Opinion ID: 6350260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Jury Trial and Appeal1

Text: On April 21, 2010, Watson was indicted on two counts of attempting to kill a federal witness with intent to prevent testimony and communication with law enforcement. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(A),(C),(a)(2)(A),(C). The events that led to the charges occurred on February 27, 2010, when Watson stopped by Ann's Unisex Barbershop in Boston's South End to pay a visit to his friend and barber, Ricky Knight. Watson's longtime friend, Curtis Best (Best), was standing outside the barbershop chatting with Albert Rue (Rue), an acquaintance of both Watson and Best. Watson approached Best and asked him to talk privately. The two had not communicated for some time. They walked away and engaged in some small talk. Thereafter, [a] short distance from the barbershop, Watson stopped, enveloped Best in a faux embrace, and stabbed him ten times . . . while stating 'So you talking? So 1 The facts of the underlying criminal case have been thoroughly described in United States v. Watson, 695 F.3d 159 (1st Cir. 2012), in which we affirmed petitioner's conviction on direct appeal. In this opinion, we refer only to those facts salient to the issues before us. - 2 - you telling, huh?' United States v. Watson, 695 F.3d 159, 162 (1st Cir. 2012) Rue drove Best to Boston Medical Center, where he underwent surgery, and ultimately lived. At the time, Best was actively cooperating with federal authorities on a drug-related case that involved his and Watson's former drug supplier, John Camacho. Best provided the Drug and Enforcement Administration (DEA) information that identified potential co-conspirators, including Watson. Watson's trial began on October 25, 2010, and ended with a hung jury. Following a four-day retrial, he was convicted, and the district court sentenced him to an imprisonment term of 360 months. Watson appealed his conviction, challenging several evidentiary rulings and asserting that the prosecutor's closing argument was prejudicial to his case. Watson, 695 F.3d at 16162. We affirmed. On direct appeal, we first addressed the admissibility of evidence pertaining to a 2002 criminal case before the Massachusetts Superior Court in which Watson and two other individuals were charged with assault with intent to murder and assault and battery in relation to the stabbing of former Boston Celtics player, Paul Pierce (the Paul Pierce case). Watson, 695 F.3d at 163-64. The district court took judicial notice of the testimony of Krystal Bostick (Bostick) during that trial, as evidence of Watson's consciousness of guilt. Id. at 164-65. It - 3 - informed the jury that after Bostick spoke with the Providence Police Department and offered her testimony to the grand jury, but prior to trial, she reached out to Watson's counsel and recanted. Id. Additionally, during the trial itself, [she] repeatedly recanted her prior statements and identifications. Id. at 164. We ruled that the district court properly took judicial notice of these facts because the reference to the Paul Pierce case was invoked by Watson himself and, although likely adverse to him, it was not unfairly prejudicial. Id. at 165-66. We further held that the instructions imparted to the jury remedied any prejudicial effect. Id. Next, we found no error by the district court in admitting the testimonies of Best, his co-conspirator Antonio Narvaez, and DEA Agent Dennis Barton, given that the same were relevant in demonstrating Watson's motive for stabbing Best and [their] probative value was not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudice. Id. at 166. Third, we addressed Watson's challenge to the admission of an unredacted footnote in the supporting affidavit of DEA Special Agent, Brian Tomasetta (the Tomasetta affidavit). We concluded that, although the footnote therein should have been redacted, said error only revealed Watson's criminal history, which was otherwise evidenced at trial. Id. at 167-168. - 4 -