FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T OCTOB ER 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 0- 15 60 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 9- cr-0 01 05 -TCB-GGB -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

SHAUN LEE THOMAS,

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 ur t for th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 0, 2 01 1)

Befo re EDMONDSON, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Sh au n Tho m as ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on s f or th ree co un ts of se xu al ab us e of a

ch il d un de r th e ag e of 12
, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 41 (c). He arg ue s th at : (1 ) th etri al co ur t bo th ab us ed it s di sc ret io n an d pl ai nl y erre d by ad m it ti ng two wit ne ss es ’

te st im on y co nc ern in g th e v i ct im ’s cred ib il it y ; an d (2 ) th e tri al co ur t in co rrec tl y

rem ov ed th e juri sd ic ti on al ele m en t o f th e o ffen se fro m th e jury’ s del ib erat io ns , and

t h i s e rro r was no t ha rm le ss as th e al le ge d in ci de nt m ay ha ve ha pp en ed whi le th e

cru is e sh ip was d oc ke d i n a po rt. Aft er ca refu l re vi ew, we affi rm

.

W it h reg ard to pr op e rly pr es erv ed ch al le ng es , we rev ie w de te rm in at io ns

co nc ern in g th e ad m is si bi li ty of ev id en ce fo r cl ear ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es

v. Gam or y , 63 5 F.3 d 48 0, 49 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ). W he re a pa rty fai ls t o p r e s erv e a

cl ai m by rai si ng it be lo w, we rev ie w on ly fo r pl ai n erro r. I d

. Any erro r can no t be

pl ai n whe re th ere is no bi nd in g pr eced en t on an is su e. Uni te d St at es v. Lejard e-Ra da
,

31 9 F .3d 12 88 , 12 91 (1 1t h Cir. 20 03 ). A di st ric t cou rt’s gi ve n jury in st ru ct io ns are

su bjec t to ha rm le ss erro r an al y si s. Uni te d St at es v. Dru ry , 39 6 F.3 d 13 03
, 13 14 (1 1t h

Ci r. 2 00 5)

. The refo re, ev en if a co ur t’s jury in st ru ct io ns erro ne ou sl y om it te d an

el em en t of th e o ffen se , we wil l s ti ll affi rm if “ it ap pe ars be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t

t h a t t he erro r co m

pl ai ne d of di d no t co nt rib ut e to th e ve rd ic t ob ta in ed .” I d

. (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. W he re th e ev id en ce pr od uc ed at tri al co nc lu si ve ly es ta bl is he s

th at th e o m it te d e le m en t was m et , th e erro r is ha rm le ss . See i d.

Fi rs t, we ar e u np ers ua de d by Th om as ’s c la im th at th e tri al co ur t bo th ab us ed

it s di sc ret io n an d pl ai nl y erre d by ad m it ti ng two wit ne ss es ’ te st im on y co nc ern in g th e

2vi ct im ’s cred i b i l i ty. Eve ry jury “ ha s an ob li ga ti on ‘to ex erci se it s un tra m m el ed

jud gm en t up on th e wor th an d weig ht of te st im on y ’ an d to ‘brin g in it s ve rd ic t an d no t

so m eo ne el se ’s.’ ” Uni te d St at es v. So ro n d o , 8 4 5 F

. 2 d 94 5, 94 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 88 )

(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n , 31 9 U.S. 50 3, 51 9 (1 94 3) ). Acco rd in gl y ,
wit ne ss es m ay no t tes ti fy as to th e cred ib il it y of an ot he r wit ne ss

. See id

. at 94 8- 49

.

Nev ert he le ss , a “ de fen da nt m ay no t co m pl ai n on ap pe al th at he was pr ejud ic ed

by ev id en ce rel at in g to a su bjec t whi c h h e o p e n e d up at tri al .” Uni te d St at es v.

W il so n, 43 9 F.2 d 10 81
, 10 82 (5 th Ci r. 19 71 ). Add it io na ll y , whe re it ap pe ars th at a 1

de fen da nt fai le d to ob

ject to a tri al erro r fo r st rat eg ic reas on s, th e erro r “ is cl earl y no t

‘obv io us .’ ” Uni te d St at es v

. Si m m on s, 96 1 F.2 d 18 3, 18 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 92 ).

The refo re, a de fen da nt fai ls to m ak e a sh owi ng of pl ai n erro r. Id

. at 18 5- 86

. Fi na ll y ,
ad m is si on of ev id en ce whi ch do es no t co ns ti tu te a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n is su bjec t

to ha rm le ss erro r an al y si s. See Uni te d St at es v. Harri st on , 3 2 9 F.3 d 77 9, 78 8- 89

(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3)

.
Here, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by al lo win g Age nt Fo ns eca

to te st ify th at he di d no t ha ve an y co nc ern s ab ou t th e vi ct im m ak in g up th e al le ga ti on s

in th is cas e. As th e reco rd sh ows , Tho m as ha d as ke d Fo ns eca on cro ss -ex am in at io n

I n Bonne r v. City

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

3w h e t h e r , in hi s ex pe rie nc e, he was aware th at ch il dr en m ak e st uf f up on oc cas io n

.
The refo re, ev en if Fo ns eca’s te st im on y is co ns tru ed as a co m m en t on th e vi ct im ’s

cred ib il it y , Tho m as m ay no t co m pl ai n of it s ad m is si on be cau se he op en ed up th is li ne

of qu es ti on in g. Se e Wils on , 43 9 F .2d at 1 08 2.

Th e di st ric t co ur t al so di d no t pl ai nl y err by al lo win g in Karen Dela n o ’s

un res po ns iv e te st im on y th at du rin g he r i n t e r v i e w , th e vi ct im se em ed to be a ve ry

cred ib le li tt le gi rl. As th e r e c o r d sh ows , Tho m as vi go ro us ly ob jecte d to Age nt

Fo ns eca’s te st im on y th at he di d no t ha ve an y co nc ern s ab ou t th e vi ct i m p o s si bl y

m ak in g up th e al le ga ti on s i n t hi s ca se , y et Tho m as rem ai ne d si le nt du rin g Delan o’s

te st im on y

. Mo reo ve r, on red ire ct Tho m as at te m pt ed to im pu gn Dela no ’s cred ib il it y

as se ss m en t by di sc us si ng th e vi ct im ’s pr io r vi ewin g of po rn og rap hy. Thu s, it ap pe ars

th at Tho m as m ay ha ve fai le d t o o bjec t t o Dela no ’s t es ti m on y fo r st rat eg ic reas on s.

Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pl ai nl y err by ad m it ti ng Dela no ’s te st im on y

.
Si m m on s, 9 61 F.2d at 1 85 -8 6. 2

W e al so reject Tho m as ’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d rev ers ib le erro r
by in co rrec tl y rem ov in g th e juri sd ic ti on al el em en t of th e of fen se fro m th e jury’ s

I n any event, e ven if the district c ourt had a bused its discretion or c ommitt ed plain er ror 2 by allowing in this t estimony , the er ror wa s harmless as the evidenc e at tria l conclusively established Thomas’ s g uilt. I ndeed, the rec ord shows that the victim’s multiple acc ounts of the incidents substantially

corr esponded w ith each othe r, and tha t other evide nce c orrobor ated the victim’s statements.

4de li be rat io ns

. A d efen da nt m ay be co nv ic te d un de r 18 U.S.C. § 22 41 (c) if he

kn owi ng ly en ga ge s in a se xu al act wit h an ot he r pe rs on who ha s no t at ta in ed th e ag e

of 12 y ears in th e sp eci al m ari t i me a n d t erri to ria l juri sd ic ti on of th e Uni te d St at es

.

See 18 U.S.C. § 22 41 (c). Sect io n 7 o f Ti t l e 1 8 st at es th at th e sp eci al m ari ti m e an d

t e rri to ria l juri sd ic ti on of th e Uni te d St at es in cl ud es “ an y fo rei gn ve ss el du rin g a

vo y ag e ha vi ng a sc he du le d de pa rtu re fro m or arri va l in th e Uni te d St at es wit h res pe ct

to an off en se co m m it te d b y or a ga in st a na ti on al of th e Uni te d Stat es .” 18 U.S.C. §

7( 8)

.

In th is cas e, ev en if th e co ur t in co rrec tl y rem ov ed th e el em en ts of 18 U.S.C. §

7 fr om th e jury’ s de te rm in at io n, th e erro r was ha rm le ss

. Tho m as pr ov id es no le ga l

su pp or t fo r hi s arg um en t th at a “ vo y ag e” un de r 18 U.S.C. § 7( 8) do es no t en co m pa ss

ti m es when a sh ip is do ck ed in a ha rb or . Add it io na ll y , we are awa re o f no rel ev an t

pr eced e n t

. Th e r e fo re, th e co ur t di d no t pl ai nl y err by as su m in g th at th e in ci de nt

oc cu rred du r in g a vo y ag e as lo ng as it oc cu rred at so m e po in t on th e cru is e. See

Lejard e-Ra da , 31 9 F .3d at 1 29 1.

Fu rth erm or e, th e ev id en ce pres en te d a t t ria l co nc lu si ve ly esta bl is he d t ha t t he

in ci de nt oc cu rred on th e sh ip at so m e po in t du rin g th e cru is e whi ch de pa rte d fro m an d

ret ur ne d to Ja ck so nv il le
, Fl or id a. Mo reo ve r, th e ev id en ce sh owe d th at th e of fen se

wa s c o mm i t t ed on a fo rei gn ve ss el
, an d ag ai ns t a na ti on al of th e Uni te d St at es

.

5A cco rd in gl y , an y erro r in rem ov in g th e juri sd ic ti on al el em en t fro m th e jury’ s

de te rm in at io n was ha rm le ss

.

AFFIRMED.

6