# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 31 41

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Torr an ce L. Co tt on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 23 , 20 15
Fil ed : M ay

19 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Torr an ce Co tt on ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e an d

po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e co cai ne

. Afte r care fu l rev ie w of th e is su es rai se d,

we fi nd no rev ers ib le erro r an d a ffi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t. 1

The Hon or ab l e Jo hn A. Ro ss , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.I. Back gr ou nd

In 20 12

, th e Dru g Enfo rcem en t Adm in is tra ti on (DEA) be ga n an in ve st ig at io n

in to th e su sp ect ed dr ug tra ffi ck in g act iv it ie s of Je rem y Po e. Afte r Po e was arre st ed

in Ja nu ary 20 13 in po ss es si on of a ki lo gr am of co cai ne , he ag reed to co op erat e wit h

th e DEA a n d a s s i s t th em in th ei r in ve st ig at io n. At a m eet in g wit h th e DEA on

Ja nu ary 14

, 20 13

, Po e to ld th e DEA th at he ha d r e c e i v e d th e ki lo gr am of co cai ne

f r o m D a vi d Fraz ie r, an d th at he be li ev ed th at Fraz ie r ha d go tt en th e co cai ne f r o m

Torr an ce Co tt on

. Fo ll owi ng th at m eet in g, Po e ag reed to m eet wit h Fraz ie r an d

a rran ge fu rth er dr ug tra ns act io ns whi le weari ng a wire

. Po e ha d two se pa rat e

m eet in gs wit h Fraz ie r o n J a n u a r y 17

, fir st at Ch il im ack s, a co ur ie r se rv ic e whe re

Fraz ie r an d Co tt on wor ke d, an d s e c o n d a t Fraz ie r’s res id en ce. Po e m et ag ai n wit h

Fraz ie r on Ja nu ary 18

. Fo ll owi ng th at m eet in g, th e DEA arre st ed Fraz ie r an d se iz ed

on e k il og ram

of c oc ai ne fro m

a sa fe i n h is res id en ce.

As a res ul t of th is in ve st ig at io n, Torr an ce Co tt on was in di ct ed on May 1, 20 13

,

an d ch arg ed wit h o n e c o un t of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e co cai ne an d on e co un t of

po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e c o c ai ne

. Co tt on was co nv ic te d of bo th co un ts

fo ll owi ng a jury tri al on Apr il 3, 20 14

. On ap pe al

, Co tt on co nt es ts th e ad m is si on of

ev id en ce of hi s pr io r c o n v i c t i o n s, ad m is si on of a st at em en t m ad e by Dav id Fraz ie r

aft er h is arre st , and de ni al of h is m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l b as ed on a Brad y vi ol at io n.

II. Dis cu ss io n

A. Adm is si on of Ev id en ce o f Pri or Co nv ic ti on s

Co tt on as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y al lo we d t h e go ve rn m en t to

in tro du ce ev id en ce of hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r po ss es si on of co cai ne wit h in te nt to

di st rib ut e an d at te m

pt ed dr ug tra ffi ck i n g

. Bec au se Co tt on di d no t m ak e a

co nt em po ran eo us ob

jecti on to th e i n t r od uc ti on of th is ev id en ce, ou r rev ie w is fo r

-2

-pl ai n e rro r un le ss th e d is tri ct co ur t m ad e a fin al an d def in it iv e pr et ria l rul in g o n t he

ad m is si bi li ty of th is ev id en ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . You ng , 75 3 F .3d 75 7, 77 5 (8t h Cir.

20 14 ). The ad m is si bi li ty of th e ev id en ce was ad dr es se d at two pr et ria l co nf eren ces ,

on Nov em

be r 26

, 20 13

, an d Ja n u a r y 2 3

, 20 14

. At bo th pr et ria l co nf eren ces , th e

di st ric t co ur t m ad e a pr ov is io na l, no n- de fin i t i v e ru li ng th at th e ev id en ce was

ad m is si bl e, sp eci fic al ly an ti ci pa ti ng a co nt em po ran eo us ob

jecti on at tri al

. Howev er,

be fo re vo ir di re be ga n on Mar ch 31

, 20 14

, th e di st ric t co ur t ag ai n ad dr es se d th e

ad m is si bi li ty of th e ev id en ce of Co tt on ’s p r io r co nv ic ti on s, st at in g “ I do th in k th at

th ere is st il l a ba si s to in tro du ce th i s 40 4( b) ev id en ce.

. . . So th e ob jecti on wil l be

ov erru le d. I wil l, as I sa y , be fo re th at ev id en ce is so ug ht to be in tro du ced

, wan t to se e

a li m it in g in st ru ct io n.” Thi s Mar ch 31 ru li ng was , by it s te rm s, fin al

, de fin it iv e, an d

no n- pr ov is io na l. Cf. id

. (“ whe n th e di st ric t co ur t re se rv es it s ru li ng or ot he rw is e

in di ca te s th at th e ru li ng is pr ov is io na l

, t h e n th e pr op on en t sh ou ld rei nt ro du ce th e

co ur t to th e is su e at th e ap pr op ria te ti m e”) (emp h as is ad de d)

. The co ur t st at ed th at

th e ob jecti on “ wil l be ov erru le d,” an d referr ed to an an ti ci pa te d li m it in g in st ru ct io n

wit h reg ard to th e ev id en ce th at wou ld be ad m it te d. At th is po in t, th e co ur t’s ru li ng

on th e ad m is si bi li ty of th e ev id en ce was cl ear, an d co un se l wou ld no lo ng er ha ve ha d

an y reas on to do ub t whe th er th at ru li ng was de fin it iv e. See id .; Fed

. R. Evi d. 10 3( b)

& ad vi so ry co m

m it te e’s no te to 20 00 am en dm en t. W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at Co tt on

pr op erl y pr es erv ed th is cl ai m of erro r, an d acco rd in gl y rev ie w th e di st ric t c o ur t’s

de ci si on to ad m it th e ev id en ce of Co tt on ’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.

You ng , 75 3 F .3d at 7 67

.

Ev id en ce of a de fen da nt ’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s is cat eg or ic al ly in ad m is si b l e t o

pr ov e th e de fen da nt ’s cri m in al pr op en si ty. Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4( b) (1 ). Evi de nc e of

pr io r co nv ic ti on s m ay , ho wev er, be ad m is si bl e to pr ov e a sp eci fic el em en t or as pe ct

of th e ch arg ed of

fen se , su ch as “ m ot iv e, op po rtu ni ty, in te nt

, pr ep arat io n, pl an , k n owl ed ge , id en ti ty, ab se nc e of m is ta ke

, or la ck of acci de nt .” Fed

. R. Evi d

. 40 4( b) (2 ). W he re th ere is a pr op er pu r p o s e f o r ev id en ce of a pr io r co nv ic ti on , th e

co nv ic ti on m ay be ad m it te d if it is “ (1 ) rel ev an t to a m at eri al is su e; (2 ) si m il ar in ki nd

-3

-an d no t ov erl y rem ot e in ti m e to th e cri m e ch a r g ed ; (3 ) su pp or te d by su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce; an d (4 ) hi gh er in pr ob at iv e va lu e th an pr ejud ic ia l effe ct .” Uni te d St at es v. Trog do n, 57 5 F.3 d 76 2, 76 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 53 4

F.3 d 98 0, 98 4 (8t h Cir. 20 08 )). Thi s is co ns id ered a ru le of in cl us io n, m ean in g th at

if th es e el em en ts of ad m is si bi li ty are sa ti sf ie d, th e ev id en ce w i ll be ex cl ud ed on ly

whe n it is of

fere d so le ly to pr ov e cri m in al pr op en si ty. Uni te d St at es v. Fo st er, 34 4

F.3 d 7 99 , 80 1 (8 th Cir . 20 03 ).

Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 4( b) (2 ) id en ti fie s th e pu rp os es fo r whi ch ev id en ce

of pr io r co nv ic ti on s m ay be ad m it te d, bu t m erel y reci ti ng th os e pe rm is si bl e pu rp os es

wit ho ut m or e is no t su ffi ci en t to ren de r ev id en ce of a pr io r co nv ic ti on ad m is si bl e in

an y pa rti cu la r cas e. Rat he r, whe n t he de fen da nt rai se s a ti m el y ob jecti on to

ad m is si on of th e ev id en ce, Ru le 40 4( b) req ui res a care fu l in qu iry an d an al y si s of th e

pu rp os e fo r whi ch th e e v i d e n c e is of fere d. The go ve rn m en t— as pr op on en t of th e

ev id en ce— m

us t id en ti fy th e pe rm is si bl e no n- pr op en si ty pu rp os e fo r th e e v id en ce,

an d m us t art ic ul at e th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e pr io r co nv ic ti on an d a m at eri al is su e

in th e cas e. If th e di st ric t co ur t, up on co ns id era t i o n of th e fact s of th e cas e, th e

el em en ts of pr oo f req ui red

, an d th e ci rcu m st an ces of th e pr io r co nv ic ti on , co nc lu de s

th at a pe rm is si bl e no n- pr op en si ty pu rp os e ex is ts fo r th e ev id en ce, th e co ur t m us t th en

co ns id er whe th er th e o th er re qu ire m en ts fo r ad m is si bi li ty are sa ti sf ie d. See Uni te d

St at es v. Arm st ro ng , 78 2 F.3 d 10 28

, 10 34 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 5) (h ol di ng th at ev en if

in tro du ced fo r a pr op er pu rp os e, to be ad mi s si bl e, pr io r ba d act ev id en ce m us t be

rel ev an t, su pp or te d by su ffi ci en t ev id en ce, si m il ar in ki nd an d cl os e in ti m e to th e

cri m e ch arg ed

, an d hi gh er in pr ob at iv e va lu e th an pr ejud ic ia l effe ct ). If, ho wev er, th e

co ur t co nc lu de s th at th e on ly pu rp os e fo r th e ev id en ce is to sh ow th e d e f e nd an t’s

cri m in al pro pe ns it y , Rul e 4 04 (b )(1 ) pr oh ib it s i ts ad m is si on

.

Here, th ere is reas on to be co nc ern e d th at th e ev id en ce was no t pr op erl y

ad m it te d un de r Ru le 40 4( b)

. Fo ll owi ng Co tt on ’s pr et ria l ob jecti on to th e ev id en ce,

th e go ve rn m en t ge ne ral ly as se rte d th at Co tt on ’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s were ad m is si bl e to

-4

-pr ov e “ kn owl ed ge , in te nt

, an d m ot iv e.” The di st ric t co ur t m ad e a si m il arl y ge ne ral 2

pr el im in ary ru li ng , st at in g th at th e co nv i c t io ns were rel ev an t to pr ov e “ la ck of

m is ta ke

, kn owl ed ge , id en ti ty, th os e is su es fo r whi ch 40 4( b) ev id en ce is us ed .” Thu s,

th ou gh b o t h t h e go ve rn m en t an d th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y reci te d so m e of th e

pu rp os es fo r whi ch e v i d e n c e of pr io r co nv ic ti on s may be us ed

, th e co ur t di d no t

an al yz e t h e p u r p os e fo r whi ch th e ev id en ce was be in g of fere d in th is cas e. Mer e

reci ta ti on of th e Ru le wit ho ut an acco m pa nyin g cas e-s pe ci fic an al y si s ris ks co uc hi ng

cri m in al pr op en si ty in ter m s o f kn owl ed ge , in te nt , or l ack of m is ta ke

. Ru le 40 4( b)

, by its own ter m s, re qu ire s m or e.

Nev ert he le ss , un de r t h e p a r t ic ul ar ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e, an y erro r in

ad m it ti ng th e ev id en ce of Cot to n’s pri or co nv ic ti on s was ha rm le ss . An ev id en ti ary

erro r is ha rm le ss if it di d no t su bs ta nt ia ll y in flu en ce th e jury’ s ve rd ic t. Uni te d St at es

v. Ald rid ge , 66 4 F.3 d 70 5, 71 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Er r or m ay be ha rm le ss whe re “ th e

go ve rn m en t in tro du ced am pl e co m p e t e n t e vi de nc e fro m whi ch th e jury co ul d

co nc lu de be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e de fen da nt was g ui lt y ev en wit ho ut th e

ev id en ce th at sh ou ld ha ve be en ex cl ud ed .” Id . ( qu ot in g Uni te d St at es v. Fal ls , 1 17

F.3 d 10 75

, 10 77 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )). H e re, th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t Co tt on in cl ud ed : th e

On ap pe al

, th e go ve rn m en t als o ass ert s t ha t ev id en ce o f th e co nv ic ti on s was 2

ad m is si bl e to pr ov e la ck of m is ta ke or acci de nt

. Thi s arg um en t is ba se d on Co tt on ’s

as se rti on at tri al th at hi s fin ge rp rin ts ap pe ared on a pl as ti c sh op pi ng ba g wrap pe d

a r o u n d th e co cai ne by h ap pe ns ta nc e. Howev er, Co tt on ’s a rg um en t was no t th at he
ha d a cci de nt al ly tou ch ed th e b ag wrap pi ng th e co cai ne , bu t t ha t h e h ad to uc he d t he
ba g in th e or di na ry co ur se of bu si ne ss at hi s wor kp la ce be fo re th e ba g was in vo lv ed
in th e dr ug pa ck ag in g. The g o v e r n men t ’s arg um en t th at th e pr io r co nv ic ti on s are rel ev an t as to m is ta ke or acci de nt th eref or e ul ti m at el y am ou nt s to an arg um en t th at

a pe rs on wit h pr io r dr

ug co nv ic ti on s m

us t ha ve be en in vo lv ed wit h a dr ug tra ns act io n whe n he t ou ch ed th e pl as ti c ba g, whic h is

, of co ur se , a no n- pe rm is si bl e pr op en si tyba se d us e of th e ev id en ce. W e fu rth er no te th at th e go ve rn m en t di d no t rai se th is

arg um e n t to th e di st ric t co ur t be fo re tri al in su pp or t of th e ad m is si bi li ty of th e

ev id en ce; rat he r, th e arg um en t of la ck of m is ta ke or acci de nt aro se o n l y i n c lo si ng

arg um en t.

-5

-te st im on y of Je rem y Po e, in cl ud in g Dav id Fraz ie r’s st at em en ts to Po e th at Co tt on was

hi s co cai ne su pp li er; reco rd ed co nv ers at io ns fro m Ja nu ary 17

, 20 13

, in whi ch Fraz ie r

refe rred to “ T” an d “ Torr an ce”; te st im on y fro m th e DEA ag en ts th at Co tt on arri ve d

at Ch il im ack s on Ja nu ary 18

, 20 13

, wit h a pa ck ag e un de r hi s arm ; an d Co tt on ’s

fin ge rp rin ts on th e ou ts id e w r a p p i n g of th e co cai ne fo un d in Fraz ie r’s sa fe. Thi s

ev id en ce, if gi ve n cred en ce by th e jury, is “ su ffi ci en tl y st ro ng fo r us to co nc lu de th at

th e co nv ic ti on [s ], ev en if im pr op erl y ad m it te d, di d no t ha ve ‘a su bs ta nt ia l in flu en ce

on th e jury’ s ve rd ic t.’” Uni te d St at es v. Don ne ll

, 59 6 F.3 d 91 3, 92 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Lup in o, 30 1 F.3 d 64 2, 64 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 )). Fu rth erm or e,

th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve an ap pr op ria te li m it in g in st ru ct io n st at in g th at th e ev id en ce of

Co tt on ’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s “ [was ] no t ev id en ce th at he co m m it te d su c h a c t s i n th is

cas e,” an d co ul d on ly be us ed “ to he lp [] de ci de kn owl ed ge , in te nt

, an d ab s e n c e of

m is ta ke or acci de nt .” The pr es en ce of a li m it in g in st ru ct io n “ di m in is he s th e da ng er

of an y un fai r pr ejud ic e ari si ng fro m th e ad m is si on of ot he r act s.” Ald rid ge , 66 4 F.3 d

at 71 5 (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Stro ng , 41 5 F .3d 90 2, 9 06 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) ).

W e do no t un de res ti m at e th e im pa ct ev id en ce of a pr io r c o n v i c t i on can ha ve

on a jury’ s as se ss m en t of a cri m in al cas e. The Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e li m it th e

us e of ev id en ce of pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r go od reas on

. Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4( b)

, 40 3. Bu t

he re, gi ve n th e te st im on y an d ph y si cal ev id en ce di rect ly li nk in g Co tt on to th e

di st rib ut io n of co cai ne , Co tt on is un ab le to sh ow th at in tro du ct io n of th e ev id en ce of

pr io r co nv ic ti on s ha d a su bs ta nt ia l in flu en ce on th e jury’ s ve rd ic t. Ald rid ge , 66 4 F.3 d

at 71 4. Acco rd in gl y , an y erro r as so ci at ed wit h th e ad m is si on of th e ev id en ce is no t

gr ou nd s fo r rev ers al

.

B. In tro du ct io n o f Dav id Fraz ie r’s Po st -Arres t St at em en t

At Co tt on ’s tri al

, co -co ns pi rat or Dav id Fraz ie r di d no t tes ti fy bu t Je rem y Po e

di d. The go ve rn m e n t pr es en te d Fraz ie r’s co -co ns pi rat or st at em en ts th ro ug h Po e’s

te st im on y

. Co tt on so ug ht to im pe ach Fraz ie r by in tro du ci ng a po rti on of an affi da vi t

-6

-writ te n an d at t e s te d by Fraz ie r in Ju ly 20 13

, m on th s aft er Fraz ie r’s arre st

. The

im pe a c hm en t ev id en ce was in it ia ll y li m it ed to th e fo ll owi ng st at em en t in Fraz ie r’s

affi da vi t: “ I ne ve r ha d an y dr ug i n v o l v em en t wit h Mr. Co tt on at al l

. . . .” The

g o v e rn m en t th en at te m

pt ed to reh ab il it at e Fraz ie r by ca ll in g th e po li ce of fic er w h o

in te rv ie wed Fraz ie r aft er he w as arre st ed on Ja nu ary 18

, 20 13

. The of fic er tes ti fie d

to Fr azi er’s st at em en t fo ll owi ng hi s arre st

, whi ch —co ns is te nt wit h Fraz ie r’s co

co ns pi rat or st at em en ts in tro du ced th ro ug h Po e’s te st im on y —i m pl ic at ed Co tt on as

Fraz ie r’s so ur ce of co cai ne

. On su r-i m pe ach m en t, Co tt on in tro du ced th e rem ai nd er

of Fraz ie r’s affi da vi t, in whi ch Fraz ie r ex pl ai ne d th at he m ad e th e po s t

- arre st

st at em en t to po li ce on Ja nu ary 18 on ly “ so [h e] co ul d ge t away fro m th em ” an d

ap ol og iz ed fo r “ in vo lv [in g] Mr. Co tt on in th i s s i t u a t i o n at al l.” The di st ric t co ur t

al lo wed th e in tro du ct io n o f Fraz ie r’s co -co ns pi rat or st at em en ts pu rs ua nt to Fed eral

Ru le of Evi de nc e 80 1( d) (2 )(E), an d al lo wed th e in tr o d u c ti on of th e su bs eq ue nt

im pe ach m en t an d reh ab il it at iv e ev id en ce pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 80 6.

Co tt on no w as se rts th at th e di st ric t c o u r t e rred in al lo win g th e go ve rn m en t to

in tro du ce Fraz ie r’s po st -arr es t st at em en t to reh ab il it at e th e cred ib il it y of Fraz ie r’s co

co ns pi rat or st at em en ts

.

Co tt on fir st arg ue s th at ad m is si on of Fraz ie r’s po st -arr es t st at em en t vi ol at ed

hi s rig ht s un de r th e Co n f r o n t a t io n Cl au se

. Bec au se th e st at em en t was of fere d fo r

im pe a c h men t a n d no t to pr ov e th e tru th of th e m at te r as se rte d, th ere was no

Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se vi ol at io n in th is cas e. See Uni te d St at es v. Ro dr ig ue z, 48 4 F.3 d

10 06

, 10 13 –1 4 (8t h Cir. 20 07 ); Uni te d St at es v. Keh oe , 31 0 F.3 d 57 9, 59 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 02 ).

Co tt on ne xt arg ue s th at Fraz ie r’s st at em en t was in ad m is si bl e un de r th e Ru le s

of Evi de nc e. W e be gi n by an al y zi ng th e ad m is si bi li ty of each pi ece o f e v i de nc e

of fere d in th e rel ev an t se rie s. Fi rs t, Davi d Frazi er’s co -co ns pi rat or st at em en ts were

un di sp ut ed ly ad m is si bl e as no n- he ars ay co -co ns pi rat or st at em en ts pu rs ua nt to Ru le s

40 2 an d 80 1( d) (2 )(E). Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 2 (in ge ne ral

, rel ev an t ev id en ce is ad m is si bl e);

-7

-Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 1( d ) ( 2 ) ( E) (s ta te m en ts m ad e by co -co ns pi rat or s du rin g an d in

fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy are no t he ars ay ). The pa rti es al so ag ree th at th e li m it ed

po rti on of Fraz ie r’s affi da vi t (“ I ne ve r ha d an y dr ug in vo lv em en t wit h Mr. Co tt on at

al l” ) was pr op erl y ad m it te d as im pe ach m en t ev id en ce pu rs ua nt to Ru le 80 6. Fed

. R.

Evi d. 8 0 6 ( w h e n a co -co ns pi rat or st at em en t is ad m it te d pu rs ua nt to Ru le

80 1( d) (2 )(E), “ th e de cl aran t’s cred ib il it y m ay be at ta ck ed

, an d th en su pp or te d, by an y

ev id en ce th at wou ld be ad m is si bl e fo r th os e pu rp os es if th e de cl aran t ha d te st ifi ed as

a wit ne ss

. . . . The co ur t m ay ad m it ev id en ce of th e de cl aran t’s in co ns is te nt st at em en t

or co nd uc t, re g a r d l es s of whe n it oc cu rred or whe th er th e de cl aran t ha d an

op po rtu ni ty to ex pl ai n or de ny it ”). The pr op rie ty of ad m it ti ng th es e fir st two pi eces

of ev id en ce i s n ot in co nt ro ve rs y

.

W ha t is at is su e is whe th er Fraz ie r’s po st -arr es t s t a t e m en t was ad m is si bl e as

reh ab il it at io n ev id en ce. Co tt on arg ue s th at th e o n l y Ru le of Evi de nc e th at co ul d

su pp or t ad m is si on of Fraz ie r’s po st -arr es t st at em en t i s R u le 80 1( d) (1 )(B)

. Bu t th e

di st ric t co ur t di d no t ad m it th e p os t-a rres t s ta te m en t u nd er t hi s ru le , and ne it he r th e

go ve rn m en t no r Co tt on rai se d t h e ap pl ic at io n of th is ru le to Fraz ie r’s po st -arr es t

st at em en t at tri al

. Ru le 80 1( d) (1 )(B)

, in rel ev an t pa rt, pr ov id es th at a pr io r st at em en t 3

The pa rti es sp en d a su bs ta nt ia l am ou nt of ti m e di sp ut in g whe th er th e fact th at 3

Fraz ie r’s po st -arr es t st at em en t di d no t act ua ll y pr ed at e th e st at em en ts pr es en te d as

su bs ta nt iv e ev id en ce at tri al affe ct s th e ad m is si bi li ty of th e st at em en t. Howev er, th e

req ui rem en t th at th e pr io r co ns is te nt st at em en t pr ed at e th e al le ge d m ot iv e to fab ric at e is a pr ot ect io n pr em is ed at le as t in pa rt on th e as su m pt io n th at th e p r io r co ns is te nt

st at em en t m ay be ad m it te d as su bs ta nt iv e ev id en ce. Tom e v. Uni te d St at es , 51 3 U.S.
15 0, 15 7– 58 (1 99 5)

. Mo reo ve r, th e Adv is or y Co m m it te e Not es t o Ru le 80 6

reco gn iz e th e pa rad ox crea te d whe n a de cl aran t is su bjec t to im pe ach m en t by us e of

an in co ns is te nt st at em en t, no ti ng th at in cas es w h e r e t h e de cl aran t is no t a li ve wit ne ss , “ th e in co ns is te nt st at eme n t may well be a su bs eq ue nt on e.” Fed

. R. Evi d.

80 6 adv is or y co m

m it te e’s no te to 19 72 pr op os ed ru le s. In th at ci rcu m st an ce, “ [t]he
writ ers fav or al lo win g th e su bs eq ue nt st at em en t.” Howev e r , th e no te on ly di rect ly
ad dr es se s t he us e o f pr io r in co ns is te nt st at em en ts

.

-8

-co ns is te nt wit h a de cl aran t’s te st i mo n y i s n ot he ar sa y if th e st at em en t is of

fere d to

reb ut an accu sa ti on th at th e de cl aran t fab ric at ed hi s te st im on y or act ed un de r an 4

im pr op er in flu en ce in te st ifyin g. Fr a z i e r ’s p os t-a rres t st at em en t was no t of fere d as

no n- he ars ay su bs ta nt iv e ev id e n c e

. Rat he r, th e go ve rn m en t of fere d it so le ly to

reh ab il it at e Fraz ie r aft er hi s te st im on y ha d be en im pe ach ed by th e in tro du ct io n of an

in co ns is te nt st at em en t, an d th e jury rece iv ed a li m it in g in st ru ct io n to th at effe ct

. On

it s face

, th eref

or e, Ru le 801( d) (1 )( B) do es no t ap pl y to Fraz ie r’s po st -arr es t st at em en t.

In st ead

, th e di st ric t co ur t ad m it te d th e po st -arr es t st at em en ts “ un de r Ru le 80 6

fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e of su pp or ti ng th e cred ib il it y of th e de cl aran t [Fra zi er], who se

cred ib il it y ha s be en at ta ck ed by th e de fen da nt .” Pu rs ua nt to Ru le 80 6, Fraz ie r’s

cred ib il ity w as “ at ta ck ed

, an d [co ul d] th en [b e] su pp or te d, by an y ev id en ce th at wou ld

be ad m is si bl e fo r th os e pu rp os es if [h e] ha d te st ifi ed as a wit ne ss .” Fed

. R. Evi d.

80 6. 5

The pa rti es al so m ak e m uc h of Fraz ie r’s m ot iv e to fab ric at e, each arg ui ng th at 4

Fraz ie r ha d a m ot iv e to fab ric at e di ffer en t st at em en ts fo r di ffer en t reas on s. Howev er, th e pa rti es di d no t m ak e th es e arg um en ts at tri al

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t th eref or e ha d

n o op po rtu ni ty to m ak e a fin di ng as to whe th er th ere was in fact “ an ex pr es s or im pl ie d ch arg e” of r e c e n t fab ric at io n. Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 1( d) (1 )(B) (i) ; se e Uni te d

St at es v. Hoo ve r, 54 3 F.3 d 44 8, 45 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Tha t th e pa rti es can no t ag ree on wha t m ot iv e to fab ric at e is in di sp ut e hi gh li gh ts th e im po rta nc e of rai si ng th es e is su es
to th e d is tri ct co ur t, ra th er t ha n wai ti ng to do so on ap pe al

.

Co tt on arg ue s th at th e po st -arr es t st at em en t is in ad mi s si bl e un de r Ru le 5

80 1( d) (1 )(B)

, bu t he of fers no ot he r a r g u men t fo r why it is in ad m is si bl e as reh ab il it at iv e ev id en ce pu rs ua nt to Ru le 80 6. De s p i t e t h e la ck of cl ari ty in hi s

arg um en t, th e na t u r e of hi s ch al le ng e to th e ad m is si bi li ty of th e reh ab il it at iv e

e v id en ce is es se nt ia ll y cl ear, an d we th eref or e co ns id er whe th er th e ev id en ce wa s

pr op erl y ad m it te d u nd er t he ap pl ic ab le rul e.

-9

-Use of a pr io r co ns is te nt st at e men t to reh ab il it at e th e cred ib il it y of a wit ne ss

who ha s be en im

pe ach ed by a pr io r in co ns i s t e n t st at em en t is ap pr op ria te whe n th e

st at em en t co nt e x t ua li zes , cl ari fie s, or am pl ifi es th e m ean in g of th e wit ne ss ’s

te st im on y or i nc on si st en t sta te m en t. See Hoo ve r, 54 3 F .3d at 4 53 ; Un it ed Sta te s v

. K e n yon , 39 7 F.3 d 10 71

, 10 81 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Fo r ex am pl e, a pr io r co n s i s t e n t

st at em en t m ay be ad m is si bl e to ex pl ai n to th e jury why a se em in gl y in co ns is te nt pr io r

st at em en t el ic it ed on cro ss -ex am in at io n was no t in fact in co ns is te nt a t a l l. See

Hoo ve r, 54 3 F.3 d a t 45 4. Howev er, “ it is no t pr op er to ad m it ‘all pr io r co ns is te nt

st at em en ts si m

pl y to bo ls te r th e cred ib il it y of a wit ne ss who ha s be en im pe ach ed by

pa rti cu la rs .’ ” Uni te d Stat es v. Ram os -Car ab al lo

, 37 5 F.3 d 79 7, 80 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Si m on el li

, 23 7 F.3 d 19

, 28 (1 st Ci r. 20 01 )). In ot he r wor ds

,
pr io r co ns is te nt st at em en ts are no t ad m is si bl e as reh ab il it at iv e ev id en ce to th e ex te nt

th at th ey are m erel y cu m

ul at iv e of th e te st im on y al read y pr es en te d; bu t th ey m ay be

ad m is si bl e to th e ex te nt th at th ey ex pl ai n ei th er t h e t e st im on y or th e im pe ach in g

in co ns is te nt st at em en t, an d th eref or e al lo w th e ju r y t o be tt er as se ss th e su bs ta nt iv e

ev id en ce p res en te d.

W he th er a wit ne ss m ay be pr op erl y reh ab il it at ed by th e in tro du ct io n of a pr io r

co ns is te nt st at em en t is a fact -b as ed in qu iry, an d th e de ci si on to ad m it or ex cl ud e su ch

ev id en ce is le ft to th e s o u n d d is cret io n of th e di st ric t co ur t. Ken y on , 39 7 F.3 d at

10 81

. The go ve rn m en t di d no t as s e r t t h at Fraz ie r’s affi da vi t (th e im pe ach in g

in co ns is te nt st at em en t) or co -co ns pi rat or te st im on y was m is un de rs to od or ta ke n ou t

of co nt ex t, su ch th at a pr io r co n s i st en t st at em en t m ig ht ha ve ex pl ai ne d or cl ari fie d

ei th er fo r th e be ne fit of th e jury. Yet, fo r reas on s pa rti cu la r to th is cas e, it wou ld be

di ffi cu lt to co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng th e po st

arre st st at em en t. The pr im ary reas on i s th at on su r-i m pe ach m en t, Co tt on was

pe rm it te d to in tro du ce th e en t i r e ty of Fraz ie r’s affi da vi t, whi ch in cl ud ed bo th th e

im pe ach in g in co ns is te nt st at em en t an d an ex pl anat io n of why he ha d no t be en tru th fu l

in hi s po st -arr es t st at em en t. The jury th eref or e ha d be fo re it 1) Fraz ie r’s su bs ta nt iv e

-1 0-te st im on y , i nt ro du ced as co -co ns pi rat or st at em en ts th ro ug h Po e; 2) th e im pe ach in g

in co ns is te nt st at em en t in Fraz ie r’s affi da vi t; 3) Fraz ie r’s Ja nu ary 18 st at em en t to

po li ce, whi ch was co ns is te nt wit h th e su bs ta nt iv e te st im on y ; an d 4) Fraz ie r’s

e x pl an at io n of hi s Ja nu ary 18 st at em en t, co nt ai ne d in th e ba la nc e of hi s affi da v i t

. Tho ug h th is is an un us ua l p a t t e rn fo r th e in tro du ct io n of su ch ev id en ce, th e ba si c

ou tc om e was th at th e jury was ab le to co ns id er th e su bs ta nt iv e ev id en ce, as well as

th e co nt ex t of pr io r co ns is te nt an d in co n s i s t e n t st at em en ts th at bo re on th e tru th of

th at ev id en ce. The di st ric t co ur t ga ve a li m it in g in st ru ct io n— to whi ch ne it he r pa rty

ob jecte d— be fo re th e ev id en c e was ad m it te d, in st ru ct in g th e jury on th e li m it ed

pu rp os es fo r whi ch it co ul d co ns id er th e ev id en ce. Mo reo ve r, whe n th e go ve rn m en t

was pr es en ti ng th e po st -arr es t st at em en t vi a th e te st im on y of th e arre st in g ag en t, th e

di st ric t co ur t su a sp on te rai se d th e co nc ern th at cert ai n qu es ti on s wen t be y on d th e

pr op er sc op e of th e te st im on y , an d su st ai ne d Co tt on ’s ob jecti on on th at gr ou nd

. The

di st ric t c o u rt’s care fu l at te nt io n to th e ad m is si on of th e reh ab il it at io n ev id en ce

pr es en te d su pp or ts th e c o n c lu si on th at th e co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in

ad m it ti ng al l of th e pr of

fere d ev id en ce fo r bo th p a rti es reg ard in g th e cred ib il it y of

Fraz ie r’s co -co ns pi rat or

st at em en ts

.

W e al so no te th at Co tt on was pe rm it te d to in tro du ce al l th e ev id en ce he so ug ht

to in tro du ce on th is is su e. Onl y be cau se th e po st -arr es t st at em en t was ad m it te d was

Co tt on al lo wed to in tro du ce Fraz ie r’s fu ll affi da vi t, whi ch os te ns ib ly ex cu lp at ed

Co tt on of an y dr ug -rel at ed in vo lv em en t wit h Fraz ie r. Fu rth erm o r e , Fraz ie r’s po st

arre st st at em en t was no t su bs ta nt iv el y di ffer en t or si gn ifi can tl y m or e ha rm fu l th an th e

st at em en ts or ig in al ly ad m it te d th ro ug h Po e’s te st im on y as co -co ns pi rat or st at em en ts

,

m ak in g it un li ke ly th at th e st at em en t ha d an y pr ejud ic ia l effe ct

. Cf. Ken y on , 39 7 F.3 d

at 10 82

. Und er th es e so m ewh at co m pl ex an d un us u a l c i rcu m st an ces , th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in al lo win g th e po st -arr es t st at em en t to be ad m it te d.

-1 1-C. Brad y Evi de nc e

Afte r Je rem y Po e was arre st ed on Ja nu ary 14

, 20 13

, he id en ti fie d Cot to n i n a ph ot og rap h sh own to hi m by DEA ag en ts

. At tri al

, th e g o v e r nm en t in tro du ced a ph ot og rap h of Co tt on in to ev id en ce as Gov ern m en t’s Exh ib it 1. Sev eral go ve rn m en t

wit ne ss es , i nc lu di ng Po e, were sh o wn Exh ib it 1 an d id en ti fie d it as th e ph ot og rap h

th at ha d be en sh own to Po e in or de r to id en ti fy Co tt on in Ja nu ary 2 0 1 3

. H o w ev er,

th e ph ot og rap h sh own at tri al (Exh ib it 1) h a d b e e n ta ke n on Nov em be r 1, 20 13

. Co tt on as se rts th a t t h e go ve rn m en t su pp res se d th e earl ie r ph ot og rap h— th e on e

act ua ll y sh own to Po e in Jan ua ry 20 13 —i n v io la ti on of h is Brad y rig ht s.

A Brad y vi ol at io n oc cu r s w h e n th e go ve rn m en t su pp res se s ev id en ce th at is

fa v o r a b l e t o a de fen da nt an d is m at eri al as to ei th er gu il t or pu ni sh m en t. Brad y v.

Mar y la nd

, 37 3 U.S. 83

, 87 (1 96 3)

. Fo r ev id en ce to be m at eri al as to gu il t, th ere m us t

be a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t

ha d th e ev id en ce been di sc lo se d. Yo un gb lo od v. West Virg in ia , 54 7 U.S. 8 67 , 87 0
(2 00 6) (p er cu ria m ). Here, th e di st ric t co ur t c o n c l u de d th at th ere was no Brad y

vi ol at io n b ecau se

th e ev id en ce was no t m at eri al

. Po e’s id en ti fic at io n of Defen da nt Co tt on

was no t cen tra l to th e ev id e n c e i n t h i s c as e

. . . . Mo reo ve r, th e cas e

ag en ts an d Po e were fu ll y cro ss -ex am in ed an d im pe ach ed at tri al on th e is su e of Gov ern m en t Exh ib it 1. At m os t, t h i s e vi de nc e wou ld be

cu m ul at iv e im

pe ach m en t ev id en ce.

W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t. Th e r e is no reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e

res ul t of th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e be en di ffer en t ha d th e earl ie r ph ot og rap h be en

di sc lo se d to Co tt on

. Acco rd in gl y , th ere was no Brad y vi ol at io n as so ci at ed wit h th e

go ve rn m en t’s fai lu re to di sc lo se th e ph ot og rap h, an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e

it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g C ot to n’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l.

-1 2-III. Co nc lu si on

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d c on cu rri ng in th e jud gm en t.

I co nc ur in al l bu t Part s II.A an d III of th e co ur t’s op in i o n. In m y vi ew, th e

di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng ev id en ce of Torr an ce Co tt on ’s

pr io r co nv ic ti on s, an d I do no t joi n th e co ur t’s di ct a co nc ern in g th e ap pl ic at io n of

Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 04 (b ).

Ru le 40 4( b) pr ov id es th at ev id en ce of a cri m e, su ch as a pr io r co nv ic ti on , m ay

be ad m is si bl e fo r se ve ral en um erat ed pu rp os es

. Co tt on h a d su st ai ne d pr io r

co nv ic ti on s fo r po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e co cai ne an d at te m pt ed tra ffi ck in g

in dr ug s. The di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at th es e pr io r co nv i c ti on s were ad m is si bl e to

pr ov e “ kn owl ed ge , in te nt

, an d ab se nc e of m is ta ke or acci de nt .” The se are am on g th e

pu rp os es en um erat ed in th e ru le

. The di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at Ru le 40 4( b) “ is a

ru le of in cl us io n,” th at th ere was “ su ffi ci en t t em po ral pr ox im it y ” to ad m it th e pr io r

co nv ic ti on s, th at th e pr io r co nv ic ti on s were “ pa rti cu la rly rel ev an t, beca us e th e dr ug

in vo lv ed is co cai ne ,” an d th at th e co ur t wou ld gi ve “ a li m it in g in st ru ct io n to th e jury

to try to li m it an y pr ejud ic e th at th ere m ig ht be

, be cau se it is im po rta nt to ba la nc e th e

pr ob at iv e v al ue wit h t he pre jud ic e.” R. Do c. 71 3, at 24 -2 5.

In th is cas e , Co tt on was ch arg ed wit h co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e co cai ne an d

po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e co cai ne

. The co ns pi racy ch arg e req ui red pr oo f

th at Co tt on vo lu nt ari ly and in te nt io na ll y joi ne d a n a gr eem en t, and th at he kn ew th e

pu rp os e of th e ag reem en t. On th e su bs ta nt iv e co un t, th e go ve rn m en t was req ui red to

pr ov e th at Co tt on kn ew th at wha t he po ss es se d was co cai ne , as op po se d to so m e ot he r

-1 3-su bs ta nc e, an d th at he in te nd ed to di st rib ut e th e co cai ne , r at he r th an us e it

, s t o r e it

,

or ot he rwis e di sp os e of it

. Co tt on ’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s were rel ev an t on th e is su es of

kn owl ed ge or in te nt

. It was m or e p r o b a b l e wit h th e ev id en ce of pr io r co nv ic ti on s

th an wit ho ut it

, fo r ex am pl e, th at Co tt on kn ew th e s u b s ta nc e he po ss es se d was

co cai ne an d th at he in te nd ed to di st rib ut e it

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Cr ow de r , 14 1 F.3 d

12 02 , 12 09 (D.C. Cir . 19 98 ) (en ba nc ). The ev id en ce of pr io r co nv ic ti on s l ik ewis e

m ad e it m or e pr o b a b l e th at Co tt on kn ew th at he joi ne d a co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e

co cai ne an d di d no t pa rti ci pa te un wit ti ng ly. Uni te d St at es v. Rob in so n , 80 9 F.3 d 99 1,

99 7- 98 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6) ; Uni te d S ta te s v. Br ow n , 95 6 F .2d 78 2, 7 87 (8t h C ir. 1 99 2)

.

In a dr ug tra ffi ck in g pr os ecu ti on , ev id en ce of a pr io r dr ug co nv ic ti on is ne arl y

al way s rel ev an t to sh ow a de fen da nt ’s kn owl ed ge or in te nt in co m m it ti ng th e ch arg ed

of fen se

. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Arms tr on g , 78 2 F.3 d 10 28

, 10 34 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 );

Uni te d St at es v. Hor to n , 75 6 F.3 d 56 9, 57 9- 80 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ); Uni te d St at es v. Gip so n , 4 46 F. 3 d 82 8, 83 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ); Uni te d St at es v. Fra zi er , 2 80 F.3 d 83 5,

84 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ); Uni te d St at es v. W il li ams , 89 5 F.2 d 12 02

, 12 05 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ).

Adm is si on of pr io r co nv ic ti on s to pr ov e ab se nc e of m is ta ke in a dr ug cas e is pe rh ap s

le ss co m m on , bu t it is al so su pp or te d by ci rcu it pr eced en t. Uni te d St at es v. Ell is

, No.

15 -2 24 3, 20 16 W L 10 77 13 1, at *7 (8 th Ci r. Mar

. 18

, 20 16 ) (“ Ell is ’s pr io r co nv ic ti on

w a s fo r de li ve rin g he ro in —t he ve ry dr ug he was ch arg ed wit h di st rib ut in g in th i s

cas e, whi ch m ad e th e pr io r co nv ic ti on pa rti cu la rly rel ev an t to kn owl ed ge , in te nt

, an d

ab se nc e o f m is ta ke .”); Uni te d S ta te s v. McGil be rr y , 62 0 F .3d 88 0, 8 86 -8 7 (8 th Cir

. 20 10 ); Uni te d St at es v. Sh of fn er , 71 F.3 d 14 29

, 14 32 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (“ Sh of fn er’s

pr io r in vo lv em en t in m ari juan a de al in g a ls o t en ds to pr ov e m ot iv e, kn owl ed ge , an d

ab se nc e of m is ta ke to reb ut Sh of fn er’s cl ai m th at he was m erel y pr es en t an d un aware

of th e co ns pi racy.”). The di st ric t co ur t he re ga ve a cau ti on ary in st ru ct io n to th e jury,

ex pl ai ni ng th e li m it ed pu rp os es fo r whi ch th e ev id en ce of pr io r co nv i c t i o ns was

rece iv ed

. Thi s in st ru ct io n “ di m in is he [d ] th e da ng er of an y un fai r pr ejud ic e ari si ng

fro m th e ad m is si on of ot he r act s.” Uni te d St at es v. Fra nk li n , 25 0 F.3 d 65 3, 65 9 (8 th

-1 4-Ci r. 20 01 ). The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in c o n c l u d in g th at th e

pr ob at iv e va lu e was no t su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by a da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e. Se e
Fed . R . Ev id . 4 03 ; Ell is , 2 01 6 WL 1 0 7 7 1 3 1, at *7 ; Uni te d St at es v. Hal k , 6 34 F.3 d

48 2, 4 88 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

The co ur t do es no t co nc lu de th at th ere was erro r, bu t se es a “ reas on to be

co nc ern ed ,” be cau se “ Ru le 40 4( b)

, by it s own te rm s, req ui res m or e” ex pl an at io n fo r

ad m is si bi li ty th an wha t th e go ve rn m en t an d th e di st ric t co ur t pr ov id ed

. Ant e , at 4- 5.

Not so

. The te rm s of th e ru le sp eak on ly to th e pu rp os es fo r whi ch ev id en ce is

ad m is si bl e; th ey do no t ad dr es s wha t th e pr os ecu ti on or th e di st ric t co ur t m us t sp eci fy

on th e reco rd

. Our de ci si on s en co ur ag e th e go ve rn m en t an d t h e d is tri ct co ur t to

art ic ul at e a th eo ry of ad m is si bi li ty to faci li ta te ap pe ll at e rev ie w, bu t even whe re th e

go ve rn m en t si m

pl y read s a li st of is su es f o r whi ch pr io r ba d act s can be ad m it te d

un de r R ul e 40 4( b)

, th at “ is no t in it se lf a ba si s fo r rev ers al .” Uni te d St at es v.

Mot he rs he d

, 85 9 F.2 d 58 5, 58 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ). The rev ie win g co ur t m us t ex am in e

th e m at eri al is su es fro m th e tri al an d de te rm in e whe t h er th e ev id en ce of pr io r

co nv ic ti on s was rel ev an t fo r th e p ur po se s s pe ci fie d. Id

.

The ev id en ce at is su e he re was cl earl y rel ev an t to th e li m it ed is su es on whi ch

it was ad m it te d— kn owl ed ge , in te nt

, an d ab se nc e of m is ta k e

. W e ha ve sa id be fo re

i n th e co nt ex t of Ru le 40 4( b) th at “ [j] ud ge s ne ed no t ex pl ai n th e ob v i o u s , e v e n

br ie fly.” Uni te d St at es v. Bur k

, 91 2 F.2 d 22 5, 22 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. A s in Bur k

, “ th e pr os ecu ti on m ad e cl ear en ou gh th e pu rp os e fo r

whi ch it wis he d to el ic it th e ev id en ce,” an d “ fu rth er exp la na ti on fro m th e co ur t was

un ne ces sa ry .” Id

. Lik ewis e, “ th e fact or s up on whi ch th e pr ob at iv e va lu e/ pr ejud ic e

ev al ua ti on were m ad e are read il y ap pa ren t fro m th e reco rd

, an d th ere is no su bs ta nt ia l

un cert ai nt y ab ou t th e co rrec tn es s of th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng .” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d)

.

-1 5-The ev id en ce of Co tt on ’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s was pr op erl y ad m it te d. The di st ric t

co ur t m ay ha ve erre d by no t su st ai ni ng Co tt on ’s ob jecti on to th e go ve rn m en t’s

cl os in g arg um en t th at th e pr io r co nv ic ti on s te nd ed to pr ov e th e ab se nc e of a “ co sm ic

acci de nt ,” be cau se th e arg um en t di d no t ad dr es s a tru e “ acci de nt ,” se e an te

, at 5 n.2

, bu t I a gr ee wi th th e co ur t t ha t an y erro r in th at res pe ct was h arm le ss

.

Fo r th es e rea so ns , I co nc ur in th e jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-1 6-