FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T May 20, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 11 17 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 21 2- CR-7 -LSC-HGD

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us REGINALD DEWAYNE DIXON , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma y 20 , 20 09 ) Befo re BI RCH, BLACK an d HULL, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Reg in al d Dewa yne Dix on ch al le ng es hi s co nv ic ti on forbe in g afel onin

po ss es si on of afir earm , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). On ap pe al , Dix on arg ue s t he di stric t co urt p la in ly erredwhen itall owe d c ert ai n t es ti m on y at t ria l; th e di st ric t co urt erredwhen itde ni edhi s re qu es t fo r a fre e co py of th e tr an sc rip t fr om hi s fi rs t t ria l, wh ic h h aden de d i n am is tri al ; an d t he cu m ul at iv e eff

ectof t he di st ric t co urt’s al le ge d e rro rs warran ts us va cat in g h is ve rd ic t. We addres s ea ch arg um en t i n turn. I. Fi rs t, Di xo n c on te nd s t he di st ric t co urt s ho ul d n othave all owe d a go ve rn m en t wi tn es s t o t es ti fy (1) Dix on ’s pi ctur e was in a bo okof p eo pl e who ha ve ha d “ ru n i ns ” wit h l oc al po li ce; an d (2 ) a warra ntfor Dix on ’s arres t s te m

m ed fro m a do m es ti c v io le nc e ch arg e. Dix on ass ert s t he tes ti m on y was i rrel ev an t an d un fai rly preju di ci al . He furthe r arg ue s t he di stric t co urt erredby allo win g a go ve rn m en t wi tn es s t o t es ti fy th atth e arre st in g o ffi cer s ai d h e was go in g t o g o se arch fora gu n t ha t Di xo n h addro pp ed . Dix on ass ert s t he tes ti m on y was h ears ay wit ho utanex cep ti on . Dix on di d n otob

ject t o any of th e rel ev an t t es ti m on y at t he tri al , so we rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Ba ker , 43 2 F .3d11 89 , 12 02 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Und er the pl ai n e rro r st an da rd , “ th ere m us t b e (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, 2an d (3 ) th ataffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. If a ll th ree c on di ti on s ar e m et , an app el la te

co urt m ay th enex erci se it s d is cret io n t o n ot ic e a fo rfei te d e rro r, bu t o nl y if (4 ) th e erro r se rio us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Id. at 1 20 2- 03 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . “ Fo r th e ad m is si on of ev id en ce t o c on st itut e p la in erro r, th e ev id en ce m us t h av e b een so ob vi ou sl y in ad m is si bl e an d p reju di ci al th at , des pi te de fen se co un se l’s fa il ur e to ob ject, t he di st ric t co urt, su a s

po nt e , sh ou ldha ve ex cl ud edth e ev id en ce.” Uni te d Sta te s v. W il li ams , 52 7 F .3d12 35 , 12 47 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . A. The Te st imo ny Co nc erni ng th e Boo k a nd

Domes ti c Vio le nc e Rel ev an t ev id en ce i s d efi ne d a s “ ev id en ce h av in g a ny ten de nc y to m ak e th e ex is te nc e o f an y

factth atis of c on se qu en ce t o t he de te rm in at io n o f th e act io n m or e pr ob ab le or l es s p ro babl e th anitwou ldbe witho utth e ev id en ce.” Fe d. R. Ev id . 40 1. Gen eral ly, al l re le va ntev id en ce i s ad m is si bl e. Fed . R. Evi d. 4 02 . Mor eo ve r, [e]vi de nc e, no t p artof t he cri m e ch arg edbu t p ert ai ni ng to th e ch ai n of ev en ts ex pl ai ni ng th e co nt ex t, . . . is p ro pe rly adm it te d i f li nk edin ti m e an d c irc um st an ces with t he ch arg edcri m e, or form s an in te gr al an d n atur al part o f anacco un t o f th e cri m e, or is ne ces sa ry

to co m pl et e th e st ory

of the cri m e fo r th e jury. Uni te d Sta te s v. Will if

or d , 76 4 F .2d14 93 , 14 99 (11 thCir . 19 85 ). Des pi te adm is si bi li ty, ev id en ce m ay be ex cl ud edwhen it s p ro ba ti ve va lu e

“ is subs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh edby the da ng er o f un fai r pr ejud ic e.” Fed . R. Evi d. 4 03 . 3A cou rt’s d is cret io n t o e xc lu de ev id en ce u nd er Fe d. R. Ev id . 40 3 s ho ul d b e u se d

sp ari ng ly, an d t he ba lanc e u nd er the rul e sh ou ldbe stru ckin fav orof a dm is si bi li ty. Uni te d Sta te s v. Wright , 39 2 F .3d12 69 , 12 76 (11 thCir . 20 04 ). Whe n d oi ng th e ba la nc in g t es t, the Co urt s ho ul d a sk“ whe th er i ts pro ba ti ve va lu e is ou twei gh edby it s p reju di ci al effe ct .” Id. Inth is cas e, th e g ov ern m en t wi tn es s’s t es ti m on y co nc ern in g t he bo okof pi ctur es an d t he ba si s fo r th e arr es t warran t was rel ev an t b ecau se itwas p artof t he wit ne ss ’s acco un t o f th e cri m e, ex pl ai ni ng why th e wit ne ss was c he ck in g t o s ee i f th ere was a warra ntforDix on ’s arres t. Se e W il li fo rd , 76 4 F .2dat 1 49 9. Fu rth erm or e, un li ke graph ic ev id en ce o f sp ou sa l ab us e, th e te st im on y th atDix on ’s warra ntwas fo r th e n on de sc rip t ch arg e o f do m es ti c v io le nc e was no t s o p reju di ci al th atitsh ou ldha ve be enex cl ud edbe cau se itwas n otli ke ly to i nc it e th e jury to an irr at io na l d eci si on . But

cf. Un it ed

St at es v. Han ds , 18 4 F .3d13 22 , 13 28 -2 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t p la in ly err by allo win g t he te st im on y . B. Hea rs ay Hears ay is de fin edas “ a st at em en t, o th er tha n o ne m ad e b y th e d ecl aran t whi le tes ti fy in g a t t he tri al or h eari ng , off eredin ev id en ce t o p ro ve th e trut h o f th e m at te r as se rte d.” Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (c). “ Hears ay is in ad m is si bl e u nl es s the 4st at em en t i s n othe ars ay as p ro vi de d b y

[Fed . R. Evi d.] 80 1( d) , or fa ll s i nt o o ne of th e h ears ay

ex cep ti on s en um erat edin [Fed . R. Evi d.] 80 3, 8 04 , and80 7.” Bak er , 43 2 F .3dat 1 20 3. Th e fo ll owi ng is no t ex cl ud edas h ears ay , eve n tho ug h t he de cl aran t i s av ai labl e as a wit ne ss : A st at em en t o f th e d ecl aran t’s the n e xi st in g s ta te of m in d, em ot io n, se ns at io n, o r ph y si cal co nd it io n (s uc h a s i nt en t, p la n, m ot iv e, de si gn , m en ta l fe el in g, p ai n, an d b od il y he al th ), bu t n otin cl ud in g ast at em en t of m em ory or b el ie f to pro ve th e fac t re m em be redor b el ie ve d u nl es s itrel at es to th e ex ecu ti on , rev oc at io n, i de nt ifi cat io n, o r te rm s o f de cl aran t’s wi ll . Fed . R. Evi d. 8 03 (3 ). “ [T]he st at e-o f-m in d e xc ep ti on do es no t p erm itth e wit ne ss to rel at e an y

of t he de cl aran t’s s ta te m en ts as t o wh y he he ldth e p art ic ul ar s ta te of m in d, o r wha t h e m ig htha ve be li ev edth atwou ldhave in du cedth e st at e o f m in d.” Uni te d Sta te s v. S

ama ni eg o , 34 5 F .3d12 80 , 12 82 (11 thCir . 20 03 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Alt ho ug h t he witne ss ’s tes ti m on y th atth e arr es ti ng off

ic er t ol d t he witne ss th athe was g oi ng to sea rchfor a gu n t ha t Di xo n h addro pp edm ay be he ars ay , th e di st ric t co urt d idno t co m m ita rev ers ib le erro r be cau se th e te st im on y was n ot“ so ob vi ou sl y in ad m is si bl e an d p reju di ci al th at , des pi te de fen se co un se l’s fa il ur e to ob ject, t he di st ric t co urt, su a s po nt e , sh ou ldha ve ex cl ud edth e ev id en ce.” W il li ams , 54 2 F .3dat 1 24 7. Th is is esp eci al ly true be cau se an othe r wit ne ss ga ve

5di recttes ti m on y th athe saw Di xo n t hr ow t he gu n a way . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ct co urt d idno t co m

m itrev ers ib le erro r. II. Dix on , who is anin di ge ntde fen da nt , als o a rg ue s t he di stric t co urt erred whe n i t d en ie d h is reque stfora free co py of th e tr an sc rip t fr om hi s fi rs t t ria l, whi chha d e nd edin a m is tri al . A di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f anin di ge ntde fen da nt ’s reque stfora tr an sc rip t o n t he ba si s t ha t t he re i s i ns uf fic ie ntti m e to pre pa re the tra ns cri ptis rev ie wedforanab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. S mith , 60 5 F.2 d 8 39 , 84 3- 44 (5t h C ir. 1 97 9) (ho ld in g i t was withi n aco urt’s d is cret io n t o 1 de ny an i nd ig en t d efen da nta tr an sc rip t wh enth e rea so n fo r th e d en ia l was an un ne ces sary

de la y of t he tri al ). “ An i nd ig en t d efen da ntm ay no t b e d ep riv edof ‘the ba si c to ol s o f anad equa te de fen se or app eal , when th os e to ol s ar e av ai labl e fo r a p ric e to othe r pr is on ers .’ ” Id. at 8 42 (qu ot in g Bri tt v. No rth C

ar ol in a , 92 S. Ct . 43 1, 4 33 (19 71 )). The tra ns cri ptof apri orm is tri al is va lu ab le to th e d efen se in pre pa rin g fo r tr ia l, an d an “ in di ge nt[de fen da nt ] is en ti tl edto a co m pl et e tra ns cri ptfree of c ha rg e wit ho utsh owi ng a parti cu la r ne edforth e tr an sc rip t.” Id. at84 2- 43 . In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this 1 court a dopted as bindingprec edent a ll decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to close of busine ss on September 30, 1981. 6The m ere r eque stfora tr an sc rip t b y anin di ge ntde fen da nt , ho wev er, d oe s no t i m po se a co ns ti tu ti on al du ty on t he tri al co urt t o o rd er i t p rep ared . Id. at 8 43 .

“ Onl y di ffer en ces in acce ss to th e in st ru m en ts ne ed edto vi nd ic at e le ga l ri gh ts , [w]henba se d upo n t he fin an ci al si tu at io n o f th e d efen da nt , are re pu gn an t t o t he Co ns ti tu ti on .” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . It i s n otanab us e o f di sc ret io n fo r a tr ia l co urt t o re fu se a “ de fen se co un se l’s re qu es t fo r a co nt in ua nc e to have a tra ns cri ptpre pa redat t he de fen da nt ’s own expe ns e whe n t he reque stwas m ad e o n th e ev e o f tr ia l.” Id

. Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d Di xo n’s re qu es t fo r a tran sc rip t b ecau se th ere was in su ffi ci en t t im e fo r th e co urt re po rte r to pre pa re a t ran sc rip t b efo re the se co ndtri al , rathe r th anbe cau se of Di xo n’s i nd ig en ce. Thi s was a va li d re as on for de nyin g Di xo n’s re qu es t. Se e S mith , 60 5 F .2dat 8 43 . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ct co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh enitde ni edhi s re qu es t fo r th e tr an sc rip t. III. Fi na ll y , Dix on arg ue s t he cu m ul at iv e eff

ectof t he di st ric t co urt’s al le ge d erro rs warran ts us va cat in g h is ve rd ic t. “ The cu m ul at iv e err ordo ctrin e p ro vi de s th atanag gr eg at io n o f no n- rev ers ib le erro rs (i.e ., pl ai n e rro rs fai li ng to ne ces si ta te rev ers al an d h arm le ss erro rs ) can y ie lda de ni al of t he co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto a fai r tri al , whi ch cal ls forrev ers al .” Bake r , 43 2 F .3dat 1 22 3 (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns 7om it te d) . W e ev al ua te th e h arm le ss ne ss of c um ul at iv e err orby exam in in g

“ whe th er the de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts were af fect ed .” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . The to ta l ef

fectof t he erro rs on th e tr ia l wi ll de pe nd , am on g o th er th in gs , on th e n atur e an d n um be r of th e err or s co m

m it te d; th ei r in te rrel at io ns hi p, i f an y , andco m bi ne d e ffec t; ho w th e d is tri ctco urt de al t wi th th e err or s as th ey aro se (in cl ud in g t he effi cacy—orlac k o f effi cacy—of

an y rem ed ia l ef

fo rts ); t he st ren gt h o f th e g ov ern m en t’s cas e, an d the len gt h o f tr ia l. Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . W e wil l n otco nc lu de th ata de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts were af fect edun le ss th e err or s h av e a s ub st an ti al in flu en ce o n t he ou tc om e o f th e cas e o r le av e g rav e d oubtas t o wh ethe r th ey affe ct edth e o ut co m e o f a cas e. Id. Whe n t he all eg ederro rs in th is cas e are gro up edto ge th er, the y do no t cr eat e a g rav e d oubtas t o wh ethe r th ey affe ct edth e o ut co m e o f th e cas e. Evenif t he al le ge d e rro rs were n otm ad e, th e arr es ti ng off ic er t es ti fie d t ha t h e sa w Dix on ho ld in g agu n. Acco rd in gl y , th e cu m ul at iv e-erro r do ctrin e d oe s n otwarran t u s va cat in g Di xo n’s v erd ic t. Afte r co ns id eri ng th e p art ie s’ bri efs an d t he reco rdonap pe al , we di sc ern no rev ers ib le erro r an d a ffi rm Dix on ’s con vi ct io n. AFFIRMED.

8