Opinion ID: 202634
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidentiary Claim

Text: 32 Appellant's final claim of error is that the district court abused its discretion in ordering redaction of a portion of a real estate brochure that was admitted as an exhibit. See United States v. Maldonado-García, 446 F.3d 227, 231 (1st Cir.2006) (noting abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary issues). The brochure contained pictures, written descriptions, and sales prices for three properties, including 12 Trainor Road. The redacted exhibit deletes the information about the two unrelated properties and the $695,000 selling price for 12 Trainor Road. 33 The government sought exclusion of the selling price on the ground that the information did not relate to the time period of the charged offenses and therefore was both irrelevant and confusing for the jury. The trial judge agreed, stating that he did not think the defense should be allowed to argue price on something that hasn't been testified to and is not in the right time frame because it would be misleading and improper. 34 On appeal, appellant contends that the brochure price was vital to his attempt to show that the appraisals he had obtained were reasonable, and he argues that there was, in fact, record support for the price. He points to the following colloquy between defense counsel and appraiser Hill: 35 Q: Do you see the real estate appraisal value to the left-hand side of the photo? 36 A: Yes, sir. 37 Q: Do you think that accurately describes the property description as of October 25th, 2000? 38 A: Yes, sir. 39 The government asserts that appellant is off-the-mark in suggesting that defense counsel's use of the words appraisal value in his question indicates that Hill's response endorses the $695,000 selling price; rather, the government contends, the response more reasonably is understood to be Hill's affirmation that the property description is accurate. We think this is the only sensible characterization of the evidence. Not only did the questions immediately following the excerpted colloquy pertain to the wording of the property description, but Hill had performed one of the appraisals on the property admitted into evidence. Hill's appraisal set the property value in October 2000 at $510,000. Given that context, the testimony cited above cannot be understood to support the $695,000 price in the brochure, and the district court cannot be faulted for excluding it.