FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 23, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12762 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -001 14 -C R -3-M C R -2 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s T R I S T A N J A M A L J O N E S , a .k .a . T r is ta n J a m a l F a ir le y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 23, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O n the e ve ni ng of

O c t obe r4, 2005, C hr i s t ophe rW a t s on, appe l l a nt ’ s c o-Wat so n entere d into a c oopera tingple a agre e ment withtheGo vernment a nd ple d guilty 1 to t heCount O neof

fens e . H ewa s sentenc e d topriso n f or 12 0 mo nth s. 2 d e f e n d a n t, p e r s u a d e d C h r is to p h e rC a r to n , ac o o p e r a tin g g o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s , to he l p hi m r e m ove s om e c urr e nc y f r om the r e a rqua r t e rpa ne l on the dr i ve r ’ s s i de of a F or d M us t a ng a ut om obi l e . A ppe l l a nt , w ho, w i th W a t s on, ha d a n i nt e r e s ti n the c a s h, w a s pr e s e nt . W he n C a r t on gotthe pa ne l ope n, he obs e rve d tw o pa c ka ge s of c o c a in e , w h ic h w e ig h e d a k ilo g r a m e a c h , in s te a d o f th e c a s h . H e p la c e d th e m in the aut om ob i l e’ s trunk , i n p l ai n si gh tof W at son and appel l ant . W at son then p l ac ed the pa c ka ge s i n apl a s t i c ba g. A f t e rC a r t on ha d r e s t or e d the qua r t e rpa ne l a nd put the ca r bac k i n shape, appel l antent er ed the M ust ang o n the pass enger’ s s i de, W at son h anded h i m the pl as t i c bag, W at son p ai d C art on $1 75 for hi s a ss i st ance , a nd W a t s on a nd appe l l a ntdr ove a w a y . A tthi s poi nt , C a r t on c a l l e d the pol i c e , w ho w e r e ne a rby , a nd a hi gh s pe e d c ha s e e ns ue d. W he n the pol i c e c a ughtup w i th the M u s ta n g , W a ts o n a n d ap p e lla n t e x ite d th e v e h ic le , W a ts o n c a rry in g th e p la s tic b a g . H e dr oppe d the ba g a nd gota w a y . A ppe l l a ntw a s appr e he nde d. A N or the rn D i s tr i c tof

F l or i dagr a nd j ury i ndi c t e d appe l l a nta nd W a t s on on O ct ob er18 , 20 05 , char gi ng them i n C ou ntO ne w i th a 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 conspi ra cy t o v i ol at e 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a ), and i n C ou ntT w o w i th a subst ant i ve § 8 41 (a ) o f f e n s e . A p p e lla n t p le d g u ilty a n d s to o d tr ia l. A ju ry f o u n d h im g u ilty o n b o th 1 c o u n t s , a n d th e c o u r ts e n t e n c e d h i m t o c o n c u rr e n tp r i s o n t e rm s o f 1 3 5 m o n th s . He3

now appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons , c ont e ndi ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on (1) i n adm i tt i ng evi dence of hi s pri or drug deal i ng un der F eder al R ul e of E vi dence 404( b) a nd ( 2) i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f orm i s tr i a l ba s e d on s t a t e m e nt s the p r o s e c u to rm a d e in c lo s in g a r g u m e n t to th e ju ry . W e c o n s id e rth e s e c o n te n tio n s in order. R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) p r o v id e s th a t: E vi de nc e of

othe rc r i m es, w rongs , ora c t s i s nota dm i s s i bl e t o pr ove th e c h a r a c te r o f a p e r s o n in o r d e rto s h o w a c tio n in c o n f o rm ity there w i th. Itm ay , ho w ever , be adm i ss i bl e f or other pur p o se s, su ch as proo f of m ot i ve, op po rtun i ty, i nt ent , prepara t i on , pl an, kn ow l edge, i d en t i ty, o r ab sen ce o f m i st ak e o r acci d en t , p ro v i d ed th atu p o n req u est by the a c c us e d, the pr os e c ut i on i n ac r i m i na l c ase s ha l l pr ovi de reas o nabl e not i ce i n adv ance of tri al , or du ri ng tri al i f the court e xc us e s pr e tr i a l n o t i ce on good c a us e s how n, of the ge ne r a l na tur e of a n y s u c h e v id e n c e it in te n d s to in tr o d u c e a t tr ia l. F ed. R . E vi d. 40 4(b). T o b e a dm i ss i bl e, R ul e 404 (b) e vi dence m ustsa t i sf y three pr ongs : ( 1) i tm us tbe r e l e va ntt o a n i s s ue othe rtha n the de f e nda nt ’ s c ha r a c t e r ; ( 2) the r e m us tbe s uf

f i c i e ntpr oof

s o tha ta j ury c oul d f

i nd tha tthe de f

e nda nt com m i tt ed the extri nsi c a ct ; and (3) the evi dence m ustpo ss es s probat i ve val ue that i s notsubst ant i al l y outw ei gh ed by i t s und ue prej ud i ce as w el l as m ee tthe other r e qui r e m e nt s of

F e d. R . E vi d. 403. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e rni ga n, 341 F . 3d 1273, 1280 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . W hi l e the pr os e c ut i on m us tpr ove bya pr e ponde r a nc e of the evi dence thatthe extri nsi c a ctoccurre d, the un corr ob orat ed t es t i m on y of a n4

a c c om pl i c e c a n pr ovi de a s uf f i c i e ntba s i s f

orc onc l udi ng tha tthe de f e nda nt c o m m itte d th e e x tr in s ic a c ts . U n ite d S ta te s v . B o w e , 2 2 1 F .3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 9 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 00 ).

“ A defe nd antw ho ent er s ano tgu i l ty pl eam akes i nt enta m at er i al i ss ue, i m pos i ng as ubs t a nt i a l bur de n on the gove rnm e ntt o pr ove i nt e nt ; the gove rnm e nt m a y m e e tthi s bur de n w i th qua l i f y i ng 404( b) e vi de nc e abs e nta f f i rm a t i ve s t e ps by the de f e nda ntt o r e m ove i nt e nta s a n i s s ue . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e l ga do, 56 F . 3d 1357, 1365 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R obe r t s , 619 F . 2d 379, 383 ( 5th C i r . 1980) ( “ I n e ve ry c ons pi r a c y c a s e , . . . a notgui l ty pl e ar e nde r s the de f e nda nt ’ s i nt e nta m a t e r i a l i s s ue a nd i m pos e s adi f f i c ul tbur de n on the gove rnm e nt . ” ) . T o e s t abl i s h r e l e va nc e unde rthe f i r s tpr ong w he r e t e s t i m ony of e x tr in s ic a c ts is o f

f e r e d a s p r o o f

o f in te n t, “it m u s t b e d e te rm in e d th a t th e e x tr in s ic of f e ns e r e qui r e s the s a m e i nt e nta s the c ha r ge d of f e ns e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D i cker son, 24 8 F . 3d 10 36 , 10 47 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). T he R ul e 404( b) t e s t i m ony a ti s s ue i nvol ve d appe l l a nt ’ s pr i ordrug tr a ns a c t i ons w i th apr os e c ut i on w i tne s s , P e tr os e H ol l a nd. F i r s t , by pl e a di ng not gu i l ty, appel l antre nd er ed hi s i nt enta m at er i al i ss ue, and H ol l and’ s t es t i m on y w as r e le v a n t in s h o w in g th a t h e d id n o t m is ta k e n ly e n te rin to th e tr a n s a c tio n w ith W at son, bu t , i nst ea d, po ss es se d the i nt entand k no w l edge t o com m i tthe charged5

of f e ns e s . S e e J e rni ga n, 341 F . 3d a t1280; D e l ga do, 56 F . 3d a t1365. S e c ond, H ol l and’ s t es t i m on y w as suff i ci entfor aj ury t o fi nd thatappel l anthad com m i tt ed the e xtr i ns i c a c t s . S e e J e rni ga n, 341 F . 3d a t1280. T hi r d, the pr oba t i ve va l ue of the e vi de nc e w a s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by i t s undue pr e j udi c e be c a us e the drug tra nsac t i on s w er e nei ther t oo re m ot e i n t i m e nor w er e s o d i ff er entsuch that the prej ud i ci al ef

fe ctof the t es t i m on y outw ei gh ed i t s probat i ve val ue. S ee J e rn ig a n , 3 4 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 0 . F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , w e f in d n o ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n in th e a d m issio n o f th e R u le 4 0 4 (b ) e v id en ce . W e th er ef o re m o v e to ap p ellan t’ s seco n d ch al l en g e t o h i s co n v i ct i o n s. D uri ng cl osi ng ar gu m ent , “ [a ] prosec ut or i s f orbi dd en t o m ake i m prop er s ugge s t i ons , i ns i nua t i ons a nd a s s e r t i ons c a l c ul a t e d t o m i s l e a d the j ury a nd m a y not appe a l t o the j ury ’ s pa s s i on orpr e j udi c e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 765 F . 2d 1546, 1560 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ( quot a t i on a nd a l t e r a t i on om i tt e d) . “ A l though the pr os e c ut i ng a tt orne y ha s the r e s pons i bi l i ty a nd duty t o c orr e c tw ha the know s t o be fa l se and el i ci tthe truth, the prosecut or’ s m i sc on du ctdo es no tal w ay s r ender a s ubs e que ntc onvi c t i on i l l e ga l . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a goui rk, 680 F . 2d 108, 109- 10 ( 11th C i r . 1982) ( quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ( i nvol vi ng the know i ng us e of fa l se t es t i m on y) . “ T he st at em ent s of aprosec ut or w i l l j ust i fyre vers al of a c onvi c t i on i f

the y unde rm i ne d the f

a i rne s s of

the tr i a l a nd c ontr i but e d t o a6

m i sc arri age of j ust i ce . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. Ja coby, 95 5 F . 2d 15 27 , 15 41 (11th C i r. 1992) ( quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ [ A ] pr os e c ut or ’ s s t a t e m e nt s dur i ng c l os i ng a r gum e nt r e qui r e r e ve r s a l onl y i f

the c om m e nt s a r e both i m pr ope ra nd pr e j udi c i a l t o a s ubs t a nt i a l r i ghtof

the de f e nda nt . ” I d. ( quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . I n de t e rm i ni ng w h e th e rim p r o p e rr e m a rk s p r e ju d ic e d a d e f

e n d a n t’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts , w e e v a lu a te the m i n the c ont e xtof

the tr i a l a s aw hol e a nd a s s e s s the i rpr obabl e i m pa c ton the ju ry . U n it ed S tates v . H er n an d ez , 1 4 5 F .3 d 1 4 3 3 , 1 4 3 9 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). “A d e f e n d a n t’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts a r e p r e ju d ic ia lly a f

f e c te dw h e n a r e a s o n ab le prob abi l i ty a ri se s that , bu tfor the prosec ut or’ s s t at em ent s, the ou t com e of the tri al w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

f e r e n t.” U n ite d S ta te s v . O ’K e e f e , 4 6 1 F .3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 5 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 06 ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 7 S . C t . 13 08 (200 7). In i n st an ces w h ere d efen se co u n sel ’ s i m p ro p er arg u m en tp ro v o k es a r e s pons e i n ki nd f

r om the pr os e c ut ora nd the c our tt a ke s no c orr e c t i ve a c t i on, the prosec ut or’ s i napp ropri at e r em arks st andi ng al on e do n otj ust i fyre vers al of a c r im in a l c o n v ic tio n in a n o th e rw is e f a irp r o c e e d in g , b u t m u s t b e e x a m in e d w ith in th e c o n te x t o f

th e tr ia l to d e te rm in e w h e th e rth e p r o s e c u to r ’s b e h a v io ra m o u n te d to pr e j udi c i a l e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Y oung, 470 U . S . 1, 11- 12, 105 S . C t . 1038, 1044, 84 L . E d. 2d 1 ( 1985) ( di s c us s i ng the doc tr i ne of i nvi t e d r e pl y ) . “ I n othe rw or ds , the C our tm us tc ons i de rthe pr obabl e e f f e c tthe pr os e c ut or ’ s r e s pons e w oul d ha ve on7

th e ju ry ’s ab il ity to ju d g e th e e v id en ce fa irly. In th is co n tex t, d ef en se co u n se l’ s c onduc t , a s w e l l a s the na tur e of the pr os e c ut or ’ s r e s pons e , i s r e l e va nt . ” I d. M oreover, “ because the st at em ent s of c ou nsel ar e notevi dence, the di stri ct courtm ayre ct i fyi m prop erprosec ut ori al st at em ent s by i nstruct i ng the j ury that on l y the evi dence i n the ca se i s t o b e c on si dere d. ” J ac ob y, 95 5 F . 2d at15 41 ; se e a l s o O ’ K e e f

e , 461 F . 3d a t1350 ( c onc l udi ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i ns truc t i ons r e m e di e d a ny l i ke l y pr e j udi c e c a us e d by the i m pr ope rc om m e nt s , not i ng tha tthe tr i a l c our ti ns truc t e d the j ury , both be f or e the gove rnm e nt ’ s c l os i ng a r gum e nta nd a f te rth e d e f

e n d a n t o b

je c te d to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c o m m e n ts , th a t th e a r g u m e n ts w e r e n o t e v id e n c e a n d th a t th e ju ry w a s to d e c id e th e d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilt b a s e d s o le ly on the e vi de nc e ) . “ [ W ] he n adi s tr i c tc our tgi ve s a c ur a t i ve i ns truc t i on, the r e vi e w i ng c our tw i l l r e ve r s e onl y i f the e vi de nc e i s s o hi ghl y pr e j udi c i a l a s t o be in c u r ab le b y th e tr ia l c o u r t’s a d m o n itio n .” D e lg a d o , 3 2 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 8 . I n s h o r t,

“ [a ] prej ud i ci al re m ark m aybe re nd er ed harm l es s by acura t i ve i nstruct i on . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . I g le s ia s , 9 1 5 F .2 d 1 5 2 4 , 1 5 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . F ur the rm or e , nota l l i na c c ur a t e r e m a rks a r e i m pr ope r . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D a ni e l s , 617 F . 2d 146, 150 ( 5th C i r . 1980) ( not i ng tha ta “ pr os e c ut or ’ s r e m a rks w er e noti m prop er , al tho ug h they w er e notprec i se l y a cc urat e” ). “ T he prosecut or, as an ad v o cat e, i s en t i t l ed t o m ak e a fai r resp o n se t o th e arg u m en t s o f d efen se8

c o u n s e l.” U n ite d S ta te s v . H ie tt, 5 8 1 F .2 d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 4 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ) . I n c e r ta in in stan ce s, w h en a d ef

en d an t o p en s th e d o o r to co m m en t o n an issu e, a p ro se cu to r’s i na c c ur a t e s t a t e m e nt s m a y c om e w i thi n the doc tr i ne of f a i rr e pl y . S e e D a ni e l s , 617 F . 2d at15 0 (T he prosecut or’ s r em arks w er e . . . fa i r c om m ent s. T he defendanthad o p en ed th e d o o r to co m m en t o n th e iss u e o f h is co o p er atio n , an d th e p ro se cu to r’s st at em entfe l l w i thi n the do ctri ne of fa i r r epl y. ”) . D uri ng cl osi ng ar gu m ent , defe nse c ou nsel ar gu ed thatappel l anthad n ever m a de a ny c onf

e s s i on t o H ol l a nd a s t o the f a c t s of the c a s e , butr a the rtha tH ol l a nd had l ea rned abou tthe det ai l s of app el l ant ’ s a rr es tfr om the “ paperw ork” that appe l l a ntha d w i th hi m dur i ng the t i m e he a nd H ol l a nd w e r e hous e d t oge the ri n the s a m e ja il c e ll. I n r e b u tta l, th e p r o s e c u to rc o n te n d e d th a t a t th e tim e th e y w e r e c e ll m at es , the go vernm enthad n otprov i ded any paperw ork t o app el l antor hi s c ou nsel fro m w h i ch H o l l an d co u l d h av e l earn ed ab o u tth e fact s o f th e case b ecau se appe l l a ntha d noty e tbe e n i ndi c t e d a nd, the r e f or e , the gove rnm e ntha d not prov i ded any di sc ov ery m at er i al . D ef ense coun se l obj ec t ed and m ov ed for a m i s tr i a l , c l a r i f

y i ng tha tthe pape rw ork s he w a s r e f e rr i ng t o w a s a c om pl a i nt a f f id a v it, a n d th a t ap p e lla n t h a d th is a f f id a v it, c o n ta in in g th e f

a c ts o f h is a rr e s t, w i th hi m i n hi s j a i l c e l l . T he tr i a l c our tde ni e d the m ot i on. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n r e f us i ng t o abor tthe9

proceedi ng s. F i rs t , the prosecut or’ s r ebut t al ar gu abl y w as a f ai r r epl y, gi ven that defe nse c ou nsel op ened the do or t o such rem arks by on l y usi ng the generi c t erm

“ paperw ork, ” f

rom w hi ch the prosecut or coul d l og i ca l l y i nferthatdefe nse c ou nsel w a s r e f e rr i ng t o di s c ove ry pape rw ork. M or e ove r , e ve n i f the pr os e c ut or ’ s r e m a rks w e r e im p r o p e r , th e y w o u ld n o t m a n d a te r e v e r s a l b e c a u s e th e y d id n o t p r e ju d ic ia lly a f f e c t ap p e lla n t’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts to th e p o in t w h e r e th e r e a r o s e a r e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility th a t, b u t f

o rth e p r o s e c u to r ’s s ta te m e n ts , th e o u tc o m e o f th e tr ia l w o u ld ha ve be e n di f

f e r e nt . S e e O ’ K e e f

e , 461 F . 3d a t1350; M a goui rk, 680 F . 2d a t109- 1 0 . F i n al l y, th e co u rtrem ed i ed an y p rej u d i ce w i th j u ry i n stru ct i o n s th atco u n sel s’ s ta te m e n ts a n d a r g u m e n ts w e r e n o t e v id e n c e . AF F I R ME D.