2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-26-2009 

# U SA v . I s a a c B arlow P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1370

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . I s a a c B arlow " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1988. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1988NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N os . 08- 1370, 08- 1388 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. I S A A C B A R L O W , a/k/a Chin, Appellant in 08-1370. UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. ALFREDO PAYNE, a/k/a F redo, Appellant in 08-1388. A p p e a l f ro m th e O rd e r o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C r i m . N os . 06- cr - 00694- 001 and 06- cr - 00694- 002) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Fr eda W ol fs on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

on J anuary8, 2009

____________ B efor e: FU E N T E S, FI SH E R , and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

(F il ed : Jan u ary2 6 , 2 0 0 9 )T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742 and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 OP I NI ON FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: 

### Isaac B arlo wan dA lf

red o P ay n e (co llectiv ely

“D ef en d ants”), ap p eal th eir resp ectiv e co nv ictio n s f

o r v ario u s dru g co n sp iracy ch arg es. O n appea l , D efe ndant s ar gue th a t th e yw e re d e n ied a f a ir trial. B e c a u se w e f

in d th e a rg u m e n ts a ss e rte d b yD e f e n d a n ts wi t h o u tme r i t , we wi l l a f f i r m. 1 T h e f ac ts of this case are leng thyan d co m p li ca ted. In sh o rt , D ef en d an ts w ere m ember s of a s t r eetgang i n T r ent on. B etw een N ovember2005 and M ar ch 2006, t hey
w er e arr es t ed fordeal i ng cr ack, coca i ne, her oi n, and mar i j uana on mul t i pl e occ as i ons by bot h s t at e and f

eder al author i t i es . T hes e arr es t s r es ul t ed fr om t es t i m onyof conf i dent i al i nform ant s w ho r ecor ded drug t r ans act i ons , as w el l as cooper at i on fr om anothergang m emberaft erB ar l ow t r i ed t o ki l l hi m . T he pol i ce r ecove r ed an i nor di nat e amountof i ncri m i nati ng evidence inci den tt o these arres t s. W h ile in p re -tria l d e ten tio n , B a rlo w talk e d to a n o th e r f e d e ra l p riso n e r a t len g th aboutt he cha r ges agai ns thi m . T he pr i s oner , fami l i arw i t h t he r ol e of a cooper at i ng w i t nes s , keptnot es of the i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement s , and not i fi ed the FB I . I n addi t i on,B arl ow fai l ed to objectt o m uch of the evidence ab ou tw hich he n ow com plai ns, 2 w hi ch w e r evi ew forpl ai n err or . U ni t ed St at es v. G ambi no, 926 F. 2d 1355, 1362- 63 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . W i t h r egar d t o D efe ndant s ’ r emai ni ng evi dent i aryar gum ent s , w e r evi ew for a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . L o re , 4 3 0 F .3 d 1 9 0 , 2 0 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 3 B ar l ow cal l ed hi s w i fe f r om j ai l s ever al t i m es , dur i ng w hi ch he a dm i t t ed cr i t i cal fac t s and d isc u ss e d e f

f o rts to sile n c e g o v e rn m e n t w itn e ss e s. P a yn e , als o in c a rc e ra ted , se n t lette rs to B ar l ow , di s cus s i ng t r i al s t r at egyand admi t t i ng s ever al cr i t i cal fac t s . H e appa r ent l yw as un aw are that m ai l t o an d from i nm at es i s r eview ed b ypri son au t ho ri t i es. B ar l ow and Payne w er e ea ch convi ct ed of s ever al drug and cons pi r acyoffe ns es a f ter a ju rytrial in Ju n e 2 0 0 7 . B a rlo w w a s s e n ten c e d to life im p riso n m e n t, w ith concurr entt erm s of 240 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . Payne w as s ent ence d t o t hr ee c oncurr ent t e r ms o f 1 2 0 mo n t h s ’ i mp r i s o n me n t . E a c h a p p e a l s h i s j u d g me n to f c o n v i c t i o n . On appea l , B ar l ow ar gues t hatt es t i m onyaboutgang- r el at ed ac t i vi t yas evi dence of the cons pi r acyw as i n err orand undul ypr ej udi ci al . H e al s o ar gues t hatt he phone conver s at i ons w i t h hi s w i fe f r om t he j ai l w er e pr i vi l eged. Payne ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our terr ed byadmi t t i ng hi s pr i ors t at e drug arr es t s as evi dence of overtact s of the char ged cons pi r acy . L i ke B ar l ow , Payne al s o ar gues t hatt he t es t i m onyr el at i ng t o gangr el at ed ac t i vi t yw as i r r el evantas evi dence of overtact s of the cons pi r acychar ge. 2 Br a n d o n Be c k , wh o c o o p e r a t e d wi t h t h e g o v e r n me n ta f t e rBa r l o w t r i e d t o k i l l h i m, tes tifie d a b o u t B a rlo w ’s d ru g -tra f f ick in g o p e ra tio n , as w e ll as B a rlo w ’s u se o f g u n s in fu rth era n ce o f th e c h arg ed co n sp ir ac y . T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ad m issi o n o f B ec k ’s4

t es t i m onyw as nei t heran abus e of di s cr et i on, norpl ai n err or . B eck’ s t es t i m onyw as unques t i onabl yr el evant . M or eover , w hi l e thi s evi dence w as pr ej udi ci al , i tw as not unfai r l ypr ej udi ci al underFeder al R ul e of Evi dence 403. See U ni t ed St at es v. B obb, 471 F. 3d 491, 497 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “Even i f [e vi dence ] i s extr emel ypr ej udi ci al t o t he defe ndant , t he tr i al cour tw oul d have no di s cr et i on t o excl ude i tbeca us e i ti s pr oof of the ul t i m at e i s s ue i n t he ca s e. ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . Si m i l ar l y , t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s admi s s i on of Payne’ s pr i ors t at e drug convi ct i ons w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on, b e c a u s e t h i s e v i d e n c e w a s b o t h r e l e v a n ta n d p r o b a t i v e o f t h e c h a r g e d c o n s p i r a c y. D efe ndant s al s o ar gue thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdi d not gr antt hei rm ot i on fora mi s t r i al fol l ow i ng a fl eet i ng, gener al comm enti n t he gang expert ’ s t es t i m onyaboutt he types of cr i m i nal act i vi t yi n w hi ch D efe ndant s ’ s t r eetgang engage d. W e di s agr ee. A ft erD efe ndant s obj ect ed t o t he t es t i m ony , s ever al m i nut es aft er the p rose cu tor ask ed an d the w itn ess a n sw ere d the q u esti o n at i ssu e, th e D istri ct C o u rt s t ruck the comm entfr om t he r ecor d and, i n an abunda nce of caut i on, i s s ued a c ur at i ve j ur yi ns t ruct i on. T hi s w as m or e than enough t o cur e anypr ej udi ce, as s um i ng t he comm entw as pr ej udi ci al i n t he fi r s tpl ace . R egar dl es s , t he r ecor d demonstr at es o v erw h elm ing ev iden ce o f D ef en d an ts’ g u il t, ev en w ith o u t th e e x p ert’s co m m en t. In o th e r w o rd s , h is te s tim o n yre g a rd in g th is c o n d u c t d id n o t a f f e c t th e o u tc o m e o f

th is c a s e . Fi nal l y , B ar l ow obj ect s t o t he admi s s i on of hi s phone conve r s at i ons w i t h hi s w i fe fr om j ai l , dur i ng w hi ch he di s cus s ed att empt s t o s i l ence governm entw i t nes s es . B ar l ow5

c laim s th e se c o n v e rsa tio n s a re p riv ileg e d . H is c o n ten tio n s a re c o m p lete lyw ith o u t m e rit. See, e. g. , B el l v. W ol fi s h, 441 U . S. 520, 545- 46 ( 1979) ( “[S] i m pl ybeca us e pr i s on i nm at es r et ai n cert ai n cons t i tut i onal r i ght s does notm ean thatt hes e r i ght s ar e nots ubj ect t o r es t r i ct i ons and l i m i t at i ons . L aw ful i ncar cer at i on br i ngs aboutt he nec es s aryw i t hdr aw al orl i m i t at i on of m anypr i vi l eges and r i ght s , a r etr act i on j us t i fi ed byt he cons i der at i ons u n d e rl y in g o u r p e n a l s y s te m .” ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). 

### F o r th e f o reg o in g reaso n s, w e w ill af f irm D ef en d ants’ co nv ictio n s.