Opinion ID: 71643
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Objections to Winn’s Testimony

Text: Before Winn testified, the district court heard arguments outside the presence of the jury to ascertain the substance of Winn’s testimony regarding the conversations he had with York while in jail. Senegal argued that allowing Winn to testify would violate Senegal’s right to confront York under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). 3 The district court overruled Senegal’s objection, finding that the statements were “integral to and a part of the entire conspiracy,” and were thus covered by Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).4 Once the jury returned, Winn testified that York stated that when the police arrested him and Joseph in Texas City, he possessed several firearms. This information went beyond Winn’s proffer outside the presence of the jury. Senegal and York immediately moved for a mistrial, arguing that Winn’s statement about the weapons alluded to evidence of other crimes, and that the Government violated Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by not disclosing their intent to introduce this testimony. The district court denied the motion.