Opinion ID: 182659
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Witness Intimidation

Text: Begay argues that evidence showing that he sought to intimidate the witnesses against him was inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). Specifically, Begay challenges the admission of Clark's testimony that he was afraid to talk to investigators after Begay told him to keep quiet and to watch himself. He also challenges Jessica Lee's testimony that Begay told her to blame the murders on other people. Because Begay did not object to this evidence at trial, we review for plain error. See United States v. Banks, 514 F.3d 959, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2008). There was no error. First, the evidence in question was admissible to show Begay's consciousness of guilt. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir.1996). Second, its probative value outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice because the evidence also tended to explain why Clark and Lee delayed coming forward to investigators until they each had moved away from Greasewood. Begay also contends that he was not given reasonable notice by the government that it would introduce this evidence of his other wrongful acts. The government was not required to provide such notice unless Begay requested it. See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) (duty triggered upon request by the accused); United States v. Vega, 188 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.1999). Begay cites no request for notice, and our review of the record has not revealed one. Even if Begay did request notice and the government failed to provide it, the decision to admit the evidence does not require reversal. We recognize plain errors only if they seriously undermine the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Cruz-Perez, 567 F.3d 1142, 1146 n. 1 (9th Cir.2009). That did not happen here: The government disclosed the evidence itself and said specifically in its opening statement that some of it would be introduced. The defense had an opportunity to cross-examine the government's witnesses about the evidence. And the district court had no reason to suspect a notice problem absent an objection.