Opinion ID: 2975781
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lofton’s Trial

Text: Lofton also raises three challenges on appeal. He first argues that the district court improperly excluded an exculpatory letter written by Black. Next, he argues that the district court erred in allowing Officer Fegan to display an audio cassette tape of a prior interview with Lofton during Officer Fegan’s rebuttal testimony. Finally, Lofton argues that the district court erred in permitting Officer Fegan to testify regarding the meaning of a hand symbol Lofton displayed in a photograph introduced by defense during Officer Fegan’s cross-examination. For the following reasons, each argument fails.
The district court did not err in refusing to admit into evidence the contents of a letter written by Black in which Black takes responsibility for all drugs in the Plum Street apartment. This court reviews district court evidentiary rulings regarding the admissibility of hearsay statements for abuse of discretion. United States v. Price, 134 F.3d 340, 345 (6th Cir. 1998). - 13 - Nos. 06-5810, 06-5811 United States v. Lofton and Black Before trial, Black wrote a letter in which he claimed that Lofton no longer lived in the Plum Street apartment, owned nothing inside it, and knew nothing about Black’s activities therein. The Government made an oral motion during trial to preclude introduction of the contents of the letter through the defense’s first witness. In response, Lofton relied on the hearsay exception articulated in Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3), arguing that the contents of the letter constituted a statement against Black’s penal interest. The district court, believing that Black would be available to testify, declined to conduct a premature Rule 804(b)(3) analysis to determine the admissibility of the letter. Although the district court indicated that the letter may become admissible under Rule 804(b)(3) if Black were later to become unavailable, Lofton’s counsel did not call Black as a witness and never again raised the issue of the letter’s admissibility. Lofton argues on appeal that the district court erred by excluding the letter from evidence, and that this alleged error denied him of his right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment. His argument fails. At the time of the district court’s initial and tentative ruling that the contents of the letter were inadmissible, Lofton had not demonstrated that the requirements of Rule 804(b)(3) had been met. See Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 183 n.6 (1997) (“It is important that a reviewing court evaluate the trial court’s decision from its perspective when it had to rule and not indulge in review by hindsight.”). Three conditions must be met before a district court may admit a statement against penal interest under Rule 804(b)(3): “(1) the declarant must be unavailable to testify; (2) the statement must subject the declarant to criminal liability in a real and tangible way; and (3) corroborating circumstances must clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” - 14 - Nos. 06-5810, 06-5811 United States v. Lofton and Black Price, 134 F.3d at 347. Although Lofton argues in hindsight that these circumstances were met and that Black was unavailable to testify, he did not attempt to demonstrate Black’s unavailability either before or at the time of the district court’s initial ruling. Because he had failed to satisfy his burden of establishing unavailability, see United States v. Pelton, 578 F.2d 701, 709-10 (6th Cir. 1978), he cannot now complain about the district court’s preliminary and tentative adverse ruling. What is more, nothing in the district court’s preliminary ruling prevented Lofton from calling Black to testify, from introducing the letter on a showing of Black’s unavailability, from demonstrating the letter’s trustworthiness, or from revisiting the letter’s admissibility in any other way, all of which Lofton failed to do. Lofton’s unexplained failure to call Black or establish the prerequisites of the letter’s admissibility did not result from any error on the part of the district court. Thus, the district court’s preliminary ruling was not an abuse of discretion, and it did not interfere with Lofton’s right to present a defense under the Sixth Amendment.
The district court’s decision allowing Officer Fegan to display an audio cassette tape of a prior interview with Lofton during Officer Fegan’s rebuttal testimony did not result in unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. A reviewing court will not reverse a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence on the basis of relevancy or unfair prejudice absent a showing of “a clear abuse of discretion.” Zamlen v. City of Cleveland, 906 F.2d 209, 215 (6th Cir. 1990). The reviewing court “must look at the evidence in ‘the light most favorable to its proponent, - 15 - Nos. 06-5810, 06-5811 United States v. Lofton and Black maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.’” United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 567 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Zipkin, 729 F.2d 384, 389 (6th Cir. 1984)). “Unfair prejudice does not mean the damage to a defendant’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather, it refers to evidence which tends to suggest a decision on an improper basis.” Paschal v. Flagstar Bank, 295 F.3d 565, 579 (6th Cir. 2002). Lofton argues that the district court erred in permitting Officer Fegan to testify regarding his 2000 interview of Lofton and to display an audio cassette recording of the interview. He argues that he offered to stipulate that Officer Fegan knew Lofton well enough to identify him, rendering minimal the probative value of the testimony and the display of the tape, and that any probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect of displaying the tape because the existence of a taped interview suggests Lofton’s involvement in criminal activity. The first flaw in this argument is that Lofton directly attacked Officer Fegan’s ability to recognize him during cross-examination. Such an attack is inconsistent with and not erased by Lofton’s offer to stipulate to Officer Fegan’s familiarity with him, and the Government was entitled to present rebuttal evidence. See United States v. Segines, 17 F.3d 847, 856 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Lochmondy, 890 F.2d 817, 822 (6th Cir. 1989). Moreover, although the tape may tend to indicate, as Lofton argues, that Lofton was involved in prior criminal activity, the tape could also have been made because Lofton was a witness or informant. The district court’s instruction to the jury not to speculate about the tape’s contents - 16 - Nos. 06-5810, 06-5811 United States v. Lofton and Black further bolsters the conclusion that the display of the tape was not unfairly prejudicial. On balance, the Government was entitled to rebut Lofton’s assertions that Officer Fegan could not reliably identify him, and it cannot be said that any prejudicial effect of testimony regarding the prior interview substantially outweighed the probative value of the evidence. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the display of the audio tape was unfairly prejudicial, any error was harmless. “Unlike the Rule 403 analysis that considers the unfairly prejudicial effect of the particular piece of evidence at issue, harmless error analysis requires this court to consider whether the particular evidence prejudiced the outcome of the trial and resultant convictions.” United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408, 430 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Zamlen, 906 F.2d at 216 (“[E]ven if the lower court’s decision amounts to an abuse of discretion, it will not be disturbed on appeal if it did not result in a substantial injustice . . . .”). We cannot say that the mere display of an audio tape of an interview during permissible rebuttal testimony prejudiced the outcome of Lofton’s trial.
The district court did not err in permitting Officer Fegan to testify during his crossexamination and re-direct regarding the meaning of a hand symbol Lofton displayed in a photograph. Lofton argues that this testimony was both unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and inadmissible under Rule 404(b) as “simply testimony that Lofton is a bad person who makes hand signals made similar to those made by other bad people.” Lofton Br. at 27. - 17 - Nos. 06-5810, 06-5811 United States v. Lofton and Black Lofton’s Rule 404(b) argument is misplaced. The purpose of Officer Fegan’s testimony was not, as Lofton argues, to present Lofton as a person of poor character. Indeed, the photograph at issue was not even introduced by the Government, but rather was introduced and inquired into by defense counsel on cross-examination after counsel’s attempts to erode the reliability of Officer Fegan’s identification of Lofton in the June 22 surveillance photographs. Nor was Officer Fegan’s narrow and limited elaboration during re-direct on the meaning of Lofton’s “Fourth Street” signal offered for the purpose of illustrating Lofton’s character. Defense counsel’s strategy throughout the cross-examination was to suggest that Officer Fegan was mistaken about Lofton’s identity and otherwise careless about his investigation. Defense counsel’s more global trial strategy was to distance Lofton from connections with the drug trafficking area by Plum Street and the Dutch Inn. The purpose and probative value of Officer Fegan’s testimony on re-direct regarding the meaning of the Fourth Street sign and its association with local drug trafficking was to establish that he was indeed knowledgeable about both Lofton and the drug trafficking that occurred in the area – issues defense counsel raised by their chosen cross-examination strategy. The fact that Officer Fegan’s testimony connected Lofton to the Fourth Street area and other drug traffickers cannot be considered unfair prejudice, particularly given that other testimony already established his extensive connections to the area and to Black. Accordingly, Lofton’s arguments under Rules 404(b) and 403 fail.