FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 2, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 16 99 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 03 8- CR-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DEON MONROE JONES, a.k .a. Jo hn ny Lee Jo ne s, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 2, 2 01 0) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e:Deo n M on ro e Jo ne s (“ Mr. J on es ”) ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es on

fo urco un ts : (1 ) kn owi ng po ss es si onof afir earm an d a m m un it io n b y

a co nv ic te d fel on on Ju ne 1, 2 00 4, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ); ( 2) kn owi ng po ss es si on of afir earm

an d a m m un it io n b y

a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es us er o n J un e 1 , 20 04 , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(3 ); ( 3) kn owi ng po ss es si on of am m un it io n by a con vi ct edfel on on Ju ne 18 , 20 04 , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ); a nd (4 ) kn owi ng po ss es si on of a m m un it io n b y

a co nt ro ll edsubs tanc es us er o n J un e 1 8, 20 04 , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(3 ). Mr. J on es rai se s s ev enis su es on ap pe al . W e wil l d is cu ss all bu t o ne he re. Afterrev ie w andora l ar gu m en t, we 1 affi rm inpa rt, re ve rs e in pa rt, v acat e in pa rt, a ndrem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . I. Inth e ear ly m orni ng of J un e 1 , 20 04 , Davi d B us ki rk(“ Mr. Bu sk irk ”) was sh otwith a.38 cal ib er b ul le t o ut si de hi s h om e in Sav an na h, Geo rg ia . Detec ti ve Ro be rt Vo n Lo wen fel dt(“ Dete ct iv e Von Lowen fel dt ”) l edth e in ve st ig at io n i nt o Mr. Bu sk irk ’s sh oo ti ng , and , ov er the co ur se of h is in ve st ig at io n, i de nt ifi edMr. Jo ne s as a pr im e su sp ect . On Ju ne 18 , 20 04 , Detec ti ve Von Lowen fel dthe lp ed ex ecu te a warra ntforMr. J on es ’s arres t, fo r vi ol at io n o f hi s p aro le . Duri ng a se arch of M r. Jo ne s’s b edro om at h is m ot he r’s ho us e, th e p ol ic e fo un d twelv e .38

Be cause we r ever se two of the f our counts of c onviction, and re mand for r esente ncing , 1 we ne ed not addr ess Mr. Jones’s challeng es to his curre nt sentence .cal ib er ro un ds an d fo ur.44 cal ib er ro un ds .

On J un e 2 3, 2 00 4, Det ect iv e Von Lowen fel dtco nduc te d avi de ot ap ed in te rv ie w of s ix te en -y ear- ol d Kel ly Big ha m (“ Ms . Big ha m ”). Inth ei r co nv ers at io n, Ms . Big ha m

in fo rm edth e d et ect iv e th atsh e h adso lda .38 rev ol ve r to Mr. J on es . Sh e d es cri be d h ow s he an d M r. Jo ne s dro ve to a ni ce ar ea o f to wn, wh ere M r. Jo ne s s ho t a wh it e m an . After t he in te rv ie w, Ms. Bi gh am di rect edDete ct iv e Von Lowen fel dtto th e st reeton whi chMr. Bu sk irkli ve d, an d s he de m on st rat edho w Mr. J on es go t o utof t he car, fi redat t he m an , andgo t b ackin to th e car . On Fe brua ry

8, 2 00 6, M r. Jo ne s was in di ct edon two co un ts : p os se ss io n o f twel ve rou nd s o f .38 sp eci al am m un it io n a ndfou r ro un ds of .4 4 c al ib er amm un it io n, o n J un e 1 8, 2 00 4, (1 ) as a co nv ic te d fe lo n and(2) as aus er o f co ntro ll edsubs ta nc es . A j ury fou ndhi m

gu il ty on b ot h c ou nt s, b utMr. J on es su cces sf ul ly app eal edth es e co nv ic ti on s. OnMr. J on es ’s firs t ap pe al , we con cl ud ed th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s i ns tru ct io ns to th e jury were un du ly coerc iv e. Uni te d S ta te s v. J on es , 50 4 F .3d12 18 , 12 19 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Forth atreas on , we rev ers edMr. Jo ne s’s co nv ic ti on s an d re m an de d fo r a n ew tr ia l. Id . at 1 22 0. Inlat e Nov em

be r 20 07 , sh ortl y

aft er the m an da te was i ss ue d, the go ve rn m en t rece iv eda le tt er fro m

Greg ory Seab ro ok(“ Mr. Se ab ro ok ”), wh o was in carc erat ed with M r. Jo ne s. Mr . Seab ro okoff eredto pro vi de in fo rm at io n d iv ul ge d b y Mr. 3Jo ne s ab ou t h is rol e in th e Bu sk irkass au ltan d abo utMr. J on es ’s subs eque ntarre st .

Ove r th e fo ll owi ng m on th s, the Bu reauof Al co ho l, To ba cco , Fire arm s an d Exp lo si ve s (“ ATF”), in ve st ig at edth es e m at te rs . ATF agen ts in te rv ie wedMr. Seab ro okan d o th er i nm at es , who sai d M r. Jo ne s h adco nf id edinth em . Arm edwith t hi s fr es hl y

acqui redev id en ce, the go ve rn m en t b ro ug htne w ch arg es ag ai ns t M r. Jo ne s. OnDecem be r 13 , 20 07 , a fed eral gra ndjury returne d a Supe rs ed in g In di ctm en t, ad di ng Co un ts One a ndTwo an d re in di ct in g a s C ou nt s Thre e an d F ou r th e two cri m es ch arg edinth e o rig in al in di ctm en t. Aft er a s eco nd tri al , a jury co nv ic te d o n a ll fou r co un ts . At se nt en ci ng , th e d is tri ctco urt m erg ed Co un t On e wit h Two an d C ou ntThre e wit h F ou r. Eval ua ti ng th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, the di st ric t co urt n ot edth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , Mr. Jo ne s’s “ si ni st er n atur e” an d c riminal hi st ory , th e n eedto pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , hi s l ackof r em or se , andth e g reatris k h e p os edto so ci ety . Havi ng st at edth es e rea so ns , th e d is tri ctco urt v ari edfro m th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ’ ap pl ic ab le sen te nc in g ra ng e o f 13 0 t o 1 62 m on th s an d s en te nc edMr. J on es to 20 0 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. Mr . Jo ne s t im el y ap pe al ed .

4II .

Mr. J on es m ak es th e fo ll owi ng arg um en ts on ap pe al : (1 ) th atth e d el ay in br in gi ng hi m

to tri al vi ol at edth e Sp eedy Trial Act; (2) th atth e co un ts of t he Supe rs ed in g In di ctm en t ar e m ul ti pl ic it ou s; (3) th atth e co un ts ad de d b y th e Supe rs ed in g In di ctm en t ar e th e p ro du ctof p ro se cu to ria l v in di ct iv en es s; (4) th atth e di st ric t co urt erredwhen itadm it te d avi de ot ap edin te rv ie w of M s. Bi gh am as p as t reco ll ect io n re co rd ed ; (5 ) th atth e g ov ern m en t’s n on di sc lo su re o f certa in do cu m en ts vi ol at edth e Je nc ks Act an d B rady v. Mary land , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 3 S . Ct. 11 94 (19 63 ); and(6) th atth ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt aco nv ic ti on on an y of t he co un ts . A. W e are fir strequi redto de te rm in e whe th er the de la y inbri ng in g M r. Jo ne s t o tri al am ou nt s t o avi ol at io n o f th e Sp eedy Trial Act o f 19 74 , 18 U.S.C. §§ 31 61 –3 17 4 (t he “ Act” ). Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws de no vo th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o di sm is s fo r vi ol at io n o f th e Sp eedy Trial Act. Un it edSta te s v . Harri s, 3 76 F.3d 12 82 , 12 86 (11 thCir . 20 04 ). Whe n ade fen da ntsu cces sf ul ly app eal s h is co nv ic ti on , th e Sp eedy Trial Act al lo ws o nl y

sev en ty day s b etweenth e d at e th atth e d is tri ctco urt re cei ve s the

5m an da te an d t he da te th e d efen da nt ’s retria l b eg in s. Un it edSta te s v . Last eed , 83 2

F.2 d 1 24 0, 1 24 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7) ; s ee al so 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( e). New ch arg es ad de d b y a supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t d o n otres etth e sp eedy -tr ia l t im et ab le for of fen se s ei th er ch arg edinth e o rig in al in di ctm en t o r requi redun de r do ub le jeop ardy pri nc ip le s t o b e joi ne d wi th su chch arg es . Uni te d S ta te s v . You ng , 52 8 F.3 d 1 29 4, 1 29 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . The Act “ ex cl ud es fro m

th e 7 0- da y

pe rio d d ay s l os t t o c ert ai n t y pe s o f de lay .” Blo at e v . Uni te d S ta te s, No . 08 -7 28 , --- S. Ct . ----, 2 01 0 WL 75 76 60 , at * 5 (Ma r. 8, 2 01 0) . Spe ci fic al ly, “ [t]he eig htsubp arag rap hs insubs ect io n (h )(1 ) ad dr es s t he au to m at ic ex cl ud ab il it y of d el ay ge ne rat edforcert ai n e nu m erat ed pu rp os es . Thu s, we fi rs t co ns id er wh ethe r th e d el ay at i ss ue inth is cas e is go ve rn edby one of the se subp arag rap hs .” Id . at * 6. Whe n c on du ct in g t he sp eedy -tr ia l ca lc ul us , a co urt s ho ul d n otin cl ud e “ de lay res ul ti ng fro m

an y pre tri al m ot io n, fr om

th e fi li ng of t he m ot io n t hr ou gh th e co nc lu si on of t he he ari ng on , or o th er p ro m ptdi sp os it io n o f, su chm ot io n.” 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) (1 )(D). Als o re le va ntto th is cas e, subs ect io n 3 16 1( h) (1 )(H) pr ov id es forex cl us io n o f “ de la y reas on ab ly attr ib ut ab le to an y pe rio d, n otto ex ceedth irt y

day s, dur in g wh ic h a ny pro ceed in g c on cern in g t he de fen da ntis actua ll y un de r advi se m en t b y

th e co urt.” Id . § 3 16 1( h) (1 )(H). “ Incal cu la ti ng

6in cl ud ab le ti m e, bo thth e d at e o n wh ic h a n e ve ntoc cu rs or am ot io n i s fi le d a ndth e

da te on whi chth e co urt d is po se s o f a m ot io n a re ex cl ud ed .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Yun is , 72 3 F .2d79 5, 7 97 (11 thCir . 19 84 ). The di stric t co urt m

us t p ro m pt ly dis po se of p retria l m ot io ns forwhi chno he ari ng is requi red . 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) (1 )(D). “ Pro m ptdi sp os it io n” “ de pe nd s up on when th e co urt t ak es th e m ot io n ‘un de r advi se m en t’ forpu rp os es of § 3 16 1( h) (1 )[(H)].” Uni te d S ta te s v . Dave np ort, 9 35 F.2d12 23 , 12 28 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). A m ot io n i s “ un de r advi se m en t” on ce the pa rti es ha ve fil edth e la stpi ece o f ne ces sary in fo rm at io n, atwhi chpo in t the co urt h as th irt y da y s t o a ctbe fo re the sp eedy -tr ia l cl oc k re st art s. Id . On No ve m

be r 21 , 20 07 , th e d is tri ctco urt re cei ve d thi s C ou rt’s m an da te , rev ers in g M r. Jo ne s’s co nv ic ti on s an d re m an di ng fora ne w tri al . From th atda te , th e g ov ern m en t h adsev en ty day s t o b rin g M r. Jo ne s t o tria l. See Last eed , 83 2 F .2d at12 43 . On Dece m

be r 13 , th e g ov ern m en t fi le d i ts supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t, wh ic h di d n otcau se th e cl oc k t o re se t o n t he ori gi na l ch arg es . See Yo un g, 5 28 F.3dat 12 96 . On Dec em

be r 21 , twen ty-ni ne no ne xc lu dabl e d ay s af te r rec ei ptof the m an da te , Mr. Jo ne s fi le d two m ot io ns , on e to di sm is s m ul ti pl ic it ou s co un ts an d o ne to di sm is s t he supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t. The se to ll edth e sp eedy -tr ia l cl oc k unt il th e 7go ve rn m en t re sp on de d andanad di ti on al th irt y da y s el ap se d. OnJan ua ry 9, 2 00 9, be fo re tha t p eri odex pi red , Mr. Jo ne s fi le d asl ew of ne w m ot io ns . Both p art ie s ag ree tha t the se m ot io ns requi reda he ari ng be fo re a m ag is tra te jud ge . Acco rd in gl y , th e sp eedy -tr ia l cl oc k re m ai ne d s to pp edat twen ty-ni ne day s an d wou ldno t re st artun ti l the m ag is tra te jud ge he lda he ari ng , recei ve d a ll ne ces sa ry do cu m en ts , andeit he r res ol ve d t he pe nd in g m ot io ns or a ll owe d a n a dd it io na l thi rty da y s t o p as s. See Dun n, 3 45 F.3dat 1 29 2. Afte r th e Ma rch 26 , 20 08 he ari ng , th e m ag is tra te jud ge refe rredtwo m ot io ns to th e d is tri ctco urt an d re qu es te d fu rth er b rie fin g o n t wo o th ers . The m ag is tra te jud ge is su edhi s fi nd in gs ora ll y at t he he ari ng , anden te reda writ te n m in ut e o rd er on Marc h 2 8, 2 00 8. Al so onMarc h 2 8, M r. Jo ne s fi le d aMo ti on forIn C am era Heari ng , cha ll en gi ng th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rul in g o n h is Mo ti on forDis co ve ry of Exc ul pa to ry

Evi de nc e. Mr. J on es arg ue d t ha t b ecau se th ere was a “ stro ng su gg es ti on th atBrad y

m at eri al ex is ts , th e tr ia l co urt s ho ul d h ol d an i n c am era rev ie w to de te rm in e if

th e supp res si on of s uc h m at eri al is pro pe r.” The go ve rn m en t fil edit s re sp on se on Apri l 9 , 20 08 . On Ju ne 23 , 20 08 , th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he m ot io n wi th ou t h ol di ng or e ve n s ch edul in g ahe ari ng . Inde ci di ng Mr. J on es ’s Ren ewedMo ti on to Dis m is s t he Supe r[s ]edi ng In di ctm en t fo r Sp eedy

Trial Vio la ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt ex cl ud edth e ti m e p eri od

8fro m

May 10—th irt y

da y s af te r th e g ov ern m en t’s fi li ng —t o Jun e 2 3—th e d at e o n whi chitde ni edMr. J on es ’s Mo ti on forIn C am era Hearin g. We m us t the refo re de ci de whet he r a m ot io n t ha t re qu es ts a he ari ng ne ces sa ril y to ll s t he sp eedy

tri al cl oc k u nt il th e d is tri ctco urt d is po se s o f th e m ot io n, ev enwhen th e d is tri ctco urt di sp os es of t he m ot io n wi th ou t ei th er s ch edul in g o r ho ld in g ahe ari ng . W e co nc lu de th atitdo es no t. InUni te d S ta te s v . Sta ffo rd , 69 7 F .2d13 68 (11 thCir . 19 83 ), th is Co urt s et ou t the ba si c fra m ewo rkforap pl y in g t he Sp eedy Trial Act’s t im e ex cl us io ns . Id. at 13 73 –7 4. In in st an ces , li ke th is cas e, whe re n o h eari ng is requi red , th e p eri odof e xc lu si on be gi ns at the fil in g o f th e m ot io n anden ds at th e p oi ntof i ts ‘ pr om

ptdi sp os it io n.’ The i nc lu si on of the pro m pt ne ss requi rem en t was ‘ in te nd edto pro vi de a po in t atwhi chti m e wil l ce as e to be ex cl ud ed , wh er e mot io ns ar e d eci de d o n the pa

pe rs fi le d w itho ut he ar in g .’ Id . at 1 37 3 (quo ti ng S. Rep . No. 9 6- 21 2, at34 (19 79 )) (em ph as is ad de d) . The wor ds “pr om

ptdi sp os it io n” were i nt en de d t o “ ‘excl ud [e] tim e b etweenfil in g a nd di sp os it io n o n t he pape rs ,’ ” an d t he reb y pre ve nt“ ‘circu m

ve nt io n o f th e 3 0- da y s,

“un de r advi se m en t” pro vi si onco nt ai ne d i n S ub se ct io n (h )(1 )[(H)].’ ” Id . at 1 37 4 (quo ti ng S. Rep . No. 9 6- 21 2, at34 ); s ee al so Hend ers on v. Un it edSta te s, 4 76 U.S. 32 1, 3 29 , 10 6 S . Ct. 1 87 1, 1 87 6 (1 98 6) (“ ‘[I] f m ot io ns are s o s im pl e o r ro ut in e th at th ey do no t re qu ire a he ari ng , nec es sa ry advi se m en t t im e sh ou ldbe co ns id erab ly 9le ss th an30 da y s.’” (quo ti ng S. Rep . No. 9 6- 21 2, at34 )); Uni te d S ta te s v . Sco tt ,

27 0 F .3d30 , 57 (1s t Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ Co ng res s p la in ly w an te d e ve n m or e co m pl ic at ed m ot io ns th anth e o ne he re t o b e d eci de d wi th in 30 da y s o f a h eari ng , andles s co m pl ic at edm ot io ns , dec id edwitho uta he ari ng , to be de ci de d ‘pro m pt ly,’ withi n th at30 -d ay

pe rio d.” ). In S ta ffo rdwe m ad e n o d is ti nc ti on be twee n i ns ta nc es in whi chno he ari ng was re qu es te d, an d i ns ta nc es inwhi cha he ari ng was re qu es te d bu t n othe ld . See St affo rd , 69 7 F .2dat 1 37 3– 74 . The rel ev an t co ns id erat io n i s whe th er the di st ric t co urt ex pr es se d i ts be li ef tha t a h eari ng was n eces sa ry by eith er sc he du li ng or a ctua ll y

ho ld in g ahe ari ng to res ol ve th e m ot io n. 2 Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt n ei th er s ch edul edno r he lda he ari ng to res ol ve Mr. J on es ’s Mo ti on forIn C am era Hearin g. Be cau se no he ari ng was re qu ire d, the m ot io n was un de r advi se m en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt as of t he da te th e g ov ern m en t fil edit s re sp on se on Apri l 9 , 20 08 . The d is tri ctco urt the n h adth irt y da y s i n wh ic h to rul e o n t he m ot io n. Whenth e th irt y da y s o f ex cl ud ab le ti m e el ap se d o n M ay 10 , At oral a rgument, the g overnme nt attempted to analog ize this case to United States v. 2 Mers, 701 F .2d 1321 (11th Cir. 1983). Howe ver, the motions addressed in Mer s weremotions t o suppress, for

which the mag istrate judg e set a hearing da

te. I d. at 1335. A motion to suppress evidenc e is prec isely

the ty pe of pr etrial motion for whic h a we ll-rea soned rulingty pically is not possible without a hearing. See United States v. Gar cia, 778 F .2d 1558, 1562 (11th Cir. 1985) (“AJ ames motion and a f ourth amendme nt suppression motion are proc edura lly alike. B oth call for a hearing.” ). Mr. Jones filed a dec idedly differ ent Motion for I

n Camera Hea ring . Her e, in contra st with Mers, the district court g ave no indication that it needed additional information from the pa

rties, that any

evidenc e wa s missi ng , or that a he aringwould fac ilitate resolution of Mr. J ones’s Motion. Also unlike Mers, no date for a hearing w as eve r set. 10th e sp eedy -tr ia l cl oc k b eg anto run . Mr. Jo ne s was bro ug htto tri al sev en ty-fiv e

no ne xc lu dabl e d ay s af

te r th e d is tri ctco urt re cei ve d t hi s C ou rt’s m an da te —a vi ol at io n o f th e Sp eedy

Trial Act. The Sp eedy

Trial Act h as be envi ol at edan d t he ori gi na l co un ts , no w nu m be redCo un ts Thre e an d F ou r, m us t b e d is m is se d. 1 8 U.S.C. § 31 62 (a)( 2) . In li gh t o f th e v io la ti on , we m us t d eci de whet he r th es e ch arg es are t o b e d is mis se d with o r wit ho utpre

jud ic e. B. The Act s et s o utcert ai n fa ct or s t o g ui de co urts as t he y de ci de whet he r to di sm is s wi th or wi th ou t p reju di ce: [T]he co urt s ha ll co ns id er, am on g o th ers , each of t he fol lo win g fact or s: [1] th e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se ; [2 ] th e fac ts an d ci rcu m st an ces of t he cas e whi chledto th e d is m is sa l; an d [3 ] th e im pa ctof arep ro se cu ti on on th e ad min is tra ti onof t hi s ch ap te r an d o n th e ad m in is tra ti on of ju st ic e. 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 2( a)(2 ). Whe re the de fen dantis ch arg edwith aser io us cri m e, th e de lay was m in or , th e d efen da ntsu ffer edno pre jud ic e fro m

th e d el ay , andth e go ve rn m en t d idno t ac ti ve ly seekde la y , di sm is sa l s ho ul d b e witho utpre jud ic e. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Carre on , 62 6 F .2d52 8, 5 33 (7t h C ir. 1 98 0) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v. Ru ss o, 7 41 F.2d12 64 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ) (“ Whe re the cri m e ch arg edis se rio us , th e co urt s ho ul d d is m is s o nl y fora co rres po nd in gl y

sev ere d el ay .”). 11Whe n t he res ul t o f th is ba la nc in g t es t i s s o c le ar tha t re m an d c on st itut es an

un ne ces sa ry

ex pe nd itur e o f jud ic ia l re so ur ces , a co urt o f ap pe al s o ug htto en ga ge th e § 31 62 (a)( 2) fact or s ra th er than re m an d o n t he is su e o f pr ejud ic e. See Un it ed St at es v. Mi ran da , 83 5 F .2d83 0, 8 34 –3 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 8) . Here, anad di ti on al he ari ng is un li ke ly to u nc ov er fa ct s n otrev eal edaft er two tria ls an d t wo ap pe al s.

“ ‘W e wou ldno t s erv e th e p ur po se s o f th e Sp eedy

Trial Act b y

pre ci pi ta ti ng a ne ed le ss he ari ng with t he ris k o f a fu rth er ap pe al . . . .’ ” Id . at 8 35 (qu ot in g Un it ed St at es v. Tu nn es se n, 7 63 F.2d74 , 80 (2dCir . 19 85 )). App lying th es e p rin ci pl es to th e fac ts of t hi s ca se , we con cl ud e th atdi sm is sa l witho utpre

jud ic e is requi redby the Act. As to th e fi rs t fa ct or , po ss es si on of amm un it io n b y

a co nv ic te d fe lo n a nddru g u se r are cle arl y ser io us cri m es . Mr. Jo ne s h as a le ng th y

cri m in al pa stan d h as ex hi bi te d re ci di vi stten de nc ie s. Bo th of th es e co ns id erat io ns weig h h eav il y infav or of d is m is si ng witho utpre jud ic e to al lo w forrep ro se cu ti on . See Un it edSta te s v . Jo hn so n, 2 9 F .3d94 0, 9 46 (5t h C ir. 19 94 ). In l ig htof t he ser io us ne ss of t he cri m es ch arg ed , on ly seri ou s d el ay wou ld jus ti fy di sm is sa l wi th pre

jud ic e. Howev er, i n t hi s ca se , th e Act ’s sev en ty-day lim it was ex ceed edby onl y

fiv e d ay s. Seco nd , un de r th e fac ts an d c irc um st an ces of t hi s ca se , th e g ov ern m en t’s de lay is ex cu sabl e. W e ref

rai n fr om “pe na li z[i ng ] th e g ov ern m en t fo r it s co nduc t” 12whe re, as he re, “ th e p art ic ul ar v io la ti on [was ] un ique .” Uni te d S ta te s v . God oy,

82 1 F .2d14 98 , 15 05 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). Dis mis sa l wi th ou t p reju di ce i s warran te d whe re “ [t]he erro r th atoc cu rredis no n- co m pl ia nc e wit h apro cedur al requi rem en t cl ari fie d fo r th is cir cu itby tod ay ’s dec is io n.’” Tun ne ss en , 76 3 F .2dat 7 9. In th e ab se nc e o f gu id in g c as e la w, th e g ov ern m en t’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e Actwas co lo rab le . Fi na ll y ,“ [t]he len gt h o f de la y , a m eas ur e o f th e se rio us ne ss of t he sp eedy tri al vi ol at io n, i n s om e way s i s cl os el y rel at edto th e is su e o f th e p reju di ce t o t he de fen dant .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tay lo r, 48 7 U.S. 3 26 , 34 0, 1 08 S. Ct. 2 41 3, 2 42 1 (1 98 8) . Prejud ic e to Mr. J on es do es no t t ip th e sc al es infav or of d is m is sa l wi th pr ejud ic e. The d el ay

inpro se cu ti on was b rie f—f iv e d ay s— an d d idno t i m pa ir M r. Jo ne s’s ab il it y

to pre se nthi s d efen se . Fo r th es e rea so ns , we con cl ud e th atCo un ts Thre e an d F ou r m us t b e di sm is se d wi th ou t p reju di ce fo r vi ol at io n o f th e Sp eedy Trial Act. C. Hav in g fo un d avi ol at io n o f th e Sp eedy Trial Act as to Co un ts Thre e an d Fo ur , we tu rnto whet he r de la y als o warran ts di sm is sa l o f Co un ts One a nd Two—th e n ew co un ts ad de d i n t he Supe rs ed in g In di ctm en t. Mr . Jo ne s ar gu es th at do ub le jeop ardy

pri nc ip le s re qu ire th e joi ni ng of a ll fou r co un ts . He con te nd s t ha t 13th e se ve nt y -d ay sp eedy -tr ia l cl oc k ra n fr om th e d at e o f hi s arrai gn m en t o n t he ch arg es inth e o rig in al in di ctm en t, n otfro m th e d at e o f th e supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t. The refo re, b y

Mr. J on es ’s cal cu la ti on , well ov er 6 00 no ne xc lu dabl e d ay s el ap se d be twee n a rrai gn m en t an d t ria l, a cl ear v io la ti onof 1 8 U.S.C. § 31 61 (c)( 1) . Howev er, d oubl e jeop ardy pri nc ip le s d o n otrequi re the joi ni ng of C ou nt s One an d Two with C ou nt s Th ree a ndFo ur . As wil l b e d is cu ss edinPartIII, the ch arg edact s o f po ss es si on do no t co ns ti tu te a co nt in ui ng co ur se of c on du ct . Whe n a d efen dantpo ss es se s d iff eren t weapo ns at d iff

eren t t im es or p la ces , th e go ve rn m en t m ay

tre atth em

as s ep arat e uni ts of p ro se cu ti on . See Un it edSta te s v . Bo na vi a, 92 7 F .2d56 5, 5 68 –6 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) . There fo re, Co un ts One andTwo ch arg e se pa rat e o ffen se s fr om th os e ch arg edinCo un ts Thre e an d F ou r, an d M r. Jo ne s’s Sp eedy

Trial Act cl ai m s fa il as t o t he se ne w cha rg es . As su ch , th e vi ol at io n o f th e Sp eedy

Trial Act d is pe ns es on ly w ith C ou nt s Th ree andFo uran d i t is ne ces sa ry

to ev al ua te Mr. J on es ’s alt ern at iv e g ro un ds forap pe al as the y rel at e to Co un ts One a ndTwo. II I. Mr. J on es arg ue s tha t the go ve rn m en t ch arg edhi m m ul ti pl e ti m es forth e ex actsame beh av io r, th ereb y arb it rari ly carvi ng on e co nt in ui ng actof p os se ss io n

14in to sep arat e co un ts . He ass ert s t ha t the Supe rs ed in g In di ctm en t i s m ul ti pl ic it ou s, an d tha t the di st ric t co urt erredby allo win g h im to be tri edon th e se pa rat e co un ts .

“ Altho ug h we [ have ] st at ed. . . th atwe wou ldrev ie w th e m ul ti pl ic it y ho ld in g fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, we [h av e] actu al ly con du ct eda le ga l an al y si s o f th e ap pe ll an ts ’ do ub le jeop ardy arg um en ts whi chwas e ss en ti al ly de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Si ran g, 7 0 F .3d58 8, 5 95 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ); c om pa re Un it edSta te s v . Howar d, 9 18 F.2d15 29 , 15 32 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (“ W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s de ci si on [to de ny a m ot io n t o c om pe l co ns ol id at io n and/o r el ect io n o f m ul ti pl ic it ou s ch arg es ] fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” ), with Un it edSta te s v . Sm it h, 2 31 F.3 d 8 00 , 80 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (“ W e rev ie w whet he r co un ts inanin di ctm en t ar e m ul ti pl ic it ou s de no vo .”). “ An i nd ic tm en t i s m ul ti pl ic it ou s i f itch arg es a si ng le of fen se inm or e th anon e co un t.” Un it edSta te s v . W il li am s, 5 27 F.3d12 35 , 12 41 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Und er thi s an al y si s, a m ul ti pl ic it ou s i nd ic tm en t v io la te s d oubl e jeop ardy pri nc ip le s b y

gi vi ng th e jury m or e th anon e o pp ortu ni ty to co nv ic t the de fen dantforth e sa m e o ffen se . Id. “ W e an al yze i ss ue s o f do ub le jeop ardy un de r th e te stsetforth by the Supr em e Co urt i n B lo ckbu rg er v . Uni te d S ta te s.” Id . at 12 40 (ci ti ng Blo ckbu rg er v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 84 U.S. 29 9, 3 04 , 52 S. Ct. 1 80 , 18 2 (1 93 2) ). W e n ot e th atth is Co urt u se s t he same Blo ckbu rg er t es t “ to de te rm in e

15whe th er an in di ctm en t i s m ul ti pl ic it ou s, v eri fy in g t ha t ea chco un t re qu ire s an el em en t o f pr oo f th atth e o th er co un ts do no t re qu ire .” Id . at 1 24 1. Doubl e jeop ardy

pri nc ip le s h av e a p art ic ul ar ap pl ic at io n fo r cri m es of po ss es si on . “ [G]enera ll y , po ss es si on is a co ur se of c on du ct ; b y pro hi bi ti ng po ss es si on Co ng res s i nt en de d t o p un is h a s o ne off en se all of t he act s o f do m in io n whi chde m on st rat e a co nt in ui ng po ss es so ry in te res t i n afir earm .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ri ve ra, 7 7 F .3d13 48 , 13 51 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . “ Whe re the re i s n o p ro of th atpo ss es si on of t he same weapo n i s in te rrupt ed , th e [g ]ove rn m en t m ay no t arbi traril y

carv e a p os se ss io n i nt o s ep arat e of fen se s.” Id . Doubl e jeop ardy pro te ct s ag ai ns t g ov ern m en t at te m pt s t o c ha rg e se pa rat e d at es insep arat e co un ts wher e p os se ss io n was a co nt in uo us co ur se of co nduc t. Id . at 1 35 2. “ [S]im ul tane ou s p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm an d a m m un it io n sh ou ldbe pu ni sh edas o ne off en se .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Hall , 77 F.3d39 8, 4 02 (11 th Ci r. 19 96 ), ab ro ga ti onon ot he r gr ou nd s re co gn iz edby Uni te d S ta te s v . Arch er, 5 31 F.3 d 1 34 7, 1 35 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Howev er, wh ere ade fen da ntha s p os se ss ed di ffer en t weapo ns at d iff

eren t t im es or p la ces , th e g ov ern m en t m ay tre atth em

as se pa rat e uni ts of p ro se cu ti onan d c harg e m ul ti pl e co un ts . Bon av ia , 92 7 F .2dat 56 8– 69 .

16The cru x o f Mr. J on es ’s arg um en t o n app eal is th atth e g ov ern m en t p res en te d

in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce attri al to de m on st rat e an yth in g m or e th anco nt in ui ng po ss es si on . He cha ll en ge s t he cred ib il it y of t he go ve rn m en t’s wi tn es se s an d a rg ue s th atth e g ov ern m en t fa il edto pre se nt“un co nt ro ve rte d e vi de nc e . . . at tr ia l, tha t [h e] ha d a cqui redth e amm

un it io n s ep arat el y

fro m th e fi rearm , or t ha t [h e] had po ss es se d t he am

m un it io n a ndfir earm

sep arat el y .” The di stric t co urt u se d ave rd ic t fo rm th atrequi redth e jury to m ak e sp eci al fin di ng s. Th e jury spe ci fic al ly fou ndth atMr. J on es kn owi ng ly pos se ss eda fi rearm on Ju ne 1, 2 00 4, an d t ha t h e p os se ss ed.38 cal ib er amm un it io n o n t ha t s am e d at e. It al so sp eci fic al ly fou ndbo th th atMr. J on es po ss es se d .3 8 c al ib er amm un it io n o n Ju ne 18 , 20 04 , andth athe po ss es se d .4 4 c al ib er amm un it io n o n J un e 1 8. Be cau se th e jury fou ndth atMr. J on es po ss es se d afir earm on a se pa rat e d at e fro m

th e amm un it io n, the po ss es si on ch arg edis no t a c on ti nu in g c ou rs e o f co nduc t. Co un ts One an d Two di d n otdupl ic at e Co un ts Thre e an d F ou r. See Bo na vi a, 92 7 F .2dat 56 8– 69 . Add it io na ll y , whi le Mr. J on es was fo un d t o b e in po ss es si on of .4 4 c al ib er amm un it io n o n Jun e 1 8, 2 00 4, h e was no t ch arg edinCo un ts One andTwo wit h po ss es si on of t he same. Tha t b ei ng th e cas e, po ss es si onof .4 4 c al ib er am m un it io n on Ju ne 18 , as s pe ci fic al ly fou ndby the jury, is a se pa rat e el em en t o f th e cri m e fo r whi chMr. J on es was c on vi ct edinCo un ts Thre e an d F ou r. The i nv ers e is tru e fo r 17po ss es si on of t he fir earm —i t i s an ele m en t o f Co un ts One a ndTwo, bu t n otCo un ts Thre e an d F ou r. The go ve rn m en t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o s up po rt the jury’ s fi nd in gs . Thro ug h t he tes ti m on y

of s ev eral witne ss , th e g ov ern m en t l in ke d M r. Jo ne s t o t he sh oo ti ng of M r. Bu sk irkwith a.38 rev ol ve r on Ju ne 1 i n d own to wn Sa va nn ah . For in st an ce, atth e se co ndtri al , Mr. Seabr oo k t es ti fie d t ha t wh il e h e an d M r. Jo ne s were i nc arce rat edto ge th er, the de fen da ntto ldMr. Seabr oo k abo uthi s ro le inth e Bu sk irksh oo ti ng . Mr. Seab ro okex pl ai ne d t ha t M r. Jo ne s ac qu ire d the gu n, a .3 8 cal ib er fi rearm , fro m

a gi rl n am ed“ Kell y .” Mr. Seabr oo k a ls o i nf orm edth e jury th atMr. J on es cla im edto ha ve purch as edth e amm un it io n fr om

a dr ug ad di ctin ex ch an ge form on ey

an d d ru gs . Mean whi le , when on June 18 th e p ol ic e se arch ed Mr. J on es ’s ho m e in Thu nd erb ol t, Geo rg ia , th ey fou ndon ly . 38 an d .4 4 c al ib er amm un it io n, b utno fir earm . Mr. Seab ro okals o t es ti fie d tha t M r. Jo ne s d is po se d o f th e fi rearm

two day s af

te r th e sh oo ti ng by thro win g i t i nt o asewa ge dra in . The refo re, ev enif t he .38 cal ib er amm un it io n fo un d i n Thun de rb ol t o n J un e 1 8 (a s ch arg edinCo un ts Thre e an d F ou r) was th e sa m e as th atMr. J on es po ss es se d o n Ju ne 1 (a s ch arg edinCo un ts One a ndTwo), Mr . Jo ne s s ep arat edth es e ro un ds fro m th e .38 rev ol ve r. Becaus e Mr. J on es sep arat edth e g un fro m th e amm un it io n, the go ve rn m en t i s p erm it te d t o t reateach as asep arat e uni t o f pr os ecu ti on . Bon av ia , 1892 7 F .2dat 5 69 ; cf . Uni te d S ta te s v . Grin ki ewic z, 87 3 F .2d25 3, 2 55 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (co nc lu di ng po ss es si on was s in gu la r co nduc t wh ere m ul ti pl e weap on s wer e se iz edin“ di ffer en t, al th ou gh clo se ly pro xi m at e, area s i n t he same bu il di ng at t he sa m e ti m e”). Ba se d o n the ev id en ce p res en te d, a r eas on ab le jury co ul d h av e fo un d th atMr. J on es ret ai ne d t he .38 cal ib er ro un ds forap pr ox im at el y two week s af

te r di sp os in g o f th e rev ol ve r, tra ns po rte d t he m to hi s m othe r’s ho m e inThu nd erb ol t, an d s to redth em

inhi s b edro om

wher e th ey

were fo un d o n J un e 1 8. 3 The di stric t co urt d idno t err by den y in g M r. Jo ne s’s M ot io n t o Di sm is s t he Mu lt ip li ci to us Ind ic tm en t. Co un ts One a ndTwo ch arg e se pa rat e o ffen se s fr om Co un ts Thre e an d F ou r, an d t he in di ctm en t d oe s n otvi ol at e d oubl e jeop ardy pr in ci pl es . IV. Mr. J on es arg ue s tha t Co un ts One a ndTwo are th e p ro du ctof p ro se cu to ria l vi nd ic ti ve ne ss an d t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredwhen itde ni edhi s p retria l m ot io n t o di sm is s t he supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t fo r pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t.

Our c onclusion that possession in thi s casewas not a c ontinuing cour se of c onduct is 3 also supported by

trial evidenc e that Mr. Jones separa tely acquir ed the .38 r evolver and the .38 caliber ammunition. Both Ms. Bigham, in her inter view, and Mr . Seabrook, in his trial testimony , indicated that Ms. B igha m provided Mr. Jones with the weapon. Me anwhile, Mr. Seabrook te stified that Mr. J ones ac quired the a mmuniti on from a “ cra ck hea d” in exchang e for drug s and money . 19W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on on whet he r to di sm is s an in di ctm en t o n

gr ou nd s o f pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Barn er, 4 41 F.3d13 10 , 13 15 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws de no vo th e le ga l que st io n o f whe th er a p res um pt io n o f vi nd ic ti ve ne ss ari se s fr om th e fac ts of th e cas e. Id .

“ As a g en eral rul e, as lo ng as t he pro se cu to r ha s p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th e acc us edha s co m

m it te d acri m e, th e co urts ha ve no au th or it y to in te rfer e wit h a pr os ecu to r’s de ci si on to pro se cu te .” Id . Howev er, the go ve rn m en t m ay no t,

“ witho utexpl an at io n, i nc reas e th e num be r of or s ev eri ty of th os e ch arg es in ci rcu m st an ces whi ch su gg es t tha t the in crea se is ret al ia ti on forth e d efen da nt ’s as se rti onof s ta tu to ry

or c on st itut io na l ri gh ts .” Hardwickv. Do ol it tl e, 55 8 F .2d 29 2, 3 01 (5t h C ir. 1 97 7) . Add in g c ha rg es aft er a d efen da nt ’s su cces sf ul ap pe al 4 gi ve s ri se to a pr es um

pt io n o f vi nd ic ti ve pro se cu ti on . Barn er, 4 41 F.3dat 13 15 –1 6. Th e g ov ern m en t m ay reb utth is pre su m

pt io n “ by est ab li sh in g [i ts ] reas on s fo r ad di ng th e two ne w cha rg es were o th er tha n t o p un is h ape sky de fen dantforex erci si ng hi s l eg al rig ht s.” Ha rdwick , 55 8 F .2dat 3 01 . “ [O]bjecti ve ev id en ce jus ti fy in g t he pro se cu to r’s act io n,” su chas ash owi ng “ th atitwas
In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 4 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down be fore October 1, 1981. 20im

po ss ib le to pro ceedon th e m or e se rio us ch arg e atth e o ut se t,” r eb ut s t he pr es um pt io n. Un it edSta te s v . Goo dwi n, 4 57 U.S. 36 8, 3 76 n.8 , 10 2 S . Ct. 2 48 5, 24 90 n.8 (19 82 ) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Once r eb ut te d, the de fen dant ’s vi nd ic ti ve pro se cu ti on de fen se wil l s urvi ve if h e can affi rm at iv el y de m on st rat e actua l p ro se cu to ria l v in di ct iv en es s. See Barn er, 4 41 F.3dat 1 32 2. In ot he r wor ds , he m

us t s ho w th atth e g ov ern m en t’s jus ti fic at io n i s p ret ex tu al . See Uni te d S ta te s v . Meyer, 81 0 F .2d12 42 , 12 45 (D.C. Cir . 19 87 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g M r. Jo ne s’s m ot io n to di sm is s fo r pr os ecu to ria l v in di ct iv en es s. As su m in g wi th ou t d eci di ng th atth e ad de d c ha rg es of C ou nt s On e an d Two gi ve ris e to a pr es um pt io n o f vi nd ic ti ve ne ss , th e g ov ern m en t h as reb ut te d t hi s p res um pt io n. Th e g ov ern m en t 5 rece iv edMr. Seabr oo k’s l et te r aft er thi s C ou rt i ss ue d t he m an da te fro m th e fi rs t ap pe al . It was on ly the n t ha t the go ve rn m en t h adsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o c on fid en tl y br in g t he ad di ti on al po ss es si on ch arg es . Becau se th e g ov ern m en t h as pro vi de d a n ob jecti ve ex pl an at io n fo r th e n ew ch arg es , itis in cu m be nton Mr. J on es to This Court dist inguishe s instances in which the prosec utor substitut es a more serious 5 charg e for

the orig inal charg e and those in which new c harg es ar e base d on independe nt acts. Where the latter is the ca se, addingcharg es does not g ive rise to a pr esumption of prosec utorial vindictiveness. Humphre y v. United States, 888 F.2d 1546, 1549 ( 11th Cir. 1989). This principle holds true e ven whe re the separ ate a cts that prompted the ne w cha rg es occ urre d in “the same spre e of a ctivity .” United States v. Ta ylor, 749 F.2d 1511, 1513 ( 11th Cir. 1985) (citation and interna l quotation marks omitted). Under the se circ umstances, r elief is only available if the defe ndant ca

n prove a ctual vindictiveness. I d. 21de m on st rat e actua l v in di ct iv en es s— a b ur de n h e h as no t ca rri ed . See Hard wick ,

55 8 F .2dat 3 01 ; Ba rn er, 4 41 F.3dat 1 32 2. Th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n wh enitde ni edMr. J on es ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s o n g ro un ds of pr os ecu to ria l v in di ct iv en es s. V. Mr. J on es arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredwhen itadmit te d avi de ot ap ed in te rv ie w of M s. Bi gh am as p as t re co ll ect io n re co rd ed . Prio r to tri al , th e go ve rn m en t i nf

orm edMr. J on es an d t he di st ric t co urt o f it s i nt en t t o o fferth e v id eo as ev id en ce, p ur su an t t o R ul es 80 4( b) (1 ) (fo rm er t es ti m on y ) an d 8 04 (b )(3 ) (s ta te m en t ag ai ns t i nt eres t) o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e. At tria l, the di st ric t co urt p erm it te d t he jury to vi ew th e fu ll vi de o o f Ms . Bi gh am ’s cus to di al in te rro ga ti on as p artof t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se -in -ch ie f. The di st ric t co urt ad m it te d t he vi de o n otun de r th e g ov ern m en t’s o rig in al th eo ry th atth e he ars ay ex cep ti on s fo r un av ai labl e d ecl aran ts ap pl ie d, b utrathe r as pa st reco ll ect io n re co rd ed , pu rs ua ntto Ru le 80 3( 5) . Duri ng de li be rat io n, the jury se nt th e co urt a n ot e, reque st in g asec on d v ie win g o f th e v id eo . Over M r. Jo ne s’s ob jecti on , th e d is tri ctco urt al lo wedth e v id eo to be pl ay edforth e jury a seco nd ti m e.

22Mr. J on es arg ue s tha t b y adm it ti ng th e v id eo as p as t re co ll ect io n re co rd ed , th e d is tri ctco urt erredinit s ap pl ic at io n o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e. He ne xt co nt en ds th at , reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e ev id en ti ary ru li ng was c orrect , th e d is tri ct co urt’s d eci si on als o v io la te d t he Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e. Fin al ly, Mr. J on es ass ert s th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen itpl ay edth e v id eo forth e jury a seco ndti m e. W e ad dr es s ea chof the se arg um en ts intu rn . A.

“ Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws a d is tri ctco urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r a cl ear abu se of di sc ret io n. A d is tri ctco urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s wi ll on ly be rev ers edif t he res ul ti ng erro r affe ct edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Delg ad o, 3 21 F.3d13 38 , 13 47 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (ci ta ti on s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 8 03 (5 ) se ts ou t the pre di cat es for adm is si on of p as t reco ll ect io ns reco rd ed . For o ne th in g, the Ru le requi res th e p ro po ne ntto de m on st rat e th atth e wit ne ss -d ecl aran t’s m em ory ha s fa de d s o t ha t h e is no lo ng er ab le “ to tes ti fy

ful ly andaccu rat el y .” Fed . R. Evi d. 8 03 (5 ). At tria l, the go ve rn m en t el ic it eda ha nd fu l o f res po ns es fro m Ms . Big ha m th atin di cat edsh e la ck ed“ cl ear a nddi st in ctreco ll ect io n i n [h er] resp on se to th e qu es ti on [s ]” rega rd in g t he subjec t m at te r of he r in te rv ie w with Det ect iv e Von 23Lowen fel dt . NLRB v. Hu ds on Pu lp & Pap er Co rp ., 27 3 F .2d66 0, 6 65 (5t h C ir.

19 60 ). She co ul d n otrem em be r th atsh e so ldMr. J on es th e .38 rev ol ve r “ in th e en d of Apri l o f 20 04 .” Sh e al so co ul d n otreca ll Mr. J on es m ak in g a ny sta te m en ts ab ou t the gu n. Aft er s ho win g M s. Bi gh am th e v id eo , ou ts id e th e p res en ce o f th e jury, th e g ov ern m en t i nqui redin to whet he r Ms . Big ha m ’s m em ory ha d b een refr es he d. In res po ns e to a qu es ti on ab ou t wh ethe r sh e rem em be red“ m or e ab ou t th e th in gs y oudi d wi th DeonJo ne s t ha n youdi d b efo re we wat ch edth e v id eo ,” sh e res po nd ed , “ I rem em

be r wha t was jus t s ai d.” Whe n p res se d fu rth er, s he res po nd ed th atsh e co ul d re cal l “ so m e” o f th e rel ev an t ev en ts . Befo re the co urt s ho wedMs . Bi gh am th e v id eo , Mr. Jo ne s co nc ed edto it s u se for th e p ur po se of r efre sh in g reco ll ect io n. Ba se d o n t hi s re co rd , we do no t fi ndth atth e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y ab us edit s d is cret io n i n c on cl ud in g t ha t M s. Bi gh am lac ke d s uf

fic ie ntm em ory

to te st ify to t he subjec t m at te r of th e v id eo . Ru le 80 3( 5) als o re qu ire s t ha t the witne ss ve rif y th e co nt en ts of the pa st st at em en t. “ The witne ss m us t b e ab le no w to ass ertth atth e rec or d a ccu rat el y rep res en te d h is kn owl ed ge an d re co ll ect io n a t the ti m e. The u su al ph ras e requi res th e wit ne ss to affi rm

th athe kn ew itto be tru e atth e ti m e.” Lop ez v . Uni te d S ta te s,

2437 3 U.S. 4 27 , 44 8 n .1, 8 3 S . Ct. 1 38 1, 1 39 3 n .1 (1 96 3) (ci ta ti onan d i nt ern al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Here, Ms . Big ha m

arg uabl y ve rif ie d t he co nt en ts of t he vi de o t hr ou gh he r te st im on y at t ria l. Fi rs t, s he tes ti fie d t ha t i t was eas ie r to rem em be r th e ev en ts de sc rib edinth e v id eo tape at the ti m e o f th e in te rro ga ti on th anon th e d at e o f th e tri al . Whe n t he go ve rn m en t as ke d wh ethe r th e th in gs sai d wer e true an d a ccurat e to th e b es t o f he r kn owl ed ge , Ms . Big ha m res po nd ed , “ If tha t was whatwas s ai d th en , th at ’s whatI rem em be r th en , whatwas ju stinth e v id eo .” Furth er, Ms . Bi gh am als o t es ti fie d tha t s he rep eat edth e co nt en ts of h er i nt erv ie w injuv en il e co urt, an d s he ag reedth at“ th e th in gs th at[sh e] [sai d] to th e d et ect iv e atth atti m e [were ] tru e an d a ccurat e to th e b es t o f [h er] kn owl ed ge .” Fin al ly, as to whet he r th e vi de o was anaccu rat e rec or d o f he r st at em en ts to Dete ct iv e VonLowen fel dt , Ms . Bi gh am ackno wled ge d, ata m in im um , “ th at ’s m e ta lk in g” onth e v id eo . 6 Mr. J ones maintains that the district cour t also committed error

in admitting the video 6 despite the pre sence of statements a bout which Ms. Bigham had no pe rsonal knowledg e. Mr. J ones points to four instance s when e ither Ms. Bigham or De tective Von L owenf eldt made statements that themselves c onstitut ed an a dditional layer of hear say or we re ba sed upon the speculation of the dec lara nt. Havingrevie wed the trial transcript, we conc lude that in eac h case , either a nother he arsa

y exemption applied or the substanceof the stateme nt duplicates other evidenc e and te stimony

prese nted at trial. This beingthe ca se, fa ilure to purg e the video of these four state ments was unlikely to have ha d a substantial impact on the ve rdict of the jur y and wa s, there fore , harmless. See United States v. Doca mpo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1097 (11th Cir. 2009) ( “The admission of hear say

alone doe s not mandate a reve rsal of c onviction: to require a new tria l a signific ant possibilit y

must ex ist that, consideringthe other e vidence prese nted by both the prosec ution and the def

ense, the statement had a

substantial impact upon the ver dict of the jury .” 25The go ve rn m en t’s ef fo rts to de m on st rat e co m

pl ia nc e wit h t he Ru le 80 3( 5) ’s pr erequi si te s wer e la ck lu st er, atbe st . Howev er, we rev ie w app li cat io n o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. “ Inap pl y in g t hi s s ta nd ard , we wil l af firm a di st ric t co urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng un le ss th e d is tri ctco urt h as m ad e a cl ear e rro r of

jud gm en t o r ha s ap pl ie d a n i nc orrectleg al st an da rd .” Co nr oy v. Abr ah am Ch ev ro le t-Ta m

pa , Inc ., 37 5 F .3d12 28 , 12 32 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e co nc lu de th aton th e fac ts pre se nt ed he re, adm is si on of t he vi de o a s p as t re co ll ect io n re co rd edwas n ota cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t o n t he pa rt o f th e d is tri ctjud ge . B. Mr. J on es co nt en ds th atadm is si on of M s. Bi gh am ’s vi de ot ap edst at em en t vi ol at edhi s ri gh ts un de r th e Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e. Howev er, thi s ar gu m en t d oe s no t wi th st an d s cru ti ny. The Supr em e Co urt h as em ph as iz edth at“ a p rimary

in te res t se cu redby [the Co nf

ro nt at io n C laus e] is the rig htof c ro ss -ex am in at io n.” Dou gl as v. Al ab am a, 38 0 U.S. 4 15 , 41 8, 8 5 S . Ct. 1 07 4, 1 07 6 (1 96 5) . Howev er, the Six th Am en dm en t “ gu aran te es on ly an op po rt un it yforeffe ct iv e cro ss -ex am in at io n, n ot cro ss -ex am in at io n t ha t i s ef fect iv e in what ev er way, an d t o wh at ev er ex te nt , th e (citation, interna l quotation marks, and interna l alterations omi tted)). 26de fen se m ig htwis h.” Kentuc ky v. Sti nc er, 4 82 U.S. 73 0, 7 39 , 10 7 S . Ct. 2 65 8,

26 64 (19 87 ) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ Ord in ari ly a witn es s is reg ard edas ‘subjec t t o c ro ss -ex am in at io n’ when he is pl acedon th e st an d, u nd er oa th , andres po nd s wi ll in gl y to qu es ti on s.” Un it edSta te s v . Owens , 48 4 U.S. 5 54 , 55 6, 5 61 , 10 8 S . Ct. 8 38 , 84 1, 8 44 (19 88 ) (h ol di ng th ata vi ct im -witne ss was subjec t t o c ro ss -ex am in at io n e ve n wh ere h e h adbe enbe at enso ba dl y th athe co ul d no t re m em

be r se ei ng hi s as sa il an t; th e id en ti ty of nu m ero us gu es ts he ha d re cei ve d whi le inth e h os pi ta l; or i f an y of t he gu es ts ha d s ug ge st edth athe id en ti fy th e de fen dantas h is ass ai lant ). Inth is cas e, Ms . Big ha m

was p res en t attri al an d s ub ject t o u nr es tri ct ed cro ss -ex am in at io n. Ms . Big ha m an swe redMr. J on es ’s qu es ti on s wh il e und er o ath an d b efo re a jury . The jury was abl e to ev al ua te th e cre di bi li ty of he r te st im on y as well as h er s ta te m en ts on th e v id eo . There fo re, ad m it ti ng th e v id eo di d n otvi ol at e Mr. J on es ’s Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o c on fro ntwitne ss es ag ai ns t h im . See i d. at 56 0, 1 08 S. Ct. at84 3 (n ot in g t ha t n ei th er i nd ic iaof r el iabi li ty nor parti cu la riz ed gu aran te es of t ru st worth in es s ar e cal le d fo r “ whe n ahe ars ay de cl aran t i s p res en t at tri al an d s ub

ject t o u nr es tri ct edcro ss -ex am in at io n. . . [b ecau se ] th e tr ad it io na l

27pr ot ect io ns of t he oa th , cro ss -ex am in at io n, an d o pp ortu ni ty for the jury to ob se rv e

th e wit ne ss ’ de m ean orsat is fy th e co ns ti tu ti on al requi rem en ts .” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ).

C. Fi na ll y , all owi ng th e v id eo of M s. Bi gh am ’s st at em en t t o b e p la y eda se co nd ti m e fo r th e jury do es no t warran t re ve rs al . Rul e 8 03 (5 ) ex pl ic it ly stat es th at“ [i]f admit te d, the m em or an du m or r eco rdm ay

be readin to ev id en ce b utm ay no t i ts el f be rece iv edas a n e xh ib itun le ss off eredby an adve rs e p arty .” Fed . R. Evi d. 8 03 (5 ). On the fir stda y

of d el ib erat io n, the jury subm it te d ano te ask in g t o a ga in watc h M s. Bi gh am ’s in te rro ga ti on vi de o. Th e fo ll owi ng da y , th e d is tri ctco urt p erm it te d a se co ndvi ewin g. Th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d M r. Jo ne s’s re qu es t tha t M s. Bi gh am ’s cro ss -ex am in at io n b e rea d t o t he jury as well . Mr. J on es arg ue s tha t b y

watc hi ng th e v id eo fora se co ndti m e dur in g de li be rat io n, the jury es se nt ia ll y rece iv edth e v id eo as a n e vi de nt iary ex hi bi t, i n di rectco nt rav en ti on of Rul e 8 03 (5 ). Furth erm or e, he m ai nt ai ns th atbe cau se no cro ss ex am in at io n t es ti m on y was h eard , th e d is tri ctco urt al so de pr iv edhi m of h is Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh ts . W e wil l as su m e, fo r th e p ur po se s o f th is di sc us si on , th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d b ot h c on st itut io na l an d n on -co ns ti tu ti on al erro rs inpl ay in g t he vi de o t o

28th e jury agai n dur in g the ir d el ib erat io n. Ev enass um in g t he se erro rs , ho wev er, the y

are h arm le ss . In so far a s M r. Jo ne s al le ge s t ha t the sec on d s ho win g o f th e v id eo de pr iv ed hi m of p ro te ct io ns affo rd edby the Six thAm en dm en t, the se “ vi ol at io ns are s ub ject to th e h arm le ss erro r st an da rd .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Edward s, 2 11 F.3d13 55 , 13 59 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . Und er thi s s ta nd ard , th e “ in qu iry is wh ethe r, as su m in g t ha t the da m ag in g p ot en ti al of t he cro ss -ex am in at io n wer e fu ll y real iz ed , a rev ie win g c ou rt m ig htno ne th el es s s ay

th atth e err orwas h arm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Dela ware v . Van Ars da ll , 47 5 U.S. 6 73 , 68 4, 1 06 S. Ct. 1 43 1, 1 43 8 (1 98 6) . This te stis m or e d em an di ng th anth atap pl ie d t o n on -co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns . As we ha ve no te d: no n- co ns ti tu ti on al erro r is ha rm le ss if, v ie win g t he pro ceed in gs in th ei r en ti rety , a co urt d et erm in es th atth e err or di d n otaffe ctth e ve rd ic t, o r ha d b utve ry

sl ig hteffec t. If o ne cansay withfai r as su ran ce tha t the jud gm en t was no t s ub st an ti al ly sway edby the erro r, jud gm en t i s due to be affi rm edev enth ou gh th ere was erro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Horn ad ay , 39 2 F .3d13 06 , 13 15 –1 6 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 4) (ci ta ti on s, in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s, an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) . Tho ug h M s. Bi gh am ’s tes ti m on y was i m po rtantto th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se , th e se co ndpre se nt at io n o f th e v id eo pro vi de d o nl y cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce. The jury

29watc he d t he en ti re fi lm edin te rv ie w du rin g t ria l. Als o, wh il e Mr. Se ab ro ok ’s

te st im on y m ay ha ve be enco nt rad ic to ry , he d idco rro bo rat e Ms . Big ha m ’s in te rv ie w as to th e k ey

ele m en ts of C ou nt s On e an d Two —tha t M r. Jo ne s p os se ss eda .38 rev ol ve r an d s ho t a m anwith .3 8 c al ib er amm un it io n. Gi ve n t hi s ad di ti on al ev id en ce, ev enab se nta se co ndvi ewin g o f th e v id eo , th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se ag ai ns t Mr. J on es was s tro ng . The rec or d a ls o d em on st rat es th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l to readMs . Big ha m ’s cro ss -ex am in at io n t es ti m on y di d n otaffe ctth e o ut co m e o f th e cas e. Fo rty min ut es aft er the sec on d v ie win g, the jury se ntth e jud ge a no te st at in g t ha t “ [t]he vi de o d idno t ch an ge an y po si ti on s.” Fo r th es e rea so ns , eve n a ss um in g aCo nf ro nt at io n C laus e v io la ti on , we co nc lu de th atan y

erro r th atdi d o ccu r was ha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. VanArsd al l, 4 75 U.S. at 6 84 , 10 6 S . Ct. at14 38 . Ins of ar as pl ay in g t he vi de o du rin g ju ry

de li be rat io n v io la te d the term s o f Ru le 80 3( 5) , th is no n- co ns ti tu ti on al erro r was si mil arl y

ha rm le ss . In l ig htof a ll th e ev id en ce av ai labl e to th e jury, “we can ‘ sa y , with fa ir a ss ur an ce, aft er p on de rin g a ll th athapp en edwitho utst rip pi ng th e err on eo us act io n fr om th e who le , th atth e jud gm en t was no t s ub st an ti al ly swa y edby [a sec on d p la y in g o f th e v id eo ], ’ an d t he refo re ‘subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts were

30no t af

fect ed .’ ” Horna day , 39 2 F .3dat 1 31 6 (quo ti ng Kot te ak os v. Un it edSta te s, 32 8 U.S. 7 50 , 76 5, 6 6 S . Ct. 1 23 9, 1 24 8 (1 94 6) ). Neit he r th e d is tri ctco urt’s ad m is si on of M s. Bi gh am ’s vi de ot ap edin te rv ie w no r th e se co ndpl ay in g o f th e v id eo du rin g ju ry de li be rat io n warran ts rev ers al of Mr. J on es ’s con vi ct io ns forCo un ts One a ndTwo. VI. Mr. J on es als o a rg ue s t ha t b ecau se th e g ov ern m en t fa il edto co m pl y with t he requi rem en ts of t he Jen ck s Actan d B rady , he i s en ti tl edto a ne w tri al , inwhi ch Mr. Se ab ro okwou ldbe ba rredfro m tes ti fy in g. 7 Sh ortl y be fo re tria l, the go ve rn m en t fi le d a n “ Ex Pa rte Not ic e (Fi le d Un de r Seal ) of Non di sc lo su re o f Certa in W itne ss Sta te m en ts .” The g ov ern m en t s ou gh t no t t o d is cl os e certa in let te rs an d o th er i nf orm at io n p ro vi de d b y

co op erat in g witne ss es —fe ll ow p ris on in m at es —wh o wer e afr ai d o f Mr. J on es be cau se th ey be li ev edhi m

to be a m em

be r of a ga ng act iv e in pri so n. Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d th e g ov ern m en t’s re qu es t t o fi le th e st at em en ts an d m at eri al s ex pa rte an d und er se al .
Mr. J ones make s two passingref ere nces to the Confr ontation Clause but offer s no 7 argument on that issue. For that rea son, we ne ed not addr ess whethe r in this case nondisclosure of ce rtain evide nce violate s the Confrontation Clause. See D oe v. Moore , 410 F.3d 1337, 1349 n.10 (11th Cir. 2005). 31Am on g t he do cu m en ts att ach edto th e g ov ern m en t’s ex pa rte no ti ce were

de sc rip ti on s o f wit ne ss in te rv ie ws an d l et te rs —wri tt enby Mr. Seab ro okan d o th er in m at es —o ffer in g t es ti m on y ag ai ns t M r. Jo ne s. In cl ud edam on g the se was a ha ndwrit te n l et te r da te d Dec em be r 25 , 20 07 , andsi gn edby Mr. Seab ro ok(th e

“ Decem be r 25 let te r”). In it , Mr. Seabr oo k o ffer ed“ va lu ab le in fo rm at io n tha t [h e] be li ev e[d ] co ul d h el p [t he go ve rn m en t’s] case tre m en do us ly.” T he let te r pr ov id ed no de ta il ab ou t thi s i nf

orm at io n, ex cep t tha t M r. Jo ne s t ol d M r. Seab ro okan d fo ur ot he r in m at es “ wha t [M r. Jo ne s] [di d] with t he gu n.” The l ette r al so in di cat edth at

“ each [of th e fo ur ] was fam il iar wit h . . . [R]ul e 3 5.” At th e b ot to m of t he pa ge , Mr. Seab ro okli st edth e n am es an d re gi st er num be rs of the fou r ot he r in m at es , on e o f whi chwas Ed di e F. Ja ck so n (“ Mr. J ack so n” ). Ano th er h an dwr it te n l et te r, da te d Dec em be r 26 , 20 07 (th e “ Decem be r 26 le tt er”) , was s ub st an ti ve ly ide nt ic al to th e Dece m be r 25 let te r. Mi no r di sc rep an ci es be twee n t he two in cl ud edsp el li ng an d p un ctua ti on erro rs ; u se of t he word

“ in m at es ” in st eadof “ in di vi du al s” or “ gu y s” ; an d u se of “ pape rs ” in st eadof “ m ai l.” Add it io na ll y , th e Dece m

be r 25 let te r ha d n o a dd res s b lo ck s, b utth e Dece m be r 26 le tt er fe atur edth e p ro se cu to r’s ad dr es s an d M r. Seab ro ok ’s return a dd res s atth e to p of th e p ag e. The t wo l et te rs were wri tt eninve ry di ffer en t h an dwr it in g, an d

32whe reas th e Dece m be r 25 let te r cl os edwith M r. Seab ro ok ’s si gn atur e an d t he na m es of t he fou r othe r in m at es , th e Dece m be r 26 let te r was un si gn edan d l is te d on ly Mr. Jac ks on ’s nam e atth e b ot to m of t he pa ge . Rev ie w of t he reco rdals o rev eal s an en ve lo pe writ te n i n t he same han dwr it in g a s t he Decem be r 26 let te r an d be ari ng Mr. J ack so n’s re tu rnad dr es s as well as aDecem be r 26 po st m ark . On Se pt em

be r 16 , 20 08 , two m on th s af te r th e co nc lu si on of t he tri al , th e go ve rn m en t u ns eal eddo cu m en ts no t yet di sc lo se d t o M r. Jo ne s. Th e g ov ern m en t co nc ed es th atitne ve r di sc lo se d t he Decem be r 26 let te r, bu t the pa rti es ho tl y co nt es t wh ethe r th e Dece m be r 25 let te r was am on g t ho se do cu m en ts ha nd edov er to Mr. J on es at t he be gi nn in g o f Mr. Se ab ro ok ’s tri al tes ti m on y . On Dece m be r 2, 20 08 , Mr. Jo ne s fi le d aMo ti on for a New Tria l. The di stric t co urt d en ie d M r. Jo ne s’s m ot io n, fi nd in g n o v io la ti on of t he Je nc ks Act. Th e d is tri ctco urt n ot edth atth e p art ie s d is pu te d c ert ai n i nf orm at io n rel at edto th e Dece m

be r 26 let te r. Mr. J on es co nt en de d t ha t M r. Seab ro okwrot e th e le tt er. The go ve rn m en t ar gu edth atth e Dece m be r 26 let te r was actua ll y au th or edby an in m at e o th er than M r. Seab ro okan d, i n a ny even t, was a m ere c op y of th e Dece m

be r 25 let te r. The d is tri ctco urt ad op te d t he go ve rn m en t’s p os it io n, fin di ng th atMr. Seabr oo k wro te th e Dece m be r 25 let te r an d t ha t the Decem be r 26

33le tt er was a m ere c op y . The d is tri ctco urt al so fou ndth atth e g ov ern m en t p ro du ced

th e Dece m

be r 25 let te r to Mr. J on es inadva nc e o f th e tr ia l, o n J ul y 1, 2 00 8. Fo r th es e rea so ns , th e d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t the go ve rn m en t h adno t v io la te d t he Je nc ks Act. A. Fi nd in gs of f

actare re vi ewedforcle ar erro r. See Un it edSta te s v . W il li am s, 87 5 F .2d84 6, 8 53 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Whe n i t d en ie d M r. Jo ne s’s M ot io n fo r a New Tria l, the di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t the go ve rn m en t h addi sc lo se d t he Decem be r 25 le tt er ap pr ox im at el y

on e weekbe fo re tria l. Ho wev er, the go ve rn m en t co nc ed es on ap pe al th aton Ju ly 1 itdi sc lo se d t hi s l et te r on ly to the di st ric t co urt an d n otMr. Jo ne s. Thus , th e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y erredinfin di ng th atth e Dece m be r 25 let te r ha d b een ti m el y

di sc lo se d t o M r. Jo ne s. Th eref or e, we wil l ev al ua te Mr. J on es ’s Brad y an d J en ck s Actob

jecti on s as th ou gh th e Dece m be r 25 let te r was no t pr oduc edat t he ti m e Mr. Se ab ro okto okth e st an d. B. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s J en ck s Actfin di ng s fo r cl ear e rro r. W il li am s, 87 5 F .2dat 8 53 . “ The ha rm le ss erro r do ctrin e is ap pl ic ab le to Jen ck s Act vi ol at io ns , bu t i t m

us t b e st ric tl y

ap pl ie d.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Beas le y , 2 F.3 d 1 55 1,

3415 57 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Non di sc lo su re o f in cu lp at ory st at em en ts th atare wh ol ly co ns is te ntwith t he witne ss es ’ te st im on y am ou nt s t o h arm le ss erro r. Id. at15 57 & n.1 0. W e rev ie w de no vo all eg edBrad y vi ol at io ns . Uni te d S ta te s v . Sch le i, 1 22 F.3 d 9 44 , 98 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) . In o rd er t o e st ab li sh a Brady vi ol at io n, the de fen dantm

us t d em on st rat e, am on g o th er thi ng s, “ th atha d t he ev id en ce b een rev eal edto th e d efen se , th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t the ou tc om e o f th e pr oc eed in gs wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t.” Un it edSta te s v . Newto n, 4 4 F .3d91 3, 91 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) . Non di sc lo su re o f th e le tt ers was h arm le ss forbo thJen ck s Actan d B rady pu rp os es . Becau se th e le tt ers were i nc ul pa to ry , th e o nl y pu rp os e th ey

co ul d s erv e fo r Mr. J on es was fo r im

pe ach in g M r. Seab ro ok . Mr. Jo ne s ar gu es th atth e le tt er m ig htha ve he lp edde m on st rat e th atMr. Seabr oo k l earn edof t he fact s o f th e cas e no t thr ou gh a jail ho us e co nf es si on , bu t b y

go in g t hr ou gh Mr. J on es ’s leg al do cu m en ts . On cro ss -ex am in at io n, M r. Jo ne s ex pl or edth is th eo ry . Mr. Seab ro ok te st ifi edth atMr. J on es ke ptall hi s l eg al do cu m en ts ina lo ck edlo ck er an d t ha t M r. Seab ro okon ly saw th os e th atMr. J on es vo lu nt ari ly sho wedhi m . This tes ti m on y is who ll y co ns is te ntwith t he let te rs ’ co nt en ts .

35Neit he r wou ldth e le tt ers ha ve pro vi de d a dd it io na l l ev erag e fo r Mr. J on es

whe n a ddres si ng Mr. Seabr oo k’s m ot iv at io ns fortes ti fy in g. Attri al , Mr. Seabr oo k su gg es te d t ha t h e co op erat edwith t he go ve rn m en t, atlea stinpa rt, b ecau se hi s p le a ag reem en t o bl ig at edhi m

to do so . Howev er, ev enwitho utth e le tt ers , Mr. Jo ne s im pe ach edMr. Seabr oo k b y eli ci ti ng tes ti m on y

th athe was a ls o m ot iv at edby a po te nt ia l s en te nc e reduc ti on . Ind eed , Mr. Jo ne s’s v ery fir stqu es ti on to Mr. Seab ro okin qu ire d i nt o h is m ot iv e fo r te st ifyin g, an d M r. Seab ro okco nc ed edth at he co op erat edwith t he pro se cu to rs inth e h op es th atth e g ov ern m en t wo ul d re du ce hi s s en te nc e. Becaus e th ere i s n o c on tra di ct io n b etweenMr. Seabr oo k’s t es ti m on y an d the let te rs , th ey

were o f m in im al im

pe ach m en t v al ue an d the ir n on di sc lo su re was ha rm le ss . The jury kn ew th atMr. Seabr oo k was injail at t he ti m e h e te st ifi edan d t ha t he was ago ve rn m en t i nf

orm an t. He ad m it te d t ha t h e was tes ti fy in g a ga in stMr. Jo ne s i n t he ho pe s t ha t the go ve rn m en t wo ul d re du ce h is sen te nc e. W e co nc lu de th atan y ad di ti on al im

pe ach m en t v al ue th atMr. J on es mig htha ve de riv edfro m th e le tt ers wou ldha ve be enm in im al . Non di sc lo su re was , th eref or e, ha rm le ss .

36VII .

On ap pe al , Mr. Jo ne s ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce ag ai ns t h im . Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws a d efen da nt ’s cha ll en ge to th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Tol er, 1 44 F.3d14 23 , 14 28 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). “ [W] e m us t de ci de whet he r th e ev id en ce, ex am in edina li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e Gov ern m en t, was su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt the jury’ s co nc lu si on th atth e d efen da ntwas gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. All cred ib il it y ch oi ces m

us t b e m ad e in supp ort of th e jury’ s v erd ic t.” Un it edSta te s v . W il li am s, 3 90 F.3d13 19 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (ci ta ti on s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e co nc lu de th atth ere i s ample e vi de nc e to supp ort co nv ic ti on s o n C ou nt s One an d Two . Ms. Bi gh am de sc rib edMr. J on es ’s parti ci pa ti on inth e Ju ne 1 as saul t o n M r. Bu sk irk . Und er the tes t ad op te d b y th is cir cu it , her

de sc rip ti on of th e in ci de ntwas n otin cred ib le as am at te r of law: th e p hysic al ev id en ce d oe s n ot di rect ly con tra ve ne Ms . Big ha m ’s des cri pt io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Cal de ro n, 1 27 F.3 d 1 31 4, 1 32 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) . At tri al , a fo ren si c ex pe rt t es ti fie d t ha t h e ob se rv edth ree d am ag edve hi cl es sev eral bl oc ks be hi ndth e sp otwher e Ms . Big ha m sa idMr. J on es st oo d o n J un e 1 . Howev er, the ex pe rt d idno t kno w if the da m ag e was rel at edto th e Bu sk irkass au lt , no r di d h e fi ndbu ll et s n ear t he ve hi cl es .

37Fu rth erm or e, Ms . Big ham ’s st ory was c orro bo rat edby the tes ti m on y of M r. Seab ro ok . The jury

als o h eardDete ct iv e Von Lowen fel dtde ta il ho w Ms . Big ha m le d h im to Mr. Bu sk irk ’s res id en ce an d a ccurat el y de sc rib editas t he sce ne of t he as saul t. Cred ib il it y

de ci si on s ar e th e ex cl us iv e p ro vi nc e o f th e jury. Cal de ro n, 1 27 F.3 d a t 1 32 5. Tak in g t he ev id en ce i n the li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p ro se cu ti on , a pa ne l o f rea so nabl e juro rs co ul d h av e fo un d tha t M r. Jo ne s kno win gl y po ss es se d a .38 rev ol ve r an d .3 8 s pe ci al am m un it io n o n J un e 1 , 20 04 . There is , th eref or e, su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt c on vi ct io ns on Co un ts One a ndTwo, whi chwe affi rm . The di stric t co urt co ns id eredMr. J on es ’s con vi ct io ns to ge th er fo r th e pu rp os es of s en te nc in g. Be cau se we rev ers e Mr. J on es ’s con vi ct io ns on Co un ts Thre e an d F ou r, we no w vac at e h is sen te nc es an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g o n Co un ts One a ndTwo. VII I. Fo r th e rea so ns st at ed , we AFFIRM Mr. J on es ’s con vi ct io ns on Co un ts One an d Two an d REVERSE hi s co nv ic ti on s o n C ou nt s Th ree a ndFo ur . Mr. Jo ne s’s se nt en ce o n a ll co un ts is VACATED . W e REMAND th e cas e to th e d is tri ctco urt

38with i ns tru ct io ns to DISMI SS Co un ts Thre e an d F ou r WI THO UT PREJUDI CE

an d t o re se nt en ce M r. Jo ne s o n C ou nt s On e an d Two .

39