A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has * det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )( 2 ); 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 4 .1 (g ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 2,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,, Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. J E S US S AL VADOR Z E P E DALOPEZ, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 4246

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF UT AH ( D. C. No . 1 : 0 3 - CR- 0 0 0 6 2 - TC ) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: * E d w in S tan to n W a ll, S a lt L a k e C ity , U tah , fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. S t e p h e n J . S o r e n s o n , Ac t i n g Un i t e d S t a t e s At t o rn e ya n d El i z a b e th a n n e C. St evens , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney , D i s tr i ctof U t ah, Sal tL ake Ci ty , U t ah, forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee.T he H onor abl e A r t hurL . A l ar cón, Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, U ni t ed ** St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he N i nth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. - 2 - B efor e KELLY , AL ARCÓN, and HENR Y , C i rcui tJudg es. ** AL AR CÓ N , C i r cui tJ udge. Je su s S a lv a d o r Z e p e d a -L o p e z a p p e a ls f ro m h is c o n v ictio n o f c o n sp ira c yto d is tr ib u te 5 0 0 g ra m s o r m o re o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e in v io la tio n s o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 846. T he onl yi s s ue befor e us i n thi s appea l i s w hethert he D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng evi dence t hatconnec t ed M r . Z epeda - L opez t o the cons pi r acy . T he G overnm entand M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s defe ns e couns el s t i pul at ed i n t he pr es ence of the j ur yt hatD ean Ram i r ez, G enar o G al az- Fel i x, C ar l os G al azFel i x, J ul i o C es arL opez, I s r ael G om ez- A s t or ga, N or m a G ar ci a, J os e V as quez, R u b e n S a n c h e z , an d o th e r in d iv id u a ls w e re m e m b e rs o f a c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te m ethamphet ami ne betw een J anuary8, 2003 and A pr i l 27, 2003. D ur i ng hi s openi ng s t at ement , M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s couns el s t at ed: “[T] he deci s i on t haty ou’ r e goi ng t o have t o focus on i s w hetherornotJ es us Sal vador Z e p e d a -L o p e z , als o k n o w n a s C a c h o , ag re e d , d id k n o w in g lyin ten tio n a lly c o n sp ire , co n fe d e ra te a n d a g re e d w ith th e se o th e r fo lk s, o r a t lea st o n e o f th e m , to par t i ci pat e i n t hi s cons pi r acy . T hat ’ s t he foc us of thi s cas e. T hat ’ s t he dec i s i on t haty ou w i l l be nee di ng [s i c] t o m ake. ” W e a ffirm b e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in- 3 -

d eterm ining that, as a m att er o f law , the a u d io an d v ideo tape s co n tai n ing M r. Z epeda - L opez’ s voi ce a nd i m age w er e admi s s i bl e underR ul e 901( a) of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence . W e al s o agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatFeder al B ur eau of

I nves t i gat i on Speci al A gentJ ohn B arr et t ’ s ( “A gentB arr et t ”) l ay opi ni on t hatM r . Z epeda - L opez w as the per s on w hos e voi ce w as on the audi o t ape and hi s i m age w as depi ct ed on the vi deo t ape w as admi s s i bl e as partof the G o v e rn m e n t’s c a se -in -c h ief u n d e r R u le 7 0 1 o f

th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

E v id e n c e to hel p t he j ur yi n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe pr os ecut i on m eti t s bur den of pr ovi ng bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatM r . Z epeda - L opez w as gui l tyof bei ng a mem ber o f t h e c o n s p i r a c y. I A gentJ ohn B arr et tw as t he onl ypr os ecut i on w i tnes s cal l ed byt he p ro se c u tio n . B e c a u se th e p a rties stip u late d to th e e x iste n c e o f a c o n sp ira c yto di s t r i but e 500 gr ams orm or e of a ctual m ethamphet ami ne, hi s t es t i m onyw as o ffe re d to p ro v e th a t M r. Z e p e d a -L o p e z k n o w in g ly p a rt ic ip a te d in it. A gentB arr et tt es t i fi ed thatt he G overnm entw i r et apped t el ephone conver s at i ons betw een M r . Z epeda - L opez, D ean Ram i r ez, and J os e A par i ci o. T he D i s t r i ctC our tadmi t t ed the audi o t apes of s i x t el ephone c al l s overobj ect i on. T he t aped c onver s at i ons w er e i n Spani s h. A gentB arr et tl i s t ened t o a maj or i tyof the co n v ersa ti o n s in the w ir etap m o n it o ri n g roo m . H e ide n ti fied M r. Z ep ed a-L o p ez ’s voi ce byus i ng a “ba s el i ne ca l l . ” A gentB arr et texpl ai ned thata bas el i ne- 4 -

te le p h o n e c a ll is o n e in w h ic h o n e o f th e p a rt ie s to th e c a ll is id e n tifie d b yn a m e . D ur i ng one of the t el ephone c onver s at i ons , the ca l l eri dent i fi ed hi m s el f as “C acho. ” M r . Z epeda - L opez a dm i t t ed dur i ng hi s t es t i m onyattr i al thathe w as know n as “C acho. ” H e al s o admi t t ed thathi s voi ce w as on thr ee of the t aped t el ephone c al l s , i ncl udi ng t he bas el i ne ca l l . A s t o the r emai ni ng thr ee t el ephone a u d io tap e s, M r. Z e p e d a -L o p e z d e n ied th a t h is v o ice w a s o n o n e o f th e m . H e d id notdenyt hathi s voi ce w as on anotheraudi o t ape. H e w as notques t i oned w h e th e r h is v o ic e w a s o n th e re m a in in g a u d io ta p e . A g e n t B a rre tt t e stified th a t o n c e th e re w a s a b a se lin e c a ll, su b se q u e n t ca lls w er e compar ed t o i dent i fyt he voi ces . A gentB arr et ts t at ed, “I have l i m i t ed know l edge of

Spani s h, and I ’ m nota nat i ve s peake r . I do nots peak Spani s h. ” A g e n t B a rre tt fu rth e r te stified , h o w e v e r, th a t

[i ] tdoes notm at t erw hatthe l anguage i s . I f y ou hearthe s ame w or d, no m at t erw hatl anguage , y ou’ r e goi ng t o pi ck u p o n th a t sp e c ific w o rd a n d y o u ’re g o in g to b e a b le to t el l how di ffe r ent l yi t ’ s s ai d bydi ffe r entpeopl e. So I r eal l ydon’ tt hi nk t hatthe l anguage i s nece s s aryt o know t hat , no. A gentB arr et tal s o t es t i fi ed thathe hea r d M r . Z epeda - L opez s peak i n courtthr ee d a y s b e fo re th e tr ia l b e g a n . M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s att or neyobj ect ed t o the admi s s i on of the audi o t apes and A gen tB arr et t ’s t est i m on yt hat i tw as hi s opini on that M r. Z eped a-Lo pez w as a p a rt yto th e ta p e d te le p h o n e c a lls . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt o v e rr u le d th e o bje c tio n .- 5 -

I ns t ead, i tgave the j ur yt he fol l ow i ng caut i onaryi ns truct i on:

Speci al agentB arr et tw i l l t el l y ou w hom he bel i eves the v a rio u s s p e a k e rs a re . B u t y o u ’re g o in g to b e listen in g to th e ta p e s a n d s e e if

o n e v o ic e is th e s a m e o n th e o th e r. It’s e n tirelyu p to y o u to d e c id e w h e th e r y o u a g re e w ith hi m ornot , okay ? T hat ’ s y ourdeci s i on. Par tof the G overnm ent ’ s evi dence , s ubm i t t ed t o es t abl i s h thatM r . Z epeda L opez know i ngl yagr eed t o par t i ci pat e i n comm i t t i ng the offens e, i nvol ved thr ee ev en ts. A tel ep h o n e c all rec o rde d o n A p ri l 10 , 2 0 0 3 , co n tai n ed a c o ll o q u yw h ere an i ndi vi dual s t at ed, “U h. . . D on’ tfor getthe poorpeopl e. U h. . . I need s om e l emon p o p sicl es.” A sec o n d ind ividu al rep li ed , “A lr igh t. ” A g en t B arretttest ifi ed that M r. Z e p e d a -L o p e z a n d D e a n R a m ire z p a rticip a ted in th is p h o n e c a ll. A g e n t B a rre tt i dent i fi ed M r . Z epeda - L opez a s the fi r s ts peake r , and t es t i fi ed thatthe t erm “l emon pops i cl es ” r efe r s t o “s om e type of i l l egal drug. ” I n a t el ephone c al l t aped on A pr i l 13, 2003, the part i es di s cus s ed w hatt o do w ith th e “ w o rk ” th a t w a s lo c a ted a t M r. R a m ire z ’s a u to b o d ysh o p :

W hatdo w e do w i t h thatw or k? W hatdo w e do? I ’ l l do t hatfory ou. B utw hatdo w e do? O rw hat ’ s goi ng on? T h is g u yis v e ry a g ita te d . H e ’s v e ry...

. . . W her e’ s t he w or k? H uh? T he w or k. I t ’ s t her e.T h e u n d e rlin in g in th e tra n sc rip t in d ica tes th a t th e w o rd w a s s p o k e n in 1 E ngl i s h. - 6 -

T he err and. I t ’ s i n t h e S h a d o w. 1 L ook. H uh. B ack i n t her e. Y eah. B a c k in th e re , n e a r t h e tir e s ... Y eah. M ake a hol e ther e. Y eah. Y o u k n o w , tho se th ing s fo r th e w ater. U h ...

. . . L o o k , lo o k , th e re . . . lo o k . B a c k b e h in d th e s h o p ... Y eah. L ook. T her e. . . t her e. . . w her e. . . w her e the boxes fort he sw i t ches are. . . for the li gh t s. Y eah. H er e i n t he s hop? Y es . U h. . . Y ou know how I have s om e w i de t i r es over t here, aton e of the back w al l s?- 7 - Y eah. Y eah. U p th e re , the re is o n e o f th o se .. .o f

w a ter , rig h t? Y ea h . T h ere ’s a.. . a.. . a.. . rub b er k it , y ea h . F o r th e w ater. Y eah. O kay . Put . . . putt he w or k i n ther e and then. . . and then. . . put i ti n, w her e I t ol d y ou. In th e ti res o r. . . o r i n the.. . o r i n the w ater? In th e w ater. B u tt h e r e a r e t o o m a n y! T hey ’ l l fi ti n t her e. Itw o n ’tfit , m yfrien d . T h ere are . . . there are . . . there are l i ke ten ( 10 ) orel even (11) packag es. T hen, m ake. . . m ake a w el l ther e. B uti t ’ s dayt i m e. I tdoes n’ tm at t er . T her e’ s no one ther e, C acho. B utt her e’ s peopl e bac k ther e. M hm . A l r i ght . I ’ l l go over . I ’ l l s ee w hatw e do. A lrig h t. A gentB arr et ti dent i fi ed M r . Z epeda - L opez a s the fi r s ts peake rand M r . R ami r ez a s th e se c o n d . A g e n t B a rre tt t e stified th a t th e ter m “ w o rk ,” a s u se d in th is con versat i on , referred t o il l egal drug s. T he G overnm enti nt r oduced a vi deo t ape thatw as r ecor ded on the s ame day- 8 -

as th e A p ri l 13 , 2 0 0 3 tel ep h o n e c all b ya p o le ca m era p o sit ion ed o u tsi d e o f M r. R ami r ez’ s aut o bodys hop. I ts how s an i ndi vi dual extr act i ng a t ool box outof the tru n k o f a D o d g e S h a d o w . A g e n t B a rre tt t e stified th a t th e in d iv id u a l d e p icte d in t he vi deo t ape r etr i evi ng t he t ool box w as M r . Z epeda - L opez. T he t ool box hel d t he t en t o el even pa ckage s of m ethamphet ami ne. L at er , the vi deo t ape s how s the too lbo x b eing p icke d u p b yN o rm a G arc ia an d S an tos R am ir ez , D ea n R am ir ez ’s s o n . A gentB arr et ti dent i fi ed M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s i m age on the vi deo t ape. T he D odge Shadow i s depi ct ed on the vi deo t ape a s i tarr i ved atthe s hop. A gent B arr et ti dent i fi ed the dr i veras C ar l os A r m ando G al az- Fel i x, and the pas s engeras M r . Z epeda - L opez. D ur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on, M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s att or neyas ked A g e n t B a rre tt, “ [ t]h is s h o w s C a c h o a n d T o p o a rriv in g , co rre c t? ” A g e n t B a rre tt r es ponded, “I tdoes . ” D ur i ng hi s openi ng s t at ement , M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s att or ney ad m itted th at th e p erso n w ea ri n g a stri p ed sh irt dep ict ed o n the v ideo tape w as M r. Z epeda - L opez. M r. Z ep ed a-L o p ez ’s de fe n se c o u n sel w as p erm itted to co n d u ct a v o ird ir e ex am ination o f A g en t B arrettto d eterm ine w h ethe r an ylaw en fo rce m en t office rs c o n d u c ted a v isu a l su rv e ill a n c e o f th e sh o p a t th e tim e in q u e stio n . A g e n t B a rre tt r es ponded thatno offi cerconduct ed a vi s ual s ur vei l l ance . D u ri n g d ir ec t exa m ination , the p rose cu tor ask ed A g en t B arrettif th ere w ere an yfe ature s w h ich h e u sed to ide n ti fythe in d ividu al on the v ideo tape as M r.- 9 -

Z ep ed a-L o p ez . H e re p li ed : “Y es. D ark p an ts, d ark sh o es, da rk, sho rth air. It appea r s fr om t he - - as t he vi deo ac tual l yruns . O nce a gai n, fai rs ki n. E xceptfor t he cha nge i n t he s hi r t , I ’ d s ayi tw as the defendant . ” D efe ns e couns el r eques t ed p erm issi o n to co n d u ct an ad d it ion al vo ird ir e e x am ination . T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e n ied th e re q u e st. It sta ted : “W e ll, I th in k th a t -- n o . B u t w h a t I’m g o in g to tell t he j ur yi s t hatul t i m at el yi s [s i c] y ourdeci s i on w hetheri ti s ori s not . ” M r . Z epeda - L opez t es t i fi ed i n hi s defe ns e. H e deni ed thathe w as a know i ng par t i ci panti n t he drug cons pi r acy . H e t es t i fi ed thatpr i ort o M ar ch 2003, he w or ked i n M exi co and “ fi xed up hous es [. ] ” M r . Z epeda - L opez s t at ed thathe met M r . R ami r ez i n T ij uana, M exi co.

A . I m et him o n the s tr ee ts. T h ere ’s a street w h ere there ar e manyw or ker s as ki ng forw or k, and that ’ s how I m et h i m.

. . . Q . A n d th e n d id h e a sk y o u to c o m e w o rk a t h is h o u se in U t ah? A . Y es . Y es . I m ethi m appr oxi m at el ya y earbefor e. H e t es t i fi ed thathe or i gi nal l yw entt o M r . R ami r ez’ s hom e i n M ar ch 2003 b e c a u s e h e “ wa s p u t t i n g t h e fi n i s h i n g t o u c h e s i n De a n Ra mi r e z ’ s h o u s e a n d No r ma G ar ci a’ s hous e . . . I ’ m t al ki ng aboutthe mol di ng, the fi ni s hi ng t ouches . I t ook car e of the mol di ng, t he s heetr ock and ther e i s thi s pas t e thatI us e fors heetr ock. ” D u ri n g the tim e h e w as in U tah, M r. Z ep ed a-L o p ez li v ed in a trail er b eh ind M r.- 10 -

R ami r ez’ s aut o bodys hop. M r . Z epeda - L opez a dm i t t ed dur i ng hi s t es t i m onythathe w as know n as “C acho . ” H e al so adm i t t ed thathis vo i ce w as on thr ee of the taped tel eph on e cal l s, in c lu d in g th e b a s e lin e c a ll. M r . Z epeda - L opez t es t i fi ed thati n the A pr i l 13, 2003 t el ephone c onver s at i on, he bel i eved thatM r . R ami r ez w as r efe rr i ng t o t ool s , and not“s om ethi ng i l l egal . ” H e t est i fi ed as fo l l ow s:

Q . W h e n y o u w e re talk in g to h im a b o u t th e se -- a b o u t pu t t i ng som et hing bac k ther e, he m akes a reference, as w e’ve seen, t o p ackag es. A . Y es, abo ut s om e t oo l s, pack ages. Q . W el l , now , y ou m ake the s t at ementthatther e ar e 10 to 1 1 p a c k a g e s, c o rre c t? A . Y e s, c o u n se l. Q . W h yd id y o u m a k e th a t sta tem e n t? A . W e ll, b e c a u se I th in k th a t o n th a t d a yI th in k th a t I w as w or ki ng athi s hous e - - i n hi s hous e.

. . . Q . A nd w i t h r egar d t o thi s di s cus s i on, w hen he s t ar t ed t al ki ng t o y ou aboutm ovi ng thi s t ool box, w hydi d y ou t el l hi m t haty ou coul dn’ tdi g thi s hol e? A . W el l , i n t he fi r s tpl ace the box w as bi g and had a l ock. A nd I t ol d hi m thattheydi dn’ tfi t . B utI never knew t he amountof the pac kages . I t ol d hi m j us tl i ke th a t b e c a u s e o u t o f

c u ri o s ity.- 11 -

M r. Z e p e d a -L o p e z f

u rth e r te stified th a t h e su sp e c ted M r. R a m ire z w a s in v o lv e d in s om ethi ng i l l egal and thatM r . R ami r ez “ tr i cked” hi m . H e expl ai ned hi s s us pi ci ons as fol l ow s: Q . D i d y ou have a conce rn aboutw hatw as i n the t ool

box? A . M e n tallyI h a d so m e c a lcu latio n s. I th o u g h t, “W e ll, putaw ay , kneel dow n, hi de. ” I thoughtthati tw as s om ethi ng i l l egal . I di dn’ tknow exac t l yw hatki nd of il lega l stu ff

itw as. H e jus t tri ck ed m e. I th o u g h t th ere w e re -- th e re w a s a p a c k a g e o f to o ls in th e re . M r . Z epeda - L opez t es t i fi ed thataft erhe w as s t opped fora tr aff i c vi ol at i on and arr es t ed i n U t ah, t hathe “s us pect ed or[] bel i eved thatther e w as s om ethi ng w ron g w ith [M r. R am ir ez ], b u t I n ev er k n ew an ything . ” W h en ask ed if h e told M r. R a m ir e z a n d M s . G a rc ia th a t h e w a n te d to le a v e , h e re s p o n d e d “ Y e s .” T he j ur yfound M r . Z epeda - L opez gui l tyof cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e 500 gr ams orm or e of met hamphet ami ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. H e has tim e lya p p e a led f

ro m th e ju d g m e n t. II M r . Z epeda - L opez c hal l enges t he admi s s i on of the audi o and the vi deo t apes on t he gr ound t hatA gentB arr et t ’ s i dent i fi cat i on of M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s voi ce a nd a p p e a ra n c e w a s n o t su p p o rte d b ye v id e n c e th a t sa tisfies th e re q u ire m e n ts o f R u le 9 0 1 (a) o f th e F ed era l R u les o f E v iden ce . H e a lso c o n tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt v io late d R u le 7 0 1 o f

th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

E v id e n c e in p e rm itt in g A g e n t B a rre tt t o- 12 -

g ive h is op inion as a layw itn ess b ec au se h e lac k ed p erso n al kn o w ledg e o f M r. Z epeda - L opez’ s voi ce a nd appea r ance . H e furthercont ends thatthe j ur yw as i n as g o o d a p o sitio n a s A g e n t B a rre tt t o id e n tifyM r. Z e p e d a -L o p e z ’s v o ice o n th e a u d io ta p e a n d h is im a g e o n th e v id e o ta p e . “A di s t r i ctcourthas br oad di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne the admi s s i bi l i tyof evi dence , and w e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng forabus e of di s cr et i on[. ] ” United S tates v. L eon ard , 439 F. 3d 648, 650 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “Pur s uantt o t he abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d, w e w i l l notr ever s e the di s t r i ctcourtw i t houta def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on thatthe l ow ercour tm ade a cl earerr orof j udgm entorexce eded the bounds of perm i s s i bl e choi ce i n the ci r cumst ance s . ” Un itedS ta tes v . G riffin , 389 F. 3d 1100, 1103 ( 10th C i r . 2004) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). “A lth o u g h th e a b u se o f d isc re tio n sta n d a rd is defe r ent i al , abus e i s s how n w her e the dec i s i on w as m ade ba s ed upon a mi s t aken vi ew of the l aw . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. A l l en , 4 4 9 F . 3 d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A R ul e 901( a) of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence pr ovi des t hat“[t ] he re q u ire m e n t o f

a u th e n tica tio n o r id e n tific a tio n a s a c o n d iti o n p re c e d e n t to admi s s i bi l i t yi s s at i s fi ed byevi dence s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta fi ndi ng thatt he mat t er i n ques t i on i s w hati t s pr oponentcl ai m s . ” “The admi s s i bi l i tyof a t aped conver s at i on r es t s w i t hi n t he s ound di s cr et i on of the tr i al j udge. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. B uzzard , 540 F. 2d 1383, 1386 ( 10th C i r . 1976) . R ul e 104( a) of the Feder al R ul es- 13 -

o f E v id e n c e p ro v id e s th a t “[ p ]re lim in a ryq u e stio n s c o n c e rn in g . . . the a d m iss ib ili ty o f e v id e n c e sh a ll b e d e ter m in e d b yth e c o u rt[ .]” T h e h e a rin g s o n th e a d m iss ib ili ty o f th e a u d io a n d v id e o tap e s w e re c o n d u c ted in th e p re se n c e o f th e ju ry . R u le 1 0 4 (c ) p ro v id e s th a t h e a rin g s th a t d o n o t in v o lv e a d m iss ib ili tyo f a c o n fe ss io n sh a ll be conduc t ed out s i de the pr es ence of the j ury“w hen the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce r equi r e, orw hen an a ccus ed i s a w i t nes s and s o r eques t s . ” M r . Z epeda - L opez di d not r eques tt hatt he hea r i ngs on admi s s i bi l i tyof the t apes orA gentB arr et t ’ s l ay o p i n i o n b e c o n d u c t e d o u to f t h e p r e s e n c e o f

th e j u ry. M r . Z epeda - L opez c ont ends thatA gentB arr et t ’ s i dent i fi cat i on of the voi ce o n th e a u d io tap e s is in a d m iss ib le u n d e r R u le 9 0 1 (a ) “ [ b ]e c a u se [ A g e n t B a rre tt] does nots peak Spani s h [] [and, t her efor e, ] w as unabl e t o m ake a nyl anguage bas ed compar i s ons , s uch as t he corr ectus e of l anguage , us e of i di om s , ori nfl ect i on. ” B r i ef of D efe ndant - A ppel l antat13. H e al s o ar gues thatA gentB arr et t ’ s t es t i m ony w as i nadmi s s i bl e bec aus e the t apes w er e neve rs ubm i t t ed t o the FB I forvoi ce pr i nt id e n tific a tio n . M r. Z e p e d a -L o p e z h a s fa iled to c ite a n ya u th o rityth a t su p p o rts th e s e a s s e rt e d fo u n d a tio n a l d e fic ie n c ie s . T hi s C our thas hel d t hata s i ngl e t el ephone c al l , combi ned w i th hear i ng a v o ic e in c o u rt , is s u ffic ie n t fo r v o ic e id e n tific a tio n te s tim o n yto g o to th e ju ry. Un itedS ta tes v . A x se lle , 604 F. 2d 1330, 1338 ( 10th C i r . 1979) . “Such voi ce i dent i fi cat i on need onl yr i s e t o t he l evel of m i ni m al fami l i ar i ty . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. B ush , 405 F. 3d 909, 919 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . W hi l e i ti s true thatM r . Z epeda - L opez- 14 -

s poke i n Spani s h, A gentB arr et ti dent i fi ed M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s voi ce on a t ot al of s i x r ecor di ngs admi t t ed i nt o evi dence , i ncl udi ng a ca l l i n w hi ch M r . Z epeda - L opez i dent i fi ed hi m s el f byhi s ni ckname “C acho. ” Thi s s el f- i dent i fi cat i on cr eat ed a bas el i ne ca l l t o w hi ch A gentB arr et tcoul d compar e s ubs equentr ecor di ngs . A gent B a r r e t ta l s o t e s t i fi e d t h a th e h e a r d M r . Z e p e d a - L o p e z s p e a k i n c o u r ta fe w d a ys befor e tr i al began. T hi s per cept i on confi r m ed hi s i dent i fi cat i on of hi s voi ce on the t el ephone r ecor di ngs . M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s ar gum ent s go t o the w ei ght , notthe a d m is s ib ility o f

th e v o ic e id e n tific a tio n . See A x se lle , 604 F. 2d at1338 ( hol di ng t hatt he defendant ’ s ar gum ent s t hata w i tnes s ’ s voi ce i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m onyw as defi ci entbeca us e the w i t nes s w as notan expe r ti n voi ce i dent i fi cat i on, the d efen d an t’ s v o ice h eld n o p ec u li ar c h ara cterist ics, an d the w itn ess h ad o n lyh ea rd t he defendant ’ s voi ce one t i m e out s i de of the t el ephone c onver s at i on, go t o the w eigh t of

the e v iden ce ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n rul i ng thatthe admi s s i on of t he audi o t apes w as s uppor t ed bys uffi ci entevi dence t o s at i s fythe founda t i onal req u ir em en ts of

R u le 90 1 (a). B M r . Z epeda - L opez a l s o m ai nt ai ns t hatt he D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on in in stru c tin g th e ju ryth a t itc o u ld c o n sid e r A g e n t B a rre tt’s te stim o n yin det erm i ni ng w hetherM r . Z epeda - L opez w as a know i ng par t i ci panti n the co n sp ir ac y . H e a rgu es th at A g en t B arrett ’s i d en ti fica ti o n o f M r. Z ep ed a-L o p ez ’s- 15 -

voi ce a nd i m age w as i nadmi s s i bl e underR ul e 701 and Rul e 901( a) of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence beca us e the off i cer“l acke d per s onal know l edge a nd had an i nadequa t e bas i s t o cl ai m i tw as voi ce [ s i c] of M r . Z epeda - L opez i n the ca l l s ort hat he appe ar ed i n t he vi deo. ” B r i ef of D efe ndant - A ppel l antat13. T he G overnm entcont ends thatw e mustappl ythe pl ai n err ors t andar d of r evi ew beca us e M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s tr i al couns el di d notobj ectt o the id e n tific a tio n o f

th e d e fe n d a n t o n th e v id e o tap e a t trial. M r. Z e p e d a -L o p e z a ss e rts t hathe “r ai s ed the i s s ue on appe al byt i m el yor al obj ect i on t o the . . . i dent i fi cat i on b a s e d u p o n a v id e o , (T r. p . 6 1 ).” B ri e f o f D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t a t 1 0 . D ur i ng t he pl ay i ng of the vi deo, the pr os ecut oras ked A gentB arr et tw hether he knew w ho had ac ces s t o M r . R ami r ez’ s s hop. Page 61 of the tr i al tr ans cr i pt r evea l s t hatM r . Z epeda - L opez’ s couns el obj ect ed t o the ques t i on and r eques t ed the oppor tuni t yt o conducta voi rdi r e exa m i nat i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the r eques tt o conducta voi rdi r e exa m i nat i on. In a n a p p a re n t atte m p t to d e m o n stra te th a t A g e n t B a rre tt w a s n o t p re se n t to o b serv e the ev en ts an d p erso n s d ep ict ed in the v ideo tape , M r. Z ep ed a-L o p ez ’s couns el as ked A gentB arr et tw hetherhe oranyotheroffi cerper s onal l yconduct ed

“ a su rv e ill a n c e o f

w h o c a m e in o r c a m e o u t o f th e sh o p . . .[.]” A g e n t B a rre tt re p lied : “A t th is p o in t in tim e , n o , sir.” A g e n t B a rre tt also tes tifie d th a t th e p o le camer a w as capa bl e of t aki ng pi ctur es of per s ons goi ng i n oroutof the s hop w hen it w a s d a rk w ith a m b ien t li g h t.- 16 -

W hen the defens e couns el compl et ed hi s voi rdi r e exa m i nat i on, he s t at ed:

“ T h a t’s a ll I h a v e .” T h e C o u rt re p lied : “A ll righ t.” T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ru le on t he pendi ng obj ect i on. A gentB arr et tpr ocee ded t o i dent i fythe per s ons depi ct ed on t he vi deo t ape. A ta l at erpoi nti n t he pr ocee di ngs , M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s att or neyagai n tr i ed t o per s uade the tr i al cour t , t hr ough a voi rdi r e exa m i nat i on, thatthe vi deo t ape a nd A gentB arr et t ’ s t es t i m onyt hatM r . Z epeda - L opez w as depi ct ed on i tw as i nadmi s s i bl e underR ul e 701 and Rul e 901( a) , beca us e A gentB arr et tdi d not per s onal l yconducta s ur vei l l ance of the s tr eeti n fr ontof the aut o s hop w hi l e the pol e ca m er a w as phot ogr aphi ng thatar ea. T he record refl ect s the fo l l ow i ng proceed i ng s: Q . (B Y M R . K E N N E D Y ) From the im ages t hat w e j ust s aw t he l as tcoupl e of s econds ar ound t i m e i ndex 1720: 46, ar e y ou abl e t o di s cern anyfea tur es thatw oul d hel p y ou id e n tifyth a t in d iv id u a l? A . Y es. D ark p ri n ts, d ark sh o es, sho rth air. Itap p ea rs f ro m th e -- a s th e v id e o a c tu a llyru n s. O n c e a g a in , fa ir s ki n. E xceptfort he cha nge i n the s hi r t , I ’ d s ayi tw as the d e fe n d a n t. M r . W al l : Y ourhonor , m ayI voi rdi r e? T h e C o u rt: W e ll, I th in k th a t – n o . B u t w h a t I’m g o in g to t el l t he j ur yi s t hatul t i m at el y[i t ] i s y ourdeci s i on w hether it i s o r is n o t. M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s couns el di d notexpr es s l yobj ectt o the admi s s i on of the v ideo tape . T h e tri al co u rt ’s de n ial o f th e d efen se’s req u est t o co n d u ct a v o ird ir e- 17 -

e x a m in a tio n d e p riv e d c o u n se l o f th e o p p o rtu n ityto a ttem p t to p re se n t ev id e n c e to s uppor tan obj ect i on t o t he i dent i fi cat i on of M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s i m age. O rd in a rily , w e w ill n o t co n sid e r w h e th e r a trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in admi t t i ng evi dence i f the appe l l antfai l ed t o i nt erpos e a c ont empora neous obj ect i on.

T h e re a re b a sic re a so n s fo r th e ru le. U n les s a p a rtyis r equi r ed t o t i m el yobj ectbefor e the tr i al cour t , the tr i al j udge and oppos i ng couns el ar e depr i ved of a ny oppor tuni t yt o t ake c or r ect i ve ac t i on, i f s uch be r equi r ed, i n or dert o as s ur e an or der l y , fai rand pr opertr i al . Fur ther a n a g g rie v e d p a rtym u st p re se n t h is o bjec tio n w ith c lar ity a n d sp e c ificityto th e trial c o u rt in o rd e r to a v o id unnece s s aryerr orfr om occurr i ng. I n s um , a partym ay nots i ti dl ybyatt r i al w at chi ng err orbei ng comm i t t ed, a n d c o m p lain fo r th e first tim e o n a p p e a l. Un itedS ta tes v . Mitch e ll , 783 F. 2d 971, 976 ( 10th C i r . 1986) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Hub ba rd , 6 0 3 , F . 2 d 1 3 7 , 1 4 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 )). M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s couns el di d nots i ti dl ybyattr i al w i thoutal er t i ng the t r i al cour tt hatadmi t t i ng t he vi deo t ape a nd A gentB arr et t ’ s i dent i fi cat i on of the d efen d an t w as e rror. T h e tri al co u rtw as m ad e f u ll yaw are o f M r. Z ep ed a-L o p ez ’s t heoryt hatan i dent i fi cat i on cannotbe made fr om vi ew i ng a moni t ors how i ng phot ogr aphs t aken bya mot i on pi ctur e ca m er a, and a vi deo t ape ther eof, i f the offi cerdi d notper s onal l yobs erve the i ndi vi dual as he ors he w as bei ng p h o to g ra p h e d . W h ile th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ex p re ss lyru le o n th e a d m iss ib ili ty o f A g e n t B a rre tt’s la yo p in io n , itd id so im p licitlyb yin stru c tin g th e ju ryth a t it coul d cons i dert he w ei ghtof hi s t es t i m onyi n det erm i ni ng w hetherM r . Z epeda -- 18 -

L o p e z w a s a m e m b e ro f t h e c o n s p i r a c y. U ndert he ci r cumst ance s r efl ect ed i n thi s r ecor d, w e hol d thatM r . Z epeda L opez’ s couns el s ubs t ant i al l ycompl i ed w i th the r equi r ementthatan i s s ue mustbe p rese rve d in the tr ial co u rtin o rde r t o see k rev iew o f ito n ap p ea l. T h e re co rd s how s t hathe obj ect ed t o t he admi s s i on of the vi deo t ape, butthe tr i al cour tfai l ed t o rul e on i t . H e w as deni ed the opportuni tyt o at t empt t o demonstr at e bym eans of a voi rdi r e exa m i nat i on t hatt he evi dence w as i nadmi s s i bl e. W e al s o concl ude, how ever , t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng A gent B a rre tt’s id e n tific a tio n o f th e im a g e o n th e v id e o tap e o f M r. Z e p e d a -L o p e z . H is iden ti fica ti o n w as c o rrob o rated b ythe fac t th at he o b serv ed the d efen d an t i n co u rt b e fo re h is te s tim o n y . C f. A x se lle , 6 0 4 F .2 d a t 1 3 3 8 (c o n c lu d in g th a t a s in g le t el ephone c al l , combi ned w i t h hear i ng a voi ce i n court , i s s uffi ci entforvoi ce iden ti fica ti o n test im o n yto g o to the jury ).C M r. Z e p e d a -L o p e z f

u rth e r m a in tain s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng A gentB arr et t ’ s l ayopi ni on t es t i m onyt hatM r . Z epeda L o p e z ’ s v o i c e i s o n t h e a u d i o t a p e a n d t h a th i s i ma g e a p p e a r s i n t h e v i d e o t a p e . He ar gues t hatt he off

i cer ’ s opi ni on t es t i m onyi nvaded the pr ovi nce of t he j ur yand w as i nadmi s s i bl e underR ul e 701( b) beca us e “the j ur yw as i n as good a pos i t i on as O ffice r B a rre tt t o id e n tifyw h e th e r M r. Z e p e d a -L o p e z ’s v o ice w a s th a t re c o rd e d in t he t el ephone c onver s at i ons as w el l as w hetheri tw as M r . Z epeda - L opez a ppear i ng- 19 -

i n t he pol e ca m er a vi deo. ” B r i ef of D efe ndant - A ppel l antat13- 14. T o be adm i ssi ble unde r R ule 701(b), a w i tness’ s t est i m on yi n the form of an op i nion m ust be “he l pful t o a cl earunder s t andi ng of the w i tnes s ’ t es t i m onyorthe det erm i nat i on o f a fa ct i n issue . . . . ” F ed . R . E v id. 70 1 (b). T h is C o u rt rejec ted a sim ilar c h a llen g e u n d e r R u le 7 0 1 (b ) in B ush . 405 F. 3d at917- 18. I n B ush , a law en fo rce m en t office r t esti fied d u ri n g the G o v ern m en t’ s c a s e -i n -c h ie f

th a t th e d e fe n d a n t’ s v o ic e w a s o n re c o rd e d te le p h o n e c o n v e rs a tio n s . Id . at912- 15. T hi s C our tr ej ect ed the appe l l ant ’ s cont ent i on thatthe off i cer ’ s l ay opi ni on fai l ed the hel pful nes s t es tbeca us e the j uryhear d audi o r ecor di ngs of the ta p e d c o n v e rs a tio n s . Id . at917. I n B ush , the r ecor d s how ed thatthe off i cerhad c o n d u c te d fa c e -t o -fa c e c o n v e rs a tio n s w ith th e d e fe n d a n t o n a t le a s t th re e o c c a s io n s . Id . at918. A tt he t i m e of the off i cer ’ s t es t i m ony , the j ur yhad nothear d the d e fe n d a n t’ s v o ic e . B eca us e the defendantdi d nott ake the s t and i n B ush , the j urydi d nothave th e o p p o rtu n ityto c o m p a re h is v o ice w ith th e o n e in th e a u d io re c o rd in g . In th is m att er, A g en t B arrett ’s op inion test im o n yw as o ffere d d u ri n g the G o v ern m en t’ s cas e- i n- chi ef t o m eeti t s bur den of pe r s uadi ng the j urybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt of M r . Z epeda - L opez’ s compl i ci tyi n the cons pi r acy . T he pr os ecut i on and the tr i al cour tw er e noti nform ed thatM r . Z epeda - L opez w oul d t es t i fyunt i l aft erthe G o v e rn m e n t re ste d a n d th e d e fe n d a n t’s m o tio n fo r ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l u n d e r R u le 2 9 o f th e F e d e ra l R u le s o f

C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re w a s d e n ie d .- 20 -

W hi l e the j ur yw as abl e t o s ee M r . Z epeda - L opez i n courtthr oughoutthe trial a n d d u rin g h is te stim o n y , the trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in admi t t i ng A gentB arr et t ’ s opi ni on t es t i m onythatM r . Z epeda - L opez w as the per s on depi ct ed on the vi deo t ape. A gentB arr et tt es t i fi ed thathe had l ooked atthe vi deo “manyt i m es ” i n form i ng hi s opi ni on thatM r . Z epeda - L opez’ s i m age appear ed on i t . T he r ecor d r efl ect s t hatdur i ng a voi rdi r e exa m i nat i on, defe ns e couns el as ked A g e n t B a rre tt i f

h e h a d “ lo o k e d a t th is v id e o m a n ytim e s[ .]” A g e n t B a rre tt res po nd ed, “Y es[. ]” Th e j urydid not have the sam e op po rtun i tyt o d o so. T hu s, A gentB arr et t ’ s t es t i m onyw as hel pful t o i ti n deci di ng w hetherM r . Z epeda - L opez a p p e a re d o n th e p o rt io n o f th e v id e o ta p e p la y e d b e fo re th e ju ry. T he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yadmoni s hed the j ur ythati tm us tdet erm i ne the w e ig h t itsh o u ld g iv e A g e n t B a rre tt’s te stim o n y . It i n stru c ted th e ju rya s fo llo w s:

N ow , I have s ai d thaty ou m us tcons i deral l of the evidence. T his do es not m ean, how ever, that y ou m ust acc eptal l of the evi dence as true oracc ur at e. I have a l r eadyi ndi cat ed thaty ou ar e the s ol e j udges of the cr edi bi l i t yor“bel i evabi l i ty ” of e ach w i tnes s and t he w ei ghtt o be gi ven t o thei rt es t i m ony . I n w ei ghi ng the tes tim o n yo f

th e w itn e ss e s y o u sh o u ld c o n sid e r th e ir re latio n sh ip to th e g o v e rn m e n t o r th e d e fe n d a n t; th e ir i nt er es t , i f any , i n t he out come of t he ca s e; thei rm anner o f testi fy ing ; th eir op p o rtu n ityto o b serv e o r ac q u ir e know l edge c oncerni ng the fa ct s aboutw hi ch they t es t i fi ed; t hei rcandor , fai rnes s and i nt el l i gence ; and the ext entt o w hi ch theyhave be en s uppor t ed orcontr adi ct ed byot hercr edi bl e evi dence . Y ou m ay , i n s hor t , acc eptor rejec t th e tes tim o n yo f a n yw itn e ss in w h o le o r in p a rt.- 21 -

T h e D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in ad m itti n g A g en t B arrett ’s l a y o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y. AF F I RMED .