### F ILE D U 

### . .S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J anuar y 18 , 200 5 TH OM AS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 2- 12 92 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 00 02 8- CR-0 1- 2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CARL M. DRURY, J R., M.D., Doc to r, 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 fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J an ua ry 18 , 20 05 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d ALARCÓN , Cir cu itJu dg es . * MARC US, Cir cu itJu dg e:

Honora ble Arthur L
. Alarc ón, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by * designation.Thi s ca se co m es be fo re u s fo r a s eco ndti m e aft er thi s C ou rt, s it ti ng enba nc ,

va cat edanearl ie r op in io n o f th is pa ne l, Un it edSta te s v . Drury, 344 F.3d10 89 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) , andgra nt edreh eari ng enba nc , see Uni te d S ta te s v . Drury, 358 F.3 d 1 28 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) , andth ensubs eque nt ly vacat edth e g ran t o f enba nc reh eari ng inli gh t o f a co ng res si on al am en dm en t t o the st atut e atis su e inth e cas e, rem an di ng th e m at te r to th is pa ne l fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Drury , __ _ F .3d__ _ (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4)
. Drury ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r vi ol at in g the fed eral m ur de r-fo r-h ire st atut e, 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 8, an d fo r po ss es si ng a fi rearm inco nn ect io n wi th a cri m e of vi ol en ce, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c). Dru ry co nt en ds th atth e juri sd ic ti on al ele m en t o f § 1 95 8( a) i s p ro pe rly int erp ret edas r equi rin g t he go ve rn m en t t o p ro ve th athe us edth e te le ph on e inin te rs ta te co m m erce to co m

m it
m ur de r-fo r-h ire , andth atitfai le d t o d o s o a t tria l. Inad di ti on , Drury argu es th at th e tr ia l co urt co m

m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r by (1) i ns tru ct in g t he jury th ata pa y ph on e o r a cel lu la r ph on e is a “ faci li ty in i nt ers ta te co m m erce ” as a m atte r of

law; (2 ) de nyin g h im

th e o pp ortu ni ty to i nt ro du ce ev id en ce o f hi s ch arac te r fo r tru th fu ln es s; (3) ex cl ud in g t es ti m on y fro m hi s s on reg ard in g apri orco ns is te nt st at em en t Dru ry

all eg ed ly m ad e aft er h is arre st ; an d (4 ) de cl in in g t o g iv e two jury in st ru ct io ns he reque st ed
. 2Afte r th or ou ghrev ie w, we con cl ud e th atth e ev id en ce p res en te d was

su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li shth e juri sd ic ti on al ele m en t o f § 1 95 8( a) u nd er an y read in g o f th atpro vi si on an d, the refo re, we n eedno t d et erm in e whe th er Dru ry ’s in te rp ret at io n i s co rrec t. Mo reo ve r, we ho ldth atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o rev ers ib le erro r as to it s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s o r it s ju ry in st ru ct io ns . Accor di ng ly, we AFFIR M. I. A. Dr. Drury ’s sch em e to pro cu re the m ur de r of hi s wi fe, Ma ry

Drury , was ap pa ren tl y

setin to m ot io n wh enDrury in vi te d h is fri en d S te ve n What le y to st ay in hi s h om e aft er What le y

sep arat edfro m

hi s wi fe i n M arch20 01 . Wha tl ey , an Age ntof t he Bu reauof Al co ho l, To ba cco , andFir earm s (“ ATF”) i n B ru ns wick , Geo rg ia , res id edwith Dru ry in te rm it te nt ly for s ev eral m on th s. Du rin g t hi s t im e, Drury co m pl ai ne d b it te rly andfreque nt ly abo uthi s wi fe, t el li ng Wha tl ey th athe
ne ed ed“ so m e rel ie f” fro m he r, an d t ha t “ sh e n eed edto go .” Drury ev en tu al ly
m ad e h is pu rp os e cl ear, t el li ng Wha tl ey th at“ Mary

ha s g otto di e” an d “ Mary ha s go t t o g o,” an d i ns is ti ng th at“ itha d t o l oo k l ik e anacci de nt .” Ult im at el y , Drury
as ke d What le y

if h e wou ldki ll Mary Drury orfin d s om eo ne els e to do so .

3Wha tl ey rep orte d t hi s co nv ers at io n t o h is supe rv is orat t he Fed eral Law Enfo rcem en t Trai ni ng Cen te r, who pu t What le y into uc h wi th ATF Agen ts Jo hn Lim ba chan d Lo ui s Val oz e. The a ge nt s p ro vi de d What le y with Val oz e’s
un de rco ve r cel lu la r te le ph on e num be r, an d i ns tru ct edhi m

to gi ve Drury

th e nu m be r if he ap pr oa ch edWha tl ey

ag ai n abo utm

ur de rin g h is wife . Whe n Dru ry di d s o, What le y

ga ve hi m Agen t Val oz e’s ph on e num be r, with i ts lo cal So ut h Geo rg iaareaco de
. Drury pl aceda to ta l o f fo urcal ls to Agen t Val oz e’s cel lu la r ph on e. All fou r were m ad e fro m

pa y ph on es inBru ns wick , Geor gi a, an d b ot h Dru ry an d Val oz e were p hysic al ly loc at edwithi n t he st at e o f Geo rg iaat a ll ti m es durin g t he fou r te le ph on e co nv ers at io ns . Drury firs t ca ll edAgen t Val oz e o n Au gu st7, 2 00 1, an d
arra ng edto m eethi m

at alo cal res taur an t the ne xtda y . At th atm eet in g, Drury fo rm ul at eda pl anwith Val oz e to pro cu re the m ur de r of Mary Drury. Valo ze t ol d Drury th athe requi reda gu n a nda fee o f $2 ,00 0. Drury pro vi de d Val oz e wit h de ta il edin fo rm at io n abo uthi s wi fe an d h er h ab it s, i nc lu di ng he r pl ace o f
em pl oym en t, h er wo rksch edul e, an d t he type o f carsh e dro ve . Drury stre ss edth at

“ [i]t ju stne ed s t o b e anacci de nt .” He to ldValo ze tha t h e wou ldcal l h im ag ai n i n a few d ay s.

4Drury pl acedhi s s eco ndcal l t o Val oz e’s cel lu la r ph on e o n Au gu st9, 2 00 1. Dur in g t hi s co nv ers at io n, Dru ry pro vi de d Val oz e wit h M ary Drury ’s li cen se pl at e nu m be r. Drury

als o n eg ot ia te d the fee fo r th e m ur de r do wn t o $ 75 0. On Au gu st15 , 20 01 , Drury pla ceda th irdcal l t o Ag en t Val oz e’s cel lu la r ph on e. He arra ng edto m eetValo ze at9: 00 p.m . onAug us t 2 0, 2 00 1, o ut si de a res taur an t i n Dar ie n, Geo rg ia . At th atm eet in g, Dru ry pro vi de d Val oz e with a n un lo ad ed.38 cal ib er h an dg un an d -- aft er fu rth er n eg ot ia ti ng th e fee -- $ 25 0 a s pa ym en t fo r th e m

ur de r. Drury

to ldValo ze tha t h e wan te d t o wai t t o s ee i f hi s wife wou ldsi gn th ei r di vo rce p ap ers , andif s o, h e wan te d Val oz e o nl y “ to fol lo w he r” t o fi ndou t wh ethe r sh e was see in g a no th er m an . If sh e ref us edto si gn th e pape rs , Drury sai d, “ we’ll g o a he ad .” Drury an d t he pu ta ti ve hi t-man ag reedto sp eakag ai n a t the en d o f th e week
. Drury pl ace h is fou rth an d fi na l ca ll to Agen t Val oz e’s cel lu la r ph on e o n Aug us t 2 4, 2 00 1. Du rin g t hi s ca ll , Drury inf orm edValo ze tha t h is wife ha d n ot si gn edth e p ap ers , andth atValo ze s ho ul d p ro ceedwith t he m ur de r as pl an ne d. Drury advi se d Val oz e th athi s wi fe was dri vi ng ba ckfro m he r si st er’s h om e in
no rth ernGeor gi a, an d t ha t h e “ co ul d . . . cat chhe r on th e way ba ck , it ’ll b e a g oo d, go odti m e.” Drury

to ldValo ze, “ y outh e m an ,” to whi chValo ze re sp on de d, “ al l

5rig htDoc I ’m go nn a d o t hi s t hi ng .” Fo ll owi ng th is fin al co nv ers at io n, ATF ag en ts
arre st edDrury . At Dru ry ’s tri al , th e g ov ern m en t i ntro du cedev id en ce re ga rd in g t he pa th s tra ve le d b y

th e te le ph on e si gn al s t ha t fa ci li ta te d t he cal ls be twee n Dru ry an d Age ntValo ze. A rep res en ta ti ve of B el lS ou th Tele co m m un ic at io ns , th e co m

pa ny th atservi cedth e p ay

ph on es Drury

us edto co nt actValo ze, t es ti fie d t ha t al l ca ll s fro m th e te le ph on es Drury

us edare ro ut edto a swi tc hi ng cen te r in Bru ns wick , Geo rg ia , fro m

wher e th ey

are ro ut edto th ei r in te nd edde st in at io n, wh ethe r lo cal , in te rs ta te , or i nt ern at io na l. The si gn al fro m a pu rel y lo cal cal l wo ul d n otlea ve Geo rg ia , bu t i n t he cas e o f a cal l t o acel lu lar ph on e, itm ig ht . A repre se nt at iv e o f Voi ceStream

W ire le ss , th e co m

pa ny tha t s erv ic edAgen t Val oz e’s cel lu lar ph on e, th entes ti fie d t ha t Dru ry ’s cal ls to Valo ze’s p ho ne all tra ve le d t hr ou gh a Voi ceStream

swi tc hi ng cen te r in Jac ks on vi ll e, Fl or id a, be fo re b ei ng rou te d b ackto Age ntValo ze’s ce ll ul ar p ho ne inGeor gi a. Drury ’s bas ic de fen se at t ria l was th atth e who le m ur de r-fo r-h ire sch em e was m erel y

anATF rol e-p la y in g e xe rci se . He tes ti fie d t ha t h e n ev er s po ke to Wha tl ey ab ou t k il li ng hi s wi fe, b utm erel y ab ou t h is co nc ernth atsh e was ha vi ng anaffa ir a ndhi s d es ire to hi re a p riv at e in ve st ig at or . Drury clai m edth atWha tl ey th enin fo rm edhi m

th atDrury

co ul d p art ic ip at e in anATF trai ni ng pro gr am ,

6whe reb y

he wou ldpre te ndto see k am ur de r-fo r-h ire , andATF age nt s wo ul d p la ce Mary Drury un de r su rv ei ll an ce an d p ro vi de Drury with ade ta il edwrit te n re po rt o f th ei r fi nd in gs . Drury den ie d e ve r actua ll y in te nd in g t o h av e h is wife ki ll ed , and st at edth athi s $ 25 0 p aym en t t o Ag en t Val oz e was si m pl y rei m bu rs em en t fo r th e su rv ei ll an ce. To s up po rt h is rol e-p lay in g e xp la na ti on , Drury no te d tha t the pu rp orte d

“ tri gg er” f

or pro ceed in g wi th th e m

ur de r of Mary Drury -- h er re fu sa l t o s ig n di vo rce p ap ers -- was , infact , a fal si fic at io n; th e co up le ha d n o p la ns to di vo rce. Mrs . Drury’ s t es ti m on y

at t ria l co rro bo rat edhe r hu sb an d’s cl ai m th atth e co up le ha d n ev er d is cu ss eddi vo rce. What le y , inhi s t ria l t es ti m on y , den ie d e ve r di sc us si ng or e ng ag in g i n ro le pl ay with Dru ry . Drury, in turn, ca ll edtwo ch arac te r wit ne ss es , Ted Tu rn er an d J os ep h B rid ge rs , who att es te d t o What le y ’s rep ut at io n fo r un tru th fu ln es s. Drury als o a tt em

pt edto in tro du ce h is so n Do n’s t es ti m on y th atDrury

ha d to ldhi m ab ou t the rol e-p la y in g e xe rci se whi le si tt in g i n apo li ce v eh ic le sh ortl y aft er h is arre st . The g ov ern m en t o bjec te d, ar gu in g t ha t the tes ti m on y was in adm is si bl e b ecau se Drury ha d am ot iv e to fab ric at e th e st ory aft er h is arre st , si nc e h e h adno t t ol d anyon e ab ou t the rol e p lay be fo reh an d. Th e d is tri ctco urt
ex cl ud edDon ’s tes ti m on y . 7Drury als o s ou gh t t o i nt ro du ce t es ti m on y ab ou t h is ch arac te r fo r tru th fu ln es s, u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of Ev id en ce 6 08 . The g ov ern m en t o bjec te d, arg ui ng th atRu le 60 8 was in ap pl ic ab le si nc e itha d que st io ne d o nl y Drury ’s cred ib il it y

ge ne ral ly, no t h is ch arac te r fo r trut hf ul ne ss . The d is tri ctco urt ru le d t he te st im on y in adm is si bl e. Inad di ti on , Drury subm it te d, p rio r to tri al , two pro po se d ju ry in st ru ct io ns -- on e p ert ai ni ng to th e rel iabi li ty of go ve rn m en t i nv es ti ga ti on s, an d t he ot he r to witne ss ’ rep ut at io ns fortru th fu ln es s. Th e tr ia l co urt g av e n ei th er o f th e reque st ed in st ru ct io ns . Howev er, the tri al co urt p ro vi de d t he jury with i ts own in st ru ct io ns on witne ss cred ib il ity , bo th be fo re an d a fte r tr ia l. The tri al co urt al so in st ru ct ed th e jury tha t “pa y

ph on es an d c el lu la r ph on es are ‘faci li ti es inin te rs ta te co m m erce ’
un de r fed eral law.” Dru ry ob jecte d t o t hi s ch arg e an d t o the di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l to gi ve hi s re qu es te d i ns tru ct io ns . B. A jury co nv ic te d Dru ry

of p lo tt in g am

ur de r-fo r-h ire invi ol at io n o f Tit le 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 8, an d o f th e rel at edoff en se of p os se ss in g afir earm inco nn ect io n with acri m e o f vi ol en ce, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c). At the ti m e o f Drury ’s con vi ct io n, § 19 58 pro vi de d:

8§ 1 95 8. Us e o f in te rs ta te co m m erce faci li ti es inth e co m m is si on of m

ur de r-fo r-h ire (a) Who ev er trav el s i n o r cau se s an othe r (i nc lu di ng th e in te nd edvi ct im ) to trave l i n i nt ers ta te or f or ei gn co m

m erce , or u se s o r cau se s an ot he r (i nc lu di ng th e in te nd edvi ct im) to us e th e m ai l o r an y faci li ty in i nt ers ta te or f

or ei gnco m

m erce , with i nt en t tha t a m ur de r be co m m it te d i n v io la ti on of t he laws of a ny Stat e o r th e Uni te d S ta te s as co ns id erat io n fo r th e rec ei ptof, o r as co ns id erat io n fo r a p ro m is e o r ag reem en t t o p ay , anyth in g o f pe cu ni ary va lu e, orwho co ns pi res to do so , sh al l b e fi ne d u nd er thi s t it le or i m pr is on edforno t m or e th an te n years, o r bo th ; an d i f pe rs on al in jury resu lt s, s ha ll be fin edun de r th is ti tl e o r im

pr is on edforno t m or e th antwen ty y ears , or b oth; an d i f de ath re su lt s, s ha ll be pu ni sh edby death o r li fe i m pr is on m en t, o r sh al l be fin edno t m or e th an$2 50 ,00 0, o r bo th
. (b ) As u se d i n thi s s ect io n a ndsec ti on 19 59
-- (1 ) “ an yth in g o f pe cu ni ary va lu e” m ean s an yth in g o f va lu e in th e fo rm of m on ey , a ne go ti ab le in st ru m en t, a co m m erci al in te res t, o r an yth in g e ls e th e p rimary si gn ifi can ce o f whi chis eco no m ic adva nt ag e; (2 ) “ faci li ty of in te rs ta te co m m erce ” in cl ud es m ean s o f tra ns po rta ti on an d c omm un ic at io n; an d (3 ) “ St at e” i nc lu de s a S ta te of t he Uni te d S ta te s, the Dis tri ctof Co lu m bi a, an d a ny comm on weal th , territ ory , or p os se ss io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s. 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 8 (2 00 0)
. 1
Section 1958 was orig inally enac ted as part of the Interstate Trave l in Aid of Racke teering 1 Statute (“ T ra v el Act”) , codified at Title 18 U.S.C. § 1952. The Trave l Act, in its orig inal form, established fede ral jurisdiction over org anized crime and rac ketee ring offe nses having a nexus with interstate c ommerce , but did not specifically include murde r-f

or-hire within its scope. The orig inal T ra v el Act, entitled “Interstate and fore ign trave l or transportation in aid of 9The di stric t co urt s en te nc edDrury to 20 4 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. He t im el y ap pe al edto th is Co urt.

rac ketee ring offe ns es , ” established penalties for anyone who “travels in interstate or fore ign commerc e or uses any fac ility or fore ign commerc e, including the mail, with intent to (1) distribute the proce eds of any unlawful in interstate activity ; or (2) commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity .” 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) (1961). The statute provided that “[a]s used in this section ‘unlawf ul activity ’ means (1) any business enterp ri se involving g ambling, liquor on which the Fe dera l excise tax has not been paid, narc otics, or prosti tution offe nses i n violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of the United States, or (2) extorti on or bribery in violation of the law s of the State in which c ommitt ed or of the United States.” I d. § 1952(b). In 1984, as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, Congr ess amende d the Trave l Act to include the offe nse of murder- for- hire. Congr ess added to the statute § 1952A, whose languag e was ne arly

identical to that of the c urre nt § 1958. Section 1952A, as orig inally enac ted, provided: (a) Whoever trave ls in or cause s another (including the intended victim) to trave l in interstate or

fore ign c ommerce , or uses or c auses a nother (including the intended victim) to use the mail or any fac ility in interstate or fore ign commerc e, with in t en t t h at a murder be committed in violation of the laws of any State or the United States as consideration for the rec eipt of, or as consideration for a promise or

agree ment to pay , any

thing of pecunia ry value, sha ll be fined . . . . (b) As use d in this section and section 1952B (1) “ any thing of pecunia ry value” means a

ny thing of value in the form of money , a neg otiable instrument, a commerc ial interest, or any thing else t h e primary signific ance of which is ec onomic advanta g e; and (2) “fa cility of interstate commerc e” inclu d es m eans of transportation and communication. 18 U.S.C. § 1952A (1984). Severa l year s later, as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Congr ess remove d § 1952A from the Trave l Act, ree nacting it in virtually identical terms as a separ ate statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1958. Since 1988, C o n gress has made sever al slight modifications to § 1958, but the statute befor e the Court today is substantively the same as the one Congr ess orig inally appende d to the Trave l Act in 1984 and re cast in 1988 as § 1958. 10C.

Thi s p an el in it ia ll y

affi rm edDrury ’s con vi ct io ns . Uni te d S ta te s v . Drury, 34 4 F .3d10 89 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). By a di vi de d v ot e, th e p an el he ldth at§ 1 95 8( a)
crea te s fe de ral juri sd ic ti on on ly whe n am ur de r-fo r-h ire sch em e u se s i n i nt ers ta te
co m m erce a faci li ty suc h a s the tel ep ho ne . Id. at11 04 . Accor di ng ly, th e p an el
co nc lu de d t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinin stru ct in g t he jury th atpa y ph on es an d cel lu lar ph on es are p er s e fac il it ie s i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce , bu t i t fo un d t hi s erro r to be ha rm le ss , inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce tha t the cel lu la r ph on e si gn al actua ll y tra ve le d fr om

Geor gi a in to Flo rid a, be fo re b ou nc in g b ackin to Geor gi a, eac h t im e Drury cal le d Ag en t Val oz e. Id . at 1 10 6. Th e in te rs ta te pa th of t he ph on e si gn al s, th e p an el he ld , con st itut edsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s at is fy § 1 95 8( a)’s juri sd ic ti on al
ne xu s, an d t hu s t o s up po rt Dru ry ’s con vi ct io n. Id . at 1 10 4- 05
. The p an el als o un an im ou sl y

he ldth atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o re ve rs ib le erro r in pr oh ib it in g Dru ry

fro m in tro du ci ng ev id en ce o f hi s ch arac te r fo r trut hf ul ne ss , id
. at11 10 ; i n re fu si ng to adm ittes ti m on y fro m Drury ’s so n re ga rd in g apri or co ns is te ntst at em en t m ad e b y Drury aft er h is arre st , id . at 1 10 8- 09 ; o r in de nyin g Drury ’s reque stforcert ai n ju ry in st ru ct io ns reg ard in g wi tn es s cr ed ib il it y an d l aw en fo rcem en t i nv es ti ga ti ve tec hn ique s, i d. at11 09 -1 0.

11On Fe brua ry 3, 2 00 4, thi s C ou rt v acat edth e p an el op in io n anddi rect edth at th e cas e b e h eardenba nc . Uni te d S ta te s v . Drury, 358 F.3d12 80 (11 thCir . 20 04 ) (enba nc ). W e g ran te d re he ari ng enba nc to co ns id er the im po rta ntqu es ti onof whe th er a p ur el y

in tra st at e u se of afaci li ty of in te rs ta te co m m erce (th e te le hp ho ne ) sa ti sf

ie s t he juri sd ic ti on al requi rem en t o f § 1 95 8( a). Not ab ly, aft er the gra ntof e n b an c reh eari ng , Con gr es s amend ed§ 1 95 8 t o res ol ve pre ci se ly tha t que st io n, wh ic h h adbe enth e subjec t o f so m e in te rp ret iv e di sa gr eem en t am on g t he co urts of app eal s. Th e Si xt h C irc ui t, i n Un it edSta te s v . W eat he rs , 16 9 F .3d33 6 (6 th Cir . 19 99 ), in te rp ret edth e p hr as e “ [w]hoe ve r . . . use s . . . any faci li ty in i nt ers ta te . . . co m m erce ” as requi rin g t ha t the rel ev an t fa ci li ty actua ll y be us edinin te rs ta te co m m erce . In c on tra st , th e Fi fth Cir cu it , inUni te d

2 St at es v. Ma rek , 23 8 F .3d31 0 (5 th Cir . 20 01 ), in te rp ret edth atlan gu ag e as co ve rin g a ny use -- in tra - orin te rs ta te -- o f anin te rs ta te co m m erce faci li ty. The Sev en th Cir cu it , inUni te d S ta te s v . Ric he so n, 3 38 F.3d65 3 (7 th Cir . 20 03 ), si mil arl y read§ 1 95 8's juri sd ic ti on al lan gu ag e as “ requi r[i ng ] th atth e fac il it y , and
no t i ts us e, be inin te rs ta te or f or ei gn co m

m erce .” Id . at 6 60
.

It bear s noting, howeve r, that the Six th Circuit subsequently disavowed t he rea soning of 2 W ea t h er s and limit ed its holding to the fac ts of that case , adopting instead the Fifth Circuit’s construction of the statute in Mare k. See United States v. Cope, 312 F.3d 757, 771 (6th Cir. 2002). 12The pri nc ip al so ur ce o f th e co urts ’ in te rp ret iv e d iff ic ul ty w it h § 19 58
se em edto be th e m is m at chbe twee n t he juri sd ic ti on al sec ti on ’s us e o f th e p hr as e

“ faci li ty in i nt ers ta te . . . co m m erce ,” se e § 19 58 (a), an d t he de fin it io na l s ect io n’s
us e o f th e si mil ar b utno t i de nt ic al ph ras e “ faci li ty of in te rs ta te co m m erce ,” se e § 19 58 (b )(2 ) (p ro vi di ng th at“ ‘facil it y of i nt ers ta te co m

m erce ’ in cl ud es m ean s o f tra ns po rta ti on an d c omm un ic at io n” ), co up le d wi thth e p os si bi li ty of read in g “ in in te rs ta te . . . co m

m erce ” as m od ifyin g t he imm ed ia te ly prece di ng no un “ faci li ty”
orth e m or e rem ot e v erb “us es .” See, e.g ., W eat he rs , 16 9 F .3dat 3 40 ; M arek , 23 8 F.3 d a t 3 13
. Inth e ti m e si nc e th es e cas es were d eci de d, an d s in ce thi s p an el is su edit s or ig in al op in io n i n thi s ca se , Con gr es s h as am en de d § 19 58 to eli min at e p reci se ly th es e p ro bl em s, m ak in g t he st atut e’s juri sd ic ti on al reac h c ry st al cle ar. As p artof th e In te ll ig en ce Re fo rm

an d Terro ris m

Prev en ti on Act o f 20 04 , whi chpa ss edth e Hou se of R ep res en ta ti ve s Dec em be r 7 a ndth e Sen at e Dece m be r 8, a ndwas s ig ne d in to law b y

th e Pre si de nton Decem

be r 17 , Con gr es s amend ed18 U.S.C. § 1 95 8 t o ch an ge th e p hr as e “ faci li ty in” to “ faci li ty of.” The am en dm en t p ro vi de s: Sect io n 1 95 8 o f ti tl e 1 8, Un it edSta te s C od e, is am en de d-
- (1 ) in subs ect io n (a ), by stri ki ng “ faci li ty in” an d i ns ert in g “ faci li ty of”; an d

13(2 ) in subs ect io n (b )(2 ), by ins ert in g “ orfor ei gn ” aft er

“ in te rs ta te ”. In te ll ig en ce Re fo rm

an d Terro ris m

Prev en ti on Act o f 20 04 , § 6 70 4, Pub. L. No. 10 8- 45 8, 1 18 Sta t. 3 63 8. Thu s, the ne w ver si on of § 19 58 read s, “ Who ev er . . . us es . . . an y faci li ty of in te rs ta te or f

or ei gn co m

m erce . . . .” Thi s amendm en t m ak es ab so lu te ly clearth at § 1 95 8 e st ab li sh es fed eral juri sd ic ti onwhen ev er an y “ faci li ty of in te rs ta te
co m m erce ” is us edinth e co m m is si on of am

ur de r-fo r-h ire off

en se , reg ard le ss of whe th er the us e is in te rs ta te inna tu re (i .e. th e te le ph on e cal l was be twee n s ta te s)
orpu rel y in tra st at e in na tu re (i .e. th e te le ph on e cal l was m ad e to an ot he r te le ph on e withi n t he same sta te ). Bec au se th is am en dm en t o bv ia te s fo r al l fu tu re co nv ic ti on s u nd er § 19 58 th e p reci se qu es ti on of s ta tu to ry co ns tru ct io n tha t we g ran te d re he ari ng enbanc to
res ol ve , we det erm in edth atth e cas e n o l on ge r m eri te d e n b an c co ns id erat io n. Th e fu ll Co urt thu s v acat edth e o rd er g ran ti ng reh eari ng enba nc , andrefe rredth e cas e ba ckto th is pa ne l fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n. Un it edSta te s v . Drury, ___F.3d__ __ (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4)
. The op in io n we i ss ue to da y ad dr es se s Dru ry ’s cha ll en ge s t o h is co nv ic ti on un de r th e p rev io us ve rs io n o f § 1 95 8 wi th ou t re so lv in g a ny bro ad er que st io n o f

14st atut ory

co ns tru ct io n, s in ce Dru ry ’s ownco nv ic ti onst an ds un de r ei th er o f th e co m pe ti ng in te rp ret at io ns of § 19 58 (a). Onreco ns id erat io n, we o nc e ag ai n fi nd th atth e unc on tro ve rte d e vi de nc e th atDrury , inarra ng in g fo r th e m ur de r of hi s wife , us eda te le ph on e o n fo ursep arat e o ccas io ns to pl ace c al ls th atactua ll y cro ss edanin te rs ta te bo rd er, i s s uf fic ie ntto supp ort h is co nv ic ti on reg ard le ss of ho w we read§ 1 95 8( a)’s juri sd ic ti on al lan gu ag e. Inad di ti on , we aga in co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o re ve rs ib le erro r init s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s o r it s in st ru ct io ns to th e jury. W e th eref or e AFFIR M Dru ry ’s con vi ct io ns . II. A. Drury fir starg ue s t ha t the go ve rn m en t o ffer edin su ffi ci en t ev id en ce attri al to est ab li sh th e h e u se d afaci li ty in i nt ers ta te co m m erce , as h e al le ge s i s re qu ire d by § 19 58 (a). Dru ry

do es no t d is pu te th e g ov ern m en t’s ex pe rt t es ti m on y th ateach of th e fo urcal ls he pl acedto Agen t Val oz e’s cel lu la r ph on e was rou te d fr om Geo rg iath ro ug h Vo ic eStream ’s Jac ks on vi ll e, Fl or id a swi tc hi ng cen te r, an d the n

15ba ckin to Geor gi a, bu t h e n ev erthe le ss co nt en ds th atth es e in te rs ta te co nt act s d o 3
no t s at is fy

§ 1 95 8( a)’s juri sd ic ti on al requi rem en t. The go ve rn m en t ar gu es th at§ 1 95 8( a) re qu ire s o nl y pro of th atDrury

us eda faci li ty tha t, b as edon it s i nt ers ta te cap ab il it ie s ra th er tha n a ctua l i nt ers ta te us e, qu al ifi es in he ren tl y

as a“ faci li ty in i nt ers ta te co m m erce .” Alt ern at iv el y , th e go ve rn m en t co nt en ds th atev enif t he st atut e requi res th ata faci li ty actu al ly be
us edinin te rs ta te co m

m erce , th e ro ut in g o f Dru ry ’s cal ls fro m Geor gi a th ro ug h Fl or id a fu ll y

sat is fie s t hi s re qu ire m en t. Whe th er the re i s s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce t o s up po rt aco nv ic ti on is a qu es ti on of la w, whi chwe rev ie w de n ov o. Un it edSta te s v . Tarko ff, 2 42 F.3d99 1, 9 93 (11 th Ci r. 20 01 ). “ W e wil l af

firm a jury’ s v erd ic t i f a rea so nabl e tr ie r of factco ul d
co nc lu de th atth e ev id en ce es tabl is he s g ui ltbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t. In de te rm in in g asu ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce cl ai m , we vi ew th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t
m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, wi th all reas on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces m ad e in th e g ov ern m en t’s fa vo r.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Mil es , 29 0 F .3d13 41 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. Drury does, howeve r, mistakenly ref er t o the telephone signa l as a radio signa l. This is 3 incorre ct. Prior to rea ching the cellular tower closest to the targ et user’ s cellular phone, a telephone signa l sent from a land line trave ls entirely through terre strial means. It is only afte r t h at call has been switched by the cellular provider to the c ellular towe r closest to the targ et subscribe r that the signa l passes via ra dio signa ls. 16Inev al ua ti ng Drury ’s su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce cl ai m , we do no t d eci de whe th er § 19 58 (a) a ctua ll y requi res th ata faci li ty be u se d i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce , si nc e itsu ffi ces he re t o o bs erv e th atun co nt ro ve rte d e vi de nc e es tabl is he s t ha t the rel ev an t fa ci li ty (the tel ep ho ne ) was so us ed . Drury argu es th atth e in te rs ta te
ro ut in g o f th e fo urtel ep ho ne cal ls he pl acedfro m Geor gi a p ay

ph on es to Agen t Valo ze’s Geo rg iacel lu la r ph on e is in ad equa te to est ab li shth athe us edth e te le ph on e in in te rs ta te co m m erce , si nc e a “ si gn al sen t uni nt en ti on al ly and in adve rte nt ly acros s s ta te li ne s” is a “ te nu ou s an d i ns uf fic ie nt ” co nt act . This arg um en t i s u np ers ua si ve . Drury po in ts to no th in g i n t he st atut e, an d we c anfin d n othi ng th atsu gg es ts th e te le ph on e’s us e in in te rs ta te co m m erce m us t b e kno win g o r in te nt io na l. We
se e n o re as on th atun in te nt io na l u se inin te rs ta te co m m erce wou ldno t qua li fy

as us e in in te rs ta te co m

m erce , andth is Cir cu it ’s pre ced en t s ug ge st s t ha t the re i s n on e. InUni te d S ta te s v . Davi la , 59 2 F .2d12 61 (5t h C ir. 1 97 9) , th e fo rm er Fi fth Cir cu it 4 he ldth atth e “pu rel y

in ci de nt al ” in te rs ta te rou ti ng of aW es te rnUni on wire tra ns fer s at is fie d t he in te rs ta te co m m erce requi rem en t o f th e fed eral wire frau d st atut e, 18 U.S.C. § 1 84 3. InDavi la , fun ds trans ferr edbe twee n t wo b an ks lo cat ed

The Eleventh Circuit has adopted as prec edent the decisions of the former Fifth C i rc uit 4 rende red prior to October 1, 1981. Bonne r v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981). 17in th e st at e o f Tex as were, u nb ekno wns t t o t he de fen da nt , rou te d t hr ou gh th e st at e

of Virg in ia . In s pi te of t he factth atth e in te rs ta te rou ti ng was wh ol ly inc id en ta l t o th e wir e fraudoff

en se s wi th whi chth e d efen da ntwas c ha rg ed , th e Co urt re jecte d th e d efen da nt ’s arg um en t tha t the in te rs ta te ne xu s was “ to o m in im al an d in ci de nt al ” to sat is fy

th e st atut e’s juri sd ic ti on al ele m en t, re as on in g t ha t the wire tra ns fers “ were es se nt ia l” to carry in g o utth e o ffen se s ch arg ed , “ an d t he y wentof
ne ces si ty on i nt ers ta te faci li ti es .” Id . at 1 26 4. The in te rs ta te rou ti ng of Dru ry ’s wil lfu l ca ll s t o Ag en t Val oz e was si m il arl y ne ces sa ry forth ei r co m

pl et io n, an d the cal ls th em se lv es were es se nt ia l i n faci li ta ti ng th e m

ur de r-fo r-h ire pl ot . The ca ll s wer e n otacci de nt al ly or in ci de nt al ly pla ced , bu t ra th er were m ad e kno win gl y to furth er a s ch em e to
co m m itm ur de r-fo r-h ire . Accor di ng ly, whe th er Dru ry kn ew orin te nd edth atth ey wou ldtra ve l ac ro ss st at e li ne s i s i m m at eri al . This si tu at io n i s n o d iff eren t tha n i f Age ntValo ze h adhi m se lf b eenlo cat edinFlo rid a whe n h e rec ei ve d Dru ry ’s cal ls to hi s ce ll ul ar p ho ne -- Dru ry m ig htno t h av e h adan y

in te nt io n o f pl aci ng anou tof -s ta te cal l, b utun do ub te dl y he wou ldha ve do ne so . Tha t Dru ry

di d i n fa ctus e th e te le ph on e in in te rs ta te co m m erce to faci li ta te
m ur de r-fo r-h ire ful ly establ is he s t he juri sd ic ti on al ele m en t o f § 1 95 8( a). W e, th eref or e, co nc lu de th atth e g ov ern m en t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce attri al fora 18reas on ab le jury to have “ fo un d t he ess en ti al ele m en ts of t he cri m e b ey on d a

reas on ab le do ub t,” Tarko ff, 2 42 F.3dat 9 93 , andwe rejectDrury ’s su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce cl ai m . B. Drury ne xtarg ue s t ha t, re ga rd le ss of wh ethe r th e g ov ern m en t p res en te d
su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o e st ab li sh th e requi si te juri sd ic ti on al ne xu s, the di st ric t co urt
erre d i n i ns tru ct in g t he jury th at“pa y tel ep ho ne s an d c el lu la r te le ph on es are ‘facil it ie s i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce ’ un de r fed eral law.” Th is in st ru ct io n, Dru ry co nt en ds , vi ol at edhi s ri gh t t o h av e a jury de ci de whet he r he “ is gu il ty of ev ery el em en t o f th e cri m e wit h wh ic h h e is ch arg ed , beyon d areas on ab le do ub t,” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gaud in , 51 5 U.S. 5 06 , 51 0, 1 15 S. Ct. 2 31 0, 1 32 L. Ed. 2d44 4 (1 99 5) (ci ta ti on om it te d) , by rem ov in g fr om th e jury’ s co ns id erat io n a n e ss en ti al el em en t o f a § 19 58 vi ol at io n: th e in te rs ta te ne xu s. The pro pr ie ty of th e tr ia l co urt’s jury in st ru ct io n i s a que st io n o f la w, whi ch
we rev ie w de n ov o. Un it edSta te s v . Leon ard , 13 8 F .3d90 6, 9 08 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). The juri sd ic ti on al requi rem en t o f § 1 95 8( a) i s a s ub st an ti ve ele m en t o f th e of fen se of m

ur de r-fo r-h ire . See Un it edSta te s v . Tin oc o, 3 04 F.3d10 88 , 11 05 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (ob se rv in g t ha t the id en ti cal ly w or de d ju ris di ct io na l re qu ire m en t of § 1 95 8's pre de ces so r st atut e, th e Trav el Act, “ is a subs ta nt iv e el em en t o f Trav el 19Act o ffen se s t ha t m us t b e d eci de d b y

a jury”). Drury, th eref

or e, ha s a co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto ha ve a jury det erm in e whe th er the requi rem en t i s s at is fie d. See Gau di n, 5 15 U.S. at 5 22 -2 3 (“ The Co ns ti tu ti on gi ve s a c riminal de fen da ntth e rig htto ha ve a jury det erm in e, be y on d areas on ab le do ub t, h is gu il t o f ev ery el em en t o f th e cri m e wit h wh ic h h e is ch arg ed .”); id . at 5 13 (ob se rv in g tha t the re is a “ hi st or ic al an d c on st itut io na ll y gu aran te edrig htof c riminal de fen da nt s t o de m an d t ha t the jury de ci de gu il t o r in no cen ce o n e ve ry is su e, whi chin cl ud es ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w to th e fac ts ”). Howev er, we n eedno t d eci de whet he r th e tr ia l ju dg e’s in st ru ct io n t ha t te le ph on es are “ faci li ti es inin te rs ta te co m m erce ” v io la te d Dru ry ’s rig htto a jury de te rm in at io n o f ev ery el em en t o f th e ch arg edoff en se , si nc e th e in st ru ct io ns are subjec t t o h arm le ss erro r rev ie w. As th e Supr em e Co urt o bs erv edinCh ap m anv. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 1 8, 2 2, 8 7 S . Ct. 8 24 , 17 L. Ed. 2d70 5 (1 96 7) , “ th ere m ay be
so m e co ns ti tu ti on al erro rs whi chinth e se tt in g o f a p art ic ul ar ca se are s o un im po rta ntan d i ns ig ni fic an t tha t the y m ay , con si st en t wi th th e Fed eral Co ns ti tu ti on , be d eem edha rm le ss , no t re qu iri ng th e au to m at ic rev ers al of t he
co nv ic ti on .” Pla in ly, a jury ins tru ct io n t ha t o m it s an ele m en t o f th e ch arg ed of fen se -- th e err orDrury

all eg es he re -- i s s ub

ject t o h arm le ss erro r an al y si s. See Ned er v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 27 U.S. 1, 9 , 11 9 S . Ct. 1 82 7, 1 44 L. Ed. 2d35 (19 99 ) 20(“ [A]n in st ru ct io n t ha t o m it s an ele m en t o f th e o ffen se do es no t n eces sa ril y ren de r a cri m in al tri al fun da m en ta ll y un fai r oranun rel iabl e v eh ic le forde te rm in in g g ui lt
orin no cen ce.”) ; Ro ss v. Un it edSta te s, 2 89 F.3d67 7, 6 81 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). The ap pr op ria te in qu iry is “ whe th er i t ap pe ars ‘ be y on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t the
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.’” Ned er, 5 27 U.S. at15 (qu ot in g C hapm an , 38 6 U.S. at24 ). Here, i t i s cl ear b ey on d re as on ab le do ub t tha t i ns tru ct in g t he jury th at te le ph on es are “ faci li ti es inco m m erce ” d idno t co nt rib ut e to th ei r ren de rin g o f a gu il ty verd ic t. At t ria l, the go ve rn m en t p res en te d c le ar an d u nc on tra di ct ed
ev id en ce tha t al l fo urtel ep ho ne cal ls Drury pl acedto Agen t Val oz e tr av el edfro m Geo rg iain to Flo rid a, an d t he n b ackin to Geor gi a. Drury di d n otdi sp ut e th is
ev id en ce attri al , no r do es he ch al le ng e iton ap pe al . Sin ce the factua l fo un da ti on fo r th e juri sd ic ti on al co m po ne ntof § 19 58 (a) i s u nc on te st ed , we can no t co nc lu de th atDrury ’s con st itut io na l ri gh ts were i m pa ire d b y th e ch al le ng edjury in st ru ct io n, ev enif i t was im

pr op erl y gi ve n. We hav e n o re as on ab le do ub t tha t the jury wou ld ha ve reac he d t he same resu ltwith o r wit ho utth atin stru ct io n, an d t hu s co nc lu de th atev enif t he di st ric t co urt’s i ns tru ct io n o n § 19 58 (a)’s jur is di ct io na l el em en t
was erro ne ou s, an y

su cherro r was ha rm le ss .

C. 21Drury ne xtch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s ex cl us io n o f ev id en ce o f hi s tru th fu l ch arac te r. Drury cla im s t ha t the go ve rn m en t at ta ck edhi s cr ed ib il it y at tri al , ent it li ng hi m

to in tro du ce re habi li ta ti ve ev id en ce p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 6 08 (a)( 2) . Rul e 6 08 (a)( 2) pro vi de s t ha t “ ev id en ce o f trut hf ul ch arac te r is adm is si bl e o nl y

aft er the ch arac te r of

th e wit ne ss for

tru th fu ln es s h as be en at ta ck edby opi ni onor r ep ut at io n e vi de nc e o r ot he rwis e.” Drury do es no t s ug ge stth atth e g ov ern m en t p res en te d a ny op in io n o r rep ut at io n e vi de nc e ab ou t h is ch arac te r, bu t ar gu es th athi s ch arac te r was

“ ot he rwis e” at ta ck ed . He offe rs as t he ba si s fo r th is co nt en ti on a se rie s o f
sc at te redqu es ti on s as ke d b y th e p ro se cu to r du rin g c ro ss -ex am in at io n o f Dru ry . 5 Am on g the ex am

pl es of wh atDrury

cit es as t he pro se cu ti on ’s “ cred ib il it y -la de n qu es ti on s” are the se : “ Are y outel li ng us th aty outo ldanarre st in g o ffi cer t ha t you
wan te d t o m ak e a s ta te m en t an d h e wou ldn’t l ety ou ? ”; “ Are y ousayin g t ha t h e hu sh edy ouup ? ”; “ Is th atwhaty ouwantth is jury to be li ev e? ”; “ Youdo n’t thi nk th e o ffi cer h adan y

reas on to th in k t ha t you wer e try in g t o o fferhi m a br ib e? ”; an d
Drury also contends that the g overnme nt displa ye d it s in tention to attack his char acte r during 5 a sidebar conferenc e with the trial judge , when the prosec utor stated: “This is not a collater al materia l, he has made char acte r an issue in his defe nse.” Drury takes this statement entirely out of context. In rea lity , the quot ed st atement was ref erring not to Drury ’s “chara cter for truthfulness,” but to the “ ch ar ac t er o f t he relationship” betwee n himself and W hatley , as i s made clear from the p ro s ec u t o r’ s immediately prec eding statement, that “this defe ndant has made it a linchpin of his defe nse that his relationship with Mr. Whatley was of a particula r cha rac ter.” 22“ Is th atwhaty ouare t el li ng us ? ” Bas edon th es e an d s ev eral ot he r rem ark s o f

si mil ar t en or , Drury so ug htto in tro du ce t es ti m on y fro m si x wi tn es se s p rep aredto at te stto hi s t ru th fu l ch arac te r. W e rev ie w a tri al co urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r a cl ear abu se of d is cret io n. Tin oc o, 3 04 F.3dat 1 11 9. “ The ap pl ic at io n o f anab us e-o f-d is cret io n re vi ew reco gn iz es th e ran ge of p os si bl e co nc lu si on s t he tri al jud ge m ay reac h.” Uni te d St at es v. Fra zi er, 3 87 F.3d12 44 , 12 59 (11 thCir . 20 04 ) (en banc ). “ By de fin it io n . . . un de r th e ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ardof r ev ie w th ere wi ll be oc cas io ns in whi chwe affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt ev enth ou gh we wou ldha ve go ne th e o th er way ha d i t b een ou r cal l. Tha t i s h ow an ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd arddi ffer s fr om a de
no vo st an da rdof r ev ie w. As we ha ve st at edpre vi ou sl y , th e ab us e o f di sc ret io n st an da rdall ows ‘ a ran ge of c ho ic e fo r th e d is tri ctco urt, s o l on g a s t ha t ch oi ce d oe s no t co ns ti tu te a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t.’” Id. (quo ti ng Ras bu ry v. I.R.S . (Inre Ras bu ry ), 24 F.3d15 9, 1 68 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (ci ta ti on s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) ; s ee al so Kernv. TXO Pro d. Co rp ., 73 8 F .2d96 8, 9 71 (8t h C ir. 19 84 ) (“ The ve ry

co nc ep t o f di sc ret io n p res up po se s a z on e o f ch oi ce wi th in whi ch th e tr ia l co urts m ay

go eit he r way .”). “ Thu s, wh enem pl oyin g an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard , we m us t af firm un le ss we fin d t ha t the di st ric t co urt ha s m ad e a cl ear e rro r of

jud gm en t, o r ha s ap pl ie d t he wron g l eg al st an da rd .” Id
.

23Evi de nt ia ry erro rs “ do no t co ns ti tu te gro un ds forrev ers al un le ss th ere i s a reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth ey affe ct edth e d efen dant ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts ; wh ere anerro r ha d n o s ub st an ti al in flu en ce o n t he ou tc om e, an d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce un in fect edby errorsupp orts th e v erd ic t, re ve rs al is no t warran te d.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Hawk in s, 9 05 F.2d14 89 , 14 93 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). “ The tri al jud ge is gi ve n b ro ad di sc ret io n i n ru li ng on th e adm is si bi li ty of ch arac te r te st im on y .” Uni te d S ta te s v . So lo m on , 68 6 F .2d86 3, 8 74 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). Afte r car efu l re vi ew of

th e p ert in en t ex ch an ge s b etweenth e g ov ern m en t’s
co un se l an d Dru ry , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n in ex cl ud in g t he pro ffer edtes ti m on y . As we ha ve pre vi ou sl y ob se rv ed , un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 6 08 (a)( 2) , “ ev id en ce o f a wit ne ss ’ tru th fu l ch arac te r is adm is si bl e o nl y

aft er [h is ] ch arac te r fo r trut hf ul ne ss ha s b een att ack ed .” Uni te d St at es v. Hi lt on , 77 2 F .2d78 3, 7 86 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). An “ at ta ck ” th atco ns is ts
on ly of “ Gov ern m en t co un se l p oi nt in g o utin co ns is te nc ie s i n t es ti m on y an d arg ui ng th atth e acc us ed ’s tes ti m on y is no t cr ed ib le do es no t co ns ti tu te anatt ack
on th e acc us ed ’s rep ut at io n fo r trut hf ul ne ss withi n t he m ean in g o f Ru le 60 8.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Dane hy, 680 F.2d13 11 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). Howev er, tha t i s pr eci se ly the so rt o f “ at ta ck ” Dru ry cla im s t he pro se cu ti on to have lau nc he d dur in g it s cr os s- ex am in at io n. Be cau se su chanatt ackis in su ffi ci en t t o aut ho riz e 24reh ab il it at io n u nd er Ru le 60 8, we h av e li tt le tro ub le co nc lu di ng th atth e d is tri ct

co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng Drury ’s pro ffer edrep ut at io n- fo rtru th fu ln es s t es ti m on y . D. Drury ’s nex t ch al le ng e is to th e tr ia l co urt’s ex cl us io n o f te st im on y co nc ern in g apri orco ns is te ntst at em en t Dru ry all eg ed ly m ad e to hi s s on , Don
. Drury ’s so n wo ul d h av e te st ifi edth atDrury to ldhi m imm ed ia te ly after h is arre st th athe ha d b een pa rti ci pa ti ng ina ro le -p lay in g e xe rci se with Ag en t Val oz e. Drury arg ue s t ha t h is so n’s t es ti m on y was a dm is si bl e o n t wo g ro un ds . Firs t, h e cl ai m s i t
was adm is si bl e to reh ab il it at e h is cred ib il it y , whi chhe says th e p ro se cu ti on im pe ach edoncro ss -ex am in at io n b y in si nu at in g t ha t h e h adfab ric at edth e ro le
pl ay in g s to ry . Spe ci fic al ly, Drury cit es th e que st io n, “ Is th atwher e y ougo t the id ea t o c la im

th aty oube li ev edth is was a ll rol e p la y in g? ” as a pr os ecu to ria l at ta ck
on hi s cr ed ib il it y . Seco nd , Drury argu es th athi s s on ’s tes ti m on y is adm is si bl e un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 8 01 (d )(1 )(B) , as apri orst at em en t “ co ns is te ntwith th e d ecl aran t’s t es ti m on y an d . . . off

eredto reb utanex pr es s o r im pl ie d c harg e

25ag ai ns t the de cl aran t o f rec en t fabr ic at io n o r im pr op er i nf

lu en ce o r m ot iv e.” Fed
. R. Evi d. 8 01 (d )(1 )(B) . Bot h a rg um en ts are u nava il in g. 6 As t o Dru ry ’s firs t ar gu m en t, we fi ndag ai n t ha t h is cred ib il ity was n ot at ta ck ed . Drury argu es th at“ [a] pri or co ns is te ntst at em en t m ay be us edfor reh ab il it at io n wh enth e st at em en t h as a pr ob at iv e fo rce b eari ng on cred ib il it y be y on d m erel y

sh owi ng rep et it io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Pie rre, 7 81 F.2d32 9, 3 33 (2 d C ir. 1 98 6) . This m ay well be tru e, bu t i t d oe s n otch an ge th e fac t tha t Fe de ral Ru le of Ev id en ce 6 08 pe rm it s re habi li ta ti ve ev id en ce o nl y when a witne ss ’s rep ut at io n fo r trut hf

ul ne ss ha s ac tu al ly been att ack ed . See Fed . R. Evi d. 6 08 (a)( 2)
. As we o bs erv edpre vi ou sl y , th e p ro se cu ti on ’s qu es ti on in g t he ve raci ty of th e accu se d’s t es ti m on y

an d c al li ng att en ti on to in co ns is te nc ie s t he rei n d oe s n ot
co ns ti tu te anatt ackon th e acc us ed ’s rep ut at io n fo r trut hf ul ne ss pe rm it ti ng reh ab il it at iv e te st im on y . See Dan eh y , 68 0 F .2dat 1 31 4. Ag ai n, Drury ha s p oi nt ed to no th in g b uta few cro ss -ex am in at io n que st io ns to supp ort h is cla im th atth e pr os ecu ti on att ack edhi s ch arac te r fo r trut hf ul ne ss . Drury makes the additional claim that the trial court improperly ruled that Fe dera l Rule of 6 Evidence 613 barr ed Don Drury ’s testimony
. Howeve r, Drury has taken the trial court’s ref ere nce t o Ru l e 613 completely out of context. Rule 613(b) g overns admissibili ty of prior inconsist en t statements, see Fe d. R. Evid. 613(b), and acc ording ly the trial co u rt applied it in deter mining the admissibili ty of alleg ed prior inconsistent statements by Mr. Whatley , who serve d as a trial witness. The trial court did not, howeve r, cite Rule 613 as a ground for excluding Don Drury ’s testimony , and thus we do not addre ss Appellant Drury ’s argument that the trial court erroneously applied that rule. 26Mo reo ve r, an d p erh ap s m or e si gn ifi can t, p rio r co ns is te ntst at em en ts are

tre at edas a dm is si bl e n on -h ears ay on ly if th ey

are o ffer edto reb uta sp eci fic al le ga ti on of r ecen t fabr ic at io n, n otto reh ab il it at e cre di bi li ty tha t h as be en ge ne ral ly call edin to qu es ti on . See To m e v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 13 U.S. 15 0, 1 57 , 11 5 S. Ct . 69 6, 1 30 L. Ed. 2d57 4 (1 99 5) (“ The Ru le s d o n otacco rdth is weig ht y , no nh ears ay

st atus to all pri orco ns is te ntst at em en ts . To th e co nt rary, adm is si bi li ty
un de r th e Ru le s i s co nf

in edto th os e st at em en ts off eredto reb uta ch arg e o f ‘recen t fab ric at io n o r im

pr op er i nf

lu en ce o r m ot iv e’ . . . .” (qu ot in g F ed . R. Evi d. 80 1( d) (1 )(B) ). The Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e p erfe ct ly clearth at“ [p ]rior
co ns is te ntst at em en ts m ay no t b e ad m it te d t o c ou nt er al l fo rm s o f im pe ach m en t o r to bo ls te r th e wit ne ss m erel y be cau se sh e h as be endi sc red it ed .” Id . Accor di ng ly, th e tr ia l co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n ru li ng Don Drury ’s tes ti m on y in adm is si bl e to reh ab il it at e App el la ntDrury ’s cred ib il it y . As t o Dru ry ’s sec on d a rg um en t, we fi ndth atth e tr ia l co urt co m m it te d n o ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n d ecl in in g t o a dm itDon Drury ’s tes ti m on y as apri or co ns is te ntst at em en t. “ A di st ric t co urt i s g ran te d b ro addi sc ret io n i n d et erm in in g th e ad m is si bi li ty of a p rio r co ns is te ntst at em en t und er Fe d. R. Ev id . 80 1( d) (1 )(B)
an d wi ll no t b e rev ers edab se nta cl ear s ho win g o f ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Pri et o, 2 32 F.3d81 6, 8 19 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Of parti cu la r im po rta nc e 27he re, “ whe th er a wi tn es s h ada m ot iv e to fab ric at e whe n apri orco ns is te nt

st at em en t was m ad e is a factua l que st io n p ro pe rly deci de d b y th e d is tri ctco urt an d
subjec t t o re ve rs al on ly for a cl ear abu se of d is cret io n.” Id. at82 2. A pri orco ns is te ntst at em en t i s ad m is si bl e o nl y if i t was “ m ad e b efo re the al le ge d i nf

lu en ce, o r m ot iv e to fab ric at e, aro se .” Tom e, 51 3 U.S. at15 8. Dru ry , ho wev er, cl ai m s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y ap pl y in g a

“ te m po ral li tm us tes t,” u nd er wh ic h t he factth atDrury ’s st at em en t t o h is so n was m ad e p os t-a rres t re nd ereditin adm is si bl e, on th e th eo ry th athi s arres t g av e Dru ry a m ot iv e to fab ric at e. InUni te d S ta te s v . Prie to , th is Co urt d ecl in edto ad op t a

“br ig htli ne rul e th atm ot iv e to fab ric at e n eces sa ril y an d aut om at ic al ly atta ch es up on arre st .” Pri et o, 2 32 F.3dat 8 22 . Howev er, the reco rddo es no t s ho w th atth e tri al co urt ap pl ie d s uc h arul e in th is cas e. Infact , th e tr ia l ju dg e ex cl ud edth e st at em en t b ecau se he fou ndth at“ th e co nd it io ns est ab li sh edby [Unit edSta te s v . Tom e] of ad m is si bi li ty of su cha st at em en t h av e n otbe enest ab li sh edhe re.” Altho ug h m or e sp eci fic fin di ng s o n t hi s s ub ject wo ul d h av e eas edou r in qu iry, the
reco rdpro vi de s ample s up po rt f orth e tr ia l co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Dru ry , subs eque ntto hi s arres t, h adm ot iv e an d o pp ortu ni ty to fabr ic at e th e st ory he to ld hi s s on . Accor di ng ly, we ho ldth atth e tr ia l co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n ru li ng th e st at em en t i na dm is si bl e. 28E.

Drury ’s fin al ch al le ng e is to th e tr ia l co urt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e h is two reque st edjury in st ru ct io ns . The fi rs t p ro po se d i ns tru ct io n, co nc ern in g g ov ern m en t in ve st ig at io ns , read :

I in st ru cty outh aty oum ay co ns id er s uc h e vi de nc e, in cl ud in g im pr op er i nv es ti ga ti ve tec hn ique s, i n e va lu at in g the cred ib il it y of t he go ve rn m en t wi tn es se s. In ot he r wor ds , an i nv es ti ga ti on th atis th or ou ghan d c on du ct edingo odfai th m ay lea d t o m or e cre di bl e ev id en ce tha n a n i nv es ti ga ti on th atis in co m pl et e, ne gl ig en t, o r co nduc te d i n b adfai th . In d eci di ng th e cre di bi li ty of la w enf or cem en t witne ss es , y oum ay

co ns id er wh ethe r th e in ve st ig at io n was co nduc te d acco rd in g t o p ro pe r pr ot oc ol an d was co m pl et e. I fu rth er i ns tru cty outh atif t he go ve rn m en t i m pr op erl y , or in ad equa te ly inv es ti ga te d o ne asp ectof t hi s ca se , y oum ay in fer t ha t th e g ov ern m en t i na de qu at el y , or i m pr op erl y in ve st ig at edot he r as pe ct s o f th e cas e, as well . Bas edon th is in fere nc e al on e, y oum ay di sb el ie ve cert ai n g ov ern m en t wi tn es se s. Drury ’s sec on d p ro po se d ju ry in st ru ct io n was Elev en th Cir cu itPat te rnJury In st ru ct io n (C riminal Cas es ), Bas ic Ins tru ct io n 6 .7, at30 (W es t 1 99 7) , whi ch read s: The re m ay

als o b e ev id en ce t en di ng to sh ow tha t a wi tn es s h as a b adrep ut at io n fo r trut hf ul ne ss inth e co m

m un it y wher e th e wit ne ss res id es , or h as rece nt ly resi de d; or t ha t o th ers ha ve anun fav or ab le op in io n o f th e trut hf

ul ne ss of t he witne ss . Youm ay co ns id er tho se m at te rs als o i n d eci di ng whethe r to be li ev e o r di sb el ie ve su ch witne ss .

29The di stric t co urt d idno t g iv e ei th er i ns tru ct io n. In st ead , as p artof i ts

pr el im in ary in st ru ct io ns pri orto op en in g s ta te m en ts , th e d is tri ctco urt i ns tru ct ed th e jury: [Y]ou a re the on ly peo pl e who cande te rm in e th e cre di bi li ty or th e be li ev ab il ity

of t he witne ss es . Youare the so le jud ge s o f th e cred ib il it y

of t he witne ss es an d t he weig htto be acco rd edto th e te st im on y an d the ev id en ce . . . . W ha t you a re g oi ng to see is th atin de te rm in in g t he cred ib il it y of t he witne ss es y ouwil l u se th e sa m e cri te riath aty ouus e iny ou r da il y li fe. The same thi ng s t ha t you u se to de te rm in e th e cre di bi li ty or th e b el ie vabi li ty of th e witne ss es , are ex act ly the same sorts of t hi ng s tha t you u se iny ou r da il y li ve s wh en y ouare try in g t o d eci de whet he r orno t you c anbe li ev e so m eb od y ab ou t a v ery im

po rta ntm at te r. At the clo se of t ria l, the jud ge furth er i ns tru ct edth e jury: Inde ci di ng whethe r y oube li ev e o r do no t b el ie ve an y witne ss , I su gg es t tha t you a sky ou rs el f a few que st io ns : Di d t he witne ss im pr es s you a s o ne who was t el li ng th e tr ut h? Didth e wit ne ss ha ve an y pa rti cu la r rea so n n otto tel l the tru th ? Didth e wit ne ss ha ve a pe rs on al in te res t i n t he ou tc om e o f th e cas e? Didth e wit ne ss see m to ha ve a go odm em ory ? Didth e wit ne ss ha ve th e o pp ortuni ty and ab il it y to ob se rv e acc ur at el y

th e th in gs he or s he tes ti fie d abo ut ? Did th e wit ne ss ap pe ar t o u nd ers ta ndth e que st io ns cle arl y an d a ns wer th em di rect ly? Di d t he witne ss ’s tes ti m on y di fferfro m

ot he r te st im on y or o th er ev id en ce?

“ Ourrev ie w of atri al co urt’s jury in st ru ct io ns is li m it ed ; i f th e in st ru ct io ns accu rat el y

refl ectth e la w, th e tr ia l ju dg e is gi ve n wi de di sc ret io n a s t o the st y le
an d wo rd in g e m

pl oyed i n t he in st ru ct io n. Un de r th is st an da rd , ‘ we ex am in e

30whe th er the jury ch arg es , con si de redas awho le , su ffi ci en tl y in st ru ct edth e jury so th atth e juro rs un de rs to odth e is su es an d wer e n otm is le d.’” Uni te d S ta te s v . Fu lfo rd , 26 7 F .3d12 41 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) (qu ot in g C art er v . Deci si on One Co rp ., 12 2 F .3d99 7, 1 00 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Gol d, 7 43 F.2d80 0, 8 19 (11 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (“ [T]he d is tri ctco urt h as bro addi sc ret io n i n fo rm ul at in g i ts ch arg e so lo ng as t he ch arg e acc ur at el y refl ect s t he law an d t he fact s.”) . “ The di st ric t co urt’s refu sa l t o g iv e th e reque st edin st ru ct io n i s re ve rs ib le on ly if (1 ) th e in st ru ct io n i s subs ta nt ia ll y

co rrec t, (2 ) th e in st ru ct io n was no t ad dr es se d i n t he ch arg e actua ll y gi ve n, an d (3 ) th e fai lu re t o g iv e th e reque st edin st ru ct io n s eri ou sl y im pa ire d t he de fen da nt ’s abi li ty to p res en t aneffe ct iv e d efen se .” Uni te d S ta te s v . De La Mat a, 26 6 F .3d12 75 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). W e fi ndno erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on no t t o g iv e Dru ry ’s reque st edin st ru ct io ns . Drury’ s p ro ffer edno n- pa tt ernjury ch arg e was supe rfl uo us , si nc e th e tr ia l co urt’s g en eral in st ru ct io ns on ev al ua ti ng ev id en ce an d wi tn es s cred ib il it y

were s uf fic ie ntto gu id e th e jury in i ts de li be rat io ns . Accor di ng ly, th e tri al co urt’s fa il ur e to gi ve Drury ’s pro po se d i ns tru ct io n o n t he rel iabi li ty of go ve rn m en t i nv es ti ga ti on s d idno t s eri ou sl y im pa ir h is ab il it y

to pre se ntan effe ct iv e d efen se , andthus we canfin d n o abu se of d is cret io n. 31Nordi d the di st ric t co urt ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d ecl in in g t o g iv e Ele ve nt h

Ci rcu itPat te rnJu ry

Ins tru ct io n 6 .7. Ap pl y in g the th ree- part r ev ers ib il it y an al y si s ou tl in edab ov e, we co nc lu de th atth is ch arg e is cle arl y “ subs ta nt ia ll y

co rrec t”
un de r th e fi rs t p ro ng . As to th e se co ndpro ng , whet he r th e ch arg e th e tr ia l co urt ga ve co ve redth e sa m e te rri to ry as t he pa tt ernin st ru ct io n Dru ry reque st edis a cl os er que st io n. Th e reque st edin stru ct io n re fers sp eci fic al ly to a wi tn es s’

“ rep ut at io n fo r trut hf

ul ne ss inth e co m

m un it y ,” whe reas th e o ne actua ll y gi ve n co ve rs on ly w itne ss cred ib il ity inm or e g en eral term s. Ho wev er, ev enif we fo un d th e co nt en t o f th e p ro po se d i ns tru ct io n i na de qu at el y ad dr es se d i n t he actua l in st ru ct io n, s at is fy in g t he sec on d p ro ng of the an al y si s, Drury ’s ass ig nm en t o f
erro r ne ve rth el es s fa il s u nd er the th irdpro ng . Drury has sh own no subs ta nt ia l im pe di m en t t o h is ab il it y

to pre se ntaneffec ti ve de fen se as ares ul t o f th e tr ia l
co urt’s fa il ur e to gi ve th e p atte rnin st ru ct io n, an d we p erce iv e n on e. Drury arg ue s t ha t h e n eed edth atin st ru ct io n b ecau se Wha tl ey , th e wit ne ss Drury ch arac te riz es as t he cru x o f th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se , was s ho wn attri al to ha ve a ba d re pu ta ti on fortru th fu ln es s i n t he co m m un ity . Ind eed , th e tr ia l co urt pe rm it te d Dru ry

to vi go ro us ly argu e as m uc h t o t he jury, th ro ug h d ire ct
ex am in at io n o f two ch arac te r witne ss es , cro ss -ex am in at io n o f Wha tl ey , and cl os in g a rg um en t. The se op po rtu ni ti es to im pu gn Wha tl ey ’s charact er fo r 32tru th fu ln es s, co up le d wi th th e tr ia l co urt’s g en eral in st ru ct io ns on witne ss

cred ib il it y , per su ad e u s t ha t the tri al co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d ecl in in g to gi ve Drury ’s pro po se d p atte rnjury ch arg e. Cf. Uni te d S ta te s v . Ry an , 28 9 F .3d 13 39 , 13 45 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (“ Inli gh t o f th e o pp ortu ni ti es affo rd edth e jury to
co ns id er Ryan’s en trapm en t d efen se , we fin d t ha t the fai lu re t o i nc lu de sp eci fic in st ru ct io ns on th e is su e d idno t s eri ou sl y im pa ir p res en ta ti on of t he de fen se .”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Chi rin os , 11 2 F .3d10 89 , 11 01 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (h ol di ng th at fai lu re t o i ns tru ctdi d n otim pa ir ade fen da nt ’s abi li ty to ar gu e th athe di d n ot in te ndto st eal co cai ne as c harg ed , bu t ra th er m on ey , inli gh t o f th e d efen da nt ’s op po rtu ni ti es to eli ci t s up po rti ng tes ti m on y an d t o m ak e cl os in g a rg um en ts on th e is su e). III. Bas edon th e fo reg oi ng an al y si s, we AFFI RM Dru ry ’s m ur de r-fo r-h ire
co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 8, an d h is co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si onof afir earm in co nn ect io n wi th a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c). AFFIR MED.

33