Opinion ID: 164826
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Threatening Statement to Agent Cazenavette

Text: 26 Nichols similarly argues Agent Cazenavette's testimony about Nichols' threatening statement should have been excluded under Rule 404(b). 6 Again, we review the district court's ruling for an abuse of discretion. 27 Agent Cazenavette's testimony was as follows: 28 He looked toward me and he said, You reap what you sow. And I just kind of looked at him and said, Excuse me? And he said, Next time you come down on somebody like that they may have a present for you, something that will go through that, and that meaning my vest. I was wearing a ballistic vest that had Police on front of it. And I said, you know, Are you threatening me? And he said, No, I'm no trigger man, he said, but someone may have a present for you next time you come down on somebody. 29 Tr. of Jury Trial at 235, R. Vol. 5. 30 Here, the government agrees that Rule 404(b) applies. See United States v. Esparsen, 930 F.2d 1461, 1475 (10th Cir.1991). It asserts, however, that a defendant's threat against a potential witness is generally admissible under Rule 404(b) for the purpose of showing consciousness of guilt. Though this is a correct statement of the law, the government fails to acknowledge the fact that here the threat was made to an arresting officer at the time of arrest, not to a potential witness. 7 The cases holding threats against a witness admissible reason that such threats show the defendant's intent to prevent the witness from testifying, and are thus an implicit acknowledgment of the defendant's guilt. See, e.g., United States v. Copeland, 321 F.3d 582, 597 (6th Cir.2003) ([T]hreats against a witness constitute an effort by the defendant to tamper with the substance of the government's case, and thus are probative of a defendant's awareness that the government is likely to prevail at trial.); United States v. Young, 248 F.3d 260, 272 (4th Cir.2001) (similar). We cannot view Nichols' statement to Agent Cazenavette as indicating a similar intent. See Copeland, 321 F.3d at 598 (concluding that threats against a prosecutor do not imply a defendant's intention to destroy evidence). 31 Nichols' statement may nevertheless be admissible under Rule 404(b) for one of the listed permissible purposes, such as motive, intent, or knowledge. See Esparsen, 930 F.2d at 1476 n. 16. We decline to pursue this question, however, because we conclude that even if the district court's admission of Cazenavette's testimony was an abuse of discretion, the error was harmless because there was other substantial evidence of Nichols' guilt. See id. at 1476. 32 We therefore affirm the district court's ruling on this issue. 33