Case: 12-13294 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 1 of 11
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13294
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20855-RNS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARL RICHARD SAMSON,
JACKENSON CONSTANT,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 27, 2013)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-13294 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 2 of 11
Jackenson Constant and Carl Richard Samson jointly appeal their
convictions for conspiring to interfere with commerce by robbery, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); attempting to interfere with commerce by robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2; and possessing firearms in furtherance of
a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2. On
appeal, Constant and Samson jointly argue: 1) the district court violated their Sixth
Amendment Confrontation rights by permitting two detectives to testify, and the
government to argue in its closing, that two severed co-defendants gave recorded
post-arrest statements that implicated them in the charged offenses; and 2) the
district court improperly admitted opinion testimony from two police officers that
Constant’s initial post-arrest statement was not credible and that both he and
Samson were guilty as charged. Additionally, Samson argues the district court
erred by admitting Constant’s post-arrest statement because it directly implicated
him and violated his Confrontation rights. We affirm.
I.
This case arises out of an armed-robbery that took place at a Wendy’s
Restaurant (“Wendy’s”) in Miami, Florida. Throughout the three-day trial, the
government presented evidence against Constant and Samson, including
Constant’s initial post-arrest statement denying involvement and subsequent
confession in his second post-arrest statement, video surveillance footage from the
2
Case: 12-13294 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 3 of 11
Wendy’s and a nearby business, Samson’s DNA on articles recovered from the car
used in the robbery, two police officers’ identifications of Constant, and two police
officers’ identifications of Samson.
At their joint trial, robbery detective Elio Garcia testified that he conducted
Constant’s initial post-arrest interview, twice challenging his version of the story,
and the second time telling Constant that he did not believe him.
Another detective, Jose Eduarte, testified that because he did not believe that
Constant’s initial story was credible, he decided to ask him additional questions in
a second interview. He further stated he participated in the “interviews of subjects
[Emile] Myrthil and [Aldair] Mentor,” without identifying them as severed co-
defendants, and that while Constant did not agree to be recorded, “other
individuals that night” consented to being taped.
Constant’s first statement revealed, in relevant part, that “three subjects with
guns” emerged from a gold-colored vehicle used in the robbery, and that he and
these subjects ran away from the scene once the officer arrived. Constant’s second
statement referenced the “other individuals” he robbed the Wendy’s with, and
otherwise focused on his own involvement in the robbery.
During the government’s closing statement, it stated the detectives also
obtained post-arrest statements from co-defendants Myrthil and Mentor.
3
Case: 12-13294 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 4 of 11
Following defense objections and motions based on Bruton,1 including a motion
for a mistrial, the district court instructed the jury to disregard the isolated
comment.
II.
This court generally reviews the district court’s rulings on admission of
evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Jimenez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1249
(11th Cir. 2000). However, “[e]videntiary errors that are not specifically objected
to at trial are reviewed for plain error.” United States v. Williford, 764 F.2d 1493,
1502 (11th Cir. 1985). Moreover, if defendants fail to object to alleged
Confrontation Clause violations at trial, we also review them for plain error.
United States v. Brazel, 102 F.3d 1120, 1141 (11th Cir. 1997).
This court reviews preserved Bruton claims for an abuse of discretion and
evaluates any Bruton error for harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt, but where
the defendant has failed to preserve his Bruton claim, this court reviews only for
plain error. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1275 (11th Cir. 2007).
To establish plain error, defendants must demonstrate that: (1) there was
error in the lower court’s action; (2) such error was plain, clear, and obvious; and
(3) the error affected substantial rights. United States v. Foree, 43 F.3d 1572, 1578
(11th Cir. 1995). The “erroneous admission of evidence does not warrant reversal
1
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968).
4
Case: 12-13294 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 5 of 11
if the error had no substantial influence on the outcome and sufficient evidence
uninfected by error supports the verdict.” See United States v. Harriston, 329 F.3d
779, 789 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted) (noting that error is
harmless “where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt.”). Even if these three
elements are present, this court will not reverse unless the error seriously affected
the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Id.
A.
The Confrontation Clause provides that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
U.S. Const. amend. VI. It applies not only to in-court testimony but also to out-of
court statements introduced at trial. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50-51,
124 S. Ct. 1354, 1364, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004). Prior testimonial statements may
be admitted only if the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had an
opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Id. at 68, 124 S. Ct. at 1374.
However, the Confrontation Clause “prohibits only statements that constitute
impermissible hearsay,” and does not bar “the use of testimonial statements for
purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.” United States v.
Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1286-87 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at
59 n.9, 124 S. Ct. at 1369).
This court has:
5
Case: 12-13294 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 6 of 11
long recognized that “[s]tatements by out of court witnesses to law
enforcement officials may be admitted as non-hearsay if they are
relevant to explain the course of the officials” subsequent
investigative actions, and the probative value of the evidence’s non-
hearsay purpose is not substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice caused by the impermissible hearsay use of the
statement.
Jiminez, 564 F.3d at 1287 (holding that a detective’s testimony that a co-defendant
made a post-arrest statement implicating the defendant did not violate Crawford
because it was admitted for the non-hearsay purpose of explaining to the jury why
the detective re-interviewed the defendant and why he might have changed his
story).
Finally, the purpose of closing argument is to help the jury evaluate the
evidence. United States v. Rodriguez, 765 F.2d 1546, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985).
During closing argument, the prosecutor is forbidden from making improper
suggestions, insinuations, and assertions calculated to mislead the jury. Id. at
1560. Prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument requires a new trial only
where the remarks were improper and prejudiced the defendants’ substantial rights.
United States v. Paul, 175 F.3d 906, 912 (11th Cir. 1999). In order to assess the
prejudicial impact of the comments, we evaluate them in the context of the trial as
a whole and assess their probable impact on the jury. United States v. Hernandez,
145 F.3d 1433, 1439 (11th Cir. 1998). Moreover, the jury is presumed to follow
6
Case: 12-13294 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 7 of 11
the district court’s instructions. United States v. Shenberg, 89 F.3d 1461, 1472
(11th Cir. 1996).
Because neither Constant nor Samson objected to the admission of any
testimony related to Myrthil’s and Mentor’s post-arrest statements, we review any
alleged violations only for plain error. Brazel, 102 F.3d at 1141. Importantly,
Constant and Samson do not identify the particular testimony they challenge on
appeal, or the law enforcement witness who gave this testimony. In any event, the
contents of Myrthil’s and Mentor’s post-arrest statements were never admitted into
evidence, Garcia never mentioned Myrthil or Mentor by name, and Eduarte only
mentioned that he participated in their interviews, and that “other individuals that
night” consented to giving recorded statements. Moreover, even assuming the
district court erred in this respect and that the error was plain, it did not affect
Constant and Samson’s substantial rights, nor did it seriously affect the fairness,
integrity, or reputation of the judicial proceeding because of the overwhelming
evidence of guilt presented against them.
With regard to the government’s closing argument referring to Myrthil’s and
Mentor’s statements, while the government argued facts not in evidence—that the
police got statements from the co-defendants as opposed to simply interviewing
them—the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a limiting
instruction, as opposed to granting a mistrial. Jimenez, 224 F.3d at 1249. Given
7
Case: 12-13294 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 8 of 11
the weight of the evidence presented against Constant and Samson, assessed in the
context of the trial as a whole, any prejudice from the government’s remark was
remedied by the court’s prompt instruction to disregard the isolated comment.
B.
A witness may testify to a matter “if evidence is introduced sufficient to
support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.” Fed. R.
Evid. 602. Moreover, “[e]vidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the
witness’s own testimony.” Id. More specifically, if a witness is not testifying as
an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (1)
rationally based on the witness’s perception; (2) helpful to clearly understanding
the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (3) not based on
scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 701. The
limitation on lay opinion testimony is the “familiar requirement of first-hand
knowledge or observation,” and “is phrased in terms of requiring that the lay
witness’s testimony be helpful in resolving issues.” United States v. Jayyousi, 657
F.3d 1085, 1102 (11th Cir. 2011).
Relevant evidence may be “excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. However,
“Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly.”
Jayyousi, 657 F.3d at 1108 (internal quotation marks omitted).
8
Case: 12-13294 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 9 of 11
Constant and Samson did not object to the detectives’ testimony before the
district court. Accordingly, on appeal, we conclude that the court did not plainly
err in allowing detectives Garcia and Eduarte to testify as to Constant’s credibility
as revealed through his initial post-arrest statement. With respect to Garcia, his
testimony that he twice challenged Constant’s version of the story, the second time
telling Constant that he did not believe him, was rationally based on his perception
and helpful to clearly understanding why Constant was ultimately interviewed a
second time by Eduarte. Fed. R. Evid. 701. In terms of Eduarte’s testimony,
which was limited to him stating that he did not believe that Constant’s initial story
was credible, its admission was not improper because it was offered for the
purpose of explaining why Eduarte decided to ask Constant additional questions in
a second interview. In relation to Samson, because the testimony focused solely on
Constant, it is unclear how either Garcia’s or Eduarte’s testimony alluded to his
role in the robbery or implicated his guilt in any way. Therefore, the district court
did not err in admitting the testimony regarding Constant’s initial post-arrest
statement.
Finally, even if the district court plainly erred in admitting this testimony
into evidence, as noted above, any such errors were harmless given the other
overwhelming evidence of guilt presented by the government.
9
Case: 12-13294 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 10 of 11
C.
With respect to Samson’s claim that the district court erred by admitting
Constant’s post-arrest statements into evidence, in Bruton, the Supreme Court held
that the Confrontation Clause was violated by the admission of a co-defendant’s
confession that inculpated the defendant at their joint trial, despite a curative
instruction given to a jury. Bruton, 391 U.S. at 126, 88 S. Ct. at 1622-23.
However, only those statements by a non-testifying co-defendant that directly
inculpate or “powerfully incriminate” the defendant give rise to a constitutional
violation. United States v. Arias, 984 F.2d 1139, 1142 (11th Cir. 1993).
“A statement is powerfully incriminating if it ‘expressly implicates’ the
defendant.” United States v. Mendoza-Cecelia, 963 F.2d 1467, 1481 (11th Cir.
1992). No Bruton problem exists, however, when the statement is “not
incriminating on its face, and became so only when linked with evidence later
introduced at trial.” Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208, 107 S. Ct. 1702,
1707, 95 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1987). Even the admission of inculpatory statements
constitutes harmless error if other admissible evidence of guilt is so overwhelming
that the admission of the non-testifying co-defendant’s statement is insignificant by
comparison. United States v. Veltmann, 6 F.3d 1483, 1500 (11th Cir. 1993).
Here, the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, because neither of
Constant’s post-arrest statements directly inculpated or “powerfully incriminated”
10
Case: 12-13294 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 11 of 11
Samson. Arias, 984 F.2d at 1142. No direct reference was made to Samson, and a
jury would not logically conclude that Constant’s general references to “three
subjects” or “individuals” necessarily represented that Samson was one of them.
Mendoza-Cecelia, 963 F.2d at 1481.
While Constant’s references to three other robbers might have helped
incriminate Samson when linked with the other evidence presented at trial, this is
insufficient to sustain a Bruton violation, as the statements were not incriminating
on their faces. Marsh, 481 U.S. at 208, 107 S. Ct. at 1707. Moreover, even if
Constant’s statement successfully inculpated Samson, the other aforementioned
admissible evidence of Samson’s guilt rendered Constant’s statement insignificant
by comparison. Veltmann, 6 F.3d at 1500.
AFFIRMED.
11