FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 18, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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. 05- 17167 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C
. Do c k e tNo . 0 5
- 2 0 3 1 8
- C R
- J AL 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 N A T H A N I E L S I M P K I N S , 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 orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 18, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: N athani el S i m pk i ns appeal s hi s c on vi ct i on s, i m po sed p u rs uantt o a j ury
v e r d i c t , f

o rc o n s p i r a c y t o c om mi ta r me d b a n k r o b b e r y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 2113( a ) ; a r m e d ba nk r obbe r y , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U
. S
. C
. § 211 3 (a), ( d) ; a nd us e of2

a f i r e a r m i n f

u r th e r a n c e o f

a c r i me o f

v i o l e n c e , i n vi o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i )
. O n appe a l , S i m pki ns a r gue s tha tthe d i st ri ct c our te r r e d by (1) a dm i tt i ng t es t i m o n y, as i next ri cabl y i nt er tw i ned w i th t he i nst antchar ges, that S i m pk i ns h ad previ ou sl y par t i ci pat ed i n a bank robb ery other than t he on e c harged i n the i ndi c tm e nt ; ( 2) de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f orj udgm e ntof

a c qu i t t al , i n w hi c h he
a r gue d the e vi de nc e , i nc l udi ng the t e s t i m ony of tw o c o- c on sp i rat or s w hom S i m p k i n s s a y s w e r e n o t c r e d ib le , w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to c o n v ic t h im ; ( 3 ) d e n y in g h is req u estt o cal l cert ai n w i tn esse s i n o rd er t o i m p each h i s co -d efen d an t ’ s t est i m o n y; and (4) ov errul i ng hi s obj ec t i on s t o t he go vernm ent ’ s c l o sin g ar g u m ent s. A ft er c a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I. W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ngs on the a dm i s s i bi l i t y o f ev i de nc e f or ab u se of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. Ji m i nez, 22 4 F
. 3d 12 43 , 12 49 (11t h C i r. 2000)
. “ A n e vi de nt i a r y rul i ng w i l l s t an d u n l e s s the c om pl a i ni ng pa r ty ha s s how n a s u b s t a n t i a l p r e

j u d i c i a l e f

f e c t . ” U n i t e d St a t e s v . Br e i tw e i s e r , 3 5 7 F. 3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 54 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m it t e d )
. “A n e r r o ro n a n e v id e n tia r y ru lin g w ill
re sul ti n revers al on l y i f aparty e st abl i shes a s ub st an ti al p rej ud i ci al ef fe ctor a
m ani fe sti nj ust i ce . ” U
. S
. S t ee l , L L C v. T i ec o, Inc. , 26 1 F
. 3d 12 75 , 12 86 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ).3

A s f o r S i m p k in s ’s c h a lle n g e to th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e , o u rr e v ie w is de novo. U ni t e d S t at es v . D o d d s , 347 F
. 3d 893, 900 ( 11th C i r . 2003)
. I n r e vi e w i ng th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e , w e r e s o lv e a ll r e a s o n a b le in f e r e n c e s a n d c r e d ib ility eval uat i on s i n favor of the j ury’ s ver di ctand w i l l up ho l d t he ju ry’ s ver di cti f a
re as o n ab le fa ctfin d erco u ld co n clu d e th at th e e v id en ce es tab li sh es th e d ef en d an t’ s g u il t b eyo n d a reaso n ab l e d o u b t . U n i t ed S t at es v . S t ark e, 6 2 F . 3 d 1 3 7 4 , 1 3 8 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 95 ). F i nal l y, w e r evi ew cl ai m s of prose cu to rial m i sc on du ctde no vo . U ni t ed S t a t e s v. E c kh ard t , 466 F
. 3d 938, 947 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 127 S
. C t . 1305 ( 2 0 0 6 )
. II . T he r e l e van t fact s a r e s tr a i ght f or w a r d. O n A pr i l 15, 2005, S i m pki ns a nd
co -d efen d an t s C u rt i s B ro w n , T i n n el l P ren t i ce Irv i n g , an d A n th o n y D o n n el l R o se
w e r e i ndi c t e d fo r co n spi r a c y t o c om m i ta r m e d ba nk r obbe r y ( C ount1) , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U
. S
. C
. § 2113( a ) , a nd a r m e d ba nk r obbe r y (C o u n t 2 ) , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S
. C
. § 2113( a ) , ( d)
. S i m pki ns , B r ow n a nd I r vi ng w e r e a l s o c ha r ge d w i th us e of
a f i r e a r m i n f

u r th e r a n c e o f

a c r i me ( Co u n t3 ) , i n v i o l a t i on o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) . B r o w n a n d R o s e e n te r e d g u ilty p le a s , a n d B r o w n s u b s e q u e n tlyCo-defendant Irvingwas a rre sted and pled guilty

after Simpkins was convicted. 1 4 testif i ed for the go vernm ent , as di d co-conspi ra t or Je ff re y J enki ns, atS i m pk i ns ’s ju r y tr ia l. 1 P ri or t o t ri al , the go vernm entno t i ce d S i m pk i ns that it i nt ended t o i nt rodu ce , pur s ua ntt o R u l e 4 04( b) of the F e de r a l R ul e s of

E vi de nc e , e vi de nc e tha tpr i ort o the ch ar g ed bank robb ery, w hi ch occurre d o n M ar ch 23 , 20 04 , S i m pk i ns had p a r tic ip a te d in a n o th e rb a n k r o b b e r y o n M a r c h 3 , 2 0 0 4 . S im p k in s f ile d a m o tio n to
e xc l ude the e vi de nc e , a r gui ng tha tthe gove r nm e ntf a i l e d t o i d en t i f

y i t s r e a s ons f

or i nt rodu ci ng the evi dence or the re lev an cy o f t he evi dence of the pri or robb ery. In
r e s pons e , the gove r nm e nta s s e r t e d tha tthe i ns t a nta r m e d r obbe r y oc c ur r e d on M ar ch 23 , 20 04 , and t hatS i m pk i ns’ s i nv ol vem entas the g un m an i n ano ther a rm ed robb ery on M ar ch 4 , 2 00 4, l es s than t hree w ee ks before the i nst anton e, w as prob at i ve of i dent i ty, kn o w led ge and absence of mis t ake. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed
w i thoutpr e

j udi ce S i m p k i ns ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s , f i ndi ng tha tthe r e l e va nc y of the p r o p o s e d 4 0 4 ( b ) e v id e n c e w o u ld d e p e n d o n th e th e o r y o f d e f e n s e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l. A ttr i a l , S i m pki ns r e ne w ed h i s obj e c t i on t o the i ntr oduc t i on of t e s t i m ony
r e g a r d in g th e p r io rb a n k r o b b e r y . T h e g o v e r n m e n t r e s p o n d e d th a t it in te n d e d to i ntr oduc e c o- de f

e nda ntB r ow n’ s t e s t i m ony tha tS i m p k i n s w a s the dr i ve ri n the
c ha r ge d r obbe ry be c a us e he ha d be e n a gunm a n i n the pr i orr obbe r y butdi d not5

f e e l tha the ha d be e n pa i d e nough t o j us t i f y t h e d a nge ra s s oc i a t e d w i th be i ng a gu nm an i n t he ch ar ged rob bery
. T he go vernm entar gu ed thatthe evi dence expl ai ned t he re l at i on shi ps of the part i es and, there fore , w as n o t e x tri nsi c e vi dence subj ec texcl usi on un der R ul e 404 (b ). T h e d is tri ctcourtfoun d t hatthe evi dence
w a s i n ex t ri c a bl y i nt e r tw i ne d w i th the c ha r ge d of f e ns e a nd ove r rul e d the obj e c t i on. I n the a l t e r na t i ve , the di s tr i c tc our ta l s o f ound tha tthe p ro b at i ve va l ue of the
e v id e n c e o u tw e ig h e d a n y p r e ju d ic ia l v a lu e . A s pa r t of i t s c a s e - i n- c hi e f , the gove r nm e nt pr e s e nt e d the f ol l ow i ng t e s t i m ony . R o l ando R i e r a , J r . ha d pr e vi ous l y be e n e m pl oy e d a s a t e l l e ra tU ni on P l ant er s B ank, w hi ch l at erbeca m e aR egi on ’s B an k (the “ B ank”). R i er a t es t i fi ed tha ton M a r c h 23, 2004, w hi l e he w a s w ork i n g a tthe dr i ve - thr ough w i ndow of the B a nk, he obs e r ve d f

ourbl a c k m a l e s i n a m i nt - c ol or e d S a tur n pa s s thr oug h one of the l anes . R i er a des cr i bed t he dri ver - - l at eri dent i fi ed as S i m pk i ns -- as a hea vyse t bl ac k m al e w i th d re ad lo cks. B ef ore s ee i ng the ca r, R i er a had heard cust om er s ta lk in g a b o u t a s u s p ic io u s v e h ic le w ith f o u rb l a c k m a l e s in th e p a r k in g lo t. An o th e re m p l o y e e h a d s t a r t e d t o s e n d a n e - m a i l t o th e B a n k ’ s s e c u r i ty wh e n two
m en -- l at eri dent i fi ed as co-defe nd antIrvi ng and co- co nspi ra t or Je ff re y J enki ns -- c a m e in to th e B a n k a n d b e g a n y e llin g th a t th e r e w a s a r o b b e r y .6

R i er a t es t i fi ed thatJe nk i ns approached him, puta gun t o h i s hea d, and b egan tak in g m o n ey fr om the t el l erdraw er . Je nk i ns then t ol d R i er a t o h el p p utthe m on ey i n a ba g. R i e r a a l so puta dy e pa c k -
- a pa c k of tw e nty - dol l a rbi l l s f

i l l e d w i th pa i nt th a t e x p lo d e s u p o n r e m o v a l f r o m th e b a n k - - in th e b a g . J e n k in s d i r e c t e d R ie r a to
em pt y tw o o ther t el l erdraw er s i nt o t he bag. T here af t er , Je nk i ns t ol d R i er a t o g et
on t he gr ou nd , a tw hi c h t i me Ri e r a w a s a bl e t o p r e s s the s i l e nta l a r m. The robb er s t o o k a t o t al o f $ 3 0 , 2 4 5 fro m th e t el l er d raw ers. Je nk i ns, w ho had b ee n con vi ct ed of three bank robb er i es and w as then
r e s i di ng i n a “ hol dove r ” f a c i l i ty f orf e de r a l i nm a t e s , t e s t i f

i e d tha tS i m pki ns dr ove th e car t o th e B an k o n th e d ay o f th e ro b b ery an d , at th at t i m e, w o re h i s h air in dr e a dl oc ks
. J e nki ns s a i d tha tbe f or e goi ng t o the B a nk, he ga ve a gun t o c ode f e nda ntI r vi ng, a nd that S i m p k i n s w a s i n the c a ra ttha tt i m e . U pon e nt e r i ng the B a n k , J e n k in s in i tia lly w e n t to th e d r iv e - th r o u g h te lle rb e c a u s e S im p k in s h a d to ld hi m tha tthe dr i ve - thr ough t e l l e rha d s e e n the m a nd J e nki ns w a s w or r i e d th atthe t el l er m i g h ta l r e a dy be c a l l i ng the pol i c e . A s the y w e r e l e a vi ng the B a nk, the dye pa c k e xpl ode d a nd b eg an b ur ni ng the m . J e nki ns a nd I r vi ng goti n the c a r , a nd Je nk i ns t ol d S i m pk i ns t o rol l do w n t he w i nd ow s, bu tt o k ee p d rivi ng . T he m en th e n w e n t to B r o w n ’s m o th e r ’s h o u s e , w h e r e th e y u n s u c c e s s f u lly a tte m p te d to7

c l e a n the dy e of

f of the m one y i n the w a s hi ng m a c hi ne . J e nki ns pa i d S i m pki ns a r o u n d $ 5 0 0 0 f

o rh is p a r tic ip a tio n in th e r o b b e r y . Judy R usse l l , B row n’ s m ot her, t es t i fi ed that , o n M ar ch 23 , 20 04 , she s aw S i m pk i ns athe r h o u se al on g w i th B row n, Je nk i ns, and R ose. O ne of them w as ca rryi ng a bag and t here w as so m ethi ng re d run ni ng fr om the w as hi ng m ac hi ne. W he n s he r e tur ne d hom e f r om c hur c h l a t e rtha tda y , s he s a w a ba g w i th s om e thi ng
r e d in it in t h e g a rb a g e c a n . W h e n s h e a s k e d w h a t it w a s , S im p k in s s a id it w a s h is b a g a n d to o k it f

r o m th e g a rb a g e c a n . B r ow n, w ho ha d be e n c on v i ct ed o f ba nk r obbe r y a nd us e of a f i r e a r m dur i ng a c ri m e of vi ol ence , i n con nect io n w ith t he M ar ch 23 , 20 04 robb ery, t es t i fi ed that i n p u tt i n g t o g e th e r a g r o u p t o r o b th e B a n k , h e c a l l e d S i m p k i n s f i r s t . Br o wn
w a nt e d S i m pki ns t o be one of the gunm e n, buthe r e f us e d, s t a t i ng tha ta f

t e ra pr i or
r o b b ery, fo r w h i c h he w a s a gunm a n, he ha d r e c e i ve d onl y $500 a nd f e l tl i ke he had b ee n ch ea t ed. F or the i nst antrobb ery, S i m pk i ns agre ed t o b e the dri ver in s te a d . B r o w n te s tif

ie d th a t w h ile th e B a n k w a s b e in g r o b b e d , h e , h i s c o u s in J im m y , a n d R o s e w a t c h e d f r o m a s e c o n d v e h ic le , w h ic h s e r v e d a s th e “lo o k
- o u t”
c a ra nd w a s pa r ke d a c r os s the s tr e e tf r om the B an k
. A ft e rthe r obbe r y , the
c ons pi r a t or s w e ntt o B r ow n ’ s m othe r ’ s hous e a nd uns uc c e s s f ul l y tr i e d t o w a s h the d y e o f f o f th e m o n e y .8

O n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n , B r o w n te s tif ie d th a t p u r s u a n t t o th e p le a a g r e e m e n t, he w as pl ea di ng gu i l ty t o t w o cou nt s o f th e in di ctm entand t he go vernm enthad
a gr e e d t o d i sm i s s the othe rc ount . B r ow n s t a t e d tha tw he n he f i r s ts poke t o the po l i ce , he di d n ott el l them he w as i nv o lv ed in the r ob bery , bu the m ai nt ai ned t hat he had n otl i ed t o t he po l i ce . W hen asked o n cr oss- exam i nat i on , B row n cl ai m ed thathe di d n otre m em ber t el l i ng l aw enforce m entthathe and h i s co u si n w er e acro ss th e streetb u tu n aw are th ata ro b b ery w as o ccu rri n g . In resp o n se, d efen se c ouns e l pr e s e nt e d B r ow n w i t h a r e por tf r om hi s i nt e r vi e w w i th F e de r a l B ur e a u of In v est i g at i o n a g en t s, b u tB ro w n cl ai m ed th atth e rep o rtco n si st ed o f th e ag en t s’ i m p ressi o n s o f w h ath e sai d , rath er th an th e st at em en t s th em sel v es. A t th e c lo s e o f

th e g o v e r n m e n t ’s c a s e , S im p k in s s ta te d th a t, in o r d e rto i m peac h B ro w n ’s t es t i m on y, he i nt ended t o cal l on e of the agent s w ho had i n te r v ie w e d B ro w n an d w h o h e ex p ect ed w o u l d t est i fy th atB ro w n h ad m ad e fal se s t a t e m e nt s . T he gov ern m en tr e s ponde d tha tthe r e por t , r e f e r e nc e d by S i m pki ns dur i ng B r ow n’ s c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, s a i d tha tB r ow n ha d a dm i t t ed t o i nvol ve m e nt
w ith th e b a n k r o b b e r y . A c c o r d in g to th e g o v e r n m e n t, th e a g e n t’s te s tim o n y w o u ld b e im p ro p erim p ea ch m en t b ec au se S im p k in s h ad fa il ed to s h o w th at B ro w n ’s
s ta te m e n ts w e r e in c o n s is te n t.9

T he gove r nm e ntr e que s t e d c l a r i f i c a t i on a s t o w hi c h st a t e m e nt s S i m pki ns i nt ended t o i mpe a c h. Si mpki ns r e pl i e d tha tRos e , w ho w a s w i th Br ow n i n the ca r a c r os s the s tr e e tdur i ng the r obbe r y , ha d t ol d pol i c e i n a r eco r de d i nt e r vi e w tha the
a nd B r ow n ha d notbe e n i nvol ve d w i t h t h e ro bbe r y . D e f e ns e c ouns e l the n r e a d the f ol l ow i ng por t i ons of

the r e por ti nt o the r e c or d: R os e c a m e by B r ow n’ s hous e i n a n ol d tw o- t one d D odge truc k, pos s i bl y a P r os pe c t , dr i ve n by s om e one unknow n t o B r ow n. B r ow n r ode i n the back o f t h e t ruc k a nd R os e w a s s e a t e d i n the f r ont p a s s e n g e r seat . T h e th ree i n d i v i d u al s w ere fo l l o w i n g Jeff Jen k i n s, w ho i s apass enger, in Ju dy R usse l l ’ s c ardri ven b y N athani el S i m p k i n s. B ro w n ad vi se d t hatJe nk i ns had l i ved i n H i al ea h aton e t i m e a nd w as f a m ilia rw ith th e a r e a . B r o w n r e c a lle d s e e in g a p a w n s h o p a n d a L a tin A m e r i c a n C a f

e t e r i a i n the s a m e a r e a a s the U ni on P l a nt e r s B a nk. B ro w n recal l e d s e e i ng the S a tur n e xi t i ng the ba nk pa r ki ng l otw i th a r e d c l oud bi l l ow i ng outof the S a tur n. Jenk i ns ca l l ed B row n o n t he ce l l ph on e a nd t ol d B row n t hatthey n e e d e d a w a s h in g m a c h in e . B ro w n as k ed Je nk i ns w hy, atw hi ch po i ntJe nk i ns sugg es t ed thatthey go t o B row n’ s m ot her’ s hou se . S i m pki ns a r gu ed t h atthe r e por t , w he n r e a d i n c onj unc t i on w i th R os e ’ s s t a t e m e nt thathe and B row n w er e noti nv olv ed in the robb ery, i nd i ca t ed thatB row n h ad i ni t i a l l y de ni e d i nvol ve m e ntw i th the ba nk r obbe r y . S i m pki ns a r gue d tha ts u ch a
r e a d in g c o n f

lic te d w ith B r o w n ’s te s t i m o n y th a t h e h a d n o t lie d to la w e n f o r c e m e n t.10

T he di stri ctcourt f

o u n d th atthe re po rtdi d n otcont ai n any i nd i ca t i on that B ro w n h ad d en i ed i n v o l v em en tw i th th e ro b b ery: I d o n ’t s e e a n y w h e r e in th e s ta te m e n t w h e r e B r o w n in itia lly s ta te d to the offi ce rs thathe w as no ti nv ol ved i n t he robb ery a nd he w as se at ed a t a m a ll. I n t he s e c o n d p a r a g r ap h , h e s a y s , “ J e f f J e n k i n s w o k e Br o w n up b y b a n g in g o n h is f

r o n t d o o rin h is b e d r o o m w in d o w . J e n k in s to ld B row n t hathe w ant ed t o, qu ot e ‘ do di rty’ w hi ch B ro w n t oo k t o m ea n thatJe nk i ns w ant ed t o d o a robb ery an d thatB row n h ad t o g et s om e body t o dr i ve ” w hi ch i s w ha tB r ow n t e s t i f i e d t o. T ha t ’ s w ha the t ol d the de t e c t i ve s , tha tthe y ha d a gr e e d t o r ob a ba nk. T h e o n ly a r e a th a t h e s e e m s to h a v e c o n tr a d ic te d w h a t w a s in th e st at e m e nti s tha t“ B r ow n r e c a l l e d s e e i ng the S a tur n e xi t i ng the ba nk pa r ki ng l otw i th a r e d c l oud bi l l o w i n g outof the S a tur n, ” a nd he t e s t i f i e d tha the a c tua l l y s a w t h e red cl oud i n the s ky a nd notc om i ng o u t o f th e c a r . I s th a t th e a r e a y o u w a n te d to a s k h im a b o u t? D e f e n s e c o u n s e l r e s p o n d e d “n o ” a n d s a id h e w a s “r e a d in g th e r e p o r t d i f f e r e n tly than t he C ou rti s a nd the go vernm enti s. ” T he di stri ctcourtthen fou nd thatthere
w a s no ba s i s f

orthe de f

e ns e t o c a l l the F B I ag en t fo r i m pe a c hm e ntpurpos e s . T he go vernm entthen res t ed i t s c as e. S i m pki ns m oved f

ora j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l , a r gui ng tha tthe gove r nm e nt had fai l ed t o p rove al l of the el em ent s of the charges agai nsthi m . A fter th e d i stri ct
c our tde ni e d the m ot i on, S i m pki ns r e s t ed and c l os i ng a r gum e nt s w e r e pr e s e nt e d. D u r in g c lo s in g a r g u m e n ts , th e g o v e r n m e n t s ta te d th a t th e e x p e r ie n c e o f c o m in g to
c o u r t h a d b e e n h u m ilia tin g f o r B r o w n ’s m o th e r , R u s s e ll, b e c a u s e s h e h a d to a d m it11

tha ts he ha d be e n t a ki ng m one y f r om h er so n e ve n though s he kne w he ha d not
e a r n e d it h o n e s tly . T h e p r o s e c u to rth e n a r g u e d : “N o w , if a n y o n e h e r e w a n ts to i nsi nu at e thatshe’ s lyin g regardi ng N at e S i m pk i ns for w hat everre as on , t o m e, that i s r ea l l y c om po un di ng the hu m i l i at io n th atthatl ady w entthrou gh i n com i ng here and shari ng these thi ng s w i th u s. ” D ef ense coun se l obj ec ted to th is as an i m prop er a tta c k o n h im in h is r o le a s a n a d v o c a te . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t o v e r ru le d th e o b je c tio n . D ef ense coun se l , du ri ng hi s c l osi ng arg u m en t , hi gh l i gh t ed Je nk i ns’ s pl ea agre em entw i th t he go vernm entand st at ed: “ A nd he go tup i n front of a f eder al j ud ge, and so d i d t he A ss i st antU ni t ed S t at es A tt orney; and t hey l i ed. A nd they l i e d. ” C ouns e l the n l i s t e d th e num be r s of B r ow n’ s a nd J e nki ns ’ s f e l ony conv i ct i on s a nd the t erm s of thei r pl eaagre em ent s. C ou nsel al so sugg est ed that R u s s e ll’s te s tim o n y w a s a n a c t. D ur i ng r e butt a l a r gum e nt , the pr os e c ut or s a i d: “ T hi nk f or a m o m en tabout th e r e a s o n s th e s e w itn e s s e s h a d to lie , b e c a u s e th a t w a s th e th e m e o f th e d e f e n s e : a re as on t o l i e. E very o n e h ad a r ea son t o l i e i n t hi s c as e, ac cordi ng t o t he defense , i nc l udi ng the pr osecu t i o n a nd the c our t . ” D e f e ns e c ouns e l obj e c t e d tha the ha d not ta lk e d a b o u t ly in g b y th e c o u r t. T h e g o v e r n m e n t r e s p o n d e d th a t it w a s r e f e r r in g to the s e nt e nc i ng c our ta nd the di s tr i c tc our tove r rul e d the obj e c t i on. T he gove r nm e nt
w e n t o n to s a y th a t in o r d e rto a c c e p t S im p k in s ’s th e o r y , t h e j u r y w o u ld h a v e toBe causewe f ind no abuse of disc retion in the district court’ s “inextricably intertwined” 2 ruling , we do not re ach its alter native ground for admitting the evidence-- that it was releva nt 404(b) evidenc e. 12 be l i e ve tha tthe gove r nm e ntw oul d m ove the c our tt o s e nt e nc e B ro w n a nd J e nki ns
w i t hou tr e g a r d t o th e i ra c t i o n s , a n d th a tth e c o u r tw o u l d a c c e p ts u c h a mo t i on. T he go vernm entl at erst at ed thatJe nk i ns had id en t i fi ed S i m pk i ns and “ every othe rpl a y e ri n e ve r y othe rba nk ro b b ery . ” S i m pki ns obj e c t e d tha tthe r e ha d not b e e n e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t th e g o v e r n m e n t’s s t a t e m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a g a in
o v e r ru le d th e o b

je c tio n . A s pa r t of he r c ha r ge t o the j ury , the di s tr i c t j ud ge c ou r t i ns truc t e d the j ury thatthey m uston l y c on si der the evi dence pres ent ed and t hat“ anythi ng the l aw ye rs s a y i s note vi de nc e i n thi s c a s e . ” T he c our ta l s o ca ut i one d the j ur y tha tS i m pki ns
w a s o n ly b e in g tr ie d f

o rth e o f f e n s e s th a t w e r e c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. T he j ury f

ou nd S i m pk i ns gu i l ty on al l three coun t s. T he di stri ctcourtl at er s e nt e nc e d hi m t o a 114- m onth t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. II I. F irst, S im p k in s a rg u es th e d istric t c o u rt er re d b y a d m itti n g B ro w n ’s t es t i m on y abo utthe pri or robb ery, w hi ch occurr ed o n M arch 3rd and for w hi ch S i m pk in s a ct ed as on e of the gu nm en. T he di stri ctcourtfoun d t he evi dence adm i ss i bl e a s i tw as “ i next ri cabl y i nt er tw i ned” w i th t he i nst antchar ge. 213

R ul e 402 of the F eder al R ul es of E v i dence provi des: “ A l l re l evantevi dence i s a d m is s ib le , e x c e p t a s o th e r w is e p r o v id e d b y la w .” F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 2 . I n tr in s ic evi den ce of anot her c ri m e i s a dm i ss i bl e i f i ti s “ (1) a n u ncharged offense w hi ch
ar ose outof the sa m e tra nsac t i on or series o f tran sa ct i on s a s the charged offe nse, (2) nece ss ary t o com pl et e the st o ry of the cr i m e, or (3) i next ri cabl y i nt er tw i ned
w i th the e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng the c ha r ge d of fe ns e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M c L e a n, 138 F . 3d 1398, 1403 ( 11th C i r . 1998). E ve n r e l e va nti ntr i ns i c e vi de nc e m a y be
e x c lu d e d , h o w e v e r , if

, a m o n g o t h e rth in g s , its p r o b a tiv e v a lu e is s u b s ta n tia lly outw e i ghe d by the da nge rof unf a i rpr e j udi c e . F e d. R . E v i d
. 403. I n de t e r m i ni ng
w he the rt o e xc l ude e vi de nc e unde rR ul e 403, the di s tr i c t co u rt m us t“ w e i gh the pr oba t i ve va l ue of

the e vi de nc e a ga i ns tthe da nge rof unf a i rpr e j udi c e , c onf

us i on,
m i s l e a di ng the j ur y , oru n d u e d el ay orw a s t e of t i m e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i f or d, 764 F
. 2d 1493, 1497 ( 11 t h C i r . 1985)
. T he ba l a nc e s houl d be s truc k i n f a vorof adm i ss i bi l i ty. U ni t ed S t at es v. F al len , 2 5 6 F . 3d 10 82 , 10 91 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ). M or e ove r , a di s tr i c tc our tm a y l i m i tthe pr e j udi c i a l va l ue o f e vi de nc e by gi vi ng a l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on t o the j ur y . U ni t e d S t a t e s v . H e r na nde z , 896 F
. 2d 513, 523 (11t h C i r. 19 90 ). H e r e , B r ow n’ s t e s t i m ony a boutthe pr i orr obbe r y e xpl a i ned w hy S i m pki ns
w a s a s ke d t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n the c ha r ge d r obbe r y a nd w h y h e w as t h e dr i ve rof the14

get aw ay ca r. M oreo v er , th e t w o cri m es w er e l i nk ed i n t i m e a nd ci rc um st ance s beca use t he y w e r e bo th b a nkr ob be r i e s a nd oc c urr e d o nl y 20 da y s apa r tf r om e ac h othe r . F i na l l y , a n y p rej u d i c e w a s l i m i t e d by the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on to th e ju ry . O n th is re co r d , w e d isce rn n o ab u se o f d iscr etio n in th e d istrict co u rt’s
rul i ng tha tthe t e s t i m ony w a s a dm i s s i bl e a s i ne xtr i c a bl y i nt e r tw i ne d w i t h the i n st an to ffen ses. I V. S im p k in s c h a lle n g e s th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e g o v e r n m e n t’s e v id e n c e o n a ll three char ges. H e as se rt s thatthe evi dence does notsust ai n t he j ury’ s ver di ct be c a u s e th e g o v e r n me n tp r e s e n t e d th e t e s t i mo n y o f o th e rc o - c o n s p i r a t o r s , w ho
w ere n o tcre d i b l e. S i m p k i n s su g g est s th ati n ad d i t i o n t o th e co -co n sp i rat o rs’ te s tim o n y , th e g o v e r n m e n t w a s r e q u ir e d to p r e s e n t w h a t h e te r m s “in d e p e n d e n t,
no n-bi as ed evi dence. ” W e di sa gree . C r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i ons a r e the s ol e pr ovi nc e of th e j ur y . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C h ast ai n, 198 F
. 3d 1338, 1351 ( 11th C i r . 1999)
. R e ve r s a l i s notappr opr i a t e unl e ss

“ no tri erof fa ct co ul d h ave f ou nd gu i l tbeyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt
. ” U ni t ed S t at es
v. G ar ci a- Ja i m es , 48 4 F
. 3d 13 11 , 13 21 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). “F or t es t i m on y of a gove r nm e ntw i tne s s t o be i nc r e di bl e a s a m a t t er o f l aw , i tm us tbe unbe l i e va bl e on i t s f a c e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a l de r on, 127 F . 3d 1314, 1325 (1 1 t h C i r. 1997)15

( i nt ern al quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d)
. “ I tm us tbe t e s t i m ony a s t o f a c t s tha tthe
w i tne s s phy s i c a l l y c oul d notha ve pos s i b l y o b serve d ore ve nt s tha tc oul d notha ve occurre d u nd erthe l aw s of nature. ” I d. (quo tati o n s and ci t at i on om i tt ed). M o reo v er , ju d g m en to f acq u i tt al i s n o treq u i red “ b ecau se th e g o v ern m en t ’ s case i ncl ud es t es t i m on y by ‘ an array o f sc ou nd re l s, l i ar s, and b ri gand s. ’ ” U ni t ed S t at es
v. H ew i tt , 66 3 F
. 2d 13 81 , 13 85 (11t h C i r. 19 81 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). C o u n ts O n e a n d T w o c h a r g e d S im p k in s w ith b a n k r o b b e r y a n d c o n s p ir a c y to
c om m i tba nk r obbe r y . U nde r1 8 U . S
. C
. § 2113( a ) , ba nk r obbe r y i nvol ve s t a ki ng o ra tte m p tin g t o t a k e p r o p e r ty , m o n e y , o ra n y th in g o f v a lu e f r o m a b a n k , c r e d it uni on, ors a vi ngs a nd l oa n a s s oc i a t i on by fo rc e a nd vi ol e nc e orby i nt i m i da t i on. 18 U . S. C. § 2 1 1 3 ( a )
. I n o r d e r t o p r o v e a c o n s p i r a c y , th e g o v e r n me n t m us t“ pr ove be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt( 1) tha ta c ons pi r a c y e xi s t e d; ( 2) tha tthe d ef e nda nt k n e w o f it; a n d ( 3 ) th a t t h e d e f e n d a n t, w ith k n o w le d g e , v o lu n ta r ily jo in e d it.” U ni t e d S t a t e s v . T h o m p so n , 422 F
. 3d 1285, 1290 ( 11th C i r . 2005) c e r t . de ni e d, 127 S
. C t . 748 ( 2006)
. C ountT hr e e c ha r ge d S i m pki ns w i th the us e of a f i r e a r m i n the
c om m i s s i on of

a c r i m e unde r18 U
. S
. C
. § 924( c ) , w hi c h pr ohi bi t s u si n g orc a r r y i ng a fi r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nc e of a c r i m e of vi ol e nc e . A c r i m e of vi ol e nc e i nc l ude s a fe l on y that “ has as an el em ent the use, att em pt ed use, or threa t ened u se o f p h ys i ca l f o r c e a g a in s t th e p e r s o n o rp r o p e r ty o f a n o th e r .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 3 )
.16

A p e r s o n w h o a id s o ra b e ts a f e d e r a l c r im e “is p u n is h a b le a s a p r in c ip a l.” 18 U . S
. C
. § 2
. “ U n d e ra n a i d i n g a n d a b e tt i n g th e o r y , th e g o v e r n me n tmu s tp r ove thatthe defendanti n som e w ay as soci at ed hi m se l f w i th t he cr i m inal venture, that he w i s he d t o br i ng i ta bout , a nd tha the s oughtby hi s a c t i ons t o m ak e i ts uc c e e d. T he ai di ng and abet t i ng st atu te allo w s the j ury t o fi nd a per son g ui l ty of a
s ub s t a n t i v e c r i me e v e n th o u g h th a tp e r s o n d i d n o tc o mmi ta l l a c t s c o n s t i tu t i ng el em en ts of the cr i m e. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B roadw el l , 87 0 F
. 2d 59 4, 60 8 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). In th e i n st an tcase, th e g o v ern m en tp resen t ed am p l e ev i d en ce t o est ab l i sh S im p k in s’s g u il t b ey o n d a r ea so n ab le d o u b t, in c lu d in g B ro w n ’s an d Je n k in s’s t es t i m on y th at S i m pk i ns had agreed t o h el p rob the bank by dri vi ng the get aw ay ca r, and thatS i m pk i ns w ai t ed i n t he get -a w ay ca r w hi l e J enki ns and Irvi ng robb ed the ba nk. M or e ove r , J e nki n s t est i fi e d tha tS i m pki ns w a s i n the c a rw he n he (Jen k i n s) g av e a g u n t o Irv i n g fo r u s e d u ri n g th e ro b b ery. A ft er th e ro b b ery, S im p k in s d r o v e th e g e t- a w a y c a rth a t tr a n s p o r te d I r v in g , J e n k in s , a n d a b a g in
w h ich a d ye p ac k h a d e x p lo d e d , an d w as em an atin g re d d ye , t o B ro w n ’s m o th er ’s h o u s e , w h e r e h e a n d th e o th e r s tr ie d to w a s h th e d y e o f f o f o v e r$ 3 0 ,0 0 0 in
c u r r e n c y . B r o w n a n d J e n k in s d id n o t te s tif y to “f a c ts t h a t [ t h e y ] p h y s ic a lly c o u ld
n o th a v e p o s s i b l y o b s e r v e d o re v e n t s th a tc o u l d n o th a v e o c c u r r e d u n d e rth e l a wsSimp kin s argue s f or thefirs t ti meon

a pp e a l th at th edenial of

his re qu e st t o c a ll c e rt ain 3 witnesses violated his right to present witnesses a nd a defen s e under theConfrontation Clause of 17 o f n a tu r e .” C a ld e r o n , 1 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 5 . I n s h o r t, S im p k in s h a s n o t s h o w n th a t h is
c o- c ons pi r a t or s ’ t e st i m o n y w as “ i nc r e di bl e a s a m a tt e rof l a w [ or ] unbe l i e va bl e on i t s f a c e . ” I d. M oreover, i n add i t i on t o B ro w n ’s and Jenki ns’ s t es t i m on y, B row n’ s m ot her t est i fi ed tha ta f

t e rs he not i c e d a ba g w i th r e d s tuf f a l l ove ri ti n the tr a s hc a n a nd
a s k e d a b o u t t h e b a g , S im p k in s r e m o v e d th e b a g f r o m th e tr a s h c a n a n d in d ic a te d it
w a s hi s . A nd the go ve r nme ntpr e s e nt e d the t e s t i mony of Ri e r a , the ba nkt el l er , w ho had s ee n the dri ver of the get -a w ay ca rd and w ho se desc ri pt i on o f th e d river
m a t c he d S i m pki ns ’ s appe a r a nc e a tthe t i m e of the r obbe r y . In s hor t , t a ki ng the
e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le to th e ju r y ’s v e r d ic t, a n d r e s o lv in g a ll
c r e d ib ility e v a lu a tio n s in f a v o ro f th e v e r d ic t, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t d id n o t e r rin d e n y in g S im p k in s ’s m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l. V. W e l i ke w i s e f

i nd no a bus e of

di s c r e t i on i n the di st ri ct co ur t ’ s rul i ng on S i m p k i n s’ s req u estt o call o n e o f th e ag en t s w h o t o o k B ro w n ’ s p o st -arrest
s t a t e m e ntc onc e r ni ng the r obbe r y . S i m pki ns s a y s tha tthe of f i c e r ’ s t e s t i m ony
w oul d ha ve i m pe a c he d B r ow n be c a us e , a c c or di ng t o S i m pki ns , B r ow n’ s t e s t i m ony c o n tr a d ic te d h is s ta te m e n t to la w e n f o r c e m e n t. 3the Six th Amendm en t . However, “ [t ]he Confrontation Clause guara ntees c riminal defendants an opportunity

to impeach through cross-e x amination the testimony of witnesses for the prosecution.” United States v. Ba

ptista-Rodrigue z, 17 F.3d 1354, 1370 ( 11th Cir. 1994). Be causeSimpki ns had the opportunity

to cross-e x amine code fenda nt Brown in order to impeach his testimony , the Confrontation Clause is not impli cate d here
. 18 “ Th e c r e d i b i l i ty of a w i tn e s s ma y b e a tt a c k e d b y a n y p a r ty . . . . ” Fe d
. R. E v id . 6 0 7 . B u t e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e o f a p r io rin c o n s is te n t s ta te m e n t b y a w i t n e s s is nota d mi s s i b l e u n l e s s “ th e w i tn e s s i s a f f o r d e d a n o p p o r tu n i ty t o e x p l a i n o rd e n y t he
sam e an d th e o p p o si t e p arty i s affo rd ed an o p p o rtu n i ty t o i n t erro g at e th e w i tn ess there on , or the i nt er es t s of j ust i ce ot herw i se re qu i re . ” F ed . R . E vi d. 61 3(b). In order t o i nt rodu ce a pri or i ncon si st entst at em en t, “ the courtm ustbe pers uaded t hat the s t a t e m e nt s are i n d eed i nc ons i s t e nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a l e , 422 U
. S
. 171, 176, (197 5). H er e, af t erhear i ng B row n’ s t es t i m o n y and revi ew i ng the re po rt , the di stri ct courtfou n d th at the st at em ent s w er e noti ncon si st ent . T hi s f i nd i ng w as no tan a bus e of di s c r e t i on. O urow n r e vi e w of th e t est i m ony a nd the r e por tr e ve a l s , a s the d i s tr i c tc o u r tf

o u n d , th a t( 1 ) th e r e p o r td i d n o ts t a t e th a tc o - c o n s p i r a t o rB r o wn de ni e d i nvol ve m e nti n the r obbe r y a nd ( 2) the r e por tpr ovi de d de t a i l s s ur r oundi ng th e ro b b ery, w h i ch w ere w h o l l y co n sis te n t w ith B ro w n ’ s t est i m o n y. P u tsi m p l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by det erm i nin g th at the re po rtw asIn any event, Simpkins presented evidencethat Brown lacke d cre dibility beca use of ( 1) 4 hi s pri or fe lony c onvic tio ns and

(2 ) his intere st in h avinghis sentenc ere du c e d b a se d o n h is c ooperatio n. Thus , Si mpkins c ann ot s ho w t hat th everdic t w ould h avebe e n dif ferent - - t hat is, substantial prejudice-- if hehad been permitted to use the report as impeachment, which is the s t an d ard h e mu s ts at i s f

y t o w ar rantr e v e r s a lf

o r an e r ro n e o u s e v i d e nt i ar

y r u l i n g . S e eU . S
. S t e e l , LLC v. Ti e c o, Inc ., 26 1 F .3 d 1 27 5, 12 86 (1 1th Cir . 200 1) (“An e rror on an evide nti ary rulin gwi ll re sult in reversal only

if a pa rty establishes a substantial pre judicial eff

ect or a manife st injust ice.” ). 19 c o n s is te n t w ith B r o w n ’s te s tim o n y t h a t h e d id n o t lie a b o u t h is in v o lv e m e n t w ith th e r o b b e r y to th e a g e n ts w h o to o k th e r e p o r t. 4 V I. F in a lly , S im p k in s a r g u e s t h a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d b y o v e r ru lin g h is obj e c t i ons , w hi c h he ha ve a l r e a dy d et a i l e d a bove , dur i ng the gove r nm e nt ’ s c l os i ng a r g u m e n ts . T o e s t a bl i s h pr os e c ut or i a l m i s c onduc t , ( 1) the r e m a r ks m u stbe i m prop er , and ( 2 ) the re m arks m ustprej ud i ci al l y a ff ec tthe subst ant i al ri gh t s of th e d ef

endant
. A defe nd ant ’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s a re pr e j udi c i a l l y a f

f e c t e d w he n a r e a s ona bl e pro b ab i l i ty a r i s e s tha t , butf or th e r e m a r k s , th e o u tc o m e o f th e tr ia l w o u l d h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. W h e n th e r e c o r d c o n ta in s s u f f ic ie n t in d e p e n d e n t e v id e n c e o f g u i lt, an y erro r i s h arm l ess. U n ite d S ta te s v . E c k h a r d t , 4 6 6 F .3 d 9 3 8 , 9 4 7 ( 1 1 th C ir .) c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1305 ( 2006) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d)
. W e ha ve i de nt i f i e d the f o l l o w i n g f

ourf a c t or s t o c ons i de ri n de t e r m i ni ng w he the rornotc onduc tha d a
r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility to c h a n g e th e o u tc o m e o f a tr ia l: ( 1 ) th e d e g r e e to w h ic h th e c h a l l e n g e d r e m a r k s h a v e a te n d e n c y to m isle ad the j ury a nd t o p re j ud i ce the ac cuse d; (2) w hether they a re20

i s ol a t e d ore xt e ns i ve ; ( 3) w he the rthe y w e r e de l i b era t e l y or a c c i de nt a l l y pl aced bef or e the j ur y ; a nd ( 4) the s tr e ngth of the c om pe t e ntpr oof

t o e s t a bl i s h the gui l tof the a c c us e d. D avi s v. Z ant , 36 F . 3d 15 38 , 15 46 (11t h C i r. 19 94 ) (cita t i on s om i tt ed) ( habeas
c ont e xt )
. “ A c ur a t i ve i ns truc t i on, how ev er, m a y r e nde ra pr e j udi c i a l r e m a r k by the prosec ut or harm l es s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B aile y, 12 3 F
. 3d 13 81 , 14 00 (11t h C i r. 19 97 ) ( qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). A cc ordi ng l y, the prosecut oria l
m i s c onduc tm us tbe c ons i de r e d i n the co n t ex tof the e nt i r e tr i a l , a l ong w i th a ny c ur a t i ve i ns truc t i on. I d. F r om ourr e vi ew o f t h e e nt i r e tr i a l , the r e i s no r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha tthe gove r nm e nt ’ s r e m a r ks , e ve n i f i m pr ope r , a f

f e c t e d the out co m e of

the c a s e . T he
r e m a r ks w e r e di r e c t e d a tS i m pki ns ’ s a tt em p t t o unde r m i ne the c r e di bi l i ty of the go vernm ent ’ s w i tness es -- o n e o f h i s pri m ary theori es of defens e. B ec ause the j ury had t he abi l i ty t o ev alu ate th e credi bi l i ty of the w i tness es , w e c anno tconcl ud e that the c om m e nt s ha d a s uf f i c i e ntt e nde nc y t o m i s l e a d the j ur y. M or e ove r , the
e vi de nc e of

S i m pki ns ’ s gui l tw a s ove r w he l m i ng. A nd the di s t ri ct co u r tl i m i t e d the effect of an y co m m e n ts b y i n stru ct i n g th e j u ry th atth e st at em en t s o f th e at t o rn eys
w e r e note vi de nc e . O n thi s r e c or d, the r e i s nota r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha tthe
c o m m e n ts a f

f e c te d th e o u tc o m e o f

th e tr ia l. AF F I RME D.