Opinion ID: 744692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Threats to Serrato's Family

Text: 15 Pierson contends the district court abused its discretion by admitting government witness Serrato's testimony that his family received anonymous threats of physical harm after he was arrested. Pierson contends this testimony violated Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403, 404(b) and 901, and rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. He argues it was fundamentally unfair for the district court to permit this testimony without a scintilla of evidence linking the alleged threats to Mr. Pierson or anyone associated with him. He argues the testimony was extremely prejudicial because [t]he only reasonable inference from [Serrato's] testimony was that Mr. Pierson sponsored the threats in an attempt to silence Serrato. 16 We do not agree that the only reasonable inference from Serrato's testimony is that Pierson sponsored the threats. In light of Serrato's entire testimony, a more likely inference is that other cartel members threatened Serrato's family after Serrato was arrested in an attempt to keep Serrato from revealing his knowledge of the cartel's activities. As Pierson observes in his brief, nothing in the record suggested that Pierson had anything to do with these threats or even knew about them, and the government never attempted to make any connection between Pierson and the threats. 17 Moreover, the evidence was relevant to Serrato's credibility by explaining his motive for testifying against his former co-conspirator. Viewed in context, it is clear that Serrato's testimony regarding the threats was introduced to show that the only incentive the government offered Serrato to testify against Pierson was assistance in protecting his wife from drug operatives in Colombia. 1 Evidence of the threats was relevant to show why Serrato's family needed protection. See United States v. Castleberry, 642 F.2d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir.1981) (noting that a former co-conspirator's testimony that he had received threats following his arrest was relevant to explain why the witness was cooperating with the government in exchange for protection). 18 The cases Pierson relies on are inapposite. In Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891 (9th Cir.1996), we considered the prejudicial effect of evidence that the defendant himself had threatened two witnesses. Id. at 897. Here, in contrast, there was no evidence that Pierson made the threats. Furthermore, in Ortiz-Sandoval, we concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence and that its admission did not render the trial fundamentally unfair. Id. at 898. In United States v. Harrison-Philpot, 978 F.2d 1520 (9th Cir.1992), we held that the admission of evidence that the defendant himself had made threats in the past violated rule 404(b)'s prohibition of evidence of prior bad acts on the part of the defendant. Id. at 1527. Here, no evidence was introduced that Pierson committed any prior bad acts. 19 In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence Serrato's testimony about threats to his family following his arrest. 20