Court Opinion

ID: 9876014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:46:51.981136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:07.318676
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority’s judgment. But the majority states that the district court “may have erred” by admitting Tapia’s inflammatory statements and by failing to limit sufficiently the gang expert evidence, but that any error was harmless. I write separately because, in my view, there was no error, harmless or otherwise, and the majority is wrong to suggest there “may” be error. The district court properly admitted Tapia’s inflammatory statements, as they were relevant to the continuing criminal enterprise charge and were not more prejudicial than probative. Furthermore, due to the fact that the government proved much of the case through audio and video evidence of gang activity, the gang expert testimony was needed to translate this evidence to the jury. Accordingly, I would hold that the district court did not commit error in this case, and the majority is mistaken that it “may have.”