Opinion ID: 2606
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Satanic Beliefs and 666 Tattoo

Text: We are more troubled by the testimony that the government elicited regarding Fell's satanic beliefs and tattoos  evidence that Fell argues was irrelevant to sentencing and intended to demonize him and frighten the jury. The government justified the cross-examination questioning as relevant to establishing motive, to explain the multiple killings, and to prove the heinous, cruel and depraved manner statutory aggravating factors. According to the government, a satanist believes he can murder rape and rob at will without regard for the moral or legal consequences, an inference buttressed by the fact that Fell committed the murders while wearing a Slayer t-shirt. [24] Fell did not object to this evidence and therefore we review its admission for plain error. See Jones, 527 U.S. at 389-90, 119 S.Ct. 2090. While evidence of the defendant's abstract moral beliefs may in some cases be constitutionally admissible to show motive, see Kane, 452 F.3d at 143, there must be stronger evidence of the connection than occurred here and it was a mistake for the prosecutor to offer the evidence. Although the government posits on appeal a relationship between the t-shirt Fell wore during the murders and Fell's satanic interests and his motive for killing Teresca King, we are not persuaded by the relevance of this evidence, which in any event was not argued to the jury. Nevertheless, to the extent that any unjustified reference to Fell's satanic beliefs occurring in the testimony constituted constitutional error, it was not challenged at trial and did not constitute plain error. It neither prejudiced Fell nor did it seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See Gonzalez, 110 F.3d at 945-46. The strength of the government's case convinces us that Fell cannot show that any error prejudicially affected substantial rights. See Jones, 527 U.S. at 389, 119 S.Ct. 2090. At trial, the government presented essentially uncontested evidence that there were multiple murders and that Fell killed King in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner. The evidence of Fell's interest in satanism, an issue that occupied a very small amount of trial time, added little to this showing and subtracted even less from the extensive mitigation evidence presented by Fell. As the verdict suggests, the jury was highly attentive to the aggravating and mitigating evidence that mattered. Moreover, the district court controlled any risk of prejudice through its instruction to the jury that it could not consider Fell's religious beliefs in rendering its decision because those considerations are completely irrelevant. In the special verdict form, each juror certified that he or she followed that instruction. For these reasons, we conclude that there was no plain error.