Opinion ID: 2808339
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidentiary Challenges to Amending Affidavit

Text: Macias raises four more arguments challenging the admission of the same amending affidavit discussed above. More specifically, Macias contends that the amending affidavit should have been excluded because: (1) it constituted inadmissible hearsay; (2) its probative value was substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice; (3) its affiants lacked personal knowledge; and (4) it was an improper attempt to have one witness testify as to another witness’s credibility. Unlike Macias’s Confrontation Clause argument, these four evidentiary objections are preserved for appeal. Where there has been a nonconstitutional error, we must reverse “unless there is a ‘fair assurance’ of harmlessness or, stated otherwise, unless it is more probable than not that the error did not materially affect the verdict.” United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031, 1040 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Crosby, 75 F.3d 1343, 1349 (9th Cir. 1996)). In the preceding discussion at II.A.3, supra, we concluded that the admission of the affidavit did not affect the outcome of the proceedings. We recognize that the preceding discussion involved a different assignment of the 7 Because the error did not affect Macias’s substantial rights, we need not reach the fourth prong of the plain error test, which is whether the “error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Anekwu, 695 F.3d at 973. 22 UNITED STATES V. MACIAS burden of proof with respect to whether the verdict was affected. In the preceding discussion, under the plain error standard, Macias had the burden of showing that the verdict was affected. For these four preserved evidentiary challenges, the government has the burden of showing that the verdict was not affected by the affidavit. We conclude that based on the same evidence and reasons set forth in our discussion in II.A.3, supra, the government has shouldered its burden of demonstrating that it is more probable than not that the error did not materially affect the verdict. Because we conclude that the admission of this affidavit is harmless error, we need not address the merits of these evidentiary objections. See United States v. Bishop, 1 F.3d 910, 911 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining that the Court need not reach the merits of the claim that the evidence was inadmissible because any error was harmless).