Opinion ID: 203288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DISCUSSION (I) Alleged Evidentiary Errors

Text: Feliciano claims that the cumulative effect of improperly introduced evidence deprived him of a fair trial. The evidence to which he objects consisted of: (a) purportedly improper testimony of the lead agent, Agent Toro; (b) testimony regarding Medina's purchase of a rifle on behalf of Alex Trujillo; and (c) Espada's testimony about statements he heard from Feliciano's drug workers regarding Feliciano's status as a drug dealer at Covadonga. We review adequately preserved objections to rulings admitting or excluding evidence for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302, 311 (1st Cir.2006). If there is error, it is settled that a non-constitutional evidentiary error is harmless (and, therefore, does not require a new trial) so long as it is highly probable that the error did not influence the verdict. United States v. Flemmi, 402 F.3d 79, 95 (1st Cir.2005) (internal quotations and modifications omitted). When the appellant did not assert a timely objection at trial, we review only for plain error. See id. at 86. The plain error standard requires this court to find [1] that there is error [2] that is plain and [3] that affects substantial rights. When these three elements are satisfied, an appellate court may exercise its discretion to correct the error ... only if the forfeited error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Epstein, 426 F.3d 431, 437 (1st Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)(alterations in original). For the third prong, the defendant has the burden of showing prejudice or that the error `affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.' Id. (quoting United States v. Colon-Munoz, 192 F.3d 210, 222 (1st Cir.1999)).