Opinion ID: 867984
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Death Certificates

Text: At the point during the trial that Lewis Hassell’s and Keaan Amaker’s death certificates were admitted into evidence, Robert made no Confrontation Clause objection on the record. The Motion in Limine Robert filed before trial did argue that evidence of uncharged deaths should be excluded, but based the argument solely on the Rules of Evidence, as opposed to asserting a constitutional claim. Similarly, no mention was made of the Confrontation Clause when this evidence 9 Case: 11-15268 Date Filed: 05/15/2013 Page: 10 of 19 was discussed during a bench conference before the death certificates were admitted. Then, no new objections were made when the death certificates were actually admitted into evidence. Indeed, the only place in the record Robert points to as raising a Confrontation Clause issue was after the death certificates had already been admitted. Therefore, Robert did not “lodge a timely Confrontation Clause objection” to the admission of the death certificates and we can only review for plain error. See Arbolaez, 450 F.3d at 1291. To prevail under plain error review, Robert must show “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). “If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Even if we assume that Robert satisfies the first two requirements of the plain error test, he has not shown that the admission of the death certificates “affect[ed] his substantial rights.” See id. To satisfy this requirement, Robert must show “a reasonable probability that the result would have been different but for the error” or a “probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 1299, 1301 (quotation marks omitted). Robert has failed in this regard, because even independent of the challenged testimony there was “overwhelming evidence” 10 Case: 11-15268 Date Filed: 05/15/2013 Page: 11 of 19 in support of Robert’s convictions. See United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1278 (11th Cir. 2007). We note that there was otherwise admissible evidence in the record to show that Lewis Hassell and Keaan Amaker died during the time they were Robert’s patients; the death certificates showed, and it is not disputed, that both Hassell’s and Amaker’s deaths were not caused entirely by drugs Robert prescribed; and after these certificates were admitted, the district court gave a limiting instruction to the jury, approved by Robert’s counsel, explaining that “there [was] no basis upon which [the jury] could find in this case Dr. Bourlier guilty of anything in connection with their deaths.”