Opinion ID: 65711
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Romero-Bravo

Text: Contrary to Romero-Bravo’s assertion, the court was not forcing him to testify before the evidence was relevant, but was requiring that Officer Wylie’s proffered testimony be relevant before Romero-Bravo could address the subject on cross-examination, which would have required some evidence to support the 6 inferences that he would have asked the jury to make. Additionally, solely based on Officer Wylie’s proffered testimony, Romero-Bravo would have invited the jury to infer that (1) he and his codefendants originally were on a fishing boat, (2) the vessel sank after he issued a distress call, (3) the go-fast vessel rescued him and his codefendants, (4) the second vessel was looking for the codefendants, and (5) the drug smugglers who operated the go-fast vessel were turned over to Mexico. The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that this chain of inference was too attenuated to be relevant, as there was no evidence the defendants originally had been on another vessel, or the second vessel was looking for the defendants, and thus, the jury would have had to make these conclusions based on pure speculation. See Lyons, 403 F.3d at 1255-56; Hurn, 368 F.3d at 1366; Phelps, 733 F.2d at 1472.