T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10 TH C IR . R. 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t3,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 5173 v. ( N . D . O kl ahoma) G E R A L D W A D E T H O M A S , S R .,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CR - 8 9 - T CK )

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , S EY M OUR , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es. G er al d W ade Thom as , Sr . , w as convi ct ed af t era j uryt r i al of ( a) abus i ve s exual cont actw i th a chi l d undert he age of 12 ( a vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 2244( a) ( 1) and ( c) and 2246( 3) ) ; and ( b) pos s es s i on of a f i r earm aft era form er fel onyconvi ct i on ( a vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( e) ) . T he di s t r i ct courts ent ence d hi m t o concurr entt erm s of i m pr i s onm entof 188 m onths on eac h c o u n t, fo llo w e d b yth re e y e a rs ’ s u p e rv is e d re le a s e .-2-

M r . T hom as now chal l enges thes e convi ct i ons on tw o gr ounds , ar gui ng t hat ( 1) the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n al l ow i ng the pr os ecut i on t o cr os s - exami ne an a l i bi w itn ess re g ard ing h er fail u re to testi fyat a d eten ti o n h ea ri n g ; and (2) h is fir ea rm convi ct i on vi ol at ed hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ght s beca us e the ques t i on of w hether he had be en convi ct ed of a pr i orfel onyw as nots ubm i t t ed t o the j ur y . W e ar e not persuaded byei ther ar gu m ent, and w e t herefore affi rm M r. T ho m as’ s conv i ct i on s a n d s e n te n c e s .
I . BA CKGROUND T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e a s to th e se x u a l ab u se c o u n t w a s b a se d lar g e ly o n th e tes tim o n yo f

T M C , a n in e -y e a r-o ld g irl w h o , alo n g w ith h e r b ro th e r B ill y a n d a n o th e r c h ild , sta y e d w ith M r. T h o m a s a t h is re sid e n c e o v e r sp rin g b re a k in 2004. T M C t es t i fi ed that , dur i ng one ni ghtovert he br eak, s he aw oke and found M r. T ho m as i n b ed w i th h er. H e t ou ched her on h er s ho ulder , l eg, and bu t t ock s; t ook off he rpant i es ; and l i ft ed up hers hi r t . H e then hel d herdow n on hers i de by pu t t i ng his han d o n h er hi p. W hen M r. T ho m as pl aced h i s hand s on h er but t ock s, sh e p u sh ed h is ha n d s aw ay , b u t he p u t th em b ac k o n h er. A cc o rdin g to T M C , M r. T h o m a s to ld h e r t h a t if s h e to ld a n y o n e , h e w o u ld k ill h e r. T M C l eftM r . T hom as ’ s hous e the nextm orni ng. A ccor di ng t o herbr ot her B ill y , T M C sta rte d to c rya s th e yw e re d riv in g a w a y . A f ter sh e to ld h e r fa m ily w hathad happe ned, a nur s e pr act i t i onerexami ned herata l ocal hos pi t al . T he-3-

exami nat i on r evea l ed no evi dence of vagi nal orr ect al penetr at i on. H ow ever , the nur s e pr act i t i onerobs erved a f r es h brui s e on TM C ’ s r i ghthi p, t endernes s i n her lo w e r b a c k , a n d tw o b ru is e s o n e a c h o f h e r s h in s . T M C al s o gave t es t i m onys uppor t i ng the fi r earm char ge. She s ai d that wh i l e s h e wa s h e l p i n g M r . T h o ma s c h o p wo o d , s h e s a w h i m h o l d i n g a l o n g b r o wn g u n w ith a stri n g ti ed to b o th en d s. S h e a d d ed that sh e h ad see n tw o ri fles a t M r. T h o m a s ’s h o u s e , e a c h w ith a s tr in g tie d o n to it. T M C ’ s br otherB i l l ygave s i m i l art es t i m ony . H e s t at ed thatdur i ng the s pr i ng br eak vi s i t , he had s een M r . T hom as carry i ng a r i fl e w i th a s houl ders tr ap an d that h e b eli ev ed that h e h ad see n an o ther rifle i n M r. T h o m as’s h o m e. M r. T hom as ’ s br otherH ar ol d and hi s hal f- br otherW i l l i am al s o t es t i fi ed thatt heyhad s een M r . T hom as carr y i ng a r i fl e w i th a s houl ders tr ap. Fi nal l y , FB I A gentD ana W ar d t es t i fi ed thats he and mar s hal s fr om t he C her okee N at i on exec ut ed a s ear ch w arr anton M r . T hom as ’ s hom e on A pr i l 12, 2004. A ft erknocki ng on t he fr ontdoor , A gentW ar d hear d a s ound neart he bac k of the hous e and w entt o i nves t i gat e. She s aw a man w ear i ng a gr een a r m yj acke t w i th a r i fl e s l ung overhi s s houl der . She y el l ed att he man t o putt he gun dow n, but , aft ert el l i ng herthats he had no r i ghtt o be on I ndi an l and, t he man t hr ew t he gun dow n and r an i nt o t he w oods . L at ert hatday , t he age nt s found the r i fl e that th e m a n h a d d ro p p e d . H o w e v e r, t h e fin g e rp ri n ts d id n o t m a tc h M r. T h o m a s ’s . In s id e th e re s id e n c e , th e yfo u n d a n o th e r fir e a rm : a M o s s b e rg s h o tg u n w ith a s lin g .-4-

A g e n t W a rd f

u rt h e r t e s tifie d th a t, o n N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 , s h e s a w M r. T hom as atthe C her okee Casi no i n C at oos a, O kl ahoma. She r ecogni zed hi m as the m an sh e h ad see n w ith the g u n d u ri n g the A p ri l 12 , 2 0 0 4 sea rch , an d M r. T h o m a s w a s th e n a rr e s te d . I n hi s defe ns e, M r . T hom as cal l ed J ul i e R hoden, t he comm on- l aw w i fe of M r . T hom as ’ s s on, G er al d W ade Thom as , J r . M s . R hoden t es t i fi ed thatover s pr i ng br eak i n 2004, s he and he rchi l dr en w er e l i vi ng i n the r es i dence w her e the al l eged offens es t ook pl ace . A ccor di ng t o M s . R hoden, M r . T hom as w as not l i v i n g th e r e a tth a tt i me . M s . Rho d e n a l s o t e s t i fi e d t h a ts h e h a d n e v e rme tTM C or the o ther gov ernm ent w i tnesses. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, the pr os ecut oras ked M s . R hoden abouther att en d an ce at an ea rl ier pro ce ed ing , the p re-tr ial d eten ti o n h ea ri n g fo r M r. T h o m a s. M r. T h o m a s’s a tto rn e yo bjec ted “ a s to a n yth in g th a t h a p p e n e d a t a det ent i on hear i ng. ” R ec. vol . I V , at251. H ow ever , t he di s tr i ctcourtal l ow ed the pr os ecut ort o as k M s . R hoden w hethers he had r eport ed the i nform at i on aboutnot s eei ng M r . T hom as atthe r es i dence overt he 2004 s pr i ng br eak. I n part i cul ar , t he pr os ecut oras ked herw hethers he had “ [s t ood] up att he bac k of the courtr oom and r ai s e[d] [her ] hand and s a[i d] j udge, j udge, I ’ ve gots om e evi dence t hatI need t o tel l y ou abo ut. ” Id. at25 2. M s. R ho den res po nd ed thatshe had no tdo ne so beca us e s he di d notknow thats he coul d. H ow ever , s he adde d that , att he-5-

concl us i on of the det ent i on hear i ng, s he had i nform ed M r . T hom as ’ s att or ney aboutthe al i bi evi dence . D u ri n g clos ing arg u m en t, the p rose cu tor return ed to M s. R h o d en ’s fa il u re to c o m e fo rw a rd w ith in fo rm a tio n a b o u t M r. T h o m a s ’s n o t liv in g a t th e re s id e n c e . H e s t at ed: O n that issue , I w an t t o tal k to y o u ab o u t th e d efen d an t’ s

wi tn e s s e s , h i s c o mm o n l a w d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w. He r e we h a v e th is w o m a n w h o sa y s s h e w o u ld d o a n yth in g to h e lp G er al d [the defendantM r . T hom as ] and y etdoes nothi ng forw el l ov er a y eart o hel p hi m , des pi t e bei ng pr es entat c o u rt h e a ri n g s . . . . R ec . v o l. V , at 28 2 . H e a d d ed , “A ll the th ing s tha t [M s. R h o d en ] said. I co u ldn ’t g o g e tth a te v i d e n c e . S h e d i d n ’ tt e l l me a n yth i n g a b o u ti t , th a twa s th e fi r s tt i me anyof us had eve rhear d i t . ” I d. at283- 84. A f te r h e a ri n g th is e v id e n c e , th e ju ry c o n v ic te d M r. T h o m a s o n b o th c o u n ts .
I I . DI S CU S S I ON O n appea l , M r . T hom as ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n al l ow i ng t he pr os ecut ort o cr os s - exami ne M s . R hoden r egar di ng herfai l ur e t o vol unt eer info rm ati o n ab o u t his ali b i atthe d eten ti o n h ea ri n g . H e n o tes th at M s. R h o d en ’s al i bi t es t i m onyw as notr el evantt o the mat t erati s s ue att he det ent i on hear i ng— w hetherM r . T hom as s houl d be det ai ned pendi ng tr i al . H e adds t hat , as a l ay p e rso n m e re lya tten d in g th e d e ten tio n h e a rin g , sh e h a d n o o b lig a tio n to p u b licly-6-

vol unt eerheral i bi i nform at i on t o t he court . A s a r es ul t , he conc l udes , the governm ent ’ s att empt t o cr os s - exami ne heraboutherfai l ur e t o vol unt eerthe i n fo r m a t i o n u n d u l y i n fl u e n c e d t h e j u ry. A s to the firearm co n v ict ion , M r. T h o m as a rgu es th at th e d istri ct co u rt vi ol at ed hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ght s byfi ndi ng thathe had be en convi ct ed of a p r i o rfe l o n y w i th o u ts u b m i t t i n g th e i s s u e t o a j u ry.

A . C ross- E x am i n ati on of t h e A l i b i W i tness A l though M r . T hom as char act er i zes t he pr os ecut or ’ s cr os s - exami nat i on of M s. R h o d e n a s “ im p ro p e r,” A p lt’s B r. at 9 , n e ith e r a t trial n o r in h is a p p e llate br i ef ha s he pr ovi ded a mor e s peci fi c bas i s forhi s obj ect i on. H e now ci t es deci s i ons i nvol vi ng pr os ecut or s ’ m i s s t at i ng the t erm s of a s t i pul at i on, comm ent i ng on a defendant ’ s fai l ur e t o t es t i fy , and vouchi ng forw i tnes s es . See id. at1 5 -19 (cit ing U n it ed S tat es v . M astran g elo, 17 2 F . 3 d 2 8 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); U ni t ed St at es v. C otnam, 88 F. 3d 487 ( 7th C i r . 1996) ; U ni t ed St at es v. K err , 981 F. 2d 1050 ( 9th C i r . 1992) ) . T hi s cas e does noti nvol ve thos e ki nds of p ro s e c u to ri a l m is c o n d u c t. H ow ever , i n exami ni ng the pr opers cope of t he cr os s - exami nat i on of an al i bi w i tnes s r egar di ng a del ayi n comi ng forw ar d, s ever al deci s i ons have appl i ed R ul e 403 of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. A guw a, 123 F. 3d 418, 420 ( 6th C i r . 1997) ( not i ng thatt he defendantcont ended “ thatt he-7-

pr os ecut i on’ s l i ne of que s t i oni ng and ar gum entw as i m pr operbeca us e no m eaningfu l i nference c an o r s ho uld be draw n from the m ere factthat a w i tness m aynothave i m m edi at el ycome for w ar d and r evea l ed the exi s t ence of an a l i bi for a d e fe n d a n t” a n d c o n c lu d in g th a t “a lth o u g h th e d e fe n d a n t d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rily f ra m e h is a rg u m e n t in th is fa sh io n , h e is c laim in g th a t su c h e v id e n c e is in a d m iss ib le u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 3 b e c a u se its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is outw ei ghed byothercons i der at i ons ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. J ohns , 734 F. 2d 657, 664 ( 11th C i r . 1984) ( eval uat i ng a cha l l enge t o cr os s - exami nat i on r egar di ng the dil i gen ce of

an ali bi w i tness und er Fed. R . E vid. 40 3). W e are pers uad ed b ythese d ec isi o n s tha t R u le 40 3 o ffers the ap p rop ri ate f ram ew o rk fo r an aly zing M r. T h o m a s ’s o bje c tio n to th e c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n o f M s . R h o d e n . U nderthatfr amew or k, ourr evi ew of the tr i al j udge’ s deci s i on t o al l ow t he pr os ecut or ’ s ques t i oni ng i s qui t e defer ent i al . G ener al l y , “[o] n cr os s - exami nat i on, i ti s w i thin the tr i al j ud ge’s di scr et i on t o ex cl ud e evidence.” Ew i ng v. W i nan s, 749 F. 2d 607, 616 ( 10th C i r . 1984) . I n bal anci ng pr obat i ve val ue and pr ej udi ce underFed. R . E vi d. 403, the di s tr i ctcour ti s affor ded the s ame di s cr et i on. See D et er s v. E qui fax Cre di tI nfo. Ser vs . , I nc. , 202 F. 3d 1262, 1274 ( 10th C i r . 2000) (no ti n g that d ec isi o n s w h ethe r t o ad m ito r ex clud e e v iden ce u n d er R u le 40 3 are r evi ew ed foran abus e of di s cr et i on beca us e the di s tr i ctcour ti s “cl ear l yi n a s u p e ri o r p o s itio n to p e rfo rm th is a n a lysis ” ).-8-

M o re v e r, “[ a ] n o n -c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r, su c h a s a d e c isio n w h e th e r to a d m it o r e x c lu d e e v id e n c e , is c o n sid e re d h a rm les s ‘u n les s a su b sta n tial rig h t o f [ a ] p a rty i s affect ed. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. C har l ey , 189 F. 3d 1251, 1270 ( 10th C i r . 1999) (quoti ng F ed. R . E vid. 10 3(a) ). A n err or affect s a subst anti al ri gh tw hen i thas a “s ubs t ant i al i nfl uence on t he out come orl eave s one i n ‘ gr ave doubt ’ as t o w hether i thad s uch effec t . ” U ni t ed St at es v. R i ver a, 900 F. 2d 1462, 1469 ( 10th C i r . 1990) ( en banc ) ( quot i ng K ot t eakos v. U ni t ed St at es , 328 U . S. 750, 765 ( 1946) ) . “The governm entbear s t he bur den t o s how thata noncons t i tut i onal err ori s harm l es s by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence . ” U ni t ed St at es v. St i ger , 413 F. 3d 1185, 1190 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A p p ly ing tho se stan d ard s h ere , w e d iscern so m e m eritin ea ch p arty ’s p o sitio n . A s th e g o v e rn m e n t o b se rv e s, a lin e o f c a se s a llo w s th e g o v e rn m e n t to cr os s - exami ne an a l i bi w i tnes s abouthi s orherdel ayi n comi ng forw ar d w i th the al i bi . See, e. g. , A guw a, 123 F. 3d at420- 21 ( “U nderthe ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed i n th i s c a s e , we f

i n d th a tt h e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i d n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n , b e c a u s e we ar e convi nced thatthe w i tnes s ’ del ayi n pr ovi di ng an al i bi forherhus band i s an appr opr i at e s ubj ectof i nqui r y . ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. L aury , 985 F. 2d 1293, 1305- 06 ( 5th C i r . 1993) ( “The pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent s r egar di ng the fa i l ur e of the w itn e ss e s to c o m e fo rw a rd so o n e r w ith [ th e d e fe n d a n t’s] a lib i w a s a p e rm iss ib le att ack on thei rcr edi bi l i ty . ”) ; J ohns , 734 F. 2d at664 ( s t at i ng “[t ] hatany one, defe ndantorw i tnes s , fai l s t o pr es enta defendant ’ s al i bi t o l aw enfor cementatt he-9-

ear l i es tt i m e pos s i bl e has s om e l ogi cal negat i ve r efl ect i on on t he cr edi bi l i tyof the ali b i defen se” ). H o w ev er, as M r. T h o m as o b serv es, th e p rose cu tor h ere d id m o re th a n m e re ly ch a lle n g e M s . R h o d e n ’s d e la yin re p o rt in g th e a lib i. I n part i cul ar , t he pr os ecut or ’ s ques t i oni ng s ugges t ed thatM s . R hoden w as nota cr edi bl e w i tnes s beca us e s he had noti nt errupt ed the det ent i on hear i ng by vol unt eer i ng heral i bi i nform at i on t o the pr os ecut orand the j udge. T he g o v ern m en t ci tes n o au tho ri tyind icati n g that a w itn ess h as a d u tyto rep o rt i nform at i on i n thi s cont ext . A s M r . T hom as obs erves , the i nform at i on offe r ed by M s . R hoden w as notr el evantt o t he i s s ue addr es s ed atthe det ent i on h e a ri n g — w h e th e r M r. T h o m a s s h o u ld b e d e ta in e d p e n d in g tr ia l. N e v e rth e les s, e v e n a ss u m in g th a t th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in all o w ing the p rose cu tor t o cro ss-ex am ine M s. R h o d en ab o u t her fail u re to rep o rt the al i bi i nform at i on att he det ent i on hear i ng, w e conc l ude thatthi s err orw as harm l es s . See C har l ey , 189 F. 3d at1270. A s t o the s exual as s aul tchar ge, the j uryhad the opportuni tyt o as s es s the cr edi bi l i tyof TM C , and hert es t i m onyw as c o rro b o ra ted b yth e n u rse p ra c tit io n e r’s tes tim o n yre g a rd in g th e b ru ise o n h e r h ip and, t o s om e ext ent , byfami l ym ember s ’ t es t i m onyaboutherr eport i ng the assa u lt . A s to the firearm ch arg e, five w itn esse s testi fied that theysaw M r. T h o m a s c a rr y in g a g u n w ith a s lin g . M oreove r, w e no t e t hat aft er the p rosecut or’ s cr oss- exam i nati on of M s. R hoden, M r . T hom as ’ s att orneydi d nots eek t o r ehabi l i t at e herbyas ki ng about-10-

h e r re p o rtin g th e a lib i in fo rm a tio n a t th e c lo se o f th e d e ten tio n h e a rin g . H is fai l ur e t o do s o underm i nes M r . T hom as ’ s as s er t i on of pr ej udi ce. See Shul t z v. R ice , 8 0 9 F .2 d 6 4 3 , 6 5 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ) (n o tin g th a t a p a rty ’s o p p o rtu n ityto r ehabi l i t at e a w i tnes s underm i ned the al l egat i on of pr ej udi ce) ; U ni t ed St at es v. T ag li o n e, 54 6 F . 2 d 1 9 4 , 1 9 7 (5th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ) (co n clud ing that a p rose cu tor’s c l o s i n g r e m a r k s w e r e n o tp r ej u d i c i a l i n p a r tb e c a u s e th e d e fe n d a n t ’ s a t t o rn e y “h ad am p le op p o rtu n ityfo r an effo rtto reh ab il it ate in h is ow n clos ing rem ark s”). A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe addi t i onal i m peac hm entof M s . R hoden affor ded bythe pr os ecut or ’ s cr os s - exami nat i on nei therhad a “ ‘ s ubs t ant i al i nfl uence ’ on t he out come” norl eave s us “i n ‘ gr ave doubt ’ as t o w hetheri thad s u c h e ffe c t.” R iv e ra , 9 0 0 F .2 d a t 1 4 6 9 (q u o tin g K o tte a k o s , 3 2 8 U .S . a t 7 6 5 ). N ordi d the pr os ecut or ’ s cl os i ng ar gum entaffectthe fa i rnes s of the tr i al . See U n it ed S tat es v . Y o u n g , 4 7 0 U . S . 1 , 1 1 (19 8 5 ).

B . F i rear m C harge M r . T hom as al s o chal l enges hi s convi ct i on on the 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( e) fi r earm char ge, not i ng thatt he fa ctof hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons w as not su b m itt e d to a ju rya n d c o n ten d in g th e d istric t co u rt’s fa ilu re to d o so v io late d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts .-11-

M r. T h o m as c o n ce d es th at th is argu m en t i s fo rec lose d b yS u p rem e C o u rt p rec ed en t: A lm en d are z-T o rres v . U n it ed S tat es, 52 3 U . S . 2 2 4 (19 9 8 ). H o w ev er, he pr edi ct s thatA l m endar ez- T orr es w i l l be overrul ed. B eca us e w e ar e bound t o fol l ow A l m endar ez- T or r es , M r . T hom as cannot p rev ail . “T h is co u rth as h eld p o st- [U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 54 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 )] thatthe exi s t ence and cl as s i fi cat i on of pr i orconvi ct i ons us ed t o enhanc e a defe ndant ’ s s ent ence need notbe cha r ged i n the i ndi ctm entand s ubm i t t ed t o a j ury . ” U nit ed S t at es v. D avis , 43 7 F . 3d 98 9, 99 8 (10th C i r. 20 06 ); see al so U ni t ed St at es v. M oor e, 401 F. 3d 1220, 1224 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( “[W ] e ar e bound b ye x istin g p re c e d e n t to h o ld th a t th e A lm e n d a re z -T o rre s e x c e p tio n to th e ru le announce d i n A ppr endi and ext ended t o the G ui del i nes i n B ookerr emai ns good l aw . W e ther efor e conc l ude thatthe governm entneed notchar ge the ‘ fac t ’ of a pr i orconvi ct i on i n an i ndi ctm entand s ubm i ti tt o a j ur y . ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons o m itted).

I I I . CO NC L US I ON A c c o rd in g ly, w e A F F IR M M r. T h o m a s ’s c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s .
E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge