# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 13 55

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Nath an W ay ne Sm it h

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 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Co un ci l Bl uf fs

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 11 , 20 14 Fil ed : No ve m

be r 12 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BENTON, MELLOY, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Nath an W ay ne S m it h of ba nk ro bb ery in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 2 11 3( a). He ap pe al s, clai m in g th e di st ric t cou rt co m m it te d c on st it ut io na l 1

erro r by all owi ng th e jury to vi ew a rep la y of vi de o exh ib it s ou ts id e th e pr es en ce of

The Hon or ab le James E. Grit zn er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.th e de fen da nt , an d wit ho ut no ti fy in g de fen se co un se l. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28

U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

I.

At ab ou t 9: 30 am on e Ju ne m or ni ng , a m an en te red a ba nk in Ham bu rg , Io wa. He wor e a whi te vi so r, li gh tl y ti nt ed su ng la ss es , a gr ay or whi te ba g gy t-s hi rt, an d da rk ba gg y pa nt s wit h bl ack -an d- whi te te nn is sh oe s. He pu sh ed a pl as ti c ba g at the

te ll er an d to ld he r to “ fil l it up .” Cam er a s r e c o r d e d th e ro bb ery. A wi tn es s sa w a n earl y -9 0s Cad il la c sp eed in g away fro m th e area of t h e b a n k. It ha d a da rk gr een

ex te rio r an d a li gh t-c ol or ed vi nyl to p. The ba nk ’s ou ts i d e A TM cam era twi ce

reco rd ed a ve hi cl e wit h t hi s d es cri pt io n.

Sm it h l i v e d i n Lex in gt on , Mi ss ou ri, a th ree- ho ur dr iv e fro m Ham bu rg

. He

own ed a da rk gr een 19 95 Cad il la c wit h a li gh t-c ol or ed vi nyl to p. It ha d an ig ni ti on in te rlo ck de vi ce, whi c h, th ree- an d- a-h al f ho ur s aft er th e ro bb ery, was se rv ic ed in Mi ss ou ri. The de vi ce sh owe d th at th e car ran co nt in uo us ly fro m 6: 30 am un ti l 11 :1 7

am , th en ag ai n fo r sh or te r pe rio ds be fo re 1: 00 pm th at da y —t he on ly ti m e th e car ran th is lo ng be twee n Feb ru ary an d Ju ly th at y ear. Sm it h pa i d $ 1 7 5 c a s h fo r th e

se rv ic e—$ 15 0.3 0 m or e th an req ui red by his lea se

.

Mi nu te s af

t e r t he se rv ic e, an of

fic er st op pe d Sm it h in th e Cad il la c fo r a
reg is tra ti on vi ol at io n. The of fic er’s cam era sh owe d Sm ith w ea ri ng a li gh t gr ay t-s hi rt. On t he sea t n ex t t o h im

were li gh tl y

ti nt ed go ld -ri m

m ed su ng la ss es . Sm it h t ol d t he of fic er he w as cu rren tl y un em pl oyed. The da y aft er th e ro bb ery, Sm it h pa id $1 ,47 5

cas h fo r a car, wit ho ut te st -d riv in g it

. Sev en da y s aft er th e ro bb ery, two ba nk te ll ers , vi ewin g a si x- pe rs on ph ot o li ne up , in de pe nd en tl y id en ti fie d Sm it h as th e ro bb er. Day s la te r, po li ce se arch ed hi s ho m e, se iz in g a pa ir of bl ack -an d- whi te te nn is sh oe s

an d a li gh t co lo red T-sh irt
, li ke th e ro bb er’s. The y al so fo un d hi s Cad il la c un de r a car

co ve r wit h t he li cen se pl at es rem ov ed

.

-2

-At is su e are fo ur vi de o ex hi bi ts en te red wit ho ut ob jecti on an d sh own to th e jury du r i n g t r i a l

. A s th e jury pr ep ared to de li be rat e, th e co ur t to ld co un se l: “ All of th e

ex hi bi ts wil l go ba ck

. The vi de os , if th e jury wis he s to se e th em , we’ll pl ay th em fo r th em in th e co ur tro om

. Pl eas e m ak e su re so m eo ne ot he r th an on e of th e at to rn ey s is he re t o p la y

th os e fo r us if we n eed th at do ne .”

Dur in g de li be rat io n, th e jury req ue st ed to vi ew th e fo ur vi de os

. The eq ui pm en t
to pl ay th em was in th e co ur tro om

. The jury cam e ba ck to th e co ur tro om

. The jud ge

an d th e co ur t rep or te r were th ere. A st aff m em be r of th e U.S. Att or ne y ’s of fic e—wh o ha d p la y ed th e v id eo s at tri al —p la y ed th em for th e jury.

THE COURT: Take y ou r se at s.
JUR OR [# 1]: Are we a bl e to lo ok at t he sm al le r m on it or ?

THE COURT: Take y ou r se at s.
W e are on th e reco rd
, th e Co ur t ha vi ng rece iv ed a q u e s ti on fro m th e jury, th e qu es ti on be in g, “ W e wou ld li ke to se e th e th ree ba nk vi de os (n ot th e ATM) an d th e Amer v id eo fro m Bu ck ne r. W e wou ld [s ic ] a
sm al le r sc reen ve rs us th e la rg e m on it or ,” an d it ’s si gn ed by th e fo rem an , [J ur or #3 ].

The Co ur t can cert ai nl y pr ov id e y ou wit h a ch an ce to se e th os e vi de os , an d we’ll do th at in jus t a m om en t. I can ’t al te r th e way y ou were sh own th e v id eo s d ur in g th e tri al

. I wil l all ow you, i f y ou wis h, t o s te p c lo se r to th e m on it or , bec au se ob vi ou sl y so m e o f y ou are cl os er t ha n o th ers

. So if y ou wis h to co m e ou t of th e jury bo x an d be clo se r to th e m on it or whi le th ey ’re be in g pl ay ed
, y ou ’re welc om e to do th at , bu t I wil l no t be ab le to gi ve y ou a di ffer en t m on it or to lo ok at.

JUR OR [# 2]: Ca n we l oo k o ff o f th at m on it or th at th e—

THE COURT: Tha t m on it or wi ll be th ere whe n y ou ’re st an di ng ov er th ere.
JUR OR [# 2]: Ok ay

. -3

-THE COURT: So if y ou wan t to co m e cl os er to th e m on it or s, y ou m ay

.

JUR OR [# 3]: I wou ld sa y th e pe op le th at ha ve th e bi gg es t qu es ti on s, ge t to ward th e fro nt

. THE COURT: Don ’t tel l m e th at

. Oka y . Alri gh t. Deb , wou ld y ou jus t p la y th em in ord er.
And th en if you wi sh to see th em ag ai n, t el l m e.
JUR OR [# 2]: An d i f we as k t o s to p, ca n s he ?

THE COURT: Sh e wil l.

JUR OR [# 2]: Ok ay

. (Exh ib it 2 p la y ed in op en co ur t.)

JUR OR [# 1]: W hy do n’t we st op an d ba ck it up t o a b o u t ha lfwa y in be twee n.
THE COURT: Kell i, we d on ’t nee d t o re co rd th ei r di sc us si on

. (Dis cu ss io n o ff t he reco rd .)

THE COURT: Fo lk s, av oi d m uc h di sc us si on

. Ju st te ll us wha t y ou
wan t t o s ee. Are y ou read y

for th e n ex t v id eo ? (Exh ib it No. 3 pl ay ed in op en co ur t.) (Dis cu ss io n o ff t he reco rd .)

THE COURT: Nex t o ne , pl eas e. (Go ve rn m en t ex hi bi t 4 pl ay ed in op en co ur t.)

THE COURT: And th en y ou wan te d th e Offi cer Am er st op in Bu ck ne r. (Go ve rn m en t ex hi bi t 1 2 p la y ed in op en co ur t.) THE COURT: Anybod y ne ed to see an y th in g a ga in ?

-4

-A JUROR: No.

JUR ORS IN UNISON: Than k you

. THE COURT: Than k you , fol ks

. Twent y -o ne m in ut es aft er re vi ewin g t he vi de os , th e jury reach ed it s v erd ic t.

II.

Sm it h arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve no ti fie d hi m an d hi s co un se l ab ou t th e jury’ s req ue st to rep l a y th e vi de o ev id en ce, gi vi ng hi m an op po rtu ni ty to be

pr es en t an d he ard on th e is su e. He al so co nt en ds th at rep la y in g th e vi de o ex hi bi t to th e jury is a cri ti cal tri al st ag e t r i g g e r i ng a rig ht to be pr es en t un de r th e Fi fth an d Si xt h Am en dm en ts of t h e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on an d Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al
Pro ced ur e 4 3( a)(2 ).

Th e g o v e r nm en t arg ue s th at , ev en if th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by rep la y in g th e vi de os wit ho ut no ti fy in g Sm it h an d hi s co un se l, an y erro r is rev ie wed on ly fo r pl ai n

erro r. Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t br ie fly to ld co un se l ho w it wou ld ad dr es s th e jury’ s
req ue st to pl ay th e vi de os , th e co ur t di d no t i nd ic at e whe th er th e de fen da nt (o r

co un se l) wou ld be no ti fie d or gi ve n an op po rtu ni ty to be he ard

. Si nc e Sm it h an d hi s

co un se l h a d n o c h an ce to ob ject to th e rep la y , pl ai n erro r is no t th e st an da rd of

rev ie w. Fed. R. Cri m . P. 51 (b) (“ If a pa rty d oe s no t ha ve an op po rtu ni ty t o ob ject

to a ru li ng or or de r, th e ab se nc e of an ob jecti on do es no t la te r pr ejud ic e th at pa rty.”).

“ W e rev ie w whe th er a tri al co ur t co nd uc te d a pr oc eed in g in vi ol at io n of de fen da nt s’ rig ht to be pr es en t du rin g ev ery st ag e of tri al un de r an ab us e of di sc ret io n
st an da rd

. If a pr oc eed in g was co nd uc te d i n v i o l a t io n of th is rig ht
, it is su bjec t to ha rm le ss erro r an al y si s.” Unit ed St at es v. Ba rt h
, 42 4 F.3 d 75 2, 76 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (in te rn al ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Se e Cha pm an v. Ca li

fo rn ia
, 38 6 U.S. 18
, 24 (1 96 7)

-5

-(“ [B]efo re a fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al erro r can be he ld ha rm le ss , th e co ur t m us t be ab le

to de cl are a be li ef t ha t i t was ha rm le ss be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.”)

.

“ The Fi fth an d Si xt h Am en dm en ts pr ot ect a cri m i n a l de fen da nt ’s rig ht to be

pr es en t at al l st ag es of th e tri al
, an d a tri al co ur t m us t pr ov id e th e de fen se at to rn ey wit h n ot ic e an d a m ean in gf ul op po rtu ni ty t o ob

ject b efo re re sp on di ng to a qu es ti on

as ke d by th e jury on ce de li be rat io ns be gi n.” St ewa rt v. Nix
, 97 2 F.2 d 96 7, 97 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) . “ Co m m un ic at io n b et ween jud ge an d ju ry in th e ab se nc e of an d wit ho ut no ti ce to th e de fen da nt crea te s a pr es um pt io n of pr ejud ic e. S uc h pr es um

pt io n m ay be ov erco m e, ho wev er, by a cl ear in di cat io n of a la ck of

pr ejud ic e.” Id

. (in te rn al ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Se e al so Unit ed St at es v. Ola no , 50 7 U.S.
72 5, 73 9 (1 9 9 3 ) ( “Th e re m ay be cas es whe re an in tru si on sh ou ld be pr es um ed

pr ejud ic ia l

. . . bu t a pr es um pt io n of pr ejud ic e as op po se d to a sp eci fic an al y si s do es

no t ch an ge th e ul ti m at e in qu iry: Did th e in tru si on affe ct th e jury’ s de li be rat io ns an d th ereb y it s v erd ic t? ”).

In Sh el to n v. Pur ket t , 56 3 F.3 d 40 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), th is co ur t ad dr es se d a tri al

co ur t’s gr an t of a “ de li be rat in g jury’ s req ue st to vi ew ex hi bi ts

. . . wit ho ut in fo rm in g

co un se l th at th e co ur t was co m m un ic at in g wit h th e jury.” Id

. at 40 7- 08

. Alt ho ug h th is co ur t as su m ed th at th e co m m un ic at io n w a s co ns ti tu ti on al erro r, “ [w]e
qu es ti on e[d ] whe th er th e act of ha nd in g ov er a pr ev io us ly ad m it te d ex hi bi t qu al ifi es

as th e so rt of ‘pres um

pt iv el y pr ejud ic ia l co m

m un i c a t i o n ’ St ewa rt ad dr es se d, as it

se em s m or e m in is te ria l th an su bs ta nt iv e.” Id

. at 40 8. Se e ge ne ra ll

y Unit ed St at es v. Muh le n br uch
, 63 4 F.3 d 98 7, 10 01 -0 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ It is wit hi n th e so un d di sc ret io n of th e tri al co ur t to de te rm in e whe th er to al lo w a jury to rev i e w p ro pe rly ad m it te d t es ti m on y

or r eco rd in gs du rin g d el ib erat io ns .”).

Eve n if th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by rep la y in g th e vi de os wit ho ut

no ti fy in g th e de fen da nt an d hi s co un se l, th e erro r was ha rm le ss be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. The di st ric t co ur t was pres en t du rin g th e rep la y , an d th e tra ns cri pt sh ows no

-6

-pr ejud ic ia l di al og ue

. Alt ho ug h wha t was sa id of f th e reco rd is un kn own , th e co u rt in st ru ct ed th e jury to av oi d di sc us si on an d to “ jus t te ll us wha t y ou wan t to se e.” Se e Y an na co po ul os v. Gen. Dyna m ic s Co rp . , 75 F.3 d 12 98
, 13 05 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ It is

cert ai nl y reas on ab le to be li ev e, ab se nt ev id en ce to th e co nt rary, th at th e jury ad he red

to th e jud ge ’s in st ru ct io ns .”). The jury was in th e co ur tro om fo r a to ta l of 11 m in ut es
to vi ew al l fo ur vi de os —wh ic h to ge th er la st 7 m in ut es 45 se co nd s (an d it ap pe ars on e vi de o was ba ck ed up an d pl ay ed ha lfwa y th ro ug h ag ai n)

. Alt ho ug h a no n- at to rn ey IT sp eci al is t fro m th e U.S. At to rn ey ’s o ffi ce pl ay ed th e v id eo s, t he co ur t in st ru ct ed he r wha t t o p la y

an d wh en to pl ay

it

.

Ove rwh el m in g e v i d en ce sh owe d Sm it h co m m it te d th e ro bb ery. Two te ll ers in de pe nd en tl y id en ti fie d hi m as th e ro bb er in a ph ot o li ne up a week aft er th e ro bb ery. He own ed a un iq ue Cad il la c id en ti cal to th e on e us ed in th e ro bb ery (wh ic h so on ha d it s li cen se pl at es rem ov ed ). The dr iv e ti m es on th e ig ni ti on in te rlo ck de vi ce m es he d wit h th e ro bb ery ti m el in e. Des pi te cl ai m in g t o b e u ne m pl oyed, h e m ad e la rg e cas h

tra ns act io ns wit hi n 24 ho ur s aft er th e ro bb ery. Sm it h’s cl ot hi ng res em bl ed th e ba nk

ro bb er’s.

Fi na ll y , Sm it h was pr es en t an d di d no t ob ject du rin g tri al whe n th e co ur t ad m it te d th e vi de os in to ev id en ce an d th ey were pl ay ed to th e jury. Defen se co un se l pl ay ed on e vi de o du rin g hi s cl os in g arg um en t. Thi s co ur t fin ds be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e vi de o rep la y ou ts id e of Sm it h’s (an d hi s co un se l’s) pr es en ce was ha rm le ss

. 2

Neit he r th is co ur t no r th e Su pr em e Co ur t h as di rect ly add res se d wh et he r th e 2
rep la y of vi de o ev id en ce to a de li be rat in g jury is a cri ti cal st ag e in tri al

. The ci rcu it s
are sp li t on th is is su e. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Mo ns er ra te -V

a l e n t i n , 72 9 F.3 d 31
, 58 (1 st Ci r. 20 13 ) (d is cu ss in g cas es ). Si nc e rep la y in g th e vi de os wit ho ut no ti fy in g th e de fen da nt or hi s co un se l was ha rm le ss be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, th is co ur t ne ed no t ad dr es s whe th er th e rep la y is a cri ti cal tri al st ag e. Se e Rus hen v . S p a i n , 46 4 U.S. 11 4, 11 7- 19 (1 98 3) (h ol di ng th e rig h t to pe rs on al pr es en ce at al l st ag es of tri al is

-7

-* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

rev ie wed fo r ha rm le ss erro r); Ro ge rs v. Unit

ed St at es , 42 2 U.S. 35
, 40 (1 97 5) (“ [A] vi ol at io n o f Ru le 43 m ay in so m e cas es be ha rm le ss erro r.”).

-8

-