Opinion ID: 2685893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Money Laundering Testimony

Text: Thomas called two witnesses at trial on his behalf, one of which was his mother. His mother testified that Thomas was with her in Chicago on June 23, 2011—the day of the controlled buy. Based on this alibi, Thomas averred that he could not have been involved in the controlled buy that occurred in Waterloo that day. In rebuttal, the government presented two witnesses. One witness was the manager of a casino in Waterloo who testified that Thomas's Players Club card was used in the casino on the afternoon of the controlled buy, contradicting Thomas's mother's testimony that he was in Chicago that day. The government's evidence that Thomas's Player Club card was used that day established only that someone used the card in Waterloo, not that Thomas himself used the card there. To further bolster its rebuttal, the government called Special Agent Matthew Schalk with the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigations. Special Agent Schalk was stationed at the casino on May 15, 2011, which was approximately a month-and-a-half before the controlled buy. Special Agent Schalk saved video surveillance of Thomas using his Player's Club card that day. Typically, however, the -7- casino erased video footage of its gamblers after a few weeks. Thus, there was no video footage of Thomas using the card on June 23, the day of the controlled buy. The footage showing him using the card a month-and-a-half earlier did not fully rebut his alibi for June 23 but was some evidence that he had used the card in the past. The government explained the absence of video evidence for June 23 by offering the testimony of Special Agent Schalk. Special Agent Schalk's testimony included his suspicions that Thomas was laundering money at the casino based on his May15 observations. Special Agent Schalk explained that someone using Thomas's card was putting a large amount of bills into 2 different slot machines on the gaming floor, and it was unusual because he was doing it simultaneously at the same time to both slot machines and wasn't playing any spins. He wasn't—he was just putting the money in and not playing any of the money off. He then cashed out of the machines without ever playing. Special Agent Schalk later stated that [i]t's unusual behavior for somebody to simply put a lot of bills into 2 different slot machines at the same time and then cash them out without playing, so he suspected Thomas engaged in some type of money laundering. The district court overruled Thomas's objection. The government never again mentioned money laundering during Thomas's trial. Thomas argues on appeal that the district court erred in allowing this testimony because it was not relevant to any element of the charged offenses and constituted a prior bad act that unfairly prejudiced him. Federal Rule of Evidence 401 provides that evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. The money-laundering -8- evidence is relevant because it makes Thomas's mother's testimony less probable. The government sought to connect Thomas's Player's Club card to him, and it attempted to do so by introducing video evidence of Thomas using the card less than two months before the controlled heroin purchase. Thus, evidence of Thomas using the Player's Club card in the casino on May 15 is relevant. In addition, this testimony had probative value because it explained to the jury why video evidence existed to demonstrate his presence at the casino in May but not June. This is intrinsic evidence because it completes the story of the crime and provides the necessary context. See Johnson, 463 F.3d at 808. The evidence was not unfairly prejudicial because the government only presented it as rebuttal testimony to Thomas's alibi witness. Also, the government never again broached the issue. See United States v. Baldenegro-Valdez, 703 F.3d 1117, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013). Thus, we reject Thomas's evidentiary challenges.