The H onorab le J am es E. Shad id, D is tr ic t J ud ge f or the United  St at es Dis t ri c tCour tf or the Ce nt ra l Dis t ri c tofI l lino is, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## 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

- 2125 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. E R I C O Z UNA, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Di v isi on. No . 10 C R 495

—Jam es B. Z agel, Judg e.

A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 21, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 19, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hi e f Judg e, B AUER, C ircu it Judge, a nd S HA D ID , D istrict Judge.  S HA D ID , D istrict Judge. Eri c Ozuna w as f ound gui l ty of u n l aw ful posse ssi on o fa fi re ar m i n vi ol ati on o f 18 U

. S. C. § 9 22(g ) ( 1)

. H e was se ntenced to a ter m o f2 N o. 11

- 2125 113 m onths. On app eal, O zu na ar gues that the di str i ct cour t ab u se d its di scr eti on byf ai l i ng to excl ud e e vi dence re ga rd in g h i s g a n g a ffiliat ion as u n fair ly p rej u d icia l. W e di sag re e a nd affi rm the j ud gm ent.

I . B AC KGR OUND A t a pp ro x im ate l y 1 1: 46 p. m . o n N ove m ber6, 20 09, A l ai nya Bandy call ed 9- 1- 1 t o re porthear i ng g unshots fi re d near her hom e i n the 4800 bl ocko fN or th Law nd al e. A fte r ab o u t 1 0 m in u te s, B an d y h ea rd p eo p le w alk in g in t he y a rd outsi de o fh e r h o us e . S he l o o k e d o uth e r b e dr o o m wi nd o w a nd s a w a ma n i n he r b a ck yar d. Ba nd y w atched as the m an walk ed dow n her dri veway, l oo ked i nto the b ack all ey behi nd herga ra ge, and then wal ked b a c ku p t he dr i v e wa y i nt o h e r ya rd. She p l a c e d a seco nd cal l to 9- 1- 1 t o re portthe m an tres p assi ng o n her proper ty. Chi ca g o Po l i ce Offi cers M ar tin S ta unt o n a nd Ti m o th y M ar ti n w er e parke d i n an unm ar ked pol i ce c ar l ess than one blo ck f ro m Bandy’s hom e when they re cei ved the cal l dispat chi ng them to the 4800 bl ock ofN or th Law nd al e. Offi cerM ar ti n go t o ut o f t h e cara f ew house s aw a y fro m B an d y’s res id en c e t o s ea rc h on foot w h ile Of fi c e r S t a u n t o n c o n t i n u e d a r o u n d t h e b l o c k t o t he al l ey behi nd the house and drove u p the al l ey at about 20 t o 2 5 mi l e s p e r h o urwi t h hi s h e a dl i g ht s o f f

. A s h e a pproa ched the b ack ofBandy’s house, Offi c er S taunton sa w two m endressed i n da r kc l o th i ngs ta ndi ngi n the al ley at the e nd o fBandy’s dri veway. Offi cerS taunton per ce i ve d a “ si g ni fi ca nt ” he i g htdi f f er en ce b et wee n theN o. 11

- 2125 3

m en. The sho rt erm an bega n runni ng fi rs t. The ta l l er m an w as cl ose r to Offi cer St aunton, perm i tti ng O fficer S t a un t o n t o o b s e r v e h i m ho l di nga g uni n hi s h a nd

. Upon n o ti ci ngOffi ce r S ta unt o n’s ca r i n the a l l ey, the m en fl ed up the dri veway and throu gh a gangway toward the f ro nt o fBand y’ s ho use. Offi ce S taunton bega n chasi ng the m en. A s he ro und ed the cor ner of B an d y’s garage, O fficer Staun ton pa u s ed to get his beari ngs a ro und a bl i nd spotbef or e pursui ng the m en i nto th e ba cky ar d. Bandy l o o k ed o uthe rwi ndo w and ca ug ht a g l i m pse o fOffi cerS taunton as h e p au sed. S he r ecal l ed h ea rin g O ffice r St au n to n ye ll “p olic e” be for e s e ein g h im i n h erb ac ky ar d a nd h ea r i ngthe s o und o fr unni ng th ro u gh h er ba c k y ar d an d th e “ ru st lin g” of th e c h ain l i nk fence separ ati ng the yard fro m the gangway after sh e saw the offi cer. Af t e r r o un di ngthe g a r a g e , Offi c e r S t a un t o n wa s a pp ro x im at ely 30 fee t aw ay fr om th e t alle r m an , l at er id en tifi ed as Ozun a. Th e shor term an was l ate r i denti fi ed as Se rg i o Sanc h ez , wh o, the re cor d i nd i cate s, i s s i x i nches shor t e r tha n Oz un a . Offi c e r S t a un t o n c o ul d n o l o ng er see S anchez, but saw O zuna thr ow the handgun over a fence and i nto Band y’ s nei ghbor ’ s y ar d. A s Offi ce St aunton chas ed O zuna and Sa nchez up the gangway, Of fi c e r M a r t i n i nt e r c e pt e d t he m fr o m the f r o nto f the ho use. Offi cerM ar ti n saw Ozun a a nd Sa n c hez runni ng to w ar d him with Offi cerS taunton onl y a few f e e tb e hi nd

. Offi c e r Mar t i n o r de r e d t hem to the g r o un d, an d they w er e a rr est ed w i thout i nci dent. A t the ti m e o f hi s a rr est, Ozuna ha d p re vi ousl y b een c onvi cted o f a fel ony.4 N o. 11

- 2125 O fficer Piotr N estorow icz arri ved on th e scen e very s ho r t l y the r e a ft e r . Offi c e rS t a un t o n a dv i s e d O f f i cer N es to r o wi cz tha t he s aw Oz una thr o w a g un int o the ne i g hb o r ’ s ba cky ar d a nd i ns tr uct ed hi m w her e to fi nd i t. W i thi n sec onds, Offi cerN est or owicz re cove re d a . 38 cal iberS m i th & W ess on r evo l verw ith a def aced se ri al num berco ntai ni ng t w o l i ve ro und s o fam m unit i on fro m t he n e i g hb o r ’ s y a r d. O zu na w a s c ha rged w ith un law ful posse ssion of a fi r ea r m i n v i o l at i o n o f1 8 U. S

. C. § 9 22(g)(1) i n the U ni ted S tat es D ist rict Courtf orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i no i s. Pr i o r t o t r i al, Oz una ’ s co uns ela dvised the g o ve r nm en t th atS an ch ez woul d be testi fy i nga s to the eve nts o fN ove m ber7, 20 09. The go ver nm ent m ove d i n l i m i ne f orautho ri zati on t o cro ss- exam i ne S anchez re gar ding hi s s hare d gang affi l i ati on with Ozuna. A fter h o l d i n gth a tth e g a n gw o u l d n o tb e r e f e r r e d t o b y n a me an d th a t i fi t ca m e u p , i t w ou ld be refe rre d to ge n er ica lly as an “o rg ani zati on, ” the di str i ct c ourtto ok the r em ai nd er of t h e m ot ion u n d er ad vis em en t , i n d ica tin g t h at it w ou l d res er ve rul i ng unti l hear i ng the subst ance o f S an ch ez ’ t es ti m o ny o n di r ec t ex ami na ti o n. Tr i alc o m m en ce d o n De ce m be r 1 7, 2 01 0. The g o ve r nm en t pr es en te d Ba ndy, Offi ce r S ta unt o n, Offi ce r M ar tin, Offi c e r Ne s t o r o wi c z , the o f fi c e r who exa mi ne d the h a nd

gun f orfing er pri nts, and a Chi cago Pol i ce di spatcher du ri ng i ts case in chie f

. Ozuna cal l ed a s i ngl e witness, Sanchez , i n hi s defense. Duri ng hi s t est i m ony, S anchez, w ho had notpre vi ousl y b een c onvi cted o fa felo n y or any o thercr i m e f orthatm att er, test i fi ed that he wasN o. 11

- 2125 5 the o ne hol ding the gun o n N ove m ber7, 20 09 and that he threw the gu n into th e neighbor’s back yard before O fficer St a un ton even pu ll ed up beh ind Ba nd y’s ho us e. S an ch ez fur th era dm i tt ed tha t he a nd Oz una gr ew up i n the sam e nei ghbor hood , h ad kno w n each o t h e r s i nc e e l e me n t a r y s c h o o l, h a d ma n y o fth e s a me f ri ends and acquai ntances , and w er e g oo d fr i ends. N earthe en d o fdi re ct e xam i nati on, def ense counsel as k ed f o r a s i deb aro n the i ss ue o f th e g an g ev i den ce . The f ol l owing disc ussi on t oo k pl ace: M r . M a dde n: J ud ge, I j ust want to ge t

— be c l ear

I would l i ke to f ro nt the ga ng ev i dence. The gang evi dence i s g oin g t o be r el eva n t. O b vio u sly , Iobj ec te d to it or i gina l l y , a nd Iunde r st an d

— The Court: N ot on w h at I’ ve hear d. The doorhas

n ot be en op en ed . I t’s co n c eiv ab le that som ethi ng co uld o pen on cr oss , buti fhe ’ s ca r eful

— i t’ s no t o pen . M r. M ad d en : T ha nk you, You r H onor. Defe nse counsel then re sum ed dir ect exam i nation w i th fi ve m or e quest i ons bef or e r est i ng. Be for e cr oss - exam i nation , t he go ver nm ent a ske d fo r a s i debar and arg ued th at th e d oo r h ad be en op en ed . Th e d ist ric t c ou rtag ain sta ted thatev er ythi ng ab out th e r el ati onshi p between O z u na a n d S a n c h e z w a s o p e n, b u tth a tth e g a n gme mber shi p w as not. Dur i ngc r o ss - ex ami na ti o n, c o uns elf o r the g o ve r nm en t as k ed S an chez wher e he ha d o bt ai ne d the g un, a nd t he f o l l o wi ngdi a l o gt r a ns pi r e d.6 N o. 11

- 2125 Q

. Wh e r e d i d y o u g e tth e g u n fr o m? A. Fr o m whe r e Iu s e d t o l i v e , 4 8 2 7No r t h La wnd al e. That’ s where w e had i t. Q. W ho l i ves ther e? A

. N obo dy. N obo dy that I know o f, but I used to l i ve ther e. Q. You used to l i ve ther e a nd knew thatther e was a g un ther e. A

. I al re ady kne w . That’ s where w e a l w ays ke ep them , usual l y k eep them at

. Q. W ho i s “ w e”? A

. The or gani zati on Iused to bel ong to. Q. W hat o rg ani zati on i s that? (De cem ber 20, 2010 T rialTran script at 423-24) Oz un a’s c o u n s e l o b j e c t e d , a n d th e o b j ec ti o n wa s s u s t a i n e d

. Ho wever, the d ist r ict cou rt all ow ed cou ns el to inq uire about othe r aspects of the or gani zati on, w hi ch led to the f ol l owing dial og. Q. Could yo u tel l us m or e about w hat that o rg ani zati on i s? A. I t’ s a g an gtha t I us ed to b e i n. Q. A nd were you i n that gang w i th the def endant? A

. Yes. Id. Counself orthe gov er nm ent then w en t o n to cr oss e x a mi n e S a n c h e z o n th e r u l e s a n d b e h a v i o r s o ft h e me mbe r s o fthe g an g, i nc l udi ngo aths o fl o y al ty, tak i ngtheN o. 11

- 2125 7 bl am e f orano therm em ber ’ s cri m e, et c. , witho ut further o bj ec ti o n. I n c l o si nga r g um en t, c o uns elf o r the g o ve r nm en t ag ai n r ai se d the s ubj ec t o fOz una ’ s gan ga f fi l i at i o n. “Se r g i o S a nc he z i s thi s ma n’ s l o y a l fr i e nd , h i s fe l l ow g an gmem be r, s o m eb o dy he w an ts to pr o te ct, s o m eo ne he to ok an oath t o prot ect at one poi nt. S anchez say s that he’ s o ut o fthe gang, but he sur e know s a l l the rul es, do es n’ t he ? H e k no ws what i s g o i ng o n in the ga ng these days. ” Id. at49 5. Pr i o r t o de l ib er at i o ns , the di st r i ctc o ur t g av e a ca uti o na r y i ns tr uct i o n a dm o ni sh i ngthe j ury tha t th e evi dence r ega rdi ng O zu na’ s m em ber shi p i n a s tr eet gang coul d not be co n si dered i n fi nd i ng tha t he w as m ore or l ess li kely to h ave com m itted the ch arged off ense. Ozu n a w as then f ound gui l ty ofunl aw ful posse ssi o n o fa fi r ea r m b y a fel o n. Ozu na fi l ed a Rul e 33 mot i o n for new tr i ala ss er ting t h a t cross-ex am ination regard ing Sanc he z an d Oz un a’s g an ga f fi l i at i o n s ho ul d no t ha ve been a l l o wed. The dist ri ct c ourtr ej ecte d the m oti on, fi nd i ng tha t S anchez’ te st i m o ny ha d o pen ed th e d o o r t o the a dm i ss i o n o fthe ga n g affiliat ion ev id en c e an d th at th e evid en c e sh ou ld no t ha ve b een res tr i ct ed ata l l

. Oz una r ec ei ve d a s en tence o f11 3 m onths.

I I . DI S C US S I ON O n appea l, Oz una c o nt en ds th atthe di st r i ctc o urt abused i ts disc re ti on byf ai lin g to excl ud e e vi dence r e-8 N o. 11

- 2125 gar ding hi s g ang a f fi l i ati on u n d er Fe deralRule o f Evi den ce 4 03 a nd tha t th e er r o r was no t ha r m l ess. The dist ri ct c ou rt ’ s deci si on t o adm i t e vi dence i s r evi ew ed f orabuse o fdi scr eti on, gi ven the judge’ s pos i ti on t o as se ss the i m pac t o fthe e vi den ce i n the c o nt ex t of the tr ial w i t n e ss es an d ev id en c e a s a w h ole

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. San t i ago , 64 3 F

. 3d 1 007, 10 11 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) , ci ti ng U nited St at e s v. Al vi ar, 573 F.3d 52 6, 53 6 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). Th is Court acco rds the underl ying deci si on greatdef er ence, and i t wil l be disturbed o n ly i fno re aso nabl e per son c ou ld ag re e w ith th e ru lin g. U nited St at e s v. Thom as , 32 1 F.3d 627, 630 (7th C ir. 2003). T he re i s no q ue stion th at evid en ce of a defen d an t’s g a n g a f fi l i a t i o n i s p o t e n t i a l l y p r ej u d i c i a l a n d i n fl a mm ato ry, as i t pos es the r i sk that the j ury w i l l as soc i ate gang m em ber shi p w i th a propensi ty f orco m m i tti ng cr i m es an d find t h e d efe n d an t g u ilty by as so c iat ion

. San t i ago , 64 3 F .3d at10 11 ; U nite d State s v. H arris , 5 8 7 F

. 3 d 8 61, 86 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09 ). Despi te thi s r i sk, however, ev i dence of ga n g a ffiliat ion is n ot au to m at ica lly in ad m iss ible

. Id. In fact, su ch evid e n c e h as been de em ed ad m issible w he re it is fo u n d to be m or e p ro b at ive th an p rej u d icia l. Id. , ci ti ng U nited Sta tes v. M o ntg o m ery, 390 F

. 3d 1013 , 10 18 ( 7th C ir. 20 04 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ki ng, 627 F.3d 641 , 6 4 9 (7th Cir. 20 10 ); C la rk v . O ’L e a ry, 8 5 2 F

. 2 d 9 9 9 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 8 8 )

. We ar e o fthe opi ni on that the e vid ence ofga ng affi l i ati on w as adm i ssibl e, fro m the beginning, to show bi as, i nter est, orm oti ve. A s a r esul t, we now exam i ne the i ssue on the way the ev i dence cam e i n ra therth an the f act that i t di d c o m e i n.N o. 11

- 2125 9 F o l l o wi ngthe g ui dan ce s et f o r thi n San t i ago , H arris , a nd M o ntg o m ery, the di st r i ctc o ur t co ns i der ed th e proff er ed gangaffi l i ati on evi dence in thi s ca se both pretr i al, atsi debar du ri ng the tr i al, and again o n post- tr i al m oti ons . I ti s i mpo r t a ntt o n o t e tha tthe e xc e r pt s fr om the t w o si de b ar s ci ted pre vi ousl y i n thi s o pini on r eve al th at bo th co uns el an d th e di st r i ct co ur t co ul d see the r el at i o ns hi ps be twe enOz una a nd S an ch ez co m i ngo ut in ope n cou rt as the trial p rogressed

. Th e d istri ct cou rt at te m pte d t o r edu ce a ny p rej ud i ci ali m pac t o fthe ev i den ce b y di r ec tingthat the pr o perna m e o fthe g an g no t be us ed, de ny i ngthe adm i ss ibi l i tyo fS an ch ez ’ g an g ta tt oo s, an d res er v in g t h e u ltim at e q u es tio n of ad m iss ibi l i ty unti l afterhear i ng S anchez’ te sti m ony on di re ct ex am in at ion . Th is is a co m m on a n d p r u d en t p ra c tic e in the t ri al co urts wh en co nsi deri ng the se types ofi ssues . The di st rict cour t fur th erdi r ec te d tha t th e g o ve r nm ent c oul d ask questions o n the subj ect onl y i fS anchez fi rs t r ai sed i t hi m self. Ju st as com m on i n the tr i alco urts i s that one si de, thi s ti m e the gov er nm ent, th en asked Sa n c h ez qu es tio n s d es ign ed so th at Sa n c h ez w ou ld “open the door ” a nd m enti on hi s gang m em ber shi p. Once op en, the dist ri ct c ourtal l owed the questi oni ng tha t bro ught ab out the t est i m ony ofthe shar ed gangaffi l i at i o n b e t we e n S a nc he z a nd Oz un a a nd the l oya l ty am ong m em bers. T he j ury w as instru cted t h a t Oz un a’s m em ber shi p i n a str eetga ng co uld notbe consi dered i n fi n d i n g t h a t h e wa s mo r e o r l e s s l i k e l y t o h a v e c o mm i tte d the char ged o f f ense. O zu n a re vis ite d th is iss u e i n h is m ot ion for n ew tria l. The d istr i ctc o ur t ag ai n f o und tha t S an ch ez ’ t es ti m o ny10 N o. 11

- 2125 had not o nl y o pened the doorto the evi dence but a l so tha t t he g o v e r nme nt s ho ul d no t ha v e b e e n r e qu i r ed to open the dooras a prer equi si te to adm i ssi on i n the fi rs t pla ce g i ven the r el evance o fthe evi den ce t o the past re l ati onshi p between the w i tness and Ozuna. W e a gr ee. To be r el evant, Rule 40 1 pro vi des thatev id en ce m ust have a t endency t o m ake the exi ste nce o fany f act of conse q uence t o the det er m i nati on o fthe acti on m or e o r l ess pro babl e than i t would be witho ut the evi dence. H er e, the evi dence w as off er ed to sho w S an c h ez’ bi as in fav or ofh i s f e l low ga n g m em b er . Pr oo f of bia s is al m ostal w ays r el evant, as “[ a] succe ssful showing of bi as on the par t o fa w i tness would have a tendency to m ak e t h e fa c ts to w h ich h e t es tifie d les s p ro b ab le in th e e ye s o f th e ju r y th an it w ou ld be w ith ou t s u c h te st imon y . ” U n i t ed S ta tes v. A bel , 469 U

. S. 45, 51-52 (1984). M o r e o v e r, “ c o mmo n me mb e r s h i p i n a n o r g a n i z a t i o n, even w ithou t proof tha t the w itness or p ar t y has perso n ally ad op te d its te n et s, is cer ta in ly p ro b at ive ofb i a s .” Id. Sanchez and Ozuna’ s m em ber shi p i n the Sp ani sh Cobras cle ar l y s up port ed the i nfe re nce that S anchez’ testim ony w as slante d or even m a n ufac tu red i n O zu na ’s fav or, part i cul ar l y a s S anchez, unl i ke Ozun a, had not p reviously been conv icted of a fel ony . I t w as th erefore re l evantand prob ati ve. U n d er R u le 4 03 , relev an t e vid en c e is ad m iss ib le unle ss i ts proba ti ve val ue is subst anti al l y o utw ei ghed by th e d a ng er of un fai r prej ud ice. Th e d istri ct cou rt saw t h e e vi dence unfo l d and w as i n the bestposi ti on t o ev alu at e t h e p r o b at ive va lu e o f th e g an g a ffiliat ion ev i-N o. 11

- 2125 11 dence w hi l e wei ghi ng tha t v al ue ag ai nst a ny pote nti al p r e j ud ice. I n an abu nd an ce of caut ion, th e d istri ct cou rt to o ks ubs ta nt ia l pr ec au ti o ns t o a vo i d the r i sko fundu e p rej ud ice that m a d e t he i ssu e ap p ear to be m ore c o mp l e x th a ni ta c t u a l l y w a s . T h e f a c t s o fth i s ca s e d e monst ra te a co m m on patter n that occur s i n tr i alco urts , w i th o ne si de cl ai m i ng tha t ce rt ain evi dence i s cr uci al t o i t s ab i l i t y t o p r e s e ntit s c a s e a nd the o t he r s i de i nsi sti ng tha t i t ca nnot r eceiv e a fa i r tr i ali fthe evi dence i s al l o wed. The di strictc o ur t ba l an ce d the c o m pet i ng co nc e r n s t o a l l o w th e g o v e r n me n tt o e x p l o r e a r e l a t i o ns h i p b e t we e n O z u n a a n d S a n c h e z wh i l e g o i n gt o c o nsid er ab le len gt h s t o p ro te c t O zu n a’s righ t t o a fair t ria l. W i th the benefi t of hi nd si ght, the Cour t fi nd s that these pr ec au ti o na r y m ea su r es wer e l ar g el y unn ec es sa r y , a s th e prej ud i ce to O zu na di d not s ubstanti al l y o utw ei gh the c onsi derabl e pr obat i ve val ue ofthe evi dence i n est abl i shi ng S anchez’ b i as orm oti vati on f orte sti fying tha t he ca r r i e d th e h a n d g u n o n th e n i g h ti n qu e s t i o n . We ho l d tha t th e admi ss i o n o fthe e vide nc e r eg ar di ngthe sh ar ed ga n g a ffiliat ion an d te n et s o f ga n g m em b er sh ip was no t anabus e o fdi sc r et i o n.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED
.

3- 19- 12