Opinion ID: 177560
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bell's Letter to Booker

Text: Bell's first contention is that the district court erred when it admitted the letter he wrote to Booker. We ordinarily review a district court's admission of evidence for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir.2010), but here we review only for plain error because Bell's present argumentthat admission of the letter violated Fed.R.Evid. 608(b)rests on different grounds than the relevance objection he lodged at trial, United States v. Swan, 486 F.3d 260, 264 (7th Cir.2007); see also Fed. R.Evid. 103(a)(1). Under plain-error review, the defendant must show that (1) there was error, (2) it was plain, (3) it affected his substantial rights and (4) the court should exercise its discretion to correct the error because it seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. United States v. Jumah, 599 F.3d 799, 811 (7th Cir.2010); see also Puckett v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). While cross-examining Bell, the government asked him about Booker. Bell objected on relevancy grounds, and at sidebar the government explained that it wanted to ask Bell about the letter. It further explained that the letter goes to his contacting the witnesses and trying to have them testify to his theory of the defense. Tr. 115, Sept. 15, 2009. After reading the letter, the district court allowed the questioning and received the letter over Bell's objection even though the government never formally moved for its admission. The government did not publish the letter to the jury. It instead asked Bell questions like, Now in that letter, you told him about how you would loan people money; is that right?, [Y]ou told him at the top of the letter that you wanted him to flush the letter down the toilet, is that correct?, and [Y]ou were subtly trying to tell him what to say, is that right? Tr. 118-19, Sept. 15, 2009. Bell readily acknowledged that he wrote the letter, and affirmed that in it he told Booker about his paternalistic activities. He denied that he was trying to tell Booker how to testify. What he was really doing with the letter, he said, was asking Booker in the context of the letter to come tell the truth at trial. Tr. 119, Sept. 15, 2009. The government ended its questioning once Bell denied attempting to influence Booker. On redirect, Bell testified that he did not volunteer to write Booker and explained that he only did so because Booker inquired about his case and he did not want to talk about it on the phone. Later, when the jury asked to see the letter during deliberations, Bell argued for it to go back in its entirety. Bell was wise to abandon his relevancy objection on appeal. The letter was relevant not only to Bell's credibility and that of his giving heart defense but also to his consciousness of guilt. See United States v. Miller, 276 F.3d 370, 373-74 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Shorter, 54 F.3d 1248, 1251-52, 1260 (7th Cir.1995). His present theory is no more successful. Even if we were to assume that Rule 608(b) is relevant here and that the district court plainly erred in failing to apply itwhich we doubt, given that the letter was used to undermine Bell's credibility and defense theory and not to prove any misconduct on his part, see Fed. R.Evid. 608(b)Bell cannot satisfy the exacting plain error standard because he has not demonstrated that he was seriously prejudiced by the admission of the letter. See United States v. McGee, 612 F.3d 627, 631 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that an adverse effect on one's substantial rights in the plain error context generally means serious prejudice). Indeed, Bell's minimally developed argument regarding the letter does not suggest that it affected his substantial rights in any way. The record likewise does not support such a finding. See United States v. Ali, 619 F.3d 713, 718-19 (7th Cir.2010). To the contrary, it shows that Bell, not the government, published the letter using the courtroom's video display system and later insisted that the letter be provided to the jury during deliberations. Moreover, the case against Bell was strong. He concedes that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction, see Reply Br. 8, and we agree that the government's case would not have been significantly less persuasive had the letter been excluded on any theory. Cf. United States v. Cooper, 591 F.3d 582, 590 (7th Cir.) (discussing harmless error analysis), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3530, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2010). We therefore affirm the district court's admission of the letter.