[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 52 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock et No. 1 :0 9- cr-0 01 34 -J OF-J FK-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

CURTIS J EROME BROWN, JR., 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 ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 1, 2 01 2)

Befo re HULL, EDMONDSON and BLACK, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

PER CURI AM:

Case: 10-15528 Date Filed: 10/11/2012 Page: 1 of 8Cu rti s J ero m e Bro wn, Jr ., a pp eal s hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r m ak in g a fal se en try in

a reco rd or do cu m en t, 18 U.S.C. § 15 19 (“ Co un t Two”) , en ga gi ng i n m is le ad in g

co nd uc t, 18 U.S.C. § 15 12 (b )(3 ) (“ Co un t Fo ur ”), m ak in g fal se st at em en ts to a fed eral

ag en t, 18 U.S.C. § 10 01 (“ Co un t Fi ve ”), an d ob st ru ct in g, in flu en ci ng or im pe di ng a

fed eral gr an d jury, 18 U.S.C. § 15 03 (“ Co un t Nin e”). Bro wn was se nt en ced to 27

m on th s’ i m

pr is on m en t fo r each co un t, to ru n co nc ur ren tl y. No rev ers ib le erro r ha s

be en sh own ; we af

fir m

.
Bro wn wor ke d as a d e t e n t i on of fic er at th e Fu lt on Co un ty Ja il in Atl an ta ,
Geo rg ia

. His co nv ic ti on s s te m fro m in ci de nt s i nv ol vi ng two di ffer en t in m at es

. On

Co un t Two, Bro wn was co nv ic te d of kn owi ng ly fal si fy in g an d m ak in g a fal se en try

in an in ci de nt rep or t ab ou t th e us e of fo rce ag ai ns t in m at e M.A. w i t h t h e i n t en t to

im pe de , ob st ru ct , an d in flu en ce a fed eral in ve st ig at io n. Co un ts Fo ur , Fi ve , an d Nin e

aro se fro m Bro wn’s at te m pt s -- in an in ci de nt rep or t, hi s st at em en ts to fed eral ag en ts ,

an d in hi s gr an d jury te st im on y -- to fal si fy an d co n c e a l i n fo rm at io n ab ou t hi s
ph y si cal en co un te r wit h i nm at e R.G. be fo re R.G.’s in -cu st od y de at h.

Bro wn rai se s fo ur i s s u e s on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, he ch al le ng es th e ad m is si on of

ev id en ce th at R.G. d ie d a s b o t h irr el ev an t un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 2 an d

un du ly pr ejud ic ia l un de r Ru le 40 3. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it

2 Case: 10-15528 Date Filed: 10/11/2012 Page: 2 of 8or ex cl ud e ev id en ce fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Ch ur ch , 95 5 F.2 d 68 8,

70 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2)

.
Evi de nc e th at R.G. d ie d was rel ev an t t o C ou nt s Fo ur , Fiv e, an d Nin e ag ai ns t

Bro wn, al l of whi ch ch arg ed Bro wn wit h co nc eal in g in fo rm at io n ab ou t hi s ph y si cal

en co un te r wit h R.G. m om en ts be fo re R.G.’ s de at h. In pa rti cu la r, R.G.’ s de at h he lp s

pu t Bro wn’s of

fen se s in to co nt ex t an d ex pl ai ns Bro wn’s po te nt ia l m ot iv e to li e. See

id

. (s ta ti ng th at “ [e]vi de nc e, no t pa rt of th e cri m e ch arg ed bu t pe rta in in g to th e ch ai n

of ev en ts ex pl ai ni ng th e co nt ex t, m ot iv e an d se t-u p of th e cri m e, is pr op erl y ad m it te d

if

. . . [it ] fo rm s an in te gr al an d na tu ral pa rt of an acco un t of th e cri m e, or is ne ces sa ry

to co m pl et e th e st or y

of t he cri m e fo r th e jury.”). Evid en ce t ha t R.G. d ie d was al so

rel ev an t to ex pl ai n why R.G. di d no t te st ify ab ou t hi s en co un te r wit h Bro wn. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Accen tt ur o, 96 6 F.2 d 63 1, 63 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 92 ) (co nc lu di ng th at

ev id en ce of th e vi ct im ’s de at h was rel ev an t to ex pl ai n why th e vi ct im di d no t te st ify

at tri al ).

Eve n whe n ev id en ce is rel ev an t, a di st ric t co ur t m ay st il l ex cl ud e it un de r Ru le

40 3 if t he ev id en ce’s “ pr ob at iv e v al ue is su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by t he da ng er of

u n fai r pr ejud ic e

. . . .” Fed .R.Evi d. 40 3. Ru le 40 3 is an ex tra or di na ry rem ed y th a t

sh ou ld be in vo ke d on ly sp ari ng ly. Uni te d St at es v. Alfa ro -Mo nc ad a, 60 7 F.3 d 72 0,

73 4 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 0)

. Thu s, “ ‘in rev ie win g is su es un de r Ru le 40 3, we lo ok at th e

3 Case: 10-15528 Date Filed: 10/11/2012 Page: 3 of 8ev id en ce in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to it s ad m is si on , m ax im iz in g i t s p r o b a t i ve va lu e

an d m in i mi z i n g i t s un du e pr ejud ic ia l im pa ct .’ ” Id

. “ Onl y if th e de ci si on to ad m it

ev id en ce ov er a Ru le 40 3 ch al le ng e is un su pp or ta bl e whe n th e ev id en ce is vi ewed in

th e li gh t m os t su pp or ti ve of th e de ci si on wil l we sa y th at th e de ci si on co ns ti tu te s an

ab us e o f d i s cret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Je rn ig an , 34 1 F.3 d 12 73 , 12 85 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 03 ).

W e can no t sa y 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 ev id en ce

th at R.G. di ed

. The ev id en ce was pr ob at iv e to th e ch arg ed of fen se s; an d th e di st ric t

co ur t an d bo th la wy ers mi n i m iz ed th e pr ejud ic ia l im pa ct of th e ev id en ce by

ex pl ai ni ng to th e jury th at Bro wn was no t ch arg ed w i t h c a u si ng R.G.’ s de at h, wit h

as sa ul ti ng R.G., or wit h us in g e x c e s s i v e fo rce. Viewi ng th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t

m os t fav or ab le to it s ad m is si on , th e ev id en ce th at R.G. di e d was no t su bjec t to

ex cl us io n u nd er Ru le 40 3.

Nex t, Bro wn arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by ad m it ti ng te st im on y ab ou t

th e cau se of R.G.’ s de at h, al le gi ng th at th e te st im on y was bo th irr el ev an t an d un du ly

pr ejud ic ia l. Bec au se Bro wn fai le d to ob ject on th es e g ro un ds at t ria l, o ur rev ie w is

on ly fo r pl ai n erro r. See Uni te d St at es v. Edo ua r d , 4 8 5 F .3d 13 24 , 1 34 3 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 07 ).

4

Case: 10-15528 Date Filed: 10/11/2012 Page: 4 of 8At tri al , th e pr os ecu to r el ic it e d te st im on y th at th e m ed ic al ex am in er’s

pr el im in ary op in io n ab ou t th e cau se of R.G.’ s dea th was di ffer en t from th e ul ti m at e

co nc lu si on th at R.G. di ed of na tu ral cau se s. Eve n if we as su m e -- wit ho ut de ci di ng 1

-- th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pl ai n erro r in ad m it ti ng th is te st im on y , Bro wn ha s

fai le d to de m on st rat e th at su ch erro r affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. “ Fo r an erro r to

affe ct su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s,

. . . ‘[i]t m us t ha ve affe ct ed th e ou tc om e of th e di st ric t co ur t

pr oc eed in gs .’ ” Id

. at 13 43 n.7

. Su bs t a n t ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e jury’ s gu il ty

ve rd ic ts an d no th in g ev id en ces th at th e br ie f te st im on y ab ou t th e cau s e of R.G.’ s

de at h a ffec te d t he jury’ s d eci si on

.
Abo ut Co un ts Two, Fo ur , an d Fi ve , Bro wn arg ue s th at th e di st ric t c o u rt

vi ol at ed Garri ty v. New Je rs ey , 87 S. Ct

. 61 6 (1 96 7) , by ad m it ti ng in to ev id en ce th e

in ci de nt rep or ts th at he pr ep ar e d ab ou t hi s en co un te rs wit h M.A. an d R.G. an d hi s

st at em en ts to fed eral ag en ts

. In Garri ty, th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t co nc lu de d

th at , ab se nt a kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary waiv er, in cri m in at in g st at em en ts m ad e by la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic ers un de r th reat of te rm in at io n fo r rem ai ni ng si le nt are in ad m is si bl e

in lat er cr im in al pro ceed in gs . 87 S. Ct. at 62 0.

The challeng ed testimony reve aled only that the medical examiner’s prelim i n ar y fi n d ings 1 differ ed from the cause of death repor ted on R.G.’s death cer

tificate. The substance of the medical examiner’s pre liminary

finding s were not disclosed to the jury

.

5 Case: 10-15528 Date Filed: 10/11/2012 Page: 5 of 8Bu t we ha ve co nc lu de d th at , “ [a]l t ho ug h an accu se d m ay no t be fo rced to

ch oo se be twee n in cri m in at in g hi m se lf an d lo si ng hi s job un de r Garri ty, ne it he r

Garri ty no r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t pr oh ib it s pr os ecu ti on an d pu ni sh m en t fo r fal se

st at em en ts or ot he r cri m es co m m it te d du rin g th e m ak in g of Garri ty-pro te ct ed

st at em en ts .” Uni te d St at es v. Veal , 15 3 F.3 d 12 33 , 12 43 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ) (em ph as is

in or ig in al ). “ Giv in g a fal se st at em en t is an in de pe nd en t cri m in al act th at oc cu rs

whe n th e in di vi du al m ak es th e fal se st at em en t; it is se pa rat e fro m th e ev en ts to whi ch

th e st at em en t rel at es , th e m at te r be in g in ve st ig at ed .” Id

. (em ph as is in o r i gi na l).

Bec au se Bro wn was pr os ecu te d fo r m ak in g m is le ad in g st at em en ts in hi s in ci de nt

r ep or ts an d in hi s in te rv ie w wit h fed eral ag en ts -- no t fo r th e co nd uc t de sc rib e d i n

th os e st at em en ts -- he is un en ti tl ed to pr ot ec t io n un de r Garri ty or th e Fi fth

Am en d men t. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t’s ad m is si on of Bro wn’s in ci de nt rep or ts an d

st at em en ts to fed eral ag en ts was p ro pe r.

Bro wn al so co nt en ds th at th e pr os ecu to r en ga ge d in pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t
by fai li ng to co rrec t a go ve rn m en t wit ne ss ’s fal se m at eri al te st im on y

. Ch an ta e
Tay lo r, who was on du ty at th e jail du rin g th e R.G. in ci de nt , te st ifi ed at bo th Bro wn’s

tri al an d in a rel at ed cas e ab ou t what sh e wit ne ss ed th at ni gh t. Co m pa rin g Tay lo r’s

te st im on y at bo th tri al s, Bro wn id en ti fie s si x in co ns is te nc ie s th at he co nt en ds co ns is t

6 Case: 10-15528 Date Filed: 10/11/2012 Page: 6 of 8of pe rjure d st at em en ts on m at eri al m at te rs

. B e c a u se Bro wn fai le d to ob ject to 2

Tay lo r’s te st im on y at tri al , we rev ie w th is is su e on ly f o r p l a i n erro r. See Edo ua rd ,
48 5 F .3d at 1 34 3.

“ To es ta bl is h pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t fo r t he us e of fal se te st im on y , a

de fen da nt m

us t sh ow th e pr os ecu to r kn owi ng ly us ed pe rjure d te st im on y , or fai le d to

co rrec t wha t he su bs eq ue nt ly le arn ed was fal se te st im on y , an d th at th e fal se ho od was

materi al .” Uni te d St at es v. McNa ir, 60 5 F.3 d 11 52 , 12 08 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ), c e r t

.
de ni ed , 13 1 S. Ct

. 15 99 , 16 00 (2 01 1)

. “ Perju red te st im on y is de fin ed as te st im on y ‘giv en wit h th e wil lfu l in te nt to pr ov id e fal se te st im on y an d no t as a res ul t of a

m is ta ke , co nf

us io n, or fau lt y m em or y .’ ” Id

. “ The fal se te st im on y is de em ed m at eri al

if th ere is a reas on a b l e l i k e l i ho od th e fal se te st im on y co ul d ha ve affe ct ed th e
jud gm en t o f th e jury.” Id.

W hi le as pe ct s of Tay lo r ’s t e s ti m on y were in co ns is te nt wit h he r te st im on y in

an earl ie r rel at ed cas e, no th in g ev id en ces th at Tay lo r wil lfu ll y in te nd ed to pr ov id e

f a l s e te st im on y or th at th e pr os ecu to r kn owi ng ly pr es en te d pe rjure d te st im on y.

Mo reo ve r, Bro wn ha s fai le d to de m on st rat e th at Tay lo r’s al le ge d fal se st at em en ts

I n particula

r, Br own contends that Tay lor provided conflicting testimony about these six details: 2 (1 ) wh et h er she called Br own or asked Br own in person to help with R.G.; (2) when she first approa ched R.G.’s cell; (3) what happene d when Br own and another office r enter ed R.G.’s cell; (4) how and when R.G.’s cell window shattere d; (5) how R. G. wa s acting during mealtime; and (6) when R.G. wa s found unre sponsive.

7

Case: 10-15528 Date Filed: 10/11/2012 Page: 7 of 8were m at eri al

. Des pi te th e di sc rep an ci es in Tay lo r’s te st im on y , sh e -- and a se co nd

go ve rn m en t wit ne ss -- te st ifi ed co ns is te nt ly th at Bro wn en te red R.G.’ s cel l an d us ed
ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t hi m

. Bec au se th e c h a rg es ag ai ns t Bro wn accu se d Bro wn of

co nc eal in g th at he ha d en te red R.G.’ s cel l an d th at he ha d a n y co nt act wit h R.G. i n

th e m om en ts le ad in g up to R.G.’ s de at h, th e ex act de ta il s of Bro wn’s en co un te r wit h

R.G. are im m at eri al to th e ch arg es ag ai n s t B r o w n. Thu s, ev en to th e ex te nt th at
Tay lo r te st ifi ed fal se ly ab ou t th e de ta il s of th at en co un te r, he r fal se te st im on y wou ld

no t h av e aff

ect ed th e jury’ s o ut co m e.

AFFIR MED.

8 Case: 10-15528 Date Filed: 10/11/2012 Page: 8 of 8