FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 13, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 10325

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -000 01 -C R -4 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M E I E R J A S O N B R O W N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M a r c h 13, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , B A R K E T T , an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg e: I n th is c ap ita l c a s e , M e ie rJ a s o n B r o w n ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n a n d d e a th s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tofSpe c if ic ally, B ro wn

c ontend s th at th edis tric t c ourt e rre d b y : 1) re fu singto s uppre ss 1 statements alleg edly

obtained without Miranda w arning s; 2) ref using to c onduct an evidentiary hearing on B rown’s motion to suppress improper and sug g estive identification evidence ; 3) findingthat the g overnment did not improperly withhold Brady

material; 4) quashingBrown’s subpoena f

or the produc tion of state re cords; 5) denying B rown’s motion to prohibit the deathqu alif ic atio n o f j uror s; 6 ) de nyingB ro wn ’smotion fo r b if urc ate d v oir

dire ; 7) a skingc e rt ain questions in the proce ss of death qualifying thejury ; 8) excusing juror Fa hey ; 9) telling a

juror that Brown had entere d a guilty plea; 10) allowing he arsa y testimony

at both the guilt-innocence and penalty

stag es of the trial; 11) allowingthe introduction of certain crime scenephotos; 12) findingthe Fe deral Death Penalty Act constitutional; 13) denying c ertain funds for e xpert assistanceat the penalty

stag e; 14) denying B rown’s motion for a direc ted verdict as to the pecunia ry g ain ag gravating f

actor and in instructingthe jury reg ardingthat ag gravating f actor ; and 15) denying B rown the right to be present a nd to cross-e x amine witnesses a fter this Court rema nded the c ase f

or construc tion of the rec ord. 2 G e or gi a . A j ury f

ound hi m gui l ty of

1) m ur de rw i thi n the t e rr i t or i a l j ur i s di c t i on of the U ni t ed S t at es , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 11 1; 2) m urder of a f eder al e m pl oy e e ( a pos t a l w or ke r ) , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1114; a nd 3) r obbe ry of f e d e r a l p r o p e r ty ( $ 1 1 7 5 in p o s ta l m o n e y o r d e r s ) , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 4 . T he j ury r ec om m ended t hatB row n sho ul d b e s ent ence d t o d i e f or the m urder c onvi c t i ons ; a nd the di s tr i c tj udge i m pos e d a de a th s e nt e nc e , a l ong w i th 300 m o n th s in p r is o n f

o rth e r o b b e ry . B r ow n t i m e l y appe a l e d, a r gui ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tm a de e vi de nt i a ry a nd c ons t i tut i ona l e rr or s , i nappr opr i a t e l y c onduc t e d voi rdi r e , a nd vi ol a t e d both B r a dy v. M aryl and, 37 3 U . S . 83 (196 3) and M i ra nd a v. A ri zona, 38 4 U . S . 43 6 (19 66 ). 1 A f te rth o r o u g h r e v ie w , w e a f f ir m . I.3

T he f a c t s of thi s tr a gi c c a s e a r e s tr a i ght f or w a r d a nd a r e t a ke n f

r om the t est i m o n y o f th e tri al w i tn esses an d fro m th e l asto f B ro w n ’ s th ree co n fessi o n s, w h ic h w a s r e c o r d e d a n d p r e s e n te d to th e ju ry b y a u d io tap e . T he vi ct i m , S al l i e G agl i a, w as a par t -t i m e postm i stre ss i n the sm al l t ow n o f F l e m i ng, G e or gi a . S he w a s w or ki ng i n the F l e m i ng P os tO f f i c e on the m or ni ng of N o v em b er 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 , w h en sh e w as st ab b ed t o d eath . O n e o f h er co -w o rk ers, D ar l ene M ar i e W as hi ng t on , w as w orki ng i n the P ostO ff i ce w i th G agl i a betw ee n 8 :0 0 a .m . a n d a b o u t 9 :3 0 o r9 :4 5 a .m . th a t d a y . D u r in g th a t tim e , a b la c k m a le ca m e i nt o the P ostO ff

i ce t o retri eve m ai l fr om bo x 3 27 , w hi ch W as hi ng t on kn ew b e lo n g e d to th e M o r g a n a n d B r o w n f a m ilie s . A c c o r d in g to W a s h in g to n , G a g lia a s k e d th e m a n h is n a m e , a n d h e g a v e th r e e r e p lie s th a t n e ith e rw o m a n c o u ld unde r s t a nd, a l though W a s hi ngt on be l i e ve s he utt e r e d a na m e tha tbe ga n w i th the le tte r“M .” A s h e w a s e x itin g th e P o s t O f f ic e , W a s h in g to n h e a r d th e m a n s a y h is nam e w as “ Ja son. ” W as hi ng t on di d n otgeta goo d l oo k athi m and cou l d o ff er nothi ng m or e i n the w a y of a de s c r i pt i on tha n hi s s e x a nd s ki n c ol or . W a s hi ngt on l e f tthe P os tO f

f i c e be f or e G a gl i a w a s ki l l e d. Je nn i fe r Z ec h and S t ephen N i chol s di sc ov er ed G agl i a’ s bod y w hen t hey s t oppe d i n the P os tO f

f i c e t o ge tthe i rm a i l s om e t i m e a r ound 10: 45 a . m . on N ove m be r30th. W he n the y f ound he r , G a gl i aw a s l y i ng on the f l oorbe hi nd the4

cust om ercoun t eri n the P ostO ff i ce w i th w hatappeare d t o b e abl oo d st ai n o n h er ba c k. G a gl i a di d notr e s pond t o N i c hol s ’ s hout s , s o he j um pe d thr ough the c us t om e rs e r vi c e w i ndow a nd a ga i n tr i e d t o e l i c i ta r e s pons e . N i c hol s ope ne d the doorl e a di ng i nt o the c us t om e rw a i t i ng a r e a s o m e di c a l r e s ponde r s w oul d ha ve a c c e s s t o th e v i c t i m. W hi l e N i chol s w as i n the P ostO ff i ce , Z ec h ran t o a nearby house and asked th e o w n ers t o cal l 9 1 1 . L i n d a A sh craft , a v o l u n t eer fi refi g h t er w h o l i v ed n earb y, t es t i fi ed thata m an ca m e t o h erho use a nd t ol d h erthatsom eone atthe P ostO ff i ce ne e de d he l p. A s hc r a f

ta nd he rhus ba nd, w ho w a s a l s o a f i r s tr e s ponde ra nd fi re fi gh t er , re spon ded t o the P ostO ff i ce and p er form ed C P R on G agl i a. W hen they f ou nd G agl i a, she w as l yi ng fa ce do w n w i th “ a l ot ” of vi si bl e bl oo d. A shcr af t n o ti ce d tw o h o les in th e b ac k o f G ag li a’s s w ea ter a n d k n ife w o u n d s in G ag li a’s ba c k. E M S pe r s onne l a rr i ve d s hor t l y the r e a f t e ra nd de c l a r e d G a gl i a de a d. A lth o u g h th e r e w e r e n o a c tu a l e y e w itn e s s e s to th e s tab b in g , s e v e r a l p e o p le t e s t i f i e d t o s e e i ng a pe r s on f

i tt i ng B r ow n’ s de s c r i pt i on a tthe P os tO f f i c e a r ound the t i m e the c r i m e oc c urr e d. A m ong othe r s , F r a nk K a ni a s a i d tha the s t oppe d by the P ostO ff

i ce t o p i ck up hi s m ai l ar ou nd 10 : 25 or 10 : 30 a. m . , had a bri ef c o n v e r s a t i o n wi th Ga g l i a , a n d r e tu rn e d t o h i s tru c k , wh e r e h e s a tf o ro n e o rtwo m in u te s w h ile h e lo o k e d th r o u g h h is m a il. K a n ia s a id th a t w h ile h e w a s s ittin g in5

hi s truc k, he not i c e d a bl a c k m a l e on a bi c y c l e r i di ng t ow a r d the P os tO f f i c e . T he bi cy cl i stw ore aho od ed sw ea t shi rt . K ani a drove off before the suspec tarri ved at the P ostO ff

i ce , bu tas he w as dri vi ng aw ay , he ob se rved throu gh hi s r ea r- vi ew m i rr or thatthe bl ac k m al e gotoff hi s bi ke and w al ked i nt o the P ostO ff i ce . S ever al da y s l a t e r , K a ni a s e l e c t e d B r ow n f r om a phot o l i ne - up gi ve n t o hi m by i nv es t i gat ors, no t i ng thatB row n h ad “ the cl oses tre se m bl ance ” t o the m an he sa w on the bi ke. C hr i s B ow e n t e s t i f

i e d tha the t oo dr ove by the F l e m i ng P os tO f f i c e a r ound 10 : 30 or 10 : 35 a. m . on N ov em ber 30t h. H e s aw a s l ender bl ac k m al e, appr oxi m a t e l y 5' 10" t o 6' t a l l , dr e s s e d i n a da r k, hoode d j oggi ng s ui t , s i tt i ng on a bi c y c l e i n f

r ontof the P os tO f

f i c e door . T he m a n c a ughtB ow e n’ s e y e be c a us e he w as w ea ri ng w hi t e gl ov es on a day thatw as no t“ al l thatcol d. ” B ow en, w ho w as dr i vi ng a boutt e n m i l e s pe rhour , m a de e y e c ont a c tw i th the s us pe c t , butdi d not st op atthe P ostO ff

i ce . L i ke K ani a, B ow en l at erse l ec t ed B row n from a pho t o l i neu p , n o t i n g th a ta l th o u g h h e wa s n o to n e h u n d r e d p e r c e n ts u r e , h e th o u g h tB r o wn w a s the m a n he s a w a tthe P os tO f f i c e tha tf a t e f ul m orni ng. P o st al i n sp ect o rs p erfo rm ed an acco u n t ab i l i ty stu d y atth e F l em i n g P o st O ff i ce the day G agl i a w as m urdered. T hey det erm i ned t hat$1 , 26 6. 59 i n cas h w as m i s s i ng f r om the t i l l a nd tha tf

ourm one y or de r s ha d be e n i s s ue d i n the a m ount s ofBrown was indicte d for robbing the$500, $500, and $175 money order s. The status or 2 location of the $20 money order is not at issue in thi s case .

6 $ 2 0 , $ 5 0 0 , $ 5 0 0 , a n d $ 1 7 5 . T h e c a s h d r a w e rc o n ta in e d ap p r o x im a te ly $ 1 0 3 .9 1 . 2 A ttr i a l , the gove rnm e nti ntr oduc e d num e r ous c r i m e - s c e ne phot ogr aphs de pi c t i ng the l oc a t i on a nd pos i t i on of G a gl i a ’ s body a nd bl ood s t a i ns f ound i n the P o stO ffi ce. T h e g o v ern m en tal so o ffered a receipt t ap e reco v ered fro m th e P o st O ff i ce ca l cul at or show i ng the nu m bers 50 0, pl us . 90 , pl us 50 0, pl us . 90 , and t hen the num be r175 w i th a di vi s i on s i gn. A pos t a l e m pl oy e e e xpl a i ne d tha tthe c os tof pur c ha s i ng m one y or de r s up t o $500 w a s $. 90, thus s ugge s t i ng tha ts om e one i n the P o s t O f f ic e c a lc u la te d th e a m o u n t d u e f o rth e p u r c h a s e o f

th r e e m o n e y o r d e r s w ith de nom i na t i ons of

$500, $500, a nd $175. M or e ove r , the gove rnm e nti ntr oduc e d the pi cture of ashoe pri ntre covered fr om the t op of the cust om erse rvi ce coun t erthat se para t ed the pu bl i c port i on of the P ostO ff i ce fr om the em pl oyee w ork areaw here G agl i a’ s bod y w as foun d. N o fi ng erpri nt s w er e f ou nd i n the P ostO ff

i ce . T he D e puty C hi e f

M e di c a l E xa m i ne rf

orthe G e or gi a B ur e a u of Invest i gat i on perf

orm ed an aut op sy on G agl i a. H e t es t i fi ed thatthe vi ct i m had be e n s t a bbe d t e n t i m e s , tw o of w hi c h c oul d ha ve c a us e d G a gl i a t o di e w i thi n a s hor tpe r i od of

t i m e . T he doc t orf

ur the rnot e d tha ttw o of the non- f

a t a l w ounds w e r e t o the vi c t i m ’ s e xtr e m i t i e s : a ha l f - i nc h l a c e r a t i on on the a nt e r i ors ur f a c e of h e rle f t f o r e a r m a n d a th r e e - q u a r te rin c h s tab w o u n d o n th e b a c k o f h e rle f t w r is t.Thereareseveral people involved in this ca se who have the surna me “B rown.”We refer 3 to the defendant, Meier

J ason B rown, a s “B rown.”As for theother members of the B rown fa mily , w efirs t re fer to th e m by the ir full n ame s a

nd there a ft e r b y

on ly the ir firs t na me s. The DNA analyst testified that a quadrillion i s equal to one million mult iplied by one 4 billion. S o, 25 quadrillion would be represented by the number 25 f

ollowed by

fifteen zeros, or 25,000,000,000,000,000. 7 H e e xpl a i ne d tha tw he n a n i ndi vi dua l r e c e i ve s m ul t i pl e s t a b w ounds , c ut s f ound on th e e x tr e m itie s a r e c la s s ic a lly d e s c r ib e d a s “d e f e n s iv e ” ty p e s o f

in ju r ie s . O n D ec em ber 5, 20 02 , po l i ce cond uct ed si m ul t aneous se ar ches atthe ho m es of S adi e B row n (B row n’ s m other) and D i ane B row n. A l tho ug h arm ed w i th sea rc h 3 w a rr a n ts is s u e d b y a m a g is tr a te , th e o f f ic e r s r e c e iv e d c o n s e n t to s e a r c h f r o m b o th S adi e a nd D i ane. A tS adi e’ s hou se , po l i ce re covered a brow n “ ca rgo o r f i el d type” j a c ke ta nd the bi ke tha tB r ow n a l l e ge dl y us e d t o tr a ns por thi m s e l f t o a nd f r om the P o s tOf f i c e . No t a b l y , th e p o l i c e f o u n d b l o o d s t a i n s o n th e j a c k e t , a n d a DN A a na l y s tt e s t i f

i e d tha tthe D N A pr of

i l e of thos e s a m pl e s m a t c he d the D N A pr of i l e of S a l l i e G a gl i a ’ s bl ood. H e f ur the rs t a t e d tha tthe pr oba bi l i ty of r a ndom l y s e l e c t i ng a n unr e l a t e d i ndi vi dua l w i th the s a m e D N A pr of i l e i s one i n 25 qua dr i l l i on f r om 4 the C auca si an po pu l at i on and o ne i n 1 00 qu adri l l i on fr om the A fr i ca n-A m er i ca n p o p u la tio n , le a d in g h im to c o n c lu d e th a t “w ith in a r e a s o n a b le d e g r e e o f s c ie n tif ic ce rt ai nty, S al l i e G agi l a [ si c] i s the source of the m aj or com po nentprofi l e obt ai ned f r om the . . . j a c ke t . ” D i e tr e c hus n D a vi s , the de f e nda nt ’ s c ous i n, t e s t i f

i e d tha ton th e m o rn i n g o f

No v e m b e r3 0 , h e r e m e m b e r e d s e e i n g B r o wn we a r i n g th e b r o wn8

ja c k e t in v e s tig a to r s la te rr e c o v e r e d f r o m S a d ie ’s h o u s e . A t D ia n e ’s h o u s e , th e p o lic e f o u n d a p a iro f

L u g z s n e a k e r s w ith a tr e a d th a t, a c c or di ng t o a f

or e ns i c s c i e nt i s tw ho t e s t i f i e d a ttr i a l , “ w a s s i m i l a ri n s i z e a nd g eo m etry” t o th e tread d esi g n o f th e sh o e p ri n tl eftatth e cri m e scen e i n th e P o st O ff ice. A d d it io n ally, th e p o li ce fo u n d th re e m o n ey o rd erre ce ip ts at D ian e’s ho use, on e i n the am ou ntof $5 00 m ade pay abl e t o C hase M anhat t an M ort gage, one i n the a m ountof

$423. 08 m a de pa y a bl e t o C ha s e M a nha tt a n, a nd one i n the am ou ntof $1 75 m ade pay abl e t o D i ane’ s bankrup t cy trust ee . D i e tr e c hus n D a vi s a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha the w a s i n S a di e ’ s hom e on the ni ghtof D e c e m b e r5 , 2 0 0 2 , w h e n S a d ie r e c e iv e d a p h o n e c a ll. D a v is , w h o h e a r d o n ly S adi e’ s port i on of the conv er sa t i on , hear d h ersa y “ M ei er , w here you at ? M ei er , y ou di dn’ tki l l tha tl a dy , no. ” A ttha tt i m e , S a di e s t a r t e d c ry i ng, a nd D a vi s l e f tthe r o o m . T he defendantM ei erJa son B row n w as pres entatD i ane’ s hou se w hen i nv es t i gat ors c on du ct ed the se ar ch on D ec em ber 5, 20 02 . H e t al ked w i th o ff i ce rs w hi l e the y w e r e i n the hous e a nd pr oc e e de d t o c onf e s s thr e e s e pa r a t e t i m e s t o the m ur de rof

S a l l i e G a gl i a : onc e i n the hous e be f or e he w a s gi ve n M i r a nda w a rni ngs a nd a rr e s t e d, onc e i n the hous e a f t e rhe w a s gi ve n M i r a nda w a rni ngs a nd a rr e s t e d, a n d o n c e th e f

o llo w in g m o rn in g a t th e L ib e r ty C o u n ty J a il. O n ly th e ja il9

c o n f e s s io n w a s r e c o r d e d , a n d it w a s p la y e d in its e n tir e ty f o rth e ju ry a t tr ia l. P os t a l I ns pe c t orJ a m e s R us hw i n s poke w i th B r ow n a tS a di e ’ s hous e on D e c e m be r5, e xpl a i ni ng t o B r ow n tha ti nve s t i ga t or s w e r e s pe a ki ng w i th e ve ry one wh o m a y h a v e b e e n a tth e P o s tOf f i c e o n No v e m b e r3 0 , 2 0 0 2 . He a s k e d i f B r o wn w ou l d b e w i l l i ng t o t al k t o the po l i ce . B row n sai d h e w ou l d, and t he i nt ervi ew w as c o n d u c te d b y R u s h w in a n d D e te c tiv e C h a r le s W o o d a ll f r o m th e L ib e r ty C o u n ty S h e r if f’s D e p a r tm e n t. B r ow n t ol d i nve s t i ga t or s tha the w a s a tthe F l e m i ng P os tO f f i c e on the m o rn in g o f

N o v e m b e r3 0 , 2 0 0 2 , a r o u n d 8 :3 0 a .m ., to r e tr ie v e h is f a m ily ’s m a il f r om the i rpos tof

f i c e box. H e s a i d he r ode hi s U nc l e J uni or ’ s bi ke t o a nd f r om the P o s t O f f ic e a n d h a d a b r ie f

c o n v e r s a tio n w ith S a llie G a g lia a f te rs h e a s k e d h im h is n am e. A fterleav in g th e P o st O ff ice, B ro w n sa id h e s to p p ed at A n n ie Jo S co tt ’s h o u se an d v isit ed w ith h erfo r s ev er al m in u tes b ef o re re tu rn in g to h is m o th er ’s ho m e t o d i stri bu t e the m ai l . B row n i ni t i al l y deni ed re turni ng t o the P ostO ff i ce at a ny t i m e on N ove m be r30th. L a t e ri n the s a m e c onve r s a t i on, B r ow n c ha nge d hi s s t or y , thi s t i m e t e l l i ng th e p o l i ce th ataft er d i stri b u t i n g th e m ai l t o h i s fam i l y, h e st o l e $ 1 3 0 0 fro m a st ash th a t h is c o u s in C e d r ic h a d b u r ie d in th e w o o d s b e h in d S a d ie ’s h o u s e . H e c la im s to have returned t o the P ostO ff i ce and u se d the st ol en m on ey t o p urchas e three10

m one y or de r s : tw o f

or$500 e a c h a nd one f

or$175. B r ow n s a i d he ne e de d the m on ey orders so thatD i ane B row n cou l d p ay her m ort gage and h erbank rupt cy tru s te e . In yeta th i rd v ersi o n o f th e st o ry, B ro w n ad m i tt ed retu rn i n g t o th e P o st O ff i ce w i th a kn i fe t o rob G agl i a. H e s ai d h e r od e hi s bi cy cl e t o the P ostO ff i ce and o rder ed three m on ey orders i n the deno m i nat i on s not ed abov e. H e c l ai m ed tha tw he n G a gl i a turne d a w a y f r om the c ount e rt o c a l c ul a t e the a m ountdue , he ju m p e d o v e rth e c o u n te r , tr ip p e d , a n d f e ll in to h e r , th e r e b y c u ttin g h e rw ith h is kn i fe . H e t ol d the i nv es t i gat ors thatatthatpo i nthe deci ded h e had t o k i l l her because s he kn ew hi m . B row n sai d h e t oo k G agl i a’ s w al l etfr om her purse , c r a wl e d th r o u g h th e c o u n t e rwi n d o w, g o tb a c k o n h i s b i k e , a n d r o d e h o m e . He di s c a r de d the kni f

e a nd the s oc ks he w or e on hi s ha nds s om e w he r e be tw e e n the P os tO f f i c e a nd hi s m othe r ’ s hous e a nd s a i d he bur i e d the w a l l e ti n hi s ba c ky a r d, al th o u g h n ei th er th e w al l etn o r th e k n i fe an d so ck s w ere ev er l o cat ed . B ro w n al so s a id th a t a f

te rr e tu rn in g h o m e , h e w a s h e d h is c lo th e s a n d c a lle d D ia n e to p ic k h im up. S he a rr i ve d appr oxi m a t e l y one hourl a t e r . B r ow n e xpl a i ne d tha the ga ve the m o n ey o rd ers t o D i an e th e n ex td ay. A ft ergi vi ng thi s c on fe ss i on t o the po l i ce , B row n p i cked up the ph on e, d i al ed , an d so m eo n e an sw ered . R u sh w i n t est i fi ed th at“ [B ro w n ] sai d , ‘ b i t ch , j u st11

gi ve the phone t o M om . ’ A nd the n he s a i d, ‘ M om , ’ he s a y s , ‘ I l ove y ou. ’ H e s a i d, ‘it w a s a n a c c id e n t.’ H e s a id , ‘d o n ’t h a te m e , M a m a .’ H e s a id it w a s a n a c c id e n t. A nd he sa i d ‘ bye, M am a, bye. ’ A nd hu ng up . ” S ho rt l y there af t er , B row n w as arre st ed and adv i se d o f hi s M i ra nd a r i gh t s. H e w ai ved t ho se ri gh t s a nd re peat ed the e nt i r e c onf

e s s i on t o the of

f i c e r s . D i a ne s ubs e que nt l y c a m e i nt o the r oom , a nd B r o w n to ld h e rth a t h e w e n t to th e P o s t O f f ic e to r o b G a g lia a n d th a t h e f e ll in to h e ra n d c u t h e r . B row n w as tra nspo rt ed t o the L i berty C ou nty J ai l on the ni gh tof D ec em ber 5 , 2 0 0 2 . T h e n e x tm o rn i n g , a g a i n a f t e rb e i n g g i v e n h i s Mi r a n d a wa rn i n g s , B r o wn gave an audi o-t aped confess i on t o D et ec t i ve W oo dal l and P ost al Inspec t or H enry R ee ves. B row n st at ed on the t ape thathe had b ee n adv i se d o f hi s r i gh t s a nd he w as w a iv in g th o s e r ig h ts a n d ta lk in g to th e p o lic e . B r o w n r e ite r a te d m a n y o f th e f a c ts he ha d t ol d the pol i c e the pr e vi ous da y . H e c onf i r m e d tha the r ode a bi c y c l e t o the P os tO f f i c e on the m orni ng of

N ove m be r30 t o r e tr i e ve hi s f a m i l y ’ s m a i l a nd ha d a b rief co n v er sa ti o n w ith o n e o f th e p o stal w o rk er s. H e r etu rn ed to h is m o th er ’s ho use a nd then w entback t o the P ostO ff i ce t o rob G agl i a. O n the w ay , he st op ped t o s e e M s . A nni e J o S c ott , w ho ga ve hi m s om e c a nne d goods f orhi s m othe r . F r om the r e , B r ow n pr oc e e de d t o the P os tO f f i c e . B r ow n s t a t e d: I w e nti ns i de , a nd I a s ke d the l a dy f orthe m one y or de r s . S he m a de the m . U h, I j um pe d a c r os s the l i tt l e thi ng, a nd I tr i ppe d, a nd12

a c c id e n ta lly c u t h e r . A n d w h e n I c u t h e r , I g o t s c a r e d a s h e ll, m a n . I d id n ’t g o th e r e to h u r t h e r , h o n e s t to G o d I d id n ’t. B r ow n s t a t e d tha the br oughtthe kni f e w i th hi m s ol e l y t o “ i nt i m i da t e ” G a gl i a a nd th a th e p l a c e d s o c k s o v e rh i s h a n d s p r i o rt o j u m p i n g a c r o s s th e c o u n t e r . B r o wn s a i d tha the t ook the m one y or de r s a nd G a gl i a ’ s w a l l e t , j um pe d ba c k thr ough the c ount e rw i ndow , a nd r e turne d t o hi s m othe r ’ s hous e , di s c a r di ng the kni f e a nd s oc ks a l ong the w a y . A f t e rr e turni ng hom e , he puthi s c l othe s i n the w a s h a nd c a l l e d D i a ne t o pi c k hi m up. D e s p ite s e v e r a l q u e s tio n s f r o m th e in v e s tig a to r s , B r o w n w a s u n a b le to r e m e m be r( orr e l a t e ) a ny s pe c i f i c de t a i l s a boutw ha thappe ne d be tw e e n w he n he f i r s tc utG a gl i a a nd w he n he r ode hi s bi ke ba c k t o hi s m othe r ’ s hous e . D e t e c t i ve W ooda l l a s ke d “ S o, a f

t e ry ou a c c i de nt l y c uthe r , w ha tw a s the ne xtthi ng y ou re m em ber happeni ng ? ” B row n res po nd ed, “ H on es t l y, m e throw i ng thatkn i fe . ” B row n sai d h e w as surpri se d t o l ea rn thatG agl i a had been cutm ore than t hree tim e s , a n d h e s ta te d th a t s h e n e v e rs a id a n y th in g d u r in g th e in c id e n t o ra tte m p te d to p u t u p a f

ig h t. D i a ne B r ow n t e s t i f

i e d a ttr i a l a nd s uppl i e d s om e de t a i l s a boutw ha ts he a nd B r o wn d i d a f

t e rh e c o m m i tt e d th e r o b b e ry a n d m u r d e r . Di a n e t e s t i f i e d th a tB r o wn c a lle d h e ro n th e m o rn in g o f N o v e m b e r3 0 a n d a s k e d h e rto p ic kh im u p a t h is m other’ s hou se , the tw o h avi ng al re ady di sc usse d thei r pl ans t o spend the day13

t oge the r . S he pi c ke d hi m up a nd the n dr ove t o he rhous e ne a rS a va nna h, a nd, w hi l e they w er e s t op ped t o b uy som e c i gare tt es and al coho l , B row n sho w ed her three m on ey orders , w hi ch he sa i d w ou l d b e e no ug h t o p ay her m ort gage and h er ba nkrupt c y trus t e e . T w o of the m one y or de r s w e r e f or$500, a nd one w a s f

or $ 1 7 5 . D ia n e s a id th a t a t th e tim e s h e n e e d e d $ 9 2 7 to p a y h e rm o r tg a g e a n d $ 1 7 5 to p ay h er b an k ru p t cy tru st ee. S h e d i d n o task B ro w n w h ere h e g o tth e m o n ey o rd ers, a nd he di d notvol unt e e rtha ti nf or m a t i on. D i an e an d B ro w n w en tt o a b an k i n F l em i n g o n th e fo l l o w i n g M o n d ay, D ecem b er 2 , 2 0 0 2 . S h e cash ed o n e o f th e $ 5 0 0 m o n ey o rd ers. L at er th atd ay, D i a ne us e d the pr oc e e ds t o pur c ha s e a nothe rm one y or de rf or$423. 08, w hi c h, w hen com bi ned w i th the re m ai ni ng $5 00 m on ey order, w as suff i ci entt o cov erher m ort gage paym ent . T he three m on ey orders B row n sho w ed D i ane w er e i ntrodu ce d attri al . A po st al i nspect or t es t i fi ed thatthe se ri al nu m bers on the three m on ey o rd ers m at ch ed th e seri al n u m b ers o f th e th ree m o n ey o rd ers st o l en fro m th e P o st O f f ic e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t a ls o in tr o d u c e d th e $ 4 2 3 .0 8 m o n e y o r d e rm a d e o u t to C h a s e M a n h a tta n . T he j ury c on vi ct ed B row n o n al l three coun t s. T he di stri ctcourtthen p r o c e e d e d t o th e p e n a l ty p h a s e o f th e tr i a l , w h i c h w a s c o n d u c t e d b e f o r e th e s a me ju ry th a t h e a r d th e g u ilt p h a s e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t c a lle d s ix w itn e s s e s . I rw in14

F ra zi er , B row n’ s f

orm erparol e off

i ce r, t es t i fi ed thatB row n h ad previ ou sl y bee n c onvi c t e d of

dr i vi ng unde rthe i nf

l ue nc e ( tw i c e ) , f

or ge ry ( tw i c e ) , dr i vi ng w i th a s u s p e n d e d lic e n s e , r o b b e ry , th e f t b y ta k in g , a n d f

in a n c ia l tr a n s a c tio n c a r d f r a u d . F ra zi ersa i d thatB row n h ad been on parol e i n 2 00 1, bu tthati thad b ee n revok ed a nd B r ow n w a s r e turne d t o pr i s on be c a us e he ha d be e n c ha r ge d w i th f r a ud. R a ndy G r a h a m , a f

o r m e rL ib e r ty C o u n ty D e te c tiv e , te s tif ie d th a t B r o w n h a d a d m itte d to c o m m i tt i n g a r o b b e ry a ta L i b e r ty C o u n ty c o n v e n i e n c e s t o r e i n Ma r c h o f 1 9 9 6 . He s t a t e d tha tw he n de t e c t i ve s i ni t i a l l y c onf r ont e d B r ow n w i th e vi de nc e of the r obbe ry , B r ow n de ni e d a ny i nvol ve m e nta nd onl y a dm i tt e d hi s r ol e a f t e rbe i ng show n even m ore e vi dence confi rm i ng hi s pre se nce duri ng the cr i m e. D arl en e W ash i n g t o n , o n e o f G ag l i a’ s co -w o rk ers, t est i fi ed th atG ag l i a w as a s w e e tpe r s on w ho a l w a y s he l pe d pe opl e i n a ny w a y s he c oul d. C a the r i ne W e bb, G ag li a’s s ister, testified th at th e m u rd erh ad b ee n ex trem ely d ifficu ltfo r G ag li a’s hu sband, Joe, and h ertw o son s, S cottand C ra i g. S he sa i d thatC ra i g h ad pl anned to a tte n d c o lle g e , b u t d e c id e d to f o r g o h is p la n s b e c a u s e o f th e e m o tio n a l s tr a in caused by hi s m other’ s dea th. B etty C ox , anot her of G agl i a’ s s i bl i ng s, t es t i fi ed ab o u tth e th i n g s sh e u sed t o d o w i th G ag l i a an d h o w sh e m i ssed h er si st er. F i n al l y, D av i d C l ark , G ag l i a’ s b ro th er, t est i fi ed th atG ag l i a en j o yed h er j o b atth e P o st O ff i ce because i tal l ow ed her t o m ee tand h el p p eopl e. H e a dd ed thatshe w as15

g e n e r o u s a n d k in d a n d s h e w o u ld b e m is s e d b y h e rf a m ily . T he defense pres ent ed fourt ee n m i t i gat i on w i tness es . B row n’ s f ather, P e l ha m B r ow n, ha d l e f

tthe hom e w he n B r ow n w a s s e ve n y e a r s ol d, a f t e rs hoot i ng B r o w n ’s o ld e rb r o th e r . A le x is A n d r e w s , a r e tir e d L ib e r ty C o u n ty A s s is ta n t J a il A dm i ni s tr a t ora nd a ne i ghborof B r ow n’ s , t e s t i f

i e d tha tB r ow n gr e w up i n a ho usehol d p l agued b y f i gh t i ng , dri nk i ng , drug s, and st abbi ng s. S he al so sa i d that s h e g o t to k n o w B r o w n w h e n h e w a s in p r is o n a n d th a t h e w a s a v e ry g o o d in m a te w ho never had di sc i pl i nary prob l em s. S he re coun t ed thathe w as se l ec t ed t o b e a pr i s on trus t e e , a pos i t i on r e s e r ve d f orc l e a n i nm a t e s w i th good m a nne r s . S he i ndi c a t e d tha tB r ow n w a s a c t i ve i n the j a i l c hur c h. B e ve r l y B onapa r t e , B r ow n’ s s i s t e r , t e s t i f i e d tha tB r ow n w a s ha r d- w or ki ng a nd tha the c a r e d f

orhi s m othe r , w ho w a s i n poorhe a l th be f or e s he di e d. J os e ph B onapa r t e , B r ow n’ s br othe r - i n- l a w , s a i d tha tB r ow n w a s a l i ke a bl e pe r s on w ho c a r e d de e pl y f

orhi s m othe r . J ohn T . W i l c he r , the A s s i s t a ntJ a i l A dm i ni s tr a t orf or C ha tha m C ounty , t e s t i f

i e d tha tB r ow n ha d be e n a n i nm a t e on s e ve r a l oc c a s i ons a nd tha the ha d ne ve rc a us e d a ny di s c i pl i na ry pr obl e m s i n j a i l . L i nda J one s , one of B r ow n’ s f

or m e rt e a c he r s , de s c r i be d B r ow n a s w e l l - m a nne r e d a nd pol i t e . S he i n d i cat ed th ath i s p aren t s sh o w ed n o i n t eresti n h i s ed u cat i o n . V an essa Mo n t g o m e ry P a r k e r , B r o wn ’ s f o r m e rs c h o o l s o c i a l wo r k e r , a l s o d e s c r i b e d B r o wn16

as w el l -m an n ered . P atri ci a M o rg an , B ro w n ’ s si st er-i n -l aw , d escri b ed B ro w n as a sw ee t , ca ri ng m an w ho l ov ed hi s m other. S t eve M urra y, B row n’ s f orm er e m p lo y e r , s a id J a s o n w a s a d e p e n d a b le w o r k e rw h o w a s n ic e to c u s to m e r s . D a v is W i l l i am s, w ho att ended chu rc h w i th the B row n fam i l y, ob se rved thatB row n w as w e l l - m a nne r e d a nd tha the he l pe d hi s m othe ra tt e nd c hur c h thr ough he rde c l i ni ng he a l th. P a s t orB . T . S m i th t e s t i f i e d tha tthe B r ow ns w e r e G od- f e a r i ng pe opl e a nd u rg ed th e ju ry to sp ar e B ro w n ’s li fe . Jim m y W ain w rig h t, an o th ero f B ro w n ’s f o r m e re m p lo y e r s , a d d e d th a t B r o w n w a s d e p e n d a b le , h a r d - w o r k in g , a n d h o n e s t. W ai n w ri g h tal so st at ed th atB ro w n ’ s h o m e w as m arred b y fi g h t i n g , sh o o t i n g s, st ab b i n g s, an d d ru g u se. D ex t er M o rg an , B ro w n ’ s b ro th er, sai d th atB ro w n w as a lo v in g p e r s o n a n d u r g e d th e ju ry to s h o w h im m e r c y . F in a lly , D e te c tiv e W o o d a ll t es t i fi ed on B row n’ s behal f. H e not ed the po or cond i t i on s und erw hi ch B row n w as ra i se d. M oreover, D et ec t i ve W oo dal l st at ed thathe bel i eved B row n w as r e m or s e f ul dur i ng hi s c onf

e s s i on. T he j ury una ni m ous l y r e c om m e nde d tha tB r ow n be s e nt e nc e d t o di e . T he di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d a de a th s e nt e nc e , a l ong w i th 300 m onths i m pr i s onm e ntf or th e r o b b e ry . B r o w n ’s ap p e a l w a s tim e ly f ile d , a n d w e n o w c o n s id e re a c h o f h is a r gum e nt s i n turn. II.Postal Inspector Ma rla McL endon’s testimony related primarily

to the simult aneous 5 search that wa s beingconducte d at Sadie’s house , which B rown doe s not challeng e. 17 A . M i r a nda F i r s t , B r ow n c l a i m s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti m pr ope r l y r e f us e d t o s uppr e s s the p re-arrest con fessi o n th ath e g av e atD i an e’ s h o u se o n D ecem b er 5 , 2 0 0 2 . H e says tha tthe i ni t i a l c onf

e s s i on w a s obt a i ne d unc ons t i tut i ona l l y a nd tha ti tt a i nt e d the tw o s ubs e que ntc onf

e s s i ons ; the r e f

or e the y s houl d ha ve be e n s uppr e s s e d pur s ua nt t o the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n M i s s our i v. S e i be r t , 542 U . S . 600 ( 2004) . T he m ag i strat e j u d g e co n d u ct ed an ev i d en t i ary h eari n g o n B ro w n ’ s m o t i o n t o su p p ress and i ss ued a R eportand R ec om m endat i on (R & R ) i n w hi ch he rec om m ended de ny i ng the r e que s t e d r e l i e f . T he di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d the R & R . I n r e vi e w i ng a m ot i on t o s uppr e s s , f

i ndi ngs of

f a c tw i l l be uphe l d unl e s s c l e a r l y e rr one ous , butthe appl i ca t i on of the l aw t o tho se fa ct s i s r evi ew ed de no vo . U ni t ed S t at es v. M uegg e, 22 5 F . 3d 12 67 , 12 69 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). A tthe s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng, the gove rnm e ntc a l l e d f ourpol i c e of

f i c e r s ; the 5 defe nse c al l ed B row n. T he fi rs toffi ce r, P ost al Inspec t or Ja m es R ushw i n, t es t i fi ed tha ts e ve n of

f i c e r s a rr i ve d a tD i a ne ’ s hom e on D e c e m be r5, 2002, a r m e d w i th a s e a r c h w a rr a n t , a n d r e c e i v e d h e rc o n s e n tt o s e a r c h h e rh o u s e a n d c a rf o ri t e ms conn ec t ed t o the F l em i ng P ostO ff i ce m urder. R ushw i n sai d thatthe offi ce rs appr oa c he d the hous e w i thoutthe i rw e apons dr a w n, knoc ke d on the door , a nd18

i de nt i f i e d the m s e l ve s a s pol i c e of f i c e r s w he n B r ow n l e tthe m i n. R us hw i n s poke pr i va t e l y w i th D i a ne i n a n a dj oi ni ng r oom , t ol d he rthe of f i c e r s w e r e i nve s t i ga t i ng the m urder of S al l i e G agl i a, and asked her i f s he w ou l d al l ow them t o sea rc h h er h o u s e a n d c a r . S h e in d ic a te d th a t s h e w a s a c o rr e c tio n s o f f ic e ra n d w o u ld c o o p e r a te w ith th e p o lic e . R u s h w in p r o d u c e d a c o n s e n t- to - s e a r c h f o r m f o rb o th the ho use a nd the ca r a nd expl ai ned t hem t o D i ane. S he si gn ed bo th form s, af t er w hi c h R us hw i n pe r f

orm e d a n i ni t i a l w a l k- thr ough of the hous e . D ur i ng the w a l kthr ough, he not i c e d tw o pa i r s of s ne a ke r s , one of

w hi c h ha d a tr e a d s i m i l a rt o the shoe pri ntfoun d atthe cr i m e s ce ne. R us hw i n t e s t i f

i e d i n the s e w or ds r e ga r di ng hi s i ni t i a l e nc ount e rw i th B r ow n: Q . [A ss i st antU ni t ed S t at es A tt orney] : A nd you t al ked t o M r. B row n abo uthavi ng a c on vers at i on w i th h i m atthatt i m e? A . [ I n s p e c to rR u s h w in ]: Y e s , I d id . I s a id - - I a s k e d h im - - I to ld hi m tha tw e w e r e t a l ki ng w i th e ve ry one tha tm a y ha ve be e n [ i n] th e P o s t O f

f ic e o n S a tu r d a y , th e d a y o f th e m u r d e r , a n d a s k e d if h e w o u l d t al k w i th u s. Q . : W hatdi d h e t el l you atthatt i m e? A . : A nd he s a i d he w oul d. Q . : D i d you advi se hi m of anythi ng w i th regard t o h i s c ust od i al st atu s? A . : Y e s , I di d. Q . : W h a td i d y o u t e l l h i m?19

A . : I a dv i se d h i m thathe w as no ti n cust od y. H e w as n’ tun der arre st , and t hathe w as fr ee t o g o atany t i m e. Q .: W h a t [ w a s ] h is r e s p o n s e to th a t? A .: H e s a id , “I ’ll ta lk to y o u .” R ushw i n t ol d B row n thathe w ant ed L i berty C ou nty P ol i ce D et ec t i ve C hu ck W ooda l l t o s i ti n on the di s c us s i on a nd a s ke d B r ow n i f he w oul d m i nd goi ng t o the p o lic e d e p a r tm e n t f

o rth e in te r v ie w . B r o w n r e s p o n d e d th a t h e w o u ld b e w illin g to g o t o th e st at i o n , b u tth ath e n eed ed t o p u to n a p ai r o f sh o es. R u s h w in th e n to ld B r o w n h e w o u ld a c c o m p a n y h im in to th e o th e rr o o m to r e tr ie v e B r o w n ’s s h o e s , e x p la in in g th a t h e w a s g o in g w ith B r o w n “f o rm y s a f

e ty a n d y o u r s , f

o rs a f e ty r e a s o n s .” W h e n B r o w n a tte m p te d to p u t o n th e s n e a k e r s w ith the suspi ci ou s tre ad, R ushw i n i nform ed hi m thatthe po l i ce w ou l d b e t aki ng them as evi dence and thatB row n cou l d n otw ea r them . B row n i nd i ca t ed he had n o o ther s h o e s , th a t th e a d d itio n a l p a iro f s n e a k e r s w a s n o t h is , a n d th a t h e d id n o t w a n t to go ou t si de baref

oo t . R ushw i n then asked B row n i f he w ou l d b e w i l l i ng t o t al k at the hous e , a nd B r ow n s a i d he w oul d. T he tw o de c i de d t o w a i tf orD e t e c t i ve W ooda l l t o a rr i ve be f

or e the y be ga n t a l ki ng, a nd R us hw i n de s c r i be d the s i tua t i on i n th ese t erm s: W el l , w e s atdo w n atthe di ni ng room t abl e. A nd I a gai n i nform ed J a s on tha the w a s n’ tunde ra rr e s t , noti n c us t ody , a nd he w a s f r e e t o go atany t i m e. I a gai n exp l ai ned t hatw e w er e t al ki ng t o p eopl e thatm ay20

ha ve be e n a tthe P os tO f f i c e on S a tur da y . A nd he s a i d he unde r s t ood. W hi l e the y w a i t e d, B r ow n “ s a ta r ound a nd s m oke d, a nd di d w ha t e ve rhe w ant ed t o d o. ” O nce D et ec t i ve W oo dal l arri ved, B row n and the tw o o ff i ce rs sa tat the di ni ng room t abl e. T hey a dv i se d B row n, for the thi rd t i m e, he w as no tun der arre stand w as fr ee t o l ea ve: Q . [A ss i st antU ni t ed S t at es A tt orney] : D i d you agai n ask for M r. B r ow n’ s c ons e ntt o s pe a k? A . [ I n s p e c to rR u s h w in ]: Y e s . H e a g a in w a s a d v is e d b y b o th D e t e c t i ve W ooda l l a nd I tha the w a s n’ tunde ra rr e s t , i n c us t ody a nd, y ou know , he w a s f r e e t o l e a ve a ta ny t i m e . H e s a i d he u n d e r s to o d D e te c tiv e W o o d a ll. A n d I s a id th a t w e ’r e try in g to t a l k t o e ve ry one tha tm a y ha ve be e n a tthe P os tO f f i c e . A nd he sa i d, “ ye ah, I kno w . ” Inspec t or R ushw i n’ s a cc ou nti s c orrobo ra t ed by D et ec t i ve W oo dal l , w ho t es t i fi ed that I t ol d [ B r ow n] i ni t i a l l y he w a s notunde ra rr e s t . I t ol d hi m num e r ous t i m es that-- I m ea n, thathe w as fr ee t o l ea ve. S ever al t i m es he as ked a boutge tt i ng thi ngs . A nd w e t a l ke d a bout- - I t ol d hi m s pe c i f i c a l l y he c oul d do a ny thi ng he w a nt s . W e w e r e i n hi s hous e w i th hi s c ons e nt an d th e co n sen to f th e yo u n g l ad y. D ur i ng the e ns ui ng c onve r s a t i on, B r ow n c onf e s s e d t o the m ur de ra nd r o b b e ry a t th e P o s t O f

f ic e , a s d e ta ile d a b o v e . A t o n e p o in t d u r in g th e in te r v ie w , it appeare d t o the offi ce rs thatB row n w as di stra ct ed by D i ane a nd the ot her i nve s t i ga t or s w ho w e r e w a l ki ng i n a nd outof the ki t c he n, s o the y a s ke d hi m i f he21

w oul d be m or e c om f

or t a bl e i n the s i tt i ng r oom . B r ow n s a i d tha the w oul d, a nd he g o t a c a n o f

s o d a a n d a c ig a r e tte a s h e m o v e d to th e o th e rr o o m . D et ec t i ve W oo dal l t es t i fi ed thatal tho ug h som e of the i nv es t i gat ors cond uct i ng the se ar ch of D i ane’ s hom e w er e a rm ed, the offi ce rs w ho i nt ervi ew ed B row n d i d n othave w eapo ns. Invest i gat or R ushw i n st at ed thatthere w as an offi ce r i n the fr on tya rd of D i ane’ s hou se arm ed w i th a shot gu n w hen p ol i ce ori gi nal l y e nt er ed the ho use, bu tthatthe w eapo n w as re turned t o the po l i ce ca r short l y there af

t er . I n v e s t i g a t o rHe rb e rtDe wa y n e Ma r t i n t e s t i f i e d th a th e s t a y e d wi th B r o wn a f te rth e o f f ic e r s o r ig in a lly e n te r e d th e h o u s e . M a r tin s a id th a t h e a s k e d B r o w n to s it in a c h a irf

o ra b o u t f

if te e n m in u te s w h ile R u s h w in w a s o b ta in in g c o n s e n t to s e a r c h f r om D i a ne . A s a s a f

e ty pr e c a ut i on, M a r t i n t ol d B r ow n t o l e thi m know be f or e he m a de a ny s udde n m ove m e nt s , s uc h a s ge tt i ng up f r om the c ha i ror r e a c hi ng i nt o hi s poc ke t s . M a r t i n a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha the l a t e rpa r t i c i pa t e d i n the in te r v ie w , f

o rap p r o x im a te ly th ir ty m in u te s o ra n h o u r , d u r in g w h ic h tim e h e to ld B ro w n th atso m e o f th e o ffi cers d i d n o tb el i ev e p art s o f h i s st o ry. B r ow n t e s t i f

i e d a tthe s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng a nd ga ve a s ha rpl y di f f e r e nt a c c ount . H e s a i d tha tpol i c e e nt e r e d the hous e w i th guns dr a w n, gr a bbe d D i a ne by th e a r m , a n d o r d e r e d h im to s it in a c h a ir . B r o w n a s s e r te d th a t h e w a s n o t f r e e to22

m o v e a b o u t th e h o u s e a n d , n o tab ly , w a s n e v e rto ld th a t h e w a s f r e e to le a v e . B r o w n s a id “I w a n te d to le a v e w h e n th e y f ir s t c a m e . T h e y n e v e rin d ic a te d th a t I c oul d l e a ve , y ou know . O ne of f i c e re ve n s t a t e d, the guy tha tw a s s t a ndi ng a tthe d o o r , h e s ta te d if

I g e t u p th a t w a s g o in g to b e th e w o r s e [ s ic ] m is ta k e I c o u ld pos s i bl y m a ke . ” B r ow n c ont e nds the of f i c e r s c oe r c e d hi m i nt o c onf e s s i ng by t e l l i ng hi m the y ha d D i a ne i n ha ndc uf f s a nd w e r e goi ng t o “ l oc k he rup, a nd t a ke h e rc h ild .” T h e m a g i s tr a t e j u d g e m a d e two c r i t i c a l f a c tu a l f i n d i n g s : f

i r s t , th a tB r o wn w a s r e pe a t e dl y t ol d he w a s notunde ra rr e s ta nd w a s f r e e t o l e a ve a ta ny t i m e ; a nd, s e c ond, tha tB r ow n unde r s t ood he w a s notunde ra rr e s ta nd w a s f r e e t o l e a ve a ta ny t i m e. S peci fi ca l l y, the m agi stra t e j ud ge foun d thatInspec t or R ushw i n “ advi se d de f e nda nt[ w he n he f

i r s ts poke w i th hi m ] tha the w a s notunde ra rr e s ta nd tha the w as fr ee t o g o atany t i m e. In re spon se , defe nd antsa i d, ‘ I’ l l t al k t o you . ’ ” M or e ove r , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge f ound tha tw hi l e R us hw i n a nd B r ow n w e r e w a i t i ng f o rD e te c tiv e W o o d a ll to a rr iv e , I n s p e c to rR u s h w in a g a in to ld d e f e n d a n t th a t h e w a s n o t u n d e ra rr e s t, w a s noti n c us t ody , a nd w a s f r e e t o go a ta ny t i m e . W he n D e t e c t i ve W ooda l l a rr i ve d, he a nd I ns pe c t orR us hw i n e xpl a i ne d t o de f e nda nt before they began the i nt ervi ew thathe w as no tun der a rr es tand w as f r e e t o l e a ve a ta ny t i m e . D e f e nda nts a i d he unde r s t ood. A dd i t i on al l y, the m agi stra t e j ud ge, pl ai nl y r ej ec t i ng B row n’ s a cc ou nt , foun d that23

th e o f f ic e r s c o n d u c tin g th e in te r v ie w w e r e n o t a r m e d , th a t B r o w n v o lu n ta r ily m ov ed ar ou nd the ho use, and t hathe w as never ordere d t o st ay i n any part i cul ar lo c a tio n . B a s e d o n th o s e f

a c tu a l f i n d i n g s , th e m a g i s tr a t e j u d g e c o n c l u d e d th a tB r o wn w a s noti n c us t ody a tthe t i m e he s poke w i th the of f i c e r s a nd, the r e f

or e , w a s not en t i t l ed t o b e g i v en M i ran d a w arn i n g s: Inspec t or R ushw i n and D et ec t i ve W oo dal l t es t i fi ed thatthey r ei t er at ed t o d ef endantm ul t i pl e t i m es thathe w as no ti n cust od y, w as no tun der a rr e s t, a n d w a s f

r e e to le a v e a t a n y tim e o rd o a n y th in g h e w a n te d . D e f e nda ntc l e a r l y unde r s t ood thi s e xpl a na t i on, a s de m ons tr a t e d by both hi s w or ds a nd a c t i ons . H e i ndi c a t e d t o I ns pe c t orR us hw i n tha the unde r s t ood a nd w a s w i l l i ng t o t a l k w i th the of f i c e r s , a nd I ns pe c t or R us hw i n t e s t i f

i e d tha tde f

e nda ntgotup, m ove d a r ound, gota dr i nk, a nd pi c ke d up the phone t o c a l l hi s m othe rw i thoutr e que s t i ng the of f i c e r s ’ pe r m i s s i on. W e a r e b o u n d b y a tr ia l c o u r t’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t u n le s s th e y a r e c le a r ly e rr one ous . S e e M ue gge , 225 F . 3d a t1269. T he r e c or d a m pl y s uppor t s the f in d in g s th a t B r o w n w a s r e p e a te d ly to ld h e w a s n o t u n d e ra rr e s t a n d w a s f r e e to l e a ve a nd tha the unde r s t ood tha tw a rni ng, i nde e d tha the e xpr e s s l y s a i d he unde r s t ood thos e w or ds . A l though B r ow n’ s a c c ountw a s s ha rpl y di f f e r e nt , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge , w ho obs e r ve d the w i tne s s e s , w a s f r e e t o be l i e ve thos e he f ound trustw orthy and d i sc re di tthe t es t i m on y of tho se w ho w er e not . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. B row n, 41 5 F . 3d 12 57 , 12 67 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( no t i ng that“ [t ] he cr edi bi l i ty of a24

w i tne s s i s i n the pr ovi nc e of the f a c t f i nde r , a nd w e w i l l notor di na r i l y r e vi e w the f a c tf in d e r ’s d e te r m in a tio n o f c r e d ib ility ” ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) ) . T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs w e r e notc l e a r l y e rr one ous a nd w i l l notbe d is tu rb e d o n ap p e a l. Iti s by now un di sput ed thatthe ri gh tt o M i ra nd a w arni ng s a tt ac hes w hen c u s to d ia l in te rr o g a tio n b e g in s . U n ite d S ta te s v . A c o s ta , 3 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 4 1 , 1 1 4 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 04 ). A defe nd anti s i n cust od y f or the pu rposes of M i ra nd a w hen t here has been a “ form al arre stor re stra i nton fr ee do m of m ov em entof the degree a ss oci at ed w i th a f or m a l a rr e s t . ” C a l i f

orni a v. B e he l e r , 463 U . S . 1121, 1125 ( 1983) ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M c D ow e l l , 250 F . 3d 1354, 1 3 6 2 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). W h eth er B ro w n w as i n cu st o d y p ri o r t o h i s fo rm al arrest “d e p e n d s o n w h e th e ru n d e rth e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a r e a s o n a b le m a n in hi s posi t i on w ou l d fee l a r es tra i nton hi s f re edom of m ov em entt o such ext entthat he w oul d notf

e e l f r e e t o l e a ve . ” M c D ow e l l , 250 F . 3d a t1362 ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd a l t e r a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ T he t e s ti s obj e c t i ve : the a c tua l , s ubj e c t i ve be l i e f s of the de f e nda nta nd the i nt e r vi e w i ng of f i c e ron w he the rthe de f

e nda ntw a s f

r e e t o l e a ve a r e irr e le v a n t.” U n ite d S ta te s v . M o y a , 7 4 F .3 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 1 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) .

“ [ U ] nde rthe obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d, the r e a s ona bl e pe r s on f r om w hos e pe r s pe c t i ve

‘ cust od y’ i s def

i ned i s are as on abl e i nn ocentpers on . ” I d. (e m ph as i s a dd ed).25

Af t e rr e v i e wi n g th e t o t a l i ty o f th e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we c o n c l u d e th a tB r o wn w a s noti n c us t ody w he n he ga ve hi s i ni t i a l c onf e s s i on t o the pol i c e . F i r s t , a nd m osti m po rt ant , he w as t ol d n o l es s than t hree t i m es by tw o d i ff er entoffi ce rs that h e wa s n o tu n d e ra rr e s t , n o ti n c u s t o d y , a n d wa s f r e e t o g o a ta n y t i m e . As we recen t l y h el d i n M u eg g e, th e factth atan i n d i v i d u al i s t o l d h e i s n o tu n d er arrest and i s f re e t o l ea ve i s afa ctof subst ant i al i m po rt ance i n d et erm i ni ng w hether a r e a s ona bl e pe r s on w oul d ha ve f e l tf r e e t o l e a ve . I n M ue gge , w e m a de the poi nt th i s w ay: [ i]f th e in d iv id u a l b e in g q u e s tio n e d w e r e in n o c e n t, a n d w a s to ld di r e c t l y he m i ghtl e a ve , i n the a bs e nc e of e vi de nc e t o the c ontr a ry the i nt e rr oga t i on w a s non- c us t odi a l a s a m a tt e rof l a w . T he r e m a y be si tu at i o n s w h ere th e restrai n t s p l aced o n a su sp ect ’ s freed o m are so ext ensi ve thatt el l i ng the suspec the w as fr ee t o l ea ve coul d n otcure the cust od i al as pectof the i nt ervi ew , bu tthati s notthe ca se here . 225 F . 3d a t1271. U na m bi guous l y a dvi s i ng a de f e nda nttha the i s f

r e e t o l e a ve a nd i s noti n c us t ody i s a pow e r f ul f a c t ori n the m i x, a nd ge ne r a l l y w i l l l e a d t o the c onc l us i on tha tthe de f

e nda nti s not i n cust od y absenta f i nd i ng of re stra i nt s that a r e “ s o e xt e ns i ve tha tt e l l i ng the s us pe c the w a s f r e e t o l e a ve c oul d notc ur e the c us t odi a l a s pe c tof

the i nt e r vi e w . ” I d. W e a re n o t alo n e in re co g n izin g th e im p o rtan ce o f a p o li ce o ff icer ’s a dm oni t i on tha ta pe r s on i s f r e e t o l e a ve . T he E i ghth C i r c ui tnot e d tha t“ a bunda nt a dvi c e of f r e e dom t o t e r m i na t e the e nc ount e rs houl d notbe tr e a t e d m e r e l y a s one26

e qua l f a c t ori n a m ul t i - f

a c t orba l a nc i ng t e s t ” a nd c onc l ude d: T hata per son i s t ol d repeat edl y thathe i s f re e t o t erm i nat e a n i nt e r vi e w i s pow e r f

ul e vi de nc e tha ta r e a s ona bl e pe r s on w oul d ha ve u n d e r s to o d th a t h e w a s f r e e to te r m in a te th e in te r v ie w . S o p o w e r f u l, in d e e d , th a t n o g o v e rn in g p r e c e d e n t o f th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o rth is court , or any c as e f

rom anot her c ou rtof appeal s thatca n b e l ocat ed (s ave one deci si on of the N i nth C i rc ui tdeci ded u nd eran ou tm od ed s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w , U n ite d S ta te s v . L e e , 6 9 9 F .2 d 4 6 6 , 4 6 7 - 6 8 ( 9 th C i r. 19 82 ) ( per c uri am )) , ho l ds thata per son w as i n cust od y a ft er be i ng c l e a r l y a dvi s e d of hi s f r e e dom t o l e a ve ort e r m i na t e que s t i oni ng. U ni t ed S t at es v. C zi chra y, 37 8 F . 3d 82 2, 82 6 (8t h C i r. 20 04 ). S ee al so U ni t ed S t a t e s v. S a l vo, 133 F . 3d 943, 951 ( 6th C i r . 1998) ( not i ng tha ta s t a t e m e ntf r om o f f ic e r s th a t a s u s p e c t is n o t in c u s to d y a n d f r e e to le a v e is a n “im p o r ta n t f a c to r ” in de t e r m i ni ng tha tthe s us pe c ti s noti n c us t ody ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ol l i ns , 972 F . 2d 13 85 , 14 05 (5th C i r. 19 92 ) ( fi nd i ng defe nd ant s w er e noti n cust od y w here they w er e “ t ol d exp l i ci t l y a nd re peat edl y thatthey w er e notun der a rr es tand w er e f re e t o l e a ve ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r i f f i n, 922 F . 2d 1343, 1349 ( 8th C i r . 1990) ( not i ng that“ [t ] he m ostob vi ou s a nd ef fe ct i ve m ea ns of dem on stra t i ng thata s uspecthas n o tb een t ak en i n t o cu st o d y . . . i s fo r th e p o l i ce t o i n fo rm th e su sp ectth atan arrest is n o t b e in g m a d e a n d th a t th e s u s p e c t m a y te r m in a te th e in te r v ie w a t w ill” ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) ) . T h e ad d i t i o n al fi n d i n g o f factth atB ro w n sai d h e u n d erst o o d th e o ffi cers’ a dvi c e tha the w a s notunde ra rr e s ta nd w a s f r e e t o l e a ve s tr e ngthe ns the f or c e ofBrown testified that his “primar y” re sidencewas his mother’s home , but said that he wa s 6 in a re latio ns hipwi th D ianeand sp e nt timeat her h ou sea s w e ll.

27 th e in s tru c tio n s . S e e , e .g ., U n ite d S ta te s v . B r a v e H e a r t, 3 9 7 F .3 d 1 0 3 5 , 1 0 3 9 ( 8 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( no t i ng that“ w e thi nk thati ti s hi gh l y s i gn i fi ca ntthat[the offi ce r] i n fo rm ed [th e d efen d an t ] atth e o u t seto f th e i n t erv i ew th at[th e d efen d an t ’ s] pr e s e nc e w a s vol unt a ry - - i nf or m a t i on tha t[ the de f

e nda nt ] a c tua l l y unde r s t ood, gi ven h i s s t at em ent s on the audi o t ape” ). T hese fa ct s w ei gh heavi l y i n favor of a fi n d i n g th atB ro w n w as n o ti n cu st o d y. S e c o n d , it is s ig n if

ic a n t th a t th e in te r v ie w to o k p la c e in D ia n e ’s h o m e , a p la c e w h e r e B r o w n o f

te n r e s id e d . A lth o u g h th e lo c a tio n o f th e in te r v ie w is s u r e ly 6 n o t d is p o s itiv e in d e te r m in in g w h e th e rth e in te r v ie w e e w a s in c u s to d y , “‘[ c ]o u r ts a r e m uc h l e s s l i ke l y t o f i nd the c i r c um s t a nc e s c us t odi a l w he n the i nt e rr oga t i on occurs i n fam i l i aror atl ea stneut ra l surr ou nd i ng s, ’ such as the suspec t ’ s hom e. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R i t c hi e , 35 F . 3d 1477, 1485 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( quot i ng 1 W . L aF ave, C ri m i nal P roce du re § 6 . 6(e) , at49 6 (19 84 & 19 91 S up p. )) ; se e a l so U ni t ed S ta te s v . N e w to n , 3 6 9 F .3 d 6 5 9 , 6 7 5 ( 2 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( n o tin g th a t “a b s e n t a n a rr e s t, i nt e rr oga t i on i n the f

a m i l i a rs urr oundi ngs of one ’ s ow n hom e i s ge ne r a l l y not de e m e d c us t odi a l ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L a nni , 951 F . 2d 440, 442 ( 1s tC i r . 1991) ( s ta tin g th a t a c o u r t s h o u ld c o n s id e rw h e th e rth e s u s p e c t w a s q u e s tio n e d in

“ fa m i l i aror atl ea stneut ra l surr ou nd i ng s” (quo t at i on m arks om i tt ed)) ; U ni t ed28

S ta te s v . H e lm e l, 7 6 9 F .2 d 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 2 0 ( 8 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( f in d in g it r e le v a n t in de t e r m i ni ng tha tde f

e nda ntw a s noti n c us t ody tha tthe que s t i oni ng oc c ur r e d i n the d e f e n d a n t ’ s h o m e , “ o n h i s o wn tu r f ” ( q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i tt e d ) ) . B r o wn unde ni a bl y w a s i n a f

a m i l i a rs e tt i ng w he n the i nt e r vi e w oc c urr e d; i nde e d, the di sc ussi on s t oo k p l ac e i n D i ane B row n’ s di ni ng and l i vi ng room s. A l tho ug h an o f f ic e ra c c o m p a n ie d h im th r o u g h o u t th e h o u s e f o rs a f e ty r e a s o n s , h e w a s f

r e e to ea t , sm ok e, use the ph on e, and m ov e abo utas he w i shed. T he fa ctthatB row n w as i n a f a m i l i a rs e tt i ng a l s o w e i ghs i n f a vorof a non- c us t odi a l f

i ndi ng. No p a r t i c u l a rf

a c ti n th e “ c u s t o d y ” a n a l y s i s i s o u t c o m e d e t e r m i n a t i v e - - we s i m pl y w e i gh the t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s . T hus , e ve n ha vi ng be e n t ol d by the offi ce rs thathe w as no ti n cust od y a nd w as fr ee t o l ea ve do es no ti nexo rabl y l ea d t o the concl usi on thatB row n w as no ti n cust od y. B ut , as w e hel d i n M uegg e, B row n n ee ds t o est abl i sh “ ext ensi ve” r es tra i nt s i n o rdert o o verc om e afi nd i ng that un der these ci rc um st ance s are as on abl e per son w ou l d h ave und er st oo d h e w as fr ee t o l e a ve ort e r m i na t e the i nt e r vi e w a ta ny t i m e . H e ha s f a i l e d t o do s o. T h e o n ly p ie c e o f

e v id e n c e th a t w e ig h s in f a v o ro f f in d in g th a t B r o w n w a s in cust od y i s the fa ctthatthe po l i ce confi sc at ed hi s s ho es . O n thi s r ec ord, ho w ever , th a t lo n e c ir c u m s ta n c e f a lls f a rs h o r t o f

e v id e n c e o f

“e x te n s iv e ” r e s tr a in ts . W h ile B r o w n w a s n o t f

r e e to w e a rh is s n e a k e r s , h e d id h a v e o th e ro p tio n s ( a lb e it29

i m pe r f e c tone s ) f

orl e a vi ng the hous e . H e c oul d ha ve gone out s i de ba r e f oot , he c o u ld h a v e w o rn th e o th e rp a iro f s n e a k e r s th a t b e lo n g e d to s o m e o n e e ls e , h e c o u ld have w al ked t he shortdi st ance t o D i ane’ s c ar , or he coul d h ave c al l ed a f ri end for a ri de. A l tho ug h h e w as pl ai nl y a nd re peat edl y t ol d h e w as fr ee t o g o, he never tri ed any of tho se op t i on s; i nd ee d, he never even t ol d anyon e he w ant ed t o l ea ve. M or e ove r , B r ow n ne ve re xe r c i s e d the m os tba s i c m e thod a thi s di s pos a l f or a voi di ng di s c us s i ons w i th pol i c e - - s i m pl y nott a l ki ng t o the m . D e s pi t e w ha the w a s to ld , h e v o lu n ta r ily r e m a in e d in th e h o u s e a n d c h o s e to s p e a k w ith th e p o lic e . T h e factth atp o l i ce co n fi scat ed h i s sh o es, st an d i n g al o n e, can n o tco n v ertw h ati s a n o n - c u s to d ia l s itu a tio n in to a c u s to d ia l a rr e s t w h e n : ( 1 ) B r o w n w a s r e p e a te d ly to ld he w a s notunde ra rr e s ta nd w a s f r e e t o l e a ve ; ( 2) he s a i d he unde r s t ood thi s ; ( 3) he w a s i n the f

a m i l i a ra nd c om f

or t a bl e s urr oundi ngs of

hi s gi r l f r i e nd’ s hom e ; ( 4) the i n t erv i ew i n g o ffi cers w ere n o tarm ed ; (5 ) h e w as n ev er h an d cu ffed o r o th erw i se ph ys i ca l l y r es tra i ned; (6) he w as fr ee t o u se the ph on e ( w hi ch he di d); (7) he w as f r e e t o m ove a boutthe hous e ( w hi c h he di d) ; a nd, f i na l l y ( 8) no othe ri ndi c i a of c o e r c io n is c ite d b y th e f a c tf in d e r . A cco rd i n g l y, w e co n cl u d e th atB ro w n w as n o ti n cu st o d y w h en h e fi rst c onf e s s e d t o r obbi ng a nd m ur de r i ng G a gl i a , he w a s note nt i t l e d t o M i r a nda w ar n in g s, an d th e s tatem en ts n ee d n o t b e s u p p re ss ed . M o re o v er , b ec au se B ro w n ’s30

S ei bertar gu m ent s, w hi ch ar e r el at ed t o the se cond and t hi rd confes si on s, ar e w hol l y de pe nde ntupon the s uppr e s s i on of the f i r s t , w e c onc l ude tha ta l l of the s ta te m e n ts w e r e le g a lly o b ta in e d . B . H eari n g O n Id en ti fi cati on E vi d en ce B ef ore tri al , B row n m ov ed t o sup pres s a l l ou t -of- courti dent i fi ca t i on s. In thatm ot i on , he urged t he di stri ctcourtt o h ol d an evi dent i ary hea ri ng . T he tri al courtre fuse d t o sup pres s the i dent i fi ca t i on s a nd decl i ned t o con du ctan evi dent i ary he a r i ng be c a us e B r ow n f a i l e d t o pr e s e nta ny e vi de nc e tha tthe m e thods us e d by the in v e s tig a to r s w e r e u n d u ly s u g g e s tiv e o rc o e r c iv e . T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e e x p r e s s ly s a i d tha ti f

, a f t e rvi e w i ng the phot o- l i ne up, B r ow n ha d a ny e vi de nc e s uppor t i ng the no t i on thatthe go vernm enthad em pl oyed sugg es t i ve t ec hn i qu es , he w ou l d h ol d an e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng a ttha tt i m e . B r ow n ne ve rm a de s uc h a s how i ng, a nd no he a r i ng w a s he l d. W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng f ora bus e of d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . G a y , 2 5 1 F .3 d 9 5 0 , 9 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . G ener al l y, w e e m pl oy a tw o-partt es tfor det erm i ni ng w hether a n o ut -ofcourti dent i fi ca t i on w as prop er l y a dm i tt ed. F i rs t , w e a sk w hether the ori gi nal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e wa s u n d u l y s u g g e s t i v e . I f we c o n c l u d e th a ti twa s , we the n c ons i de rw he the r , unde rthe t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s , “ the i de nt i f i c a t i on w as no nethel es s r el i abl e. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. D i az , 24 8 F . 3d 10 65 , 11 02 (11t h C i r.In B onner v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 7 Court adopted as bindingprec edent all of the dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to the closeof business on September 30, 1981. 31 20 01 ). T he C on st i tut i on do es no ti m po se a perse rul e r equi ri ng an evi dent i ary hear i ng i n every ca se . W atki ns v. S ow ders , 44 9 U . S . 34 1, 34 9 (19 81 ); U ni t ed S tates v . S m ith , 5 4 6 F .2 d 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 7 9 -8 0 (5 th C ir. 1 9 7 7 ) ( h o ld in g th at “[a]n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g is n o t r e q u ir e d w h e r e n o n e o f th e c r itic a l f

a c ts a r e in d is p u te and t he fa ct s a s a l l eged by the defendanti f true w ou l d n otj ust i fy the re l i ef re qu es t ed” ( qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed)) . 7 H er e, B row n m ade no argum entand p re se nt ed no evi dence s ug gest i ng that th e t ech n i q u es u sed b y th e p o l i ce w ere “un d u l y su g g est i v e. ” U n d er th ese ci rc um st ance s the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d ec l i ni ng t o h ol d an evi dent i ary hea ri ng . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. C oo per, 20 3 F . 3d 12 79 , 12 85 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( no abuse of di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng m ot i on for a n evi dent i ary hea ri ng w here un derl yi ng m ot i on t o sup pres s w as “ w ho l l y l ac ki ng i n suffi ci entfa ctual a l l e ga t i ons ” ) . M or e ove r , a s the gove rnm e ntc orr e c t l y obs e r ve s , a ny e rr ora r i s i ng fro m p u rp o rt ed l y i m p ro p er i d en t i fi cat i o n ev i d en ce w o u l d b e su b j ectt o h arm l ess e rr o ra n a ly s is . U n ite d S ta te s v . B e a le , 9 2 1 F .2 d 1 4 1 2 , 1 4 3 3 - 3 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . A ttri al , tw o w i tness es t es t i fi ed thatthey s aw B row n atthe P ostO ff i ce and sel ec t ed hi m fr om a pho t o l i neup . T ho se w i tness es w er e e ff ec t i vel y c ross -e xam i ned32

reg ard i n g th ei r i d en t i fi cat i o n s, o n e t el l i n g th e j u ry th atB ro w n w as “ th e cl o sest re se m bl ance ” t o the m an he sa w atthe P ostO ff i ce and t he ot her s t at i ng that a l though he w a s notone hundr e d pe r c e nts ur e , he thoughtB r ow n w a s the pe r s on he obs e r ve d. G i ve n the ove rw he l m i ng e vi de nc e of B r ow n’ s gui l t , i nc l udi ng B r ow n’ s c onf

e s s i on, the r e c ove r e d m one y or de r s , a nd the D N A s a m pl e s of the v i c t i m ’ s b l o o d f

o u n d o n h i s j a c k e t , a n y c o n c e i v a b l e e rr o r s r e l a t e d t o th e two i de nt i f i c a t i ons w e r e ha r m l e s s be c a us e “ the r e i s no r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha tthe e vi de nc e c om pl a i ne d of m i ghtha ve c ontr i but e d t o the c onvi c t i on. ” S e e i d. a t1433 (q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ) (fi n d i n g an y p u rp o rt ed i d en t i fi cat i o n erro rs h arm l ess w h ere th e g o v ern m en ti n tro d u ced “ o v erw h el m i n g ” ev i d en ce o f th e d efen d an t s’ g u ilt) . C . Br a dy B r ow n a l s o a r gue s , upon i nf or m a t i on a nd be l i e f

, tha tthe gove rnm e nt w i thh el d evi dence i n v i ol at i on of B ra dy v. M aryl and, 37 3 U . S . 83 (196 3), that G ag l i a’ s h u sb an d w as o p p o sed t o th e i m p o si t i o n o f th e d eath p en al ty. N o rm al l y, w e r e vi e w the de ni a l of a m ot i on f

ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on a n a l l e ge d B r a dy e rr or f o ra b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . F e rn a n d e z , 1 3 6 F .3 d 1 4 3 4 , 1 4 3 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 98 ). H ow ever , i f the B ra dy cl ai m i s notprec i se l y a rt i cul at ed t o the di stri ct c our t , w e onl y r e vi e w i tf orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e nde r , 290 F . 3d 1279,33

12 84 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). In thi s c as e, there i s no i nd i ca t i on thatthe B ra dy cl ai m w as e v e rp r e s e n te d to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. In B oo th v . M aryl and, 48 2 U . S . 49 6 (19 87 ), the S up re m e C ou rthel d that v ic tim im p a c t e v id e n c e w a s n o t a d m is s ib le in th e p e n a lty p h a s e o f a c ap ita l tr ia l. T h is p r o h ib itio n in c lu d e d e v id e n c e o f: 1 ) th e p e r s o n a l c h a r a c te r is tic s o f th e v ic tim a n d th e e m o tio n a l im p a c t o f th e c r im e s o n th e v ic tim ’s f a m ily ; a n d 2 ) f

a m ily m em bers ’ op i ni on s a nd char ac t er i za t i on s of the cr i m es and t he defendant . Id. at 507- 09. S e ve r a l y e a r s l a t e r , the C our tove rrul e d pa r tof B ooth, hol di ng tha tthe E i gh th A m endm enter ec t s no p erse bar a gai nstthe i ntrodu ct i on of vi ct i m i m pact e v id e n c e . P a y n e v . T e n n e s s e e , 5 0 1 U .S . 8 0 8 , 8 2 7 ( 1 9 9 1 ) . T h e C o u r t e x p lic itly n o te d , h o w e v e r , th a t: [ o ]u rh o ld in g to d a y is lim ite d to th e h o ld in g s o f B o o th . . . a n d S o u th C a r ol i na v. G a the r s , 490 U . S . 805, 109 S . C t . 2207, 104 L . E d. 2d 876 ( 1989) , tha te vi de nc e a nd a r gum e ntr e l a t i ng t o the vi c t i m a nd the i m pactof the vi ct i m ’ s dea th o n the vi ct i m ’ s f am i l y a re i nadm i ss i bl e a t a c api t al se nt enci ng hear i ng . B oo th al so hel d thatthe adm i ss i on of a vi c t i m ’ s f

a m i l y m e m be r s ’ c ha r a c t e r i z a t i ons a nd opi ni ons aboutthe c r im e , th e d e f

e n d a n t, a n d th e ap p r o p r ia te s e n te n c e v io la te s th e E ig h th A m endm ent . N o evi dence of the l att ersortw as pres ent ed atthe tri al i n thi s c as e. P a y n e , 5 0 1 U .S . a t 8 3 0 n .2 . T h u s , th e B o o th p r o h ib itio n a g a in s t e v id e n c e o f f a m ily m e m be r s ’ opi ni ons a nd c ha r a c t e r i z a t i ons of the c r i m e , the de f

e nda nt , a nd the appr opr i a t e s e nt e nc e r e m a i ns good l a w . S e e H um phr i e s v. O z m i nt , 397 F . 3d 206,Most of the ca ses re cognizi ngthe continued validity of B ooth insofar a s it prohibited a 8 vic tim ’sfa

mily me mber f

ro m of feringan opinion

a s tothea

pp ropriatesentenc ehaveari sen in the context of an opinion supporting theimposit ion of the death penalty . Here, however, the alleg ed evidence a

pparently would have shown that a fa mily member oppose d the death penalty . At le a st o nec irc uit

ha s f ound that a vic tim ’sfa

mily me mber’ s b e lie f t

hat th ede ath p e nalty should not be imposed is sim ilarly irrelevant. See Robison v. May nard, 829 F .2d 1501, 1504-05 (10th Cir. 1987), over

ruled on other

grounds, Romano v. Gibson, 239 F.3d 1156, 1169 ( 10th Cir. 20 01 ). In Robis on , th ec ourt no te d th at [a]n indivi du al’ s p e rs on al op ini on on ho w thesentenc ingjur

y sh ould ac quit i ts responsibility , even though supported by rea sons, relate s to neither the c haracter or re cord of

the def endant nor

to the circumstances of

the offense. Such 34 2 1 7 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( en b an c) (n o ti n g th at “th e P ay n e C o u rt d id n o t alt erB o o th ’s hol di ng tha ta dm i tt i ng e vi de nc e of the vi c t i m s ’ [ f

a m i l y m e m be r s ’ ] opi ni ons of the c r im e a n d o f

th e ap p r o p r ia te s e n te n c e f o rth e d e f

e n d a n t v io la te s th e E ig h th A m e ndm e nt ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e rna r d, 299 F . 3d 467, 480- 81 ( 5th C i r . 2002) ( f i ndi ng s t a t e m e nt s f

r om the vi c t i m ’ s f

a m i l y m e m be r s c ha r a c t e r i z i ng the defe nd ant s a nd offe ri ng op i ni on s abo utthe nature of the cr i m e i nadm i ss i bl e und er B o o th ) ; H a in v . G ib s o n , 2 8 7 F .3 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 3 8 - 3 9 ( 1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e x p r e s s ly r e c o g n iz in g “th a t th e p o r tio n o f B o o th p r o h ib itin g f

a m ily m e m b e r s o f

a v ic tim f r om s t a t i ng ‘ c ha r a c t e r i z a t i ons a nd opi ni ons a boutthe c r i m e , the de f e nda nt , a nd the appr opr i a t e s e nt e nc e ’ dur i ng the pe na l ty pha s e of a c api t a l tr i a l s ur vi ve d the h o ld in g in P a y n e a n d r e m a in s v a lid ” ) ; P a r k e rv . B o w e r s o x , 1 8 8 F .3 d 9 2 3 , 9 3 1 ( 8 th C i r . 1999) ( di s c us s i ng P a y ne a nd B ooth a nd hol di ng tha t“ f a m i l y m e m be r s of

the vi c t i m m a y nots t a t e ‘ c ha r a c t e r i z a t i ons a nd opi ni ons a boutthe c r i m e , the defe nd ant , and t he approp ri at e s ent ence ’ atthe penal ty phase ” of acapi t al tri al ). 8testimony , at best, would be a g ossamer ve il which would blur the jury ’s focus on the issue it must decide. I d. at 1505. We agreeand find it immaterial that a f amily member’ s opinion would have been offered in opposition to the death penalty , just as it would be improper if the e xpresse d opinion s u p p o rt e d th ea p p l i c at i o no f

th ed e athp e n al ty. 35 I n B r a dy , the S upr e m e C our the l d “ tha tthe s uppr e s s i on by the pr os e c ut i on o f e v id e n c e f

a v o r a b le to a n a c c u s e d . . . v io la te s d u e p r o c e s s w h e r e th e e v id e n c e is m a t e r i a l e i the rt o gui l tort o puni s hm e nt . ” 373 U . S . a t87. T hi s e vi de nc e w a s not m a t e r i a l , a nd the r e f

or e c oul d notvi ol a t e B r a dy , be c a us e i tw a s ne i the rr e l e va ntnor a dm i s s i bl e ; i nde e d, the r e i s no r e a s ona bl e ( ore ve n r e m ot e ) pr oba bi l i ty tha t , ha d the evi dence been di sc l osed t o the defense , the re sul tof the tri al w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . S ee S tri ckl erv. G re ene, 52 7 U . S . 26 3, 28 9 (19 99 ) ( no t i ng that , un der B r a d y , f a ilu r e to d is c lo s e e v id e n c e is m a te r ia l if th e r e is a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility th a t th e r e s u lt o f

th e tr ia l w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t if th e s u p p r e s s e d d o c u m e n ts h a d b e e n d is c lo s e d to th e d e f e n s e ) . T he di stri ctj ud ge rul ed thathe w ou l d “ no tal l ow any w i tness t o m ake a r e c o m m e n d a tio n to th e ju ry th a t y o u s h o u ld ta k e [ B r o w n ’s ] lif e o rth a t y o u s h o u ld s p a r e h is lif

e . T h a t is a d ir e c t in v a s io n o f th e ju ry ’s p r o v in c e .” T h a t ru lin g is f u lly c o n s o n a n twi th th e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s h o l d i n g s i n B o o th a n d P a y n e . I n s h o r t , we ca n d i sc ern n o B ra dy vi ol at i on , l etal on e pl ai n err or. D . M o t i o n To Q ua s h D FA C S Subpo e naWe add that Fe deral Rule of Criminal Procedure59(a) , which bec ame e ffe ctive 9 Dec ember

1, 2005, now provides that f ailure to objec t to a mag istrate judg e’s r uling on a nondispositi ve matter

“waives a pa

rty ’s right to review.”Fe d. R. Crim. P . 59(a) . The Advisory Commi ttee Note states that the “w aiver provision is int ended to e stablish the requirements for ob je c tingin a

dis tric t c ourt

in o rde r to p re serv ea

pp e llatereview o f m ag istra tejudg e s’ decisions.” F ed. R. Crim. P. 59 advisory committee’s note. We nee d not determine what ef fec t thi s n e w r uleof c rimin al proc e dureha s o n this c a sebe c a us etheruleis in c omp le tea c c ord w ith 36 A s f orthi s i s s ue , B r ow n c ont e nds tha tthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge e rr e d i n qua s hi ng a s ubpoe na B r ow n s e r ve d upon the L i be r ty C ounty D e pa r tm e ntof C hi l d a nd F a m i l y S e r vi c e s ( “ D F A C S ” ) f orthe pr oduc t i on of

“ [ a ] ny a nd a l l m a t e r i a l r e l a t i ng t o S a di e B r ow n a nd/ orR oy M or ga n, the i rl i vi ng a nd he a l th c i r c um s t a nc e s , a nd a ny i nf or m a t i on r e ga r di ng the i rr e s i de nc e a t6724 L e r oy C of f e rH i ghw a y , F l e m i ng, G e or gi a , 30308. ” T he G e or gi a A tt or ne y G e ne r a l ’ s O f f i c e m ove d t o qua s h the s ubpoe na . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge c onduc t e d a n i n c a m e r a i ns pe c t i on of the r e l e va nt f i l e s a nd qua s he d the s ubpoe na , not i ng tha t“ [ the f i l e s ] c ont a i n no i nf

or m a t i on r e l e va ntt o de f

e nda nt ’ s c a s e a nd no i nf or m a t i on tha tw oul d w a rr a ntdi s c l os ur e of these typi ca l l y c on fi dent i al re cords. In fa ct , defe nd ant ’ s nam e i s noteven re fe re nced i n any of these re cords. ” We l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e m a g i s tr a t e j u d g e ’ s o r d e rb e c a u s e B r o wn ne ve rappe a l e d the rul i ng t o the di s tr i c tc our t . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r ow n, 342 F .3 d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . R e n f r o , 6 2 0 F .2 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 0 ( 5 th C i r . 1980) ( not i ng tha t“ [ t ] he l a w i s s e tt l e d tha tappe l l a t e c our t s a r e w i thout j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a rap p e a l s d i r e c t l y f r o m f e d e r a l m a g i s tr a t e s ” ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we 9our own c ircuit ca se law, which clea rly prohibits us from consideringBrown’s argument on appeal. De ath- qu alif

ic atio n istheproc e ss b y

whic h ju ro rsin a c a pit al c a searesc re e ne d, prior to 10 the guilt-innocencephase, to ensure that nonehas an opposition to the death penalty so strong that it would prevent or substantially impair their performanc e as juror s in the sentencingphase. A juror who c ould never

vote for thedeath penalty , reg ardle ss of the cour t’s instructions, or a juror who would a

utomatically

vote for de ath in ever

y case , is removed f

or ca use. See Morg an v. I llinois , 504 U.S. 719, 728-29 (1992). 37 m a y notc ons i de rw he the rthe di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n qua s hi ng the subp oena. E . M oti on T o P roh i b i t D eath -Q u al i fi cati on O f T h e Ju ry B r o w n a ls o c la im s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to p r o h ib it the “ de a th- qua l i f

i c a t i on” of

the j ury , c ont e ndi ng tha thi s r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d by e xc l udi ng thos e j ur or s w ho c oul d notbe i m pa r t i a l i n the pe na l ty pha s e , butw ho c o u ld h a v e b e e n q u a lif

ie d to h e a rth e g u ilt- in n o c e n c e p h a s e . W e r e v ie w th is 10 q u e s tio n o f

la w d e n o v o . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . M u rr e ll, 3 6 8 F .3 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 5 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 04 ). B r ow n c ont e nds tha tthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge r e c om m e nde d de ny i ng the m ot i on and t hatthe re com m endat i on w as adop t ed by the di stri ctj ud ge. H ow ever , a r evi ew of the re cord revea l s thatthe m agi stra t e j ud ge deni ed the m ot i on ou tri gh tand t hat B row n d i d n otappeal thatrul i ng t o the di stri ctj ud ge. T hu s, w e a re w i tho utpo w er t o c ons i de rthi s a r gum e nt . S e e B r ow n, 342 F . 3d a t1246. N e v e r th e le s s , e v e n if

th e is s u e w e r e p r o p e r ly p r e s e n te d to u s , w e w o u ld38

r e a di l y r e j e c tthe a r gum e nton the m e r i t s . I n L oc kha r tv. M c C r e e , 476 U . S . 162 ( 1986) , the S upr e m e C our the l d the C ons t i tut i on doe s not“ pr ohi bi tthe r e m ova l f or cause, pri or t o the gu i l tph as e of abi furc at ed capi t al tri al , of prospect i ve j urors w hos e oppos i t i on t o the de a th pe na l ty i s s o s tr ong tha ti tw oul d pr e ve ntor s ubs t a nt i a l l y i m pa i rthe pe r f or m a nc e of

the i rdut i e s a s j ur or s a tthe s e nt e nc i ng ph as e of the tri al . ” I d. at16 5. T hu s, B row n’ s c l ai m m ustfa i l ; the di stri ctcourt p r o p e r ly d e a th - q u a lif

ie d th e ju ry b e f

o r e th e g u ilt p h a s e o f

th e tr ia l. F . M oti on for B i fu rc ated V oi r D i re O n th is is s u e , B r o w n s a y s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n to bi furc at e voi r di re . E ss ent i al l y, he soug htan op po rtun i ty f i rs tt o q uest i on j urors pr i ort o the gui l t - i nnoc e nc e s t a ge of the tr i a l , a nd the n a s e c ond oppor tuni ty f or voi rdi r e be f

or e the pe na l ty s t a ge of

the tr i a l . B r ow n r e a di l y c onc e de s tha tthe n a tu r a l c o n s e q u e n c e o f

th is p r a c tic e w o u ld b e th a t th e ju ry d e te r m in in g h is g u ilt m i gh tno tbe the sa m e one t o d et erm i ne hi s s ent ence . T hi s i ss ue i s c l osel y r el at ed t o B row n’ s pri or sugg es t i on , thatthe j ury s ho ul d n othave been death-qu al i fi ed b e c a u s e q u a lif

ic a tio n e lim in a te s s o m e ju r o r s w h o , w h ile u n q u a lif ie d to d e c id e h is s e n te n c e , w o u ld p la in ly h a v e b e e n q u a lif ie d to d e te r m in e h is g u ilt o rin n o c e n c e . T hi s i s aqu es t i on of l aw and agai n w e r evi ew i tde no vo . S ee M urre l l , 36 8 F . 3d at 1285.39

A lth o u g h th e g o v e rn m e n t ap p e a r s to c o n c e d e th a t th is is s u e w a s p r o p e r ly pr e s e r ve d, a r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a ga i n r e ve a l s tha tthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge de ni e d the m ot i on f orbi f ur c a t e d voi rdi r e a nd tha tB r ow n di d notappe a l the rul i ng t o the di stri ctj ud ge. T hu s, w e have no j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der the rul i ng on appeal . S ee B row n, 34 2 F . 3d at12 46 . B ut , even i f the part i es ar e c orre ctthatthe i ss ue has b een p ro p erl y p resen t ed , B ro w n ’ s arg u m en tfai l s o n th e m eri t s. F i rs t , the F eder al D ea th P enal ty A ctre qu i re s, exce pti n fou r c i rc um st ance s thatar e notre l evanthere , thatthe se nt enci ng hear i ng “ shal l be cond uct ed before th e ju ry th a t d e te r m in e d th e d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilt.” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 9 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) . T h u s , it w oul d ha ve be e n s t a tut or i l y i m pe r m i s s i bl e f orthe di s tr i c tj udge t o us e one s e tof j urors f or the gu i l tph as e a nd then a di ff er entgrou p for the penal ty phase . S ee U n ite d S ta te s v . W illia m s , 4 0 0 F .3 d 2 7 7 , 2 8 1 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . S e c ond, B r ow n c ont e nds tha tthe us e of a de a th- qua l i f

i e d j ur y dur i ng the gui l t - i nnoc e nc e s t a ge vi ol a t e s hi s E i ghth A m e ndm e nta nd due pr oc e s s r i ght s by subj ec t i ng hi m t o a conv i ct i on -prone j ury. C on st i tut i on al chal l enges t o the use of a d e a th - q u a lif

ie d ju ry in th e g u ilt- in n o c e n c e p o r tio n o f th e tr ia l h a v e b e e n s o u n d ly a nd r e pe a t e dl y r e

j e c t e d. S e e , e . g. , L oc kha r t , 476 U . S . a t176- 84; W i l l i a m s , 400 F . 3d at28 1 (no t i ng that“ const i tut i on al chal l enges by def endant s t o u ni t ary c api t al j ury pr oc e dur e s ha ve f

a i l e d” ) . A ga i n, i n L oc kha r t , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe40

u se o f a d eath -q u al i fi ed j u ry d u ri n g th e g u i l t -i n n o cen ce st ag e n ei th er d ep ri v es a de f e nda ntof hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o a j ur y dr a w n f r om a r e pr e s e nt a t i ve c r o s s s e c t i o n o f

th e c o mmu n i ty n o rh i s r i g h tt o a n “ i mp a r t i a l ” j u ry . Th e Su p r e me C o u rtfl at l y rej ect ed th e cl ai m th atex cl u d i n g j u ro rs fro m th e g u i l t -i n n o cen ce p h ase w ho coul d n otbe i m part i al du ri ng the pu ni shm entph as e r es ul t ed i n a j ury “s la n te d ” in f

a v o ro f c o n v ic tio n . 4 7 6 U .S . a t 1 7 7 - 7 8 . B r o w n p r o v id e s n o r a tio n a le for w hy the i dent i ca l ar gu m entw ou l d b e a ny m ore pers uasi ve i f c on si dere d u nd er th e ru b r ic o f

th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t, a n d h e o f f e r s n o c a s e la w in s u p p o r t o f h is pos i t i on. T hus , e ve n i f

the que s t i on w e r e pr ope r l y pr e s e nt e d, w e w oul d be c o n s tr a in e d to r e

je c t it. G . I m p r op e r S t at e m e n t s D u r i n g D e at h - Q u al i f i c at i on B row n al so sa ys the di stri ctj ud ge i m prop er l y t ol d j urors duri ng vo i r di re thatthe death sent ence w ou l d b e app ropri at e unl es s there w er e m i t i gat i ng fa ct ors w ei gh i ng i n favor of a l i fe se nt ence . F urtherm ore, B row n u rges thatthe di stri ct courti napp ropri at el y i nd i ca t ed t o j urors duri ng vo i r di re thatthey m ay consi der m i t i ga t i ng f

a c t or s ( a s oppos e d t o t e l l i ng the m the y ha d t o c ons i de rm i t i ga t i ng fa ct ors) . B row n d i d n otobj ec tt o these qu es t i on s duri ng vo i r di re , and w e there fore r e vi e w thi s i s s ue onl y f

orpl a i n e rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a s s e y , 89 F . 3d 1433, 1 4 4 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( f a ilu r e to o b

je c t to ju ry in s tru c tio n s r e v ie w e d f o rp la in41

error) . U nd erpl ai n err or re vi ew , w e m ay no tcorr ec tan error the defendantfa i l ed t o rai se i n the di stri ctcourtun l es s there i s: “ (1) e rr or, (2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) that a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts .” U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). If al l three cond i t i on s a re m et , w e m ay then e x e r c is e o u rd is c r e tio n to n o tic e a f o r f e ite d e rr o r , b u t o n ly if

“( 4 ) th e e rr o rs e r io u s ly a f f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” I d. ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . T he di stri ctcourtcond uct ed i nd i vi du al vo i r di re w i th p ot ent i al j urors i n an e f f or tt o “ de a th qua l i f

y ” the pa ne l . I n M or ga n v. I l l i noi s , 504 U . S . 719 ( 1992) , the S upr e m e C our tr e i t e r a t e d tha t“ the pr ope rs t a nda r d f orde t e r m i ni ng w he n a prospect i ve j uror m ay be excl ud ed for c ause because of hi s or hervi ew s on capi t al puni s hm e nti s w he the rthe j ur or ’ s vi e w s w oul d pr e ve ntors ubs t a nt i a l l y i m pa i rthe p e r f o rm a n c e o f

h is d u tie s a s a ju r o rin a c c o r d a n c e w ith h is in s tru c tio n s a n d h is o a th .” I d . a t 7 2 8 ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d a lte r a tio n s o m itte d ) . A ju r o rw h o c o u ld ne ve rvot e f

orc api t a l puni s hm e nt , r e ga r dl e s s of the c our t ’ s i ns truc t i ons , ora j ur or w ho w oul d a ut om a t i c a l l y vot e f orthe de a th pe na l ty i n e ve ry c a s e , s houl d be s tr ic k e n f

o rc a u s e . I d . a t 7 2 8 - 2 9 . T he di s tr i c tc our tc onduc t e d the ne c e s s a ry voi rdi r e i n thi s c a s e , e xc us i ng f or c a u s e th o s e ju r o r s w h o s e v ie w s w o u ld p r e v e n t o rs u b s ta n tia lly im p a irth e ir42

p e r f o rm a n c e , p a r tic u la r ly th o s e w h o h a d p r e d e te r m in e d th e ird e a th p e n a lty v o te . B r ow n c om pl a i ns tha ti n the pr oc e s s of doi ng s o, the di s tr i c tj udge m i s s t a t e d the l a w , i m pl y i ng t o j ur or s tha tthe de a th pe na l ty w a s the appr opr i a t e puni s hm e nt un l es s the m i t i gat i ng fa ct ors out w ei gh ed the aggravat i ng fa ct ors. B row n p rovi des s e ve r a l e xa m pl e s of

thi s c l a i m e d e rr ortha toc c ur r e d dur i ng the que s t i oni ng of pa ne l m e m be r s w ho w e r e e ve ntua l l y pl a c e d on the j ury , the m os te gr e gi ous of w h ic h w e r e : Q u e s tio n p o s e d to v e n ir e m a n L ittle : I f y o u d e c id e th a t th e r e is s uf f i c i e ntm i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e , m i t i ga t i ng m e a ni ng l e s s , ors om e thi ng tha tl e s s e ns the i m pa c t , c oul d y ou vot e f orl i f e i m pr i s onm e ntw i thout benefi tof parol e? Q uest i on po se d t o v eni re w om an B re w er : A nd i f y ou w er e c on vi nced tha tthe r e w e r e m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s tha tm a de l i f e i m pr i s onm e nt w i thoutbe ne f

i tof pa r ol e the m or e appr opr i a t e s e nt e nc e , c oul d y ou v o te f o rth a t? B row n m ai nt ai ns thatthe sa m e e rr or occurre d w i th res pectt o seven ot her m em bers o f th e ju ry , a lth o u g h th e tw o e x a m p le s n o te d ab o v e a r e th e m o s t e x p lic it. T he F e de r a l D e a th P e na l ty A c tm a ke s c l e a rtha ta j ury m us tc ons i de rboth a ggr a va t i ng a nd m i t i ga t i ng f a c t or s a tthe pe na l ty s t a ge of the tr i a l . B ut , a s the s ta tu te m a k e s a b u n d a n tly c le a r , a ju ry n e e d n o t f in d a m itig a tin g f

a c to rin o r d e rto i m po se a non -dea th sent ence : [ T ] he j ury . . . s ha l l c ons i de rw he the ra l l the a ggr a va t i ng f a c t oror f a c t or s f ound t o e xi s ts uf

f i c i e nt l y outw e i gh a l l the m i t i ga t i ng f a c t oror43

fa ct ors f ou nd t o exi stt o j ust i fy a s ent ence of death, or, i n the abse nce of a m i t i ga t i ng f

a c t or , w he the rthe a ggr a va t i ng f a c t ororf a c t or s a l one a r e s uf f i c i e ntt o j us t i f

y a s e nt e nc e of

de a th. 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 9 3 ( e ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e ’s q u e s tio n s d u r in g v o ir d ir e w e r e n o t to th e c o n tr a ry . T h e c o u r t n e v e rto ld a v e n ir e p e r s o n th a t h e c o u ld i m pos e a l i f

e s e nt e nc e i f

a nd onl y i f

he f ound a m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e j us t i f y i ng a non- de a th s e nt e nc e . R a the r , the tr i a l j udge s i m pl y a s ke d, a s he w a s r e qui r e d t o do, w he the rthe pr os pe c t i ve j ur orc oul d i m pos e a l i f e s e nt e nc e i f

he f e l ttha tw a s the puni s hm e ntw a rr a nt e d. T he di stri ctj ud ge’ s quest i on s m ay have been i nart ful l y w orded. H ow ever , the r e a r e s e ve r a l l a r ge , i nf e r e nt i a l l e aps be tw e e n the di s tr i c tj udge ’ s que s t i on as ki ng w hether aj uror coul d i m po se a l i fe se nt ence and t he j uror’ s c on cl usi on that he w oul d be pe r m i tt e d t o i m pos e a l i f e s e nt e nc e i f

a nd onl y i f

he f ound the exi st ence of a m i t i gat i ng fa ct or. M oreover, any j uror w ho ac tual l y dre w that att enuat ed concl usi on -- and t here i s no evi dence thatany di d -- w as l at ergi ven e xpl i c i tj ury i ns truc t i ons tha tc orr e c t l y s t a t e d the l a w . T he r e w a s no e rr or , pl a i n or o th e rw is e . B ut , even i f there w er e pl ai n err or, i tdi d n otaf fe ctB row n’ s s ub st ant i al r i ght s be c a us e the di s tr i c tj udge e xpl i c i t l y c orr e c t e d the purpor t e d e rr orw he n he g av e th e j u ry th e fo l l o w i n g i n stru ct i o n b efo re th ey b eg an th ei r d el i b erat i o n s:Simi larly, we f ind unpersuasiveBrown’s argument that the trial judg e’s que stions 11 prevented him from obtaininga properly death- qualified jury

beca use the que stions gavehim no guara ntee that the jurors selec ted would be a ble to vote for lifeimprisonment absent mitigating fac tor s. Th ede ath- qu alif ic atio n p ro c e ss i s d e signe d towe e d o ut o nly tho sejuror s who se pers on al be lie fswo uld

pre vent o r s ub sta

nti ally imp air theperf or manc eof the ir dutie s a s juro rsin acc ordanc e with the cour

t’s instructions and oath. Morg an, 504 U.S. at 728. Thetrial judg e has substantial discretion in conductingthis process, and there a re no set questions that mustbe asked. SeeWainwright v. Wi tt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 (1985) (notingthat “determinations of juror bias ca nnot be re duced to que stion-and-a nswer se ssions which obtain results in the manner of a cate chism”). B rown ha s not established that any particula r juror lacked impar

tiality based upon a potential misunderstandingof that juror’ s province to impose a life-sentenceeven in the absenc e of mitig atingfac tors. I d. at 423 (notingthat the burden of showingimpartiality is on the party wishing to e x clude a

juror). Thus, w e find no error . See Ramsey v. Bow ersox, 149 F.3d 749, 757 (8th Cir. 1998) (re jectinga challeng e to voir dire wherethe trial judg e addressed the “cr ucial” disqualification issue of whether a juror would automatically vote for or

ag ainst the death penalty , thus “rea sonably assur[ing]” the de fenda

nt the chanc e to detec t a juror’ s potential 44 yo u are t o d et erm i n e w h eth er th e ag g rav at i n g fact o rs fo u n d t o ex i st s uf f i c i e nt l y outw e i gh the m i t i ga t i ng f a c t or s ; or , i n the a bs e nc e of m i t i ga t i ng f

a c t or s w he the rthe a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s a l one a r e s uf

f i c i e nt t o su p p o rta fi n d i n g th ata sen t en ce o f d eath b e i m p o sed [. R ] eg ard l ess o f yo u r fi n d i n g s w i th resp ectt o ag g rav at i n g an d m i t i g at i n g fact o rs, h o w e v e r , y o u in d iv id u a lly o rc o lle c tiv e ly a r e n e v e rr e q u ir e d to r e c om m e nd a s e nt e nc e of de a th. T h is in s tru c tio n p la in ly to ld th e ju ry th a t it c o u ld im p o s e a lif e s e n te n c e e v e n if

it foun d n o m i t i gat i ng fa ct ors a nd expl i ci t l y m ade c l ea r thata j ury i s neverre qu i re d t o i m po se a dea th sent ence . “ A cura t i ve i nstruct i on pu rges the t ai ntof a pre j ud i ci al r e m a r k be c a us e a j ury i s pr e s um e d t o f ol l ow j ur y i ns truc t i ons . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i m o n , 9 6 4 F . 2 d 1 0 8 2 , 1 0 8 7 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 2 ) (q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ). S ee al so U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N oone , 913 F . 2d 20, 35 ( 1s tC i r . 1990) ( f i ndi ng tha ta m i s l e a di ng que s t i on i n voi rdi r e w a s c ur e d by pr ope rj ury i ns truc t i ons a nd the r e f or e di d not re sul ti n “ m ani fe sti nj ust i ce ” und era pl ai n err or anal ys i s) . 11bias). 45

H . Ju ror F ah ey B row n al so ci t es as error the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o d i sm i ss on e j uror, K ri st i n F ahey , for c ause . W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o stri ke a pr os pe c t i ve j ur orf

orc a us e f

ora bus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A br a ha m , 386 F .3 d 1 0 3 3 , 1 0 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . J u r o rF a h e y w a s s tru c k f o rc a u s e d u r in g th e d e a th - q u a lif ic a tio n s ta g e o f

v o ir di r e . T he di s tr i c tj udge a nd c ouns e l f orboth s i de s a s ke d he rnum e r ous que s t i ons concerni ng her abi l i ty t o i m po se the death p enal ty. S he strugg l ed w i th h er answ er s, sa yi ng thatgeneral l y s he w as op po se d t o the death p enal ty, bu tthatthere m i gh tbe ci rc um st ance s w here she c ou l d v ot e f or a death sent ence . S he i nd i ca t ed s he w oul d w a ntt o l i s t e n t o a l l the f a c t s a nd ha d notpr e de t e r m i ne d w he the rs he w o u ld v o te f

o ro ra g a in s t th e d e a th p e n a lty . H ow e ve r , t ow a r d the e nd of the i nqui ry , s he ha d the f ol l ow i ng e xc ha nge w i th the prosecut or: [ A . U . S . A . ] N e w m a n: M s . F a he y , w oul d y ou m a ke y ourde c i s i on on the ul t i m a t e puni s hm e nti n thi s c a s e ba s e d on y ouri nt e rna l s e tof v al u es o r o n w h atth e l aw i s th at[th e j u d g e] w i l l g i v e yo u t o ap p l y, wh i c h b y y o u ro a th a s a j u r o ry o u wo u l d b e s wo rn t o f o l l o w? J u r o r : I b e l i e v e I w o u l d p r o b a b l y ma k e th e d e c i s i o n b a s e d u p o n my o w n i n t ern al v al u es.46

M r. N ew nan: E ven i f tho se m i gh tconfl i ctand b e di ff er entthan w hat [th e j u d g e] i s t el l i n g th e j u ry t o ap p l y? Ju ro r: Y es. T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e a c k n o w le d g e d th a t th is w a s a v e ry c lo s e c a ll. B utthe l as tqu es t i on w hen she sa i d - - a nd I thi nk she’ s a l t og ether c a n d id - - I th in k w e a ll a g r e e , o n e , th a t h e r e is a ju r o rth a t is strugg l i ng . S he i s, by anybod y’ s j ud gm ent , al so atthe po i ntw here s h e w ill s a y u n d e rn o c ir c u m s ta n c e s w o u ld s h e im p o s e th e d e a th se nt ence . B utshe i s notprepare d t o g o q ui t e thatfa r, because s he ca n i m ag i n e cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces th atsh e w o u l d g o . B u tth en sh e says, a ga i n i n t ot a l c a ndor , tha tI w oul d ha ve t o i m pos e m y s t a nda r ds a nd I co u l d n o tn ecessaril y fo l l o w th e l aw o r th e i n stru ct i o n s. T he S up re m e C ou rtm ade i tcl ea r i n A dam s v. T exas , 44 8 U . S . 38 (198 0), thati ti s proper t o stri ke for c ause tho se po t ent i al j urors w ho se vi ew s on capi t al pu ni shm ent“ w ou l d p re ventor subst ant i al l y i m pai r the performance of [thei r] du t i es as . . . j uror[s ] i n acc ordance w i th [the court ’ s] i nstruct i on s a nd . . . oath. ” Id. at45 . S ee al so i d. (“ [t ] he S t at e m ay i nsi st , ho w ever , thatj urors w i l l consi der a nd de c i de the f

a c t s i m pa r t i a l l y a nd c ons c i e nt i ous l y appl y the l a w a s c ha r ge d by th e co u rt ”); i d . at4 8 (n o t i n g th atth e S t at e co u l d “ ex cl u d e p ro sp ect i v e j u ro rs w h o se vi e w s on c api t a l puni s hm e nta r e s uc h a s t o m a ke the m una bl e t o f ol l ow the l a w or ob ey thei r oaths”) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). D et erm i ni ng w hen a j uror w i l l re j ec tthe l aw a s g iv e n b y th e tr ia l c o u r t in f a v o ro f h e ro w n b e lie f

s y s te m is a d if

f ic u lt u n d e r ta k in g , b u t d e s p ite th e d if f ic u lty in h e r e n t in th e ta s k a n d th a t th e r e c o r d w ill47

no tal w ay s m ake bi as “ un m i st akabl y c l ea r, ” “ there w i l l be si tuat i on s w here the tri al ju d g e is le f

t w ith th e d e f

in ite im p r e s s io n th a t a p r o s p e c tiv e ju r o rw o u ld b e u n a b le t o f a i thf ul l y a nd i m pa r t i a l l y appl y the l a w . ” W a i nw r i ghtv. W i tt , 469 U . S . 412, 425- 26 ( 1985) . T hus , “ de f e r e nc e m us tbe pa i d t o the tr i a l j udge w ho s e e s a nd he a r s the j ur or . ” I d. a t426. B a s e d on F a he y ’ s e qui voc a t i ng a ns w e r s a nd he rul t i m a t e c onc l us i on tha ts he w oul d vot e ba s e d on he row n i nt e rna l va l ue s a nd noton the i ns truc t e d l a w , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n s tr i ki ng he rf orc a us e . C f

. S t e w a r tv. D ugge r , 877 F . 2d 851, 855 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ( f i ndi ng no W i the r s poon vi ol a t i on w h ere a p o t en t i al j u ro r, al th o u g h i n d i cat i n g a stro n g av ersi o n t o th e d eath p en al ty, adm i tt ed thataf

t erhear i ng the fa ct s he c ou l d “ m aybe” c on si der i m po si ng death). I. S tate m en t T o J u ror R egard i n g G u i l ty P l ea B r ow n a l s o c l a i m s tha the i s e nt i t l e d t o a ne w tr i a l be c a us e the di s tr i c tj udge i nadv ert ent l y t ol d a prospect i ve j uror, w ho w as eventual l y s ea t ed on the j ury, that B r ow n ha d pl e d gui l ty . N e i the rpa r ty obj e c t e d a nd, the r e f or e , w e r e vi e w the i s s ue f orpl a i n e rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a s s e y , 89 F . 3d 1433, 1442 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( f a ilu r e to o b

je c t to ju ry in s tru c tio n s r e v ie w e d f o rp la in e rr o r ) . W hi l e de a th- qua l i f

y i ng the pot e nt i a l j ur or s , the tr a ns c r i pti ndi c a t e s tha tthe fol l ow i ng col l oq uy t oo k p l ac e betw ee n the tri al courtand a w om an w ho w as48

eventual l y s ea t ed as a j uror: T he C our t : N ow , y ou unde r s t a nd tha tthe de f e nda ntha s e nt e r e d a p l ea o f g u i l ty. Juror: Y es , Y ou r hon or. T he C our t : T he l a w pr e s um e s hi m t o be notgui l ty . Y ou unde r s t a nd

th a t. J ur or : I do. T he C ou rt : A nd the re spon si bi l i ty i s on the go vernm entt o con vi nce a

f a ira n d im p a r tia l ju ry , a n d e a c h m e m b e ro f it, th a t h e is gui l ty of the of f e ns e c ha r ge d, a nd hi s gui l tm us tbe de m ons tr a t e d be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . Y ou u n d e r s ta n d th a t. J ur or : I do. C l ea rl y, the di stri ctj ud ge’ s s t at em entthatB row n h ad ent er ed a gui l ty pl eaw as e i the ra s l i p of

the t ongue ora tr a ns c r i pt i on e rr or . I tw a s i m m e di a t e l y f ol l ow e d by s t a t e m e nt s i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe l a w pr e s um e s the de f e nda ntnotgui l ty a nd tha tthe gove rnm e ntha s the bur de n of pr ovi ng hi s gui l tbe y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . T he di s tr i c tj udge l a t e ri ns truc t e d the j ury tha tthe gove rnm e ntha d the bur de n of o v e r c o m in g th e p r e s u m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e b y p r o o f

th a t r e m o v e s a ll r e a s o n a b le doubta nd s pe c i f

i c a l l y t ol d the j ur y tha t“ i tw i l l be y ourduty t o de c i de w he the rthe g o v e rn m e n t h a s p r o v e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t th e s p e c if ic f a c ts n e c e s s a ry to f in d th e d e f

e n d a n t g u ilty o f

th e c r im e o rc r im e s c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t.”49

I f th e d is tr ic t ju d g e d id , in f a c t, te ll th e ju r o rth a t B r o w n h a d e n te r e d a g u ilty pl e a , the r e w a s e rr ora nd i tw a s pl a i n. H ow e ve r , w e ha ve s om e di f f i c ul ty be l i e vi ng s o o b v io u s a n d e g r e g io u s a n e rr o rw o u ld h a v e o c c u rr e d w ith o u t im m e d ia te obj e c t i on f

r om both the de f

e nda nta nd the gove rnm e nt . B e c a us e the r e w a s no obj e c t i on, a tr a ns c r i pt i on e rr orm a y be the m or e pl a us i bl e e xpl a na t i on. B ut , even i f the di stri ctj ud ge di d m ake asl i p o f the t on gu e, i tdi d n otaf fe ct B r ow n’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s be c a us e i toc c ur r e d w e l l be f or e j ury de l i be r a t i ons a nd w a s e xpl i c i t l y c orr e c t e d dur i ng the c our t ’ s j ury i ns truc t i ons . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D eM as i , 40 F . 3d 13 06 , 13 21 -22 (1stC i r. 19 94 ) ( no t i ng that“ the chal l enged st at em ent s, tho ug h p robl em at i c, ar e i sol at ed sni pp et s c ul l ed fr om ov erthi rty pages o f g e n e r a lly c a u tio u s , c a r e f u l, a n d c o rr e c t in s tru c tio n s . A t m o s t, th e s ta te m e n ts w er e i nadv ert entsl i ps of the t on gu e w i th l i m i t ed prej ud i ci al forc e. ”) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. M c C ue , 643 F . 2d 394, 396 ( 6th C i r . 1981) ( no r e ve r s i bl e e rr orw he r e j udge i n ad v ert en t l y sai d th e w o rd “ co n v i ct ” w h en h e m ean tt o say “ acq u i t ” i n th e co u rse o f o th e rw is e c o rr e c t ju ry in s tru c tio n s ) . J. H e ar s ay B r o w n a ls o o b

je c ts to th e in tr o d u c tio n o f th r e e s ta te m e n ts r e c e iv e d in evi dence atthe tri al on grou nd s thatthey w er e hea rs ay and v i ol at ed hi s r i gh t s und er th e C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e o f

th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t.50

F i rs t , B row n o bj ec t s t o the t es t i m on y of D ar l ene W as hi ng t on , w hi ch w as offe re d atthe gu i l t -i nn ocence s t age of the tri al . W as hi ng t on t es t i fi ed thatshe w as in th e P o s t O f

f ic e o n th e m o rn in g o f

th e r o b b e ry a n d o v e rh e a d B r o w n te ll G a g lia th a th i s n a m e wa s “ J a s o n . ” B r o wn d i d n o to b j e c tt o th i s t e s t i m o n y a ttr i a l , s o we r e vi e w i tf

orpl a i n e rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m pbe l l , 223 F . 3d 1286, 1288 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). In the fi rs tpl ac e, B row n’ s s t at em entof hi s nam e w as no thear sa y because i tw as the st at em entof a par ty- op po nent . S ee F ed. R . E vi d. 80 1(d)(2)(A ); U n it ed S tates v . M u n o z, 1 6 F .3 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 2 0 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) ( n o ti n g th at “a s ta te m e n t is n o t h e a r s a y if it is th e s ta te m e n t o f

th e p a r ty a g a in s t w h o m it is of f e r e d” ) . M or e ove r , a dm i s s i on of the s t a t e m e ntdi d notvi ol a t e the C onf r ont a t i on C l ause . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. Z i zz o, 12 0 F . 3d 13 38 , 13 54 (7th C i r. 19 97 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. M oran, 75 9 F . 2d 77 7, 78 6 (9t h C i r. 19 85 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. R i os R ui z, 5 7 9 F . 2 d 6 7 0 , 6 7 6 - 7 7 ( 1 s tC i r . 1 9 7 8 ) ; s e e a l s o 4 J a c k B . We i n s t e i n & Ma r g a r e tA. B e r ge r , W e i ns t e i n’ s F e de r a l E vi de nc e § 802. 05[ 3] [ d] a t802- 25 ( 2d e d. 2005) ( not i ng tha t“ a pa r ty c a nnots e r i ous l y c l a i m tha thi s orhe row n s t a t e m e nts houl d be excl ud ed because i tw as no tm ade und eroath o r s ubj ec tt o cross -e xam i nat i on ”) . N ex t , B ro w n o b

j ect s t o D i etrech u sn D av i s’ s t est i m o n y, w h i ch w as al so o f f e r e d b y th e g o v e rn m e n t a t th e g u ilt- in n o c e n c e s ta g e . D a v is te s tif ie d th a t S a d ie Br o wn ( Br o wn ’ s mo th e r ) r e c e i v e d a p h o n e c a l l a n d s a i d “ M e i e r , wh e r e y o u a t ?51

M e i e r , y ou di dn’ tki l l tha tl a dy , no. ” D a vi s t e s t i f i e d tha tS a di e the n s t a r t e d c ry i ng, at w h ich p o in t h e lef

t. T h e d ef

en d an t o b

jected at trial, alleg in g h ea rs ay an d th at “I c a n’ tc r os s e xa m i ne he r . ” W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s he a r s a y rul i ng f ora bus e of d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . D e L a M a ta , 2 6 6 F .3 d 1 2 7 5 , 1 3 0 0 - 0 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T he di s tr i c tj udge ove rrul e d the he a r s a y obj e c t i on. A l though hi s r e a s ons f ordoi ng s o a r e note nt i r e l y c l e a rf r om the r e c or d, the s t a t e m e ntw a s a n e xc i t e d utt e r a nc e a nd thu s s ubj ec tt o a hears ay exce pt i on . S ee F ed. R . E vi d. 80 3(2) (provi di ng a hea rs ay e x c e p tio n f

o r“[ a ] s ta te m e n t r e la tin g to a s ta r tlin g e v e n t o rc o n d itio n m a d e w h ile th e d e c la r a n t w a s u n d e rs tr e s s o f e x c ite m e n t c a u s e d b y th e e v e n t o rc o n d itio n ” ) . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n rul i ng thatthe st at em entw as adm i ss i bl e. B ro w n al so cl ai m s th atD av i s’ s t est i m o n y v i o l at ed h i s co n fro n t at i o n cl au se rig h ts an d w as im p er m issib ly ad m itted in co n trav en ti o n o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s r e c e ntde c i s i on i n C r a w f or d v. W a s hi ngt on, 541 U . S . 36 ( 2004) . I n C r a w f or d, the S upr e m e C our the l d tha tt e s t i m oni a l e vi de nc e f r om a n a bs e ntw i tne s s m a y be a dm i tt e d onl y w he n the w i tne s s i s una va i l a bl e a nd the de f e nda ntha d a pr i or op po rtun i ty t o cross -e xam i ne the decl ar ant . Id. at68 . T he C ra w ford rul e app l i es onl y t o t e s t i m oni a l e vi de nc e . I d. ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a nt e l l a no, 430 F . 3d 1142, 1145 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( n o tin g th a t n o n - te s tim o n ia l e v id e n c e “is n o t s u b je c t to52

c o n f r o n ta tio n ” ) . Just i ce S ca l i a, w ri t i ng for the m aj ori ty i n C ra w ford, offe re d som e e xam pl es o f w h a t th e C o u r t h a d in m in d w h e n it u s e d th e te r m “te s tim o n ia l” e v id e n c e : ex p art e i n -co u rtt est i m o n y o r i t s fu n ct i o n al eq u i v al en t- th ati s, m a t e r i a l s uc h a s a f

f i da vi t s , c us t odi a l e xa m i na t i ons , pr i ort e s t i m ony thatthe defendantw as un abl e t o cross -e xam i ne, or si m i l arpretri al st at em ent s thatdecl ar ant s w ou l d rea sonabl y e xp ec tt o b e use d prosec ut ori al l y . . . extra j ud i ci al st at em ent s c on t ai ned i n form al i ze d t est i m o n i al m at eri al s, su ch as affi d av i t s, d ep o si t i o n s, p ri o r t est i m o n y, or confes si on s . . . st at em ent s thatw er e m ade und erci rc um st ance s w hi c h w oul d l e a d a n obj e c t i ve w i tne s s r e a s ona bl y t o be l i e ve tha tthe s ta te m e n t w o u ld b e a v a ilab le f o ru s e a t a la te rtr ia l. C r a w f o r d , 5 4 1 U .S . a t 5 1 - 5 2 ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s , c ita tio n s a n d a lte r a tio n s o m itte d ) . T he C ou rtfurther not ed thata hi st ori ca l vers i on of W ebst er ’ s D i ct i on ary def i nes

“ t e s t i m ony ” a s “ [ a ] s ol e m n de c l a r a t i on ora f f i r m a t i on m a de f

orthe purpos e of es t abl i shi ng or prov i ng som e f ac t . ” I d. at51 (c i t i ng 1 N . W ebst er , A n A m er i ca n D ic tio n a ry o f

th e E n g lis h L a n g u a g e ( 1 8 2 8 ) ) ( a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) . W e n e e d n o t d iv in e a n y a d d itio n a l d e f in itio n o f “te s tim o n ia l” e v id e n c e to concl ud e thatthe pri vat e t el epho ne conv er sa t i on betw ee n m other a nd son, w hi ch occurre d w hi l e S adi e B row n w as si tt i ng ather di ni ng room t abl e w i th o nl y her fa m i l y m em bers pres ent , w as no tt es t i m on i al . S ee i d. (not i ng that“ [a ] n acc user w h o m ak es a fo rm al st at em en tt o g o v ern m en to ffi cers b ears t est i m o n y i n a sen se thata per son w ho m akes a c as ual re m ark t o an acquai nt ance do es no t ”) ; U ni t ed53

S t at es v. H endri cks, 39 5 F . 3d 17 3, 18 1 (3d C i r. 20 05 ) ( surr ept i t i ou sl y m on i t ored c onve r s a t i ons nott e s t i m oni a l ) ; H or t on v. A l l e n, 370 F . 3d 75, 83- 84 ( 1s tC i r . 2004) ( hol di ng tha ta s t a t e m e ntf r om a c onve r s a t i on, a dm i tt e d unde rthe s t a t e - of - m i nd e xc e pt i on t o the he a r s a y rul e , w a s non- t e s t i m oni a l be c a us e i tw a s pr i va t e , w a s not m a de unde re xa m i na t i on, w a s notc ont a i ne d i n a f or m a l doc um e nt , a nd w a s not m a de “ unde rc i r c um s t a nc e s i n w hi c h a n obj e c t i ve pe r s on w oul d r e a s ona bl y be l i e ve tha tthe s t a t e m e ntw oul d be a va i l a bl e f orus e a ta l a t e rtr i a l ” ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt ed)) . T he ph on e c on vers at i on D avi s overhear d o bv i ou sl y w as no tm ade und er exam i nat i on , w as no ttra nscr i bed i n a form al do cum ent , and w as no tm ade und er c i r c um s t a nc e s l e a di ng a n obj e c t i ve pe r s on t o r e a s ona bl y be l i e ve the s t a t e m e nt w o u ld b e a v a ilab le f

o ru s e a t a la te rtr ia l. T h u s , it is n o t te s tim o n ia l a n d its a dm i s s i on i s notba rr e d by C r a w f or d. F i nal l y, B row n o bj ec t s t o the t es t i m on y of C atheri ne W ebb, G agl i a’ s s i st er , w hi c h w a s of

f e r e d a tthe pe na l ty pha s e of the tr i a l . W e bb t e s t i f

i e d a bouthow G a gl i a ’ s de a th a f

f e c t e d G a gl i a ’ s hus ba nd a nd c hi l dr e n. S he di d nott e s t i f y a bout a n y d ir e c t s ta te m e n ts a n y o th e rf a m ily m e m b e rm a d e ; in s te a d , s h e te s tif ie d a s to ho w tho se peop l e w er e a ff ec t ed by G agl i a’ s dea th. T hu s, for e xam pl e, she s ai d that one of G a gl i a ’ s s ons “ f

e l tunde rhi s e m ot i ona l s t a t e of m i nd tha the c oul d not[ go t o col l ege] atthi s t i m e. H e c ou l d n otconcentra t e t o g o o nt o col l ege. ” W ebb st at ed54

tha t“ I j us ts poke w i th [ G a gl i a ’ s hus ba nd] j us ta f e w m i nut e s a go. H e c oul d not appear. H i s e m ot i on al st at e, he i s goi ng throu gh therapy. . . A nd he kn ew that u n d e rth e a d v is e o f

h is th e r ap is t, a n d a c o u n s e lin g g r o u p th a t h e h a d g o n e to w ith othe rf a m i l y m e m be r s tha tha ve l os tc l os e d [ s i c ] l ove d one s , tha the c oul d not , he c oul d notm a na ge t o go thr ough thi s c our the a r i ng. ” T he r e w a s no obj e c t i on t o the adm i ss i on of W ebb’ s t es t i m on y, so w e r evi ew i tfor pl ai n err or. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. C am pb el l , 22 3 F . 3d 12 86 , 12 88 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). F i rs t , w e do n otbel i eve thatany of W ebb’ s t es t i m on y w as hear sa y. H ea rs ay i s def i ned as a“ st at em ent , other than o ne m ade by the decl ar antw hi l e t es t i fy i ng at the tri al or hear i ng , offe re d i n evi dence t o p rove the truth o f the m att eras se rt ed. ” F e d. R . E vi d. 801( c ) . “ A ‘ s t a t e m e nt ’ i s ( 1) a n or a l orw r i tt e n a s s e r t i on or( 2) nonve rba l c onduc tof

a pe r s on, i f

i ti s i nt e nde d by the pe r s on a s a n a s s e r t i on. ” F e d. R . E vi d. 801( a ) . W e bb’ s t e s t i m ony di d noti nc l ude s t a t e m e nt s by G a gl i a ’ s hus ba nd orc hi l dr e n. R a the r , W e bb s i m pl y of f e r e d he ri m pr e s s i on of

how the y w e r e c opi ng w i th G ag l i a’ s d eath , w h i ch w as n o th earsay. M or e ove r , e ve n i f

the s t a t e m e nt s c oul d be c ha r a c t e r i z e d a s he a r s a y , the F eder al R ul es of E vi dence do n otappl y duri ng the penal ty phase of a f eder al c api t a l tr i a l . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 3593( c ) ( “ I nf or m a t i on i s a dm i s s i bl e [ dur i ng the pe na l ty pha s e ] r e ga r dl e s s of i t s a dm i s s i bi l i ty unde rthe rul e s gove rni ng a dm i s s i on55

o f e v id e n c e a t c r im in a l tr ia ls e x c e p t th a t in f o r m a tio n m a y b e e x c lu d e d if its pr oba t i ve va l ue i s outw e i ghe d by the da nge rof c r e a t i ng unf

a i rpr e j udi c e , c onf

us i ng the i s s ue s , orm i s l e a di ng the j ury ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J ohns on, 223 F . 3d 665, 674 ( 7th C i r . 2000) ( “ [ T ] he F e de r a l D e a th P e na l ty s t a tut e doe s notr e qui r e e vi de nc e of a g g r a v a tin g o rm itig a tin g f a c to r s b e a d m is s ib le u n d e rth e ru le s o f e v id e n c e .” ) . C f . C h a n d le rv . M o o r e , 2 4 0 F .3 d 9 0 7 , 9 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( h o ld in g th a t h e a r s a y is a d m i s s i b l e a ta s t a t e c ap i t a l s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g a s l o n g a s th e s t a t e s t a tu t e a l l o ws the de f e nda ntthe oppor tuni ty t o r e buta ny he a r s a y i nf or m a t i on) . B r ow n ha s not sh o w n th atW eb b ’ s t est i m o n y w as u n fai rl y p rej u d i ci al , th ati tco n fu sed th e i ssu es, ortha ti tm i s l e d the j ury . M or e ove r , he ha d e ve ry oppor tuni ty t o r e butthe evi dence. T hu s, there w as no st atut ory e rr or. B r o w n a ls o s a y s th a t a d m is s io n o f W e b b ’s te s tim o n y v io la te d C r a w f o r d . W e nee d n otdet erm i ne w hether C ra w ford appl i es t o the penal ty phase of a f eder al c api t a l tr i a l be c a us e , e ve n i f i tdi d, the c ha l l e nge d e vi de nc e i s nott e s t i m oni a l . T he e v id e n c e p r o v id e d b y W e b b w a s b a s e d o n h e ro b s e r v a tio n s o f G a g lia ’s f

a m ily m em bers . T o the ext entthatany of tho se peop l e m ade s t at em ent s abo utw hi ch W e bb the n t e s t i f

i e d ( a ga i n, w e c a n di s c e rn no “ s t a t e m e nt s , ” a tl e a s tt o the e xt e nt th a t te r m is d e f

in e d in th e h e a r s a y c o n te x t) , th e y w e r e n o t te s tim o n ia l in n a tu r e . T he y w e r e m a de by one gr i e vi ng f a m i l y m e m be rt o a nothe r . T he y w e r e notm a deWe have he ld that Crawford does not apply in the context of non-capital sentencing . 12 Se eUnite d St ate s v . Ca

nte lla no , 4 30 F .3 d 1 14 2, 11 46 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 5) . H ow e ver, de ath i s dif ferent, and

wehavehe ld, in t

hestateha

be a s c onte xt, th at th ec on sti tution al right to c ro ssexamine witnesses applies to ca pital sentencinghearings. Prof fitt v. W ainwright, 685 F.2d 1227, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 1982) (notingthat the right of cross- examination applies at capital sentencing hearings a

nd that the right of cross- examination is “implicit” in the Six th Amendment right of confrontation); see also Chandler, 240 F .3d at 918 (holdingthat in order to c omply with the Sixth Amendment, a

statec a pit al sentenc ingstatut emus t allo w thede fendant t heoppo rt unity to rebut he arsa

y evidenc e). O ur view is, however, f ar f rom universally

acc epted. See , e.g ., United States v. Hig g s, 353 F.3d 281, 324 (4th Cir. 2003) (noting that “ [i ]tis far f rom clea r that the Con frontatio n Cl a

us ea pp lie s toa

c a pit al sentenc ingproc e e ding ”and c itingour de c isi on

in Proffitt as beingcontra

ry to Fourth Circuit law) ; Sz abo v. Walls, 313 F.3d 392, 398 (7th Cir. 2002) (c iting Willi ams v. NewYork, 337 U.S. 241 (1949) , for the proposition that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to capital sentencingand notingthat the Supreme Court “has never que stioned the prec ise holding of ” Willi ams). District cour ts that have c onsidered this question in federal capital ca ses post-Crawf ord havedone so in the conte x t of a bifurcate d penalty phase (threestag es all tog ether -- a guilt-innocencephase, a

death- elig ibility

phase, a nd a penalty phase) and haveheld that the Confrontation Cl ause a nd Crawf ord apply in the “ e lig ibi lity”po rtion

of thepenalty

ph a se(wherethejur

y de termine s whe ther t

hede fendant i s statutorily e lig ibl efor t

hede ath p e nalty

) but n ot in th e“ se le c tio n”po rtion of thepenalty

ph a se (where thejury

deter mines whether

it will actually

impose the death penalty ). See United States v. J ohnson, 378 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1059-62 (N .D. I owa 2005) (holdingthat the Confrontation Clause does not apply

to the penalty

phase a fter a ssuming, without deciding , that it applied at the elig ibility phase) ; United States v. Bodkins, No. 4:04CR70083, 2005 W L1118158, at *4-5 (W.D. Va. May

11, 2005); United States v. J ordan, 357 F . Supp. 2d 889, 901-904 (E.D. Va . 2005). We do not decidewhether Crawf ord applies at the penalty

phase of a fe deral capital trial prec isely beca use the c halleng ed evidence of fered in this case w as so clea rly non-testimonial. Moreover, weoffer no opinion on the proprie ty of trifurc atinga fe deral capital trial so that the 56 i n the c ont e xtof

a n e xa m i na t i on, w e r e notr e c or de d i n a f or m a l doc um e nt , a nd w e r e notm a de unde rc i r c um s t a nc e s tha tw oul d l e a d a r e a s ona bl e pe r s on t o be l i e ve the y w oul d be l a t e rus e d a ttr i a l . M or e ove r , the r e i s no e vi de nc e t o s how tha tthe f a m ily m e m b e r s w e r e u n a v a ilab le ; to th e e x te n t B r o w n w is h e d to d o s o , h e c o u ld ha ve c a l l e d a ny of

the m a s a w i tne s s . T hus , be c a us e the s t a t e m e nt s w e r e not t e s t i m oni a l , w e ne e d nota ddr e s s w he the rC r a w f or d appl i e s i n the pe na l ty pha s e of a f e d e r a l c ap ita l tr ia l. 12penalty

phase w ould be conducted in two distinct parts. 57 K . C r i m e Sc e ne Pho t o g r a phs B row n al so ci t es as an evi dent i al m i st ake thatthe di stri ctcourtadm i tt ed col or cr i m e- sc ene pho t og raph s of G agl i a’ s bod y. A gai n, w e r evi ew the tri al c our t ’ s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs f ora n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R ui z , 253 F . 3d 63 4, 63 9-40 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ). In re vi ew i ng i ss ues und erR ul e 403 , w e l oo k at the e vi de nc e i n a l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o i t s a dm i s s i on, m a xi m i z i ng i t s pr oba t i ve va l ue a nd m i ni m i z i ng i t s undue pr e j udi c i a l i m pa c t . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e rni ga n, 341 F .3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . T he tr i a l c our ta l l ow e d the a dm i s s i on of s i x phot ogr aphs i nve s t i ga t or s t ook of G agl i a’ s bod y a s i tappeare d atthe cr i m e s ce ne. T he ph ot os w er e a dm i tt ed at th e g u ilt s ta g e b u t w e r e n o t r e p u b lis h e d a t th e p e n a lty p h a s e . B r o w n m o v e d to s uppr e s s the phot ogr aphs be f or e tr i a l , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d hi s m ot i on s u b j e c tt o r e n e wa l a ttr i a l wh e n r e l e v a n c e wo u l d b e m o r e ap p a r e n t . B r o wn r e n e w e d h is o b

je c tio n a t tr ia l. T he e vi de nc e i s undoubt a bl y r e l e va nt ; the phot ogr aphs m a ke f a c t s of c o n s e q u e n c e , s u c h a s G a g lia ’s d e a th a n d th e n u m b e ra n d n a tu r e o f s tab w o u n d s to h e rb o d y , mo r e p r o b a b l e th a n th e y w o u l d b e w i th o u tth e e v i d e n c e . Se e Fe d . R. E vi d. 401; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e P a r i a s , 805 F . 2d 1447, 1453 ( 11th C i r . 1986)58

( hol di ng tha t“ [ p] hot ogr aphs of hom i c i de vi c t i m s a r e r e l e va nti n s how i ng the i dent i ty of the vi ct i m , the m anner of death, the m urder w eapo n, or any other e l e m e ntof

the c r i m e ” ) , ove rrul e d on othe rgr ounds by U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K apl a n, 171 F . 3d 1351, 1356- 57 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( e n ba nc ) . M or e ove r , a tthe pe na l ty pha s e of the tr i a l , the phot ogr aphs w e r e r e l e va nti n de t e r m i ni ng the e xi s t e nc e of one of the al l eged st atut ory a gg ra vat i ng fa ct ors: w hether B row n “ com m i tt ed the offens e i n an e s pe c i a l l y he i nous , c rue l , orde pr a ve d m a nne ri n tha ti ti nvol ve d t or tur e ors e r i ous p h y s ic a l ab u s e to th e v ic tim .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 9 2 ( c ) ( 6 ) . H o w e v e r , e v id e n c e th a t is o th e rw is e r e le v a n t “m a y b e e x c lu d e d if its prob at i ve val ue i s s ub st ant i al l y outw ei gh ed by the dang erof un fa i r pre j ud i ce . ” F ed . R . E v i d . 4 0 3 . B ro w n says th atth e p i ctu res w ere u n fai rl y p rej u d i ci al b ecau se the c ondi t i on of

the body a s di s pl a y e d i n the phot ogr aphs w a s notthe s a m e a s the cond i t i on of the bo dy af t erhe com m i tt ed the m urder because the bo dy w as m ov ed w hen res cuer s a tt em pt ed t o revi ve G agl i a. M oreover, B row n con t ends that resu sci t at i o n effo rt s i n creased th e am o u n to f b l o o d o n an d aro u n d th e b o d y, m a ki ng the a tt a c k l ook m or e vi c i ous tha n i tr e a l l y w a s . W e a r e unpe r s ua de d. I n D e P a r ia s , w e r e

je c te d a n a r g u m e n t th a t a d m ittin g p h o to g r ap h s o f a “b a d ly de c om pos e d c orps e ” w a s a n a bus e of di s c r e t i on unde rR ul e 403. 805 F . 2d a t1453- 54. A l though w e di d nots pe c i f i c a l l y a ddr e s s a n a r gum e nttha tthe c ha nge d s t a t e of59

the body r e nde r e d the phot os unf a i r l y pr e j udi c i a l , w e i m pl i c i t l y r e j e c t e d s uc h a cont ent i on . T he changes i n app ea ra nce thatac com pany decom po si t i on ar e s ig n if ic a n tly g r e a te r , a n d m o r e g ru e s o m e , th a n th o s e th a t w e r e p r e s e n t in th is c a s e . A l tho ug h there m ay have been sl i gh t l y m ore bl oo d sho w n i n the ph ot og raph s than th e r e w a s w h e n B r o w n le f t th e s c e n e , th a t is a d ir e c t a n d n a tu r a l c o n s e q u e n c e o f h is d e c is io n to r e p e a te d ly s tab th e v ic tim . T h e r e w a s n o u n f a irp r e ju d ic e . B r ow n a l s o a r gue s tha tthe phot os w e r e unne c e s s a ry , c um ul a t i ve a nd there fore un fa i rl y pre

j ud i ci al because the go vernm enti ntrodu ce d o ther e vi dence, s uc h a s the t e s t i m ony of the m e di c a l e xa m i ne r , tha te s t a bl i s he d G a gl i a ’ s c a us e of death. W e e xp l i ci t l y r ej ec t ed thi s a rgum enti n D eP ar i as and fi nd i tno m ore c o m p e llin g h e r e . S e e id . a t 1 4 5 4 ( n o tin g th a t “R u le 4 0 3 d o e s n o t m a n d a te excl usi on m er el y bec ause som e overl ap exi st s betw ee n the ph ot og raph s a nd other e vi de nc e . T he a dm i s s i on of the s e phot ogr aphs i n a ddi t i on t o the t e s t i m ony of the c or one rha r dl y c ons t i tut e s s uc h a ne e dl e s s a c c um ul a t i on of e vi de nc e a s t o a m ount t o an abu se of di sc re t i on ” ( ci t at i on om i tt ed)) . F i n al l y, ev en i f th i s am o u n t ed t o an ab u se o f d i scret i o n , i tw o u l d b e h arm l ess e rr ora tboth the gui l ta nd pe na l ty pha s e s . B r ow n di r e c t s us t o S pe a r s v. M ul l i n, 34 3 F . 3d 12 15 (10t h C i r. 20 03 ), a c as e w here the T enth C i rc ui thel d thatcr i m esc ene pho t og raph s i ntrodu ce d atthe penal ty phase of a s t at e c api t al tri al re nd er ed60

th e p r o c e e d in g f

u n d a m e n ta lly u n f

a irb e c a u s e th e y w e r e o n ly m in im a lly r e le v a n t to th e “ h ei n o u s, atro ci o u s, o r cru el ” ag g rav at i n g fact o r. Id . at1 2 2 7 -2 8 . In S p ears, w h i ch w as d eci d ed u n d er O k l ah o m a l aw , w h eth er a crim e w as h ei n o u s, atro ci o u s, orc rue l de pe nde d on w he the rthe de f e nda ntha d i nf

l i c t e d unne c e s s a ry s uf

f e r i ng w hi l e the vi ct i m w as st i l l consci ou s. S ee i d. at12 26 -27. T he evi dence i n S pear s s h o w e d th a t o n ly tw o o f th e f if ty to s ix ty s tab w o u n d s w e r e in f lic te d p e r i- m o r te m . I d. a t1228. T hus , the r e l e va nc e of the phot ogr aphs w a s l i m i t e d i n tha tc a s e . T he c our tf ound tha t , i n l i ghtof

the l i m i t e d r e l e va nc e , the grue s om e de pi c t i ons of the b o d y , w h ic h in c lu d e d e x p o s e d in te s tin e s a n d la r g e g a s h w o u n d s , w e r e u n d u ly p r e ju d ic ia l. I d . a t 1 2 2 7 - 2 8 . O ur ca se i s di ff

er entfr om S pear s i n sever al i m po rt antre spec t s. F i rs t , w e a re proceedi ng un der F eder al R ul e of E vi dence 403 . S ec on d, the pi ctures here w er e r e l e v a n tt o b o th g u i l ta n d p e n a l ty c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Mo r e o v e r , u n l i k e Ok l a h o m a l a w, the f e de r a l l a w doe s notl i m i tthe “ he i nous , c rue l , orde pr a ve d” a ggr a va t i ng ci rc um st ance t o abu se i nfl i ct ed w hi l e the vi ct i m w as al i ve, so ea ch of the st ab w ou nd s i n thi s c as e i s i nd i vi du al l y r el evant . F i nal l y, the pi ctures them se l ves w er e no tnear l y a s grues om e a s tho se i n S pear s, si gn i fi ca nt l y l es se ni ng thei r pre j ud i ci al i m p act . T h u s, ev en i f th i s w ere erro r -- an d w e fi n d n o n e -- i tw o u l d b e h arm l ess because i tdi d n otre sul ti n the type of “ fund am ent al l y unfai r” proceedi ng that61

i nfec t ed the S pear s c as e. L . D en i al O f F u n d s F or T w o R eq u es te d E xp er ts B r o w n a ls o c la im s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is r e q u e s t f o rf u n d s to h ir e a f o r e n s ic s o c ia l w o r k e ra n d a f u tu r e d a n g e r o u s n e s s e x p e r t. T h e m a g is tr a te j udge de ni e d the appl i c a t i on f orf unds f orthe f or e ns i c s oc i a l w or ke rbe c a us e he c onc l ude d tha te xpe r tw oul d do w or k dupl i c a t i ve of the w or k be i ng pe r f

or m e d by other c ou rt -f

un ded exp ert s ( a m i t i gat i on spec i al i stand p sy chol og i st ) a nd deni ed f unds f orthe f utur e da nge r ous ne s s e xpe r tbe c a us e tha tt e s t i m ony c oul d be pres ent ed by l ay w i tness es . T he di stri ctcourtagre ed. W e r evi ew the di stri ct c our t ’ s de ni a l of

f unds f ora bus e of

di s c r e t i on. S e e I n r e L i nds e y , 875 F . 2d 1502, 15 07 n. 4 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ); ac cord R i l ey v. D re tke, 36 2 F . 3d 30 2, 30 8 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) . T he di stri ctcourtm ay order f un ds for “ i nv es t i gat i ve, expert , or ot her s e r vi c e s ” tha t“ a r e r e a s ona bl y ne c e s s a ry f orthe r e pr e s e nt a t i on” of a de f e nda nt c h a r g e d wi th a c r i m e p u n i s h a b l e b y d e a th . 2 1 U. S . C . § 8 4 8 ( q ) ( 9 ) . Al th o u g h we have no tanal yz ed the t erm “ re as on abl y nec es sa ry , ” the F i fth C i rc ui thas hel d that the s t a tut e r e qui r e s the de f e nda ntt o de m ons tr a t e a “ s ubs t a nt i a l ne e d” f orthe r e q u e s te d a s s is ta n c e . R ile y , 3 6 2 F .3 d a t 3 0 7 . I n h is m o tio n f

o rf u n d s f o ra f o r e n s ic s o c ia l w o r k e r , B r o w n a r g u e d th a t th is62

expertw as nece ss ary t o: (1) di agno se and m ake r ec om m endat i on s abo utm ent al statu s; (2 ) p ro v id e a co m p re h en siv e s o cial h isto ry in terp re ti n g B ro w n ’s envi ronm entand soci al funct i on i ng ; (3) c on du ctcom prehensi ve cl i ni ca l i nt e r vi e w s ; ( 4) c onduc tdi a gnos t i c i nt e r vi e w s t o t e l l the D e f e nda nt ’ s s t ory ; ( 5) p r o v id e c o u n s e lin g to B r o w n a n d h is f a m ily ; a n d ( 6 ) s e rv e a s a n e x p e r t w itn e s s . T he m ot i on i ncl ud ed an aff i davi tfr om D avi d I. B ruck, w ho se rves as F eder al D ea th P enal ty R es ou rc e C ou nsel . B ruck conceded thatthere i s s om e overl ap be tw e e n the r ol e s of

a m i t i ga t i on s pe c i a l i s t- - f orw hom the c our tha d a l r e a dy ap p r o v e d f

u n d s - - a n d a f

o r e n s i c s o c i a l w o r k e r . H e n o t e d th a tw h i l e s o me m i t i ga t i on s pe c i a l i s t s c oul d t e s t i f y a s e xpe r t s , “ i ti s a c om m on pr a c t i c e f or m itig a tio n s p e c ia lis ts to w o r k a s in v e s tig a to r s in s u p p o r t o f th e w o r k o f

f o r e n s ic s o c ia l w o r k e r s a s w e ll a s o th e rm e n ta l h e a lth p r o f e s s io n a ls s u c h a s p s y c h o lo g is ts and p sy chi atri st s. ” T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatthe w ork o f the forens i c s oci al w orker w oul d be unne c e s s a ry a nd dupl i c a t i ve be c a us e i tha d a l r e a dy appr ove d f undi ng bo th for a m i t i gat i on spec i al i stand a psyc ho l og i st . B row n say s, neverthel es s, that w i thouta f

or e ns i c s oc i a l w or ke r , he w a s una bl e t o pr e s e ntc ohe r e ntt e s t i m ony re l at i ng t o the backgrou nd , up bri ng i ng , and soci al cont extof hi s l i fe . T hat ar gu m enti s c on tra di ct ed by the re cord. A tthe penal ty phase , B row n p re se nt ed63

fourt ee n w i tness es w ho t es t i fi ed abou tB row n and hi s c hi l dh oo d. T ho se w i tness es desc ri bed t he depl orabl e c on di t i on s und erw hi ch B row n w as ra i se d, no t i ng that there w er e f

re qu entfi gh t s i n h i s hom e, thathi s par ent s use d d rugs, thathi s f ather l ef tthe ho m e a ft ershoo t i ng hi s s t epson w hen B row n w as se ven, thata c hi l d d i ed at B r o w n ’s h o m e a f

te rd r o w n in g in a s e p tic ta n k , a n d th a t th e p o lic e w e r e f r e q u e n tly c a l l e d t o br e a k up f

i ght s , s hoot i ngs , a nd s t a bbi ngs . B r ow n of f e r s no e xpl a na t i on for w hy nei ther hi s c ou rt -f un ded m i t i gat i on spec i al i stno r hi s c ou rt -f un ded psyc ho l og i stw as ca l l ed as an expert , no r w hy they c ou l d n otoffe r a dd i t i on al ev i d en ce o n p reci sel y th ese p o i n t s. Q u i t e si m p l y, th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng fund s f or the fore nsi c s oci al w orker. T h e sam e resu l tap p l i es t o th e d en i al o f fu n d s fo r a fu tu re d an g ero u sn ess e x p e r t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th a t B r o w n c o u ld p r e s e n t la y te s tim o n y to e s t a bl i s h tha the w oul d notbe a da nge rt o s oc i e ty i f s e nt e nc e d t o a l i f

e t e r m , a nd tha ti s e xa c t l y w ha thappe ne d a tthe tr i a l . B r ow n pr e s e nt e d the t e s t i m ony of the A s s i s t a ntJ a i l A dm i ni s tr a t orf orL i be r ty C ounty , w ho s a i d tha tB r ow n ha d be e n a st el l ari nm at e i n the past , had n o d i sc i pl i nary prob l em s w hi l e i n j ai l , had b ee n appoi nt e d a j a i l trus t e e ( a pos i t i on r e s e r ve d f ori nm a t e s w i th a pos i t i ve a tt i tude a nd a g o o d d is p o s itio n ) , h a d s e r v e d a d m ir a b ly a s a ja il tru s te e , h a d n e v e re n g a g e d in a c ts o f v io le n c e w h ile in ja il, a n d h a d a c tiv e ly p a r tic ip a te d in c h u r c h a n d c h o ir64

a c t i vi t i e s w hi l e i n j a i l . A ddi t i ona l l y , he pr e s e nt e d the t e s t i m ony of the A s s i s t a nt J a i l A dm i ni s tr a t orf

orC ha tha m C ounty , w ho l i ke w i s e t e s t i f i e d tha tB r ow n ha d not engaged i n any ac t s of vi ol ence or caused any di sc i pl i nary prob l em s w hi l e he w as h o u s e d in th e C h a th a m C o u n ty J a il. I n S k ip p e rv . S o u th C a r o lin a , 4 7 6 U .S . 1 ( 1 9 8 6 ) , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld tha t“ e vi de nc e tha tthe de f e nda ntw oul d notpos e a da nge ri f s pa r e d ( but i n c a r c e r a t e d ) mu s tb e c o n s i d e r e d p o t e n t i a l l y mi t i g a t i n g . ” I d . a t5 . Th e Su p r e me C ou rtrul ed thatthe tri al courtshou l d h ave permi tt ed the t es t i m on y of f orm er j a i l e r s w ho w oul d ha ve opi ne d on the de f e nda nt ’ s good j a i l be ha vi or , the ve ry ty pe of e vi de nc e tha tw a s i ntr oduc e d i n thi s c a s e . T he S ki ppe rC our ts a i d nothi ng a bout the need for expertt es t i m on y on thi s s ubj ec t , and, i n l i gh tof the am pl e l ay te s tim o n y p r e s e n te d o n th is to p ic , a n d th e e a s e w ith w h ic h th e ju ry c o u ld un ders t and i t , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng fund s f or a f u tu r e d a n g e r o u s n e s s e x p e r t. B ro w n al so rai ses a n o n -st atu t o ry arg u m en tco n cern i n g th e d en i al o f fu n d s, c la im in g th a t h e w a s d e n ie d h is r ig h ts u n d e rA k e v . O k la h o m a , 4 7 0 U .S . 6 8 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . I n A k e , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld th a t “w h e n a d e f e n d a n t d e m o n s tr a te s . . . th a t h is s a n ity a t th e tim e o f

th e o f f e n s e is to b e a s ig n if

ic a n t f a c to ra t tr ia l, th e S ta te m u s t, a t a m in im u m , a s s u r e th e d e f e n d a n t a c c e s s to a c o m p e te n t p s y c h ia tr is t w h o w ill65

c onduc ta n appr opr i a t e e xa m i na t i on a nd a s s i s ti n e va l ua t i on, pr e pa r a t i on, a nd pr e s e nt a t i on of

the de f e ns e . ” I d. a t83. W e ha ve note xt e nde d A ke t o nonps y c hi a tr i c e xpe r t s , s e e C onkl i n v. S c hof i e l d, 366 F . 3d 1191, 1206 ( 11th C i r . 2004) (assu m i n g fo r th e sak e o f arg u m en tth atA k e ap p l i es t o n o n -p sych i atri c ex p ert s, a n d d e n y in g th e c la im ) , b u t, if w e w e r e to a s s u m e th a t A k e ap p lie s , B r o w n w o u ld have t o sho w that(1) he m ade at i m el y r equestfor the expertas si st ance , (2) i tw as unr e a s ona bl e f

orthe tr i a l c ourtt o de ny the r e que s t , a nd ( 3) the de ni a l r e nde r e d the tr i a l “ f unda m e nt a l l y unf

a i r . ” I d. a t1206. Un d e ra n Ak e a n a l y s i s , B r o wn f a i l s o n b o th th e s e c o n d a n d th i r d p r o n g s . As no t ed abov e, un der the ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e, the tri al court ’ s dec i si on w as e nt i r e l y r e a s ona bl e . S e e i d. a t1208 ( not i ng tha tr e a s ona bl e ne s s i s de t e r m i ne d by the suff i ci ency of the defendant ’ s e xp l anat i on for w hy he needed the expert as si st ance ). M oreover, B row n fai l s on the fi nal pron g b ec ause he ca nn otshow that th e a lle g e d A k e e rr o rh a d “s u b s ta n tia l a n d in ju r io u s e f

f e c t o rin f lu e n c e in d e t e r m i n i n g th e j u ry ’ s v e r d i c t . ” I d . a t1 2 0 9 ( q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i tt e d ) . B r o wn p r e s e n te d c o p io u s a n d c o h e r e n t te s tim o n y r e g a r d in g b o th h is s o c ia l h is to ry a n d h is future dangerousness. W e r ea di l y c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed n ei th er st atu t o ry n o r co n st i tu t i o n al erro r i n d en yi n g th e req u est ed fu n d s. M . C on st i tu ti on al i ty O f T h e F ed er al D eath P en al ty A ctTo bede ath e lig ibl e , th ejur y mus t f ind that th ede fendant: 13 (A) intenti on ally

kil le d th evic tim ; (B ) intentionally

inflicted serious bodily

injury that resulted in the de ath of the vic tim ; (C) intentionally

participated in an ac t, contemplatingthat the life of a person would be taken or intendingthat lethal forc e would be use d in connec tion with a pers on , o ther t

ha n o neof thepa rtic ipa ntsin t heof fens e , a nd thevic timdie d a s a direc t result of the act; or (D) intentionally

and spec ifically

eng ag ed in an act of violenc e, knowingthat the a c t c re ate d a

gra veri sk of de ath to a

pers on , o ther t

ha n o neof thepa rtic ipa ntsin the offense, such that pa

rticipation in the ac t constituted a rec kless disreg ard f or human li feand

thevic timdie d a s a

dire c t re sult o f t

hea c t. 18 U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2) . 66 B r o w n a ls o c la im s th a t th e F e d e r a l D e a th P e n a lty A c t ( “F D P A ” ) is un const i tut i on al because i tdo es no tre qu i re the prosecut or t o charge the neces sa ry a g g r a v a tin g f

a c to r s in th e in d ic tm e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th e s ta tu te const i tut i on al . W e r evi ew the const i tut i on al i ty of ast atut e de nov o. U ni t ed S t at es v. B al l i ng er , 39 5 F . 3d 12 18 , 12 25 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( en banc). O nce adefe nd anthas bee n fou nd gu i l ty of adeath-el i gi bl e c ri m e, there ar e s e v e r a l f in d in g s a ju ry m u s t m a k e b e f o r e it m a y c o n s id e rth e d e a th p e n a lty . F ir s t, the st atut e s ay s thati tm ustfi nd the exi st ence of on e of f ou r s t atut ori l y prosc ri bed m ens r eare qu i re m ent s. S ee 18 U . S . C . § 3 59 1(a) (2). N ext , i f the m ens r ea 13 re qu i re m enti s s at i sf

i ed, the j ury a l so m ustfi nd the exi st ence of on e of s i xt ee n st atut ori l y prosc ri bed agg ra vat i ng fa ct ors. S ee 18 U . S . C . § 3 59 2(c) . O nl y a ft erAdditionally , the statute provides that no person may be sentenced to de ath who wa s 14 less than eighteen year s of ag e at the time of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3591(a). After listi ngsix teen spe cific ag gravating f actor s, the statute provides that the jur y “may 15 consider whether

any other ag gravating f

actor for whic h notice has be en g iven exist s.” 18 U . S . C . § 3 5 9 2 ( c ) . T h e s e“ o th e r”ag grav at i n gf a c t o r s areg e n e ral l y re f

e r re d t o a s “ n o n - s t atut o r

y” fac tor s. 67 thos e c ons i de r a t i ons ha ve be e n s a t i s f i e d i s ade f

e nda ntde a th- e l i gi bl e . T he n, the 14 j ury m us tde c i de w he the ra l l of the s t a tut or y a nd non- s t a tut or y a ggr a va t i ng 15 f a c t or s s uf

f i c i e nt l y outw e i gh the m i t i ga t i ng f a c t or s t o j us t i f

y a s e nt e nc e of

de a th, or, i f there ar e no m i t i gat i ng fa ct ors, w hether the aggravat i ng fa ct ors a l on e a re s u f f ic ie n t to ju s tif

y d e a th . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 9 3 ( e ) . T he ori gi nal i nd i ctm enti n thi s c as e c harged B row n w i th com m i tt i ng three fe dera l cr i m es : m urder w i thi n the fe dera l j uri sdi ct i on (18 U . S . C . § 1 11 1); m urder of a f e de r a l e m pl oy e e ( 18 U . S . C . § 1114) ; a nd r obbe ry of f e de r a l pr ope r ty ( 18 U . S . C . § 2 11 4). Itthen w enton t o l i stsi x speci al fi nd i ng s. In tho se spec i al fi nd i ng s, the grand j ury c harged thatB row n: 1) w as ei gh t ee n yea rs of age or ol der a t th e tim e o f

th e o f f e n s e s ; 2 ) in te n tio n a lly k ille d th e v ic tim ; 3 ) in te n tio n a lly in f lic te d s e r io u s b o d ily in

ju ry th a t r e s u lte d in th e v ic tim ’s d e a th ; 4 ) in te n tio n a lly pa r t i c i pa t e d i n one orm or e a c t s , c ont e m pl a t i ng tha tthe l i f e of a pe r s on w oul d be t a ke n ori nt e ndi ng tha tl e tha l f or c e w oul d be us e d i n c onne c t i on w i th a pe r s on, othe rtha n a pa r t i c i pa nti n the of f e ns e , a nd the vi c t i m di e d a s a r e s ul tof s uc h a c tor ac t s; 5) i nt ent i on al l y a nd spec i fi ca l l y e ng aged i n o ne or m ore a ct s of vi ol ence ,68

know i ng tha tthe a c tora c t s c r e a t e d a gr a ve r i s k of de a th t o a pe r s on, othe rtha n one o f th e p a r tic ip a n ts in th e o f f e n s e , s u c h th a t p a r tic ip a tio n in s u c h a c t o ra c ts const i tut ed a r ec kl es s di sr egar d for hu m an l i fe , and t he vi ct i m di ed as a di re ct resu l to f su ch acto r act s; an d 6 ) co m m i tt ed th e o ffen se i n an esp eci al l y h ei n o u s, c ru e l, o rd e p r a v e d m a n n e rin th a t it in v o lv e d s e r io u s p h y s ic a l ab u s e to th e v ic tim . S pe c i a l f i ndi ngs tw o thr ough f

i ve c or r e s pond t o the m e ns r e a r e qui r e m e nt s of 18 U . S . C . § 3591( a ) ( 2) , a nd s pe c i a l f i ndi ng num be rs i x c or r e s ponds t o one of the s i xt e e n s t a tut ory a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s , f ound a t18 U . S . C . § 3592( c ) ( 6) . I n a s upe r s e di ng i ndi c tm e nt , the gr a nd j ury m a de one a ddi t i ona l s pe c i a l f i ndi ng, c ha r gi ng tha tB r ow n c om m i tt e d the of f e ns e s i n the e xpe c t a t i on of the r e c e i ptof som ethi ng of pecuni ary val ue, w hi ch corr es po nd s t o ano ther of the si xt ee n s ta tu to ry a g g r a v a tin g f

a c to r s , f o u n d a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 9 2 ( c ) ( 8 ) . R e l y i ng on the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n R i ng v. A r i z ona , 536 U . S . 584 (200 2), B row n argues thatthe F D P A i s f ac i al l y uncon st i tut i on al because i tdo es notr e qui r e the gove rnm e ntt o a l l e ge the ne c e s s a ry a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s i n the in d ic tm e n t. T h is a r g u m e n t w a s r e je c te d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. I n R i ng, the C our the l d tha ta n a ggr a va t i ng f a c t orne c e s s a ry f

ori m pos i t i on of the de a th pe na l ty ha s t o be f ound by a j ur y ; i tc a nnotbe de t e r m i ne d by the se nt enci ng j ud ge. 53 6 U . S . at60 9. A l tho ug h R i ng w as a S i xth A m endm entca se ,69

o th e rc ir c u its h a v e u n a n im o u s ly f o u n d th a t th e h o ld in g ap p lie s w ith e q u a l f o r c e in the c ont e xtof

a F i f th A m e ndm e ntc ha l l e nge t o the l a c k of s t a tut ory a ggr a va t i ng fa ct ors i n an i nd i ctm entchar gi ng a dea th-el i gi bl e c ri m e und erthe F D P A . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. A l l en, 40 6 F . 3d 94 0, 94 2-43 (8th C i r. 20 05 ) ( en banc); U ni t ed S t a t e s v. R obi ns on, 367 F . 3d 278, 284 ( 5th C i r . 2004) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H i ggs , 353 F . 3d 28 1, 29 7-98 (4th C i r. 20 03 ). A cc ord U ni t ed S t at es v. L eC roy, -- - F . 3d -- -, N o. 04- 15597, s l i p op. a t9 ( 11th C i r . M a r c h 2, 2006) ( a s s um i ng w i thoutde c i di ng th a t a t le a s t o n e s ta tu to ry a g g r a v a tin g f a c to rm u s t b e in c lu d e d in th e in d ic tm e n t) . W e a gree w i th o ur si st erci rc ui t s thatatl ea ston e s t atut ory a gg ra vat i ng fa ct or, w h ic h is n e c e s s a ry to e le v a te th e m a x im u m s e n te n c e f r o m lif e im p r is o n m e n t to d e a th , m u s t b e c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. H er e, B row n con ce des thatal l of the re l evantst atut ory a gg ra vat i ng fa ct ors w e r e a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. N e v e r th e le s s , h e a r g u e s th a t th e F D P A is f a c ia lly u n c o n s titu tio n a l a n y w a y b e c a u s e it d o e s n o t r e q u ir e th o s e f a c to r s to b e a lle g e d in the i ndi c tm e nt . E s s e nt i a l l y , B r ow n a r gue s tha tthe gr a nd j ur y c a nnot“ f i x” the d e f e c t in th e s ta tu te b y s im p ly a lle g in g th e a g g r a v a tin g f a c to r s in th e in d ic tm e n t; a c c o r d in g to B r o w n , o n ly C o n g r e s s c a n c u r e th e d e f ic ie n c y in th e la w . W e r e c e nt l y r e

j e c t e d tha ta r gum e nti n L e C r oy . I d. a t10- 11. “A f a c ia l c h a lle n g e to a le g is la tiv e A c t is , o f c o u r s e , th e m o s t d if

f ic u lt70

c ha l l e nge t o m ounts uc c e s s f ul l y , s i nc e the c ha l l e nge rm us te s t a bl i s h tha tno s e tof c i r c um s t a nc e s e xi s t s unde rw hi c h the A c tw oul d be va l i d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a le rn o , 4 8 1 U .S . 7 3 9 , 7 4 5 ( 1 9 8 7 ) . A s th e F if th C ir c u it r e c e n tly h e ld , [ t ] he F D P A i s notf

a c i a l l y unc ons t i tut i ona l unde rthe I ndi c tm e nt C l a us e . A l though [ the de f e nda nt ] i s c orr e c tt o poi ntouttha tnothi ng i n the F D P A re qu i re s prose cut ors t o charge aggravat i ng fa ct ors i n an i ndi c tm e nt , he f

a i l s t o not e tha tthe r e i s nothi ng i n tha tl a w i nhi bi t i ng s u c h a c h a r g e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t c a n e a s ily c o m p ly w ith b o th its c o n s titu tio n a l o b lig a tio n s ( b y f ir s t g o in g to th e g r a n d ju ry ) a n d its s ta tu to ry o b lig a tio n s ( b y la te rf ilin g a § 3 5 9 3 ( a ) n o tic e o f in te n tio n to s e e k th e d e a th p e n a lty ) . A s a r e s u lt, th e s ta tu te is n o t f a c ia lly u n c o n s titu tio n a l. R obi ns on, 367 F . 3d a t290. O the rc i r c ui t s ha ve r e j e c t e d f a c i a l c ha l l e nge s t o the F D P A on s i m i l a rgr ounds . A l l e n, 406 F . 3d a t949; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a rne tt e , 390 F . 3d 77 5, 78 8-90 (4th C i r. 20 04 ), vaca t ed on other groun ds, 12 6 S . C t . 92 (200 5). T he F D P A i s notf

a c i a l l y unc ons t i tut i ona l . N othi ng pr ohi bi t s the gove rnm e ntf r om pr e s e nt i ng a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s t o a gr a nd j ury a nd the n, i f appr opr i a t e , c ha r gi ng thos e a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t or s i n the i ndi c tm e nt . I nde e d, tha ti s pr e c i s e l y w ha tthe g o v e rn m e n t d id in th is c a s e . B r o w n a ls o a r g u e s th a t n o n - s ta tu to ry a g g r a v a tin g f a c to r s m u s t b e a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. H e r e , th e g o v e rn m e n t p r o v id e d n o tic e ( a lb e it n o t in th e in d ic tm e n t) o f i t s i n t en tt o seek fi v e n o n -st atu t o ry fact o rs: (1 ) th e d efen d an tcau sed i n j u ry, h ar m , an d lo ss to G ag li a a n d h erfa m il y; (2 ) th e m an n ero f th e d ef en d an t’ s71

c om m i s s i on of

the of f e ns e w a s i nt e nde d t o r e duc e the l i ke l i hood of de t e c t i on; ( 3) G a gl i a w a s a n e m pl oy e e of the U . S . P os t a l S e r vi c e , ki l l e d i n the pe r f or m a nc e of h er o ffi ci al d u ty; (4 ) th e d efen d an th as co m m i tt ed an array o f o th er cri m i n al act s, s o m e b u t n o t a ll o f

w h ic h h a v e r e s u lte d in c o n v ic tio n ; a n d ( 5 ) r e p e a te d p r io re f f o r ts t o rehabi l i t at e a nd det erthe defendantfr om cr i m i nal cond ucthave fai l ed. T he j ury foun d the exi st ence of ea ch on e. I n L e C r oy , w e s oundl y r e j e c t e d the a r gum e nttha tnon- s t a tut or y a ggr a va t i ng f a c to r s m u s t b e a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. L e C r o y , N o . 0 4 - 1 5 5 9 7 , s lip o p . a t 1 3 . O the rc i r c ui t s ha ve done the s a m e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P ur ke y , 428 F . 3d 738, 74 9-50 (8th C i r. 20 05 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. B ou rgeoi s, 42 3 F . 3d 50 1, 50 7-08 (5th C i r. 2005) ; H i ggs , 353 F . 3d a t298- 99. T he non- s t a tut ory a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s , a l though r e l e va ntt o de t e r m i ni ng w he the ra j ur y de c i de s t o i m pos e the de a th pe na l ty , do not m ak e a d efen d an tst atu t o ri l y el i g i b l e fo r an y sen t en ce th atco u l d n o tb e o th erw i se i m pos e d i n the i ra bs e nc e . “ T he y a r e ne i the rs uf f i c i e ntnorne c e s s a ry unde rthe F D P A f o ra s e n te n c e o f

d e a th .” P u r k e y , 4 2 8 F .3 d a t 7 4 9 . T h is ru le c o m p o r ts w ith re ce ntS up re m e C ou rtprec edentbecause ano n-st atut ory a gg ra vat i ng fa ct or do es n o t “in c r e a s e th e p e n a lty f o ra c r im e b e y o n d th e p r e s c r ib e d s ta tu to ry m a x im u m ,” s e e A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 490 ( 2000) , nordoe s i ts om e how a l l ow th e im p o s itio n o f

am o r e s e v e r e s e n te n c e th a n c o u ld h a v e b e e n im p o s e d w ith o u t it.However, even if it wereconstitutional error to omit the non-statutory ag gravating 16 fac tors from the indictment, in this case that error would be har

mless beyond a re asonabledoubt. See Allen, 406 F .3d at 945 (holdingthat the failure to include statutory ag gravating f

actor s in the indictment was subject to a ha rmless error analysis); Robins on, 367 F.3d at 286 (same) . Brown had notice of

the non-statutory

ag gravating f

actor s the g overnment intended to use at trial, a nd thee vide nc e“ ov e rwhe lming ly sh ow s th at th e ree xiste d p roba blec a us eto cha rg e[B ro wn ] wit

h the [non-statutory] aggravating f actor s used in his sentencing .” Robinson, 367 F.3d at 288- 89.

72 S ee B l akel y v. W as hi ng t on , 54 2 U . S . 29 6, 30 3-04 (200 4). T hu s, a non -s t atut ory a g g r a v a tin g f

a c to ris n o t o n e o f

th o s e “f a c ts le g a lly e s s e n tia l to th e p u n is h m e n t” tha tm us tbe i nc l ude d w i thi n the i ndi c tm e nt . S e e i d. a t313. 16 N . P e c u n ia r y G a in B row n further c l ai m s thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d enyi ng hi s m ot i on for a d ir e c te d v e r d ic t o n th e a g g r a v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e o f p e c u n ia ry g a in a n d in i m pr ope r l y i ns truc t i ng the j ury r e ga r di ng the s c ope of pe c uni a ry ga i n. M ot i ons f or di r e c t e d ve r di c t s ha ve be e n a bol i s he d s i nc e the c r e a t i on of the F e de r a l R ul e s of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e , a nd B r ow n’ s m ot i on pr ope r l y s houl d be tr e a t e d a s one s e e ki ng a j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al pu rs uantt o F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 29 , se e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a tum , 496 F . 2d 1282, 1285 n. 1 ( 5th C i r . 1974) , the de ni a l of w hi ch w e r evi ew de no vo . U ni t ed S t at es v. A cost a, 42 1 F . 3d 11 95 , 11 97 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r e v ie w ju ry in s tru c tio n s d e n o v o , “to d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e y m is s ta te th e la w o rm is le a d th e ju ry to th e p r e ju d ic e o f th e o b je c tin g p a r ty .” B r o c h u v . C ity of R i vi e r a B e a c h, 304 F . 3d 1144, 1155 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks73

om i tt ed). T he gove rnm e ntc ha r ge d tw o s t a tut or y a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s : ( 1) the de f

e nda nt c o m m itte d th e o f

f e n s e in a n e s p e c ia lly h e in o u s , c ru e l, o rd e p r a v e d m a n n e rin th a t it i nv ol ved t orture or s er i ou s physi ca l abuse t o the vi ct i m , 18 U . S . C . § 3 59 2(c) (6); a n d ( 2 ) th e d e f

e n d a n t c o m m itte d th e o f f e n s e a s c o n s id e r a tio n f

o rth e r e c e ip t, o rin th e e x p e c ta tio n o f

th e r e c e ip t, o f

a n y th in g o f

p e c u n ia ry v a lu e . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3592( c ) ( 8) . T he j ury f

ound tha tboth a ggr a va t or s appl i e d. B row n argued t o the di stri ctcourt , i n the course of re qu es t i ng j ury i nstruct i on s a nd agai n i n h i s m ot i on for adi re ct ed verdi ct , thatthe “ pecuni ary val ue” a gg ra vat i ng fa ct or do es no tappl y w hen t he death-el i gi bl e off ense (her e, m urder) i s the cul m i nat i on of a r ob bery . E ss ent i al l y, B row n say s, the pecuni ary ga i n a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t orc a n appl y onl y w he n the de f e nda ntknow s i n a dva nc e he w i l l r e c e i ve s om e thi ng of pe c uni a ry va l ue by c om m i tt i ng the m ur de r ; he of f e r s the e x a m p le o f

m u r d e r - f

o r - h ir e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e je c te d B r o w n ’s a r g u m e n t, denyi ng the m ot i on for adi re ct ed verdi ctand i nstruct i ng the j ury on p ec un i ary g ai n . B ro w n rep ri ses th ese sam e arg u m en t s o n ap p eal , rel yi n g o n tw o cases; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e rna r d, 299 F . 3d 467 ( 5th C i r . 2002) a nd U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Ch a n th a d a r a , 2 3 0 F. 3 d 1 2 3 7 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) . N e i th e rs u p p o r t s h i s c l a i m. I n C ha ntha da r a , the de f e nda ntw a s c onvi c t e d of r obbe ry unde rthe H obbs74

A c ta nd us i ng a f

i r e a r m i n a c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e unde rc i r c um s t a nc e s c ons t i tut i ng f i r s t - de gr e e m ur de r( the c onvi c t i on f orw hi c h de a th w a s a uthor i z e d) . W he n the di stri ctj ud ge i nstruct ed the j ury thati thad t o fi nd that“ the offens e” w as c om m i tt e d i n the e xpe c t a t i on of r e c e i vi ng s om e thi ng of pe c uni a ry va l ue , he di d not cl ar i fy w hether the offens e w as robb ery or m urder. T he T enth C i rc ui thel d that s e c t i on 3592 of

T i t l e 18 r e qui r e s “ tha tthe pe c uni a ry ga i n f a c t orappl y w he r e the gai n w as expect ed as a r es ul tof the vi ct i m ’ s dea th. ” C hant hadara, 23 0 F . 3d at 1263 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) . I n othe rw or ds , the m ur de r , a nd notthe r obbe ry , ha d t o be c om m i tt e d w i th the e xpe c t a t i on of r e c e i vi ng s om e thi ng of pe c uni a ry va l ue . I d. a t1264 ( hol di ng tha t“ [ t ] he i ns truc t i on f a i l e d t o s pe c i f

y the

‘ of f e ns e ’ t o w hi c h i tr e f

e rr e d w a s the hom i c i de , notthe unde r l y i ng r obbe ry , a nd there by fa i l ed t o i m po se a nec es sa ry l i m i t at i on . T here fore , the i nstruct i on w as e rr o n e o u s .” ) . In B ernard, the defendantw as char ged w i th m urder com m i tt ed on fe dera l la n d . I t w a s a lle g e d th a t B e rn a r d a n d h is c o - d e f e n d a n ts s e t o u t to c o m m it a r o b b e ry . T h e y c a r

ja c k e d a y o u n g c o u p le , to o k th e irA T M c a r d s , d e m a n d e d th e p in n u m b e r s , a n d f

o r c e d th e v ic tim s in to th e tru n k o f th e iro w n c a r . T h e d e f e n d a n ts w i thdr e w m one y f

r om the vi c t i m s ’ a c c ount s a nd the n pr oc e e de d t o dr i ve a r ound, w ith th e v ic tim s s till in th e tru n k , f o rs e v e r a l h o u r s . E v e n tu a lly , th e d e f e n d a n ts75

drov e t o a re m ot e a re a on t he F ortH oo d m i l i t ary r es ervat i on and sho tand b urned bo th v i ct i m s, st at i ng thatthey had t o k i l l the coup l e bec ause the vi ct i m s had se en the a tt a c ke r s ’ f

a c e s . T he j ury i m pos e d the de a th s e nt e nc e , f i ndi ng tha tthe pe c uni a ry ga i n a ggr a va t i ng f a c t orappl i e d. B e rna r d, 299 F . 3d a t471- 73. T h e F if th C ir c u it c o n c lu d e d th a t th e p e c u n ia ry g a in a g g r a v a tin g f a c to rd id no tappl y, ho l di ng thatthe “ aggravat i ng fa ct or i s onl y app l i cabl e w here the j ury fi nd s bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthatthe m urder i t se l f w as com m i tt ed ‘ as consi dera t i on for, or i n the expect at i on of’ pecuni ary gai n. ” B ernard, 29 9 F . 3d at 483. T he c our tf

ound tha tthe de f

e nda nt s w e r e nothi r e d t o c om m i tthe m ur de r , a nd th e y d id n o t c o m m it th e o f f e n s e o f m u r d e rin e x p e c ta tio n o f p e c u n ia ry g a in . R a the r , the s ol e r e a s on f orthe m ur de rw a s t o pr e ve ntthe vi c t i m s f r om r e por t i ng th e c r im e s to th e p o lic e . A c c o r d in g ly , th e c o u r t f o u n d th e e v id e n c e le g a lly i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tthe “ pe c uni a ry ga i n” a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or . I d. a t483- 84 ( r e je c tin g th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e m u r d e rw a s a “n e c e s s a ry s te p ” in f in is h in g th e c a r

ja c k in g p la n ) . N ei ther C hant hadara nor B ernard supp ort s the ar gu m entthatthe pecuni ary ga i n f a c t ori s s om e how i nappl i c a bl e i n c a s e s i nvol vi ng a r obbe ry ortha tthe f a c t or i s l i m i t e d t o c a s e s of

m ur de r - f

or - hi r e . R a the r , the y s i m pl y s t a nd f orthe u n rem ark ab l e p ro p o si t i o n th atth e m u rd er i t sel f, an d n o tan u n d erl yi n g ro b b ery,76

m u stb e co m m i tt ed i n ex p ect at i o n o f so m eth i n g o f p ecu n i ary v al u e. S ee al so U ni t ed S t at es v. B arnett e, 39 0 F . 3d 77 5, 80 7-08 (4th C i r. 20 04 ), vaca t ed on other grou nd s, 12 5 S . C t . 92 (200 5) (f i nd i ng , i n a ca se i nv ol vi ng ca rj ac ki ng and m urder, tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i ns truc t i ons pr ope r l y l i m i t e d the pe c uni a ry ga i n f a c t ort o the m u r d e r , a n d th a t th e e v id e n c e s u p p o r te d th e ju ry ’s f in d in g th a t th e m u r d e rits e lf w a s c om m i tt e d w i th the e xpe c t a t i on of r e c e i vi ng pe c uni a ry ga i n) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R o m a n , 3 7 1 F . S u p p . 2 d 3 6 , 4 6 ( D .P .R . 2 0 0 5 ) ( r e je c tin g th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to stri ke the pecuni ary gai n agg ra vat i ng fa ct or because the m urder and robb ery w er e com m i tt ed “ prac t i ca l l y s i m ul t aneous[l y] ” a nd there fore a j ury c ou l d p roperl y i nfer thatthe m urder w as com m i tt ed for the expres s r ea son t o eff ec tthe robb ery, ra ther tha n be i ng i nc i de ntt o, ora s a n a f t e r thoughtt o the r obbe ry ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C o o p e r , 9 1 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 0 , 1 0 5 - 0 6 ( D .D .C . 2 0 0 0 ) ( d e n y in g d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n to stri ke the pecuni ary gai n agg ra vat i ng fa ct or because a j ury c ou l d rea sonabl y i nfer tha tthe m ur de rof

a s t or e e m pl oy e e dur i ng a n uns uc c e s s f ul r obbe ry c oul d ha ve b e e n m o tiv a te d b y th e f a c t th a t th e e m p lo y e e w a s f ru s tr a tin g th e r o b b e r ’s u ltim a te g o a l, w h ic h w a s to o b ta in m o n e y f r o m th e r o b b e ry ) . Q ui t e s i m pl y , the “ pe c uni a ry ga i n” a ggr a va t i ng f a c t orm a y appl y i n the

“ m urder- for- hi re ” s ce nari o (i f the defendantcom m i tt ed the m urder “ as consi dera t i on for the re ce i ptof . . . anythi ng of pecuni ary val ue”) or i n the robb ery77

s c e na r i o ( i f

the de f e nda ntc om m i tt e d a c onc om i t a ntm ur de r“ i n the e xpe c t a t i on of the r e c e i ptof

a ny thi ng of

pe c uni a ry va l ue ” ) . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 3592( c ) ( 8) . T he

“ c ons i de r a t i on” a nd “ e xpe c t a t i on” c l a us e s a r e tw o s e pa r a t e w a y s by w hi c h the pecuni ary gai n fac t or m ay be sa t i sf i ed, and t hey bot h m usthave m ea ni ng . S ee C oo per, 91 F . S up p. 2d at10 5 (di sc ussi ng the tw o separ at e prong s) . T he pecuni ary gai n fac t or w i l l no tnece ss ar i l y app l y t o every robb ery/m urder s ce nari o, ho w ever , and, there fore , w e m ustexam i ne the fa ct s of thi s c as e. T h e o n ly d ir e c t te s tim o n y p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l d e s c r ib in g G a g lia ’s a c tu a l d e a th i s f ou nd i n B row n’ s vi deot aped confess i on . H e off er s l i tt l e thatoccurre d b etw ee n w he n he i ni t i a l l y j um pe d thr ough the c ount e rw i ndow a nd w he n he s t a r t e d r i di ng hom e on hi s bi ke . B r ow n s t a t e d tha the di d notgo t o the P os tO f f i c e w i th the in te n tio n o f

h u r tin g G a g lia ; in s te a d , h e te s tif ie d h e u s e d th e k n if

e ju s t to s c a r e h e r . H e s u g g e s te d th a t if

h e “p u t h e rin s h o c k . . . s h e is n o t g o in g to b e c o h e r e n t,” w hi ch, pres um abl y, w ou l d h ave l es se ned t he chance thatshe w ou l d b e abl e t o l at er i d e n t i f y h i m. B r ow n s a i d tha the tr i ppe d w he n goi ng thr ough the c ount e rw i ndow , a nd

“ ac ci dent l y” cutG agl i a. A l tho ug h i ti s notent i re l y c l ea r, pres um abl y thati ni t i al s tab w o u n d o c c u rr e d b e f o r e h e g a in e d c o n tr o l o f th e m o n e y o r d e r s , b e c a u s e it appe a r s f r om hi s t e s t i m ony tha the di d notobt a i n the m one y or de r s unt i l a f t e rheMoreover, although Brown admits only the initial “acc idental” stabbing , the physical 17 evidenc e esta

blishes that Gag lia was stabbe d ten times. For all we know (a nd for all the jury knew) , Brown might have inflicted all ten of those wounds (includingthe two fatal ones) be fore he g ained c ontrol of the money order s. Thus, a jury

could re asonably

concludethat Brown killed Gag lia be fo rehesto lethemon e y ordersand

that th ekil lingwa s c arrie d o ut s o h ec ould c omp le te th ero b b e r

y. 78 vaul t ed throu gh the w i nd ow . T he m edi ca l exam i ner t es t i fi ed thatG agl i a had t en s t a b w ounds , tw o of

w hi c h c oul d ha ve be e n f a t a l . H e w a s una bl e t o i de nt i f y the or de ri n w hi c h the w ounds oc c urr e d, a nd B r ow n ha s no r e c ol l e c t i on of a ny s t a bbi ng a f

t e rthe i ni t i a l w ound tha thappe ne d “ a c c i de nt l y ” w hi l e he w a s goi ng th r o u g h th e wi n d o w. T h u s , b e c a u s e th a tf i r s two u n d m a y h a v e b e e n o n e o f th e two f a ta l w o u n d s , th e ju ry c o u ld r e a s o n a b ly h a v e f o u n d th a t B r o w n k ille d G a g lia b efo re h e h ad co n tro l o f th e m o n ey o rd ers, an d th atth e k i l l i n g w as n ecessary so tha tB r ow n c oul d c om pl e t e the r obbe ry ( w hi c h, obvi ous l y , c a rr i e d w i th i tthe expect at i on of pecuni ary gai n). 17 A d d itio n a lly , th e r e is e v id e n c e f r o m w h ic h th e ju ry c o u ld f in d th a t G a g lia pu tup a s trugg l e. B row n t es t i fi ed thatshe s ai d n othi ng du ri ng the i nci dentand t hat she di d n otfi gh tback. H ow ever , the m edi ca l exam i ner t es t i fi ed thattw o o f the t en st ab w ou nd s w er e t o the vi ct i m ’ s e xtre m i t i es -- the ant er i or se ct i on of her l ef t fore arm and t he back of her l ef tw ri st . T he do ct or expl ai ned t hatw hen an i nd i vi du al re ce i ves m ul t i pl e s t ab w ou nd s, cut s f ou nd on the extre m i t i es ar e cl as si ca l l y des cr i bed as def ensi ve types of i nj uri es . If the j ury c re di t ed the m edi ca l79

exam i ner’ s t es t i m on y, i tcoul d rea sonabl y have c on cl ud ed thatG agl i a w as s truggl i ng a nd tha tB r ow n ha d t o ki l l he ri n or de rt o s uc c e s s f ul l y c om pl e t e the robb ery. S ee R om an, 37 1 F . S up p. 2d at46 . E i ther of the tw o sce nari os prov i de a r e a s ona bl e ba s i s f

orthe j ury t o c onc l ude tha tB r ow n ki l l e d G a gl i a i n the e x p e c ta tio n o f

p e c u n ia ry g a in . T o the e xt e ntthe de f

e nda ntc ha l l e nge s the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e on th is p o in t, w e a re re q u ired to d ra w all rea so n ab le in fe re n ce s in th e g o v er n m en t’ s fa vo r. U ni t ed S t at es v. P et er s, 40 3 F . 3d 12 63 , 12 68 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). T o aff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of w hatshou l d b e vi ew ed as a R ul e 29 m ot i on , “ w e nee d on l y det erm i ne thata r ea sonabl e f ac t -f i nd ercoul d con cl ud e thatthe evi dence e s t a bl i s he d the de f

e nda nt ’ s gui l tbe y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) . B e c a us e the m ur de ra nd the r obbe ry oc c ur r e d ne a r l y s i m ul t a ne ous l y , a nd because there i s c on fl i ct i ng evi dence re gardi ng the ext entt o w hi ch G agl i a m ay ha ve r e s i s t e d, a j ury r e a s ona bl y c oul d ha ve f ound tha tB r ow n c om m i tt e d the m ur de ri n e xpe c t a t i on of pe c uni a ry ga i n. T he j ury i ns truc t i ons a r e a s om e w ha tc l os e rque s t i on. I n e xpl a i ni ng the vari ou s f i nd i ng s the j ury w ou l d h ave t o m ake i n the penal ty phase , the di stri ctcourt began b y s t at i ng that“ [y ] ou have foun d the defendantgu i l ty of tw o capi t al offe nses , C ou nt s 1 and 2 of the i nd i ctm ent . Y ou m ustno w deci de tw o q uest i on s a s80

t o hi s puni s hm e nt . ” T hus , the c our tm a de i tc l e a rf r om the out s e ttha tthe

“ offe nses ” und erconsi dera t i on i n the penal ty phase w er e r el at ed t o the m urders al l eg ed i n co u n t s o n e an d tw o (ro b b ery w as co u n tth ree). L at er i n th e i n stru ct i o n s, w he n de s c r i bi ng the pe c uni a ry ga i n a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or , the c our tof

f e r e d the f ol l ow i ng e xpl a na t i on: “ P e c uni a ry ga i n m e a ns the e xpe c t a t i on of the r e c e i ptof anythi ng of ec on om i c val ue, benefi t , or advant age. T here i s no requi re m entthat the go vernm entprov e thatsom ethi ng of val ue ac tual l y c hang ed hand s, on l y that the defendantexpect ed t o rec ei ve som ethi ng of val ue. ” T he di s tr i c tc our tc oul d ha ve s t a t e d m or e e xpl i c i t l y tha tthe e xpe c t a t i on of p e c u n ia ry g a in m u s t a r is e f r o m th e m u r d e rits e lf

, a n d n o t f

r o m th e r o b b e ry . H ow ever , the tri al j ud ge pl ai nl y narrow ed the fi el d o f c on si dera t i on t o the m urder co u n t s, i . e t o co u n t s o n e an d tw o atth e o u t seto f th e i n stru ct i o n s, an d th u s, a de qua t e l y t i e d pe c uni a ry ga i n t o the m ur de r . T he tr i a l c our tdi d notm i s s t a t e the la w . W h e n th e in s tru c tio n s a r e n o t a m is s ta te m e n t o f th e la w , “th e tr ia l ju d g e is gi ven w i de di sc re t i on as t o the styl e a nd w ordi ng em pl oyed i n the i nstruct i on . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . F u lf

o r d , 2 6 7 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . “U n d e rth is s ta n d a r d , w e e x a m in e w h e th e rth e ju ry c h a r g e s , c o n s id e r e d a s a w h o le , s u f f ic ie n tly i nstruct ed the j ury s o thatthe j urors und er st oo d the i ss ues a nd w er e notm i sl ed. ” Id. (quo t at i on m arks om i tt ed). “ W e w i l l re vers e the di stri ctcourt. . . on l y i f w e a re81

le f t w ith a s u b s ta n tia l a n d in e r a d ic a b le d o u b t a s to w h e th e rth e ju ry w a s p r o p e r ly g u id e d in its d e lib e r a tio n s .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . H er e, the di stri ctj ud ge gave an i ni t i al l i m i t i ng i nstruct i on m aki ng cl ea r that the capi t al offe nses w er e the m urder al l egat i on s i n cou nt s one and t w o. In B a rne tt e , the F our th C i r c ui tf ound pe c uni a ry ga i n i ns truc t i ons s uf f i c i e ntw he n the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha tthe gove rnm e ntha d t o pr ove tha t“ the de f e nda nt c om m i tt e d the of

f e ns e i n C ount7 i n the e xpe c t a t i on of the r e c e i ptof

a ny thi ng of pecuni ary val ue. ” B arnett e, 39 0 F . 3d at80 5. T he i nstruct i on s i n thi s c as e w er e ne a r l y i de nt i c a l , butf

orthe f a c ttha tthe r e w a s a t e m por a l br e a k be tw e e n the m e nt i on of

the appl i c a bl e c ount s ( one a nd tw o) a nd the s pe c i f i c di s c us s i on of

the pecuni ary gai n. T hatshortt em po ra l brea k i s notenou gh t o cre at e a“ subst ant i al a n d i n e r a d i c a b l e d o u b t ” a s t o wh e th e rth e j u ry u n d e r s t o o d th e i n s tru c t i o n s , a n d we the r e f or e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tj udge di d notc om m i tr e ve r s i bl e e rr orw he n he i ns truc t e d the j ury . C f

. C ha ntha da r a , 230 F . 3d a t1263- 64 ( not i ng tha tthe i ns truc t i on w hol l y f

a i l e d t o s pe c i f

y the “ of f e ns e ” t o w hi c h the a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or ap p lie d ) . O . R i g ht O f

C r o s s - Ex a m i na t i o n O n R e m a nd F in a lly , B r o w n c o n te n d s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in f a ilin g to h o ld a p o s tr e m a nd e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng. A ft erthi s c as e w as i ni t i al l y app ea l ed, B row n m ov ed82

thi s C ou rtfor are m and t o the di stri ctcourtfor r ec on struct i on of the re cord, base d on hi s be l i e f

tha tthe r e m a y ha ve be e n e x pa rt e he a r i ngs , w hi c h w e r e not tra nscr i bed, re l at ed t o h i s r equestfor f un ds for afore nsi c s oci al w orker and a future d an g ero u sn ess ex p ert . W e g ran t ed th e d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n an d rem an d ed th e case t o the di stri ctcourtfor the l i m i t ed pu rpose of: ( 1) de t e r m i ni ng w he the rthe r e a r e , i n f a c t , a ny m i s s i ng tr a ns c r i pt s of ex part e hea ri ng s on the appl i ca t i on s f or fund i ng for afore nsi c s oci al w or ke rora n e xpe r ton A ppe l l a nt ’ s f utur e da nge r ous ne s s t o pr i s on st af f a nd i nm at es , or bo th, and (2) i f the di stri ctcourtdet erm i nes there ar e s uch m i ss i ng tra nscr i pt s, i tshou l d att em ptt o rec on struct , as p ro v i d ed i n F ed . R . A p p . P . 1 0 (e), th o se m at eri al s. B row n fi l ed no m ot i on s i n the di stri ctcourtup on re m and, and, on F ebruary 10, 2005, the di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d a n or de rf i ndi ng tha tthe r e w e r e no m i s s i ng tra nscr i pt s a nd thu s nothi ng t o rec on struct . T he di stri ctcourtst at ed thati thad “s e a r c h e d its r e c o r d s a n d c o n s u lte d w ith its C o u r t R e p o r te r . N o s u c h e x p a r te tra nscr i pt s e xi st . N or do es anyone on the C ou rt ’ s s t af f r ec al l any un-re corded hear i ng s i n thi s c as e. E spec i al l y s i nce thi s i s acapi t al ca se , the C ou rtw as m et i cul ou s abo uttho roug hl y docum ent i ng al l m ot i on s a nd rul i ng s. ” T he di stri ct co u rt o b se rv ed th at n o p ar ty h ad filed a p ro ff er ed re co n stru ctio n fo r th e c o u rt’s ap p r o v a l p u r s u a n t to F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 1 0 ( c ) , b u t a d d e d th a t it w o u ld r e c o n s id e rits ru lin g if c o u n s e l c o u ld “p o in t to a n y e v id e n c e th a t th e y in go od fa i th b el i eve s ho ul d al t erthi s f i nd i ng . ”83

B r ow n m ove d f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on, a r gui ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourts houl d ha ve hel d an evi dent i ary hea ri ng atw hi ch t i m e i tcoul d h ave hear d from B row n’ s tri al c ouns e l a nd the m a gi s tr a t e j udge . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m ot i on, c onc l udi ng tha tB r ow n ha d s t i l l notf i l e d a r e c ons truc t i on of

a ny unr e c or de d c onve r s a t i ons p u r s u a n t to R u le 1 0 ( c ) , a n d h a d in s te a d in d ic a te d o n ly th a t a n u n id e n tif ie d e x p a r te c o m m u n ic a tio n h a d ta k e n p la c e b e tw e e n th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e a n d tr ia l c o u n s e l. A dd i t i on al l y, the di stri ctcourtno t ed thatthe m agi stra t e j ud ge and h i s s t af f “ re po rt no r e c ol l e c t i on of

a ny un- r e c or de d c ont a c t s w i th de f e ns e c ouns e l c onc e rni ng a ny s u b s ta n tiv e m a tte r s .” O n appe a l , B r ow n a r gue s tha tthe tr i a l c our tde ni e d hi m the r i ghtt o c onf r ont w i tne s s e s by f

a i l i ng t o c onduc ta n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng t o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe re cord requi re d rec on struct i on . W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s f ai l ure t o con du ctan e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng f

ora bus e of

di s c r e t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a y , 251 F . 3d 950, 951 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ; A s hc r of tv. P ape rM a t e M f

g. C o. , 434 F . 2d 910, 915- 16 (9th C i r. 19 70 ) ( i n the cont extof a R ul e 10(e) re m and). T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by fa i l i ng t o h ol d an e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng f

ortw o r e a s ons . F i r s t , w e di d notr e qui r e a he a r i ng i n our re m and o rder . In pri or ca se s w here w e have w ant ed the di stri ctcourtt o h ol d an e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng a f

t e rr e m a ndi ng a c a s e pur s ua ntt o R ul e 10( e ) , w e ha ve m a de84

the or de re xpl i c i t l y c l e a r . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P r e c i a do- C or doba s , 923 F . 2d 159, 1 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ( r e m a n d in g w ith in s tru c tio n s to “c o n d u c t a n ap p r o p r ia te he a r i ng . . . f

orthe purpos e of

s uppl e m e nt i ng the r e c or d” ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S e l va , 546 F . 2d 1173, 1174 ( 5th C i r . 1977) ) ( a l t e r a t i ons i n or i gi na l ) ) . W e di d not do so here , i nst ea d i nstruct i ng thatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d d et erm i ne w hether there w er e a ny m i ss i ng tra nscr i pt s, and, i f s o, on l y then sho ul d i tatt em ptt o rec on struct the r e c or d. S e c ond, R ul e 10 pr ovi de s a de t a i l e d m e thod by w hi c h the r e c or d s houl d be supp l em ent ed w hen p roce edi ng s w er e notre corded or a tra nscr i pti s unavai l abl e: the appe l l a ntpr e pa r e s a s t a t e m e ntof the e vi de nc e orpr oc e e di ngs , a nd s e r ve s the appel l ee , w ho m ay fi l e obj ec t i on s or propo se d am endm ent s, af t erw hi ch the m att er i s p r e s e n t e d t o th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t“ f o rs e tt l e me n ta n d ap p r o v a l . ” Fe d . R. A p p . P. 10 (c ). B row n m ade no p roff ert o the di stri ctcourtre gardi ng any hea ri ng s that w er e nottra nscr i bed o r f or w hi ch a tra nscr i ptw as un avai l abl e. Indeed, even aft er the di stri ctcourti nv i t ed hi m t o d o so, B row n st i l l on l y obl i qu el y r ef erre d t o an ex pa r t e c om m uni c a t i on be tw e e n tr i a l c ouns e l a nd the m a gi s tr a t e j udge . H e di d not p r o v id e a n y d e ta ils o f

th e s u b s ta n c e o f

th a t c o m m u n ic a tio n , le t a lo n e c o m p ly w ith th e “s ta te m e n t o f

th e e v id e n c e o rp r o c e e d in g s ” r e q u ir e m e n t o f R u le 1 0 ( c ) , d e s p ite the fa ctthathi s app el l at e a tt orney w as i n con t ac tw i th the tri al coun se l thatMoreover, even if we w ereto find that the district court should haveconducte d a 18 he aring , B ro wn ’sa

bs e nc eat th at he aringwo uld no t ha vevio late d h is d

ueproc e ss o r S ixth Amendment right to be present. See United States v. B oyd, 131 F.3d 951, 954 ( 11th Cir. 1997) (findingthat a def

endant’ s absenc e from an evidentiar y hearing related to his motion for a new trial did not violate his rights under the Six th Amendment or the D ue Proce ss Clause, in part beca use therewas no showingthat his presenc e would havecontributed to the fairness of the proc e e ding ). B ro wn

is entitle d tono re lie f o n this c laim. Finally, Brown also argues on appe al that he intende d to present two other arguments at the post-remand hea

ring , both relate d to an alleg edly incomplete re cord of

the jury selec tion proc e ss. Ho wever, tho seiss ue s w e reoutsi dethesc op eof our o rde r o n re mand

and thu s w ould n o th av e b ee nap p ro p ri at e f o r c o n s i d er at i o nev eni f th e d i s tri ctco urth adco n d u ct eda h eari n g. 85 a lle g e d ly e n g a g e d in th e s e c o m m u n ic a tio n s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a c te d w e ll w ith in its di s c r e t i on f

i ndi ng - - ba s e d on i t s i nqui ry of i t s ow n s t a f

f , the c our tr e por t e r , a nd the m ag i strat e j u d g e -- th atth ere w ere n o ex p art e co m m u n i cat i o n s. 18 III. W e ha ve c ons i de r e d a l l the a r gum e nt s of both pa r t i e s , a nd, a f

t e rthor ough r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d w e a r e c o n f

id e n t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c o m m it r e v e r s ib le error. B row n’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e A FFI R M ED .86

B A R K E T T , C ir c u it J u d g e , c o n c u r s in th e r e s u lt.