Opinion ID: 202348
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Airline reservation evidence

Text: 41 At trial, Wallace objected to the evidence of an airline flight reservation as irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401 and 402. 5 On appeal, he also contends that the evidence was unfairly prejudicial under Fed. R.Evid. 403. 6 We review the preserved Fed.R.Evid. 401 and 402 objection for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Richardson, 421 F.3d 17, 37 (1st Cir.2005). We review the unpreserved Fed.R.Evid. 403 objection for plain error. See United States v. Cotto-Aponte, 30 F.3d 4, 6 n. 1 (1st Cir.1994). 42 The district court admitted evidence of a Southwest Airlines reservation made on August 28, 2000 for a roundtrip flight on August 30, 2000 from Providence, Rhode Island, to Phoenix, Arizona, scheduled for return on September 20, 2000, in the names of Devon Lewis and James Coleman. 7 The flights were never taken and there was no evidence as to who made the reservation. 43 Wallace argues that the evidence should have been excluded as irrelevant because there was no foundation linking him to that reservation. On the contrary, there was ample foundation linking Wallace to the reservations. The flight reservation was made in his alias and in the name of a man whom Wallace asserts is his cousin. Furthermore, Wallace admitted in his testimony that it was possible that he made a flight reservation to Arizona in this time period. Thus, the flight reservation was adequately linked to Wallace. As the government argues, the flight reservation, although never used, had some relevance towards undermining Wallace's claim that he had permanently relocated to Arizona at some point prior to the date of the reservation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence over the defendant's Fed.R.Evid. 401 and 402 objection. 44 On appeal, the defendant also argues that the evidence should have been excluded under Fed.R.Evid. 403 because its probative value, if any, was outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial impact. He argues that [i]ts only possible use could have been to improperly undermine defendant's contention that he was in Arizona from July 2000 through October 2000. The government argues that there was nothing unfair about asking the jury to draw this inference against the defendant's alibi. We agree. In any event, there was no plain error under Fed.R.Evid. 403 in admitting this evidence.