Opinion ID: 3001340
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sowers’s Drug Ledgers

Text: Schalk argues that the district court erred by admitting Sowers’s notebooks containing his drug ledgers into evidence; he asserts that the ledgers are inadmissible hearsay and are not admissible under any hearsay exception. This is a different objection than was raised in his motion in limine, where Schalk argued that the ledgers were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. 12 No. 06-2142 A definitive, unconditional ruling in limine preserves an issue for appellate review, without the need for later objection. Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562, 563 (7th Cir. 1999) (en banc). A litigant who loses an evidentiary ruling and then offers the evidence himself does not waive the established objection for purposes of appeal. Id. at 567 (overruling United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343 (7th Cir. 1991), to the extent it holds that an objection at trial is invariably required to preserve arguments for appeal that were fully presented to the district court before trial). However, Rule 103(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires litigants to state a specific ground for an objection to evidence, and “[g]rounds not presented cannot be raised later, else both judge and adversary are sandbagged (and preventable errors occur).” Id. In other words, “[t]he specific ground for reversal of an evidentiary ruling on appeal must also be the same as that [previously] raised.” United States v. Swan, 486 F.3d 260, 264 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Wynn, 845 F.2d 1439, 1442 (7th Cir. 1988)). If no objection was made that would put the district court (and the other party) on notice of the objecting party’s concern, then the standard of review is for plain error. See Swan, 486 F.3d at 264; Wynn, 845 F.2d at 1442. Although the parties appear to agree that the standard of review for this evidentiary ruling is abuse of discretion, they are both mistaken. In his motion in limine, Schalk objected to the admission of Sowers’s drug ledgers as irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. The district court definitively denied Schalk’s motion without any notice or consideration of Schalk’s now-present hearsay concern. At trial, Schalk himself moved the ledgers into evidence. While this did not affect his appeal, his new grounds for objection to the ledgers does. Because Schalk now challenges the district court’s evidentiary ruling on completely new grounds, we review this No. 06-2142 13 challenge for plain error only. On appeal, Schalk makes no argument that the district court improperly found the ledgers to be relevant and probative, therefore we need not review that determination. Under plain error review, an error must be “clear or obvious” and “affect substantial rights” in order to warrant reversing the district court’s decision to admit the evidence. Swan, 486 F.3d at 264; United States v. Sumner, 265 F.3d 532, 539 (7th Cir. 2001). This Court will not correct any error unless it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Swan, 486 F.3d at 264 (quoting United States v. Kibler, 279 F.3d 511, 514 (7th Cir. 2002)). To determine if plain error existed, we must decipher if the evidence should have been excluded, and if the failure to exclude such evidence seriously affected the outcome of the case. Neither seems to be the case here. Documents that can be considered “tools of the drug trade” constitute statements made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Thornton, 197 F.3d 241, 251 (7th Cir. 1999); see United States v. Nava-Salazar, 30 F.3d 788, 798 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. De Gudino, 722 F.2d 1351, 1356 (7th Cir. 1983). Sowers’s drug ledgers constitute admissions by a coconspirator of Schalk. The ledgers were made and kept by Sowers while he and Schalk were still engaged in the conspiracy. Therefore, the ledgers were admissible. Even if Sowers’s ledgers had been excluded from evidence, the remaining evidence, including the recorded conversations and Meneghetti and Sowers’s testimony at trial, was enough to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Schalk was involved in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine. We therefore find no plain error. 14 No. 06-2142