FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 3, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 12 07 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cr-6 02 29 -J IC-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JAY ANTHONY RICHITELLI, 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 forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 3, 2 01 1) Befo re BLACK, HULL andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Afte r a jury tri al , Jay Rich it el li ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi rin g a nd at te m pt in g t o c omm ita Hob bs Act ro bb ery of a ga s s ta ti on m on ey

co ur ie r,co ns pi rin g t o u se an d c arry andus in g afir earm du rin g t he co m

m is si on of acri m e of vi ol en ce, an d b ei ng a fel on in po ss es si on of afir earm . After r ev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND A. Attempted Ro bber y o f Ga s St at io n Cou ri er W e fi rs t re vi ew th e g ov ern m en t’s tria l ev id en ce. Twin Oil Co m pa ny (“ Twin Oil ”) o wns 32 ga s s ta ti on s i n F lo rid a. Jo hn Ch eri co , Twin Oi l’s m on ey co ur ie r,
ran a reg ul ar, twice -week ly pic k- up fro m TwinOil ’s sev enSu no co ga s s ta ti on s i n Bro wardCo un ty. The o nl y pe rs on who kn ew Ch eri co ’s rou te was h is supe rv is or . The las t g as st at io n o n C he ric o’s ro ut e was at 7 52 0 P em br ok e Ro ad . On Aug us t 25 , 20 09 , Che ric o re tri ev ed$6 4,0 00 fro m th e se ve n g as st at io ns . On t ha t d at e, du e to a rece ntras h o f bu rg la rie s, Pe m br ok e Pi ne s Det ect iv e Dean So ub as is was p atro ll in g i n t he areaof 7 52 0 P em br ok e Ro adin anun m ark ed car. Det ect iv e So ub as is saw asi lv er Vo lk swa ge n wi th a dr iv er an d apa ss en ge r pa rk edacro ss a si de walk . Ju stbe fo re the Vol ks wag enpu ll edaway , Detec ti ve So ub as is saw t he pa ss en ge r pu t o n apa ir o f bl ackgl ov es . Dete ct iv e So ub as is fol lo wedth e Vol ks wag enan d, wh enitfai le d t o s to p a t a st op si gn , per fo rm eda tr affi c st op . Detec ti ve So ub as is is su edth e driv er, Hen ry W ai nwr ig ht , a cit at io n. Det ect iv e So ub as is sm el le d m ari juan a co m in g fr om

th e car. Det ect iv e So ub as is ask edW ai nwr ig htto ex itth e car , sea rch edW ai nwr ig ht
2an d fo un d asm al l b ag of m ari juan a an d s om e ro ll in g p ap ers in W ai nwr ig ht ’s po ck et
. W ai nwr ig ht ’s pas se ng er, Nie ge l Sm it h, ad m it te d t o Det ect iv e So ub as is th at he an d Wain wrig htwere o n t he ir wa y to rob a m on ey

co ur ie r ata Suno co ga s st at io n a ro un d t he co rn er (i .e., 75 20 Pem br ok e Dri ve ). Sm it h i nd ic at edth athe an d W ai nwr ig htwere wai ti ng fora cal l fr om a th irdpe rs on , Defen da ntRic hi te ll i, wh o
was watc hi ng th e g as st at io n’s co ur ie r. Dete ct iv e So ub as is arre st edW ai nwr ig ht
an d S m it h. A se arch of Wain wrig ht ’s car u nc ov ereda lo ad edfir earm un de r th e fro ntpa ss en ge r’s se atan d s om e b la ckgl ov es . Sm it h t es ti fie d t ha t, s in ce No ve m be r 20 08 , Defen da ntRic hi te ll i h adbe en
rece iv in g i nf

orm at io n abo utth e m on ey co ur ie r’s ro ut e fro m

anun kn own “ in si de pe rs on ” who owedDefen da ntRic hi te ll i m on ey . Defen da ntRic hi te ll i an d W ai nwr ig htap pr oa ch edSm it h o n Au gu st13 , 20 09 , andask edhi m to he lp rob th e
m on ey co ur ie r. Sm it h a gr eed . The thr ee m ende ci de d t o c omm itth e ro bb ery on Aug us t 2 9, 2 00 9, b ecau se , acco rd in g t o t he in si de pe rs on , th e co ur ie r co ll ect ed
m or e m on ey

whensch oo l was in ses si on . A weekbe fo reh an d, Ri ch it el li , Sm it h andW ai nwr ig htbe ga n p la nn in g h ow to ex ecu te th e ro bb ery. Defen dantRic hi te ll i h ada li stof t he co ur ie r’s st op s, an d th e th ree m enco nduc te d s urve il la nc e o f th e co ur ie r as he dro ve hi s ro ut e.
3Acco rd in g t o t he ir p la n, Ri ch it el li ’s job du rin g t he rob be ry was t o s urve il th e
co ur ie r an d l etSm it h a ndW ai nwr ig htkn ow wh enth e co ur ie r was he ad edto th e la stpi ck -up. Sm it h’s jo b was to ap pr oa chth e co ur ie r wit h the fir earm an d t ak e th e
m on ey fro m hi m an d d riv e away in t he co ur ie r’s car. Wain wrig ht ’s job was t o dr iv e Sm it h t o t he ga s s ta ti on an d t he n m eetSm it h a t a p rearran ge d l oc at io n a fte r th e ro bb ery. The ni gh t b efo re the pl an ne d ro bb ery, Ric hi te ll i m etwith the in si de pe rs on , who ga ve Ric hi te ll i i nf

orm at io n abo utth e co ur ie r. The m orni ng of t he rob be ry , th e th ree m enm etat R ic hi te ll i’s re si de nc e. Ric hi te ll i g av e Sm it h agu n andso m e bl ackgl ov es to us e in th e ro bb ery. The g un was wrapp edina whi te to wel t o a vo id fin ge rp rin ts . Rich it el li als o g av e Sm it h i nf orm at io n abo utth e co ur ie r’s ro ut e, ap pe aran ce, ca r, gu n a ndam ou ntof m on ey . Rich it el li lef t i n aCh ry sl er t o g o t o th e co ur ie r’s se co nd -to -la stst op to co nduc t s urve il la nc e. W ai nwr ig htan d S m it h le ft i n t he Vol ks wag enan d c irc le d t he areaaro un d t he las t s to p. Eve ntua ll y , W ai nwr ig htpark edon a si de walkne ar the ga s s ta ti on to rol l a
m ari juan a ci ga ret te . Rich it el li cal le d a ndsai d t he co ur ie r was lea vi ng th e se co nd

to -la stpi ck -up. Wain wrig htdro ve th e Vol ks wag enoff th e si de walkan d was he ad in g t owa rdth e g as st at io n wh enhe was p ul le d o ve r by law en fo rcem en t. Afte r th e carwas s to pp ed , Sm it h s aw Ri ch it el li ’s Chry sl er driv e b y . 4B. Rich ite ll i’s Conf es si on Late r th atday , GerardSta rk ey , a tas k fo rce o ffi cer a ss ig ne d t o t he Fed eral Bu reau of I nv es ti ga ti on (“ FBI” ), in te rv ie wedDefen dantRic hi te ll i atth e Pem br ok e Pi ne s Po li ce Dep artm en t. Aft er re cei vi ng a Mi ran dawarn in g, Def en da ntRic hi te ll i adm it te d h is parti ci pa ti on in th e at te m ptto rob th e m on ey

co ur ie r, bu t cl ai m edth at W ai nwr ig htpl an ne d the op erat io n. Ri ch it el li sai d t ha t h e was a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t (“ CI”) work in g wi th Dete ct iv e Jo hn So us a o f th e Bro wardCo un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce (“ BCSO” ), bu t adm it te d t ha t h e h adno t t ol d Det ect iv e So us a ab ou t the pl an ne d ro bb ery. Agen t St ark ey co nt act edDete ct iv e So us a an d
co nf irmed th atRic hi te ll i was a CI an d t ha t Det ect iv e So us a was un aware of t he pl anto rob th e m on ey

co ur ie r. C. Rich ite ll i’s CI Rel at io ns hi p w ith Detect iv e So us a Dete ct iv e So us a m etRic hi te ll i i n No ve m be r 20 08 th ro ug h t he Bro ward Co un ty Stat e Att orne y ’s Offic e. Ric hi te ll i was co nt ract edto be a CI b y Dete ct iv e So us a o n b eh al f of

th e BCS O. Und er h is CI co ntract , Ric hi te ll i: (1) was n ot al lo wed , in te r al ia , to po ss es s a f ire arm or b e in vo lv edin an y

cri m in al act iv it y , and (2 ) was requi redto no ti fy Dete ct iv e So us a an d a waitpe rm is si on be fo re in ve st ig at in g a nyon e. At the ti m e o f th e at te m pt edrob be ry , Ric hi te ll i was
worki ng with Det ect iv e So us a o n apre sc rip ti on -p ai n- ki ll er dru g o pe rat io n.
5Alt ho ug h Det ect iv e So us a an d R ic hi te ll i s po ke onth e te le ph on e o n Au gu st24 an d

25 , 20 09 , Ric hi te ll i n ev er m en ti on eda ro bb ery pl an ne d fo r Aug us t 2 5. Acco rd in g t o Det ect iv e So us a, Ri ch it el li ha d aten de nc y to tal k alo t an d, du rin g o ne in ve st ig at io n, wai te d t hr ee d ay s b efo re al ert in g Det ect iv e So us a th athe ha d b een ap pr oa ch edab ou t co m m it ti ng a cri m e. Dete ct iv e So us a h adco un se le d Ri ch it el li to co nt acthi m

be fo re m eet in g wi th an y su sp ect s. D. In di ctment Afte r hi s co nf

es si on , Ric hi te ll i was arre st ed . Rich it el li was app oi nt ed
co un se l, wh o fi le d awrit te n i nv oc at io n o f Ri ch it el li ’s rig htto rem ai n s il en t an d t o
co un se l. A supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t ch arg edRic hi te ll i, al on g wi th W ai nwr ig htan d Sm ith, wi th co ns pi racy to c omm ita Hob bs Act ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 1( a), (Co un t 1 ); a tt em pt in g aHob bs Act ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 1( a), (Co un t 2 ); c on sp iri ng to us e an d c arry a firea rm du rin g a ndin rel at io n to a cri m e o f vi ol en ce, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( o) , (Co un t 3 ); c arrying a fir earm du rin g a ndin rel at io n t o acri m e o f vi ol en ce, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A), (Co un t 4 ); a ndpo ss es si ng a fi rearm aft er b ei ng co nv ic te d o f a fel on y , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ), (Co un t 6 ). Ric hi te ll i fi le d ano ti ce o f

6publ ic au th or it y de fen se , cla im in g t ha t, atth e ti m e o f hi s arres t, h e was work in g a s a d oc um en te d C I fo r Det ect iv e So us a. 1 E. Rich ite ll i’s Reco rded Cal l to Detect iv e So us a On Oct ob er 3 0, 2 00 9, wh il e Ri ch it el li was i n p ret ria l d et en ti on at t he Fed eral Dete nt io n C en te r (“ FDC”) in Mi am i, Ri ch it el li cal le d Det ect iv e So us a. Bec au se all cal ls fro m

th e FDC ar e rec or de d, t he go ve rn m en t h ada reco rd in g o f Ri ch it el li ’s cal l t o Det ect iv e So us a. Pri orto tri al , Ric hi te ll i m ov edto supp res s t he reco rd edcal l, ar gu in g t ha t, at th e ti m e o f th e cal l, h e h adap po in te d c ou ns el an d h adno t wai ve d h is rig htto
co un se l. The go ve rn m en t re sp on de d t ha t Ri ch it el li kn ew whe n h e p la cedth e cal l to Dete ct iv e So us a th atitwou ldbe reco rd edbe cau se (1) he was a dv is eddu rin g in ta ke at t he FDC th atph on e cal ls were re co rd ed ; (2 ) si gn s p os te d i n t he FDC al ert edhi m

th atph on e cal ls were re co rd ed ; an d (3 ) in te rrupt io ns du rin g p ho ne s cal ls st at edth atcal ls were re co rd ed . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d R ic hi te ll i’s m ot io n to supp res s, fi nd in g t ha t Ri ch it el li ha d i ni ti at edco nt actwith Det ect iv e So us a
vo lu nt ari ly andha d i m

pl ie dl y waiv edhi s Fi fth an d S ix th Am en dm en t ri gh ts
.
The public a

uthority defe nse is an af

firmative de fense under which the def endant must 1 show that he re asonably

relied upon the authority of a g overnme nt official a uthorizi ngthe defe ndant to eng ag e in an illeg al ac tivity . United States v. Ba ptista-Rodrigue z, 17 F.3d 1354, 1368 n.18 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. J ohnson, 139 F.3d 1359, 1365 (11th Cir. 1998). 7At tria l, the go ve rn m en t p la y edth e rec or de d c al l an d i nt ro du cedred act ed

tra ns cri pt s. Duri ng th e cal l, Ri ch it el li de ni edbe in g i nv ol ve d i n t he pl an ne d

2
ro bb ery. Ric hi te ll i s ai d t ha t Wain wrig ht“po pp edup ,” an d R ic hi te ll i “ wan te d t o
se e wha t was go in g o n.” Ric hi te ll i cl ai m edth atW ai nwr ig htbro ke in to hi s s he d
an d t oo k t he fir earm

witho uthi s kno wled ge . Detec ti ve So us a sc ol de d R ic hi te ll i fo r ge tt in g i nv ol ve d i n c rimes ou ts id e h is CI rel at io ns hi p, re pe at ed ly tol d R ic hi te ll i th athe (So us a) h adno th in g t o d o wi th Ric hi te ll i’s fe de ral rob be ry cas e, an d advi se d R ic hi te ll i t o c oo pe rat e wit h t he FBI. F. Pro po se d Defen se Wi tnes s St ev e Emerso n At tria l, Ri ch it el li ask edto cal l St ev enEm ers on , Ric hi te ll i’s fo rm er
supe rv is in g a ge ntat the Flo rid a Dep art m en t o f Law Enfo rcem en t. Defe ns e
co un se l ar gu edth atEm ers on ’s tes ti m on y was re le va nt“ to sh ow M r. Ri ch it el li ’s act io ns as aco nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t, h ow h e act s i n ave ry - - th athe ’s very

act iv e, th athe tal ks a lo t, tha t s om et im es he do es n’t thi nkbe fo re h e act s, an d t ha t h e’s no t - - h e’s ve ry

go odat g athe rin g i nf

orm at io n, h e’s ve ry

go odat c on du ct in g in ve st ig at io ns an d t ha t h e so m ewh atne ed s v ery stric t s up erv is io n, an d a s l at e as 20 07 , he was ab le to refe r a cas e fo r pr os ecu ti on .” Afte r de fen se co un se l

For rea sons that are not pertinent to this appeal, por tions of the transcript were reda cted 2 pursuant to the district cour t’s pre- trial order
. 8co nc ed edth atEm ers onha d n otha d a ny con ta ctwith R ic hi te ll i s in ce 2 00 8 a nddi d

no t h av e an yth in g t o d o wi th th e in st an t ca se , th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he reque st
. G. Dis tri ct Co urt’ s I nqui ry Int o Ri chi tel li ’s Deci si on to T es tif y Dur in g t ria l, b utou t o f th e jury’ s p res en ce, the di st ric t co urt as ke d d efen se
co un se l, “ Do you m in d i f I in qu ire of you r cl ie ntreg ard in g h is rig htto tes ti fy an d hi s ri gh t n otto tes ti fy ? ” Defen se co un se l re sp on de d t ha t h e “ wou ldsupp ort t he Co urt t o d o t ha t,” a ndth e d is tri ctco urt co nf irmed wit h R ic hi te ll i tha t: (1) he
un de rs to odth athe ha d arig htto tes ti fy an d n otto tes ti fy ; (2 ) he un de rs to odth atif he ele ct edto tes ti fy , in fo rm at io n abo utth e num be r of fel on y co nv ic ti on s h e h ad
co ul d b e b ro ug htou t an d h e wou ldbe subjec t t o c ro ss -ex am in at io n; (3) he ha d fu ll y di sc us se d t he is su e o f whe th er t o t es ti fy with h is att orne y ; an d (4 ) he ha d n ot y etde ci de d wh ethe r to tes ti fy
. The ne xtda y , bef

or e th e d efen se res te d, t he di stric t co urt as ke d wh ethe r Ri ch it el li was g oi ng to tes ti fy . Defen se co un se l s ta te d, “ I do n’t b el ie ve so , bu t at th is ti m e I wo ul d i nv it e th e Co urt t o v oi r di re h im .” The d is tri ctco urt p oi nt edou t th atitha d a lre ady

ask edRic hi te ll i s om e que st io ns an d t he n c on firm edth atth e go ve rn m en t wo ul d n otob ject t o ajury in stru ct io n o n t he publ ic au th or ity de fen se
ev enif R ic hi te ll i d idno t t es ti fy . Defen se co un se l t he n a sk edRic hi te ll i wh ethe r he
wan te d t he di st ric t co urt t o i nq ui re. Ri ch it el li no dd edhi s h eadaffi rm at iv el y . 9The di stric t co urt ag ai n d is cu ss edwith R ic hi te ll i h is de ci si on whet he r to

te st ify andlea rn edth atRic hi te ll i h adde ci de d n otto tak e th e st an d, as fol lo ws: THE COURT: All rig ht . W el l, I wi ll be m or e th anhapp y to
. As I was ex p l a i n i n g to y ou y es te rd ay , y ou es se nt ia ll y ha ve two rig ht s. You ha ve a rig ht to te st ify an d y ou ha ve a rig ht no t to te st ify. If y ou do el ect to te st ify, y ou wou ld be subjec t to cro ss -ex am in at io n by th e go ve rn m en t. In ot he r wor ds , Mr. Ch as e co ul d as k y ou qu es ti on s, an d he co ul d br in g ou t th e fact th at y ou ’ve be en co nv ic te d of m or e th an on e fel on y . Now, I do n’t kn ow ho w m an y fel on y co nv ic ti on s y ou h a v e , bu t wha te ve r nu m

be r th at is , Mr. Ch as e c o u l d br in g th at ou t. As it st an ds rig htno w, th e jury is o nl y aware o f on e fel on y

co nv ic ti on . Now, if y ou el ect no t to te st ify, th e jury is ad vi se d th at th at can no t be co ns id ered by th em in an y way in arri vi ng at th ei r ve rd ic t. The y can ’t co nc lu de th at by vi rtu e of th e fact th at y ou el ect ed no t t o t e s t i f y th at y ou ’ve g otso m ethi ng to hi de , andy ouare g ui lt y . Hav e y ou ha d en ou gh ti m e to di sc us s th e is su e of whe th er or no t y ou sh ou ldtes ti fy

with you r two lawyers? THE DEFENDANT : Yes , You r H o n or . I di sc us se d wit h Mr. Tuc ke r ab ou t m e te st ifyin g in th e cas e, an d h e g av e m e h is st at em en t an d, you kn ow, h is th eo ry

on it
. And si nc e I ha d m y acci de nt wit h an an eu ry sm a n d my IQ le ve l ai n’t ve ry hi gh , so I de ci de d I ai n’t go in g to te st ify be cau se I won ’t rem em

be r ev erythi ng pe rio di cal ly be cau se I lo se m y m em ory so m et im es . THE COURT: Is t ha t yourde ci si on ? THE DE FENDANT: Yes, Yo urHon or . H. Ju ry Ins truc tio n o n Cou nt 3 Dur in g t he ch arg e to th e jury, the di st ric t co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury onth e el em en ts of C ou nt s 1 an d 2 , whi ch ch arg edRic hi te ll i wi thco ns pi racy andatt em pt to co m m ita Hob bs Act Ro bb ery. As to Co un t 3 , whi ch ch arg edRic hi te ll i wi th

10co ns pi racy to u se a fi rearm du rin g t he co m

m is si on of acri m e o f vi ol en ce, the di st ric t co urt s ta te d:

Now, Co un t 3 ch arg es th at de fen da nt Jay Ant ho ny Ri ch it el li di d kn owi ng ly an d in te nt io na ll y co m bi ne , co ns pi re, co nf

ed erat e, an d ag ree wit h o th ers to us e an d c arry a firea rm du rin g and in rel at io n to a cri m e of vi ol en ce. Tha t is , a vi ol at io n of Tit le 18 Uni te d St at es Co de Sect io n 19 51 (a) a s s etforth in Co un ts 1 and2 o f th e in di ctm en t an d t o p os se ss sa id fir earm in th e fu rth eran ce of su ch cri m es , al l in vi ol at io n of Tit le 18 Uni te d S ta te s C od e Sec ti on 92 4( c)(1 )A. It is fu rth er al le ge d th at th e fir earm is a Bere tt a .40 cal ib er pi st ol
. The de fin it i o n of a co ns pi racy was ex pl ai ne d in Co un t~1 th e -- in th e C o u nt ~1 in stru ct io n. Su ch in fo rm at io n wil l no t be rep eat ed , bu t refe ren ce can be m ad e du rin g de li be rat io ns to th e po rti on of Co un t 1 th at ad dr es se s co ns pi racy if th e n eedari se s. Tit le 18 Uni te d St at es Co de Sect io n 92 4( c)(1 ) m ak es it a se pa rat e fed eral cri m e or of

fen se fo r an y on e to carry a fir earm du rin g a n d in rel at io n to a cri m e of vi ol en ce or po ss es s a f i r e a rm in fu rth eran ce of a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. The de fen da nt can be fo un d gu il ty of t h e co ns pi racy of fen se ch arg ed in Co un t 3 of th e in di ct m en t on ly if al l of th e fo ll owi ng fact s are pr ov edpro se cu te [si c]. Fi rs t, th at th e de fen da nt co ns pi red to co m m it th e cri m e of vi ol en ce ch arg edin Co un t~1 of t he in di ct m en t. Seco nd , th at du rin g th e co m m is si on of th at of

fen se , th e de fen da nt kn owi ng ly carrie d o r po ss es se d afir earm as c harg ed
. And th ird , th at th e de fen da nt carr ie d th e fir earm in rel at io n to or po ss es se d t he fir earm

in furth eran ce o f th e cri m e o f vi ol en ce. Afte r co nc lu di ng th e jury char ge , th e d is tri ctco urt as ke d t he pa rti es whet he r th ey ha d a ny new o bjec ti on s t o t he in st ru ct io ns or t he m an ne r in whi ch th ey were re ad
. Defen se co un se l re sp on de d t ha t h e h adno ob jecti on s.

11The jury fo un d R ic hi te ll i g ui lt y on all co un ts . The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc ed Ri ch it el li to im

pr is on m en t t erm s o f li fe o n C ou nt s 1 an d 2 , 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t o n C ou nt3, an d 1 80 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t o n C ou nt6, al l t o ru n
co nc urren tl y , and60 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t o n C ou nt4, t o ru n c on se cu ti ve ly to th e o th er co un ts . Rich it el li fil edth is ap pe al
. II . DISCUSSI ON A. Mot io n to Suppr es s Rec or ded Ca ll to De tect iv e So us a Ri ch it el li co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e supp res se d h is
reco rd edcal l t o Det ect iv e So us a b ecau se Ric hi te ll i h adalr ead y in vo ke d h is rig ht to co un se l an d d idno t wai ve itbe fo re s pe ak in g t o Det ect iv e So us a. 3

“ [O]nce t he adve rs ary jud ic ia l p ro ces s h as be enin it ia te d, the Six th Am en dm en t g uaran te es a de fen da ntth e ri gh t t o h av e co un se l p res en t atall ‘crit ic al ’ st ag es of t he cri m in al pro ceed in gs .” Mo nt ejo v . Lou is iana , 55 6 U.S. _ _, 12 9 S . Ct. 2 07 9, 2 08 5 (2 00 9) . “ In te rro ga ti on by the Sta te is su ch a st ag e.” Id . A Si xt h Am en dm en t v io la ti on oc cu rs when (1) go ve rn m en t ag en ts (2) de li be rat el y el ic itin cri m in at in g s ta te m en ts fro m anaccu se d a fte r he ha s b een in di ct ed , ou ts id e th e p res en ce o f co un se l, an d (3 ) in th e ab se nc e o f an y waiv er o f hi s Si xt h

Wit h respe ct to a district cour t’s denial of a

motion to s uppress, we revie w its findings of 3 fac t for cle ar e rror

and its interpre tation and application of the law de novo. United States v. Emmanuel, 565 F .3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir.), ce rt. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1032 (2009). 12Am en dm en t ri gh ts . Fell ers v. Un it edSta te s, 5 40 U.S. 51 9, 5 23 -2 5, 1 24 S. Ct.

10 19 , 10 22 -2 3 (2 00 4) . The d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t Ri ch it el li im pl ie dl y waiv edhi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o c ou ns el when he in it ia te d the cal l t o Dete ct iv e So us a fro m

th e FDC kno win g t ha t t he cal l wo ul d b e rec or de d. W e n eedno t re ach th e wai ve r is su e fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, a re vi ew of th e tra ns cri ptof t he co nv ers at io n re ve al s t ha t Det ect iv e So us a, ev enif h e qua li fie d a s a “ go ve rn m en t ag en t,” d idno t t ak e an y act io n d es ig ne d t o d el ib erat el y eli ci t in cri m in at in g s ta te m en ts fro m Ric hi te ll i. See Kuh lm an n v . W il so n, 4 77 U.S. 43 6, 45 9, 1 06 S. Ct. 2 61 6, 2 63 0 (1 98 6) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e d efen da ntm us t s ho w th at th e g ov ern m en t ag en t “ to okso m e act io n, b ey on d m ere l is te ni ng , th atwas d es ig ne d de li be rat el y

to eli ci t i nc riminat in g re m ark s) . Detec ti ve So us a d idno t d ire ct ly qu es ti on Ric hi te ll i ab ou t h is in vo lv em en t i n t he att em pt edrob be ry

an d d idno t pl ay on Ric hi te ll i’s em ot io ns to eli ci t i nc riminat in g s ta te m en ts . Detec ti ve So us a di d n oten ga ge in a pr ol on ge d d is cu ss io n o f th e d et ai ls of t he off en se s o r Ri ch it el li ’s in vo lv em en t i n the m . Ind eed , Detec ti ve So us a rep eat ed ly info rm ed Ri ch it el li th athe kn ew no th in g abo utth e fed eral rob be ry cas e an d c ou ldno t h el p Ri ch it el li . The m ai n t hr

us t o f Det ect iv e So us a’s st at em en ts to Ric hi te ll i was to st res s the ser io us ne ss of t he fed eral ch arg es an d t o u rg e Ri ch it el li to co op erat e wit h t he FBI i n a ny way

th athe co ul d.
13Seco nd , eve n i f Ri ch it el li sat is fie d a ll th ree r equi rem en ts to sh ow a S ix th

Am en dm en t v io la ti on , any erro r in adm it ti ng th e rec or de d c al l t o Det ect iv e So us a
was harm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Gari, 5 72 F.3d 13 52 , 13 62 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e “ te stforde te rm in in g wh ethe r a
co ns ti tu ti on al erro r is ha rm le ss . . . is whet he r itap pe ars be y on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t t he erro r co m

pl ai ne d o f di d n otco nt rib ut e to th e v erd ic t o bt ai ne d” (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ), cert . den ie d, 1 20 S. Ct. 1 56 2 andRo dr ig ue z v . Uni te d St at es , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 56 0 (2 01 0) . The g ov ern m en t p res en te d o ve rwh el m in g
ev id en ce o f Ri ch it el li ’s gu il t, i nc lu di ng : (1 ) Sm it h’s t es ti m on y th atRic hi te ll i pr ov id edth e g un an d i nf

orm at io n abo utth e co ur ie r an d h is rou te , hel pe d p la n t he
ro bb ery an d a ct edas s urve il la nc e, no ti fy in g S m it h andW ai nwr ig htwhen th e
co ur ie r rea ch edhi s l as t s to p; (2) Agen t St ark ey ’s tes ti m on y th atRic hi te ll i adm it te d b ei ng in vo lv edin th e ro bb ery sc he m e; an d (3 ) Det ect iv e So us a’s te st im on y th atRic hi te ll i d idno t h av e th e au th or it y to be in vo lv edin th e ro bb ery as hi s C I. Dur in g t he reco rd edco nv ers at io n, Ri ch it el li di d n otadm itth athe was in vo lv edinth e ro bb ery sc he m e. At m os t, the reco rd edco nv ers at io n c on st itut ed
ev id en ce t ha t Det ect iv e So us a n ev er g av e Ri ch it el li th e au th or it y , as h is CI, to be co m e in vo lv edin th e ro bb ery. As s uc h, h owe ve r, th is ev id en ce was cu m ul at iv e
14of

Dete ct iv e So us a’s te st im on y th athe was u naware o f th e p la nn edrob be ry an d Age ntSta rk ey ’s tes ti m on y th at , du rin g R ic hi te ll i’s co nf es si on , Ric hi te ll i ad m it te d th athe ha d n otto ldDete ct iv e So us a ab ou t the rob be ry . Und er the cir cu m st an ces , we read il y

co nc lu de be y on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t the adm is si on of t he reco rd ed
co nv ers at io n d idno t co ntrib ut e to th e jury’ s g ui lt y ve rd ic t. B. Dis tri ct Co urt’ s I nqui ry int o Ri chi tel li ’s Deci si on no t to Tes tif y Ri ch it el li arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin di sc us si ng hi s d eci si on whe th er t o t es ti fy . W e ag ree wi th th e g ov ern m en t t ha t Ri ch it el li in vi te d a ny error in th is reg ard
. W e are pre cl ud ed“ fro m

rev ie win g a n i ss ue rai se d o n app eal if i t h as be en waiv edth ro ug h the do ctrin e o f in vi te d e rro r.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Bran na n, 5 62 F.3d 13 00 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Thi s C ou rt h as ap pl ie d the in vi te d e rro r do ctrin e whe n the all eg ederro r was th e res ul t o f a d efen da nt ’s res po ns es to th e d is tri ct
co urt’s que st io ns . See, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Thayer, 20 4 F .3d13 52 , 13 55 (11 th Ci r. 20 00 ). Here, the di st ric t co urt re cei ve d d efen se co un se l’s p erm is si on be fo re di rect ly addres si ng Ric hi te ll i ab ou t h is rig htto tes ti fy . Later, d efen se co un se l
as ke d t he di st ric t co urt t o d is cu ss th e is su e ag ai n wi th Ric hi te ll i. Whenth e d is tri ct
co urt s eem edrel uc ta ntan d p oi nt edou t t ha t h e h adalr ead y di sc us se d R ic hi te ll i’s
15rig htto tes ti fy with h im , def

en se co un se l as ke d R ic hi te ll i wh ethe r he want edth e di st ric t co urt t o d is cu ss hi s ri gh t t o t es ti fy ag ai n. Ri ch it el li in di cat edth athe di d. 4 Eve n i f Ri ch it el li ha s n otin vi te d e rro r, he di d n otob ject t o t he in qu iry in t he di st ric t co urt, an d t he re i s n o p la in erro r. See Un it edSta te s v . Pet ers , 40 3 F .3d 12 63 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). To b e “pl ai n,” anerro r m us t b e cl ear u nd er cu rren t la w. Unit edSta te s v . Fran k, 5 99 F.3d12 21 , 12 39 (11 th Cir .), cert . den ie d, 1 31 S. Ct . 18 6 (2 01 0) . The ca se s R ic hi te ll i re li es up on co nc lu de on ly tha t a t ria l co urt i s
no t re qu ire d t o a dv is e a cri m in al de fen da ntof h is rig htto tes ti fy an d d o n ot , as Ri ch it el li su gg es ts , res tri cttri al co urts fro m su ch anin qu iry. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Teag ue , 95 3 F .2d15 25 , 15 32 -3 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) ; Un it edSta te s v . Van De W al ke r, 14 1 F .3d14 51 , 14 52 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Ric hi te ll i h as no t s ho wn tha t t he di st ric t co urt’s i nq ui ry

was p la in erro r. C. Ju ry Ins truc tio n o n Cou nt 3 Ri ch it el li arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt’s jury in st ru ct io n a s t o C ou nt3
co ns ti tu te s re ve rs ib le erro r be cau se itdi d n otst at e th e p ro pe r ob ject o f th e
co ns pi racy. Bec au se Ric hi te ll i d idno t ra is e th is ob jecti on to th e Co un t 3 in st ru ct io n i n

To the extent Richitelli ’s ar gument could be c onstrued as a claim of inef

fec tive 4 assistance of counse l, we dec line to addre ss this i ssue on direc t appea l. See United States v. Souder, 782 F .2d 1534, 1539-40 (11th Cir. 1986). 16th e d is tri ctco urt, o ur rev ie w her e is als o fo r pl ai n e rro r. See Un it edSta te s v . 5 Fel ts , 57 9 F .3d13 41 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at“ jury ins tru ct io ns th at
are c ha ll en ge d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal are re vi ewedforpl ai n e rro r”). “ Ju ry in st ru ct io ns wil l n otbe rev ers edforpl ai n e rro r un le ss th e ch arg e, co ns id eredas a who le , is so cle arl y

erro ne ou s as to res ul t i n ali ke li ho odof agra ve m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce, o r th e err orser io us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sta rk e, 62 F.3d13 74 , 13 81 (11 th Cir
. 19 95 ). Here, the di st ric t co urt d idno t co m m iterro r, m

uc h l es s p la in erro r. Co nt rary to R ic hi te ll i’s co nt en ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt’s i ns tru ct io n o n C ou nt3
co rrec tl y st at edat t he ou ts etth atth e o bjec t o f th e co ns pi racy was “ to us e an d c arry a fi rearm du rin g a ndin rel at io n t o acri m e o f vi ol en ce.” Th e d is tri ctco urt t he n
ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” c ha rg edin Co un t 3 was t he co ns pi racy to
ro b t he m on ey

co ur ie r ch arg edin Co un t 1 an d t he att em ptto rob th e m on ey
co ur ie r ch arg edinCo un t 2 . By qu ot in g o nl y

th e d is tri ctco urt’s s ub se qu en t We rejec t the g overnme nt’s argument that Richitelli i nvited any alleg ed er

ror a s to the 5 Count 3 inst ruction. Ther e wa s never any discussion betwee n the district court a nd defe nse counsel a bout the Count 3 inst ruction. This fac t disti nguishes Richitelli’s case f rom the invited err or ca ses cited by

the g overnme nt. See United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1326-27 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Fulfor d, 267 F.3d 1241, 1247 ( 11th Cir. 2001). Defe nse counsel’s r esponse to the district cour t’s g ener al inquiry

at the conc lusion of the jury charg e indicatingthat he had no obje ctions to the charg e as a whole did not invite error as to the Count 3 instruction. 17st at em en t ab ou t wh atth e g ov ern m en t n eed edto pro ve forRic hi te ll i t o b e fo un d

gu il ty, Ri ch it el li ig no res th e b as ic pri nc ip le th at“ th e co rrec tn es s o f a jury char ge
m us t b e co ns id eredin th e co nt ex t o f th e in st ru ct io ns as awho le .” Uni te d S ta te s v . W il k, 5 72 F.3d12 29 , 12 38 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ), cert . den ie d, 1 30 S. Ct. 1 09 5 (2 01 0)
. Viewe d i n i ts en ti ret y , th e d is tri ctco urt’s Co un t 3 in stru ct io n d idno t o m itth e ob ject o f th e co ns pi racy char ge d i n C ou nt3. D. Pro po se d Defen se Wi tnes s Ag ent E m ers on Ri ch it el li arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredwhen itex cl ud edAgen t Em ers on ’s tes ti m on y

on th e g ro un d t ha t i t was no t re le va nt
.

“ Evi de nc e whi ch is no t re le va ntis no t adm is si bl e.” Fed . R. Evi d. 4 02 . “ A di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to ex cl ud e ev id en ce o n g ro un ds of r el ev an ce wi ll no t b e di sturbe d u nl es s i t co ns ti tu te s a c le ar ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Bap ti st a-Ro dr ig ue z, 17 F.3d13 54 , 13 64 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). The d is tri ctco urt’s di sc ret io n, h owe ve r, do es no t ex te ndto th e ex cl us io n o f cru ci al , rel ev an t ev id en ce
ne ces sa ry to est ab li sh a va li d d efen se . Id. Ri ch it el li arg ue s t ha t Ag en t Em ers on ’s tes ti m on y was re le va ntto sh ow Ri ch it el li ’s m odus op eran di as aCI—th athe ten de d t o c on du ctin it ia l in ve st ig at io ns be fo re re cei vi ng pe rm is si on fro m hi s s up erv is in g a ge nt—an d was
ev id en ce t ha t wen t t o R ic hi te ll i’s i nt en t. To t he ex te ntRic hi te ll i ar gu es th atAgen t
18Em ers on ’s tes ti m on y was re le va ntto eit he r hi s p ub li c au th or it y de fen se or h is

“ in no cen t i nt en t,” R ic hi te ll i d idno t ar gu e th es e g ro un ds forrel ev an ce i n t he di st ric t co urt. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Straub , 50 8 F .3d10 03 , 10 11 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atto pre se rv e an is su e fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w, th e d efen dantm us t cl earl y rai se th e sp eci fic gro un ds forth e o bjec ti on ). Ins te ad , Ric hi te ll i t ol d t he di st ric t co urt t ha t Ag en t Em ers on ’s tes ti m on y wou ldsh ow t ha t Ri ch it el li , alt ho ug h a p ro du ct iv e CI, was ve ry act iv e, ta lk eda lo t an d n eed edst ric t s up erv is io n. Th is in fo rm at io n h adalr ead y

be eneli ci te d fr om

Dete ct iv e So us a. See Un it edSta te s v . Doh an , 50 8 F .3d98 9, 9 93 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata di st ric t co urt i s wit hi n i ts di sc ret io n t o e xc lu de ev enrel ev an t ev id en ce t ha t i s cu m ul at iv e). Fu rth erm or e, Age ntEm ers on ’s pro po se d t es ti m on y was n otrel ev an t t o a ny
va li d p ub li c au th or it y

de fen se in th is pa rti cu lar cas e. Thi s C ou rt h as co nc lu de d th ata de fen da ntm ay

ass erta va li d p ub li c au th or it y de fen se on ly if hi s re li an ce
was ona real , rathe r th anap pa ren t, au th or it y to pe rfo rm

th e il le ga l ac ts in qu es ti on . Uni te d S ta te s v . And ers on , 87 2 F .2d15 08 , 15 16 (11 thCir . 19 89 ). Dete ct iv e So us a te st ifi edth athe di d n otau th or iz e Ri ch it el li to en ga ge in th e
ro bb ery sc he m e as pa rt o f th ei r CI re la ti on sh ip . Rich it el li ’s m odus op eran di with hi s p rev io us supe rv is in g a ge ntwas i rrel ev an t t o wh ethe r Ri ch it el li reas on ab ly rel ie d upo n t he real au th or it y of De te ct iv e So us a. See, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v .

19Jo hn so n, 1 39 F.3d13 59 , 13 65 -6 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (co nc lu di ng th atth e d is tri ct

co urt p ro pe rly refu se d t o a dm itev id en ce re la ti ng to publ ic au th or it y de fen se be cau se th e d efen da ntfai le d t o s ho w any go ve rn m en t i nv ol ve m en t i n t he
co ns pi racy). Unde r th es e ci rcu m st an ces , we fin d n o abu se of d is cret io n. AFFIRMED.

20