T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t er m s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D e c e m b e r7,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 5193 v . ( Ca s e No . 0 4 - CR - 1 8 2 - 0 0 2 - T CK ) J A M E S L E E W A T S O N , (N .D . O k la .)

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t.

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e K E L L Y , M c K A Y , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on t he br i efs w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( f) . T he ca s e i s t her efor e or der ed su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. A ppel l antJ ames Lee W at s on br i ngs t hi s di r ectcr i m i nal appea l fol l ow i ng h is c o n v ic tio n fo r m u ltip le c o u n ts o f a rm e d ro b b e ry a n d re la te d fir e a rm s c h a rg e s . A ppel l antchal l enges cert ai n di s t r i ctcour tevi dent i aryrul i ngs as w el l as t hat c o u rt’s d e n ial o f

h is m o tio n fo r a n e w trial.- 2-

Fi r s t , A ppel l antar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ti ncorr ect l ydeni ed hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s an i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement m ade t o pol i ce de t ect i ves . A ppel l ant as s er t s t hatt he admi ni s t r at i on of m orphi ne i n conj unct i on w i t h a medi cal pr ocedur e the daybefor e the i nt er vi ew pl ace d hi m i n a w eake ned condi t i on, and t hats ubj ect i ng hi m t o a pol i ce i nt er vi ew t her efor e vi ol at ed hi s Fi fth A m endment ri gh tagainstsel f-i ncri m i nati on and F ou rt eenth A m end m ent r i gh tt o d ue p rocess . I n r evi ew i ng t he gr antordeni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e ac ceptt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs unl es s cl ear l yerr oneous and cons i dert he evi dence in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e te rm in a tio n . Uni t ed Stat es v. Lopez , 437 F. 3d 1059, 1062 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . W e conduc tde novo r evi ew on t he ul t i m at e i s s ue of w hethera s t at ement w as vol unt ary , “t aki ng i nt o acc ountt he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he confes s i on. ” Id. ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he G overnm entbear s t he bur den of s how i ng, bya pr eponder ance of th e e v id e n c e , th a t a c o n fe s s io n is v o lu n ta ry. Missouri v. Seibert , 542 U . S. 600, 60 8 n . 1 (200 4). “W ai ver of o ne’s Fi ft h A m end m ent pr i vil ege ag ai nst s el f- i ncr i m i nat i on r equi r es t hatt he i ndi vi dual ‘ vol unt ar i l y , know i ngl yand i nt el l i gent l y ’ w ai ve hi s cons t i tut i onal pr i vi l ege. ” Un itedS ta tes v . Mo rr is , 287 F. 3d 985, 988 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng Mi r anda v. A r iz ona , 384 U . S. 436, 444 (1 9 6 6 )) . T he di s t r i ctcour tconduct ed a s uppr es s i on hear i ng, atw hi ch the i nt er vi ew i ng det ect i ve and A ppel l antt es t i fi ed, and r evi ew ed a vi deot ape of t he- 3-

i nt er vi ew . T he di s t r i ctcour tfound thatA ppel l antknow i ngl ys i gned a Mi r anda w ai veraft err eadi ng por t i ons of the w ai veroutl oud, t hatA ppel l antw as al er tand under s t ood t he natur e of the i nt er vi ew , and thatA ppel l antended the i nt er vi ew by r efus i ng t o t al k fur t herand byr eques t i ng a l aw y er . T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded t hat these facts show ed thatA pp el l ant w ai ved his Mi r anda rig h ts w ith “ ‘f u ll aw ar enes s bot h of the natur e of the [r i ght s ] bei ng abandone d and the cons equenc es of t he dec i s i on t o abandon [ t hem]. ’ ” O r der , C as e N o. 04- C R - 182- K , at4 ( N . D . O kl a. Feb. 23, 2005) ( quot i ng Mo rr is , 287 F. 3d at989) . B as ed on th e to ta lity o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , w e a g re e . S e e Mo rr is , 287 F. 3d at989 ( fi ndi ng no m ent al i m pai r m entw her e phy s i ci an s ai d m edi cat i on w oul d have no e ffe cton fa c u lti e s a n d d e fe n d a n t’s a c tio n s d e m o n stra ted c o m p re h e n sio n o f h is rig h ts); s ee a lso Un itedS ta tes v . C u rtis , 344 F. 3d 1057, 1066 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( concl udi ng t hatdefe ndantw as l uci d and aw ar e of hi s r i ght s aft erdi s t r i ctcour tr evi ew ed v ideo tape o f in terview an d h ea rd testi m o n yfro m interview ing o fficer). S e c o n d , A p p e llan t co n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt p e rm itt e d th e ju ryto vi ew t he s ur vei l l ance vi deo of one t he arm ed r obber i es i n cl earcontr avent i on of Fed. R . E vi d. 403. “W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs forabus e of di s cr et i on. ” C u rtis , 344 F. 3d at1067. “A s has been s t at ed manyt i m es , R ul e 403 does notpr ot ecta part yfr om al l pr ej udi ce, onl yunfai rpr ej udi ce. ” D et ers v. E qui f ax C r edi tInf

o. Ser vs . , Inc. , 202 F. 3d 1262, 1274 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) . T he di s t r i ctcour tdet er m i ned thatt he vi deot apes w er e di r ect l yr el evantt o t he cr i m es- 4-

al l eged, w er e notunfai r l ypr ej udi ci al , and corr obor at ed w i t nes s t es t i m ony . W e do notbel i eve the di s t r i ctcour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdet er m i ned thatt he v id e o ’s p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o u tw e ig h e d a n yp o ten tial p reju d icia l im p a c t. T hi r d, A ppel l antchal l enges t he admi s s i on of and pl ay i ng of audi ot aped t el ephone c onver s at i ons i n w hi ch A ppel l antat t empt ed t o fabr i cat e a fal s e al i bi w i t h t he coe r ced c ooper at i on of thi r d par t i es . A ppel l antar gues t hat( 1) t he governm ent ’ s not i ce r eques t i ng admi s s i on of thi s evi dence w as fi l ed af t ert he m ot i on deadl i ne, ( 2) Fed. R . C r i m . P. 12. 1( f) pr ohi bi t s admi s s i on fol l ow i ng A p p e llan t’s w ith d ra w a l o f h is a lib i d e fe n se , (3 ) th e e v id e n c e w a s n o t re lev a n t, a n d (4 ) th e e v id e n c e w a s u n d u lyp reju d icia l. A dm i s s i on of evi dence underFed. R . E vi d. 404( b) i s r evi ew ed forabus e of d is c re tio n . Uni t ed Stat es v. Mar es , 441 F. 3d 1152, 1156 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . W e do n o t re v e rse a d istric t co u rt’s r u lin g “ if ‘it fa ll[s ] w ith in th e b o u n d s o f p e rm iss ib le choi ce i n t he ci r cumst ance s ’ and i s not‘ arbi t r ary , capr i ci ous orw hi m s i cal . ’ ” Id. ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Shum w ay , 112 F. 3d 1413, 1419 (10t h C i r. 19 97 )) . R ule 404(b) gov erns the ad m i ssi on of “o ther cr i m es, w rongs, oract s , ” and a rul i ng on R ul e 404( b) admi s s i bi l i t yr equi r es t hatw e exa m i ne the fol l ow i ng fourfac t or s : “( 1) w hethert he evi dence i s offe r ed fora pr operpurpos e, (2 ) its re lev a n c y , (3 ) th a t th e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f th e e v id e n c e is n o t su b sta n tially out w ei ghed byi t s pr ej udi ci al effect , and ( 4) a l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on i s gi ven i f the defe ndants o r eques t s . ” Id. ( ci t i ng Huddl es t on v. Uni t ed Stat es , 485 U . S. 681,- 5-

6 9 1 (19 8 8 )). T he d i stri ctcou rtfou nd t hat the g ov ernm ent, aft er l earni ng abo ut these conver s at i ons , pr om pt l yfi l ed i t s m ot i on t o admi tt he evi dence . A l s o, t he di s t r i ct cour tdet er m i ned thatR ul e 12. 1( f) di d notbaradmi s s i on of thi s evi dence t o pr ove con sci ou sness of gu i l t . T he au diot apes w ere offered fo r the p erm i ssi ble purpose o f e sta b lish in g c o n sc io u sn e ss o f g u ilta n d w e re n o t o v e rlyp reju d icia l co m p a re d to t he r el evantpr obat i ve purpos e. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d, how ever , r equi r e r edac t i on of A ppel l ant ’ s t hr eat s t o ki l l t he w i t nes s es and/ ort hei rfami l ym ember s i f they fa iled to c o o p e ra te. In a d d iti o n , the d istric t co u rt in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t itc o u ld notcons i dert hi s evi dence as pr oof of the ac t s char ged butr atheronl yas pr oof of A ppel l ant ’ s s t at e of mi nd. W e fi nd t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng ent i r el yappr opr i at e. F in a lly , A p p e llan t ar g u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rro n e o u slyd e n ied h is m o t i o n fo ra n e w t r i a l b a s e d o n n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e . S p e c i fi c a l l y, A ppel l antcont ends hi s r i ght s w er e pr ej udi ced bya vi ol at i on of the rul e of se q u e stra tio n . F e d . R . C rim . P . 3 3 a u th o riz e s d istric t co u rts to g ra n t n e w trials “ if r equi r ed i n t he i nt er es tof j us t i ce. ” H ow ever , “mot i on[s ] fora new t r i al bas ed on n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e [ a re ] g e n e ra llyd isfa v o re d a n d ‘sh o u ld b e g ra n ted o n ly w i t h gr eatcaut i on. ’ ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G w athney , N o . 0 5 - 2 1 6 5 , 2 0 0 6 WL 2734108, at*7 ( 10t h C i r . Sept . 26, 2006) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. C om bs , 267 F. 3d 1167, 1176 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ) . A di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of a mot i on fora new tr ia l is re v ie w e d u n d e r t h e a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . Id.- 6-

A ft erhear i ng t es t i m onyon t he natur e of the s eques t r at i on vi ol at i on, t he d istric t co u rt d e ter m in e d n o t o n lyth a t “[ a ]n yh yp e rte c h n ica l v io latio n o f th e R u le o f S e q u e stra tio n w a s n o t p reju d ica l,” b u t als o th a t “[ i]t w a s a w a ste o f th is C our t ’ s t i m e t o hear ” the mot i on s i nce the evi dence w as i n no w aym at er i al t o t he pr i nci pal i s s ues i nvol ved and no ha r m ful pr ej udi ce c oul d have r es ul t ed fr om t he vi ol at i on. ( H r ’ g T r . at52- 53, A ug. 31, 2005. ) A ft err evi ew i ng t he natur e of the vi ol at i on, w e agr ee thatt he vi ol at i on w as , atbes t , “mi nor , ” “hyper t echni cal , ” and “harm l es s . ” (Id. ) AFF I RM ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge