Opinion ID: 4529971
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jailhouse calls

Text: The same rationale suffices to dispose of the defendants' argument that the district court erred by not admitting certain of Flow's jailhouse phone calls. See United States v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36, 60 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting judge's discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to exclude extrinsic evidence of witness's bias). In any event, Flow admitted on crossexamination to many statements contained in the recordings that informed his motivation to testify, such as: that these people from La Perla, they treated me really bad; that he hate[d] some of the defendants; and that if he talk[ed], he expected to get a sentence between two, three or four years only. The jury had - 33 - sufficient information to discern Flow's possible bias. There was no reversible error here.