatcons t i tut i onal h arm less-error a n aly sis i s n o t m ere ly a rev iew o f w h ethe r th e jury “c o u ld h av e” return ed a v erd ictab sen t th e c o n sti tu tio n al error. Such an anal y s i s i m pr oper l y confl at es s uffi ci ency - of- t he- evi dence r evi ew w i t h t he appr opr i at e C hapman st andar d.
W e ar e si m i l ar l y unconvi nced – as w e w er e i n D avi s , s ee i d. – t hat t he evi dence pr offe r ed aga i ns tM ar t i nez c an be c har act er i zed as “overw hel m i ng. ” M ar t i nez di d notdi s put e att r i al t hat he t ook H ar vey t o t he Sal t R i ver i n hi s car , nor di d he deny that h e had s exual i nt er cour s e w i t h her

. C ons equent l y , t he ce nt r al i s s ue i n t he c a se c o n c e rn e d w h e th e r th e e p iso d e w a s c o n se n su a l, an d th u s it tu r n e d o n t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f H a r v e y, D a w n C a l l w o o d , F a ye M a r t i n e z , a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t
. A l t h o u g h C a l l w o o d a n d F a ye M ar t i nez both t es t i fi ed thatt he def endantcal l ed t h em aft ert he incid en t and im p li ca ted h im s e lf (th u s co rrob o rati n g H arv ey ’s acc ountand s t r engtheni ng t he Gov e rn m ent ’ s cas e) , t hes e w i t nes s es w e re su b

jec t to rig o ro u s c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n c o n c e rn in g th e ir po ssi ble bias es. S ee i d. (hi gh l i gh t i ng t he “cl ose a ss ociat i on s” b e tw e e n th e th re e e y e w it n e ss e s w h o se tes tim o n yp u rp o rte d ly p r o v i d e d “ o v e r wh e l mi n g e v i d e n c e ” a g a i n s tt h e d e f e n d a n t )

. At b o tto m , a c ritica l is s u e in th e c a se lar g e lyre q u ire d th e ju ryto choos e s i des i n a cl as s i c he- s ai d, s he- s ai d cont es t
. W hi l e w e agr ee th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s s o li d , w e c a n n o t ag re e w ith th e A p p e llate D i vi s i on t hatoverw hel m i n g evi dence agai ns tM ar t i nez a l one rendered anyerr or harm l ess.26 T he for egoi ng does not i nexor abl y l ead us t o doubtt hatt he p ro se c u to r’s q u e stio n s p la y e d n o p a rt in th e v e rd ict h e re . W h ile m anyof ou r D oy l e cases fo cus on t he qu antum of ev i den ce aga i nst t he def endant s , see , e. g. , B al t er , 91 F. 3d at440, har m l es s - err or anal y s i s m us t , bynece s s i t y , t ake i nt o acc oun t the t ot al i t yof the ci r cum stan ces. W e have neverhel d, nordo w e now , t hatt he a m o u n t o f

in c r im in a tin g e v id e n c e is th e o n lyf a c to r im p lica ted in a D oy l e harm l es s - err oranal y s is. C f. R odr i guez, 43 F. 3d at123 (an aly zing w h ethe r D o y le error w as h arm less in l igh t o f “ the e n ti re rec o rd” ); U n it ed S tat es v . T h o m an n , 6 0 9 F

. 2 d 5 6 0 , 5 6 6 (1st C ir

. 1 9 7 9 ) ( “ I n t h e l i g h t o f a l l t h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s i n t h i s c a s e . . . , we fi nd t hat

. . . [t he err or ] w as har m l es s and notgr ounds for r ever s al

. ”)

. U nderal l of the ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed byt hi s cas e, t w o r el at ed fa ct or s ul t i m at el yconvi nce us bey ond d o u btt hatany e rr o r d id n o t a f

f e c t th e ju ry’s v e rd ic t. Fi rsti s t he garbl ed natur e of the cha l l enged c ol l oquy betw een c our t , couns el , and w i t nes s . C om par e U ni t ed S t at es v. A gee, 597 F. 2 d 3 5 0 , 3 5 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 7 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( f i n d i n g a ny D oy l e errorhar m l es s w her e the cha l l enged que s t i on w as ambi guous , and expl ai ni ng t hati tw as unl i kel yth e j u ry“ under s t ood and r ecol l ect ed” the quest i on as anyt hi ng m or e than an i nnocuous r efe r ence ) , w i t h D avi s , 561 F. 3d at167 ( fi ndi ng D o y le e rrornot h a rm les s w h e r e th e p ro se c u to r’s q u e stio n s d ire c tlya n d c lea rly under m i ned the pl aus i bi l i t yof the def ense ), and U ni t ed St at es v. C u rtis, 6 4 4 F .2 d 2 6 3 , 2 7 0 -7 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 1 ) (f in d in g D o yle vi ol at i on nothar m l es s w her e t he i m pr operques t i ons w er e “ne i t her is o la te d n o r a m b ig u o u s ” ).
T h e c h a l l e n g e d q u e s t i o n s b e f o r e t h e s i d e b a r

– wh i c h we h av e a lr ea d yd esc rib e d a s o v erlyb roa d an d am b igu o u s – w ere ei t heri nt errupted ori m m edi at el yfol l ow ed byobj ect i ons fr om d ef en se c o u n sel (som e the tr ial co u rt su stai n ed , so m e ito v erru led), pr event i ng t he j ur yfrom learni ng ori nferr i ng t he ans w er s t o t he q u e s t i o n s a n d t h u s c o mp o u n d i n g t h e a mb i g u i t y s u r r o u n d i n g t h e m. T h e q u esti o n s p o sed an d the an sw ers give n af ter the si d eb ar w ere n o c lea re r. M a r ti n e z h im se lf n e e d e d th e p ro se c u to r to re p e a t h is ques t i on, and he then r efe r ence d hi s at t orney , pr ovoki ng y et an o ther im m ed iat e o b

jecti o n (o n an alt o g ethe r diff ere n t bas is) , befor e the pr os ecut orpr om pt l ym oved t o anothers ubj ect
. T he27 pr os ecut or ’ s open- ended que s t i ons and att empted ques t i ons , t he barr age of

i nt er m i t t en t o bj ect i ons and i nt errupt i ons , t he vary i ng r e s p o n s e s b yt h e t r i a l c o u r t , a n d t h e p a r t i a l a n s wer s b yt he defe ndantal l combi ne t o obfus cat e furt herw hatw as al r eadyan uncl earal l us i o n t o M ar t i nez’ s pos t
- M i r anda w arni ng s i l ence . H a v in g stu d ied th e tra n sc rip t, w e b e liev e it is e x c e e d in g lyu n lik e ly t hatt he j ur yw as abl e t o arr i ve at a negat i ve i nfer ence bas ed on the obl i que and m uddl ed manneri n w hi ch M ar t i nez’ s s i l ence w as put b e f o re th e m . Second, w hi l e the chal l enged ques t i ons cannot be sai d t o be “i s ol at ed” ( as t he pros ecut oras ked a numberof t i m es w hether M ar t i nez ha d t o l d h i s s t o r yt o “ a n y o n e ” ) , s e e Curt i s , 6 4 4 F. 2 d at 2 7 0 -7 1 ; A g e e , 5 9 7 F .2 d a t 3 5 9 , the q u e stio n s w e r e p lain lyn o t a foca l poi nt of t he cr os s - exami nat i on. I n cont ext , the quest i ons w er e fa rfr om fl agr antvi ol at i ons of D oy l e, buti ns t ead c ame and w ent i n r el at i ve passi ng . S ee D avis , 56 1 F. 3d at 16 6 ( lo o k in g to “the s ever i t yof the D oy l e vi o la t i on” w hen conduc t i ng t he har m l es s - err oranal y s i s ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Scot t , 47 F. 3d 904, 907 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (f

in d in g D o y le e rro r h a rm les s w h e re re f e re n c e s to p o st- arrest sil en ce “w ere li m it ed in the irinten sityan d fre q u en cy ”).
T he cha l l enged que s t i ons her e cover ed onl ya s m al l fr act i on of t he f u r i o u s c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n c o v e r i n g mul t i p l e s u b j e c t s a nd s panni ng t w entypages of the tr i al t r ans cr i pt , and w er e har dl yt he t ype of f

r ont al as s aul t s on pos t
- arr es t , p os t
- M i r anda w arni ng s i l ence t hatourC our tand othercour ts h av e hel d nott o be h a rm les s. A d d iti o n a lly , the p ro se c u to r n o t o n c e re f e rre d to M ar t i nez’ s pos t
- arr es ts i l ence ort he pr i or ques t i ons about i tdur i ng su m m ati o n . Instea d , h e att ac k ed the ve rac ity o f th e d ef en d an t’ s acc ountonl yon t he bas i s t h at it la cked c ons i s t encyw i th hi s and H a rv e y ’s r e latio n sh ip a n d th e ir c o n d u c t b e f o re th e in c id e n t. T h is fac t , i n ourvi ew , i s cr i t i cal

. C om par e Scot t , 4 7 F. 3d at907 ( fi ndi ng s i ngl e i m pr operr efe r ence dur i ng s um m at i on t o be har m l es s ) , and A gee, 597 F. 2d at359 ( not i ng t hatcouns el di d not re f e r d u rin g su m m a tio n to a n a rg u a b ly im p ro p e r re f e re n c e to p o starr es ts i l ence ) , w i t h D avi s , 561 F. 3d at162, 1 6 7 ( fi ndi ng no har m l es s err orw her e pr o sec u t orr epea t edl yemphasi zed the de f e n d a n t ’ s p o s t
- a r r e s ts i l e n c e d u r i n g s u mma t i o n ) , a n d Uni t ed St at es v. C um m iske y , 7 2 8 F. 2d 200, 204 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( fi ndi ngW e re co g n ize, of co u rse, th at i n this case the tri al co u rt 15 di d notgi ve an i m m ediat e cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on, fori tdi d not r ecogni ze the pot ent i al p rob lem t hatt he ques t i ons pos ed. See D avi s , 561 F. 3d at 167 ( expl ai ni ng t hat “the abs ence of a c ur at i ve i nst ruct i on byt he T err i t ori al C ou rtl i kelyl eftt he jury w i t h t he fa l se im p re s s io n th a t th e p ro s e c u to r’ s re f e re n c e s to D a v is ’s s ile n c e . . . w er e appr opr i at e”)

. W e r ei t er at e the mani fes ti m por t ance of im m e d iate c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n s w h e n e v e r a d e f e n d a n t’ s p o stM i randa w arni ng si l ence is m enti on ed b efore t he ju ry . W e al so em ph asi ze t hat m anyD oy l e violat i on s w i l l no tbe h arm l ess pr eci s el ybeca us e the courtdi d notpr ovi de an i ns t ruct i on. I ti s not t he ca s e, how ever , t hata co u rt ’ s fai l ur e t o gi ve a c ur at i ve i nstr uct i on pr ecl udes i n al l cas es s at i s fac t i on of the C hapman h a rm les s-e rro r sta n d a rd . It i s th e v a g u e a n d u lti m a tely in c o n se q u e n tial n a tu re o f th e v io latio n th a t co m p e ls th e re su lt i n t hi s cas e. 28 D oy l e err orno t ha r m l es s , i n par tbeca us e “[ t ] he pr os ecut or emphasi zed Cum m i s key ’ s s i l ence . . . bot h dur i ng the tr ial and ex tens ivelyd u ri n g clos ing arg u m en t. ” (e m p h asis ad d ed )). 15

* * * *
T he cha l l enged c ol l oquyher e w as am b iguous a nd dis j oint ed, and w as ri dd l ed w i t h i nterrupt i on s and h a lf -answ ers . T h e p rose cu tor d id n o t high li g h t M arti n ez ’s si lenc e , a n d a fter a pas s i ng m om enthe m o v ed on, neverr efe r enci ng t he poi ntagai n. U nderal l of the ci r cumst ance s her e, w e concl ude thatanyerr or p lay ed n o rol e i n the j ury ’s verdi ct
. Itw as therefore harm l ess. V

. M arti n ez asse rt s tw o fin al claim s o n ap p ea l: (1) tha t th e tri al co u rt comm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orbyadmi t t i ng i m pl i ci tand pre j udi ci al h ea rsayd u ri n g H arv ey ’s t esti m o n y ; and (2) tha t th e trial co u rt ’s juryin s tr u c tion s w ith resp ec t t o the k idn ap p ing ch arg e w ere im p erm issi b lyinco m p let e. A tho rou g h rev iew o f th e re co rd c o n v i n c e s u s t h a tt h e s e c l a i ms a r e e n t i r e l ywi t h o u tme r i t , a n d we re je c t th e m w ith o u t f

u rt h e r d is c u s s io n .29 V I. For t he for eg o ing r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he or derof the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on.