## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 1277 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J ON B UR GE , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08- CR-846

—Jo an H umph reyL efk ow, Judge .
A RG UE D M AR CH 29, 2012

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 1, 2013

Befo re K ANN E , R OV NER, an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. W IL L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . F o r me r C h i c a g o P o l i c e C o mm ander J on Burg e presi ded o veran inter ro gat i on re gim e w h er e s u sp ec ts w er e s u ffoc at ed w ith p las tic b ag s, el ectr ocute d untiltheyl ostco nsci ousness , held dow n aga in st ra diat or s, and had l oaded guns pointed atth e i r h e a d s d u r i n gr o u n d s o fRu s s i a n r o u l e t t e . The use o fthis kind o fto rture w as desi gned to i nfl i ct pai n and i nsti l l fearwh i l e l eaving m i ni m alm ar ks.2 N o. 11

- 1277 W he n Bur g e was a sk ed ab o utthe se p ra ct i ce s i n c i vi l i nte r r o g a t o r i e s s e r v e d o n h i m y e a r s l a t e r, h e l i e d a nd d en ied an y know le d g e of, or p articipation i n, torture of susp ects i n p oli ce cu stod y. B u t the j ury h eard overwhel m i nge vi den ce t o c o nt r adi cttha t as se r ti o n a nd convi cted Burge fo r obs tr ucti on o fj usti ce a nd perj ury. Bu rg e r ai ses se ver alchal l enges to hi s co nvi cti ons on appe al, wh i chwe do no t fi nd pe r su as i ve b ec au se the evid en ce sh ow s t h a t h e lied w he n h e ans w ered the interro gat or i es, hi s f al se sta tem ents i m peded an o ffi ci alpro ce eding, a nd the y wer e m at er i alt o the o ut co m e o fthe c i v i l c a s e . O v e r a l l, w e c o n c l u d e th a t n o e r r o r s w e r e c o mm i tte d by the co urt and Bu rg e rece i ved a f ai r tr i al

. Final l y, B u rg e o bj ec ts to th e d ist ric t c o u rt ’s re fer en c e t o a vic tim i m pact l ett erathi s s entencing, but i t i s w ell est abl i shed that hear sayi s a dm i ssibl e a t s entencing hea rings, so we a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND Form any y ear s a cl oud o fsuspi ci on l oo m ed ove r th e vi o l en t cr i m es s ection o fthe Are a 2 pr ec i nc t o fthe C hicag o Police Dep artm e nt ( C PD ) located on C hicag o’s south si de. J on Bu rg e j oi ned the CP D in 1970 an d rose to co m m an d in g off ice r of t h e v iole n t c rim es se c tio n in th e 19 80s , b uthi s ca r ee r was mar k ed bya cc us at i o ns f ro m o vero ne hund re d i nd i vi du al s who cl ai m ed that h e a n d offic er s u n d er h is c om m an d to rt u re d su sp ec ts in o r dert o o bt ain conf es si o ns thr o ug ho utthe 1 97 0s a nd 1980 s. Burge w as fi re d i n 199 3 a fterthe Offi ce o fPro fessio n alS tandards invest i gat ed the al l ega ti ons, but he wasN o. 11

- 1277 3 not cri m i nal l y c harg ed. Year s l ate r th e Ci rcui t Cour t o f C oo k C ou n ty ap p oin te d sp ec ial p ro se c u to rs to inv es tigat e the al lega ti ons ofto rture, but du e t o sta tutes o f l i m i tat i on, pro secuto rs neve r bro ught di re ct c harg es of pol i ce bruta l i ty aga i nst Bu rg e. Eventual l y, the Cit y of Ch i cago beg an to f ace a s er i es of ci vi l l aw sui ts f ro m v i c t i ms s e e k i ngda mag e s f o r the ab us e the y e nd ur e d. I n o ne l aw su i t fi l ed i n 2 00 3, M adi so n Hob l eys o ug ht dam age s for bei ng physi cal l y b eat en and suff oca ted with a t yp ew rit er c o v e r w h ile b ein g in te rro ga te d atA re a 2 in 19 87
. H obley v. B urge, e t al. , N o. 03 C 3678 (N
. D
. I ll

. ). A lt h o ug h H obley did not allege that B urge had personal l y par ti ci pated i n hi s ab u se , he so ught t o prove that the CPD had a pol i cy and p ra cti ce o fto rturi ng co nfe ssi o ns f r o m s us pe c t s . He a l s o c l a i med tha t Bu r g e was aw ar e o fthi s pra cti ce a n d requeste d disco ver y fro m Bu rg e r el ate d to thi s pol i cy. Dur i ngdi sc o ve r y, Bur g e r es po nd ed to t wo s et s o fi nter ro gat or i es re gar ding hi s i nvol vem ent i n al l ege d a b use atAr e a 2
. Qu e s t i o n 1 3 o fthe fi r s ts e to fi nt e r r o g a t or i es as k e d B u r g e to state ifhe h ad ever use d or w as aw are ofany othe r offi cer s using“any for m of verbalor physi cal c oer ci on o fsuspect s” i ncl ud i ng “depri vati on o fsl eep,” “physi calbea ti ngs o r hangi ngs; the use o fr aci al sl urs or pr o f an i ty, ” o r “ th e us e o fphy si ca l obj ects t o i nfl i ctpa i n, suffer i ng or fea r, such a s fi re ar m s, te l ephone bo oks , typewri terco ver s, r ad iato rs o r m achi nes that del i veran el ectr i c sho ck. ” Burge o bj ecte d to thi s quest i on, but re s po nd e d, “ I ha v e ne v e r us e d a ny t e c hn i qu e s s et f or th ab ov e a s a m ea n s o f im p r o p er co er c ion of su sp ec ts w h ile4 N o. 11

- 1277 i n de te nt i o n o r dur i ngi nt er rogati o n. ” Que st i o n 1 4 co ntai ned si m i l ar l anguage to Qu est i on 13, and a sked B u rge to sta te i fhe was “a w ar e o fa n y C h icag o Pol i ce Offi cer, i ncl ud i ng but not l i m i ted to o ffi cer s under [ hi s] com m and” eve r usi ng these techni ques. A gain, Burge obj e c t ed to this qu estion, but resp ond ed , “Iam not aw are of a n y.” Burge si gned hi s nam e a t the end ofthe l ast an swe r, b utthe do cumentdi d no t co nt ain a n o ath. Qu est i on 3 in the sec ond seto fi nter ro gat or i es f ocuse d on H obley’s a llegations th at he w as bea ten and suff oca ted with a typew ri terco verand ask ed w hether such pract i ces w er e “ consi ste nt with other exam ple s o f physi cala b u se and/orto rture on the par t o fChica go Pol i ce o ffi cer s a t A 2 w hi ch [ Bu rg e] o bser ved orhad knowle dge o f

. ” Burge answered, “Ihave noto b se rv ed nordo Ihave kno w l edge o fany othe r exam ple s o f physica l abuse and/o r tor ture o n the part ofChica go po l i ce o ffi ce r s atAre a 2. ” The a ns wers from thi s se co nd s e to fi nt e r r o g a t o r i e s we r e s i g ne d b y Bu r g e , n o t a r i z e d, and gi ven under t h e fo l l owing oath: “I, J on Burge , after fi rs t be in g d u l y s w or n, st ate o n oa th thatIhave r ead th e f o r egoi ng . . . a nd tha t th e an swe r s th er ein a r e true an d co rr ect to the b esto fm y know l edge a nd bel i ef .” Th i s s e c o n d s e t o f a n s we r s wa s s i g n e d b y B u r g e an d g i ve n un dero ath. On O cto b er 18 , 20 08, the gov er nm ent a l l ege d that Bur g e’ s r es po ns es to th e i nt er r o g at o r i es wer e f al se a nd i nd i cted hi m o n two counts ofo bstru cti on o fan o ffi ci al pr o ce edingunde r 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 51 2( c) ( 2) a nd o ne c o unt o fpe rj ur y un d er 18 U. S
. C. § 1 62 1( 1)
. At t r i al, the g o ve r n-N o. 11

- 1277 5

m en t ca l l ed m ul ti pl e wi tnesses t o t es ti fy abo utthe m eth od s of tortu re an d abu se us ed by B urge an d ot he rs at A re a 2 i n or der t o es tabl i sh thatBurge l i ed w hen he answ er ed the i nter ro gat or i es i n the H o bleycas e. W hi l e th e i s s u e s i n th i s a p p e a l d o n o t t u r n o n t he sp ecifi c d etails ofsufferi n g c au sed un d er Bu rge’s w atch, the w i tness es a t tr i aldetai l ed a r eco rd o fdecades ofabus e tha ti s u nque s t i o nab l y h o r r i fi c . T he wi tne s s es described how they were suff oca ted with pla sti c bags, ele c tr oc u te d w ith h om em ad e d ev ice s a tt ac h e d to th eir gen it al s, b ea te n, a nd ha d g uns f o r ce d i nt o the i r mouths du ring quest i oni ng . B urge deni ed al l al l ega ti ons of ab u se , bu t o t h er w itn es se s s ta te d th at h e b ra gg ed in the 1 980s abo ut how suspects w er e be ate n in orderto extr act confess i ons. A nother witness tes ti fi ed that Bu rg e told h er that he d id n ot care ifthose tortured w ere i nnoc en t o r gui l ty, bec ause as he sa w i t, ev er y s uspect ha d s ur e l y c o mm i t t e d s o m e o the r o ffe ns e a ny wa y . On J une 28, 20 10, the j ury convict ed Burge on a l l co unts. H e w as se n te n c ed to 54 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t. T h is a pp e a l f o l l o we d.

II. A N A L Y S IS A . Secti on 151 2( c) ( 2) O bstru ct i ve Cond uct N eed N ot O c c u r Be fore a C ou rt Be f o r e t r i a l, Bu r g e mo v e d t o di s mi ss Counts 1 a nd 3 i n the i ndi ct m en t f o r f ai l ur e to s ta te a n o ffen se a nd he re newe d the a r g ume nti n a s ub s e qu e ntmo t i o n f o r j udgm en t o fa cqui tt al

. W e r ev i ew qu es ti o ns o fl aw i n a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r uling o n a m oti on t o dism i ss an i nd ict-6 N o. 11

- 1277

m en t d e n ov o. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Gr e ve, 4 90 F. 3d 566, 57 0 (7th C ir. 2007). Counts 1 and 3 o fthe i nd i ctm en t charg ed Burge w i th vi ol ati ng 18 U
. S. C. § 1 512( c) ( 2)
. S ecti on 1 512( c) pro vi des: W h oe ve r c or ru p tly

— ( 1) al ter s, d est ro ys, m uti l ate s, or concea l s a re cor d, docum ent, o r othe r obj ect, o r atte m p ts to d o s o, w ith th e in te n t t o im p air the obj ect’ s integr i ty or avai l abi l i ty f oruse i n an o ffi ci alpro ceedi ng; o r ( 2) o ther w i se obs tr ucts, i nfl uences, o r i m pedes any offi c ial proce edi ng, o r atte m p ts to d o s o, shal l be fi ned und erthi s t itle o r i m pri sone d no t m o r e th an2 0 y ea r s, o r b o th

. This sect i on i s a pro du ct o fthe Sarbanes- Ox l ey A ct o f 2002 , Pub. L. 10 7-2 04, 11 6 S tat
. 74 5, and re prese nts a re l ati vel y new add i ti on t o the obstr ucti on o fj usti ce sta tutes descr ibed i n §§ 1501 , 15 03, 15 12, and 151 9. To b e l i ab l e un de r § 1 5 1 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , a de fe nd a ntm ust obs tr uct or i m pede an “offi ci al proce edi ng. ” A se parat e sect i on o fthe sta tute defines “ offi ci al procee ding” as “a p rocee ding befo re a j ud ge or cour t of the U ni ted St ates . .
. ora Feder algr and j ury. ” 1 8 U
. S. C. § 1 515( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( em phasis ad d ed ). T he p arties d o not con test th a t H o bley’s ci vi l s ui t qua l i fi es a s an“ o ffi ci alpr o ce edi ng ” wi th i n the mea ningo fthe s t a t ut e . Ne v e r the l e s s , Bu r g e c o nt e nd s that hi s c on vi cti on ca nnot s tand beca use hi s obstr ucti veN o. 11

- 1277 7

B u rg e’s arg u m en t d oe s no t turn on the fact tha t the first 1 s etofi nt er ro gat or i es was no tgi venunde r oath. conduct

— f al se i nter ro gat ion r esponse s

— di d no t o cc ur “befor e” a j ud ge. Since B ur ge gave h is f alse resp ons es to w ritten interro gat or i es and w as not phy sical l y in cour t o r bei ng depose d, h e ma i nt a i ns tha tthe i nd i c t men tdo e s n o ts tat e ano ffen se un d er § 1 51 2( c) ( 2)
. Bur g e r ea ch es thi s co n- 1 cl usi on bytr anspl anti ng § 1515 ( a) ( 1) ( A ) ’ s defi ni ti on o f “o ffi ci alpr o ce eding ” i nt o the t ex t of § 15 12 ( c) ( 2) , a nd then re ads the tw o provi si ons as one. H e re aso n s that the pr operway to i nter pret the word “before” w hen re adingthe tw o provi si ons tog et h eri s that § 15 12( c) ( 2) requ ires obstruc tive cond uc t to occu r in ordu r i ngthe o ffi ci al pr o ce eding be f o r e a j udg e o r co ur t. I n ad vanci ng th i s i nt er pr et at i o n, Bur g e r el i es o n D un n v . U nited Sta tes , w here the Suprem e Cour t inter prete d a perj ury statute, 18 U
. S. C. § 1 623, as apply i ng o nl y t o “ st ate m ents gi ven in
. . . form al c on te x ts ,” m e a n in g, atm in im u m , in d ep os it i o n s t a k e n u n d e r o a th

. 4 4 2 U
. S
. 1 0 0 , 1 1 1 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ( e mp ha sis add ed ). Thi s i s a no ve l i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe s ta tu te, bu t o ne w e m ust r ej ect . T hough § 1515 ( a) ( 1) ( A ) defi nes a n offi ci al proce edi ng as one “befor e a j ud ge or cour t, ” i t do es not re quir e tha t ob str ucti ve conduct oc cur in the sam e l oca ti on. H ow d o w e know thi s? F i rs t, the phrase “befor e a j ud ge orco urt” i n § 1 515( a) ( 1) ( A ) o nl y d es c ribes w hi ch typ es o fpro ceedi ngs c an be consi dered “o ffi ci al, ” no t w here the cri m i nal o bstr ucti on m u st occur . Obstr ucti on8 N o. 11

- 1277

o fj us ti ce o cc ur s when a defen dan t ac ts t o i m pede the types ofpro ceedi ngs that t ake pl ace bef or e j u d ges or gr an d j u rie s. B u t t h e d efe n d an t n ee d n otint er fer e w h ile cour t i s a ctual l y in ses si on t o be h eld l i abl e. Burge ask s us to pl ug th e phr as e “b efo r e a j udg e o r co ur t” from one sect i on o fthe st atute i nto anothe r and i nter pret i t a s applying to the locati on o fthe obs tr ucti ve conduct. Th i s c o ns t r uc t i o n i s t o o s t r a i ne d. Se cond, Bur ge ’s readi ng o f§ 1512 ( c) ( 2) i s co ntra dict ed by th e exp ress l a n g u age of anoth er prov isi on, § 1512(f) , w hi ch pro vi des: “F orpurposes o f thi s sect i on . . . an o ffi ci al proce edi ng nee d not be pending orabo ut to be i n st itu ted at the t i m e o fthe offense. ” W e c an n ot i nfe r a l oca ti on r equi r ementint o § 1 51 2( c) ( 2) whenCo ng r es s ha s ex pli ci tl y instr ucted thatan o ffi ci alpro ceed in g need not ev enb e pen di ngf o r a de fen dan t to v i o l at e th e pr o vi si o n. I t m ak es l i tt l e s en se to i g no r e th e pl ain mea ni ngo fthe tex t for at least one other reason . Section 1512 (c)( 1) covers obs tr ucti ve conduct i n the f or m o f p hysi caldestr ucti on ofdocum ents and rec or ds. Burge’s co unselco nceded at o r a l a r g u me n tth a ti tw o u l d b e ab s ur d t o p r e s u me that Congre ss onl y intende d to cove r docum ent dest ruct i o n a c t ua l l y c o mm i t t e d in a p r o c e e di ngb e f o r e a j ud g e. V er y fe w d efe n d an t s s h re d inc rim in at in g p ap er s in pla i n vi ew o fa presi ding j ud ge. Obviou sly, the sta tute m ust a pp l y t o destr ucti on o fdocum ents perf or m ed i n advance o fan o ffi ci alpro ceedi ng. Eve n tho ug h Burge’s o bs tructi o n was o fa di ffer en t kind , his cond uc t stil l fal ls w ithin th e scop e of § 1512 (c)( 2), whi c h a pp l i e s t o a de fe nd a nt who “ o therw ise obs tr ucts,N o. 11

- 1277 9 i n fl u e n c e s , o r i mp e d e s an y o ffi c i a l p r o c e e d i n g ” ( e mphasi s a dd ed). The expansi ve l anguage i n thi s prov ision oper ate s a s a catch- al l to co ver“o ther w i se” o bstr ucti ve be ha vi o r tha t m i g htno t f al l wi th i n the defi ni ti o n o fdo cum en t d es tr u c tio n . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Agui l ar, 5 1 5 U
. S. 5 9 3 , 59 8 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ( i nt e r pr e t i ngs i mi l a r l a ngua g e i n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 15 03 a s an“ Om nibus Cl au se . . . pr o hibi tingpe r so ns f r o m e nde av oring to i nfl ue nc e, o bs truct, o r i m pede the due a dm i ni st r at i o n o fj us ti ce ” and c o nc l udi ngtha t th e l an g ua g e i s “g en er ali n sc o pe” )
. S ec ti o ns 1 51 2( c) ( 1) a nd (2) are lin ke d w ith th e w or d “o th er w ise ,” so w e c an sa fely i nfe r that Congre ss in tended to tar getthe sam e type o f pretr i alm i sco nd uct that m i ght “ otherw i se” o bstr uct a p ro c ee d in g b ey on d sim p le d oc u m en t d es tr u c tio n . See E rlenba ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 40 9 U. S
. 2 39 , 2 44 ( 19 72 ) ( st at i ng that gener al l y “ i nd i vi du alse cti ons ofa si ngl e s tatute s ho ul d b e c o ns t r ue d t o g e the r ” )
. F a l s e s t a t e men t s ma de dur i n g a n o ffi c i a l p r o c e e d i n g ma y b e o b s t r u c t i v e . But so t o o c an m i sc o nduc t th ato cc ur s i n a dva nc e o fthe p ro c ee d in g a s lon g a s t h e d e f e n d a n t “ b elie ve [s] t h at h is acts wi l l b e l i k e l y t o a ffe c t a pe nd i ng o r f o r e s e e ab l e pro c e e di ng . ” Uni t e d S t at e s v . M at t he ws , 50 5 F
. 3d 698, 70 8 ( 7th C ir. 20 07 ); see also U nite d State s v. R ei ch , 479 F. 3d 179, 18 5 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 7)
. In e i th ers i tu at i o n, the de fen dan t r emai ns l i abl e. Veryfew ci rcui t co urts o fappealhave address ed w hat qu ali fi es as an “offici al procee d ing” u n d er § 1512(c)(2), but none ( at l ea st o f w hi ch w e a re aware) has adopted10 N o. 11

- 1277

Aft e r br i e fi ngwa s c ompl e ted, Bu r ge ’ s c ou ns e l s ub m i t t e d a 2 Fe d. R. App. P. 28 (j ) l et t ercit i ng U n ited S tates v . B ine tte, 828 F. Supp
. 2d 402 ( D
. M ass . 2011) as s up plem en ta l a u thori ty. In tha tc a s e , the S e c ur i t i e s a nd Ex c ha ng e C om m is s i oni ni t i a t e d a pre l i m i nar y i nve s t i gat i on i nt o the defen dant’s s us pi c i ous trad ing activ ity. Th e d efend an t m a d e sev era l f alse statem en ts t o the i nve s t i gat or s , butar gue d thathe w as no t g ui l t y of obs t ru c t i ng a n “ offi c i al pr oc ee di ng” u nder§1 51 2( c ) ( 2)
. The d istrict cou rt ag re e d , rea son ing tha t the d ispu ted p ho ne call b etw ee n t h e S E C inv estiga tor s and the d efend an t w as no t a
“’ f or m al c onvo c at i on’ c al l ed by the ag en c y wher e D efendan t w as direct ed to app ear. Ins tead, the agency’ s invest igat ors chose to give thei r c onv ers ati ons with Defe nd ant a f ar m ore c a s ua l a ppe a r a nc e . ” 8 2 8 F
. S up p. 2 d a t4 0 4
. Th e r e w as nothing “casual” abo ut the interr ogatorie s Bu rge re cei ved here i n a p e n d i n g fe d e r a l la w su i t, a n d u n l i k e th e d e fe n d a n t ’s re s pon ses i n B ine tte, Burg e’ s an s wers t o the s ec ond s etof int errog a to ri es w ere given und er oath. M oreover, the court i n B ine ttedi d n ota ddr e s s Bu r ge ’ s c l a i m thatthe o bs t r uc t i ve c onduc tati s s ue m us toc c ur i n fro ntof a j udge or c our t, an d gave no i ndi c at i on that the s t atut e s houl d be re ad i n s uc h a way. B u rg e also a r g u es tha t the g ov ern m en t d id no t estab lish thathe t ook an “oa th” when he an s we red the s ec ond s etof inter ro g ato ries b eca u se t he no tary p u b lic testified tha t she d id not “adm ini st er” an oath, but rather notar ize d B ur ge ’ s s i gn a tur e. B u t the ev i d e n ce at tria l show ed tha t the n ota ry sho w ed him the d ocu m en t con tain ing the o ath , d irected his atten tion to the o a th, a nd the n asked him to c on fi r m tha ti twa s c or r e c t
. As the di s t ri c tc our tpoin ted o u t, he s i gne d hi s na m e bel ow t he oa th in the p resen c e o f the no tary , an d so no m or e form ality (co n tin u ed ...) Bur g e’ s r ea di ngo fthe s ta tu te
. In fact, se ve r alo fo ur 2N o. 11

- 1277 11

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 w a s n ee d ed

. See U n ite d St at es v. Yos hi da , 72 7 F .2d 822 , 82 3 (9th C ir. 1 9 8 3 ) (“N o p articu lar form alities are re qu ired f or ther e to b e a v alid oa th u nd er [§ 162 1]. It is s u ffi c ient th at, in the p resen c e of a per s on author i ze d t o adm i ni s t er an oath,

. . . the affi ant by an unequ ivocal act consc iousl y takes on him se lf the o b lig ati on of an oa th , a n d the person undertaking the oath unders t ood thatwhatwas d one i s pr ope r f or the adm i ni s t ra t i on of th e o a th

. . . . ” ). si ste r ci rcui ts have up hel d convi cti ons und er§ 1512 (c ) ( 2) f ordefendants wh ose co nd uct o ccurr ed w el l i n advance of a n y off icia l p ro c ee d in g. Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tow ns e nd, 630 F.3 d 10 03 , 10 14 (11 th C ir. 20 11 ) (p h on e c alls war ni ngc o - defen dan t that a se ar chwar r an t was abo ut to be e xecuted w er e s uffi c i ent t o supp or t § 15 12( c) ( 2) c on vic tio n ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Phi l l ips , 58 3 F
. 3d 1261 , 12 63- 64 ( 10th Cir
. 20 09) ( affi rm i ng co nvi cti on f ordi sclosing an unde r co ve r o ffi ce r ’ s identi tyt o the s ubj ec t o fa g r an d j ury i nvest i gat i on)
. I n a ca se str i ki ngl y s i m i l arto thi s o ne, the S eco nd Ci rcui t hel d that f al se answ er s g i ven by pri son guar ds on a “Use ofFo rce Repor t” coul d consti tute obs tr ucti on o fa Bu re au ofPri sons ci vi l i nvest i gat i on at te m p tin g t o u n c ov er p ris on er ab u se . U ni t e d S t at e s v. P erez , 575 F.3d 164 , 169 (2d Cir. 2009). And D unn , a case thati nvolv ed a differ ent s tatute w ith d iffe r e n t ele m en ts , d oe s n otsu p p or t B u rg e’s p os iti on. S ecti on 1 623 i s t i tl ed “f al se decl ar ati ons befo reg r an d j ury orco urt” and i t e ncom passes perjur y m ade “ in a ny pr o ce eding ” ( emp hasi s adde d)

. S ec ti o n 1 51 2( c) ( 2) ’ s l an guage i s s i m plyn ot com parabl e. Burge’ s chal l enge to C ou n ts 1 an d 3 on th es e g ro u n d s m u st th er efo re fail.12 N o. 11

- 1277 B. M er i t s o fCi vi l SuitI r r el eva nt t o Bur ge’ s Cr i m i nal Liab il ity On June 3 , 20 10, the go ver nm ent di sclose d to Bu rg e du ring tr i althatan Assi sta nt U ni ted S tat es A tto rney h ad h eld a 20 08 int er vie w w ith H ob ley ’s c ellm at e w h ile the tw o w er e bo th i n pri son. The ce l l m ate , Darr ylS i m m s, to l d pr o se cut o r s th atHob l eyt r ea te d S i m m s as a c o nfi dan t an d a dm i tt ed to b eingg ui l tyo fthe arson a nd m urder f orwh i ch he had be en i m pri sone d. A ccord in g to th e ce l l m at e, H obl eys ai d he ha d c o nfes se d t o po l i ce due to gu il t ab o uta cc i den ta l l y k i l l i nghi s so n in a n a r so n h e had i ntended w oul d onl y k i l lhi s wife. S i m m s s ai d that H o bl eyne ve r ment i o ne d i n the se con ve r sa ti o ns tha t he had been t or ture d orabuse d w hi l e under ar re st. A fte r th is d isc los u re , B u rg e m ov ed for a m ist ria l or in th e al te r na ti ve t o i nt r o duce S i m m s’ s te st i m o ny t o the j ury. The di stri ct c ourtdeni ed these r equests
. Burge ar gues on a p p ea l thatm i str i alsho uld have bee n gr anted on th e g ro u n d s t h a t H ob ley ’s c ivil su it “ w as a fra u d .” W e r ev i ew a di st r i ctc o ur t’ s ex cl us i o n of ev i den ce a nd den i alof a m oti o n f o r a mis tr i alf o r abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. U nite d State s v. P ow el l , 652 F.3d 702 , 709 (7th C ir. 2011). B u rg e ci tes N apue v. Ill inois a n d r e l a t e d c a s e s f o r t he propos i ti on tha t a “co nvi cti on o btained thro ugh the use of f al se evi dence, known to be such by rep re senta ti ves ofthe St ate , m ust fa l l

. ” 360 U
. S. 264, 269 ( 1959 )
. But Burge m i sa ppr eh en ds th e i m po r t o fthe r ul e he r el i es upo n. Bu rg e i s co rr ect that pros ecuto rs cannotadva nce f al se evid en ce to th e jury in order to get a con viction. H ow ever, ther e is no i nd i cati on that pr ose cutor s r el i ed upon fa l se evid en ce in trying B u r g e sin ce H obley did not test ifyN o. 11

- 1277 13

W e al s o n ot e that Sim m s ’ s ac c ountdoe s no te s t abl i s h the 3 falsity of H ob ley ’ s tortu re alleg atio ns b eca u se Sim m s sim p ly c l ai m ed thatHoble y a dm i t t ed to the c ri m e and n eve r m en ti oned tor ture in theirconvers ati on. Ev en i fw e ac cepted Si m m s ’ s t es t i m ony atf ac e val ue, the ac c ountwoul d not d irectly con trad ict H ob ley ’ s alleg atio ns b eca u se h e cou ld have b e e n gu i l t y ofa r s on, y e ts t i l l h a ve be e n t or t ur e d b y C h i c a g o p olice o fficers. Un d er su ch circu m stan ces, i t is di ffi c ul tt o c har ac t er i ze the gove rn m en tas “k nowing ly us [ i ng] fa lse ev i d e n ce ” to o b ta in a c o n v ic tio n . Nap ue, 360 U.S
. at 2 6 9 (em p h a sis ad d ed ). att r i al

. The g o ve r nm ent nev ert o o ka po si ti o n in the in d ictm ent o r bef or e the j ury on wh etherH obl ey had been tor ture d orwh etherhe w as ly ing. The j ury w as sim p ly ad vised that the civils u it w as brou gh t to de term in e , i n pa rt, w he th er a policy or p ractice of torture exi ste d in the Ch i cago Pol i ce Depar tm ent. W e ca nnot con si der the co nvi cti on “ tai nted” wh en Burge f ai l s t o i den ti fy a ny f al se e vi den ce a ctua l l y i nt r o duce d b y the gov er nm ent. 3 Furtherm or e, the re l evantquesti on f orthe j ury w as no twh e the r Ho b l e y ’ s a l l e g a t i o ns we r e wel l

- f o un de d, bu t w he th er Bu rge l ied w he n h e resp o n d e d to the interro ga to rie s. B u rg e’s cr im in al liab ility for t h e c h ar ge s in th e i nd ict m en t was the s ame whe th erthe unde r l y i ng ci vi l s ui t was t r ue o r f al se . The r efo r e, S i m m s’ s te sti m o ny w as im m aterial an d not “of cons e q ue nc e to the d eterm i nati on o fthe acti on .” See Fed. R
. Evi d. 401
. The di str i ct co ur t appr o pr i at ely e xc l ud ed e vi den ce r eg ar di ngthe m erits ofH obl ey’ s s uitsince i t had no bear i ng o n the g ove rnm ent’ s char ges .14 N o. 11

- 1277 To the exte nt thatBurge su gge sts thathi s cul pabi l i ty i s di m i ni sh ed be ca us e hi s r es po ns es wer e g i ve n in the co nt ex t o fa c i vi l i nt er r o g at o r y, we r ej ec t th e as se r ti o n. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hol l and, 22 F. 3d 1 04 0, 1047( 11th Ci r . 1 99 4) ( “[ W ] e ca te g o r i ca l l y r ej ec t an y s ug g es ti o n, i m pli ci t o r othe rwis e, thatperj ury i s s om ehow l ess se r i o us whenmade i n a c i vi l pr o ce edi ng . ”)
. Pe rj ur y a nd obs tr ucti on o fj usti ce a re o ffenses agai nst the i ntegr i ty ofthe j ud i ci alsy ste m

— no t so l ely i nj ur i es t o o ppo sing p ar tie s in a c ivil su it. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. D unnigan , 50 7 U .S. 87, 97 ( 1 9 9 3 ) (d isc u ss in g ro le of p erj u ry st at u te s in “uphold[ i ng] the i ntegr i ty ofo ur t ri alsy ste m ”)
. S uspici on ofH obl ey’ s a l l ega tio n s d i d not g ra nt Burge a l i cense to i nvent whateveranswers he pre ferre d du ring di sco ver y. A civi l j ud ici al procee d ing is d esigned , i n p a r t, t o de term in e t h e t ru th of w h a t o c c u rre d be tw ee n th e p ar tie s in a di spute. I fwitnes ses were f re e t o l i e w heneverthey b elie ve d a p lain tiff’s all e g a t ion s w er e fa lse , i t w ou ld to ta ll y unde r m i ne the c r uci almedi at i ngr o l e o fthe cour ts. A b asi c i ro ny al so und er l i es Bu rg e’ s cl ai m that the c i vi l suit w as “a f ra ud ” s i nce hi s o w n m i sco nd uct ha s cont r ibut ed to unc er ta i nty r eg ar di ngthe c o nfes si o ns of A re a 2 su sp ec ts like H ob ley

. Se eH i nt on v. U ch t m an , 39 5 F. 3d 810, 82 1- 22 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) (W oo d , J
. , co ncurr i ng) ( detai l i ng the “m ountai n of evi dence i nd i cat[ i ng] th at tortu re w as an ordina r y o c cu rrenc e at [ ] A rea Tw o”). W e th er efo r e r ej ec t an y a ss er ti o n tha t th e ind ic tment w as gr ounded i n f al si ty.N o. 11

- 1277 15

Ther e is no m ater ial ity requir em ent f or obstr ucti on und er 4 § 1 5 1 2 ( c) ; the de fe nd a ntm us th a ve o nl y a c t e d wi th c or r up t int ent to obst ruct. S ee U n i t e d S t a t e s v. M cKi bb i ns , 656 F. 3d 7 0 7, 71 2 (7t h C ir . 20 1 1 ). C. Bur ge’ s Fal se St at em ents W er e M at er i al T o be gui l ty of perj ury und er 18 U
. S. C. § 1621(1), a d efe n d an t’s fals e s ta te m en t m u st be m at er ial. Se eD unnigan , 50 7 U.S
. at94 ( “A witne ss t est i fyi ng under o ath or affir m at ion vio lat es [§ 16 21 (1)] if sh e give s false t es tim o ny c o nc erni nga mate r i alm at te r wi ththe wi l l ful i ntent to p ro vide f al se tes ti m ony . . . . ”)
. A f al se sta tem en t i s m at er i ali fi t ha s “a na tu r alt enden cyt o i nfl uen ce , o r [ i s] c apabl e o fi nfl ue nc i ng, the de ci si o n o fthe deci si onm aking bo dy to wh i ch i t was address ed. ” N eder v. U nited Sta tes , 527 U
. S. 1, 16 (1999) ( citation om itte d ); see a lso U nited Sta tes v. Ho w a rd, 56 0 F
. 2d 281, 28 4 ( 7th C ir. 1977) (defining m ateriali ty for p urp oses of § 1621). 4 I n convictin g Bu rg e under § 1 621( 1) , the j ury w as re quir ed to fi nd thathi s f al se inter ro gat or y r esponse s w er e m ate ri al

— th at is, tha t th eyha d the “ na tu r alt en dency” to i nfl uence the o utcom e o fthe H o bleycas e. Bur g e se ek s a j udg m en t o fa cqui tt alo n thi s co unt, a r g ui ng th at t h e ev iden ce w as insu ffici en t to sup p ort the j ury’s fi nd i ng fo r tw o re aso ns. Fi rs t, the gov er nm ent pr ovi ded no e vi dence t h at hi s m i sr epres entat i ons w er e use d or re l i ed upon i n the H ob l ey su it. Secon d , B urge ’s a n s w e rs w er e i m m ate ri albecau se the g ove rnm ent f ai l ed to prove c on c lu siv ely t h at H ob ley actual l y s uffer ed an y c o ns tituti o na l i nj ur y . Bo tho fthe se c o nt en ti o ns ar e m er i tl ess .16 N o. 11

- 1277 The mate r i al i tyo fa f al se s ta te m ent i s ev al ua te d a t th e t i m e t h e s ta te m en t is m ad e. H o w a rd, 5 6 0 F
. 2 d a t2 84. M ate ri al i ty does not de pend o n the ult i m ate deci si on r e a c he d b y the b o dy t o wh i c h the fal se s t a t e men ti s a dd re ss ed

. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. We s s on , 4 7 8 F
. 2 d 1 1 80, 11 81 (7th C ir. 1973) (“[ I ]fa f alse utte ran ce p oten tially i nt erfer es w ith th e g r a n d ju ry ’s lin e o f inq u iry , m at er ialit y is th er eb y e st ab l i s h ed ev en th ou gh th e p erj u re d te st im on y d oe s n o t a c tu ally im p ed e t h e in ve st iga tio n s.” ); see a lso U ni t e d S t at e s v. D e Le on , 603 F.3d 397, 40 4 (7th C ir. 2010). The que st i o n o fw he th erthe Chi ca g o Po l i ce De par tment ha d a policy or p ractice of torturing s u sp ects w as a core co m po ne nto fHob ley’s ci vi l s ui t. In c o ve r i ngup Bu rg e’ s r eco rd o fto rture, the false i nter ro gat or y r esp on se s w ith h eld ke y e vid en c e re lev an t t o th e c ivil su it. There f or e, m ate ri al i ty does not turn o n w hether Bu rg e’ s a nsw er s w er e “used” i n the H o bleytria l. H is fals e s ta te m en ts co u ld n otbe in t r o d u c ed p re c ise ly beca use h e h ad co n c ea l e d rele va n t e vid en c e. A n d w h ile Bu rg e i s co rr ect that H obl ey had to prove co nsti tuti onal i nj ur y t o pr ev ai l i n h i s sui t, tha t i ss ue i s i r r el ev an t to the m ate rialityo fBurge’ s l i es. W hetherthe Cityo fChica go cou ld be h eld li able for a policy or p ractice of torture is plainly d isti nc t from w he th er evide ncein t h e for m o f an i nt er r o g at o r y an swe r i s m at er i al to det er m i ni ng whethe r the c o nt es te d po l i cyo r pr ac ti ce e xi st s. S o the questi on be f or e the j ury w as w hetherBurge ’s f al se sta tem en t had “the natur alte nd ency to i m pede, i nfl uence or d iss u ad e” th e o u tc om e o f H ob ley ’s c ivil su it

— not whethe r the s ui t’ s o ut co m e ac tu al l y tur ne d o n the B u rg e’s lies. H o w a rd, 5 6 0 F
. 2 d a t2 8 4
. Ho b l e y a l l e g e d aN o. 11

- 1277 17

B u rg e also o b jects to the ex clu sion of his e xp ert w itness, 5 D aniel Locall o, w ho w ould hav e t es ti fie d that Burge’ s st atem ents w ould no t have been m ater ial unles s and u n til H obley cou ld p ro v e he h ad suffered a con stitutio na l injur y . B u t exp erts do n oti ns t r uc tthe j ur y onthe l a w; the di s t r i c tc ou r tm us t d o so its el f. S ee U n ite d S ta te s v . S in c la ir, 74 F.3d 753 , 75 8 n .1 ( 7th C ir. 19 96 ) (“ F e d e ral R u les of Ev id en ce 70 2 an d 704 p ro hib it exp erts fro m offerin g op inio ns ab ou t lega l iss u es tha t w ill d et er m in e t h e o u tc o m e o f a c a s e . . . . [E xp er ts] c a n n o t te sti fy a b o u t le g a l iss u es o n w h ic h th e ju d g e w ill in st r u ct th e ju ry .”). Loc al l o’ s cha ra c t er i za t i on ofm at er i al i t y was i nc or re c tan d the di s t ri c tc our tact ed pr ope rl y i n e xc l udi ng h i s t es t i m ony o n th is p o in t. pol i cy orprac ti ce o fto rture. Burge’ s f al se re sponses re ga rd in g t h es e v er y a c c u sa tio n s a re p lain ly m at er ial. 5

D . N o Con structive A m en d m en t of Ind ictm en t At the c l o se o ft r i al, the go ve r nm en t r eque st ed an d re cei ved a j ury i nstr ucti on o n m ate ri al i ty that differ ed f r o m l a ngua g e i n the i nd i c t men t
. The i nd i c t men tc ha r g e d: I twa s ma t e r i a l t o th e o u t c o me o fth e c i v i l l a wsui t whether i n f act J ON BU RG E knew o r partic ipat ed i n t o r tu r e an d phy si ca l a buse o fpe r so ns inC h ica go P olic e D ep ar tm en t c u st od y. Th e i ns t r uc t i o n t o the j ur y r e a d: A n an sw er to an interrogat o r y i s m aterial ifa tru thful answ erm i ght r eas onabl y b e ca l cul ate d to lea d to the di sco ver y o fev i dence adm i ssibl e a t18 N o. 11

- 1277 tr i alo fthe und er l yi ng l aw sui t o r othe rw ise affect i ts ou tco m e. I t i s no t nec ess ar y that the answer ac tu al l y h ave tha t effec t so l o nga s i t ha d the potenti alo r capabi l i ty ofdoi ng so . Bu rg e doe s no t s ugges t that th is in structi on was an i na cc ur at e st at emen t o fthe l aw. Ins te ad, he mai nt ains that th e di str i ct c ourtco nstr ucti vel y a m ended the i nd i ctm en t byi m pr o per l y e xpa nd i ngthe b as es upo n whi chthe j u ry co u ld co n vic t b ey on d t h e i n d ict m en t’s ch ar ge s. In othe r w or ds, he s ays thatthe i nd i ctm en t li m i ted i ts s c o p e t o o n l y th o s e r e s p o n s e s r e l e v a n t to th e o u t c o me i n H o bley, b utthe j ur y ’ s i ns t r uc t i o ns we r e n o ts o r e s t r i c t e d. This i ssue prese nts a som ew hat cl ose r questio n that t urns o n the di s t i nc t i on be t we e n a c o ns t r uc t i v e a men dm ent a nd a var i ance. A co nstr ucti ve am endm ent of an in d ictm ent o ccurs i fj ury i nstr ucti ons supp or t a co nvi cti on f or“a cr i m e o therthan that charg ed. ” U n ited S ta tes v . Ra tl if f- White, 4 9 3 F
. 3 d 8 1 2 , 8 2 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c i ta ti o ns an d qu ot at ion s o m itt ed ); se e also U nite d State s v . Trennel l , 290 F. 3d 881, 88 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( “I n or der t o ri se to the l eve l ofco nstr ucti ve am endm ent, the change m ust est abl i sh offenses di ffer ent fro m o r i n additi on t o thos e charg ed i n by the g ra nd j u ry. ”)
. A var i ance, o n the othe r ha nd, do es no t “a l te r the e ss en tial s ubs ta nc e o fthe charg ed offense. ” U nited S t a t e s v. P igee, 19 7 F
. 3d 879, 88 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)
. In otherw or ds, “not ever y m i norvar i ance [ between an ind i ctm ent a nd j ury inst ructi ons] co nsti tutes a co nstr ucti ve am endm ent. ” Id. ; se e also Trenne ll, 29 0 F
. 3 d a t8 8 8 ( e xp l a i ningtha t the r e i s n o c o ns t r uc t i v e a men dm en t “whe n the c o ur t’ s des cr i pti o n o fthe i ndi ct m en tN o. 11

- 1277 19 al te r s th e te r m s o fthe i ndi ct m en t i n a n ins i g ni fi ca nt m an n er ”), an d ca se s c ite d th er ein ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Kuna , 76 0 F
. 2d 813 , 81 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85) ( expla i ni ng tha t “varian ces m ay be su bj ect to th e harm less error rule”). W h en re ad c om p re h en siv ely , th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s m at er ial i tyi ns truct i o n r epr es en ts o nl y a v ar i an ce fr o m the l anguage o fthe i nd i ctm ent. In Burge’ s v i ew , the dist ri ct c ou rt ’s in c lu sio n of “d isc ov er y of e vid en c e a d m iss ible a t t rial ” in the instru ction argu ably pe rm itted the j ury to fi nd the mate r i al i tye l ements at i sfi ed ba se d o n a g r o und n o t ch ar g ed i n the i ndi ct m en t. He u r g es tha t the i nd i ctm ent r equi re d that hi s s tat em ents be m ate ri alto th e o ut co m e, b utthe i ns truct i o n add it ionallydefi ned m ateriali ty as an answ er l ead in g o n ly to th e d iscovery ofev i dence. H ow eve r, the dist i ncti on Burge at tem pts to dr aw may no t be a mean i ng fulo ne b ec au se a ny evi dence adm i ssibl e a t t ri alwould neces sar i l y nee d to be r el evanti n the fi rs t pl ac e u n d erFe deralRule s E vid en c e 4 02
. See Fe d . R. E vid . 402 (“E vid en c e w h i c h is n otrele va n t is n otad m iss ible .”). But see U nit e d S t at e s v. A ram bula , 23 8 F
. 3d 865, 86 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( sugge sting tha t f al se te st i m o ny i s “mat er i alwheni t [ i s] c r uci alt o the q u es tio n of gu ilt o r inn oc en c e” ); s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. M cKe nna , 3 27F
. 3d 83 0, 8 39 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( di sc us sing differ ent s tan dards f ordeter m i ni ng m ate ri al i ty ofst ate
m en ts )
. A nd wh i l e we need notdel ve too deepl y into the v ar i ous w ay s ofdeter m i ni ng m ate ri al i ty, we note th at w e ha ve pr ev i o us l y o bs er ve d tha t “a l i e i nfl ue nc i ng a pre tr i ali ssue, w il l, i n an at tenuate d sense, i nfl uence the ul ti m ate o utcom e o fthe case i tse l f

. ” U nited Sta tes v. G albraith , 200 F.3d 100 6, 1014 ( 7th Cir. 2000).20 N o. 11

- 1277 Bu t m or e i m port antl y, if a defendant i s co nvi cted o f the s a me o ffe ns e f o r wh i c h he wa s c ha r g e d in the i ndi ctm en t, the n a ny v ar i an ce b etwee n the i nd i ct m en t an d in st ru c t i o n s is oft en be n ign
. P igee, 197F.3d at88 6; see also U nite d v. Wil loughby, 2 7 F
. 3 d 2 6 3 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 4 )
. As we have expla i ned bef or e, “we ar e p ri m ar i l y c oncerned wi thc ha ng es made to the i ndi ct m en t that affec t th e el em ents ofthe cri m e. ” U nite d Sta te s v. K ri li ch , 15 9 F
. 3d 10 20 , 1 02 7 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8)
. Bur g e do es no t co ntesttha t he wa s c o nv i c t e d o f the s a me c ha r g e s f o r whi c h he was i nd i c t e d: v i o l a t i o ns o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 5 1 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) a nd 1 8 U. S
. C. § 162 1( 1)
. The i ns truct i o n h er e di d no t ch an g e th e elem en ts o fthe c r i m e, no r di d i t affec t th e ev i den ce the j ury w oul d have r el i ed upon to hol d Bu rg e liab l e for obs tr ucti on o fj usti ce a nd p erj ury. M or eov er, Burge has f ai l ed to s ho w anypr ej ud ice fr o m thi s va r i an ce , a s he c lea rly h ad rea so n ab le n ot ice of t h e c h ar ge s a ga in st h im an d an ad eq u at e o p p or tu n ity to p re p ar e h is d efe n se . See R atli ff -W hite, 493 F.3d at82 3; Kuna , 7 60 F. 2d at 819. A s a resul t, we fi nd thatany var i ance b etween the l anguage ofthe i nd i ctm ent a nd j ury i nstr ucti ons w as harm l ess .
E. N o A bu se of D i scr et i on f or Excl usio n o fH ea rsay Te s t i mo ny A t t ri al, the gov er nm ent pr ese nted a g reat deal o f evi dence r el ate d to A nd re w W i l son, wh o w as arre ste d f orthe m urder oftwo pol i ce o ffi cer s in 19 82. W i l son al l ege d that whil e a t Area 2, o ffi cer s be at hi m , su ff oca ted h im w ith a p las tic ba g, ele c tr oc u te d h im an d h eld h is bo d y a gainst a radiator. W il son died i n p rison beforeN o. 11

- 1277 21 B u rg e’s tria l, b u t t h e g ov er n m e n t in tr od u c ed h is t es tim ony f rom t h re e pr evi ous pr oce edi ngs under Feder al R ule of Evid en ce 804 (b)( 1). Bu rg e s ought to i ntro du ce pr i orte sti m ony ofse ver al offic er s w h om W ils o n h ad ac c u se d of p ar tic ip at in g in his tortu re. Offi c e rs John Y uc aitis an d Patrick O ’H ara die d bef or e Burge ’ s t ri albu t B u rg e s ought to i ntro du ce thei r p ri orte sti m ony f ro m W i l son’ s ci vi l tr i al

. Other o ffi ce r s, Tho m as M cKe nna, La wre nc e H y m an, a nd Fr ed H i l l, had as se rt ed the Fi fth A m endm ent a nd Burge sou gh t to c o m p el their testim ony . Th e d istri ct cou rt d ec lin ed t o ad m it th eir te st im on y u n d er th e c at c h -all hear sayexce pti on in Feder alRule of Evidence 807 orto com pel the tes ti m ony ofthes e witnesse s. T h er e w as n o a b u se of d isc re tio n in ex c lu d in g t h is te st im on y . R u le 8 07p er m its ev id en c e t o b e a d m itt ed if it h as su fficie n t “c irc u m st an tia l g u ar an te es of tr u st w or th iness. ” F ed. R . Evi d. 807( a) ( 1)
. In other w or ds, hear say te st im on y t h at d o e s n otfall u n d er an ex c ep tio n m ay st ill be e xc l ud e d u nd e r R ul e 8 0 7u nl e s s the r e a r e s ub s t anti al i nd i cati ons ofi ts re l i abi l i ty. The di str i ct c ourtco rr ectl y con c lu d ed the contr ar y in thi s ca se. The o ffi cer s a ccused o fp ar ti c i pa t i ngi n W i l s o n’ s ab us e wo ul d h a v e h a d a m o ti ve t o t es tify f al se l y t o e xc ul pat e th emse l ve s. And Bur g e was pe r m i tt ed to c ha l l en g e W i l so n’s al l eg at i o ns ofabuse with a range ofotherw i tness es w ho w er e abl e t o tes ti fy di re ctl y a nd di d not invoke the Fi fth A m endm ent. Fu rt h er m or e, th e e x c lu d ed w itn es se s w o u l d h av e o n ly te st i fi ed as to th e ab us e o f W i l so n. The ir testi m o ny wo ul d ha v e ha d no e ffe c t o n the e v i de nc e o f the o ther22 N o. 11

- 1277 vi cti m s o fabuse , so any er ro r w as harm l ess . N one of th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s ev i den ti ar y r ul i ng s den i ed Bur g e th e rig h t t o a fair t ria l.

F. N o Err ori n R ef er encing V i ct i m I m pact Let t erat Se nt e nc i ng A t s entencing, the d ist ri ct c ourtenga ged i n a l engthy, ei ght- page discuss i on ofthe f acto rs supporting the abo veg ui de l i ne s sent e nc e o f5 4 mo nths tha ts he i mpo s e d. A fterco nc lu d i ng tha t Burge had shown no r em or se or r e s p e c t fo r th e la w , th e c ou rtbr iefly d isc u ss ed a vic tim i m pact l ett erfro m an unnam ed vi cti m wh o w as i m pri soned atag e 1 7 f ora cri m e h e says he did notco m m i t. T he cou rt use d this l etter to d em ons trate h ow Bu r g e’s cri m es had und er m i ned the integri ty ofo ur s yst em ofj usti ce. Bu rg e obj ects thathe was s entence d on the bas is o f unrel i abl e e vi dence

— a l e t t e r fr o m a n u n n a me d v i c t i m. T h is obj ecti on f ai l s. A t s entencing, Burge’ s a tto rney on ly ra ise d an o b jec tio n th at th e le tt er w as ina d m iss ible h ea rs ay . I t is w ell-e st ab lish ed th at h ea rs ay is a d m i ss ible at se n te n c in g h ea rin gs . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 22 7 F
. 3d 807, 81 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)
. Dis tr i ct c ourt s c annot m ake sente nci ng dete rm i na tio n s o n the basi s o fgues sw or k, b u t t h at is n otw h at th e t ria l co u rtd id h er e. T h e v ict im im p act letters w ere includ ed i n th e pre sen ten c in g i nform at ion d ist rib u te d to B u rg e a n d h e n ev er sp ec ifica lly chal l enged the r el i abi l i ty ofany ofth e vi cti m i m pact l ett er s. A nd i n any eve nt, the tr i alco u rt d evo ted o nl y aN o. 11

- 1277 23

ve r y s m al l po r ti o n o f a l en g th y co l l o quy t o di sc us singthe victim i m p act letter.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe f or ego in g re aso ns, we A F F I RM Bu rg e’ s co nvi cti on a nd the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s entence
.

4- 1- 13