Opinion ID: 787694
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Black Day Planner

Text: 93 The district court found that Mellin is responsible for the intentional submission of the black day planner, excluded evidence, to the jury based upon his conclusion that Mellin's demeanor and testimony demonstrate that he was being less than candid with the Court with respect to the black day planner. J.A. 2861. This adverse credibility determination is, in turn, grounded in the following three observations by the trial court: (1) Mellin was the last person known to have handled the black day planner, but did not recall its appearance in court on the day the evidence went to the jury; (2) Mellin testified that he was unaware of the location of the black day planner during the trial, but filed a response to Lentz's motion for a new trial stating that both day planners were in the courtroom on the Government's counsel table; and (3) Mellin was acutely aware of the importance of the unadmitted black day planner because he directed the jury's attention to it in his closing argument, but he appeared to diminish its importance on the day of the hearing. J.A. 2861-62. These observations, however, are wholly insufficient to support the district court's credibility determination or the ultimate finding of intentional conduct. 94 First, the fact that Mellin did not recall seeing the black day planner when the evidence was being sorted, but was known to have had it a few days before, does not support an adverse credibility determination. According to the undisputed evidence, Chellis, at Mellin's request, retrieved the black day planner from the evidence room a few days before closing arguments to make copies of the pages introduced by defense counsel. Chellis testified that he placed the black day planner with the copies in Mellin's chair at their office and that he later observed the black day planner in the courtroom at the government's table. However, none of the other witnesses testified that they saw the black day planner in the courtroom on the day the evidence was sorted (although Scruggs averred in his affidavit that he did). For his part, Mellin confirmed that he asked Chellis to obtain copies of the two admitted pages from the day planner in preparation for his closing argument. He did not deny that the black day planner was in the courtroom or deny the possibility that he might have brought it there. In short, Mellin's testimony that he did not recall seeing the black day planner in the courtroom is not contradicted and is hardly incriminating. The only evidence presented was that the black day planner was last seen on the government's table, but not in Mellin's personal possession. 95 Second, the government's response to Lentz's motion, indicating that the black day planner was in the courtroom on government's counsel table, is not inconsistent with Mellin's testimony that he did not personally recall seeing the black day planner in the courtroom. Mellin testified that he did not personally observe the black day planner it in the courtroom, but Chellis testified that he did see it on counsel's table at some point after he made copies, which would render the government's response entirely consistent with the AUSA Office's internal investigation into the matter. In addition, the court security officer, at least early on, was attesting that it was in the courtroom as well. 96 Finally, the district court clearly erred in finding that Mellin's use of the black day planner during closing was inconsistent with his position at the evidentiary hearing that he placed no particular importance upon it. During closing, Mellin argued that the black day planner, which indicated an April 24 pick-up date for Julia, was consistent with Lentz's April 20th telephone message moving the pick-up from the 24th to the 23rd and that, in any event, the difference was irrelevant because neither date coincided with Julia's return ticket. If anything, Mellin's argument demonstrates that he did not view the black day planner entries as important, but rather as a red herring raised by the defense that warranted only a brief explanation in closing. 97