2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-30-2010 

# U SA v . M ali k N el son P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3472

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

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

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M al i k N e l s on" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1616. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1616NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 3472

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M AL I K NE L S ON, A ppel l ant

___________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 06- cr - 00520- 06) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

_____________ S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

J anuary26, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges , and *K A N E , D i s t r i ctJ udge

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 30, 2010)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

* H o n o ra b le Y v e tte K a n e , C h ief Ju d g e o f th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s cas e pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231 1 

### an dw e h av e j urisd ictio nto h ear th is ap p eal un d er 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , an d , b ecau se th is ap p eal inv o lv es th e ap p licatio no f th e S enten cin g Gu id elin es, 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 .

- 2- FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: A ppel l antM al i k N el s on appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on o b jec tin g to a sta tem e n t m a d e d u rin g th e G o v e rn m e n t’s o p e n in g a rg u m e n t, m o tio n to excl ude evi dence of pr i orbad ac t s , m ot i on t o pr ecl ude the expe r tt es t i m onyof a D rug E nfor cement( “D E A ”) Speci al A gent , m ot i on fora mi s t r i al , and forfi ndi ng thatN el s on p erjured h im self w h en h e testi fied in h is de fe n se. F o r th e f o ll o w ing rea so n s, w e a ff irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. 1 

### I. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e di s cus s the fa ct s onl yt o t he ext ent n e c e ss a ryf

o r re so lu tio n o f

th e iss u e s o n a p p e a l. N el s on and s i x co- defe ndant s w er e cha r ged w i t h var i ous drug r el at ed cr i m es that occurr ed betw een 2004 thr ough 2006 i n N ew J er s ey . N el s on w as acc us ed of pur chas i ng p o wd e rc o c a i n e f

r o m F e l i p e T e l l e r i a a n d r e s e l l i n g i ta s p o wd e r e d c o c a i n e o rc r a c k . As par tof the i nves t i gat i on, l aw enfor cementw i r et apped Tel l er i a’ s phone, r ecor di ng co n v ersa ti o n s w ith N elso n 6 8 ti m es o v er a three m o n th p eriod . A d d it ion all y , inv esti g ators in s ta lle d a s u rv e illa n c e c a m e ra f o c u s e d o n T e lle ri a ’s h o m e . T el l er i a, w ho t es t i fi ed fort he pr os ecut i on pur s uantt o a pl ea a r r angement , det ai l ed

### - 3-

N el s on’ s par t i ci pat i on i n t he drug cons pi r acygener al l y , and al s o s t at ed thathe s ol d N el s on t hr ee ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne on A pr i l 11, 2006. ( A pp. 168) T el l er i a t es t i fi ed thatN el s on pai d hi m appr oxi m at el y$40, 000 forthe drugs and al s o gave Tel l er i a hi s 2001 C hevr ol et T a h o e a s c o llate ra l. T e lleria f u rth e r te stif

ied th a t o n Ju n e 3 , 2 0 0 6 , N e lso n p u rc h a se d a h a lf of a ki l ogr am of cocai ne fr om T el l er i a. ( SA . 35) Sur vei l l ance foot age s how s N el s on e n ter in g a n d e x iti n g T e lleria ’s h o m e o n th a t d a te. T h e w ire tap re c o rd e d N e lso n a sk in g to pur chas e an a ddi t i onal ni ne ounce s fr om T el l er i a l at erthatdayand s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs s how N el s on ent er i ng and exi t i ng T el l er i a’ s hous e thateveni ng. ( A pp. 38; S A . 2 2 -2 4 ). T h e f

e d e ra l in v e stig a tio n in to th is d ru g c o n sp ira c ye n d e d a f ter a n O h io S tate H i ghw ayPat r ol O ffi cerr ecove r ed tw o ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne i n t he trunk of one of T el l er i a’ s drug s uppl i er s dur i ng a r out i ne and unr el at ed tr aff i c s t op. N el s on w as arr es t ed s h o rt ly th e re a f

te r. N el s on’ s s i x co- defe ndant s pl ed gui l t y . A ft era tr i al byj ury , dur i ng w hi ch N el s on tes tifie d , h e w a s f

o u n d g u iltyo f: (1 ) c o n sp irin g to d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss in g w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e atl eas tfi ve ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne and a tl eas t50 gr ams of coc ai ne bas e fr om J ul y2004 t hr ough J ul y11, 2006; ( 2) di s t r i but i ng and pos s es s i ng w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e at lea st 5 0 0 g ra m s o f

c o c a in e o n A p ril 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 ; an d (3 ) d istrib u tin g a n d p o ss e ss in g w ith inten t t o d istri b u te at l ea st 50 0 g ram s o f c o ca ine o n Ju n e 3 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d N el s on t o 360 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , t en y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e and o rd e re d h im to p a y$ 3 0 0 in s p e c ia l a s s e s s m e n ts .

### - 4- II. Ne l s onr a i s e s s e ve r a li s s ue s ona pp e a l . Hef

irst c o n ten d s th a t th e sta tem e n t – “M al i k N el s on t ook t hos e ki l ogr ams and ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne and r es ol d t hem her e on our s t r eet s of Sout hern N ew J er s ey ” - - w as ar gum ent at i ve and undul ypr ej udi ci al , and t her efor e the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have s t ruck i tfr om the governm ent ’ s openi ng s ta te m e n t. 

### “ The s t andar d of r e vi e w for a l l e ge dly pr e judi c i a lc omm e nt s by

the pr os e c ut i on inits o p en in g statem ent . . . [ i] f th e erro r is n o n -co n stitutio n al . . . [ is wh eth er] it is h ig h ly prob ablethat

the e rror did n ot contributeto the jud gm ent . . . .” U n ited Sta tes v. L o re , 43 0 F .3d 1 90 , 207 (3d C ir . 200 5) (inter nal c it ation & qu otation m ar ks exclud ed). A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, t he pr os ecut i on pr offe r ed thati tw oul d i ntr oduce e vi dence that N el s on conduct ed a drug bus i nes s on t he s t r eet s of Sout h J er s ey . I ndeed, the evi dence i nt r oduced a tt r i al demonstr at ed thatN el s on s ol d drugs i n B r i dget on fr om 2004 t hr ough 2006. D rug di s t r i but i on w as t he es s ence of the cr i m es char ged aga i ns tN el s on and th e re f o re w a s n o t u n d u ly p re

ju d ic ia l. N e x t, N e lso n a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n w h e n it d e n ied h is i n l i m i ne mot i on t o excl ude the admi s s i on of s i x i nci dent s i nvol vi ng r ecove r i ng of l ar ge s u m s o f c a s h , f ir e a rm s , a n d o f

n a rc o tic s f

ro m N e ls o n . 

### Se eUni te d Statesv . J ohns on , 388 F. 3d 96, 100 ( 3d Ci r . 2004) ( not i ng that we r e vi e w e vi de nt i ary

r ul i ngs for abus e of d iscretio n ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t so u g h t to a d m it th e se in c id e n ts b e c a u se th e yw e re in trin sic to t he cha r ged cons pi r acy . T he D i s t r i ctC our tagr eed, butdi d, how ever , excl ude ors ani t i ze

### - 5-

s om e of the evi dence pur s uantt o Fed. R . E vi d. 403. N evert hel es s , N el s on ar gues thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m perm i s s i bl yperm i t t ed the G overnm entt o i ntr oduce “ pr i orcr i m es and bad a c ts a n d to b o o ts tr a p its c o n s p ir a c ya lle g a tio n .” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 3 2 . “I n cas es w her e the i nci dentoffe r ed i s a partof the cons pi r acyal l eged i n t he i ndi ctm ent , t he evi dence i s admi s s i bl e . . . beca us e i ti s notan ‘ other ’ cr i m e. T he evi dence i s offe r ed as di r ectevi dence of the fa cti n i s s ue, notas ci r cumst ant i al evi dence r equi r i ng an i nfer ence as t o t he cha r act erof the ac cus ed. Such pr oof . . . m aybe extr emel ypr ej udi ci al t o t he def

endantbutt he courtw oul d have no di s cr et i on t o excl ude i tbeca us e i ti s pr oof of th e u ltim a te is s u e in th e c a s e .” 2 2 C h a rl e s A . W ri g h t & K e n n e th W . G ra h a m , J r., Feder al P ract i ce an d P rocedu re § 5 23 9, at45 0-51 (19 78 ). H ere, the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not abuse i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tperm i t t ed s ani t i zed i ntr oduct i on of thes e i nci dent s beca us e they d ire c tlyre late d to th e c h a rg e s e n u m e ra ted in th e in d ictm e n t. A s th e G o v e rn m e n t co rre c tly not es , evi dence of coc ai ne pos s es s i on and di s t r i but i on, pos s es s i on of l ar ge amount s of cas h and pos s es s i on of fi r earm s dur i ng the t i m e per i od of an a l l eged drug di s t r i but i on cons pi r acydi r ect l ypr oved the cha r ges . N el s on’ s ar gum ent , thatthe i nci dent s ar e not i nt r i ns i c evi dence of the cons pi r acybeca us e theyw er e r emoved i n t i m e fr om the s ubs t ant i ve count s , i s unper s uas i ve. T hes e i nci dent s , w hi ch i nvol ve pos s es s i on of f ir e a rm s , n a rc o tic s a n d la rg e s u m s o f c a s h , d ir e c tly b e a r o n th e c o n s p ir a c yc h a rg e . T hi r d, N el s on chal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng perm i t t i ng D E A Speci al A gent D a v id M c N a m a ra to te s tif ya s a n e x p e rt in th e f

ie ld s o f n a rc o tic s a n d n a rc o tic s tr a f f ic k in g .

### - 6-

A fter the clos e o f h is t esti m o n y , the D istri ct C o u rtp erm itted A g en t M cN am ara to an sw er a ju ro r’s w ritten q u e stio n re g a rd in g h o w lo n g it w o u ld tak e to m icr o w a v e c o c a in e b e f o re it tur ned i nt o cr ack. B efor e perm i t t i ng A gentM cN amar a t o ans w erthe i nqui r y , the D i s tr i ct C our tques t i oned A gentM cN amar a t o es t abl i s h hi s expert i s e t o opi ne on drug cooki ng i n a m i cr ow ave ove n. O nce e s t abl i s hed, the D i s t r i ctC our tperm i t t ed M cN amar a t o ans w ert he j u r o r ’ s q u e s t i o n . Th i s ru l i n g wa s n o ta n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n b e c a u s e p u r s u a n tt o F e d . R. E v id. 70 2 , a p erso n w ith sp ec ial k n o w ledg e, training o r ed u ca ti o n m aytest ifyas a n ex p ert t o a s s i s ta j u r y . Ag e n tM c Na ma r a wa s a DE A a g e n twi t h o v e r1 5 y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e . He w as t r ai ned for14 w eeks atQ uant i co and ha d been i nvol ved i n hundr eds of drug oper at i ons , 90% of w hi ch i nvol ved coc ai ne. M cN amar a t es t i fi ed thatappr oxi m at el y10% - 20% of those cases i nv olved co ok i ng crack cocaine i n a m i crow ave. ( S A . 47 -49) Th us, t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatM cN amar a had the expe r i ence t o qual i fyas an e x p e rt in th e f

ie ld o f c o c a in e m a n u f

a c tu ri n g w a s n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . N ext , N el s on ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tdi d notdecl ar e a mi s tr i al a f te r t h e g o v e rn m e n t in q u ir e d a b o u t h is p ri o r h e ro in u s e d u ri n g c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n . N e ls o n ’s c o u n s e l o b

je c te d a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s u s ta in e d th a t o b je c tio n . 

### “ W e r e vi e w a di s tri c t c ourt ’ s de c i s i on not

t o gr ant ami s tri a lon the gr ounds that the pr os e c ut or

m a de im p ro p er rem ark s . . . f

o r ab u se o f

d iscretio n , an d , if

erro r is f o un d , w e ap p ly

h armless er ror analysi s. ” S

ee U n ited Sta tes v. M

o lin a -G u eva ra , 96 F. 3d 698, 703 ( 3d Ci r . 1996) (citatio n s o mitted ). D ur i ng di s cus s i ons overthe obj ect i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed i n open

### - 7-

cour tt hatt her e w as no evi dence t hatN el s on w as a her oi n us er , t o w hi ch the G overnm ent r epl i ed “othert han hi s ow n admi s s i on. ” A l engthys i debarthen ens ued dur i ng w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our ts t r ongl yadmoni s hed the pr os ecut orand s ugges t ed the pos s i bi l i t yof a m i s t r i al . A tt hatt i m e, how ever , N el s on di d notr eques ta mi s t r i al . I ns t ead, the D i s t r i ct C o u rtinstructed the ju ryto d isr eg ard the q u esti o n an d the c o ll o q u yreg ard ing N elso n ’s p ast h ero in u se, no ti n g that w h ethe r he u sed h ero in w as irrel ev an t t o the c ase . (A p p . 6 7 ) A j ur yi s pr es um ed t o fol l ow a cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on and a de fenda ntfac es a hi gh h u rd le w h e n h e o r s h e c o n te n d s th a t th e in s tru c tio n w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to c u re a n ye rr o r. See, e. g. , R i cha rdson v. M

arsh , 481 U . S. 200, 211 ( 1987) . Pr ej udi ci al t es t i m onyw i l l not m andat e a mi s t r i al w hen ther e i s ot hers i gni fi cant , admi s s i bl e evi dence of gui l t . H er e, w hi l e the pr os ecut or ’ s comm entw as i m pr oper , ther e w as s i gni fi cantadmi s s i bl e evi dence of N el s on’ s gui l t . T he governm enti ntr oduced the t es t i m onyof coope r at i ng cocons pi r at or s , pol i ce t es t i m ony , and vi deot apes and t ape r ecor di ngs w hi ch demonstr at ed N elso n ’s gu il t. T h ere fo re, co n side ri n g the o v erw h elm ing ev iden ce o f N elso n ’s par t i ci pat i on i n drug r el at ed cr i m es , anyr efe r ence t o hi s purpor t ed her oi n us e di d not i nfl uence t he j ur y ’ s ver di ctand w as l i kel ycur ed bythe l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on. I n other w or ds , t hi s i s nota ca s e w her e the evi dence i s s o m ar gi nal and the pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement is s o p re ju d ic ia l th a t N e ls o n ’s d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts w e re v io la te d . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Mor ena , 5 4 7 F .3 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). L as t l y , N el s on obj ect s t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ng dur i ng s ent enci ng t hat

### - 8-

h e p e rj u re d h im s e lf

s e v e ra l tim e s d u ri n g h is te s tim o n y . 

### Were view a dis tric t c ourt ’s d etermin atio nth at a d ef

en d ant co mmittedp erj ury f o r clear erro r. See Un ited Statesv. Cus umano , 943 F.2d30 5, 31 5 (3dCir. 19 91 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on w as s oundl ybas ed on the evi dence admi t t ed attr i al , i ncl udi ng vi deo and a udi o s ur vei l l ance , co -co n sp ir ator testi m o n y , an d law en fo rce m en t t esti m o n y . T h ere fo re, th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s f in d in g p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 w a s n o t c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . 

### III. F o r th e f o reg o in g reaso n s, w e af

f irm th e j u d g m ent o f

th e D istrict C o urt.