# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 28 65

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Je ffre y Ray Pen dl et on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Jo se ph

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 17 , 20 16

Fil ed : Au gu st 12 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, GRUENDE R, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Je ffre y Ray Pen dl et on was in di ct ed fo r co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e

m et ha m ph et am in e an d co ns pi racy t o co m m it m on ey la un d e r i n g

. A ju ry fo un d hi mgu il ty of bo th c h a r g e s. Pen dl et on no w ap pe al s, rai si ng se ve ral ch al le ng es to th e

di st ric t co ur t’s rul in gs . W e aff irm. 1

I.

In Aug us t 20 12

, a gr an d jury in di ct ed P e nd le to n fo r co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e

50 0 gr am s or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d

84 6, an d co ns pi racy to co mm i t mon ey la un de rin g, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.

§ 19 56 (a)( 1) (A)(i ), (h ). An earl ie r-fi le d cri m in al co m pl ai nt in di cat ed th at Pen dl et on , in th e co ur se of th is co ns pi racy, ha d as sa ul te d on e of hi s co -co ns pi rat or s. Pen dl et on

m ov ed in li min e to pr ev en t th e Gov ern m en t fro m us in g ev id en ce of th e as sa ul t at tri al

, bu t t he di st ric t co ur t d en ie d h is m ot io n.

Pen dl et on ’s cou ns el m ov ed to wit hd raw, pe r Pen dl et on ’s r eq ue st , cit in g l ack

of co m m un ic at io n an d di sa gr eem en t ab ou t tri al st rat eg y

. At a he ari ng on th is m ot io n,

Pen dl et on ex pr es se d co nc ern th at hi s at to rn ey was no t in ve st ig at in g hi s cas e

ad eq ua te ly. The m ag is tra te jud ge de ni ed th e m ot io n an d de cl in ed to ap po in t ne w

co un se l. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at Pen dl et on’ s at tor ne y w as fu lfi ll in g hi s pr of es si on al

du ti es an d th at an y la ck of co m m un ic at io n be twee n Pen dl et on an d hi s co un se l

res ul te d s ol el y

fro m Pen dl et on ’s refu sa l t o d is cu ss th e cas e wit h h is att or ne y

.

Im m ed ia te ly pr io r to tri al

, Pen dl et on ’s at to rn ey fil ed a m ot io n un de r Bra dy v.

Ma r y l a n d

, 37 3 U.S. 83 (1 96 3)

, in whi ch he so ug ht di sc lo su re of Pen dl et on ’s co

co ns pi rat or s’ pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or ts (“ PSRs ”). Afte r co nd uc ti ng a he ari ng

on th e m ot io n an d an in ca mer a rev ie w of th e PSRs

, th e m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d

th at th e PSR s co nt ai ne d n o e xc ul pa to ry in fo rm at io n a nd de ni ed th e m ot io n.

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-Dur in g vo ir dire

, the di st ric t co ur t in fo rm ed th e ve ni re pa ne l th at Pen dl et on was

ch arg ed wit h co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et im e an d co ns pi racy to co m m it

m on ey la un de rin g. The co ur t as ke d if an y m em be rs of th e pa ne l kn ew Pen dl et on or

an y on e who m ig ht be rel at ed to hi m

. Ven ire pe rs on 43 in fo rm ed t h e c o ur t th at sh e

w a s a ba il bo nd swo m an an d th at sh e kn ew “ Pen dl et on s th at ha d ti es ” to t h e S t

. Jo se ph

, Mi ss ou ri area

. W he n th e co ur t as ke d if he r kn owl ed g e w o ul d im pa ct he r jud gm en t in th e cas e, th e ve ni rep ers on sa id

, “ I’m ve ry aware of th e si tu at io n an d, of

co ur se , wit h t h e m et ha m ph et am in es th at were be in g di st rib ut ed in th e Pen dl et on

fam il y .” The co ur t cu t he r of f, as ki ng he r si m

pl y to co nf

irm th at he r jud gm en t wou ld

be im pa ct ed

. Pen dl et on di d no t ob ject, no r di d he as k fo r an y cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n.

Howev er, at th e co nc lu si on of vo ir di re, he as ke d fo r a m is tri al

, ar g u i n g th at th e

ve ni rep ers on ’s co m

m en ts ha d ta in te d th e pa ne l. The co ur t ex cu se d th e rel ev an t

ve ni rep ers on , bu t it de ni ed th e m is tri al m ot io n. The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at it ha d act ed

qu ic kl y t o l i mit th e co m m en t an d th at it s qu es ti on s an d in st ru ct io ns to th e ve ni re

pa ne l rep eat ed ly em

ph as iz ed th e ne ed fo r juro rs to m ak e a de ci si on ba se d on ly on th e

ev id en ce at tri al

.

At tria l, two offi cers te st ifi ed th at th ey ha d arre st ed Pen dl et on an d fou nd hi m

wit h dr ug pa rap he rn al ia an d la rg e am ou nt s o f cas h. Oth er wit ne ss es te st ifi ed th at

th ey bo ug ht dr ug s fro m or so ld dr ug s to Pen dl et on or th at th ey ob se rv ed Pen dl et on

en ga ge in hi gh -v al ue m et ha m ph et am in e tra ns act io ns

. A few wit ne ss es al so te st ifi ed

th at th ey so ld m et ha m

ph et am in e fo r Pen dl et on an d ga ve hi m th e pr of it s. One of th es e

wit ne ss es , R.D., te st ifi ed th at sh e ha d be en as sa ul te d by Pen dl et on an d hi s as so ci at e

be cau se Pen dl et on be li ev ed th a t R.D. ha d st ol en dr ug s an d m on ey fro m hi m

. R.D.

au th en ti cat ed ph ot og rap hs de pi ct in g t he in juri es sh e su st ai ne d fr om th is ass au lt

.

Afte r th e Gov ern m en t pr es en te d i t s cas e in ch ie f, Pen dl et on m ov ed fo r jud gm en t of acqu it ta l. Reg ard in g th e m on ey -la un de rin g ch arg e, Pen dl et on cl ai m ed

th at th e Gov ern m en t ha d fai le d to pr ov e th at he so ug ht to co nc eal th e us e of fu nd s

de riv ed fro m dr ug pr oc eed s. The co ur t de ni ed hi s m ot io n and su bm it te d th e cas e to

-3

-t h e jury, whi ch fo un d Pen dl et on gu il ty. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Pen dl et on t o

co nc ur ren t se nt en ces of 30 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t fo r th e dr ug -d is tri bu ti on ch arg e

an d 24 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t fo r th e m on ey -la un de rin g ch a r g e

. Pen dl et on no w

ap pe al s.

II.

Pen dl et on ad va nc es se ve ra l a r g um en ts on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, he ch al le ng es th e

de ni al of hi s m ot io n fo r di sc lo su re of hi s co -co ns pi rat or s’ PSRs

. Seco nd

, he arg ue s

th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y de ni ed hi s m ot i o n f o r n e w co un se l. Thi rd

, he

co nt en ds th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n whe n it refu se d to de cl are a m is tri al aft er

ve ni rep ers on 43 al lu de d to ex tra ju d i c ia l kn owl ed ge of cri m in al co nd uc t in th e

Pen dl et on fam il y

. Fo ur th

, Pen dl et on arg ue s t h a t t he co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by

ad m it ti ng ev id en ce of Pen dl et on ’s a ss au lt of R.D. Fi na ll y , P en dl et on ap pe al s fro m

th e d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al on th e m on ey -la un de rin g c ha rg e.

A.

W e be gi n wit h Pen dl et on ’s arg um en t th at th e co ur t im pr op e rly de ni ed th e

m ot io n fo r di sc lo su re of hi s co -co ns pi rat or s’ PSRs

. Pen dl et on co nt en ds th at th e PSRs

co nt ai ne d in fo rm at io n th at co ul d ha ve be en us ed to im pe ach hi s co -co ns pi rat or s, who

se rv ed as go ve rn m en t wit ne ss es du rin g tri al

. W e rev ie w th e de ni al of th is m ot io n fo r

ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. DeVor e , 83 9 F.2d 13 30

, 13 32 (8 th Cir . 19 88 );

Uni te d S ta te s v. Will is , 89 F.3d 13 71 , 13 81 n.6 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6)

.

Und er Bra dy v. Mar

yl an d

, “ su pp res si on by th e pr os ecu ti on of ev id en ce

fav or ab le to an accu se d

. . . vi ol at es du e pr oc es s whe re th e ev id en ce is m at eri al ei th er

to gu il t or to pu ni sh m en t, irr es pe ct iv e of th e go od fai th or ba d fai th of t he

pr os ecu ti on .” 37 3 U.S. at 87

. The pr os ecu ti on ’s du ty to di sc lo se ex te nd s to ev id en ce

th at m ay be us ed to im

pe ach go ve rn m en t wit ne ss es

. Gig li o v. Uni te d St at es , 40 5 U.S.

-4

-15 0, 15 4 (1 97 2)

. Howev er, th e Gov ern m en t ha s no du ty to di sc lo se ev id en ce th at is

ne ut ral

, sp ecu la ti ve , or in cu lp at or y , or ev id en ce th at is av ai la bl e to th e de fen se fro m

o t h er so ur ces

. Uni te d St at es v. Flo re s- Mir el es , 11 2 F.3 d 33 7, 34 0 (8 th Ci r

. 1 9 9 7 )

. To ob ta in rel ie f fo r a Bra dy vi ol at io n, a de fen da nt m us t de m on st rat e pr ejud ic e by

sh o w i n g t h at “ ‘the re is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y ’ th at th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g

wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t if th e s u p pr es se d do cu m en ts ha d be en di sc lo se d to th e

de fen se .” St ri ckl er v. Gre en e , 52 7 U.S. 26 3, 2 8 9 ( 1 9 9 9 ). “ The qu es ti on is no t

whe th er th e de fen da nt wou ld m or e li ke ly t ha n n ot ha ve rece iv ed a di ffer en t ve rd ic t

wit h th e ev id en ce, bu t whe th er in it s ab se n c e h e r e c ei ve d a fai r tri al , u nd ers to od as

a tri al res u l t i n g i n a ve rd ic t wor th y of co nf id en ce.” Id

. at 28 9- 90 (q uo ti ng Kyl es v.

W hi tl ey , 51 4 U.S. 4 19 , 43 4 (1 99 5) ).

Gen eral ly, a de fen da nt is no t en ti tl ed to pr od uc ti on of PSRs of go ve rn m en t

wit ne ss es

. Uni te d St at es v. Alva re z , 35 8 F.3 d 11 94

, 12 09 (9 th Ci r. 20 04 ); se e al so

Uni te d St at es v. McKn ig ht

, 77 1 F.2 d 38 8, 39 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ). PSRs are co nf id en ti al

rep or ts crea te d by an arm of th e co ur t and de si gn ed for us e b y a jud ge in reac hi ng a

fai r se nt en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Din gl e , 54 6 F.2 d 13 78

, 13 81 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 76 ). A co ur t

m ay , in it s di sc ret io n, m ak e an in ca mer a in sp ect io n of a PSR if a de fen da nt al le ge s

th at th e PSR c o n t a i n s m at eri al to whi ch he wou ld be en ti tl ed un de r Bra dy

. Uni te d

St at es v. Bur ke , 42 5 F .3d 40 0, 4 13 -1 4 (7 th Cir

. 20 05 ); Uni te d St at es v. Gar ci a , 56 2

F.3 d 94 7, 95 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (h ol di ng th at a co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n by fai li ng to

co nd uc t an in ca mer a rev ie w of a go ve rn m en t wit ne ss ’s PSR whe n “ th e de fen da nt ha s

so ug ht acce ss to a co co ns pi rat or ’s PSR, [an d] th e go ve rn m en t ha s reco gn iz ed th e

po ss ib il it y

th at th e PSR con ta in s Bra dy / Gig li o in fo rm at io n” ). Howev er, PSR s “ are

no t pu bl ic an d sh ou ld no t be di sc lo se d to th ird pe rs on s ab se nt a de m on st rat io n th at

di sc lo su re is req ui red to m eet th e en ds o f ju st ic e.” McKn ig ht , 7 71 F.2 d at 39 0; se e

al so Uni te d St at es v. Sh

yr es , 89 8 F.2 d 64 7, 65 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (u ph ol di ng th e di st ric t

co ur t’s de ci si on de nyin g di sc lo su re of a wit ne ss’ s PSR whe re th e de fen da nt pr es en te d

no co m pe ll in g o r su bs ta nt ia l n eed for it ).

-5

-Pen dl et on arg ue s th at th e co ur t er red when it de ni ed hi s requ es t for th e PSRs

o f two co -co ns pi rat or s, J.J

. an d B.B., who co op erat ed wit h th e Gov ern m en t.

Acco rd in g to Pen dl et on , th ei r PSRs in di cat e th at J.J

. an d B.B. di d no t im pl ic at e hi m

du rin g th ei r in it ia l st at em en ts to po li ce, ev en th ou gh th ey lat er n am ed Pen dl et on as

a ke y pl ay er in th e dr

ug co ns pi racy. Thi s in co ns is te nc y , Pen dl et on cl ai m s, co ul d be

us ed to im

pe ach th ei r cre di bi li ty. W e reject Pen dl et on ’s con te nt io n t ha t t he di st ric t

co ur t er red when it de te rm in ed th at su ch ev id en ce d oe s n ot fal l u nd er Bra dy . Firs t,

ev en if J.J

. an d B.B. fai le d to na m e Pen dl et on in earl y st at em en ts to po li ce, Pen dl et on

di d no t al le ge th at th es e in it ia l in te rv ie ws in cl ud ed an y sp eci fic qu es ti on s ab ou t hi m

or hi s ro le in th e co ns pi racy. Thu s, he ha s no t sh own th at th e wit ne ss es ’ in it ia l fai lu re

to na m e hi m un de rm in es th ei r cred ib il it y

. Se e Flo re s- Mir el es , 11 2 F.3 d at 34 0
( n o ti ng th at ne ut ral ev id en ce do es no t fal l un de r Bra dy ). Seco nd

, Pen d l e t o n ’s

kn owl ed ge of th e in co ns is te nt st at em en ts su gg es ts th at he ha d a c c e s s to th e

in fo rm at io n fro m ot he r so ur ces , an d Bra dy do es no t req ui re di sc lo su r e i n th is

ci rcu m st an ce, id

. , pa rti cu la rly whe n th e m ov an t of fers no th in g m or e th an sp ecu la ti on

to su pp or t hi s be li ef th at a PSR con ta in s th e rel ev an t in fo rm at io n, se e Uni te d St at es

v. Mit ch el l

, 17 8 F.3 d 90 4, 90 7- 08 (7 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (n ot in g th at m ere sp ecu la ti on ab ou t

th e co nt en ts of a PSR i s i ns uf fic ie nt to warran t d is cl os ur e u nd er Bra dy ).

Pen dl et on al so arg ue s th at he is en ti tl ed to a ne w tri al un de r Bra dy be cau se th e

co ur t, fo ll owi ng it s in ca mer a rev ie w, di d no t req ui re th e Gov ern m en t to di sc lo se th at

th e PSRs of T.A. an d J.M

., two ot he r c o

- c o n s p ira to rs , co nt ai ne d in co ns is te nt

st at em en ts ab ou t whe n th ey be ga n co op erat in g wit h po li ce an d ot he r de ta il s, su ch as

whe th er T.A. act ua ll y acco m pa ni ed Pen dl et on t o a cert ai n lo cat io n to se ll dr ug s.

Pen dl et on arg ue s th at su ch in co ns is te nc ie s co ul d ha ve be en us ed to im pe ach th es e co

co ns pi rat or s. W e reject hi s co nt en ti on th at no nd is cl os ur e en ti tl es hi m to a ne w tri al

.

The fat al fla w in Pen dl et on ’s arg um en t is hi s fai lu re to de m on st rat e pr ejud ic e

fro m th is no nd is cl os ur e. Dur in g tri al

, bo th T.A. an d J.M

. ack no wled ge d th at th ey ha d

co op erat ed wit h la w en fo rcem en t in or de r to rece iv e m or e fav or ab le tre at m en t in th ei r

-6

-own cri m in al pr oc eed in gs

. In th is ci rcu m st an ce, th ei r cred ib il it y h a d be en sh ak en

.

Cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Sh el to n , 58 8 F.2 d 12 42

, 12 48 (9 th Ci r. 1 9 78 ) (“ Im pe ach m en t

ev id en ce, ev en th at whi ch te nd s to fu rth er un de rm in e th e cred ib il it y of t h e ke y

Gov ern m en t wit ne ss who se cred ib il it y ha s al read y be e n sh ak en du e to ex te ns iv e

cro ss -ex am in at io n, do es no t c r e at e a reas on ab le do ub t th at di d no t ot he rwis e ex is t

whe re th at ev id en ce is cu m ul at iv e or co ll at eral .”). Mo reo ve r, th e te st im on y of th es e

t w o wit ne ss es was no t es se nt ia l to pr ov in g Pen dl et on ’s gu il t be cau se th e o t h e r

e v i d en ce of hi s gu il t was ov erwh el m in g. Se e Gig li o , 40 5 U.S. at 15 4 (n ot in g t h a t

ev id en ce affe ct in g cred ib il it y m us t be di sc l o s ed un de r Bra dy if th e “ rel ia bi li ty of a gi ve n wit ne ss m ay well be de te rm in at iv e of gu il t o r in no cen ce” (q uo ti ng Na pu e v.

Ill in oi s , 36 0 U.S. 26 4, 26 9 (1 95 9) )); se e Dye v. St en de r , 20 8 F.3 d 66 2, 66 6 (8 th Ci r.

20 00 ) (co nc lu di ng th at le tt ers fro m th e pr os ecut ing at tor ney , whi ch te nd ed to im

pe ach

two go ve rn m en t wit ne ss es ’ te st im on y , were no t m at eri al whe n th e c o u r t fo un d

“ ov erwh el m in g c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce o f [t he de fen da nt ’s] gu il t” ). Sev eral ot he r 2

wit ne ss es te st ifi ed th at th ey ob se rv ed Pen dl et on carr y ou t dr ug pu rch as es an d sa le s

in vo lv in g dr ug qu an ti ti es va lu ed as hi gh as $1 0,0 00

. Acco rd in gl y , we co nc lu de th at

th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n whe n it fai le d to or de r di sc lo su re, an d

we ho ld th at Pen dl et on is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f un de r Bra dy

.

B.

Pen dl et on ne xt arg ue s th at t h e c o u rt im pr op erl y de ni ed hi s co un se l’s m ot io n

to wit hd raw an d h i s r e q u e st fo r ne w co un se l. Pen dl et on co nt en ds th at th e co ur t

sh ou ld ha ve gr an te d th is m ot io n be cau se a “ co m pl et e br eak do wn in co m

m un ic at io n”

In hi s br ie f, Pen dl et on rai se s a on e-s en te nc e arg um en t th at t he sa m e 2

in co ns is te nt st at em en ts co ns ti tu te ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce warra nt in g a ne w tri al

. We d is ag ree. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Bak er , 47 9 F.3 d 57 4, 57 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (d is cu ss in g m ot io ns fo r a ne w tri al an d st at in g th at “ ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce m us t
be ‘m or e th an m erel y

. . . im pe ach in g’” (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dog sk in , 26 5 F .3d 68 2, 6 85 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1) )).

-7

-fo ll owe d fro m h i s c o u n se l’s fai lu re to in ve st ig at e th e Bra dy m at eri al

. Se e Uni te d

St at e s v. Boo ne , 43 7 F.3 d 82 9, 83 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s

de ni al of co u n s e l ’s m ot io n to wit hd raw fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Sa nf or d v. Mai dRit e Co rp

. , 81 6 F.3 d 54 6, 54 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a req ue st fo r

ne w cou ns el us in g t he same sta nd ard

. Boo ne , 43 7 F .3d at 8 39

.

To ob ta in ne w co un se l, a de fen da nt m us t sh ow jus ti fia bl e di ss at is fact io n wit h

ap po in te d co un se l th at ari se s fro m di ffi cu lt ie s su ch as “ irr eco nc il ab le co nf li ct

, a

co m pl et e br eak do wn in co m

m un ic at io n, or an y ot he r fact or in te rfer in g si gn ifi can tl y

wit h an at to rn ey ’s ab il it y to pr ov id e zeal ou s rep r e s e n t a t io n.” Id

. Ju st ifi ab le

di ss at is fact io n is no t es ta bl is he d “ m erel y by a de fen da nt ’s fru st rat io n wit h co un se l’s

pe rfo rm an ce or di sa gr eem en t wit h hi s ta ct ic al de ci si on s.” Id

. Here, we co nc lu de th at

th e co ur t pro pe rly de te rm in ed th at Pen dl et on ’s co m pl ai nt s di d no t re ve al jus ti fia bl e

di ss at is fact io n.

At a h eari ng on th e m ot io n, Pen dl et on st at ed th at he st op pe d c om m un ic at in g

wit h h is at to rn ey be cau se th e at to rn ey was no t s uf fic ie nt ly inv es ti ga ti ng hi s ca se or

pu rs ui ng Bra dy m at eri al rel at ed to go v e r nm en t wit ne ss es

. Howev er, Pen dl et on

ack no wled ge d th at hi s at to rn ey su cces sf ul ly ha d so ug ht so m e Bra dy m at eri al

. In

ad di ti on , i m

m ed ia te ly p rio r to tri al , c ou ns el fil ed a s eco nd m ot io n fo r di sc lo su re of

Bra dy m at e r ia l, on e th at sp eci fic al ly rel at ed to th e PSRs Pen dl et on sa id th at he

wan te d a t t he he ari ng

.

Pen dl et on ’s at to rn ey in fo rm ed th e co ur t th at he was pr ep ared to go t o t r ia l

de s p it e hi s pr of

es si on al vi ew th at Pen dl et on sh ou ld ha ve acce pt ed a pl ea de al

. He

al so st at ed th at he ha d go ne to se e Pen dl et on m or e th an th irt y ti m es in th e co ur se of

hi s rep res en ta ti on an d th at he co nt in ue d to try to sp eak wit h Pen dl et on , ev en th ou gh

Pen dl et on de cl in ed to t al k to hi m

. Bas ed on th is in fo rm at io n, th e co ur t co nc lu de d

th at Pen dl et on ’s co un se l perf or m ed ad eq ua te ly an d th at an y la ck of co m m un ic at io n

be twee n Pen dl et on an d hi s co un se l di d no t st e m f r o m a co m

pl et e br eak do wn in

-8

-c o mm

u n i c at io n or at to rn ey in effe ct iv en es s bu t rat he r fro m an un wil li ng ne ss on

Pen dl et on ’s pa rt to co m

m un ic at e wit h hi s co un se l. Und er su ch ci rcu m st an ces , a co ur t

do es no t abu se it s di sc ret io n by refu si ng to ap po in t new cou ns el

. Se e Uni te d St at es

v. Bar ro w , 28 7 F.3 d 73 3, 73 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (aff irming a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a

de fen da nt ’s m ot io n fo r n e w c ou ns el whe re “ th ere was no to ta l br eak do wn in

co m m un ic at io n, on ly an un wil li ng ness on [th e de fen da nt ’s] pa rt to co m m un ic at e wit h

co un se l” ). Bec au se Pen dl et on fai le d to sh ow jus ti fia bl e di ss at is fact io n, th e co ur t di d

no t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g h is m ot io n. 3

C.

W e ne xt tu rn to Pen dl et on ’s co nt en ti on th at th e di st r i c t c o u r t ab us ed it s

di sc ret io n whe n it fai le d to de cl are a m is tri al aft er on e ve ni rep ers on sa id th at sh e was

fam il ia r wit h th e Pen dl et on fam il y an d th ei r di st rib ut io n of m et ha m p h e t a mine

. Alt ho ug h th e co ur t ex cu s e d ve ni rep ers on 43 fo r cau se , Pen dl et on arg ue s th at th is

act io n was no t su ffi ci en t to ad dr es s th e effe ct of he r st at em en t on th e fo rty-si x pe rs on

ve ni re pa ne l. He arg ue s th a t t h e co ur t vi ol at ed hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s whe n it

al lo wed th e tri al to pr oc eed wit h th e em pa ne le d m em

be rs

. S e e I

r vi n v. Dow d

, 36 6

U.S. 71 7, 7 22 (19 61 ).

“ Our rev ie w of whe th er th e di st ric t jud ge co nd uc te d vo ir di re in a way th at

pr ot ect ed [a de fen da nt ’s] Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a fai r an d im pa rti al jury is li m it ed

to an ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Gra na do s , 11 7 F.3 d 10 89

, 10 92 (8 th Ci r.

19 97 ). Thi s de fere nt ia l st an da rd of rev ie w r efl ect s t h e f a c t th at th e di st ric t co ur t is

In th is di rect ap pe al

, we de cl in e to co ns id er Pen dl et on ’s arg um en t th at he 3

rece iv ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l un de r St ri ckl an d v. W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S.

66 8 (1 98 4)

. Pen dl et on ha s no t sh own th at hi s case is ex cep ti on al

, an d we t he refo re

co nc lu de th at th is cl ai m sh ou ld be rai se d in a ha be as co rp us act io n. Se e Uni te d St at es

v. Gol li he r , 82 0 F.3 d 97 9, 98 4 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 6 ) ( no ti ng th at we rev ie w St ri ckl an d

cl ai m s o n d ire ct ap pe al on ly in ex cep ti on al cas es ).

-9

-in th e be st po si ti on to jud ge whe th er th e di sm is se d ve ni rep ers on ’s st at em en ts are so

de tri men ta l as to ren de r th e en ti re ve ni re bi as ed ag ai ns t a de fen da nt

. Ari zo na v.

W as hi ng to n , 43 4 U.S. 49 7, 51 4 (1 97 8)

. Afte r al l, th e di st ric t co ur t, un li ke a co ur t of

ap pe al s, m ay “ ob se rv e th e de m ean or an d res po ns e of t h e pr os pe ct iv e juro rs an d

ev al ua te an y po ss ib le pr ejud ic e.” Uni te d St at es v. Dog ge tt

, 82 1 F.2 d 10 49

, 10 51 (5 th

Ci r. 19 87 ). As we sa id in Gol ds te in v. Uni te d St at es , “ It is im po ss ib le to ga th er fro m

th e co ld reco rd

. . . th e at m os ph ere of t h e [ p r oc eed in gs ], th e m an ne r in whi ch th e

wor ds were sp ok en , or th e pr ob ab le effe ct

, if an y , whi ch th ey ha d up on th e m eri ts of

th e co nt ro ve rs y .” 63 F.2d 60 9, 6 13 (8t h C ir. 1 93 3)

.

Here, th e reco rd sh ows th at th e co ur t care fu ll y co ns id er e d w h e t h e r th e pa ne l

ha d be en ta in te d by ve ni rep ers on 43 ’s st at em en t ab ou t th e Pen dl et on fam il y

. W he n

Pen dl et on ’s att or ne y m ov ed fo r a m is tri al fo ll owi ng th e co nc lu si on of vo ir d ire , th e

co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at it ha d act ed qu ic kl y to in te rru pt ve ni rep ers on 43 an d th at it “ fel t

th at gi ve n th e po in t th at [it ] cu t he r of f th at no t on ly was it cl ear th at [th e co ur t] di dn ’t

wan t t o h e a r w h a t he r op in io ns were bu t it ne ga te d an y im pa ct th at wha t sh e was

sa y in g or at te m

pt in g to sa y m ig ht ot he rwis e ha ve .” Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ca nt wel l

, 41

F. App ’x 26 3, 26 9 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 02 ) (u np ub li sh ed ) (fi nd in g no ab us e of di sc ret io n an d

no ti ng th at th e “ pr os pe ct iv e juro rs ’ rem ark s were br ie f an d qu ic kl y te rm in at ed by th e

di st ric t co ur t” ). In ad di ti on , th e co ur t refe ren ced th e co nf ig ur at io n of th e co ur tro om

an d th e fact th at th os e pa ne l m em be rs ne ares t ve ni rep ers on 43 —p res um a b l y, t ho se

m os t l i k e l y t o ha ve he ard he r st at em en ts —wer e se at ed in a ro w se pa rat e fro m th e

ot he r pr os pe ct iv e juro rs an d th at no ne of th e ve ni r e mem be rs in ve ni rep ers on 43 ’s

ro w were ul ti m at el y se le ct ed as m em be rs of th e jury. As a res ul t, th e co ur t co nc lu de d

th at pr op er in st ru ct io ns co ul d su ffi ce to el im in at e an y ta in t. The co ur t al so no te d th at

it ha d “ as ke d ti m e an d ti m e ag ai n whe th er pe op le co ul d de ci de th e cas e ba se d on th e

ev id en ce th at ’s pr es en te d he re an d th e la w as I in st ru ct ed th em an d wil l in st ru ct th em ”

th ro ug ho ut th e tr ia l.

-1 0-The reco rd co nf irms th at th e co ur t to ok th es e pr ecau ti on s. Fo ll owi n g

ve ni rep ers on 43 ’s c o mm e nt

, th e co ur t as ke d th e pa ne l whe th er an y on e co ul d no t

acce pt th e pr es um

pt io n of in no cen ce. The co ur t al so in qu ire d as to whe th er th e

ve ni re m em

be rs fel t th at an y ot he r fact or s wou ld affe ct th e i r a b i l i t y t o be fai r an d

im pa rti al

. Neit he r qu es ti o n e l ic it ed a po si ti ve res po ns e. In ad di ti on , th e co ur t

in st ru ct ed th e se le ct ed juro rs at th e ou t s e t o f tri al th at Pen dl et on m us t be pr es um ed

in no cen t an d th at al l co nc l us io ns ha d to be dr awn fro m ev id en ce— th at is

, “ th e

te st im on y of wit n e s s es , d oc um en ts , a nd ot he r th in gs rece iv ed as ex hi bi ts , a ny fa ct s

th at ha ve be en st ip ul at ed .” The co ur t rep eat ed th es e in st ru ct io ns aft er the tri al

, al so

te ll in g th e juro rs th at th ey m us t no t carr y ou t in de pe nd en t in ve st ig at io n or res earc h

in or de r to av oi d be in g in flu en ced by “ in accu rat e, in co mp l e t e , or m is le ad in g

in fo rm at io n t ha t h as no t b een tes te d b y th e tr ia l p ro ces s.”

W e pr es um e th at juri es fo ll ow a co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns

. Co nl ey v. Very

, 45 0 F.3 d

78 6, 78 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Thi s pr es um pt io n ap pl ie s ev en whe n a po te nt ia l juro r refe rs

to ha vi ng so m e ex tra

jud ic ia l kn owl ed ge of a de fen da nt ’s cri m in al co nd uc t. Fo r

ex am pl e, ou r co ur t up he ld th e de ni al of a m is tri al m ot io n aft er a po te nt ia l juro r, whe n

as ke d if he kn ew an y of th e de fen da nt s, sa id th at on e of th e de fen da nt s ha d “ sh ot [h is ]

so n.” Uni te d St at es v. W ad e , 46 7 F.2 d 12 26

, 12 28 (8 th Ci r. 19 72 ). Our co ur t

de te rm in ed th at th e st at em en t di d no t irr ep arab ly d am ag e th e fai rn es s of th e tri al in

la rg e pa rt be cau se th e co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury to di sr eg ard th e st at em en t an d be cau se

“ [t]he co ur t di d al l th at co ul d be do ne to ob ta in al l in fo rm at io n po ss ib le to ai d it in it s

de te rm in at io n of whe th er th e juro r’s st at em en t wou ld de pr iv e de fen da nt s of a fai r an d

im pa rti al tri al .” Id

. ; se e al

so But le r v. Uni te d St at es , 35 1 F.2 d 14

, 17

, 19 -2 0 (8 th Ci r.

19 65 ) (rejec ti ng a de fen da nt ’s co nt en ti on th at th e co ur t de ni ed hi s rig ht to a fai r tri al

whe n it ret ai ne d th e ve ni re pa ne l an d in s tru ct ed th e jury to di sr eg ard a pr os pe ct iv e juro r’s st at em en t th at sh e wor ke d wit h vi ct im s who su ffer ed “ a lo t of tro ub le ” be cau se

of th e d efen da nt ’s act io ns ).

-1 1-Our si st er ci rcu it s si m il arl y ha ve rel ie d on th e cu r a t i v e e f f ect of pr op er

in st ru ct io ns in cas es in vo lv in g erra nt ve ni rep ers on st at em en ts

. Fo r ex am pl e, in

Uni te d S ta te s v. Ort iz -Ma rt in ez , t he Nin th Cir cu it up he ld a di st ric t co ur t’s d eci si on

to ret ai n a pa ne l aft er on e ve ni rep ers on sa id th at sh e ha d se en ne ws st or ie s rel at ed to

ch arg es of br ib ery ag ai ns t Cu st om s an d Bo rd er Pro te ct io n of fic ers , th at th e st or ie s

m ig ht ha ve be en ab ou t th e de fen da nt

, a n d t h a t sh e co ns eq ue nt ly su sp ect ed th e

de fen da nt was gu il ty. 59 3 F. App ’x 64 9, 65 0 (9 th Ci r.) (u np ub li sh ed ), cer t. de ni ed

, 57 6 U.S. ---, 13 5 S. Ct

. 29 12 (2 01 5)

. The N i n t h C i r c u it ex pl ai ne d th at th es e

st at em en ts were no t irr ep arab ly da m ag in g an d th us fo un d it su ffi ci en t th at th e di st ric t

co ur t ha d “ em

ph as iz ed se ve ral ti m es th at juro rs w e r e req ui red to de ci de th e cas e

so le ly on th e ba si s of th e ev id en ce pr es en te d in th e co ur tro om , an d [th e di st ric t co ur t]

g av e se ve ral st ro ng ad m on it io ns reg ard in g th e pr es um pt io n of in no cen ce a n d t h e

req ui rem en t of pr oo f be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id

. ; cf

. Mac h v. St ewa rt

, 13 7 F.3 d

63 0 (9t h Cir. 1 99 7) (co nc lu di ng th at th e co ur t, at m in im um , sh ou ld ha ve co nd uc te d

fu rth er vo ir di re to de te rm in e whe th er th e pa ne l ha d be en in fect ed aft er a pr os pe ct iv e juro r em pl oyed as a so ci al wor ke r m ad e se ve ral ex pe rt -li ke st at em en ts su gg es ti ng th at

ch il d v ic ti m s d o n ot li e in sex ua l as sa ul t ca se s l ik e th e o ne at h an d)

.

Si m il arl y , in Uni te d St at es v. Mou tr y , th e S ev en th Ci rcu it reject ed a

de fen da nt ’s co nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t pl ai nl y erre d whe n it pr oc eed ed wit h th e

pa ne l ev en aft er on e ve ni rep ers on —a ph arm aci st —“ ad vi se d th e co ur t th at he th ou gh t

he reco gn iz ed [o ne of th e de fen da nt s on tri al fo r dr ug cri m es ] as so m eo ne who m ig ht

ha ve att em

pt ed to pa ss a frau du le nt pr es cri pt io n in on e of th e ph arm aci es whe re h e

wor ke d.” 46 F.3 d 59 8, 60 2 (7 th Ci r. 19 95 ). Alt ho ug h th e ve ni rep ers on su gg es te d

th at th e de fen d a n t mi g h t be so m eo ne who he kn ew “ us e[d ] dr ug s,” th e Sev en th

Ci rcu it reject ed th e de fen da nt ’s co nt en ti on th at th e co ur t pl ai nl y erre d by no t st rik in g

th e ve ni re pa ne l, in pa rt be cau se each juro r ha d ag reed th at he or sh e co ul d co ns id er

th e cas e fai rly an d im

pa rti al ly aft er he ari ng th is co m m en t. Id

. at 60 3. The co ur t al so

no te d th at th e de fen da nt pr es en te d “ no th in g to in di cat e th at an y on e of th e juro rs was

le ss th an tru th fu l ab ou t hi s or he r ab il it y to be fai r an d im pa rti al

, or th at an y of th e

-1 2-ju r o r s o t he rwis e ha rb or ed a pr ejud ic e ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt .” Id

. Rel y in g on t h e

jury’ s pr om is e to rem ai n i m pa rti al an d co m

m en ti ng on th e st ren gt h of th e ev id en ce

at tri al

, th e Sev en th Ci rcu it up he ld th e co ur t’s de ci si on to pr oc eed wit h th e pa ne l. Id

.

Fi na ll y , in Uni te d S t a te s v. Ca rs on , th e Sev en th Ci rcu it de te rm in ed th at th e

co ur t di d no t a b u s e it s di sc ret io n whe n it ret ai ne d th e ve ni re pa ne l aft er a po te nt ia l

juro r sa id th at on e of th e de fen da nt s on tri al fo r po ss es si on of a fir earm as a fel on ha d

he ld a pi st ol ne ar th e ve ni rep ers on ’s face se ve ral y ears be fo re. 9 F.3 d 57 6, 58 8, 59 0
( 7 th Ci r. 19 93 ), su

pe rc ed ed by st at ut e on ot he r gr ou nd s as re co gn iz ed i n U

n i t e s

St at es v. Fon es , 51 F.3 d 66 3 (7 th Ci r. 19 95 ). The Sev en th Ci rcu it no te d th at th e co ur t

“ di d an ab le job of m in im iz in g th e pr ejud ic ia l effe ct of [th e] un fo r t u n a t e r em ark s

wit ho ut dr awin g un du e at te nt io n t o t he m .” Id

. at 5 89

. The co ur t exp la in ed th at th e

di st ric t co ur t ha d gi ve n th e pa ne l m em be rs th e op po rtu ni ty to st at e whe th er th ey co ul d

be im pa rti al

, an d it ad vi se d th e pa ne l to de ci de th e cas e ba se d on ly on th e ev id en ce.

Id

. In reject in g th e de fen da nt ’s ap pe al co nt en di ng th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n,

th e Sev en th Ci rcu it ex pl ai ne d th at it di d no t wis h to ad op t a st an da r d th at wou ld

bu rd en th e co ur ts wit h st art in g ov er an y ti m e a pr o s pe ct iv e juro r rev eal ed

ex tra jud ic ia l kn owl ed ge th at wou ld affe ct hi s or he r vi ew of a de fen da nt ’s gu il t. Id

.

The se cas es rev eal th at th ere is no br ig ht -li ne ru le th at a co ur t m us t di sm is s th e

en ti re ve ni re pa ne l whe ne ve r a ve ni rep ers on al lu de s to ha vi ng ou ts id e kn owl ed ge of

a de fen da nt ’s cri m in al act iv i t y. A s th e Fi fth Ci rcu it st at ed in Dog ge tt

, st at em en ts

fro m a pr os pe ct iv e juro r in di cat in g act ua l or m ed ia -b as ed kn owl ed ge of th e

un de rlyin g ev en ts are “ gr is t fo r th e m il l of an y vo ir di re in qu iry in an y cri mina l

ch arg e whi ch in vo lv es so m eo ne at l e a s t m in im al ly wel l kn own in th e co m m un it y .”

82 1 F.2 d at 10 51

. Req ui rin g th e co ur t in fle xi bl y to st art ov er ag ai n wit h a ne w ve ni re

pa ne l e v e ry ti m e—r eg ard le ss of th e na tu re, cred ib il it y , br ev it y , or vo lu m e of th e

st at em en t— is a “ bu rd en [th at ] can no t be pl aced up on th e cri m in al pr oc es se s an d th e

se le ct io n of a jury.” I

d. W e th in k th is is pa rti cu la rly tru e whe n, as he re, th e

-1 3-de fen da nt ’s cou ns el fai le d t o re qu es t t ha t t he pa ne l be st ric ke n un ti l th e en d of vo ir

di re.

Here, th e co ur t, ha vi ng he ard th e st at em en t an d si tt in g in th e be st po si ti on to

ob se rv e th e pa ne l, co nc lu de d th at th e da m ag e was no t irr ep arab le an d th at th e co ur t’s

qu es ti on s an d in st ru ct io ns wou ld su ffi ce to pr ot ect Pen dl et on ’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.

Pen dl et on di d no t as k fo r an y ad di ti on al cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n, ei th er at th e ti m e of th e

co m m en t or at th e co nc lu si on of vo ir di re. And whe n th e co ur t of fere d to ex pl or e th e

im pa ct of th e st at em en t at th e co nc lu si on of vo ir di re, Pen dl et on ’s co un se l as ke d th at

th e co ur t no t do so , st at in g th at he di d no t wan t th e co ur t to dr aw at te nt io n t o th e

co m m en t. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Lu ss ie r , 4 23 F.3 d 83 8, 84 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (fi nd in g

no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e co ur t’s de ci si on to ret ai n th e pa ne l whe re th e c o ur t

of fere d cu rat iv e m eas ur es , whi ch th e de fen da nt reject ed as “ cu res wor se th an th e

di se as e”). Pen dl et on ’s at to rn ey ul ti m at el y in fo rm ed th e co ur t th at

, whi le he was “ no t
gi vi ng up ” hi s ob

jecti on , he was “ co nf

i d e n t wit h th e Co ur t’s in st ru ct io n go in g

fo rward th at we can co ns ti tu te th e jury as [th e co ur t] ha [d ] se en it gi ve n th e st rik es ”

th e co ur t co ul d us e to di sm is s po te nt ia l juro rs

. Und er th es e fact s an d th e de fere nt ia l

st an da rd of rev ie w, we can no t co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n

whe n i t p ro ceed ed wit h t he ve ni re p an el

.

D.

Pen dl et on al so arg ue s th at th e co ur t abus ed it s di sc ret io n by ad m it ti ng ev id en ce

th at Pen dl et on was in vo lv ed in th e as sa ul t of a co -co ns pi rat or , R.D. He co nt en ds th at

th e ev id en ce was bo th irr el ev an t t o h is ch arg es an d u nd ul y pr ejud ic ia l. Se e Fed . R.

Evi d. 40 1, 40 3. “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti a r y ru li ng s fo r ab us e of

di sc r e t i o n

. ” U

n it ed St at es v. Nev er Mis se s A Sh ot

, 78 1 F.3 d 10 17

, 10 27 (8 th Ci r.

20 15 ).

-1 4-Th e ev id en ce at is su e co ns is ts of te st im on y fro m a co -co ns pi rat or , R .D., t ha t

Pen dl et on or de red an d pa

rt ic ip at ed in he r as sa ul t aft er an ot he r co -co ns pi rat or accu se d

he r of ta ki ng m et ha m

ph et am in e, m on ey , an d a DVD pl ay er. R.D. ex pl ai ne d th at sh e

ha d be en in vo lv ed in se ll in g m et ha m ph et am in e th at sh e ob ta in ed fro m Pen dl et on

. Sh e sa id th at an ot he r m em be r of th e co ns pi racy accu se d R.D. of ta ki ng th e dr ug s an d

m on ey owe d to Pen dl et on , a th eft th at c o mp r om is ed Pen dl et on ’s ab il it y to bu y

ad di ti on al m et ha m

ph et am in e. R.D. al so ex pl ai ne d th at Pen dl et on or dere d he r in to th e

ba se m en t at a pa rty, hi t he r, to ld an ot he r co -co ns pi rat or to hi t he r, an d th en fo rced he r

to in se rt a hypo de rm ic ne ed le in to he r arm

. Fi na ll y , R.D. te st ifi ed th at so m eo ne to ok

ph ot og rap hs of he r in

juri es fo ll owi ng th is be at in g, an d sh e au th en ti cat ed th e pi ct ur es

pr es en te d b y

th e Gov ern m en t an d o ffer ed in to ev id en ce.

In rev ie win g Pen dl et on ’s cl ai m th at th e as sa ul t ev id en ce was irr el ev an t, we

no te th at th e fact s of th is cas e are cl os e to th os e at is su e in Uni te d St at es v. Gas im AlDab bi

, 38 8 F.3 d 11 45 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ), c e r t

. g ra nt ed

, ju dg men t va ca te d on ot he r

gr ou nd s su b no m. Adi l Gas im Al-Da bb i v. Uni te d St at es , 54 6 U.S. 97 3 (2 00 5)

. The re,

a de fen da nt co nv ic te d of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e co cai ne arg ue d th at a di st ric t co ur t
pl ai nl y erre d by ad m it ti ng ev id en ce t h a t t he de fen da nt vi ol en tl y as sa ul te d hi s co

co ns pi rat or

. Id

. at 11 48

. W e reject ed th is co nt en ti on , no ti ng th at su ch ev id en ce “ was

rel ev an t to pr ov in g th e co ns pi racy ch arg e—s pe ci fic al ly, to sh owi ng [th e de fen da nt ’s]

at te m pt s to co nt ro l th e co ns pi racy th ro ug h th e m ech an is m s of vi ol en ce an d fear .” Id

. The sa m e lo gi c ap pl ie s h e r e

. Pen dl et on ’s de fen se at tri al was th at th e ev id en ce

es ta bl is he d on ly th at he was a m ere us er of m et ha m ph et am in e an d th at ev ery wit ne ss

who im pl ic at ed hi m in a la rg er co ns pi racy to se ll dr ug s li ed to th e jury. The ev id en ce

of R.D.’ s as sa ul t refu te d th is t h e o ry be cau se Pen dl et on ’s or ch es tra ti on of an d

pa rti ci pa ti on in th e as sa ul t as rep ris al fo r R.D.’ s al le ge d t h e fts of dr ug s an d m on ey

sh owe d th at he was in vo lv ed

, an d in de ed a ke y fig ur e, in th e d r u g- di st rib ut io n

sc he m e. Se e F e d. R. Evi d. 40 1; Uni te d St at es v. Mor a , 81 F.3 d 78 1, 78 3 (8 th Ci r.

19 96 ) (“ Rel ev an ce of evi de nc e ‘is es ta bl is he d by an y sh owi ng , ho wev er sli gh t, tha t

th e ev id en ce m ak es it m or e o r le ss li ke ly tha t t he de fen da nt co m m it te d th e cri m e in

-1 5-qu es ti on .’ ” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ca sa re s– C a r d en as , 14 F.3 d 12 83

, 12 87 (8 th

Ci r. 19 94 ))); cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Don ne ll

, 59 6 F.3 d 91 3, 92 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (fi nd in g

no ab us e of di sc ret io n whe n th e di st ric t co ur t ad m it te d au di o reco rd in gs in whi ch th e

de fen da nt refe rred to hi s vi ol en t co nd uc t be cau se th e st at em en t s sh owe d hi s ro le

wit hi n th e dr ug co ns pi racy w a s t h at of an en fo rcer ). In ad di ti on , th e ph ot og rap hs

were rele va nt be cau se th ey su pp or te d R.D.’ s cred ib il it y on th e is su e of whe th er she

act ua ll y ha d be en as sa ul te d, an d th ey sh owe d th e ex te nt of th e in juri es sh e su st ai ne d.

Se e Uni te d S t a te s v. One Fea th er , 70 2 F.2 d 73 6, 73 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 ) (u ph ol di ng

ad m is si on of ph ot og rap hs of an in jury in pa rt be cau se th ey as si st ed th e ju r y in

ev al ua ti ng th e wit ne ss ’s cred ib il it y ).

Alt ho ug h Pen dl et on co nt en ds th at th e pr ejud ic ia l effe ct of th e ev id en ce

su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed it s pr ob at iv e va lu e, se e Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 3, we se e no ab us e

of di sc ret io n o n th is ba si s. “ [A] di st ric t co ur t is gr an te d br oa d di sc ret io n in

de te rm in in g whe th er th e ad m is s i o n of co nt es te d ev id en ce co ul d res ul t in th e

po ss ib il it y of un fai r pr ejud ic e.” Nev er Mis se s A Sh ot

, 78 1 F.3d at 10 27

. W e affo rd

g r e a t de fere nc e to th e co ur t’s ba la nc e of th e pr ejud ic ia l an d pr ob at iv e im pa c t o f

ev id en ce. Id

. Here, th e ph ot og rap hs were no t un du ly gr ue so m e; th ey de pi ct ed th e co

co ns pi rat or ’s br ui se s an d a cu t li p. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Dav id so n , 12 2 F.3 d 53 1,

5 38 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (“ [A] tri al co ur t ha s di sc ret io n to ad m it a rel ev an t ph ot o g r a p h

u n l e s s it is ‘so gr ue so m e or in fla m m at or y th at it s pr ejud ic ia l im pa ct su bs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh [s ] it s pr ob at iv e va lu e.’” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Peta ry , 85 7 F.2 d 45 8, 46 3
(8 th Ci r. 19 88 ))); Uni te d St at es v. Ki me , 9 9 F

. 3 d 87 0, 87 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 )

(d et erm in in g th at ph ot og rap hs de pi ct in g a gu ns ho t wou nd an d he ad in juri es were no t

“ pa rti cu la rly pr ejud ic ia l as un du ly gr ue so m e or co nf us in g” ). Fi na ll y , we no te th at th e

co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury th at Pen dl et on was on tri al “ on ly fo r th e cri m es ch arg ed

, no t

fo r an y th in g el se .” Bec au se we as su m e th at th e jury fo ll o w s in st ru ct io ns , we

c o n c l u d e th at th e in st ru ct io n m it ig at ed th e da ng er th at th e jury wou ld co nv ic t

Pen dl et on of th e ch arg ed cri m es so le ly ba se d on hi s as sa ul t of R.D. Se e Uni te d St at es

-1 6-v. Ali

, 79 9 F. 3 d 1 0 0 8

, 1 0 2 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (n ot in g th at a co ur t m ay di m in is h th e

da ng er o f un fai r pr ejud ic e th ro ug h ju ry in st ru ct io ns ).

E.

Fi na ll y , Pen dl et on arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y de ni ed hi s m ot io n

fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on th e m on ey -la un de rin g ch arg e be cau se th e ev id en ce was

in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on

. “ W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de

n o vo , vi ewin g ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, r e s o l v i n g

co nf li ct s in t h e g ov ern m en t’s fav or , an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at

su pp or t th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. Lo cket t

, 60 1 F.3 d 83 7, 84 0 ( 8 th Ci r. 20 10 )

(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W as hi ng to n , 31 8 F.3d 84 5, 8 52 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3) ). W e wil l

affi rm th e ve rd ic t “ if an y rat io na l jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d St at es v. Ojed a- Est ra da

, 57 7 F.3 d 87 1, 87 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ).

Co nv ic ti on fo r m on ey l a un de rin g un de r § 19 56 (a)( 1) (A) req ui res th e

Gov ern m en t to pr ov e th at th e de fen da nt

, “ kn owi ng th at th e p r o p e r ty in vo lv ed in a

fin an ci al tra ns act io n rep res en ts th e pr oc eed s of so m e fo rm of un la wf u l a ct iv it y ,

c o n du ct s or at te m

pt s to co nd uc t su ch a fin an ci al tra ns act io n whi ch in fact in v o l v e s

th e pr oc eed s of sp eci fie d un la wfu l act iv it y

. . . wit h th e in te nt to pr om ot e th e carr y in g

on of s pe ci fie d u nl awfu l ac ti vi ty.” 18 U.S.C. § 19 56 (a)( 1) (A)(i ); se e Uni te d St at es

v. Cr uz , 99 3 F.2d 16 4, 16 7 (8t h Cir. 19 93 ). On ap pe al , Pen dl et on co nt en ds th at th e

ev id en ce pr es en te d b y t h e Gov ern m en t di d no t sh ow th at he en ga ge d in fin an ci al

tra ns act io ns in or de r to pr om ot e th e carr y in g on of sp eci fie d un la wfu l act iv it y

. 4

The gr ou nd Pen dl et on rai se s on ap pe a l r e g a rd in g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e 4

ev id en ce di ffer s fro m th e gr ou nd rai se d in hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al du rin g tri al

. Dur in g tri al

, Pen dl et on arg ue d th at th e Gov ern m en t ha d n o t s h o wn th at he

at te m pt ed to co nc eal hi s us e of fu nd s de riv ed fro m t h e d r ug op erat io n. The

Gov ern m en t resp on de d, and th e co ur t corr ect ly fo un d, t ha t t hi s ar gu m en t g oe s on ly

-1 7-Howev er, th is arg um en t is di rect ly reb ut te d by th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al

.

Sev eral wit ne ss es , in cl ud in g R.D. an d J.C

., an ot he r co -co ns pi rat or , ex pl ai ne d th at

Pen dl et on ha d us ed hi s met ha m ph et am in e-s al e pr of

it s to pu rch as e ad di ti on al

m et ha m ph et am in e. Acco rd in gl y , th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a jury to fin d th at

Pen dl et on en ga ge d in fin an c ia l tra ns act io ns in or de r to pr om ot e th e carr y in g on of

sp eci fie d un la wfu l act iv it y

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ki ng , 16 9 F.3 d 10 35

, 10 39 (6 th Ci r.

19 99 ) (co ll ect in g cas es sh owi ng th at pa y m en t fo r dr ug s m ay co ns ti tu te pr om ot io n fo r

th e pu rp os es of th e m on ey la un de rin g st at ut e whe n su ch pa y m en t en co ur ag es fu rth er

dr ug t ran sa ct io ns ). The co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed Pen dl et on ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of

acq ui tt al

.

III.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

to on e m et ho d of pro vi ng m on ey la un de rin g, a m et ho d th at th e Gov ern m en t di d no t

pu rs ue

. Co mpa re 18 U.S.C. § 19 56 (a)( 1) (A) (n ot req ui rin g p r o o f o f at te m pt ed

co nc eal m en t) wi th § 19 56 (a)( 1) (B)( I) (req ui rin g pr oo f of at te m pt ed co nc eal men t ).

Nor m al ly, ou r co ur t wou ld co nc lu de th at Pe n d le to n fo rfei te d th e arg um en t he no w rai se s on ap pe al reg ard in g su ffi ci en cy

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ca lh ou n , 72 1 F.3 d 59 6,

60 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). Howev er, th e Gov ern m en t do es no t as se rt fo rfei tu re an d in st ead

arg ue s fo r de no vo rev ie w on th e m eri ts

. Thu s, we ch oo se to ap pl y th e us ua l st an da rd

fo r ev al ua ti ng th e su ffi ci en cy -o f-t he -ev id en ce cl ai m

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Kel ly

, 62 5

F.3 d 5 16 , 51 8 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

-1 8-