Court Opinion

ID: 9479446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:18:50.761589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:02.918135
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Although the majority pays lip service to the clear abuse of discretion standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings, it reduces to a mere form of words our highly deferential touchstone. By reevaluating the credibility of witnesses and reweighing the evidence, the opinion usurps the role of the jury and diminishes to the point of extinction the substantial evidence against Miller for the January 7, 1987, drug deal, while the evidence of the September 3, 1987, sale is somehow transformed into a monster.
The majority opinion holds that the extrinsic evidence was not admissible to show identity, method of operations or to corroborate Lyons’ testimony. It concedes that the extrinsic offense was probative of intent but concludes that the district court clearly abused its discretion in admitting it, primarily because (1) the government’s case concerning the January transaction was “weak;” (2) the government “orchestrated” the September drug buy; and (3) the two crimes were not sufficiently similar. I would hold that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion, because the evidence of the September, 1987, violation was admissible to prove identity, mo-dus operandi and intent.1 In the alternative, I would find that even if the Rule *1548404(b) evidence were inadmissible, then the district court’s abuse of discretion was at most a harmless error because the evidence of the January, 1987, transaction was substantial, perhaps overwhelming.
Central to the panel’s reversal of this conviction is its insistence that the government’s case was weak. According to the opinion, the government’s case “relied solely on Lyons,” and the Rule 404(b) material constituted the prosecution’s “entire case.” In my view, this conclusion distorts the record. The testimony of three witnesses puts Miller at the scene of the January, 1987, crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Agent Harvey recounted that during the course of a surveillance on January 7, 1987, he received a radio transmission advising him to look for a blue Pontiac Grand Am. He spotted the car at 2:00 P.M.: “I observed the car in the neighborhood just to the north of [Lyons’ mother’s] house and observed Labron Lyons in the front passenger seat of the Grand Am, and I observed Louis Miller driving the Grand Am. I just saw them for a brief minute.” R. 2-30. A couple of minutes later, after the car had returned to the house, Agent Harvey resumed surveillance of the Grand Am. R. 2-30-31. In the agent’s words,
At that point, when I was following it again, it was only Louis Miller in the car. Myself and several other cars followed Miller for several miles. We also had an airplane on surveillance which was mainly calling out the direction of travel. We stayed on the car for about a half hour. At one point we observed Miller stop, I observed him stop and make a telephone call from a pay phone on Campbellton Road just west of 285. We later followed him on to 285. He went south, and we eventually lost him in traffic.
R. 2-31. Agent Harvey positively identified Miller in court as the driver of the Grand Am. R. 2-31. On cross-examination, he declared that when he first saw Miller at the wheel of the car, he was “very close,” so close that the agent became concerned about being “burned,” i.e. discovered by the targets of the investigation. R. 2-34.
Incredibly, the majority dismisses Agent Harvey’s testimony as unreliable because he did not have “a good view of the suspect.” Of course this inaccurate assessment of the evidence overlooks the fact that Agent Harvey saw Miller get out of the Grand Am and make a telephone call minutes after the drug deal had transpired, and that the entire transaction took place in broad daylight. In determining that Agent Harvey’s identification of Miller was not credible, the majority assumes a function the law has wisely assigned to the jury or factfinder. Having before us only a cold record, this court is not competent in most cases to decide which witnesses had a good view. There is absolutely no reason to second guess the jury’s assessment of Agent Harvey’s testimony.
Agent Bledsoe also identified Miller as the cocaine supplier. She recalled that on January 7, 1987, while buying cocaine in an undercover capacity, Lyons told her that he would beep “Louis,” the man who would bring the contraband. R. 2-66. Lyons also informed Agent Bledsoe that Louis would be driving either a Mercedes, a blue Chevrolet Blazer or a Grand Am. R. 2-67. Agent Bledsoe said that Louis Miller arrived at Lyons’ mother’s house at 2:00 in the afternoon, the driver and only occupant of a blue Grand Am. R. 2-67. She identified Miller in court as the driver of the vehicle. R. 2-67. Agent Bledsoe testified that after the cocaine was delivered to her on January 7, 1987, Lyons let her know that Louis would have higher quality cocaine for sale later in the day. R. 2-96. As the majority points out, Agent Bledsoe revealed on cross-examination that she observed Miller by looking into her vehicle’s rear view mirror. R. 2-99. However, she expressed no uncertainty about the identity of the Grand Am’s driver, explaining, “I immediately observed Mr. Miller and recalled I knew him from a previous meeting at the ‘Electric Blue.’ ” R. 2-96. According to Agent Bledsoe, the Electric Blue is a disco in Greensboro, Georgia, and there she and her partner had approached Miller one night in 1986 to discuss purchasing cocaine. R. 2-86-87. While Agent Bledsoe had stood by watching, her partner had spoken with Miller on that occasion. R. 2-93. She identified Miller in court as the individual *1549with whom her partner had spoken at the Electric Blue. R. 2-101. Plainly, Agent Bledsoe’s identification of Miller is much more convincing than the majority decision cares to admit. Her testimony certainly is not so faulty as to be casually brushed aside for the dubious reason that she did not have a good view of Miller.
Finally, the testimony of Labron Lyons, Miller’s co-defendant, established that Miller participated in the January, 1987, sale. Lyons stated unequivocally that Louis Miller supplied the cocaine for sale to Agent Bledsoe on January 7, 1987. R. 2-43. His testimony fully corroborated that of Agent Bledsoe as to the particulars of that transaction. The defense attacked Lyons’ veracity, uncovering the details of the witness’ drug use, prior conviction and plea bargain. This material, though, properly was weighed by the jury, whose role was to decide whether Lyons “was far from a good witness.” While the majority clearly was swayed by the defendant’s attack on Lyons’ credibility, the jury may well have found believable his testimony of the events of January 7, 1987.
The panel barely acknowledges that extrinsic act evidence is admissible for purposes other than to prove a person’s bad character, such as to show a method of operation or identity. It would grudgingly allow other act evidence on such grounds only where the extrinsic offense and the charged crime are somehow unique. In the majority’s view, where the charged crime and the other crime are “routine” drug transactions,2 the extrinsic act is not admissible even though the two are identical in all important particulars. This position is contrary to the law of this circuit. As enunciated by the former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the test for determining similarity of method is not whether the two operations “were ... precisely the same, [but whether] they correspond in important particulars.” United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 55 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 871, 93 S.Ct. 200, 34 L.Ed.2d 122 (1972),3 followed, United States v. Williford, 764 F.2d 1493, 1497-98 (11th Cir.1985). In Alston, the court of appeals held that extrinsic evidence of transactions involving the defendant and a government agent which took place both before and after the sale that constituted the indictment was admissible to establish a certain methodology of operations and to show the defendant’s knowledge that the substance he was selling was heroin. Alston, 460 F.2d at 54-56. The admissible evidence included tape recordings of telephone conversations between the defendant and the agent. The court found the prior act to be similar in that both arrangements involved the same amount of heroin at the same cost, and both involved the use of third parties to deliver the controlled substance. In addition, the earlier transaction, like the one for which the defendant was indicted, involved the use of a previously arranged code. Id. at 55.
The key which unlocks Rule 404(b) and opens the door to extrinsic act evidence showing identity or method of operations is the high degree of similarity between the charged and uncharged offenses, not, as is suggested in the opinion, the relative uniqueness of the crimes. See United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 912 n. 15 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 920, 99 S.Ct. 1244, 59 L.Ed.2d 472 (1979). Ironically, the majority misreads the Beechum dicta it venerates, using selective quotation to mischaracterize the meaning of the relevant passage. What the former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals actually said was:
The identity of the defendant may be established by evidence of offenses extrinsic to the indictment. In this in*1550stance, the likeness of the offenses is the crucial consideration. The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused. In other words, the evidence must demonstrate a modus operandi. Thus, “[a] much greater degree of similarity between the charged crime and the uncharged crime is required when the evidence of the other crime is introduced to prove identity than when it is introduced to prove a state of mind.”
Id. (citations omitted; emphasis added).
Illustrative of this circuit’s view is United States v. Messersmith, 692 F.2d 1315 (11th Cir.1982). In that case, the court held admissible evidence of another crime, observing:
The drug smuggling operation which these defendants conducted two weeks before the crime charged is clearly relevant to their identity as the individuals who committed this crime. The operation which the informant described has the same unusual features as the crime charged. Both trips were financed by [the same third party], both trips involved the two defendants, both trips involved a departure from Costa Rica to Colombia with an intended fuel stop at Caicos, and both trips were made for the purpose of picking up large quantities of quaaludes. Given these similarities, as well as the short space of time between the two incidents, the court properly found that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by its prejudice to the defendants.
Id. at 1320-21. Certainly, the drug smuggling operations in Messersmith were no more unique than the crimes in this case. Quaaludes are not rare, and smuggling them into this country from South America by plane is common.4 The transactions in Messersmith were, in sum, not distinctive as that term is used by the majority. The two smuggling operations were, however, quite similar in their particulars and thus the other act evidence was properly admitted.
Another example of this circuit’s focus on similarity as opposed to novelty is the court’s recent decision in United States v. Stubbins, 877 F.2d 42 (11th Cir.1989). In Stubbins, the defendant was convicted for selling crack cocaine to DEA Agent Ronald Boston on July 16, 1987. During the transaction, the defendant had expressed reservations about doing the deal, explaining to the undercover agent that he was already under indictment. Afterward, Agent Boston wrote in his report that the offense had taken place at 1808 24th Avenue. He later learned the correct address to be 1808 23rd Avenue. Over defense objection, the district court allowed Tampa Police Officer Paul Miller to testify that on April 9, 1987, he had seen the defendant attempt to sell crack on the street outside 1808 23rd Avenue. As of July 16, 1987, charges still were pending against the defendant as a result of the prior offense. Id. at 43.
This court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, “holding ... that the extrinsic offense [was] sufficiently similar so as to be relevant to show identity.” Id. at 44. Discussing its reasons for so deciding, the court wrote:
In this case, the distinctive feature of both offenses was that they occurred at the same address. As the district judge stated in his ruling on the evidence question, “both offenses were involved with or originated in or were a part of the use of the same premises and ... that factor is sufficiently unusual and distinctive as to constitute a modus operandi ...” The defense was mistaken identity and counsel made much of the fact that Agent Boston’s report had a different address from the one he gave in his testimony. The extrinsic evidence helped to explain how Boston later discovered, *1551from conversations with Miller, the incorrect address on the report and supported his identification of the defendant as the person who sold him the cocaine. Further, the person who sold cocaine to Agent Boston stated that he was already under indictment. This further served to indentify defendant as the person involved in the cocaine sale.
Id. (emphasis added).
Nothing in the Stubbins opinion suggests that the crack sales were in any way unique. Actually, the transactions seem to have been rather ordinary. The court’s emphasis was on the likeness of the offenses, as it should have been. The majority opinion thus is plainly inconsistent with the Stubbins decision. In the instant case, one of the many similarities between the two crimes was that they occurred at the same address. In Stubbins, the fact that both incidences had occurred at the same location sufficiently marked the offenses as the handiwork of the accused. Stubbins therefore compels the conclusion that the evidence of the extrinsic act in the present case demonstrated a modus operandi and was properly admitted to show identity.
Because the majority cannot harmonize its holding with that of the panel in Stub-bins, the opinion attempts an unreasonable restatement of the Stubbins decision. First, no fair reading of Stubbins permits the conclusion that this court rejected the district court’s reasoning that the fact that the crimes had occurred at the same place made them sufficiently distinctive to constitute a modus operandi. Rather, the panel approved the district court’s statement. This must be so, because as far as one can tell from the opinion, the only similarities between the two crimes were the common site and the sale of same illegal substance. The court explicitly rejected the notion that any prior crack offense would always be admissible, id. at 44. Therefore, the fact that the two crimes had occurred at the same address was the key similarity, the feature which let in the extrinsic act evidence. Second, the majority’s assertion that the extrinsic crime in Stubbins was not used as circumstantial evidence of identity but rather “was used as direct evidence to explain [Agent Boston’s] identification of the dwelling” cannot be taken seriously. Certainly Officer Miller’s testimony corroborated Agent Boston’s and thereby strengthened the agent’s identification of the defendant. But Miller’s testimony did not directly connect the defendant with Agent Boston, nor Agent Boston with 1808 23rd Avenue. Cf. United States v. Clemons, 676 F.2d 122, 123 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (in drug prosecution, deputy’s testimony about subsequent drug purchase was admissible, where testimony helped establish defendant’s identity and connected him with confidential informant); Sanchez v. United States, 341 F.2d 565, 566 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 860, 86 S.Ct. 119, 15 L.Ed.2d 98 (1965) (evidence that defendant had been seen in detective’s office two months prior to bank robbery relevant to detective’s identification of defendant). It did so indirectly, and thus the extrinsic offense was circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s identity and of the scene of the crime. Not only does the majority’s interpretation of Stubbins contradict that panel’s express holding, its alternative ratio decidendi is legally unsound under the facts of that case.
In the instant case the two transactions are described as being almost dissimilar. Yet the two drug deals were identical in all important particulars, and the majority’s contrary claim that “the only similarity between the transactions was that they involved a similar means of delivering cocaine” ignores the reality contained in the record. Both the September transaction and the January transaction share certain noteworthy features. In both instances, Agent Bledsoe posed as a buyer of cocaine. Both times Labron Lyons brokered the deal, contacting Miller by using a beeper. Both transactions involved similar amounts of cocaine — one ounce in the first sale and two ounces in the latter one. The site of both sales was the home of Lyons’ mother. Each operation unfolded in a similar manner. Miller arrived at the house shortly after being beeped by Lyons. Lyons entered Miller’s vehicle, and they drove around the block for several minutes. While in the car, money and drugs changed hands, Lyons tendering the cash and Miller *1552delivering the cocaine. The car then returned to the house and parked behind the vehicle occupied by Agent Bledsoe. Lyons exited Miller’s car and delivered the cocaine to Agent Bledsoe. Only minor discrepancies distinguish the two transactions. In the first one, Miller arrived alone, driving a blue Grand Am, while the second time he appeared at the house in a blue Monte Carlo, riding as a passenger. Apart from the presence of a third party driver in the subsequent crime and the use of different makes and models of automobiles, the two offenses are, in all important particulars, indistinguishable. I would hold that the evidence of the subsequent crime showed a similarity of method which was probative of the defendant’s identity and criminal intent, both of which were in issue, and that the other act evidence was properly admissible for such purposes.
The majority admits that the extrinsic evidence was relevant in this case to show intent, but, after applying the Rule 403 balancing test, it concludes that the district court abused its discretion because the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. In so holding, the majority advances several arguments which largely echo those made earlier in its opinion. The first is the contention that the similarities between the January and September transactions are attributable to the government’s “orchestration” of the second sale. Even if I agreed that the government “orchestrated” the September transaction, the majority’s faulty premise, which it repeats no less than five times in its opinion, finds no support in our cases, and is wholly inconsistent with the former Fifth Circuit’s decision in Alston, a case which involved at least as much “orchestration” as is found here.
A second factor considered by the majority is the length of time, nine months, separating the charged crime and the extrinsic offense. The opinion hints that this “remoteness,” coupled with the “dissimilarity” between the offenses, renders the other act evidence less probative. I would disagree and cite United States v. Hitsman, 604 F.2d 443, 448 (5th Cir.1979) (where offenses were two to three years apart, prior drug crime was probative of intent).
Lastly, the majority attackes the government’s “weak” case. I have already referred to this issue in detail but reemphasize that I find the government’s evidence of the January transaction to be quite strong.
Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the government to introduce the evidence of the September, 1987, transaction for the purpose of showing the defendant’s state of mind. I disagree that the facts of this case are unique. It is precisely because district courts frequently face such evidentiary questions that I vigorously oppose the majority decision. I fear that the opinion, despite its invocation of the clear abuse standard, will unreasonably fetter the broad discretion of the district courts in this area, and I fear that probative, relevant evidence will be excluded unnecessarily as a result.
Even assuming the district court did abuse its discretion in admitting the extrinsic act evidence, the error was at most harmless, for the other evidence against Miller was substantial.5 United States v. Hosford, 782 F.2d 936, 939-40 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1118, 106 S.Ct. 1977, 90 L.Ed.2d 660 (1986); United States v. Martin, 794 F.2d 1531, 1533 n. 4 (11th Cir.1986). “[T]he evidence of guilt was of such magnitude that even if prior bad acts testimony was improvidently admitted, the error did not ‘affect the substantial rights of the parties.’ ” Hosford, 782 F.2d at 940.
*1553I therefore would affirm Miller’s conviction. respectfully dissent and

. Whether extrinsic act evidence is admissible to corroborate the testimony of a government witness whose credibility has been attacked by the defense is an open question in this circuit. United States v. Williford, 764 F.2d 1493, 1498 n. 1 (11th Cir.1985). The majority’s sweeping dictum to the contrary should be disregarded and the issue settled in an appropriate case. Were other avenues of admissibility not available here, this case might well be an appropriate vehicle for making that determination.

. The majority writes that the operation here was a "common method of drug trafficking.” Since there is absolutely no evidence in the record to support this assertion, I must assume that the court is utilizing its common knowledge of the commerce in contraband. If, however, this transaction were in fact routine, it seems to me that a case or two could be found presenting similar facts to support the statement. I am skeptical that the transaction at issue was routine, but resolution of this issue is not necessary to my analysis.

. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent the decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.

. See, e.g., United States v. O’Neill, 767 F.2d 780 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Nabors, 707 F.2d 1294 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1021, 104 S.Ct. 1271, 79 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); United States v. Hawkins, 661 F.2d 436 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), cert. denied sub nom., McCain v. United States, 456 U.S. 991, 102 S.Ct. 2274, 73 L.Ed.2d 1287 (1982); United States v. Stone, 659 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981); United States v. Kragness, 830 F.2d 842 (8th Cir.1987); United States v. Bonadonna, 775 F.2d 949 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Roper, 716 F.2d 611 (4th Cir.1983); United States v. Burchinal, 657 F.2d 985 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1086, 102 S.Ct. 646, 70 L.Ed.2d 622 (1981).

. The majority quotes my statement out of context to support its contention that my conclusion "relies on pure speculation.” The majority insists upon putting an astonishing “defendant’s spin” on the government's case, discounting or simply disregarding the testimony of Agents Harvey and Bledsoe and co-defendant Lyons as to Miller’s participation in the January crime. Despite the strong evidence, I disagree with the opinion's argument that "there was [therefore] no need for the government to use the evidence of the September transaction at trial.” The prosecution is obligated to present the strongest case possible under the law. Our role is neither to tell the government how to try its case nor to second guess the district court’s reasonable evi-dentiary ruling where admissibility was a close question.