## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 3044 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. L O UISL . J AVELL, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C R 233

—Jo hn W. Darrah, Judge .
A RG UE D M AR CH 26, 2012

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 30, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . B AUER, C ircu it Judge. On M ar ch 12, 20 09, a federa l Grand Jur y ind i cted Loui s L. J avel land hi s co - d efend ant, A ysh a A rroyo, on tw o cou nt s of m ortgage-ba sed w ire fra ud i n vi ol ati on o fTitle 1 8 U
. S. C. § 1 343. Both defen dan ts pl ea ded no t g ui l tya nd pr o ce ede d t o tr i ala nd on F ebr uary22 , 20 11, a j u ry r etur ned gui l ty ver dict s aga i nst b oth d efendants. J avel lfi l ed a m oti on f ora new2 N o. 11

- 3044 tr i al ; i t was deni ed, and he w as sente nced to a t er m o f 12 m onths and o ne day i n pri son on each count, or d ered t o r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y . T h i s a p p e a lf o l l o we d
. We a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND I n De ce m be r 2 00 5, the F BIb eg ana n un der co ve r i nve st i g at i o n int o mor tg ag e fr au d, s pec i fi ca l l y t ar g et i ng real estate p rofe s s ion als w ho w ere w il ling to prep are fals e m or tga ge l oan appli cati ons orse cure the r equi re d do cument ati o n t o b e i nc l ude d wi thl o ana ppl i ca ti o ns that they knew to b e fra ud ule nt. I n 2 0 0 7, a c o o pe r a t i ngi nd i v i du a l( “ CI ” ) wo r k i ngwi th th e F B I got i n tou ch w ith a m an nam ed A brah am Skaff, ana cc o unt an t an d t ax pr epa r eri n the C hi ca g o a r ea . The C I in for m ed Ska ff th at h e h ad co n tr ol ov er a sp ec ific parce lo fr eales tat e know n a s the Ever ettPro perty
. Though he di d not o w n i t, the CI tol d Sk aff th at he had c o nt r o lo v e r i t s o wne r v i a a p o we r o fa t t o r ne y . T he CI expla i ned that he had r ecr uit ed a s tr aw buye r nam ed H ussein w ho would purchase t he Ever ettPro perty u s i n ga f ak e i d e n t i t y kn o wna s E ma d Ad h a m. Un k n o wn to S k aff, Huss ein was a ctua l l y a n un dercov era g en t (“U C ”) fo r th e F B I. T h e C I en list ed Ska f ft o h elp h im fi nd a mor tg ag e co m pan y tha t woul d a ss embl e an d su bmi t a fr au dul en t l o ana p pl i ca ti o n t o a l en derf o r the pu rchas e o fthe Evere tt Pro perty
. The CIexp l ai ned that he plan n ed t o sel lthe proper ty f oras m uch as possibl e, then l et i t f al li nto f or eclo sure . W i th thi s know l edge, Sk affr efer re d the CIto Loui s J avel l, the own ero fa m or tga ge br ok er ag e c om p an y c alle d B ell C ap ita l.N o. 11

- 3044 3 To war d the e nd o fJ une 2 00 7, a l o an p ro ce ss o r a nd em plo yee o fJ avel l ’ s nam ed A ysha A rr oyo beg an as sis tin g t h e C I in a s s e m b lin g a loan ap p lica tio n in Ad ha m ’ s na m e. A few wee k s l at er o n J ul y 2 5, the CI, the U C, J avel l, A rro yo, and Sk affm et at the Bel lCapit al offi ces, wh i ch w er e under surve il l ance b y the FBI, to di sc us s a pr o bl em wi thAdham’s l oan a p p l i ca ti o n. At the m eeting , Javelland A rroyo exp lai ne d that A d ha m ’s bank acco unt had not b een o pened fo r the r equi si te num ber of days, and that thi s w oul d b e gr ou n d s fo r th e l en der ’ s r ej ec ti o n ofthe a ppl i ca ti o n. As a s o l ut i o n, A rr oyo sugg est ed A dh am fi nd so m eone with a se aso ned b a nka c c o untwh o wo ul d b e wi l l i ngt o t e mpo r a r i l y a dd A dh am ’ s nam e t o i t. A l ternati vel y, A rr oyo o ffer ed to co nt ac t so m eo ne s he kne w ata l o ca lb an kwho , for a fee, would be w il l i ng to bac k- date a n acco unt w i th Ad ha m’ s n a me o n i t
. T h e C Ia n d th e UC o p t e d f o r t he l att ero pti on, but w hen A rr oyo ’ s c on ta ct di d not pan out, the FBI added A dh am ’s n am e t o the s eas oned bank acco unt ofano therfi cti ti ous i denti ty cre at ed by the F BI. S oo n after, the c om p l ete d app l i cati on was subm itt ed by B ell C ap ita l. On A ugust 1, the l oan havi ng be en approv ed f or $150 , 000, the C I and the U C cl ose d on the Evere tt Pro pertyand J avel lwas i ssued a check for $ 5,2 34 w hi ch w as deposi ted i nto Bel lCapit al ’ s business acco unt. I n M ar ch 200 9, J avel land A rr oyo were i nd i cted. A fter A rroyo’s arrest, she w aived her M i r anda ri ghts an d w as i nter vi ew ed by the FBI
. Du ring the i nter vi ew , A rro yo adm i tte d she had w or ked with Sk aff on pri oro ccasi ons,4 N o. 11

- 3044 that she knew thatso m e of the t ax r etur ns and subse

quent docum ents provi ded byS kaffwere fra ud ule nt, an d tha t sh e su bmi tt ed th em to l en der s a ny way . The age nts pl aye d fo r A rr oy o port i ons ofsur veil l ance r ecor dings fr om i nsi de the Bel lCapit alo ffi ces; A rr oyo i den ti fi ed he r se l fo n o ne o fthe reco r di ng s. W he n the age nts a ske d w hat s he was dis cussi ng i n the re cor ding, A rr oyo adm i tte d to speak i ng with a new custom er a nd exp l a i ningt o h i m, a s s he di d fo r the CIa nd the UC, th ats he ha d a c o nt act at a ba nkwho woul d o pena n ew ba n k a c c ou n t fo r h im , ba c k-d at e it, an d iss u e h im a fra ud ule nt Ver i fi cati on o fDeposi t. B oth J ave ll an d A rroyo plead ed not gu il ty an d a j ury tr i a l wa s s c h e d u l e d
. P r i o r t o t r i a l, th e g o v e r n me n t i nf or m ed both defe nd ants that i t intended to i ntro du ce Arr o y o ’ s po st
- ar r es t st at ement s th r o ug h the t est i m o ny o fAg e ntS e c o r, the F BIa g e ntwh o h a d int er vi ew ed A rro yo an d co m p os ed a p o st -in te rv iew rep or t. Jav ell ar gu e d tha tthe a dmi s s i o n o fAr r o y o ’ s p o s t
- a r r e s ts t a t em en ts vi a Agent S eco r vi ol ate d the Confro ntati on Cl ause ofthe Si xth A m endm ent. On J avel l’s m oti on, the dist ri ct cour t g ra nted a Bru t on he ar i ngand ord er ed th e g o ve r nm ent t o su b m it a Bru t on st at em en t d et ailin g e x ac tly w hat they intended to i ntrod u c e a t t ri al
. S ee Bru t on v. U nited Sta tes , 391 U .S. 12 3 (1 96 8). T h e g o v e r n m e n t c o mpli ed. The st ate m ent s peci fi ed t he exac t info rm ati on fro m the post- ar re st re portA gent Se c or would te sti fy t o, w i th anyf aci al l y incri m i nati ng r efer ences to J avell o r Bel lCa pi ta lr eda ct ed. T he di st r i ctc o ur t r ev i ewe d the gov ernm ent’ s Bru t on st ate m ent a nd m ade further re dacti ons i n an e ff or t t o re m ove any i n d irect re fer ences to Jav ell or B ell C ap ita l.N o. 11

- 3044 5 A t t ri al, the g ove rnm ent’ s Bru t on sta tem ent was n ev er p u b lish ed to th e jur y, bu t t h e g ov er n m en t d id eli ci t t est i m ony fro m A gent Se corwh i ch co m port ed w i th the Bru t on st ate m en t a pp ro ved by the di str i ct c o ur t ; n e i th e r th e g o v e r n me n tn o r A g e n tS e c o r ma de an y re fer en c es to t h e re d ac te d p or tio n s a t t ria l. U ltim ate l y, the j ury f ound Ja vel land A rr oyo gui l ty.

II. A N A L Y S IS J a v e l lc l a i ms the di s t r i ct co ur tv i o l a t e d Bru t on , i ts prog eny, a nd J av el l ’ s S i xth Am en dm en t r i g ht s bya dm i tt i ng the pos t- ar re st sta tem ents m ade byA rr oyo and by f ai l i ngt o pr o per l y i ns truct th e j ur y ab o utthe rul es o fno nim pu tat i on. A ccor ding to J avel l, A rr oyo ’ s pos t- ar re st state m en ts d irectly im p li cate d J avell an d h a d t he j ury not hear d those st at em ents, J avel lwould not have been convi cted. W e di sag re e.
A . J ave l l ’ s Bru t on Claim A lthou gh this C ou rt typ icall y review s a district cou rt’s evi denti ar y r ulings foran abuse o fdi scr eti on, a dist ri ct c ou rt ’s a p p lica tio n ofth e p rin c ip les p ro m u lga te d in B r ut on a nd i t s p r o g e nyi s r e v i e we d deno vo . U ni t e d S t a tes v. G reen , 648 F.3 d 5 6 9 , 574 (7t h C ir. 20 11 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cGowan , 590 F.3d 446 , 453 (7th C ir. 2009). The Si xth A m endm ent to the U ni ted S tat es Consti tuti on d ec lar es , “[i]n all cr im in al p ro se c u tio n s, th e a c c u se d sh all enj oy the r i ght . . . to be confro nted by w i tness es aga i nst h im
. . . . ” U .S. C O NST . am en d . VI.6 N o. 11

- 3044 To r ev i ew: i n B ruto n v. U n i t e d S ta tes , B ru to n an d h is acco m pli ce ha d been char ged with ar m ed posta lr ob b er y, an d a t j o i nt
- tr i al, a pos ta li ns pec to r t es ti fi ed th atthe ac co m pl i ce ha d o r al l y co nfes se d t o ha vingc o m m i tt ed th e cri m e with Bruton, but the a ccom p lice hi m sel fneve r too k the st an d
. Bru t on , 3 91 U. S
. a t 12 4. Bo thBr ut o n a nd th e a c c om p lice w er e c on vic te d
. Id
. On app ealt o the Eighth Cir cui t, t he acc om pli ce’ s co nvi cti on was se t as ide beca use the co urt rul ed the confess i on had bee n obt ain ed in vi ol ati on o fhi s M i r anda righ ts
. Id
. “H ow ever, [ the Eighth Cir cui t]
. . . affi rm ed Bruton’ s co nvi cti on because the tr i al j ud ge i nstr ucted the j ury th at al though [ the a ccom pli ce] ’ s co nfe ssi on was co m petent evi dence aga i nst [ the ac c om pli ce, ] i t was i nadm i ssibl e hea rs ay aga i nst [ Bruton] a n d therefor e had to be disr ega rded i n deter m i ni ng [ Bruton] ’ s g u il t o r i nnocence. ” Bru t on , 39 1 U .S. at 1 24 -2 5
. S ee als o, D elli P a o li v. U nited Sta tes , 352 U
. S. 23 2 ( 1957 ) ( hol ding that i nadm i ssibl e hea rs ay aga i nst a defenda n t c ou l d sti l lbe enter ed i nto evi dence a s l o n g a s th e d e c l a r a n t wa s th e c o - d e fe n d a n t a nd t he j ury w as gi ven pro per l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti ons not to c on sid er th e s ta te m en ts ag ain st th e d efe n d an t). O n ret ria l, the a c c o mpl i c e wa s a c qu i t ted
. Id . at 1 25 -26 . On ce rt iora ri, the Suprem e Court hel d that “beca use ofth e s u bsta nti al ri sk that the j ury, d esp i te i nstr ucti ons to the c ontr ar y, loo ke d to th e in c rim in a tin g e x tr aju d icia l st at em en ts in d e t e r mi n i n g [ B r u t o n ] ’ s g u i l t, a d mi s s i o n o f [ t he a c c o mp li ce]’s confession i n th is j oint trialviol ated pet iti o n er’s ri ght o fcr oss - exam i nati on secured bythe Confr ontat i on Clause o fthe Si xth A m endm ent. ” Id
. at12 6. T w en ty -on e y ea rs lat er , R ich a rdso n v . M a rsh r efi ned Bru t on . In tha t ca se , a de fen dan t an d hi s co - defen dan tN o. 11

- 3044 7

w er e c h ar ge d w ith m u rd er an d as sa u lt. Ric har ds on v. M a rsh , 4 81 U. S
. 2 00 , 2 02 ( 19 87 )
. At t r i al, the c o - defen dan t did notte sti fy b ut hi s con fessi on was adm i tte d i nto ev id en c e. Ric har ds on , 48 1 U.S
. at20 3- 04. A l lr efer ences to th e d efend an t a n d his part ici p ation in th e crim e w ere red acted fr o m the c o nfes si o n a nd the j ur y was i nstr ucted not to consi der the co

- defe nd ant’ s co nfessio n w ith reg ar d to th e d efe n d an t. Id
. H oweve r, the defendant’s subse quent tes tim ony l i nked hi m to the codefen dan t’ s co nfes si o n a nd the de fen dan t was c o nvic te d
. Id
. at20 5. The defendant’s appealwas d en ied by the M i chi gan Cour t o f A pp eal s, and hi s wri t o fhabea s c or p u s w as d en ied by th e d ist ric t c ou rt
. Id
. H o w ever, th e S i xth Ci r cui t r ev er se d, r ely i ngo n Bru t on, a n d rul ed that an o m i ssi on o r re dacti on o fa re ference to the defen dan t was e ffec ti ve l y di m i ni sh ed i ff o r th co m i ng ev i d e n c e wo u l d u l t i ma t e l y c o n n e c t th e d e fe n d a n t t o t he non- tes ti fyi ng co - defe nd ant’ s “ pow er fully incri m i nati ng” c o n fes sio n . Id
. at20 5- 06 ( quoti ng M ars h v
. Ri ch ar ds on , 781 F.2d 1201, 1213 (6th C ir. 1986)). O n ce rt iora ri, th e S u p re m e C ou rtu p h eld th e a d m iss ibi l i tyo fthe c o - defen dan t’ s co nfes si o n a nd s ta te d, “ [ t] he Confr ontat i on Cl ause i s no t vio lated by the adm i ssi on o f a no n- te st i fy i ngc o - defen dan t’ s c onfes si o n wi tha p ro p er lim iti n g ins tr u c tio n w h en , . . . th e c on fes sio n is re dacted to el i m i nate not onl y the [ defe nd ant] ’ s nam e, b uta nyr e fe r e nc e t o h i s o r h e r e xi s t e nc e. ” Ric har ds on , 481 U
. S. at21 1. I n Gray v. M aryl and, Grayand Bel lwere i nd i cted f or b ea tin g a m an to d ea th
. Grayv. M aryl and, 523 U.S
. 18 5, 18 88 N o. 11

- 3044 (1998). A t trial, the p rosecu tion s o ug ht to enter B ell ’s c o n fes sio n w h ich im p lica te d G ra y. Gray, 5 2 3 U. S
. a t1 88. T h e c ou rtord er ed th e c on fes si on be red ac te d an d it was s ubs eque nt l y r ea d i nt o e vi den ce dur i ngt r i ala nd p u b l i s h ed in w rit te n form to th e jur y. Id
. Ho we v e r, the confess i on’ s r edac tio n s onl y went as f aras i nser ti ng a blank sp ace or th e w ord “d eleted ” or “de leti on” w he re Gr ay ’ s na m e o th erw ise woul d ha ve b ee n. Id
. The c o nfe s s ion w as acc om p an ied by an i ns tru ction to th e j ury that the c onfess i on be co nsi dered o nl y with re spect to Bel l, a n d thati t was notto be consi dered with re spect to G ra y. Id
. at18 9. Both Bel land Gray w er e co n victe d an d G ra y a p p ea led
. Id . T h e M ar yl and C ourto fS peci al A pp eal s s et as ide Gray’ s co nvi cti on, r uling tha t a dm i tt i ngthe c o nfe s s i o n v i o l a t e d Br ut on . Id
. H owever, M ar ylan d ’s s u p re m e c ou rtrein st at e d t h e c on vic tio n . Id
. On ce r ti o r ar i, th e U. S
. S upr eme Co ur t f o und tha t Bel l ’ s co nfess i on co ntai ned i nfe re nces and i m pli c at ions w hi ch we r e di s t i ng ui s ha b l e fr o m Bru t on a nd Ri c har ds on because t h ey di re ctl y incri m i nated Gray, as o pp ose d to i ncri m i nating hi m “o nl y when l i nked with e vi dence i ntro du ced l ate r at tr i al
. ” Id
. at19 6 ( ci ti ng Ric hardson , 48 1 U. S
. a t 20 8 ( quot at i o ns o m i tt ed) )
. “ M o r eo ve r, ” th e Cou r t co nt i nue d, “ th e r eda ct ed co nfes si o n wi ththe bl ank prom in en t o n i ts f ace . . . f aci al l y incri m i nates [ Gray]
. . . and the accusat i on that the r edacted co nfe ssi o n mak es i s m o r e vi vi d tha n infer en ti ali nc r i m i na ti o n, and hence m or e di fficu l t t o thrusto ut o fm i nd
. ” Gray, 523 U
. S. at 196 ( ci ti ng Ric har ds on , 481 U
. S. at 208-09 (i nt ern al q u ot at ion s o m itt ed )). In oth er w or d s, so lon g a s it w as acco m panie d by a pro per l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti on t oN o. 11

- 3044 9 the j ury and i t di d not fac i al l y incri m i nate the defen dant, the co- defe nd ant’ s r edacted co nfe ssi on was ad m iss ible attria l. Si m i l ar l y in the recent m or tga ge- fra ud cas e U nited S t a t e s v. G reen , the gov er nm ent intro du ced the confess i o n o fa c o - d e fe n d a n tw i thth e d e fe n d a n t ’ s n a me re d ac te d an d re p lac ed w ith “s tr aw bu ye r.” U nited Sta tes v. G reen , 64 8 F
. 3d 56 9, 57 3 (7 th Ci r. 20 11)
. Later, ev i dence w as i ntro du ced m aking i t cl earto th e j ury that “st ra w buyer ” was a substi tute f orth e d efendant’ s nam e. G reen , 648 F.3 d a t 573. Th e d efend an t m oved f or a m ist ria l bu t t h e d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied th e m ot ion
. Id
. at 574. On ap p eal, this C o u rt affirm ed the d istri ct cou rt’s rul i ng tha t the use of“s tr aw buye r” i n the red acted co nf es s i o n “ wa s n o ts o o b v i o u s a r e fe r e n c e t o th e d e fe ndant as to vi ol ate Bru t on, ” and that “[ t] ake n alone, no thingi n the [ c o - de fe nd a nt ] ’ s s t a t e men t
. . . s ug g e s t [ e d] that the [ defe nd ant] was the str aw buye r. ” Id
. at575- 76. Despit e J avel l ’ s re p eated ar gum ents to the c ontr ar y, not one ofthe case s above support hi s positio n that the g ove rnm ent’ s B ruton st ate m ent v i ol ate d his S i xth A m en d m e n t rig h ts
. Each ofthe af or em enti oned cas es d e a l tw i th r e da c t e d c o n fe s s i o n s w h i c h f a c i a l l y i n c r i mi nated o r i nd i re ctl y i m pli cate d the defendant. The f act r emains tha t i n J av el l ’ s ca se , no th i ngi n the g o ve r nm ent’ s Bru t on st atem en t w as f aci al l y incri m i nati ng, nor d id an y p ar t o f th e s ta te m en t e ve n refe r e n c e Ja ve ll ind ir ec tly, a s f o r i ns ta nc e i n Gre e ne, b y r eda ct i nga nd r epl ac i ng hi s na m e wi tha mor e i nno cuo us phr ase. Ins te ad, a ny r e fe r e nc e t o J a v e l lo r Be l lCa pi t al tha twa s n o ta l r e a dy10 N o. 11

- 3044

r eda cted by th e g o ve r nm en t, was r eda ct ed bythe dist ri ct c ourtatthe Bru t on hear i ng. Fo r ex am p le, th e g ov er n m e n t’s orig in al Bru t on sta tem ent incl ud ed a s entence wh i ch r ead , “[ a] s a Loan Pr ocess or, i t i s Arro yo’ s r esponsibi l i ty to tak e loa n appli cati o ns a nd othe r mor tg ag e- r el at ed pape r wor kfr o m the Loan Offi cer s at [ re dacted] an d en su re th e pa p e r is in o r d e r p r i o r t o s u b mi t t i n g th e p a p e r wo r k f o r l o a n a pprova l
. ” ( Em phasi s a dd ed. ) The di str i ct c ourto rdered th e wor d “ at ” to b e r eda ct ed be ca us e th e co ur t th o ug ht it ra n “t h e ris k of fa c ially ca llin g a t te n tio n to B ell [C ap ital ] , ” a nd the di s t r i c tc o ur tkne w tha ts uc h a r e da c t i on w oul d preventa Grays cena r i o fr o m o cc ur r i ng . The dist ri ct c ourtm ade f our m or e si m i l arr edacti ons to the g ove rnm ent’ s Bru t on s ta te m en t w hich r es ul te d i n a st at em en t t h at i fp re se n te d in is ola tio n from oth er ev iden ce , woul d preven t a j ur y fr o m kno wi nga ny o ne othe r than A rr oyo was i nvol ved; afterthe fi nalr edacti ons w er e m ade, ther e w as no i nd i cati on that Jav ell or Be l lCa pi t a le v e n e xi s t e d. This poses th e qu est i on: W hat i fthe gov er nm ent had ne ver introd uc ed their Bru t on st ate m en t o r any o ther ev id en c e o f A rro yo ’s c on fes sio n ? C ou ld a re as on ab le j urorst i l lhave co ncl ud ed that J av el lwas gui l ty of m o r tg ag e-ba se d wi r e fr au d? Ye s. The g o ve r nm en t proper l y intro du ced a p l etho ra o fo therev i dence ag ains t J av el l, i nc l udi ngr ec o r d in g s o fJ av el ldi sc us sing the fra ud ule nt m or tga ge appli cati on a n d the nee d for A d h am to se c u re a se as on ed ba n k a c c ou n t. A d d itio nal l y, the gov er nm ent a l so prese nted evi dence toN o. 11

- 3044 11 sh ow th at aft er clo sin g on th e E ve re tt p ro p er ty , Jave ll adv i se d the CIa nd the UC on h ow b est t o l etthe pr o per tyf al l into f o r ec l o su r e; tha t f ai l i ngt o make the fi rs t few m or tga ge paym ents coul d ra i se re d fl ags with the F BI, wh o J avel l had hear d w as i nvest i gat i ng such thi ngs. The go ver nm ent’ s Bru t on st ate m en t di d not v i ol ate Bru t on o r i ts prog eny a nd the dist ri ct courtwas cor re ct to a dmi t i t
. J a v e l l ’ s S i xth Am e nd men t r i g ht s we r e no t affected
. W e find no error.
B. Javell ’s J u ry Ins tru ction C laim N ext, Jave l lar gues that the di str i ct c ourter re d by f ai l i ng to i nstr uct the j ury to onl y c ons ider A rr oyo ’ s pos tar re st sta tem ents w i th re spect to A rr oyo ; that th ey sh ou ld n otbe im p u te d to Jav ell. At t r i al, J av el lne ve r o bj ec te d t o the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s j ury i nstr ucti ons, nordi d he r equest that the jud ge gi ve a speci fi c, cl ar i fyi ng i nstr ucti on. A s such, we re vi ew f or p lain err or . S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cour t r ight, 6 3 2 F
. 3 d 3 6 3, 37 1 (7 th C ir. 2 0 1 1 ). “T o e st ab lish p lain err or , [Jav ell] m u s t s h o w th a t th e r e wa s a n a c t u a l e r r o r, tha t th e er ro r w as pla i n , t h at the e rr oraffecte d [hi s] subst anti al ri ghts, and that the e rr orse ri ousl y a ffecte d t he f ai rnes s, in te gr ity , or p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f j u d icia l p ro c ee d in gs .” Cour t r ight, 63 2 F
. 3d at 3 71 ( ci ti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Canady, 57 8 F
. 3d 66 5, 6 70 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( i nt erna lquo ta ti o ns om i tte d))
. To b e co nsi dered plain, an er ro r m ust be “s o o bv i o us , c r uci al, a nd e g regious, tha t we may a nd12 N o. 11

- 3044 sh ou ld co rre c t itev en if n o o b je c tio n w as m ad e b elo w .” Cour t r ight, 632 F. 3d at 371 ( quoti ng Backwat e r, Inc . v. Pe nnAm e r i ca n Ins . Co. , 448 F.3d 962 , 9 6 5 ( 7 t h C ir. 2006)). Furth er m or e, “[p ]lain err or rev iew of j u r y in st ru c tio n s is p ar ti c u lar ly ligh t h an d ed , an d w e w ill rev er se on ly if the e rr orwas ofsuch a gr eatm agni tu d e that i t pr obab l y c ha ng e d the o ut c o me o fthe t r i a l
. ” C o urtright, 63 2 F. 3d at 371 ( ci ti ng U nited Sta tes v. M o o re, 11 5 F
. 3d 1348 , 1362 ( 7th Cir. 1997) (int erna l qu otations om itted ))
. A t the Bru t on hearing pr io r t o trial, the d istri ct cou rt s ummar i z e d Bru t on and its p rogenyand note d the nee d f o r pr o perl i m i tingi ns truct i o ns . At t r i al, when Age nt S ec o r t es ti fi ed as t o Arr o y o ’ s po st
- ar rest st at ement s, the dist ri ct c ourti nstr ucted the j ury “t o ac c ept the l ast answ er m ade by A gent Se cor re gar ding the sea sone d b an k a c c ou n t o n ly in so far as it be ar s o n th e is su es in th is case regard ing M s. A rroy o .” L ater, prior to j ury del iber ati ons, the dist ri ct cour t i nstr ucted the j u ry as to Se venth Ci rcui t Pat tern J ury I nstr ucti on 3
. 02: Y ou h a v e r e c eiv ed ev id en c e o f a st at em en t s aid to be m a d e b y D e fe n d a n tAy s h a Ar r o y o t o l a w e nf o r ce m en t o ffi ce r s. Yo u mustde ci d e whethe r the d efe n d an t d id in fa c t m ak e t h e s ta te m en t. N o tabl y, a nd a s J av el la rd ent l y c al l s to o ura tt en ti o n, th e di st r i ctc o ur t o m i tt ed th e l as t l i ne o fthe i ns truct i o n, whi chr ea ds, “ [ y ] o u may no t co ns i derthi s st atement as e vi den ce a g ains t an y de fen dan t o th ertha n the o ne w h o m ad e it .” I t i s possibl e that by si ngl i ng out onl y one of th e stat emen t s ma de b y Ag e ntS e c o r the di str i ctc o ur ti na d-N o. 11

- 3044 13

ver tently c om m unica ted to the j ury that the r em ai nd er ofAg e ntS e c o r ’ s t e s t i mon y c o ul d b e p r o pe r l y i mp uted to J avel land it is uncl earwh y the di str i ct c ourtchos e to om it th e la st se n te n c e o f 3.02
. N everthel ess , bo th th e i ns tr uc ti o n r eg ar di ngAge ntS ec o r ’ s te st i m o ny a nd the om i ssi on o f3. 02’ s l astse ntence ar e o fl i ttl e co nsequence. “In re vi ew i ng the suffi ci ency ofj u ry i nstr uctions, we l o o kt o the i ns truct i o ns a s a whol e to de term i ne w he th erthe j ur y was mis l ed i n a ny waya nd w hetheri t had underst anding ofthe iss u es and i ts du ty t o de t e r mi ne tho s e i s s ue s. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 58 4 F. 3d 731, 73 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( ci ti ng U ni t e d Sta te s v. Ber ndt, 53 0 F
. 3d 553, 55 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) (i nter nalquotati ons om itte d))
. “W e would o nl y r eve rs e i fthe i nstr ucti ons vi ew ed i n thei r enti re ty, m i sl ead the j uror s t o [ J avel l ] ’ s prej ud i ce. ” Johns on , 58 4 F
. 3d at 739 ( ci ti ng U nited State s v. Sm ith , 2 2 3 F
. 3 d 5 5 4 , 5 5 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( i nter nal quotati ons om i tte d))
. Though j uri es often b enefi t fro m hear i ng co ncre te i nstr ucti ons that speci fy e xactl y which evi dence a n d te sti m ony shoul d be co nsi dered with re sp ec t t o e a c h co -d efe n d an t, n eit h er p ar ty fou n d it n ec es sa ry to req u es t s u c h d efin itio n attria l, an d n or d id w e, upon re vi ew of the i nstr ucti ons and rec or d as a who l e , fi nd tha tthe j ur y wa s mi s l e d o r mi s i nfo rm ed as to thei r re sponsibi l i ti es. F ur th er m o r e, the o m i ss i o n di d no t r es ul t i n s uchpr ej ud ice to J avell th at w ou ld req uire us to revers e for a fi nd i ng of i nj usti ce. A s w e previ ousl y m enti oned, pl enty o fe vi den ce was pr o per l y i nt r o du ced a t tr i al, i nd ep endent ofA rr oyo ’ s pos t- ar re st sta tem ents, wh i ch im p lica te d Jav ell.14 N o. 11

- 3044 Jav ell h as n ot m et h is b u rd en . Fi nd i ng no pla i n er ro r by th e d istri ct court, w e con clud e th at not on ly w ere Javell ’s subs tan tial rights u nh arm ed , bu t tha t the f airness, i ntegr i ty, and publi c r ep utati on o fthes e j ud i ci al proce edi ngs a re i ntact.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re aso ns s tat ed her ei n, we A FFIRM the j udg m en t ofthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

8- 30- 12