## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 07

- 2333 , 07

- 2336 , 07

- 2338 , 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J UAN A LV I AR, R OD OL F O M ADR I GAL, J OSE M ELERO , A PO LINA R D EL GADO -R I OS, an d S AUL T EJ ED A, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 05 C R 194

—Robert W . G ettleman, Judge
. A RGUED A PRI L 15, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 23, 2009

Befo re F LA UM, R IPPLE, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . S aul T ej eda, J uan A l vi ar, J ose M el er o, Rodolf o M adri gal, and A pol i nar Delg ado- Rio s w er e a m ong a gr oup ofi nd i vi du al s i nd i cted i n connecti on w i th an A uror a, Il l i noi s d rug conspi ra cy. W hi l e m ost ofthe i nd i cted i nd i vi du al s pl eaded gui l ty, those fi ve defe nd ants w ent t o tr i al, wh er e a j ury convi cted e ach as charg ed. Tej eda i s s ervi ng a 360 m onth pri son sente nce;2 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 A lvia r an d M ele ro are s e r v in g 2 62 m on th s; M ad rig al is se rv in g 2 40 m onths; and Del gado- Rio s i s s er vi ng 12 1 m on th s. D efe n d an ts ap p ea l va riou s a sp e c t s o f th eir c o ns o l i da t e d t r i a l a nd the i r s e nt e nc e s . W e a ff i rm o n al l co unts.
I . B a c kg r o und I n 2 00 3, F BI ag en ts beg ani nv es ti g at i nga sus pec te d dr ug c o ns pi r a c y i n Aur o r a . T he i nv e s t i g a t i o n f o c us e d o n Tej e da and his associ ate s. T he i nvest i gat i on e ventual l y e m plo yed coo perat i ng witne sse s; pen r egi ste r i nfo rm ati on fro m spe ci fi c te l eph o ne s; a c o ur t- au th o r ized wi r et ap; o ng o i ng pol i ce s urve i l l ance; and sev er alse ar ches. Based on e vi dence ob tai ned, a gr and j ury re tu rn ed i ts seco nd supers edi ng i nd i ctm ent o n N ove m ber1 7, 2005
. The i ndi ct m en t ch ar ged s ev en te eni ndi vi dual s, i nc l udi ng Tej eda, A l vi ar, M el er o, M adri gal, and Del gado- Rio s, with conspi ra cy to posse ss and dist ribute c oca in e in vi ol ati on of21 U
. S.C . § 8 46 ( Count On e)
. The i nd i ctm ent c harg ed T ejed a al one w i th fi ve counts of dist ributi ng coca i ne in vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) ( Counts Tw o thro ugh Fi ve, S eve n); f our coun ts ofposs ess i on o fco cai ne with i ntent to dist ribute, i n vi ol ati on o f 2 1 U
. S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) ( Cou nts Six , Ei g htthr o ug h Te n) ; a nd o ne c o unto fl au nde r i ng n ar c o t i c s p r o c e e ds i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 19 56 ( a) ( 1) ( B) ( i ) ( Cou ntEl ev en )
. I t ch ar g ed Tej eda a nd Alv i arw ith tw o c o unt s o fa tt empti ngt o po ss es s co ca i ne in viol ation of 21 U
. S .C
. § 846 (Cou nt s Tw elve and Th irtee n). Tej eda, M el er o, and M adri galwere charg ed w i th tw o counts ofusi ng a tel ephone to f aci l i tat e a narc oti csN os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 3 conspi ra cy i n vi ol ati on of 21 U.S
. C. § 8 43(b) ( Counts Seven teen and Eigh teen ). Th e ind ictm en t ch arged A lvi ar, byhi m se l f, wi ththr ee c o unt s o fpo ss es si o n o fc o ca i ne i n vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( a)(1) (C ounts Four tee n th ro u gh S i xteen)
. M el er o w as charg ed i nd i vi du al l y with tw o coun ts o funl aw ful posse ssi on o fa fi re ar m i n vi ol ati o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 22 ( g ) ( 1) ( Cou nt s N i ne te ena nd Tw enty)
. D el gado- Rio s was char ged i nd i vi du al l y with tw o tel ephone cou n ts in vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. § 8 43(b) (Cou nt s Tw en ty-Th ree and Tw en ty-Four). The i ndi ct m en t st at ed th atb etwee n 200 0 an d M ar ch 200 5, Tej eda was a whol esa l e di str ibutoro f co ca i ne i n Aur o r a, a nd he o bt aine d a nd r es o l d c o ca i ne i n k i l o g r am an d o unc e qua nt iti es . Acco r di ngt o the i ndict m ent, Tej eda’ s co- defe nd ants ass i ste d hi m . Tej eda, Alv i ar, M el er o , a nd M adr i g alfi r stwer e m embe r s o fthe L a t i n H o m e b o y s s t r e e tg a n g, a n d th e n th e y b e c a me m em ber s o fthe Lati n K in gs , wh i l e Del gado- Rio s was p ar t o f T ejed a’s clo se fam ily c irc le. T ejed a re l i e d on h is f el l ow gang m em ber s a nd cl ose f am i l y t o serv e as l oo kou ts, to d irect him to cus tom ers, t o s tore an d trans p ort co ca i ne a nd mone y f o r hi m , a nd t o he l p hi m s te alc o ca i ne from others. Th e ind ictm e n t furt he r al leged that Tejeda’s gang m em ber shi p provi ded hi s o perat ion with prote c tio n from riva ls; sp ec ifica lly A lvia r an d M ele ro sp ec iali zed in pro vi ding prot ecti on thro ugh thei r posi ti ons as Lati n K i ng enf or cer s. Tej eda a nd M el er o move d pretri al t o e xc l ude g an g m em b er sh ip e v i d e n c e a s u n d u ly p rej u d icia l an d of m in im alpro bati ve val ue. A ccor ding to Tej eda, “e vi dence that4 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 d efe n d an ts are m em b er s o f th e L at in H om eb oy s o r L at in K i n gs is n otes p ec ially p ro b at ive of w h et h er th ey j oin tly ventur ed to di str ibut e drugs to furtherthe cri m i nal i nt er es t o fthe La tin Homeb o y s o r L at i n Ki ng s, ” an d “ th e m i ssi ng l i nk be tw een the ‘ gang’ and the ‘ cri m i nal act i vi ty’ di st i nguishes thi s ca se fr o m o th erc as es wher e g an g evi dence w as f ound adm i ssibl e f or t h e pu rpos e o fes tablish in g a j oin t v en tu re or th e e x ist en c e o f a c on sp ira c y.” The g o ve r nm en t i n i ts c o ns o l i dat ed r es po ns e to defen d an ts’ pretrial m otions resp ond ed th at: “[G ]ang m em bershi p i n thi s case i s part of the gl ue that hel d t h e charg ed conspi ra cy tog ether, and i s there f or e par t- and-p ar celo f the proo fnece ssa ryto dem onst ra te that defe nd ants had a cr i m i nal i ntent and agr eem ent t o conspi re . ” The g overnm en t ad d ed that i t w ou ld p resen t w itness e s t o testify th at “the Aur o r a Lat i n Ki ng ’ s g r ea te sts o ur ce o fr ev en ue w as p ro c ee ds f ro m co cai ne sa l es, a f act supp or ted by th e c on sp ira c y e vid en c e in th is c as e.” On M ay 3, 20 06, the dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed defe nd ants’ m o ti o ns t o e xc l ude e vi den ce o fg an gmem be r sh i p wi th

o utp l a c i ngr e s t r i c t i o ns o n the p r o s e c ut i o n’ s u s e o f g a ng - r e l a t e d e v i de nc e . O n M a y 9 , De l g a do

- Ri o s fi l e d a m o t i o n o b j e c t i ng o n Ru l e 4 0 3 g r o un ds t o “ [ a ] dmi s s i o n of g r atui to us g an g a cti vi ti es . ” The c o ur t den i ed th e m oti on without prej ud i ce t o ra i si ng the sa m e obj ecti on at tria l. Defe nd ants’ c onsol i dated tr i alco m m enced on M ay 16, 2006
. I t s panned el eve n days. I n it s o pening sta tem ent, th e g o ve r nm en t des cr ibed Tej eda ’ s co ca i ne t r affi ck i ng or gani zati on a n d it s r el ati on t o gangs : “One o fthe keyN os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 5

w ay s d efe n d an t Sa u l T eje d a p ro te c te d h im se lf an d h is dr ug o r g an i za ti o n i s byj o i ni ngthe La tin Ki ng s st r ee t g an g in A u ro ra .” The g ove rnm ent intro du ced te sti m ony ofl aw enf or cem ent o ffi cer s, l ay w i tness es, and coo pe rati ng defendants. Th e g o v e r nme nt ha d wi r e t a pp e d a t e l e ph o ne us ed by Tejed a, and i t pl aye d 189 cal l s a t t ri al
. I t a l so i ntro du ced se ve nt ee n under co ve r r ec o r di ng s m ade b y c o o per at i ng w i tness es, wh i ch docum ented co ntro l led p urchase s o f o ne o unc e o fc o ca i ne fr o m Tej eda o n F eb rua r y 4 a nd F eb r ua r y 1 1, 2 00 4; a s al e by Tej eda o f 2. 8 g r ams o fc o ca i ne on Octo b er 5 , 2 004; two sa l es ofco cai ne byTej eda on O c t o b e r 8 , 2 0 0 4 ; a n d a o n e o u n c e p u r c h a s e o n N o v e mber18 , 20 04. The r eco rd in gs docum ented the poss ess i on oftwo ounces o fco cai ne byTej eda and A l vi aro n Febr uary11 , and thei r att em pt to purchase te n ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne o n Feb ruar y 1 5, 20 05. They c aptured Alv i ar ’ s st at ementtha t he was a “ ho o d en f o r ce r ” f o r the L at in K in gs an d th at M ele ro w as th e “ en for c er .” The go ver nm ent intro du ced e vi dence thata sea rch of M el er o ’ s ho us e upo n h i s ar r es t r ev ea l ed a 9 m m pi st o l a nd an S K S ass aul t r i fl e. S earch i ng Alvi ar ’ s ho use, ag ents disc ov er ed drug parapher nal i a a nd o ver30 0 g ra m s o f coca i ne. There was evi dence that, afterhi s a rr est, D elgad o-Rios stated that he w as a m one y c o u rier for a d ru g deal er, thathe purchas ed coca i ne f orper sonaluse, and that he had prov i ded l eads f ordrug ro bber i es. Coo per at i ngdefen dan t Andy Lo pez t es ti fi ed th athe was a g an gmem be r wi thAl vi ar, M el er o , M ad rig al, a nd Tej eda, a s wel l a s Tej eda ’ s r o o m m at e. He t es tif ied h e6 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 had known Tej eda was sel l i ng co cai ne since a t l eas t 2 000. H e wi tn es se d Tej eda st o r i ngqua r te r - k i l o g r ams o fc o ca i ne i n thei r apart m ent, alo ng with guns, a scal e, and bag gi es. L at er , T ejed a w ou ld st or e coc ain e w ith L op ez f o r h im to sel l
. Tej eda addit i onal l y r ented an apart m ent for Lopez i n w hi ch to st or e co cai ne and cas h. I n J une 200 4, author i ti es ra i ded and sei zed abo ut hal fa kilo gram o f coca i ne. Lo pez t es ti fi ed th atT ej eda ha d a dm i tt ed r o bb i ng an o th erdr ugde al ert o hi m . He a l so t es ti fi ed abo uta dr ug ro bber y he com m i tte d w i th M el er o, and abo ut o ther ro bber i es M el er o had atte m pted. H e tes ti fi ed that M adri galpurchase d cocaine from Tej eda. Lopez wit

n es sed Tej eda di scussing the purchase o fco cai ne fro m Delg ado- Rio s a nd fro m M el er o. H e witnesse d A l vi ar sel l two ounces o fco cai ne to Tej eda. Lopez m ade a s e r i es ofr e c o r di ng s wi th s o me o fthe de f e nd a nt s . On cro ss- exam i nati on, Lopez s tat ed t hat he did notkno w w hat the Lati n K i ngs had t o do w i th t h e d rug conspi ra cy on tria l. A notherco oper ati ng defendant, Carlo s Escal ante, tes ti fi ed that he had known Tej eda si nce 19 98 and A l vi ar s i n c e 2 0 0 4
. E s c a l a n t e h a d l o n g b e e n a L a t i n Ki ng , a nd he testifi ed abou t the gang and t h e p ositi on of enforcer. A c c o r d i n gt o E s c a l a n t e , th e p r i m a r y s o u r c e o fi n c o me f o r th e A u r o r a L a t i n K i n g s w a s c o c a i n e d i s t r ib u t i o n . He tes ti fi ed abo ut the tak eov ero fthe Lati n H om ebo ys by th e Latin K i ngs. Escal ante bega n sel l i ng co cai ne upon re lea se f ro m pri son i n 200 4, buyi ng fro m Tej eda once o r tw ice a w eek u nt ilOc tober 2004. E scalan te an d Tejeda w ereN os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 7 i nter cepted neg oti ati ng co caine tr ansact i ons; Escal ante i nter prete d the r eco rdi ngs forthe j ury. Escal an te al so tes ti fi ed to s ee in g a handgun, co cai ne, and a s cal e a t Tej eda’ s ho use. Cr uz Sa m an i eg o ne xtt es ti fi ed as a c o o per at i ngde f en dant. Tej eda’ s co usi n, S am anieg o had been a m em bero f the Latin H om ebo ys si nce 19 99. H e described how Tej eda wa s a Lati n H om ebo y in 199 6 a nd 19 97 and how A l vi ar, M el er o, and M adri galwere Lati n K i ngs. S am ani ego bought coca i ne fro m Tej eda, A l vi ar, and M eler o. Sam ani ego an d Tej eda were i nter cepted o n the w i re tap nego ti ati ng co cai ne tr ansact i ons. H er i ver to Rio s co oper ate d an d t est i fi ed that he was a f or m e r La t i n Ho meb o y a nd h a d kno wn de f e nd a nt s f or yea rs . H e tes tifi ed abo ut drug ro bber i es that he had bee n to l d abo uti nv o l vingTej eda, M el er o , M adr i g al, a nd Delg ado- Rio s. R i o s t e s t i fi e d tha tT ej e da s up pli ed Del g ado

- Ri o s w ith c o ca i ne , a nd tha t Alv i ar, M el er o , a nd M adri galal so sol d cocaine. U nd eri m m unity, Carl os Oli var es tes ti fi ed he was a L at in King f ro m 19 89 thro ugh 200 4. H e s tat ed that a Lat i n Ki ng s en f o r ce r c ar r i es o utpuni sh m en ts wi th i n the g a n ga n d e n s u r e s g a n gme mb e r s h a ve fi r e a r ms . He testifi ed that i n D ecem ber 2003 he w itness ed A lvi ar, ar m ed , pe rfo rm in g s ec u rit y for a L at in K in gs m ee tin g. In M ar ch 2 00 4, Oli var es re cor ded a conve rs ati on i n w hi ch A lvi ar s tated that he w as th e “ho od enforcer” an d M elero w as th e e n for c er . O liva re s re c or d ed M ele ro ac tin g in that capaci ty. De f en se c o uns elo bj ec te d t o g an ge vi den ce thr o ug ho ut th e tr i al, whi chi nc l ude d s o m e 6 00 r efer en ce s to de f en -8 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 dants’ Lati n K i ngs a sso ci ati ons, and s om e 1 00 re f er ences t o de f e nd a nt s ’ La t i n Ho meb o y s a ffi l i a t i o ns . De l gadoR ios ’ co u n se l m ad e t h e fo llow in g s ta te m en t, w h ich is in d ica tiv e o f d efe n se at to rn ey s’ o b j ec tio n s: Im ade a m oti on i n l i m i ne r ega rdi ng the ga ng vi ol ence and a cti vi ti es. A nd I ’ m aw ar e that ther e’ s s ev er al par ag r aph s i n Co untOne tha t sa y the st r uctur e o fthe L ati n Ki ng s i s be i ngut i l i ze d i n s o m e f as hi o n. And I ar g ue d t o y o urHono r tha t th e st r uctur e o fthe g an g i s no t be i ngus ed. The r e’ s no nat i o n day s. Ther e’ s no

— m on e y is not going to an y treasu rer. . . . W e d on’t have sp ots wh er e peo ple ar e m anni ng i t 2 4 ho urs a da y, n o ne o ftha ts t uff
. No w, t o day

— and we h a d a litt le b it of an op en in g s ta te m en t a n d th en w ith th is age nt. W e s tar ted goin g b ack to l i ke the Latin K i ngs i s so m e na ti o na l e nt er pr i se tha t ev eryon e i n the w or l d shoul d be a f ra i d of . A n d h e s tar ts out bi g, yo u kn ow , at t h e a c ad em y w e le ar n ed ab ou t t h e L at in K i ngs, thei r or ganiza ti on a nd st ructur e. W el l, yo u k n o w, th a ti s s o p r ej u d i c i a l t o th i s g r o u p th a t ’ s i n a sm all

— we’ r e g o i ngt o g eta M apque st, a nd i t’ s g o i ng to be about a hal fa m i l e s quare. That’ s w hat thi s ca se i s ab out, thathal fm i l e s quare. A nd Ifeelr i val ri es b et w ee n ga n g s , s h oo tin gs be tw ee n ga n gs , i t’s all ri ght t o say you’ re car ry i ng a gun to pro tectm oneyo r d rugs , bu t for p rotection from other gan gs as ifthere’s som e k i nd o fst rugg l e in A uror a o verdrug tu rf i s no t in th is c as e. It’s ex tr em ely p rej u d icia l, Ju d ge . . . . A fter som e ad d iti ona l bac k-and -f orth, De lgad o-Rios’s counselm ove d fo r a m i str i al
. The di str i ct c ourtdeni edN os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 9 defen se c o uns el ’ s m o ti o n, b uti t did ad d re ss the g o ve r nme n t : “ Id o n ’ twa nt th e s e p e o p l e b e i n g, y o u kn o w, dragg ed i nto som e s or t o fnat i onalga ng co nspir acy, because that ’ s no t what i t i s. That’ s no t w hat y ou’ ve re prese nted i t to be. That’ s not w hat you’ ve al l ege d in th e i n d ict m en t, an d it’s n otw h at w ill be a d m itt ed in t h is c as e.” Dur i ngLo pez ’ s te st i m o ny, c o uns elo bj ec te d t o t es ti m o ny ab ou t “ gang stuffand the gang str ucture, ” a nd to te st im o n y a bou t the rol e of en forcer. Th e d istri ct cou rt overrul ed the obj ecti on, say i ng “I know there ’ s a l i n e t h at ca n b e c r o s s e d , a n d I ’ l l k e e p my e a r s o p e n f o r th at . But Iha ve n’ t se eni t y et . ” The c o ur t al l o wed t es ti m o ny abo ut the r ol e o fenf or cer, saying, “I t was a pretty g ener al qu e s t i o n a b o ut r a nk a nd wha t tha t mea ns , wha t t hose te r m s m ea n, butwi th o uta ny g r aph i c det ai l, g r atui to us or ot h er w ise
. . . .” I n r e s p o n s e t o a n a d d i t i o n a l o b j e c t i o n ab o u tt e s t i m o ny r e g a r d i n gg a n g s a n d “ g a n gv i o l e n c e , ” th e g o v e r n me nt expla i ned that the e vi dence w ou ld s how “the natur e o f the re l at i o ns hi p b etwee n de f en dan ts S au l Tej eda a nd J ua n Al vi ar. . . . Al vi arha d a pa r ticular ro l e i n thi s dr ug c on sp ira c y, an d t h e r ole w as to p ro te c t Sa u l T ejed a . . . . ” Th e di s t r i c tco urto v e r r ul e d the o b j e c t i o n a nd s t a t e d, “I th ink the govern m en t shou ld be allow ed the o p p ortu ni tyt o t r y to put thi s m o sa i c to g ethe r i fthe y c an . And if th ey ca n ’t, w e’ll d ea l w ith th atin d u e c ou rs e.” Later, i n re sponding to obj ecti ons about gang evi dence, th e d istr i ctc o ur t st at ed th ati t ha d a l r ea dy r ul ed th atthe evi dence w oul d be a dm i tte d, but adm oni shed the gov -10 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385

ernm en t to l aya b et te r f o unda ti o n f o r the te stim ony . The c ou rt c on tin u ed , “A s far as th e gan g bein g pa rto ft h is case , i t i s par t o fth is c as e. I t’ s no t in the tr adit i onal sen s e . . . tha t . . . I ha v e de a l t wi th i n s o me o the r cas es. It is p ar t o f th is c as e.” Po st
- tr i al, th e di st r i ctc o ur t ag ain a ddr es se d the g an g ev id en c e, st at in g: Ir u l e d e a r l i e r, a n d Is e e n o r e a s o n t o c h a n g e my rul i ng now, thatthi s e vi dence w as properas adm i tte d i n thi s ca se t o s ho w the i nt er r elat i o ns hi p a m o ng th es e defen dan ts , e spe ci al l y s i nc e this was a co nspi r ac y c as e, a nd the the o r y o fthe c as e was tha t th e g an ga nd the c ha ng i ngfr o m the Home B oys t o the Lat i n K ings bys o m e o fthe de f en dan ts , no t al l o fthe defen dan ts [ , ] was i nt eg r alt o unde r st an di ngthe in te r r el at i o ns hi p b etwee n the se de f en dan ts . The evi dence w as l i m i ted, and i t wasn’ti ntro du ced f or the pu rpos e and di dn ’ t i n m y vi ew und uly p re j ud i ce these defendants. T h e e vi dence cl ear l y e stabl i shed w ho was a n d wh o w asn’ t a ga ng m em berand w hat g an gthe y wer e affi l i at ed wi tha nd the e xt en t o fthe gang acti vi ty that re l ate d to th e c h arged co nspir acy. Idon ’t m in im ize or belittl e the de fend an ts’ conc ern about thi s. Ikno w thi s i s e vi dence t h at coul d be hi ghl y pr ej ud i ci ali fi t were not othe rwis e r el ev an t. Ij us t th i nki t was i n thi s ca se . . . . [ I ] t was p art o fthe in te rre lat ion sh ip be tw ee n th es e p eo p le. T he j ury retu rned i ts verd ict on J u n e 19, 2006
. A lvi ar, M adr i g al, M el er o , De l g ado

- Ri o s, a nd Tej eda wer e co nvi cted as char ged i n the seco nd supers edi ng i nd i ctm ent.N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 11 B et w ee n A u gu st 9 an d A u gu st 18 , 20 06 , A lvia r, M ad rig al, M el er o , De l g ado

- Ri o s, a nd Tej eda move d f o r j udg m en t ofacqui tta l and/o r a n ew tr i al
. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed thos e m oti ons. The court sente nced appell ants on M ay 24, 20 07
.
II . A n alysis A l vi ar, M adri gal, M el er o, Del gado- Rio s, and Tej eda fi l ed n ot ice s o f ap p ea l. W e c on so lid at ed d efe n d an ts ’ ap p ea ls and i nstr ucted them to fi l e a j oi nt br i efco veri ng co m m on i ssues , and to fi l e ind i vi du alsupplem entalbr i ef s i fnece ssa r y . I n the i r j o i ntb r i ef, de f en dan ts a r g ue tha t th e dist ri ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re tio n i n al l owing evi dence o fg an gmem be r sh i p. W e addr es s th atc o m m o n i ssue fi rs t. Defendants the n ra i se var iou s o therchal l enges to thei r tr i aland sent ences i n thei r i nd i vi du alsupp lem en tal bri ef s, wh i ch w e a dd re ss in tur n, pro vi ding add i ti onal b ac kg ro u n d info rm at ion w h en it is n ee d ed
.
A . W h eth er t h e d istr ict cou rtab u sed i ts disc reti on i n a l l o wi nge v i de nc e o fg a ngme mbe r s hi p. Defe nd ants cl ai m thatthe dis tr i ct c ourtabuse d i ts d isc re tio n w h en it: (1) allo w ed th e in tr od u c tio n of u n d u ly pr ej u d i c i a l g a n ge v i d e n c e ; ( 2 ) p l a c e d n o l i mi t s o n t he i ntro du cti on o f g ang e vi dence; and ( 3) f ai l ed to anal yze su ch eviden c e un d er Fed
. R. Evid
. 404(b). T h ey cla im tha tthe c o ur ta tthe p r e t r i a l s t a g e o v e r l o o k e d S e v e nth Cir cui t ca se l aw thatsuch e vi dence i s prej ud i ci al
. They co nt i nue tha t dur i ngthe tria l, the c o ur t ne ve r “ m ade the12 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 d iffic u l t c alls th at are req u ire d by Fe d . R. E vid . 404 (b ).” D efend an ts cite several Seven th Circu it cases to su p p ort th eir arg u m en t. E.g
. , U nite d State s v. H ardin , 20 9 F
. 3d 652, 663 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( “Chargi ng a drug co n spi ra cy that i nv o l ve s g an g m embe r s . . . do es no t g i ve the g o ve r nm en t ca r te b l an ch e to s pl as h gan g re f er en ce s th r o ugho utthe tr ial.” ); U nite d S ta te s v. Irvin , 87 F. 3d 860, 865 (7th Cir. 19 96 ); U nited Sta tes v. R o drig uez , 92 5 F
. 2d 1049 , 10 53 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) ( “[ E]vi dence ofm em ber shi p i n a s tr eet g an g is li kel y t o b e ‘ damag i ngt o [ a defen dan t] i n the eye s o fthe j ury. ’ ”) ( quoti ng U nite d State s v. Lewis , 91 0 F.2d 136 7, 1372 ( 7th Cir. 1990)). The g o ve r nm en t ac k no wl edges th ate vi den ce o fg an g affi l i ati on m ay be hi ghl y pr ej ud i ci al, but i t a rgues that su che vi den ce i s admi ss ibl e when r el ev an t to de m o nst r at e th e ex i st en ce o fa j o i ntv en tu r e o r c o ns pi r ac y a nd a r el ati onshi p am ong i ts m em ber s. The go ve rn m ent c i tes U ni t e d S t at e s v. Su ggs , 374 F .3d 5 08 , 5 16 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) , to ar gu e t h atga n g e vid en c e is “p a r t icu lar ly re lev an t” in co ns pi r ac y c as es , wher e th e r el at i o ns hi ps o fthe de f en d an ts is a c en tr al iss u e. It cla im s t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id pla ce l i m i ts on the ga ng ev i dence, and th e evi dence admi tt ed was no t undul y pr ej udi ci al
. The g o ve r nm en t al so conte nd s that defe nd ants f or f ei ted thei r Rule 40 4( b) ar gum ent a nd i n any eve nt the ga ng ev i dence w as not 404(b) ev i dence. Ou r re view o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ang e vi dence d ec isio n s is fo r a b u s e o f d isc re tio n . R o drig uez , 92 5 F
. 2d at 10 53
. “ W e g i ve spe ci al defer en ce t o a t r i alj udg e’ s ev i den

ti ar y r ulings ‘ because o fthe trial j u dge’ s fi rs t- hand expo-N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 13

su r e to the wi tn es se s an d th e e vide nc e as a who l e, a nd because ofthe j ud ge’ s f am i l i ar i ty w i th the cas e a nd abi l i ty to g au g e th e i m p act of the e vi den ce i n the c o nt ex t o fthe enti re pro ceedi ng. ’ ” U nited Sta tes v. Herna nd ez , 33 0 F.3 d 964, 96 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( quoti ng Un i t e d S t a t e s v. V a n D reel , 155 F.3d 902 , 905 (7th C ir. 1998)). W e h av e re c og n ize d th er e is “s u b st a n t i a l risk of u n fair pr ej udi ce a tt ac he d t o g an gaff il i at i o n e vi den ce , ” but “und erappropr i ate ci rcum sta nces, ga ng ev id ence has proba ti ve val ue warra nti ng i ts adm i ss ion overcl ai m s o f pr ej ud i c e. ” Irvin , 87F. 3d at 864. I n the Se venth Ci rcui t, “[e ]vid en c e o f ga n g a ffiliat ion is ad m i ss ible in c as es in w h ich it is r e le van t to de m ons trate th e existen ce of a j oi nt ve nture orco nspir acy and a r ela ti onshi p am ong i ts m em b er s” an d ea c h d efe n d an t’s kn ow led ge of an d p ar tic ip at ion in th e d ru g c o n sp ira c y. U ni t e d S t at e s v. We s t b r ook, 12 5 F .3d 99 6, 10 07 (7t h C ir. 19 9 7 ) . “ G an g a ffiliat ion is p ar tic u lar ly re lev an t, an d h a s b ee n h eld ad m iss ible , in case s where the inter re latio nshi p between peopl e i s a c en tr al iss u e” su c h as in a co n sp ira c y c as e. U nited Sta tes v. Thom as , 8 6 F
. 3d 64 7, 6 52 (7th Ci r . 1 99 6) ( affi r m i ng rul i ng al l owing gang evi dence bec ause that evi dence “hel ped d em onst ra te th e e xi ste nce o fthe conspi ra cy an d the con ne ctions b etw een m em bers of th e con sp iracy”); s e e a l s o Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Sa rge nt, 98 F. 3d 325, 328 (7th Cir. 19 96 ) ( “[ G] an g m embe r sh i p ca n be k ey to e st ab l i sh i ng crim inal i nt en t or agreem en t to cons p ire. ”). I n th is case , the evi dence thatthe gov er nm ent s ubm i tt ed was r el ev an t to pro vingthe c o ns pi r ac y a l l eg at i o ns setf or th in th e ind i ctm ent. The ev i dence es tabl i shed14 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 that Tej eda was a drug deal erwh o em plo yed a network of ass oci ate s to obt ai n and to dist ribute the drugs , and that th e m aj ority ofi nd ivi d ua ls that m ad e up the n etw ork w er e in the Lati n H om ebo ys and /or the Lati n K i ngs w i th Tej eda. For exam ple , the evi dence est abl i shed that A l vi arand M el er o had been Lati n H om ebo ys w i th Tej eda, an d l at erb ec ame La tin Ki ng s wi thM adr i g al an d hi m . The f act that these f our i nd i vi du al s were bound tog ether b y thei r gang m em ber shi p m ade i t m or e l ike ly that they parti ci pated i n a c on sp i ra cy. Test i m ony al so est abl i shed a lin k b et w ee n g an g m em b er sh ip an d p ro te c tio n . W h ile Tej e da o nc e h a d e xp r e s s e d c o nc e r ns ab o utbe i ngr o b b e d, afte r he b eca m e a Lat i n Ki ng, he di d no t ex pr es s th e sa m e conce r ns . The e vi den ce s uppo r te d the a r g um en t th athe no l o ng erwas c o nc erne d b ecaus e Alv i ara nd M el er o , a s Lat i n Ki nge nf o r ce r s, pr o vi ded pr o te ct i o n. M adri galci tes U nite d State s v. A vila , 46 5 F
. 3d 796, 79 8 ( 7th Cir
. 20 06) , to ar gue that the go ver nm ent a nd the dist ri ct co ur t confused e vi den ce o fmem be r sh i p i n the g an g w i th ev i dence ofm em ber shi p i n the conspi ra c y. I n that ca se , the r e was “ ne g l i g ibl e ev i den ce” thatthe de f en dan t be l o n g e d t o a g a n g, b u t e v e n i f th e d e f e n d a n t wa s a g an g m em ber, ther e was “no ev i dence” that he w as a par t o f the c onspi ra cy; the tr i alco urt er re d in a sse ssi ng hi s r el evant conduct bas ed on g ang m em ber shi p al one. H er e, by contr ast, the go ver nm ent e l i ci ted te sti m ony to show that T ej ed a’s dru g trafficking ope ration u s e d gang m em bers i n cer tai n defined ro l es. The go ver nm ent di d not si m plyequate any m em ber shi p in t he ga ng with bei ng a c o- conspi ra tor . The go ver nm ent’ s use o fga ng ev i dence w as not i m properi n the i nstant case .N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 15 Defen dan ts a r g ue tha t, eveni fi t was pr o perf o r the d istri ct court to ad m it som e gan g evid en ce, th e c o u rt sh o ul d ha ve placed a ddi ti o na l l i m i ts o n the g an g evi dence thatthe gov er nm ent s ought to i ntro du ce. They c l a i m t ha tthe c o ur tp e r mi t t e d t he g o v e r nme ntt o do m uchmor e th ans i m pl y “ co m pl et e the s to r y ” o fho w the defen dan ts ca m e to k no w e ac h o th er . F o r e xa m pl e, de f en d an ts ar gue that the co urt shoul d have l i m i ted the ev id en c e s o t h at th e g ov er n m en t d id n otm en tio n sp ec ific gang nam es orl aunch i nto a l i tany of vio lent acts bo th by and agai nst the defendants. A s a prelim inary m atter, w e note that the d istri ct cou rt in fac t d id p lac e c er ta in lim its on th e g an g e v i d e n c e. In som e instance s, the cour t k ept o ut ga ng ev i dence that w as ei theri rr el eva n t or und ulyprej ud i ci al
. Fo r exam ple , when th e g o ve r nm en t sou gh t t o a dm i t a tabl e be ar i ng g a n g g r a ffi t i r e c o v e r e d f r o m Me l e r o ’ s b a s e me n t, t he cour t barr ed i ts adm i ssi on. W hen the gov er nm ent e l i ci ted tes t i mon y fr o m a n F BIc a s e a g e nttha to fthe h un dr e ds o f wi tn es se s he ha d i nt er vi ewe d “ vi r tu all y al l ” ha d t i ed th e gang’ s acti vi ti es to drug deal i ng, the cour t susta in ed an o bj ec ti o n a nd i ns tr uct ed th e j ur y t o di sr eg ar d the a nsw er . W hen the gov er nm ent e l i ci te d testi m ony f ro m E scalan te abou t L atin K in g s’ dru g d ealing, the cou rt al l owed E scala nte t o tes ti fy t o the g ang’ s a cti vi ti es w hen he was i nv o l ve d, whi l e su st aini ngo bj ec ti o ns t o t es ti m o ny ab o utg an ga ct i vi ti es whi l e he was i nc ar ce r at ed. The c ou rtad m on ish ed th e g o v er n m en t t o e licita sp ec ific fo u n d ation for testim ony abou t gan g activiti es: “T he y’re h old in g y ou to you r p ro of. Y ou kn ow , th ey h av en ’t h eld you to . . . the l ett ero fthe ru les o f e vid ence f orev er y-16 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 th ing in this case, but this tim e the y are. Th is i s a very sensi ti ve s u b j ect, and Ithi nk y ou have to l ay the foundatio n p ro p er ly w h e n you as k h im or a n yb od y e lse in t h is c as e fo r th is t yp e o f te st im on y.” The evi dence thatthe dist ri ct c ourtadm i tte d w as proba

ti ve o fde f en dan ts ’ r o l es i n the Tej eda dr ugo r g an i zati o n. Even the evi den c e ofLati n K i ng handshakes , sy m bol s, c olo rs , an d ta tt oo s t en d ed to es ta b lish ga n g m em b er sh ip oraffi l i atio n , and i t was pro per f orthe gov er nm ent t o prove gang m em ber shi p as part of the conspi ra cy. T hus, we do not concl ud e that the co urt abused i ts discre ti on w hen i t di d not furtherl i m i t the go ver nm ent’ s e vi dence. Finally, de fend an ts’ argum en t th at th e d istri ct cou rt f ai l ed to anal yze the gang evi dence und er Rule 404(b) was f o r f e i t e d , as i t wa s n e v e r r a i s e d b e l o w, an d w e re vie w it for p lain err or . U nited Sta tes v. LeSh o re, 54 3 F
. 3d 935, 93 9 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ). Th e c on te st ed ev id en c e p ro ve d sp e c ific port i ons ofthe i nd i ctm ent. I t di d not c on c er n “o ther cri m es, w ro n gs oract s, ” but i t co ncer ned the char ged c rim e. W h en ev id en c e is em b ra c ed b y th e c on sp ira c y in the ind i ctm ent, the cour t need not r eso rtto Rule 40 4( b) anal ysi s. “Rul e 4 04(b) i s i napp l i cabl e where th e ‘ bad act s’ al l ege d are r eal l y di re ct e vi dence o f an esse nti alparto f the c ri m e cha rg ed. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. La ne, 323 F. 3d 568, 57 9 (7t h C ir. 20 03 ). Th e g an g e vid en c e w as n ota c t u ally R u le 40 4(b ) ev id en c e, an d th e c ou rtd id n otc om m it p lain er r o r wh e n i tdi d n o ta na l y z e the e v i de nc e u nd er R u le 4 04 (b ).N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 17 B. W h eth er t h e d istr ic t c ou rtprop erly ref u sed t o seve rdef end ant M adri gal ,w ho w as i nd i ct ed as a c o-c on s p irato r. O n A ug us t 18, 2005 , M ad rigalfil e d a m otion for seve ran ce an d a se par at e tr i alunde r F ed. R. Cr i m . P. 1 4, a r g ui ng th at he w o uld be prej ud iced by un d ergoing a trialw he re the r e wa s “ a g r o s s d i s pa r i t y i n b o th the a mou nta nd ty pe of e vid en c e a ga in st M ad rig al v is-a -vis h is c o-d efe n d an ts .” A j oin t t ria l, M ad rig al c laim ed , w ou ld be “fu n d am en ta l ly un fai r. ” Th e g o vern m en t fi led its resp ons e on th e severance i ssue on F ebr uary10 , 20 06. On M ay 10, i n i ts Pret ri alH ear i ng Order, the dist rict cour t deni ed M adri gal ’ s m oti on f orse ver ance. Ma d r i g a l a p p e a l s d e n i a l o fh i s s e v e r a n c e mo t i o n . He ar gu es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld h av e s e v e re d h im because o f : ( 1) “s pil l ove r” o f the go ver nm ent’ s e vi dence; ( 2) prej ud i ci aleff ect ofi nfl am m ato ryevid ence ofr aci al slu rs by d efe n d an ts ; (3) p re j u d icia l ga n g m em b er sh ip an d v i o l en ce e vi den ce ; a nd ( 4) “ o th erc r i m es ” an d w eapons evi dence onl y r el evantto o therdefendants. M a d r i g a l n e v e r r e n e we d h i s mo t i o n a t th e c l o s e o ft he evi dence. A ccor ding to our c as e law , unl ess a m oti on t o se ve r is re n ew ed atth e c los e o f th e e vid en c e , i t g en er ally is w aiv ed
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Rol l i ns , 3 01 F. 3d 511, 51 8 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )
. A wa i v e r o fthi s n a t ur e wo ul d p r e c l ud e ap p ella te re vie w of an y k in d
. Se eU ni t e d St at e s v. O l ano , 50 7 U. S
. 7 2 5 , 7 3 3 ( 1 9 9 3 )
. Ho we v e r, the f ai l u r e t o r e n e w a m oti on t o seve r m ay b e ex c u sed i fthe defe nd ants can “d em on st ra t e t h a t re filin g [t h e m ot ion to se ve r] w ou ld have been .
. . futi l e. ” U nite d State s v. C audill , 91 5 F
. 2d 294,18 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 298 ( 7th Ci r. 19 90)
. M adri gald oes n ot expli ci tl y a rgue that r en ewi ngthe mot i o n t o s ev erwoul d ha ve b ee n fut i l e, b ut h e d oe s s ta te : “[C ]on t r ar y t o t h e g ov er n m en t’s cla im that the i ssue w as not prese rv ed by a r enewed m oti on a t th e c los e o fthe evi dence, the dist ri ct c ourthad bee n appr ised of the i ss ue f o r s o l o ng, b o thb efo r e an d dur i ng the t ri al, the dist ri ct cou rt h ad to be full y a w ar e that seve ra nce was st i l l a vi abl e, pending i ssue f orM adri gal w hi ch co uld s ti l l be re m edi ed by spi nning hi s s epara te tr i aloff to a nothero ccasi on. ” In thi s ca se, the defe nse const antl y c hal l enged the adm i ssi on o fgang- re l ate d evi dence

—bef or e, duri ng, and aftertr i al

— o n the g r o un ds that i t was prejud ici al
. One m or e m oti on m ay have been fut il e, bu t w e nee d not de cid e w he th er M ad rigal ’s m oti on t o seve r w as w ai ved, a s ou r answ erto that questi on i s no t o utcom e dete rm i nati ve. Even i fM adri gal ’ s e nti re m oti on t o seve r w as not w ai ved, hi s s eco nd , thi rd, and f ourth ar gum ents on a pp eal ar e fo rfei ted. M adri galn eve r ar gued bel ow that the di str i ct c ou rtsh ou ld h av e sev er ed h im b ec au se of (2) t h e p rej u d ici ale ff ec t o fo th erde f en dan ts ’ us e o frac ial slu r s o n the wi r et ap r ec o r di ng s; ( 3) the p rej ud i ci alna tu r e o fthe g an g evi dence i ntro du ced at tr i al; an d (4 ) the prej ud i ci aleff ect ofcer tai n evi dence ag ai nst Alvi ar, M elero , a nd Renter i a. W e review argum en ts (2), ( 3), and ( 4) fo r p lai n error. W e re vie w arg u m en t (1 ), th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld have seve re d him bec ause ofthe spi l l ove r eff ect f ro m ev i den ce a g ains t co - defen dan ts , f o r abuse ofdi sc r et i o n. Se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cCl urge, 31 1 F
. 3d 866, 87 1- 72 ( 7th C ir. 2002).N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 19 I n al l but the “ m ostunusual ci rcum st an ces, ” the r i sk of pr ej udi ce a r i singfr o m a j o i ntt r i ali s “o ut wei g he d b y the ec o no m i es o fa sin g l e tr i ali n whi cha l l f ac et s o fthe cri m e ca n be explo re d once a nd f oral l
. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. V ela squez , 7 7 2 F
. 2 d 1 3 4 8 , 1 3 5 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 5 )
. Th er e i s a s t r o ngp r e f e r e nc e tha tc o - c o ns pi r a t o r s b e j o i nt l y t r i e d, p ar tic u lar ly w h en th ey w er e in d ict ed to ge th er . See U nited St at e s v. So uf

f r ont, 3 38 F
. 3d 809, 8 28 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3)
. J o i nt tr i al s “ prom ote effi ci ency and ‘s er ve th e int er est s o f j us ti ce by a vo i di ngthe s ca nda l a nd i ne qui tyo fi nc o nsi ste nt ve rdi cts. ’ ” Z a

firo v. U nited Sta tes , 50 6 U .S
. 53 4, 53 7 ( 1992 ) ( quoti ng Ric har ds on v. M arsh , 4 81 U
. S. 20 0, 20 9- 10, ( 1987 ) )
. A di str i ct c ourthas dis c re tion to seve r counts or d efend an ts for trial
. Fed
. R. Crim
. P. 14(a ). W e w il l overturn a deni alo fa m oti on t o seve r onl y i factual prej u d ice re su lte d
. Sou

f f r ont, 33 8 F
. 3d at 831. M adriga l ’ s fi rs t a rgum ent r el ate s t o the s pil l ove r eff ect ofthe evi dence ag ain st hi s co - defe nd ants. H e cl ai m s that the di str i ct c ourto ver looked the “m ass i ve am ount” of ev i den ce , wi tn es s te st i m o ny, a nd i nt er ce pte d t el eph o ne c all tr ial ev id en c e t ar ge te d atp ro vin g t h e g u i l t of h is co- defe nd ants to hi s prej ud i ce. But the f ac t that the g overnm en t has g re at ere vi den ce a g ains t o ne c o - defen dan t do e s n o ta ut o mat i c a l l y g i v e the o the r de f e nd a ntg r o un ds for se ve ra n c e. U nited Sta tes v. Stud ley, 89 2 F
. 2d 518, 52 4 (7th C ir. 1989). Gi ve n tha t M adr i g alwas c ha r g ed i n a conspi ra c y with hi s co - defe nd ants, m ostev i dence off er ed at tr ial w oul d have be en adm i ssibl e in a t ri al aga i nst hi m al one. The j ury w as in str ucted to co nsi der ea c h d efe n d an t sep ar at ely . I t d id so an d co n vic te d M ad rigal of a lesser dru g qu an tity than his co-defen d an ts. T he re20 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385

w as no a ctualprej ud i ce t o M adri gal on a ccount of “s p i l l ove r” ev i dence bec ause the j ury dist i ngui shed b e t we e n hi m a nd h i s c o - de f e nd ants. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom ps on , 286 F.3d 950 , 968 (7th C ir. 2002). One o fM adr i g al ’ s f o r f ei te d a r g um en ts is th athe shoul d have be en se ver ed beca use the ta pe r eco rdi ngs sh ow ed that de fend an ts us ed variations of t h e “ N ” w ord w he n sp eaking. M ad rigalargue s tha t the rem a r ks w ere “r ac i al l y o ff en si ve , ” an d tha t hi s co - defen dants used th e te r m s m o r e th an he di d. But, a s th e di st r i ctc o ur t st at ed, the us e o fthe t er m s “o cc ur r ed dur i ngthe c o nv er sa ti o ns , a nd i t was the m anner in w h ich theyspok e t o each o ther dur i ngthe pert i ne ntc o nv er sa ti o ns . ” The c o ur t f o und th at the t er m s were not m eant to be r aci al l y o ff ensi ve. T h e cou rt als o c on c lu d ed it w ou ld n ot h av e be en fe a sib le to red ac t offen siv e w or d s from h u n d re d s of re c or d in gs . I t w as not pla i n er ro r f orthe cour t no t t o seve r M adri gal base d on defendants’ use oft h os e words in re cor ded conve rs ati ons. H e d i d not s ufferactual prej ud i ce, as th er e was a m pl e ev i den ce a g ains t M adr i g al a nd the j ury w as proper l y instr ucted to di sti ngui sh be tw een co- defe nd ants . S i mil ar l y, M adri gal ’ s a dd i ti onalar gum ents do not dem onst ra te t hat the di str i ct c ourtpl ai nl y e rr ed w he n it den ied M ad rigal ’s m otion to sever.
C. W he t he rt he di s t r i c tc o urtpr o pe r l ya c c e pt e d t he gov ernm ent’ s San ti ago p roffe r. D elgad o-Rios raises a claim related to the govern m en t’s San t i ago p ro ffer . U n d er F e d
. R . E vid . 801 (d )(2) (E ), a “st ate m ent i s no t hea rs ay i f
. . . [ t] he st ate m ent i s o ff er edN os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 21 aga i nst a party a nd i s . . . a sta tem ent b y a co conspi ra toro f a par t y d u r i n g th e c o u r s e a n d i n fu r th e r a n c e o f th e c o nsp ira c y.” InU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa nt i ago , 58 2 F
. 2d 1128 , 11 30- 31 (7th C ir. 1978), w e d ecid ed that w he n a s t a tem en t of a co- conspi ra torwh i ch otherwis e wo u ld be re gar ded as he a r s a y i s p r o ff e r e d b y the g o v e r nm ent, Fe d. R
. Ev i d. 104(a) requ ires th a t th e d istri ct cou rt m ake a p reli m inary deter m i nati on r ega rdi ng the adm i ssibi l i ty ofthe decl ar ati on. W e m ade cl earthatas a condi ti on f oradm i ssi on o f su chs ta te m en ts , the gov ernm en t m us t co nv i nc e th e cou rt, by a prep ond eran ce of the evid en ce, that (1) a co ns pi r ac y e xi st ed, ( 2) the de f en dan t an d the de cl ar an t w er e m em ber s o fth e co nspir acy, and ( 3) the sta tem ent( s) sou gh t to be ad m itted w ere m ad e d u r in g and i n furth era n c e of th e c on sp ira c y. Id. at11 33- 34; see a lso U nited Sta tes v. Cox , 92 3 F
. 2d 51 9, 52 6 ( 7th Ci r . 19 91 )
. The gove r nm en t m ay subm i t e vid ence ofthes e e l em ents i n a pr e- tr i al proff er, and the dist ri ct c ourtm ay adm i t the statem ent( s) su bj ec t to its l at erde te r m i na ti o n dur i ngt r i altha t th e g o ve r nm en t ha s es tabl i sh ed bya pr epo nde r an ce o fthe ev id en c e th e th re e fou n d at ion al e lem en ts . San t i ago , 58 2 F
. 2 d a t1 1 3 1
. T h e s e e v i d e n t i a r y s u b mi s s i o n s a r e kn o wn as “ San t i ago p ro ffer s.” Delg ado- Rio s a rgues that the di strict co urt er re d by ac cepti ng a “w oefull y inadequ ate ” S ant i ago p r o ff e r . He cl ai m s th e pr o ff er w as “ i n the mos t g en er alt er m s” a nd
“ pe r fun c t o r y . ” F i nd i ng s u nd e r F e d. R. Ev i d. 8 0 1 ( d) ( 2 ) ( E) b ase d on a San t i ago pr o ff era r e r ev i ewe d f o r c l ea r e r r o r. U nited Sta tes v. R o drig uez , 975 F.2d 404 , 411 ( 7th Cir. 1992). The go ver nm ent’ s wri tte n proff erco ntai ned a p re vi ew o f the e vi dence as to al l defendants, i ncl ud i ng Del gado- Rio s.22 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 The proff ersum m ar i zed c oo perat orLopez’ s a nti ci pated tes ti m ony, st ati ng Lopez “ knew co- defe nd ant Ap ol i nar Delg ado- Rio s t o buy co cai ne fro m Tej eda and re sel l i t. Lopez al so knew Tej eda to fro n t c oc ai ne to Del gado- Rio s. Lopez al so knew D el gado- Rio s t o pass a l ong i nfo rm ati on to T ejed a a b ou t w h o w as st or in g c oc ain e a n d w h e r e it w as be in g s to re d so th at T ejed a a n d ot h er s c ou ld co m m it d rug robb eries, i n ex ch an ge for a p ortion o f t h e robbery proce eds. ” The p ro ff ersum m ar i zed Ri os’ s t est i m ony that “T ej ed a d i s t r ib u t e d a mi n i mu m o ft wo o u n c e s o fc o c a i ne to co- defe n d an t A pol i nar Delg ado- Rio s . . . atl eas t three ti m es a month. Ri o s al so s aw De l g ado

- R ios res el l the co ca i ne he b o ug htfr o m Tej eda t o o th erpe r so ns . ” The proff er i nc l ud e d s ummar i e s o fc a l l s tha tr e c o rded D elg ad o-R ios an d T ejed a c ar r y in g ou t t h eir d ru g b u siness. Based o n the i nfo rm ati on i n the proff er, the dis tr i ct co urt d id no t co m m i t cl ea r e r r o r i n c o nc l udi ngtha t th e gov er nm ent had m et by a preponderance of th e e vidence the precondi ti ons f oradm i ssi on o fco - conspi ra torst ate
m ents.
D . W h eth er t h e d istr ict cou rtcom m it ted plain err or in a l l o wi ngAg e ntC a ma c ho t o t e s t i fyaboutt he pri orco nsist ent st at em ent ofa w i tn es s wh o was a l l e g e d t o h av e f a br i c a t e d t e s t i mo nya bo ut D el gado- R i os. D e l g a d o - R i o s n e x tr a i s e s h i s fi r s te v i d e n t i a r y e r r o r c l a i m. Coopera ti ng witne ss Rio s had t esti fi ed that Delg ado- Rio s had com pla i ned about bei ng unsati sfi ed w ith hi s t ake f r o m a dr ugr o b b e r y tha tDe l g a do

- Ri o s h a d t i pp e d T ej e daN os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 23 and other s about. Rather than cr oss - exam i ni ng Ri os on that poi nt, Del gado- Rio s a tte m pted to i m peach R ios by cal l i ng Agent La ris sa C am acho, o ne o fthe case ag ents, to tes ti fy about an i nter vi ew that she conducted w i th Ri os. C a m ac h o’s rep or t re flec te d th at R ios h ad sa id th at h is b ro th er , M i g u el R ios , ex p re ss ed d iss at isfa c tio n w ith h is take from the ro bber y, and not that Rio s m enti oned De l g a do

- Ri o s wa s u ns a t i s fi e d. On cros s- exam i nati on ofCam acho, the pros ecuti on el i ci ted the f act that Rio s had m enti oned Del gad o-R i os to Cam acho i n additi on t o M i guelRi os, al though Cam acho’ s r epor t di d not r efl ect that f act. Del ga do- Rio s o bj ec te d t ha t thi s f ac t was “ al r ea dy te st i fi ed to b y the w itn es s, R ios .” D elgad o-Rios now argue s on ap p e al that C am ach o’s tes ti m ony about the i nter vi ew o fRi os w as i m proper hear sa y, that i t e rr oneo usl y a l l owed herto “i m peach h er ow n rep or t,” an d th at iti n t r od u c ed ina d m iss ible opi ni on e vi den c e ab ou t the ve ra ci ty ofRi os. These obj ectio n s w er e n otrais ed be lo w , s o w e re vie w for p lain er ro r. Roll i ns , 54 4 F
. 3d at 834. Pri orco nsi ste nt st ate m ents th at a re o ff er ed to r ebut a charg e o fr ecentf abr i cati on o r i m properi nfl u ence or m ot ive are n oth ea rs ay . Fed . R . E vid . 801 (d )(1) (B ); Tom ev. U nited Sta tes , 51 3 U.S
. 15 0, 15 7- 58 (1 995). S uch stat em ents ar e a d m i ssibl e i ftheysa ti sfy a f our- part tes t: ( 1) the decl ar ant t est ifi es at tr i aland i s s ubj ect to cro ssex ami na ti o n; ( 2) hi s pr i o r s ta te m en t i s i nde ed co ns i st en t w i th hi s t ri alte sti m ony; ( 3) the sta tem ent i s o ffer ed to re but an expli ci t o r i m pli ci t a ccusati on o fr ecentf abr i ca-24 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 ti o n; a nd ( 4) the s ta te m en t was m ade b efo r e th e dec l ar an t had a m oti ve to f abr i cate . U nite d State s v. R uiz , 249 F.3d 643 , 647 (7th C ir. 2001). R ios ’s p rior st at em en t t o C am ac h o s at isfie s t h e t es t. H is st at ement was c o ns i st en t wi thhi s tr i alt es ti m o ny a nd w as used to r ebut Del gado- Rio s’ s i m pli ed char ge that Rio s had f abr ica te d hi s t est i m ony. There i s no i nd i cati on that Delg ado- Rio s was pre vente d fr om r ecal l i ng Ri os f or c r o s s - e xa mi na t i o n a b o utthe a s s e r t i o ns a t t r ib ut e d t o R i o s b y C a ma c h o , a n d b e c a u s e th o s e a s s e r t i o n s me e t th e oth er requ irem en ts for ad m issi on u nd er Ru le 801(d)(1)( B ), th e di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t co m m it p l ain e r r o r i n a l l o wi ng C am ac h o’s st at em en t.
E . W he t he rt he di s t r i c tc o urte r r e d i n a l l o wi ng Del g a do - Ri o s ’ s mo t he r- i n- l a w t o t e s t i fyt hathe possessed co cai ne. Delg ado- Rio s next ar gues that the di str i ct courter re d w h en it allow e d p r eju d i c i a l t e s t i m o n y f r om h is mo th e r - i n - l a w, Me t s i T h o ma s . T h o ma s t e s t i fi e d t o t wo i nc i den ts . F o l l o wi ngDe l g ado

- Ri o s’ s ar r es t, s he f ou nd co ca i ne “ i n the b at tery co m par tmento fa n o bj ec t. ” And Del g ad o-Ri o s o nc e ha nde d he r a c el l pho ne c o nc ea l i ng coca i ne. Both inci dents o ccurr ed d u ringthe charg ed co ns pi r ac y . The c o ur t di d e xc l ude t es ti m o ny thatthe “obj ec t” i n the fi r sti nc i den t was a c hi l d’ s to y, butthe c ou rtp er m i t t ed T h om as to te st ify th at D elg ad o-R ios d id not have a regul arj ob and that he tr i cked a gents wh o f ai l ed to l o ca te co ca i ne hi ddeni n the b at te r y c o m par tment s o fthe c ellp h on e a n d th e o b j ec t. D elg ad o-R ios ob j ec te d to te st im ony re l ate d to the fi rs t inci dent, bu t not to the se cond, soN os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 25

w e r evi ew adm i ssi on o fte sti m ony on the fi rs t inci dent f or ab us e o fdi sc r et i o n, a nd a dm i ss i o n o ft es ti m o ny o n the secon d f or plain error. Tho m as’ s t est i m ony, wh i ch f ocuse d onl y o n i nci dents that occur re d duri ng the co nspir acy, was re l evantto pro ve Del g ado-Ri o s’ s par ti ci pat i o n i n the c o ns pi r ac y . The tes ti m ony hel ped p ro ve that Delg ado- Rios h ad acc ess to coca i n e. There w as separ ate ev i dence thatDel gado- Rio s w as i n conta ct with Tej eda t o su p plyhi m with c oca i ne. H avi ng address ed the possibl e prej ud i ce fr om the f act that drugs were co nceal ed i n a toyon one occa si on, the dist ri ct cour t d i d not abuse i ts disc re ti on or com m i t pl ai n er ro r by allo w in g t es tim on y d ire c tly rele va n t t o t h e c on sp ira c y.
F. W hethert h e pr osec utori m pro perl y v ouched f or w i t nesses o ri m pro pe rly r ef er enced f act s notpr esente d to t he j ury . De l g a do

- Ri o s n e xta r g ue s tha tthe g o v e r nme nti mpr o per l y v ouched f ori ts w i tness es and i m proper l y r efer enced f acts notpre sente d to the j ury. Fi rs t, he ar gu es that i t was i m properf orthe pros ecuto r to elic it te st im on y fro m c oo p er at in g w itn es se s a b ou t t h eir “n ee d t o g i ve t r uthfult es ti m o ny i n o r dert o mai nt ain the benefi ts ofthe w i tness ’ pl ea bar gai n. ” W e hav e co ncl ud ed th atthe “ pr o se cut i o n i s en ti tl ed to get i nt o e vi den ce the f a c t t h at [p lea ] d ea ls a re co n d itio n ed u p on tru th fu l te st im o ny . ” U ni t e d St at e s v. Thor nt on , 19 7 F
. 3d 241, 25 1- 52 ( 7th C ir. 19 99 ). Tw o ty p es of “v ou c h in g” are forb id d en : a pr o se cut o r may no t e xp r es s he r pe r so na l b el i efi n the tr uthful ness ofa w i tness , and a pr ose cu to r m ay not26 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 im p ly th at fac ts n otbe for e t h e jur y len d a w itn es s c r e d ib ility
. U nite d State s v. R ent er ia , 106 F.3d 765 , 767 (7th C ir. 1997 )
. N ei thertype w as com m i tte d here
. W e di d cauti on i n Thor nt on that“f orm or e than a deca de w e hav e be en w ar nin g pr ose cutor s t o ‘ avo i d unn eces sar i l y r epeti ti ve r efer en ce s to tr uthful ne ss i fi t wi sh es t o i nt r o duce the ag re em e n t s in to ev id en c e. . . .’ [P ]ro se c u to rs sh ou ld consi der r efra i ni ng fro m i ntro du ci ng t h e docum ents i n t o e v i d e n c e a n d r e l y i ns t e a d o n t e s t i mo n y s u mm ar i zi ng the agreem ent. ” Thor nt on , 19 7 F
. 3d at 253 ( quoti ng U nite d State s v. Lewis , 1 10 F.3d 417, 421 (7th C ir. 1997)). I n thi s ca se, the gov er n m en t did notev en i ntro du ce th e p lea ag re em en ts th em se lve s. It m er ely elic ite d te st im ony , w hich doe s not con stitut e error. D elg ad o-R ios arg u es th at th e g ov er n m en t im p r op er ly vouched f orits co oper ati ng witne sse s when itr efer enced th e ple a dea l c o ndi ti o ns i n i ts c l o singa r g um en t to the j ur y . T he p r o s e c ut o r s t a t e d: M or e i m port ant, th es e witnesse s t ol d you that i fthey l i ed, t h ey j eopar dize d the dealthattheyhad w i th the g ove rnm ent. A nd wh er e they di d li e, wh er e they ha v e to l d inc o ns i s t e nts t a t e men t s , the y h a v e a dm itt ed it t o y o u . So yo u h av e a ll of th es e t oo ls a va ilabl e to you to eval uate thei r tes ti m ony, the fact th at th ey’ r e co r r o bo r at ed, the f ac t th atthe y ha ve no m oti vati on t o l i e, and the f act that they have been h on es t a s t h ey ca m e in to th is c ou rt ro om . T h ey d id th eir be st, an d th ey trie d to te ll th e t ru th
. The com m ents m ade here fo cus o n the i ncenti ves provi ded byde f en dan t’ s plea agreem en t f o r hi m t o t el l the tr uth. They r ese m bl e a si m i l arar gum ent about a pl eaN os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 27 agr eem ent that w e accepte d in Rente ri a . The r e, we co ncl ud ed that “ th e p ro secuto r w as f re e t o i nvi te the j ury to d raw a particu la r i n ferenc e from [ th e plea agreem en t]. Defe nse c ounselwas fre e t o urge a co m peti ng infe re nce, as he di d on num er ous o ccasi ons. B y a rguingas they did, bo th s id es r espect ed the j ury’ s abi l i ty to eval uate cre dibi l i ty base d on t h e f acts i n evi dence. ” R ent er ia , 106 F. 3d at 766- 67 ( i nter nal ci tat i ons om i tte d). The pro secuto r he r e d i d n o te x p r e s s a “ p e r s o n a l b e l i e f, ” a n d we c o nclu d e that the pr ose cutor ’ s s tat em ent was noti m proper vouchi ng. Delg ado- Rio s a l so ar gues that the pr ose c u to r i m pli ed that f acts notbefor e the j ury len t a w i tness cr edibi l i ty. Fi rs t, he c i tes the pros ecuti on ’s ar gum ent that Del gadoRio s was gui l ty ofthe consp ira c y base d on wir eta pp ed cal l s: “You a l so know that he was i n th e c onsp i ra cy fi rs t f ro m the phone cal l s, 20 phone cal l s fro m the w i re tap, 91 6, 93 0, 9 32 , 9 38 , a nd s o o n. . . . The se ar e o nl y s o m e o fthe ca l l s amongthe c al l s th at w ere r ec o r ded i n whi chS au l T ej ed a an d A p oli na r Delgad o-Rios discu ss coca in e traffi cking.” Th e p rosecu tion later cl arified th at it w as referri ng the j ury to consi der o nl y “ the phone cal l s that w er e pl aye d i n cour t. ” The g ove rnm ent a rgues that i ts re f er ences to add i ti onalp h one cal l s di d not incl ud e a n im p ro p er re fer en c e to ev id en c e ou ts id e th e rec o r d ; it w as an ina rtful w ay ofsa yi ng tha t ca l l s 9 16, 93 0, 93 2, and 938 w er e “ onl y s om e o fthe ca lls am ong the c al l s that w ere record ed
. ” W e “m us t not li gh tly assum e t h at ‘a pros ecuto r i ntends an a m bi guous re m ar k t o have i ts m os t d am agi ng m eani ng o r that a j ury, si tti ng thr ough a l en g th y e xhor ta ti o n, wi l l dr aw tha t m ea ni ngfr o m the ple thor a o fl ess dam agi ng i nter preta ti ons. ’ ” U nited Sta tes28 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 v. R o se, 1 2 F
. 3d 14 14, 1 42 4 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 4) ( quo tingBo yde v . Ca li forni a , 4 94 U. S
. 3 70 , 3 85 ( 19 90 ) )
. W e ca nno t co ncl ud e that thi s s ta te m ent about phone cal l s co nsti tuted i m propervo uching. F i na l l y, De l g a do

- Ri o s a r g ue s tha ta no the rr e mar kma de by the g ove rn m ent in cl osing was i m propervo uching: “You h eard th enfr o m o nl y f o urc us to m er s o fthi s co nspi ra cy. A s with the phone cal l s, we didn’tpre sent you w i t h 1 00 p er c en t o f th e e vid en c e, be c au se w e w ou ld st ill b e list en in g t o t es tim on y fro m co op er at in g w itn es se s.” T h e g o v e r n me n tc o n c e d e s th a tth i s s t a t e me n t w a s i mproper be ca us e i t r efer s to e vi dence no t pr es en te d t o the j u r y a s s u p p o r t i n gc o n v i c t i o n . Wi th thi s c o n c e s s i o n, we e xa mi ne the r e c o r d a s a wh o l e t o de c i de wh e ther De l g a do

- Ri o s wa s p r ej ud i c e d b y the p r o s e c ut o r ’ s i na pp ro p ria te rem ar k s o t h at h is t ria l w a s fu n d am en ta lly unfai r. Our i nquir y i n to the pr ej ud i ce i s i nfo rm ed by seve ra l f acto rs , i ncl ud i ng: “( 1) the nature and se ri ousne ss o fthe pro se cut o r i almis co nduc t, ( 2) whethe r the p ro se c u to r’s st at em en ts w er e inv ite d b y im p er m iss ible con d uc t by d efense cou n sel, ( 3) w he th er the trial cou rt i nstr ucted the j ury to disr ega rd the st ate m ents, ( 4) wh ether th e d efense w as abl e t o counterthe i m properar gum ents thro ugh re buttal, and ( 5) the w ei ght o fthe evi dence aga i nst the defendant. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pirovol os , 84 4 F.2d 415, 42 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) ( re ci ti ng the f acto rs o utl i ned i n D ar de n v . Wai nwr ight, 477 U
. S. 168, 181-83 (1986 ))
. The i m properr em ar k m ade by the gov er nm ent was ser i ous a nd the dist ric t courtdi d not i ssue i nstr ucti ons to the j ury to disr ega rd the st ate m ent. H owever, defense cou ns el h a d an op p ortu nity to refute th e pros ecu tion’sN os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 29
co m m en t i n i ts o wn cl o singa r g um en t an d the pr o se cutio n d id not r efer ence that sta tem ent a gai n i n i ts re buttal
. M or e i m p or tantl y, the ove rwhelm i ng ev i dence ofDel gado- Rio s’ s guil t “ el i m i n ates anyl i nger i ng doubt th atthe p ros ec ut o r ’ s r emar k s unf ai r l y pr ej udi ce d the j ury’s d eliberat ions or e x p loi ted the G overn m en t’s prest i ge i n the ey es o fthe j ury. ” U nite d State s v. White, 222 F. 3d 363, 37 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( quoti ng U ni ted S ta tes v. Young, 4 70 U. S
. 1 , 1 9 ( 19 85 ) )
. W e con clud e tha t th e gov er nm ent’ s i m properr em ar k di d not r ender Delg adoR ios’s trialfun d am en tally un fai r.
G . W h eth er the d istr ict cou rt p rope rl y a ll o w e d testimo nyt ha tT e j e da wa s a f e l o n. Tej eda a r g ue s tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n a l l o wi ng evi dence thathe was a convi cted felon . His att or ney o bj ec te d, a nd we r ev i ew f o r abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. Se rg eant J ohnson tes ti fi ed that on Octo ber12 , 20 04, he p ar tic ipated i n a s ear ch ofa house Tej eda shar ed w i th hi s g i rl f ri end, A dri anne Pot ochney. Tej ed a w as not ho me. A ut ho r i t i e s r e c o v e r e d a b o x o fa mm un i t i o n. On c ro ss -ex am in at ion , d efe n se co u n se l as ke d : Q : It’s n otillega l to k ee p am m u n itio n in t h e h ou se , i s i t? A : It is in ce rt ain circ u m st an c es , yes . Q: I s there a l aw i n A uror a that i t’ s i l l ega l to ke ep am m unit i on i n a ho use? A : There i s a st ate l aw thatf orbi ds posse ssio n of fire ar m s a n d am m u n itio n by felon s.30 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 Q: I s Ad ri anne Pot ochney, i s s he a f el on? A : N otth at I’m aw ar e o f. O n red ire c t, th e g ov er n m en t a sk ed : Q: You we r e a s k e d i f Adr i a nn e Po t o c hn e y wa s a convi cted fel on? A : Y es , Iw as . Q: I s there anyo ne el se w ho l i ved i n the re si dence at 1000 S up er i orS tr eetwh o w as a co nvi cted fel on? D E F E N S E C O U N S E L M R
. N E E L Y : O bj ection , Yo ur H on or . A
. U
. S. A
. : J ud ge, Ido be l i eve thatM r. N eelyo pened

th e d oo r. M r. N E E L Y : I d on ’t t h in k t h at I d id
. T H E C O U R T : O ve rru led
. A: Ib el i ev e S au l Tej eda was a fel o n. The go ver nm en t arg ues o n appeal thatdefense counsel did open the door, j ustifyin g the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on to adm i t the te st im ony at i ssue. The defense ar gues th e d ecision w as im p rop er. I n U nited St at e s v. D r ai m an , we wro te tha t “o pen i ngthe do o r ” i s a r i sktha t a d efe ns e co uns ela ss um es “ when a c alc u lat ed effo rt is m ad e to tip to e ove r th in ic e t o g ain som e e vi denti ar y ad va n tage. I t a l so can be a del i cate si tuati on f orthe tr i alco urt’ s e xerci se ofdi scr et ion so as n otto p er m i t u n d u e p rej u d ice to th e d efe n d an t m er ely to cor re ct s om e pos sibl e j ury i m press i on that m ay be o fno l as tingc o ns eque nc e. ” W e co nt i nued : “ The g o ve r n-N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 31

m ent . . . does nothave t o tu rn the othe r cheekwh en i th a s th e e x p l a n a t i o n t o d e f e n s e - c r e a t e d mi s i mpress i ons. The tr i alc ou rt n eeds t o use i ts sea sone d tri al experi ence i n a c om m on s ense, r ea li sti c co nsi derat i on o f th e prob lem
. ” 784 F.2d 248, 255 (7th Cir. 1986). H er e, Tej eda a r g ue s th atthe c r o ss - ex ami nati o n h i g hl i ghted “the f act that Tej eda’ s g i rl f rien d w as i n posses si on o fthe prem i ses at the ti m e o fthe sea rch” and that the s ear ch did notr esul t in herar re st. A ccor ding to Tej eda, he was “no t a tte m pti ng to pl ace som e innoce n t g l o s s o n T ej e d a ’ s p o s s e s s i o n o f a mmun i t i o n . ” I fhe wa nt e d t o f o c u s o n th e g i r l f r i e n d , h o we v e r, T ej e da w oul d not h ave ask ed abo ut the l ega l i ty ofposs ess i on o f am m unit i on. By doi ng so , Tej eda opened the doorso m ew hat, and the gov er nm ent s ought to cl earup th e defense-crea ted m isi m p ression. Th e d istri ct cou rt exerci se d i ts di sc r et i o n a nd a dm i tt ed th e te st i m o ny . The gov er nm ent di d not dw el l o n the answ er, e ith er by atte mpt i ngt o g o i nt o de t a i l s ab o utT ej e da ’ s p r i o r c o nv i cti o n o r b y a r g ui ngthe c o nv i ct i o n i n i ts cl o singa r g um en t. W e c an n otco n c lu d e t h at th e t r i al jud ge ab u se d h is d isc re tio n .
H . W h eth er th e distri ct cou rtprop erly ref u sed t o b if u rcate the tr ial into gu il t an d d ru g q u an ti ty p h as es . On the pe nu l t i mat e da y o f t r i a l, M e l e r o mov e d to bi furcat e the gui l t and d rug quanti ty phases, ar gui ng tha t othe rwis e he w oul d have t o si m ult aneously ar gue that he w as not a m em berof a drug conspir acy as charg ed but, that i fh e w as, “he w as not i nvol ved i n the quanti ti es of32 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 d rugs cha rged by the Go v ernm en t.” The district cou rt denie d the m oti on, st ati ng, “Idon’ t s ee the pr ej ud i ce f ra nkl y. ” M el er o ar gues on a pp ealthatthe cour t v i ol ate d hi s F i fth and Si xth A m endm ent r i ghts and other w i se abused i ts disc re ti on byf ai l i ng to bi furcat e the is su es of gui l t a n d drug quanti ty. A tr i alco urt has di scr eti on t o deci de w hetherto b ifurcat e a tr i al, and w e e val uate den i al o f a m o ti o n to bi fur ca te f o r ab us e of discr et i o n. Se eKr oc ka v
. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 203 F.3d 507 , 5 1 6 ( 7 th Cir. 2000 ). A s the di str i ct c ourtr eco gni zed her e, it’s notcl ear th at M el er o ’ s ar g um en ts wer e ev en i nc o ns i st en t: to argu e that he was not a m em bero fth e co nspir acy did not amoun t to c o nc edingdr ugqu an tity, no r di d a r g ui ngthe dr ugqua nt i tyr equire a n adm i ss i o n o fg ui l t o n the c o nsp ira c y. T h e c ou r t d id n otab u se its d isc re tio n in d en yin g M ele ro ’s m ot ion
.
I . W he t he rt he di s t r i c tc o urtpr o pe r l ya dmi t t e d a c o - c o ns pi r a t o rs t a t e mentbyAl v i a rt ha the a nd M ele ro w ere en forc ers in th e L atin K in gs . Coopera ti ng witne ss Oli var es tes ti fi ed that he had bee n a L at in K in g in A u ro ra w h o w as im p ris on ed u n til A ugust 2 003. On bei n g r el eas ed fro m pri son, Ol i var es bega n coo perat i ng with the F B I
. On M ar ch 25, 20 04, Oli var es re cor ded a conve rs ati on with A l vi ari n w hi ch A l vi arst ate d: “M e a nd Pep Dog [ M el er o] go t those spots . H e’ s the enf or cer, I ’ m hoo d enfor c er . ” Ol i var es described thos e e nfo rce r posi ti ons as hi gh posi ti ons.N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 33 The de f en se o bj ec te d t o the r ec o r di ngo n the g r o und th at A lvia r’s st at em en ts to O liva re s w er e n otm a d e in fu rt h er an c e o f th e c on sp ira c y a n d w er e a d m iss ible on ly a g a i ns tAl v i a r . T he di s t r i c tc our ta dmi t t e d the r e c o r di ng. M el er o appeal s. H e argues that the c ourtabuse d i ts di sc r et i o n b y pe r m itti ng c o nv er sa ti o ns wi tha c o nfi denti ali nfo rm an t f orthe gov er nm ent into evi dence un d er 28 U
. S. C
. § 801(d )( 2)(E). I n c o ns pi r ac y c as es s ta te m en ts tha t ar e “pa r t o fthe in for m at ion flow b et w ee n c on sp ira to rs in te n d ed t o h e lp each per f or m hi s r ol e” sat i sfy the “in further ance” re quir em en t of R u l e 8 01 (d )(2) (e). G a rling to n v . O ’Lea ry, 87 9 F
. 2d 27 7, 2 83 ( 7th C ir. 1 98 9) ( quo tingU ni t e d S t at e s v. Van D aal W yk, 8 40 F. 2d 494, 49 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) )
. S uch stat em en ts i nc l ude tho se made to a l er t m em be r s to the pr og ress ofthe conspi ra cy and thei r ro l es i n i t. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. H unt, 272 F.3d 488 , 495-96 ( 7 t h C ir. 2001 ). The dis tr i ct c ourthad am ple gr ounds to concl ud e that A lvia r’s st at em en t t o O liva re s fu rt h er ed th e c on sp ira c y. J. W h eth er t h e d istr ict cou rtc learl y err ed i n att ri b u ti n gm o r e t h a n 1 5 0 k i l o g r a m s o fc o c a i n e t o T e j e da f orsent encin g pu r poses a nd i n assessi ng him an enh ancem ent f orbei ng a l eaderoror ganizer of ext ensiv e cri m i nal act i vi ty. Tej eda was sente nced at a base off ense l eve l o f38 bas ed on a fi nd i ng tha t the co cai ne invol ved i n the conspi ra cy an d c ha r g eabl e to Tej eda t o ta l ed 17 1. 6 k i l o g r ams. Am o ng oth er enh an cem en ts, th e d istri ct cou rt enh an ced T e jed a’s off ense l eve l by fourp oi nts pu rs uant to U.S
. S. G. § 3 B1. 1( b)34 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 base d on a fi nd i ng tha t h e was an o rg ani zero r l eader of cri m i nal act i vi ty i nvol vi ng fi ve orm or e par ti ci pants. Tej eda a r g ue s o n ap p eal tha t he i s en ti tl ed to r es en tenci ng be cause the c ourter re d i n i ts drug qu anti ty cal cul ati ons and i n enhanci ng hi s o ff ense l eve l b ase d on i ts finding that he was an o rg ani zero r l eader
. W e r evi ew a cou rt’s f actu al find ings at sen ten cing for cl ear error. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bot hun , 424 F.3d 582 , 586 (7th C ir. 2005). I n ter m s o fdrug quanti ty, the gov er nm en t re l i ed on tes ti m ony ofco oper ati ng witne ss Lopez to m ake i ts c alc u lat ion s. L op ez te st ified th at fro m a p p ro x im at ely J anuaryto S eptem ber20 00, Tej eda deal t be tw een o ne - qua r te r a nd o ne - ha l fo unc e o fc ocai ne pe r wee k
. The mi d- po i n to fth i s r a n g e i s 1 0
. 5 g r a ms , a n d 1 0
. 5 g r a ms tim es 39 w ee ks am ou n ts to 40 9.5 gra m s. Fr om ap p ro x imat e l y Oc t o b e r 2000 t o De c e mbe r 2 0 0 1 , Lo pe z t e s t i fi e d, T ej e d a d e a l t a p p r o x i ma t e l y 1 / 8 k i l o p e r we e k , a nd 126 gr am s ti m es 65 w eek s am ounts to 8, 190 gr am s. Fr om a pp r o xi mat e l y J a nu a r y t o J un e 2 0 0 2 , T ej e da de a l ta pproxi m ate l y 1 /4 ki l o per w eek, and 25 0 gra m s t i m es 22 w ee ks am ou n ts to 5,50 0 g ra m s. A n d from ap p ro x im at ely J uly 2002 to M ar ch 2005 , Tej eda d ea lt one to tw o ki l ogr am s perweek, and one ki l ogr am ti m es 142 w eek s amoun ts t o 1 42 , 00 0 g r ams. Tej eda, M adr i g al, M el er o , a nd Delg ado- R i os al so sto l e som e 4 kil ogr am s, and def endants Tej eda, A l vi ar, and H er i ver to Rio s a tte m pted to pu rchas e 10 ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne as parto fthe conspi ra cy. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtst at ed : [T]he se w ere not kilogram t r a n sact ions. T he y w ere sm all, r el ati vel y s m al l tr ansact i ons. . . . But i t’ s stillN os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 35 enough t o m ax out on the thr esho l d of th e 38 o ff ense lev el u n d er th e g u i d elin es . . . . [T]h ey w er e s m all quanti ty tr ansact i ons, but they occurre d overan a wful l y l o ngp e r i o d oft i me, a nd tha t ’ s h o w i ta dds up , j ust s o the r eco rd i s cl earabo ut that
. W e ana lyze the d istri ct cou rt’s find ing for clear error. The c o ur t was “ en ti tl ed to esti m at e dr ugqua nt i tyus i ng te st i m o ny abo utthe fr eque nc y o fde al i nga nd the a m o unt d ea lt overa speci fi ed peri od ofti m e. ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v. H erna nd ez , 5 44 F
. 3d 743, 746 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( quo ting U nite d State s v. N oble, 246 F.3d 946 , 952 (7th C ir. 20 0 1 ))
. W hi l e a defendant m ust be se ntenced o n the basi s o f re liab le in for m at ion , U nite d State s v. B autis ta , 532 F. 3d 667, 67 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , and a courtm ay not base i ts c alc u l a t i o n on p u re sp ec u lat ion , U nite d State s v. Jarret t, 133 F. 3d 519, 53 0 ( 7th C ir. 1 998) , the cour t m ay use a re a so n ab le e st im at e o f th e d ru g q u an tit ies
. U nited Sta tes v. Kras i ns ki, 5 45 F
. 3d 54 6, 5 52 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. The c o urt ’s fi nd i ng tha t Tej eda was re sp onsibl e f orm or e than 150 ki l ogr am s of coca i ne w as supp or ted by the evi dence, an d there w as no clear err or. T ej ed a also adv an ces an argum en t base d on th e leade rshi p en h an c em ent. I n ar gui ng f ora l eadero r or gani zer role ad j us t m en t, th e govern m en t po inted to Lop ez’s asser te d r o l e as s ubs er vi en t to Tej eda ( pac k ag i nga nd tr anspor ti ng co c aine forTej eda, tr anspor ti ng Tej eda f or d rug d eals, storing cash , cocai ne , and gun s for T ej ed a); T ej ed a’s recruitm en t of Sam an iego to pu rch ase a m otorcycl e in or der t o l aund erdrug proce eds; Tej eda’ s cl ai m ed recru itm e n t of A lvi ar and Rios i n th e attem p t to pu r-36 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 chase 10 ki l ogr am s o fcocai ne; and Tej eda’ s ca l l s t o M el er o an d M adr i g al when hi s ho m e was fi r ed upo n. The defe nse a rgued that the co nspir acy w as a di sor gani zed c o ns pi r a c y wi tho utl e a de r s hi p. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtfou n d th at “t h e e n h an c e m en t it se lf is base d on r ela ti ve cul pabi l i ty. A nd r el ati vel y s peaki ng, I he a r d mo r e tha n e no ugh e v i de nc e t o c o nv i nc e me tha t he was a l ea dero fthe pe o pl e th athe was de al i ngwi th, at l eas t s om e o fthem , and that ther e were fi ve or m o r e p e o p l e i n th e c o n s p i r a c y . ” T h e c o u r t e n h a n ce d t he off ense l eve l f our poi nts b ase d on § 3B1. 1( b) , wh i ch provi des, “I f a d efendant w as an o rg ani zero r l eadero f a crim inal activity th at involved five or m o r e pa rtic ip an ts or w as ot h er w ise ex te n siv e, in c re as e by 4 lev els .” O n ap p eal, Tejeda d oes not disp ut e t ha t the re w ere fi ve orm or e par ti ci pants, but he poi nts o ut that§ 3B1. 1( b) i ncl ud es thre e ca teg or i es: o rg ani zero r l eadero fcr i m i nal activity i nv olvi ng five or m ore pa rtici p an ts (4 points ); m anage r orsuperv i soro fcr i m i nal act i vi ty i nvol vi ng fi ve or m ore pa rtici p an ts (3 points ); or or g an izer, l ead er, m anage r, o r supervi soro fl ess ercr i m i nal act i vi ty ( 2 p oin ts)
. H e co nti nues thatf orthe f our poi nt enhancem ent, the gov er nm ent had t o show the defendant had r e a l a n d d i r e c ti n fl u e n c e o v e r o th e r p a r t i c i p a n t s . He ar gues th at the g ove rnm ent di d not dem onst ra te re al i nfl uence. N ot e 4 to § 3B 1.1 (b ) lis ts fac to rs to be co n sid er ed in as se ss i ng th e ag g r av at i ng r o l e adj us tment, i nc l udi ng“ th e ex ercise of d ecision m aking au th ority, the n atu re o fpa r ti ci pat i o n i n the c o m m issi on ofthe o ff en se , theN os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 37

re crui tm ent o facc om pli ces, the cl ai m ed ri gh t to a l ar ger shar e o f the f rui ts ofthe cri m e, the degre e o fpart i ci pation in plan n in g o r organizing th e offen se, th e nat ure and scope ofthe i l l ega l act i vi ty, and the deg re e ofco ntro l an d au th or ity ex er c ise d ov er ot h er s.” N o fa c to r l ist ed in the a p p l i cati on not e i s e sse nti alto fi nd i ng the enhancem en t, nor m us t w e give equ al w eigh t t o e a ch f acto r. U nited Sta tes v. Wa sz , 450 F.3d 720 , 7 2 9 ( 7 t h C ir. 2006). “[ A ] l though the nature and purpos es ofth e enhancemen tc e r t a i nl y r e qu i re th e de f e nd a ntt o h a v e p l a y e d a lea d in g ro l e in the off ense, he ne ed not l i ter al l y hav e been th e bo ss o fhi s co ho r ts i n o r dert o qua l i fy fo r the enhancem en t, f ora l eadercan i nfl uence o ther s thro ugh in d ire c t a s w ell as d ire c t m ea n s.” Id. at72 9- 30. I n thi s ca se, ther e was ev i dence showingthatLopez w or ke d for T ejed a a n d t h at T ejed a o ve rs aw L op ez in sel l i ng co cai ne. There was evi dence thatTej eda r ecru i ted M anny S am ani ego ( Cruz S am ani ego ’ s bro ther ) to l aund er drug procee ds and pu rchas e a m oto rcy cl e. Tej eda al so r e c r ui t e d Al v i a r a nd R i o s t o j o i n hi m i n the at tem pted ro bber y o f10 ki l ogr am s. Tej eda used M el er o as a l oo kout
. Bas ed o n thi s ev i den ce , the r e was no c l ea r err o r i n the di st r i ct cour t’ s dec i si o n t o e nha nc e th e o ff en se l ev elf o ur po i nt s b a s e d o n l e a de r s hi p.
K . W hethert he dist r i ctco urti m pro perl y s ente nced M ad riga l. F i na l l y, Mad r i g a l c o nt e nd s th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o ur ti mpr o per l y s entence d him bas ed on drug quanti ti es i n exces s of t h os e re flec te d in t h e jur y’s ve rd ict
.38 N os. 07

- 2333, 07

- 2336, 07

- 2338, 07

- 2366 & 07

- 2385 T he j ury ve rd ict f ou nd M a d rigalresp ons ibl e for m ore than 50 0 g ra m s but l ess than fi ve ki l ogr am s o fco c ain e. A t s entenci ng , the dist ri ct c ourt, wh i l e r eco gni zi ng i ts au th o r i tyt o s en te nc e ba se d o n amount s i n e xc es s o fthe j ury’ s v er dict, r efused to fi nd M adri galr espons ibl e f or an y am ou nt beyon d the fi v e kil ogram s foun d by the j ury (“I n th is case .
. . Ifeel const rained to hon or the j ury’s fi nd i ng”) . Th e co urt f ound M adri galr esponsibl e f or between thr ee- an d -a-hal fand fi ve ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne, whi cht o g ether w i tha fi r ea r m s enha nc ement, b r o ug ht M adri galto l eve l 32 , c ate gor y VI
. The gui del i ne r ange w as 210 to 262 m onths. M adri galr ecei ve d 240 m onths. The c o ur t se nt en ce d b as ed on quant i ti es wi th i n the ran ge foun d by the j ury, w hich w as p rop er.

I I I . Concl usio n W e A FFIRM the dist ri ct c ourto n al l co unts.

7- 23- 09