Opinion ID: 216984
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Testimony of Vazquez-Villa’s Brother-in-Law

Text: Vazquez-Villa’s brother-in-law, a prosecution witness, testified that his sister threatened him in an attempt to dissuade him from testifying. According to the brother-in-law, his wife threatened that if he testified for the prosecution, he would never see his children again. Another prosecution witness corroborated this account. Vazquez-Villa purportedly told the witness that if his brother-in-law testified, “[Vazquez-Villa] would make sure that he lost his wife and his kids.” R., Vol. V at 618. The district court did not err in admitting this testimony. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in -7- conformity therewith.” Under this rule, however, “[e]vidence of threats to a prosecution witness is admissible as showing consciousness of guilt if a direct connection is established between the defendant and the threat . . . .” United States v. Smith, 629 F.2d 650, 651 (10th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also F ED . R. E VID . 404(b) (evidence of bad acts is admissible to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident”). Accordingly, we have held that “a defendant’s threat against a potential witness is generally admissible under Rule 404(b)” because “such threats show the defendant’s intent to prevent the witness from testifying, and are thus an implicit acknowledgment of the defendant’s guilt.” United States v. Nichols, 374 F.3d 959, 967 (10th Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1113 (2005). Because Vazquez-Villa is closely related to his sister and her husband, and because of the corroborating testimony, a “direct connection” existed between the threats and the defendant, and the content of the threats was evidence of VazquezVilla’s “consciousness of guilt.” See Smith, 629 F.2d at 652. Although the threat was made by Vazquez-Villa’s sister, the threat was traceable to Vazquez-Villa, independently corroborated, and probative of Vazquez-Villa’s guilt. Thus, evidence regarding the threat to Vazquez-Villa’s brother-in-law was admissible under Rule 404(b). Further, even if the district court did err in admitting the testimony, the error was not plain. Vazquez-Villa points to no -8- authority—and indeed, we find none—stating that testimony regarding threats of the sort made are categorically inadmissible. See United States v. Wardell, 591 F.3d 1279, 1297–98 (10th Cir. 2009) (to constitute plain error, the district court’s decision must have been contrary to well-settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court).