United States v. Meier Jason Brown

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-10325 March 13, 2006
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-00001-CR-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MEIER JASON BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(March 13, 2006)

Before DUBINA, BARKETT, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

MARCUS, Circuit Judge:

In this capital case, Meier Jason Brown appeals his conviction and death

sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia. A jury found him guilty of 1) murder within the territorial jurisdiction of

the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111; 2) murder of a federal

employee (a postal worker), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1114; and 3) robbery of

federal property ($1175 in postal money orders), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2114.

The jury recommended that Brown should be sentenced to die for the murder

convictions; and the district judge imposed a death sentence, along with 300

months in prison for the robbery.

Brown timely appealed, arguing that the district court made evidentiary and

constitutional errors, inappropriately conducted voir dire, and violated both Brady

v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).1

After thorough review, we affirm.

I.

1
Specifically, Brown contends that the district court erred by: 1) refusing to suppress
statements allegedly obtained without Miranda warnings; 2) refusing to conduct an evidentiary
hearing on Brown’s motion to suppress improper and suggestive identification evidence; 3)
finding that the government did not improperly withhold Brady material; 4) quashing Brown’s
subpoena for the production of state records; 5) denying Brown’s motion to prohibit the death-
qualification of jurors; 6) denying Brown’s motion for bifurcated voir dire; 7) asking certain
questions in the process of death qualifying the jury; 8) excusing juror Fahey; 9) telling a juror
that Brown had entered a guilty plea; 10) allowing hearsay testimony at both the guilt-innocence
and penalty stages of the trial; 11) allowing the introduction of certain crime scene photos; 12)
finding the Federal Death Penalty Act constitutional; 13) denying certain funds for expert
assistance at the penalty stage; 14) denying Brown’s motion for a directed verdict as to the
pecuniary gain aggravating factor and in instructing the jury regarding that aggravating factor;
and 15) denying Brown the right to be present and to cross-examine witnesses after this Court
remanded the case for construction of the record.

2
 The facts of this tragic case are straightforward and are taken from the

testimony of the trial witnesses and from the last of Brown’s three confessions,

which was recorded and presented to the jury by audiotape.

The victim, Sallie Gaglia, was a part-time postmistress in the small town of

Fleming, Georgia. She was working in the Fleming Post Office on the morning of

November 30, 2002, when she was stabbed to death. One of her co-workers,

Darlene Marie Washington, was working in the Post Office with Gaglia between

8:00 a.m. and about 9:30 or 9:45 a.m. that day. During that time, a black male

came into the Post Office to retrieve mail from box 327, which Washington knew

belonged to the Morgan and Brown families. According to Washington, Gaglia

asked the man his name, and he gave three replies that neither woman could

understand, although Washington believes he uttered a name that began with the

letter “M.” As he was exiting the Post Office, Washington heard the man say his

name was “Jason.” Washington did not get a good look at him and could offer

nothing more in the way of a description than his sex and skin color. Washington

left the Post Office before Gaglia was killed.

Jennifer Zech and Stephen Nichols discovered Gaglia’s body when they

stopped in the Post Office to get their mail sometime around 10:45 a.m. on

November 30th. When they found her, Gaglia was lying on the floor behind the

3
customer counter in the Post Office with what appeared to be a blood stain on her

back. Gaglia did not respond to Nichols’ shouts, so he jumped through the

customer service window and again tried to elicit a response. Nichols opened the

door leading into the customer waiting area so medical responders would have

access to the victim.

While Nichols was in the Post Office, Zech ran to a nearby house and asked

the owners to call 911. Linda Ashcraft, a volunteer firefighter who lived nearby,

testified that a man came to her house and told her that someone at the Post Office

needed help. Ashcraft and her husband, who was also a first responder and

firefighter, responded to the Post Office and performed CPR on Gaglia. When

they found Gaglia, she was lying face down with “a lot” of visible blood. Ashcraft

noticed two holes in the back of Gaglia’s sweater and knife wounds in Gaglia’s

back. EMS personnel arrived shortly thereafter and declared Gaglia dead.

Although there were no actual eyewitnesses to the stabbing, several people

testified to seeing a person fitting Brown’s description at the Post Office around

the time the crime occurred. Among others, Frank Kania said that he stopped by

the Post Office to pick up his mail around 10:25 or 10:30 a.m., had a brief

conversation with Gaglia, and returned to his truck, where he sat for one or two

minutes while he looked through his mail. Kania said that while he was sitting in

4
his truck, he noticed a black male on a bicycle riding toward the Post Office. The

bicyclist wore a hooded sweatshirt. Kania drove off before the suspect arrived at

the Post Office, but as he was driving away, he observed through his rear-view

mirror that the black male got off his bike and walked into the Post Office. Several

days later, Kania selected Brown from a photo line-up given to him by

investigators, noting that Brown had “the closest resemblance” to the man he saw

on the bike.

Chris Bowen testified that he too drove by the Fleming Post Office around

10:30 or 10:35 a.m. on November 30th. He saw a slender black male,

approximately 5'10" to 6' tall, dressed in a dark, hooded jogging suit, sitting on a

bicycle in front of the Post Office door. The man caught Bowen’s eye because he

was wearing white gloves on a day that was not “all that cold.” Bowen, who was

driving about ten miles per hour, made eye contact with the suspect, but did not

stop at the Post Office. Like Kania, Bowen later selected Brown from a photo line-

up, noting that although he was not one hundred percent sure, he thought Brown

was the man he saw at the Post Office that fateful morning.

Postal inspectors performed an accountability study at the Fleming Post

Office the day Gaglia was murdered. They determined that $1,266.59 in cash was

missing from the till and that four money orders had been issued in the amounts of

5
$20, $500, $500, and $175.2 The cash drawer contained approximately $103.91.

At trial, the government introduced numerous crime-scene photographs

depicting the location and position of Gaglia’s body and blood stains found in the

Post Office. The government also offered a receipt tape recovered from the Post

Office calculator showing the numbers 500, plus .90, plus 500, plus .90, and then

the number 175 with a division sign. A postal employee explained that the cost of

purchasing money orders up to $500 was $.90, thus suggesting that someone in the

Post Office calculated the amount due for the purchase of three money orders with

denominations of $500, $500, and $175. Moreover, the government introduced the

picture of a shoe print recovered from the top of the customer service counter that

separated the public portion of the Post Office from the employee work area where

Gaglia’s body was found. No fingerprints were found in the Post Office.

The Deputy Chief Medical Examiner for the Georgia Bureau of

Investigation performed an autopsy on Gaglia. He testified that the victim had

been stabbed ten times, two of which could have caused Gaglia to die within a

short period of time. The doctor further noted that two of the non-fatal wounds

were to the victim’s extremities: a half-inch laceration on the anterior surface of

her left forearm and a three-quarter inch stab wound on the back of her left wrist.

2
Brown was indicted for robbing the $500, $500, and $175 money orders. The status or
location of the $20 money order is not at issue in this case.

6
He explained that when an individual receives multiple stab wounds, cuts found on

the extremities are classically described as “defensive” types of injuries.

On December 5, 2002, police conducted simultaneous searches at the homes

of Sadie Brown (Brown’s mother) and Diane Brown.3 Although armed with search

warrants issued by a magistrate, the officers received consent to search from both

Sadie and Diane. At Sadie’s house, police recovered a brown “cargo or field type”

jacket and the bike that Brown allegedly used to transport himself to and from the

Post Office. Notably, the police found blood stains on the jacket, and a DNA

analyst testified that the DNA profile of those samples matched the DNA profile of

Sallie Gaglia’s blood. He further stated that the probability of randomly selecting

an unrelated individual with the same DNA profile is one in 25 quadrillion 4 from

the Caucasian population and one in 100 quadrillion from the African-American

population, leading him to conclude that “within a reasonable degree of scientific

certainty, Sallie Gagila [sic] is the source of the major component profile obtained

from the . . . jacket.” Dietrechusn Davis, the defendant’s cousin, testified that on

the morning of November 30, he remembered seeing Brown wearing the brown

3
There are several people involved in this case who have the surname “Brown.” We refer
to the defendant, Meier Jason Brown, as “Brown.” As for the other members of the Brown
family, we first refer to them by their full names and thereafter by only their first names.
4
The DNA analyst testified that a quadrillion is equal to one million multiplied by one
billion. So, 25 quadrillion would be represented by the number 25 followed by fifteen zeros, or
25,000,000,000,000,000.

7
jacket investigators later recovered from Sadie’s house.

At Diane’s house, the police found a pair of Lugz sneakers with a tread that,

according to a forensic scientist who testified at trial, “was similar in size and

geometry” to the tread design of the shoe print left at the crime scene in the Post

Office. Additionally, the police found three money order receipts at Diane’s

house, one in the amount of $500 made payable to Chase Manhattan Mortgage,

one in the amount of $423.08 made payable to Chase Manhattan, and one in the

amount of $175 made payable to Diane’s bankruptcy trustee.

Dietrechusn Davis also testified that he was in Sadie’s home on the night of

December 5, 2002, when Sadie received a phone call. Davis, who heard only

Sadie’s portion of the conversation, heard her say “Meier, where you at? Meier,

you didn’t kill that lady, no.” At that time, Sadie started crying, and Davis left the

room.

The defendant Meier Jason Brown was present at Diane’s house when

investigators conducted the search on December 5, 2002. He talked with officers

while they were in the house and proceeded to confess three separate times to the

murder of Sallie Gaglia: once in the house before he was given Miranda warnings

and arrested, once in the house after he was given Miranda warnings and arrested,

and once the following morning at the Liberty County Jail. Only the jail

8
confession was recorded, and it was played in its entirety for the jury at trial.

Postal Inspector James Rushwin spoke with Brown at Sadie’s house on

December 5, explaining to Brown that investigators were speaking with everyone

who may have been at the Post Office on November 30, 2002. He asked if Brown

would be willing to talk to the police. Brown said he would, and the interview was

conducted by Rushwin and Detective Charles Woodall from the Liberty County

Sheriff’s Department.

Brown told investigators that he was at the Fleming Post Office on the

morning of November 30, 2002, around 8:30 a.m., to retrieve his family’s mail

from their post office box. He said he rode his Uncle Junior’s bike to and from the

Post Office and had a brief conversation with Sallie Gaglia after she asked him his

name. After leaving the Post Office, Brown said he stopped at Annie Jo Scott’s

house and visited with her for several minutes before returning to his mother’s

home to distribute the mail. Brown initially denied returning to the Post Office at

any time on November 30th.

Later in the same conversation, Brown changed his story, this time telling

the police that after distributing the mail to his family, he stole $1300 from a stash

that his cousin Cedric had buried in the woods behind Sadie’s house. He claims to

have returned to the Post Office and used the stolen money to purchase three

9
money orders: two for $500 each and one for $175. Brown said he needed the

money orders so that Diane Brown could pay her mortgage and her bankruptcy

trustee.

In yet a third version of the story, Brown admitted returning to the Post

Office with a knife to rob Gaglia. He said he rode his bicycle to the Post Office

and ordered three money orders in the denominations noted above. He claimed

that when Gaglia turned away from the counter to calculate the amount due, he

jumped over the counter, tripped, and fell into her, thereby cutting her with his

knife. He told the investigators that at that point he decided he had to kill her

because she knew him. Brown said he took Gaglia’s wallet from her purse,

crawled through the counter window, got back on his bike, and rode home. He

discarded the knife and the socks he wore on his hands somewhere between the

Post Office and his mother’s house and said he buried the wallet in his backyard,

although neither the wallet nor the knife and socks were ever located. Brown also

said that after returning home, he washed his clothes and called Diane to pick him

up. She arrived approximately one hour later. Brown explained that he gave the

money orders to Diane the next day.

After giving this confession to the police, Brown picked up the phone,

dialed, and someone answered. Rushwin testified that “[Brown] said, ‘bitch, just

10
give the phone to Mom.’ And then he said, ‘Mom,’ he says, ‘I love you.’ He said,

‘it was an accident.’ He said, ‘don’t hate me, Mama.’ He said it was an accident.

And he said ‘bye, Mama, bye.’ And hung up.” Shortly thereafter, Brown was

arrested and advised of his Miranda rights. He waived those rights and repeated

the entire confession to the officers. Diane subsequently came into the room, and

Brown told her that he went to the Post Office to rob Gaglia and that he fell into

her and cut her.

Brown was transported to the Liberty County Jail on the night of December

5, 2002. The next morning, again after being given his Miranda warnings, Brown

gave an audio-taped confession to Detective Woodall and Postal Inspector Henry

Reeves. Brown stated on the tape that he had been advised of his rights and he was

waiving those rights and talking to the police. Brown reiterated many of the facts

he had told the police the previous day. He confirmed that he rode a bicycle to the

Post Office on the morning of November 30 to retrieve his family’s mail and had a

brief conversation with one of the postal workers. He returned to his mother’s

house and then went back to the Post Office to rob Gaglia. On the way, he stopped

to see Ms. Annie Jo Scott, who gave him some canned goods for his mother. From

there, Brown proceeded to the Post Office. Brown stated:

I went inside, and I asked the lady for the money orders. She made
them. Uh, I jumped across the little thing, and I tripped, and

11
 accidentally cut her. And when I cut her, I got scared as hell, man. I
didn’t go there to hurt her, honest to God I didn’t.

Brown stated that he brought the knife with him solely to “intimidate” Gaglia and

that he placed socks over his hands prior to jumping across the counter. Brown

said that he took the money orders and Gaglia’s wallet, jumped back through the

counter window, and returned to his mother’s house, discarding the knife and

socks along the way. After returning home, he put his clothes in the wash and

called Diane to pick him up.

Despite several questions from the investigators, Brown was unable to

remember (or relate) any specific details about what happened between when he

first cut Gaglia and when he rode his bike back to his mother’s house. Detective

Woodall asked “So, after you accidently cut her, what was the next thing you

remember happening?” Brown responded, “Honestly, me throwing that knife.”

Brown said he was surprised to learn that Gaglia had been cut more than three

times, and he stated that she never said anything during the incident or attempted to

put up a fight.

Diane Brown testified at trial and supplied some details about what she and

Brown did after he committed the robbery and murder. Diane testified that Brown

called her on the morning of November 30 and asked her to pick him up at his

mother’s house, the two having already discussed their plans to spend the day

12
together. She picked him up and then drove to her house near Savannah, and,

while they were stopped to buy some cigarettes and alcohol, Brown showed her

three money orders, which he said would be enough to pay her mortgage and her

bankruptcy trustee. Two of the money orders were for $500, and one was for

$175. Diane said that at the time she needed $927 to pay her mortgage and $175 to

pay her bankruptcy trustee. She did not ask Brown where he got the money orders,

and he did not volunteer that information.

Diane and Brown went to a bank in Fleming on the following Monday,

December 2, 2002. She cashed one of the $500 money orders. Later that day,

Diane used the proceeds to purchase another money order for $423.08, which,

when combined with the remaining $500 money order, was sufficient to cover her

mortgage payment. The three money orders Brown showed Diane were introduced

at trial. A postal inspector testified that the serial numbers on the three money

orders matched the serial numbers of the three money orders stolen from the Post

Office. The government also introduced the $423.08 money order made out to

Chase Manhattan.

The jury convicted Brown on all three counts. The district court then

proceeded to the penalty phase of the trial, which was conducted before the same

jury that heard the guilt phase. The government called six witnesses. Irwin

13
Frazier, Brown’s former parole officer, testified that Brown had previously been

convicted of driving under the influence (twice), forgery (twice), driving with a

suspended license, robbery, theft by taking, and financial transaction card fraud.

Frazier said that Brown had been on parole in 2001, but that it had been revoked

and Brown was returned to prison because he had been charged with fraud. Randy

Graham, a former Liberty County Detective, testified that Brown had admitted to

committing a robbery at a Liberty County convenience store in March of 1996. He

stated that when detectives initially confronted Brown with evidence of the

robbery, Brown denied any involvement and only admitted his role after being

shown even more evidence confirming his presence during the crime.

Darlene Washington, one of Gaglia’s co-workers, testified that Gaglia was a

sweet person who always helped people in any way she could. Catherine Webb,

Gaglia’s sister, testified that the murder had been extremely difficult for Gaglia’s

husband, Joe, and her two sons, Scott and Craig. She said that Craig had planned

to attend college, but decided to forgo his plans because of the emotional strain

caused by his mother’s death. Betty Cox, another of Gaglia’s siblings, testified

about the things she used to do with Gaglia and how she missed her sister. Finally,

David Clark, Gaglia’s brother, testified that Gaglia enjoyed her job at the Post

Office because it allowed her to meet and help people. He added that she was

14
generous and kind and she would be missed by her family.

The defense presented fourteen mitigation witnesses. Brown’s father,

Pelham Brown, had left the home when Brown was seven years old, after shooting

Brown’s older brother. Alexis Andrews, a retired Liberty County Assistant Jail

Administrator and a neighbor of Brown’s, testified that Brown grew up in a

household plagued by fighting, drinking, drugs, and stabbings. She also said that

she got to know Brown when he was in prison and that he was a very good inmate

who never had disciplinary problems. She recounted that he was selected to be a

prison trustee, a position reserved for clean inmates with good manners. She

indicated that Brown was active in the jail church.

Beverly Bonaparte, Brown’s sister, testified that Brown was hard-working

and that he cared for his mother, who was in poor health before she died. Joseph

Bonaparte, Brown’s brother-in-law, said that Brown was a likeable person who

cared deeply for his mother. John T. Wilcher, the Assistant Jail Administrator for

Chatham County, testified that Brown had been an inmate on several occasions and

that he had never caused any disciplinary problems in jail. Linda Jones, one of

Brown’s former teachers, described Brown as well-mannered and polite. She

indicated that his parents showed no interest in his education. Vanessa

Montgomery Parker, Brown’s former school social worker, also described Brown

15
as well-mannered. Patricia Morgan, Brown’s sister-in-law, described Brown as a

sweet, caring man who loved his mother. Steve Murray, Brown’s former

employer, said Jason was a dependable worker who was nice to customers. Davis

Williams, who attended church with the Brown family, observed that Brown was

well-mannered and that he helped his mother attend church through her declining

health. Pastor B.T. Smith testified that the Browns were God-fearing people and

urged the jury to spare Brown’s life. Jimmy Wainwright, another of Brown’s

former employers, added that Brown was dependable, hard-working, and honest.

Wainwright also stated that Brown’s home was marred by fighting, shootings,

stabbings, and drug use. Dexter Morgan, Brown’s brother, said that Brown was a

loving person and urged the jury to show him mercy. Finally, Detective Woodall

testified on Brown’s behalf. He noted the poor conditions under which Brown was

raised. Moreover, Detective Woodall stated that he believed Brown was

remorseful during his confession.

The jury unanimously recommended that Brown be sentenced to die. The

district court imposed a death sentence, along with 300 months imprisonment for

the robbery. Brown’s appeal was timely filed, and we now consider each of his

arguments in turn.

II.

16
A. Miranda

First, Brown claims that the district court improperly refused to suppress the

pre-arrest confession that he gave at Diane’s house on December 5, 2002. He says

that the initial confession was obtained unconstitutionally and that it tainted the

two subsequent confessions; therefore they should have been suppressed pursuant

to the Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004). The

magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on Brown’s motion to suppress

and issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which he recommended

denying the requested relief. The district court adopted the R&R. In reviewing a

motion to suppress, findings of fact will be upheld unless clearly erroneous, but the

application of the law to those facts is reviewed de novo. United States v. Muegge,

225 F.3d 1267, 1269 (11th Cir. 2000).

At the suppression hearing, the government called four police officers;5 the

defense called Brown. The first officer, Postal Inspector James Rushwin, testified

that seven officers arrived at Diane’s home on December 5, 2002, armed with a

search warrant, and received her consent to search her house and car for items

connected to the Fleming Post Office murder. Rushwin said that the officers

approached the house without their weapons drawn, knocked on the door, and

5
Postal Inspector Marla McLendon’s testimony related primarily to the simultaneous
search that was being conducted at Sadie’s house, which Brown does not challenge.

17
identified themselves as police officers when Brown let them in. Rushwin spoke

privately with Diane in an adjoining room, told her the officers were investigating

the murder of Sallie Gaglia, and asked her if she would allow them to search her

house and car. She indicated that she was a corrections officer and would

cooperate with the police. Rushwin produced a consent-to-search form for both

the house and the car and explained them to Diane. She signed both forms, after

which Rushwin performed an initial walk-through of the house. During the walk-

through, he noticed two pairs of sneakers, one of which had a tread similar to the

shoe print found at the crime scene.

Rushwin testified in these words regarding his initial encounter with Brown:

Q. [Assistant United States Attorney]: And you talked to Mr.
Brown about having a conversation with him at that time?

A. [Inspector Rushwin]: Yes, I did. I said -- I asked him -- I told
him that we were talking with everyone that may have been [in]
the Post Office on Saturday, the day of the murder, and asked if
he would talk with us.

Q.: What did he tell you at that time?

A.: And he said he would.

Q.: Did you advise him of anything with regard to his custodial
status?

A.: Yes, I did.

Q.: What did you tell him?

18
 A.: I advised him that he was not in custody. He wasn’t under
arrest, and that he was free to go at any time.

Q.: What [was] his response to that?

A.: He said, “I’ll talk to you.”

Rushwin told Brown that he wanted Liberty County Police Detective Chuck

Woodall to sit in on the discussion and asked Brown if he would mind going to the

police department for the interview. Brown responded that he would be willing to

go to the station, but that he needed to put on a pair of shoes.

Rushwin then told Brown he would accompany him into the other room to

retrieve Brown’s shoes, explaining that he was going with Brown “for my safety

and yours, for safety reasons.” When Brown attempted to put on the sneakers with

the suspicious tread, Rushwin informed him that the police would be taking them

as evidence and that Brown could not wear them. Brown indicated he had no other

shoes, that the additional pair of sneakers was not his, and that he did not want to

go outside barefoot. Rushwin then asked Brown if he would be willing to talk at

the house, and Brown said he would. The two decided to wait for Detective

Woodall to arrive before they began talking, and Rushwin described the situation

in these terms:

Well, we sat down at the dining room table. And I again informed
Jason that he wasn’t under arrest, not in custody, and he was free to go
at any time. I again explained that we were talking to people that may

19
 have been at the Post Office on Saturday. And he said he understood.

While they waited, Brown “sat around and smoked, and did whatever he

wanted to do.” Once Detective Woodall arrived, Brown and the two officers sat at

the dining room table. They advised Brown, for the third time, he was not under

arrest and was free to leave:

Q. [Assistant United States Attorney]: Did you again ask for Mr.
Brown’s consent to speak?

A. [Inspector Rushwin]: Yes. He again was advised by both
Detective Woodall and I that he wasn’t under arrest, in custody
and, you know, he was free to leave at any time. He said he
understood Detective Woodall. And I said that we’re trying to
talk to everyone that may have been at the Post Office. And he
said, “yeah, I know.”

Inspector Rushwin’s account is corroborated by Detective Woodall, who testified

that

I told [Brown] initially he was not under arrest. I told him numerous
times that -- I mean, that he was free to leave. Several times he asked
about getting things. And we talked about -- I told him specifically he
could do anything he wants. We were in his house with his consent
and the consent of the young lady.

During the ensuing conversation, Brown confessed to the murder and

robbery at the Post Office, as detailed above. At one point during the interview, it

appeared to the officers that Brown was distracted by Diane and the other

investigators who were walking in and out of the kitchen, so they asked him if he

20
would be more comfortable in the sitting room. Brown said that he would, and he

got a can of soda and a cigarette as he moved to the other room.

Detective Woodall testified that although some of the investigators

conducting the search of Diane’s home were armed, the officers who interviewed

Brown did not have weapons. Investigator Rushwin stated that there was an

officer in the front yard of Diane’s house armed with a shotgun when police

originally entered the house, but that the weapon was returned to the police car

shortly thereafter.

Investigator Herbert Dewayne Martin testified that he stayed with Brown

after the officers originally entered the house. Martin said that he asked Brown to

sit in a chair for about fifteen minutes while Rushwin was obtaining consent to

search from Diane. As a safety precaution, Martin told Brown to let him know

before he made any sudden movements, such as getting up from the chair or

reaching into his pockets. Martin also testified that he later participated in the

interview, for approximately thirty minutes or an hour, during which time he told

Brown that some of the officers did not believe parts of his story.

Brown testified at the suppression hearing and gave a sharply different

account. He said that police entered the house with guns drawn, grabbed Diane by

the arm, and ordered him to sit in a chair. Brown asserted that he was not free to

21
move about the house and, notably, was never told that he was free to leave.

Brown said “I wanted to leave when they first came. They never indicated that I

could leave, you know. One officer even stated, the guy that was standing at the

door, he stated if I get up that was going to be the worse [sic] mistake I could

possibly make.” Brown contends the officers coerced him into confessing by

telling him they had Diane in handcuffs and were going to “lock her up, and take

her child.”

The magistrate judge made two critical factual findings: first, that Brown

was repeatedly told he was not under arrest and was free to leave at any time; and,

second, that Brown understood he was not under arrest and was free to leave at any

time. Specifically, the magistrate judge found that Inspector Rushwin “advised

defendant [when he first spoke with him] that he was not under arrest and that he

was free to go at any time. In response, defendant said, ‘I’ll talk to you.’”

Moreover, the magistrate judge found that while Rushwin and Brown were waiting

for Detective Woodall to arrive,

Inspector Rushwin again told defendant that he was not under arrest,
was not in custody, and was free to go at any time. When Detective
Woodall arrived, he and Inspector Rushwin explained to defendant
before they began the interview that he was not under arrest and was
free to leave at any time. Defendant said he understood.

Additionally, the magistrate judge, plainly rejecting Brown’s account, found that

22
the officers conducting the interview were not armed, that Brown voluntarily

moved around the house, and that he was never ordered to stay in any particular

location.

Based on those factual findings, the magistrate judge concluded that Brown

was not in custody at the time he spoke with the officers and, therefore, was not

entitled to be given Miranda warnings:

Inspector Rushwin and Detective Woodall testified that they reiterated
to defendant multiple times that he was not in custody, was not under
arrest, and was free to leave at any time or do anything he wanted.
Defendant clearly understood this explanation, as demonstrated by
both his words and actions. He indicated to Inspector Rushwin that he
understood and was willing to talk with the officers, and Inspector
Rushwin testified that defendant got up, moved around, got a drink,
and picked up the phone to call his mother without requesting the
officers’ permission.

We are bound by a trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly

erroneous. See Muegge, 225 F.3d at 1269. The record amply supports the

findings that Brown was repeatedly told he was not under arrest and was free to

leave and that he understood that warning, indeed that he expressly said he

understood those words. Although Brown’s account was sharply different, the

magistrate judge, who observed the witnesses, was free to believe those he found

trustworthy and discredit the testimony of those who were not. See United States

v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1267 (11th Cir. 2005) (noting that “[t]he credibility of a

23
witness is in the province of the factfinder, and we will not ordinarily review the

factfinder’s determination of credibility” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).

The district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and will not be

disturbed on appeal.

It is by now undisputed that the right to Miranda warnings attaches when

custodial interrogation begins. United States v. Acosta, 363 F.3d 1141, 1148 (11th

Cir. 2004). A defendant is in custody for the purposes of Miranda when there has

been a “formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated

with a formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983)

(quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. McDowell, 250 F.3d 1354,

1362 (11th Cir. 2001). Whether Brown was in custody prior to his formal arrest

“depends on whether under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable man in

his position would feel a restraint on his freedom of movement to such extent that

he would not feel free to leave.” McDowell, 250 F.3d at 1362 (quotation marks

and alterations omitted). “The test is objective: the actual, subjective beliefs of the

defendant and the interviewing officer on whether the defendant was free to leave

are irrelevant.” United States v. Moya, 74 F.3d 1117, 1119 (11th Cir. 1996).

“[U]nder the objective standard, the reasonable person from whose perspective

‘custody’ is defined is a reasonable innocent person.” Id. (emphasis added).

24
 After reviewing the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Brown

was not in custody when he gave his initial confession to the police. First, and

most important, he was told no less than three times by two different officers that

he was not under arrest, not in custody, and was free to go at any time. As we

recently held in Muegge, the fact that an individual is told he is not under arrest

and is free to leave is a fact of substantial importance in determining whether a

reasonable person would have felt free to leave. In Muegge, we made the point

this way:

[i]f the individual being questioned were innocent, and was told
directly he might leave, in the absence of evidence to the contrary the
interrogation was non-custodial as a matter of law. There may be
situations where the restraints placed on a suspect’s freedom are so
extensive that telling the suspect he was free to leave could not cure
the custodial aspect of the interview, but that is not the case here.

225 F.3d at 1271. Unambiguously advising a defendant that he is free to leave and

is not in custody is a powerful factor in the mix, and generally will lead to the

conclusion that the defendant is not in custody absent a finding of restraints that

are “so extensive that telling the suspect he was free to leave could not cure the

custodial aspect of the interview.” Id.

We are not alone in recognizing the importance of a police officer’s

admonition that a person is free to leave. The Eighth Circuit noted that “abundant

advice of freedom to terminate the encounter should not be treated merely as one

25
equal factor in a multi-factor balancing test” and concluded:

That a person is told repeatedly that he is free to terminate an
interview is powerful evidence that a reasonable person would have
understood that he was free to terminate the interview. So powerful,
indeed, that no governing precedent of the Supreme Court or this
court, or any case from another court of appeals that can be located
(save one decision of the Ninth Circuit decided under an outmoded
standard of review, United States v. Lee, 699 F.2d 466, 467-68 (9th
Cir. 1982) (per curiam)), holds that a person was in custody after
being clearly advised of his freedom to leave or terminate questioning.

United States v. Czichray, 378 F.3d 822, 826 (8th Cir. 2004). See also United

States v. Salvo, 133 F.3d 943, 951 (6th Cir. 1998) (noting that a statement from

officers that a suspect is not in custody and free to leave is an “important factor” in

determining that the suspect is not in custody); United States v. Collins, 972 F.2d

1385, 1405 (5th Cir. 1992) (finding defendants were not in custody where they

were “told explicitly and repeatedly that they were not under arrest and were free

to leave”); United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343, 1349 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting

that “[t]he most obvious and effective means of demonstrating that a suspect has

not been taken into custody . . . is for the police to inform the suspect that an arrest

is not being made and that the suspect may terminate the interview at will”

(quotation marks omitted)).

The additional finding of fact that Brown said he understood the officers’

advice that he was not under arrest and was free to leave strengthens the force of

26
the instructions. See, e.g., United States v. Brave Heart, 397 F.3d 1035, 1039 (8th

Cir. 2005) (noting that “we think that it is highly significant that [the officer]

informed [the defendant] at the outset of the interview that [the defendant’s]

presence was voluntary -- information that [the defendant] actually understood,

given his statements on the audio tape”). These facts weigh heavily in favor of a

finding that Brown was not in custody.

Second, it is significant that the interview took place in Diane’s home, a

place where Brown often resided.6 Although the location of the interview is surely

not dispositive in determining whether the interviewee was in custody, “‘[c]ourts

are much less likely to find the circumstances custodial when the interrogation

occurs in familiar or at least neutral surroundings,’ such as the suspect’s home.”

United States v. Ritchie, 35 F.3d 1477, 1485 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting 1 W.

LaFave, Criminal Procedure § 6.6(e), at 496 (1984 & 1991 Supp.)); see also United

States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 675 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that “absent an arrest,

interrogation in the familiar surroundings of one’s own home is generally not

deemed custodial”); United States v. Lanni, 951 F.2d 440, 442 (1st Cir. 1991)

(stating that a court should consider whether the suspect was questioned in

“familiar or at least neutral surroundings” (quotation marks omitted)); United

6
Brown testified that his “primary” residence was his mother’s home, but said that he was
in a relationship with Diane and spent time at her house as well.

27
States v. Helmel, 769 F.2d 1306, 1320 (8th Cir. 1985) (finding it relevant in

determining that defendant was not in custody that the questioning occurred in the

defendant’s home, “on his own turf” (quotation marks omitted)). Brown

undeniably was in a familiar setting when the interview occurred; indeed, the

discussions took place in Diane Brown’s dining and living rooms. Although an

officer accompanied him throughout the house for safety reasons, he was free to

eat, smoke, use the phone, and move about as he wished. The fact that Brown was

in a familiar setting also weighs in favor of a non-custodial finding.

No particular fact in the “custody” analysis is outcome determinative -- we

simply weigh the totality of the circumstances. Thus, even having been told by the

officers that he was not in custody and was free to leave does not inexorably lead

to the conclusion that Brown was not in custody. But, as we held in Muegge,

Brown needs to establish “extensive” restraints in order to overcome a finding that

under these circumstances a reasonable person would have understood he was free

to leave or terminate the interview at any time. He has failed to do so.

The only piece of evidence that weighs in favor of finding that Brown was in

custody is the fact that the police confiscated his shoes. On this record, however,

that lone circumstance falls far short of evidence of “extensive” restraints. While

Brown was not free to wear his sneakers, he did have other options (albeit

28
imperfect ones) for leaving the house. He could have gone outside barefoot, he

could have worn the other pair of sneakers that belonged to someone else, he could

have walked the short distance to Diane’s car, or he could have called a friend for a

ride. Although he was plainly and repeatedly told he was free to go, he never tried

any of those options; indeed, he never even told anyone he wanted to leave.

Moreover, Brown never exercised the most basic method at his disposal for

avoiding discussions with police -- simply not talking to them. Despite what he

was told, he voluntarily remained in the house and chose to speak with the police.

The fact that police confiscated his shoes, standing alone, cannot convert what is a

non-custodial situation into a custodial arrest when: (1) Brown was repeatedly told

he was not under arrest and was free to leave; (2) he said he understood this; (3) he

was in the familiar and comfortable surroundings of his girlfriend’s home; (4) the

interviewing officers were not armed; (5) he was never handcuffed or otherwise

physically restrained; (6) he was free to use the phone (which he did); (7) he was

free to move about the house (which he did); and, finally (8) no other indicia of

coercion is cited by the factfinder.

Accordingly, we conclude that Brown was not in custody when he first

confessed to robbing and murdering Gaglia, he was not entitled to Miranda

warnings, and the statements need not be suppressed. Moreover, because Brown’s

29
Seibert arguments, which are related to the second and third confessions, are

wholly dependent upon the suppression of the first, we conclude that all of the

statements were legally obtained.

B. Hearing On Identification Evidence

Before trial, Brown moved to suppress all out-of-court identifications. In

that motion, he urged the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. The trial

court refused to suppress the identifications and declined to conduct an evidentiary

hearing because Brown failed to present any evidence that the methods used by the

investigators were unduly suggestive or coercive. The magistrate judge expressly

said that if, after viewing the photo-lineup, Brown had any evidence supporting the

notion that the government had employed suggestive techniques, he would hold an

evidentiary hearing at that time. Brown never made such a showing, and no

hearing was held. We review the denial of an evidentiary hearing for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Gay, 251 F.3d 950, 951 (11th Cir. 2001).

Generally, we employ a two-part test for determining whether an out-of-

court identification was properly admitted. First, we ask whether the original

identification procedure was unduly suggestive. If we conclude that it was, we

then consider whether, under the totality of the circumstances, “the identification

was nonetheless reliable.” United States v. Diaz, 248 F.3d 1065, 1102 (11th Cir.

30
2001). The Constitution does not impose a per se rule requiring an evidentiary

hearing in every case. Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341, 349 (1981); United

States v. Smith, 546 F.2d 1275, 1279-80 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding that “[a]n

evidentiary hearing is not required where none of the critical facts are in dispute

and the facts as alleged by the defendant if true would not justify the relief

requested” (quotation marks omitted)).7

Here, Brown made no argument and presented no evidence suggesting that

the techniques used by the police were “unduly suggestive.” Under these

circumstances the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold an

evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Cooper, 203 F.3d 1279, 1285 (11th Cir.

2000) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion for an evidentiary hearing where

underlying motion to suppress was “wholly lacking in sufficient factual

allegations”). Moreover, as the government correctly observes, any error arising

from purportedly improper identification evidence would be subject to harmless

error analysis. United States v. Beale, 921 F.2d 1412, 1433-34 (11th Cir. 1991).

At trial, two witnesses testified that they saw Brown at the Post Office and selected

him from a photo lineup. Those witnesses were effectively cross-examined

7
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this
Court adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down
prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

31
regarding their identifications, one telling the jury that Brown was “the closest

resemblance” to the man he saw at the Post Office and the other stating that

although he was not one hundred percent sure, he thought Brown was the person

he observed. Given the overwhelming evidence of Brown’s guilt, including

Brown’s confession, the recovered money orders, and the DNA samples of the

victim’s blood found on his jacket, any conceivable errors related to the two

identifications were harmless because “there is no reasonable probability that the

evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” See id. at 1433

(quotation marks omitted) (finding any purported identification errors harmless

where the government introduced “overwhelming” evidence of the defendants’

guilt).

C. Brady

Brown also argues, upon information and belief, that the government

withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that

Gaglia’s husband was opposed to the imposition of the death penalty. Normally,

we review the denial of a motion for a new trial based on an alleged Brady error

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Fernandez, 136 F.3d 1434, 1438 (11th

Cir. 1998). However, if the Brady claim is not precisely articulated to the district

court, we only review it for plain error. United States v. Bender, 290 F.3d 1279,

32
1284 (11th Cir. 2002). In this case, there is no indication that the Brady claim was

ever presented to the district court.

In Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987), the Supreme Court held that

victim impact evidence was not admissible in the penalty phase of a capital trial.

This prohibition included evidence of: 1) the personal characteristics of the victim

and the emotional impact of the crimes on the victim’s family; and 2) family

members’ opinions and characterizations of the crimes and the defendant. Id. at

507-09. Several years later, the Court overruled part of Booth, holding that the

Eighth Amendment erects no per se bar against the introduction of victim impact

evidence. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991). The Court explicitly

noted, however, that:

[o]ur holding today is limited to the holdings of Booth . . . and South
Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805, 109 S. Ct. 2207, 104 L. Ed. 2d 876
(1989), that evidence and argument relating to the victim and the
impact of the victim’s death on the victim’s family are inadmissible at
a capital sentencing hearing. Booth also held that the admission of a
victim’s family members’ characterizations and opinions about the
crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence violates the Eighth
Amendment. No evidence of the latter sort was presented at the trial
in this case.

Payne, 501 U.S. at 830 n.2. Thus, the Booth prohibition against evidence of family

members’ opinions and characterizations of the crime, the defendant, and the

appropriate sentence remains good law. See Humphries v. Ozmint, 397 F.3d 206,

33
217 (4th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (noting that “the Payne Court did not alter Booth’s

holding that admitting evidence of the victims’ [family members’] opinions of the

crime and of the appropriate sentence for the defendant violates the Eighth

Amendment”); United States v. Bernard, 299 F.3d 467, 480-81 (5th Cir. 2002)

(finding statements from the victim’s family members characterizing the

defendants and offering opinions about the nature of the crime inadmissible under

Booth); Hain v. Gibson, 287 F.3d 1224, 1238-39 (10th Cir. 2002) (expressly

recognizing “that the portion of Booth prohibiting family members of a victim

from stating ‘characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the

appropriate sentence’ during the penalty phase of a capital trial survived the

holding in Payne and remains valid”); Parker v. Bowersox, 188 F.3d 923, 931 (8th

Cir. 1999) (discussing Payne and Booth and holding that “family members of the

victim may not state ‘characterizations and opinions about the crime, the

defendant, and the appropriate sentence’ at the penalty phase” of a capital trial).8

8
Most of the cases recognizing the continued validity of Booth insofar as it prohibited a
victim’s family member from offering an opinion as to the appropriate sentence have arisen in
the context of an opinion supporting the imposition of the death penalty. Here, however, the
alleged evidence apparently would have shown that a family member opposed the death penalty.
At least one circuit has found that a victim’s family member’s belief that the death penalty
should not be imposed is similarly irrelevant. See Robison v. Maynard, 829 F.2d 1501, 1504-05
(10th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds, Romano v. Gibson, 239 F.3d 1156, 1169 (10th Cir.
2001). In Robison, the court noted that

[a]n individual’s personal opinion on how the sentencing jury should acquit its
responsibility, even though supported by reasons, relates to neither the character
or record of the defendant nor to the circumstances of the offense. Such

34
 In Brady, the Supreme Court held “that the suppression by the prosecution

of evidence favorable to an accused . . . violates due process where the evidence is

material either to guilt or to punishment.” 373 U.S. at 87. This evidence was not

material, and therefore could not violate Brady, because it was neither relevant nor

admissible; indeed, there is no reasonable (or even remote) probability that, had the

evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the trial would have been

different. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 289 (1999) (noting that, under

Brady, failure to disclose evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability

that the result of the trial would have been different if the suppressed documents

had been disclosed to the defense).

The district judge ruled that he would “not allow any witness to make a

recommendation to the jury that you should take [Brown’s] life or that you should

spare his life. That is a direct invasion of the jury’s province.” That ruling is fully

consonant with the Supreme Court’s holdings in Booth and Payne. In short, we

can discern no Brady violation, let alone plain error.

D. Motion To Quash DFACS Subpoena

testimony, at best, would be a gossamer veil which would blur the jury’s focus on
the issue it must decide.

Id. at 1505. We agree and find it immaterial that a family member’s opinion would have been
offered in opposition to the death penalty, just as it would be improper if the expressed opinion
supported the application of the death penalty.

35
 As for this issue, Brown contends that the magistrate judge erred in quashing

a subpoena Brown served upon the Liberty County Department of Child and

Family Services (“DFACS”) for the production of “[a]ny and all material relating

to Sadie Brown and/or Roy Morgan, their living and health circumstances, and any

information regarding their residence at 6724 Leroy Coffer Highway, Fleming,

Georgia, 30308.” The Georgia Attorney General’s Office moved to quash the

subpoena. The magistrate judge conducted an in camera inspection of the relevant

files and quashed the subpoena, noting that “[the files] contain no information

relevant to defendant’s case and no information that would warrant disclosure of

these typically confidential records. In fact, defendant’s name is not even

referenced in any of these records.”

We lack jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge’s order because Brown

never appealed the ruling to the district court. See United States v. Brown, 342

F.3d 1245, 1246 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th

Cir. 1980) (noting that “[t]he law is settled that appellate courts are without

jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrates”).9 Accordingly, we

9
We add that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(a), which became effective
December 1, 2005, now provides that failure to object to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a
nondispositive matter “waives a party’s right to review.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(a). The Advisory
Committee Note states that the “waiver provision is intended to establish the requirements for
objecting in a district court in order to preserve appellate review of magistrate judges’
decisions.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59 advisory committee’s note. We need not determine what effect
this new rule of criminal procedure has on this case because the rule is in complete accord with

36
may not consider whether the district court abused its discretion in quashing the

subpoena.

E. Motion To Prohibit Death-Qualification Of The Jury

Brown also claims the district court erred in denying his motion to prohibit

the “death-qualification” of the jury, contending that his rights were violated by

excluding those jurors who could not be impartial in the penalty phase, but who

could have been qualified to hear the guilt-innocence phase.10 We review this

question of law de novo. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1285 (11th

Cir. 2004).

Brown contends that the magistrate judge recommended denying the motion

and that the recommendation was adopted by the district judge. However, a review

of the record reveals that the magistrate judge denied the motion outright and that

Brown did not appeal that ruling to the district judge. Thus, we are without power

to consider this argument. See Brown, 342 F.3d at 1246.

Nevertheless, even if the issue were properly presented to us, we would

our own circuit case law, which clearly prohibits us from considering Brown’s argument on
appeal.
10
Death-qualification is the process by which jurors in a capital case are screened, prior to
the guilt-innocence phase, to ensure that none has an opposition to the death penalty so strong
that it would prevent or substantially impair their performance as jurors in the sentencing phase.
A juror who could never vote for the death penalty, regardless of the court’s instructions, or a
juror who would automatically vote for death in every case, is removed for cause. See Morgan
v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 728-29 (1992).

37
readily reject the argument on the merits. In Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162

(1986), the Supreme Court held the Constitution does not “prohibit the removal for

cause, prior to the guilt phase of a bifurcated capital trial, of prospective jurors

whose opposition to the death penalty is so strong that it would prevent or

substantially impair the performance of their duties as jurors at the sentencing

phase of the trial.” Id. at 165. Thus, Brown’s claim must fail; the district court

properly death-qualified the jury before the guilt phase of the trial.

F. Motion for Bifurcated Voir Dire

On this issue, Brown says the district court erred by denying his motion to

bifurcate voir dire. Essentially, he sought an opportunity first to question jurors

prior to the guilt-innocence stage of the trial, and then a second opportunity for

voir dire before the penalty stage of the trial. Brown readily concedes that the

natural consequence of this practice would be that the jury determining his guilt

might not be the same one to determine his sentence. This issue is closely related

to Brown’s prior suggestion, that the jury should not have been death-qualified

because qualification eliminates some jurors who, while unqualified to decide his

sentence, would plainly have been qualified to determine his guilt or innocence.

This is a question of law and again we review it de novo. See Murrell, 368 F.3d at

1285.

38
 Although the government appears to concede that this issue was properly

preserved, a review of the record again reveals that the magistrate judge denied the

motion for bifurcated voir dire and that Brown did not appeal the ruling to the

district judge. Thus, we have no jurisdiction to consider the ruling on appeal. See

Brown, 342 F.3d at 1246. But, even if the parties are correct that the issue has

been properly presented, Brown’s argument fails on the merits.

First, the Federal Death Penalty Act requires, except in four circumstances

that are not relevant here, that the sentencing hearing “shall be conducted before

the jury that determined the defendant’s guilt.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(b)(1). Thus, it

would have been statutorily impermissible for the district judge to use one set of

jurors for the guilt phase and then a different group for the penalty phase. See

United States v. Williams, 400 F.3d 277, 281 (5th Cir. 2005).

Second, Brown contends that the use of a death-qualified jury during the

guilt-innocence stage violates his Eighth Amendment and due process rights by

subjecting him to a conviction-prone jury. Constitutional challenges to the use of a

death-qualified jury in the guilt-innocence portion of the trial have been soundly

and repeatedly rejected. See, e.g., Lockhart, 476 U.S. at 176-84; Williams, 400

F.3d at 281 (noting that “constitutional challenges by defendants to unitary capital

jury procedures have failed”). Again, in Lockhart, the Supreme Court held that the

39
use of a death-qualified jury during the guilt-innocence stage neither deprives a

defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a representative

cross section of the community nor his right to an “impartial” jury. The Supreme

Court flatly rejected the claim that excluding jurors from the guilt-innocence phase

who could not be impartial during the punishment phase resulted in a jury

“slanted” in favor of conviction. 476 U.S. at 177-78. Brown provides no rationale

for why the identical argument would be any more persuasive if considered under

the rubric of the Eighth Amendment, and he offers no case law in support of his

position. Thus, even if the question were properly presented, we would be

constrained to reject it.

G. Improper Statements During Death-Qualification

Brown also says the district judge improperly told jurors during voir dire

that the death sentence would be appropriate unless there were mitigating factors

weighing in favor of a life sentence. Furthermore, Brown urges that the district

court inappropriately indicated to jurors during voir dire that they may consider

mitigating factors (as opposed to telling them they had to consider mitigating

factors). Brown did not object to these questions during voir dire, and we therefore

review this issue only for plain error. See United States v. Massey, 89 F.3d 1433,

1442 (11th Cir. 1996) (failure to object to jury instructions reviewed for plain

40
error). Under plain error review, we may not correct an error the defendant failed

to raise in the district court unless there is: “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that

affects substantial rights.” United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th

Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). If all three conditions are met, we may then

exercise our discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if “(4) the error seriously

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

(quotation marks omitted).

The district court conducted individual voir dire with potential jurors in an

effort to “death qualify” the panel. In Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992), the

Supreme Court reiterated that “the proper standard for determining when a

prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his or her views on capital

punishment is whether the juror’s views would prevent or substantially impair the

performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his

oath.” Id. at 728 (quotation marks and alterations omitted). A juror who could

never vote for capital punishment, regardless of the court’s instructions, or a juror

who would automatically vote for the death penalty in every case, should be

stricken for cause. Id. at 728-29.

The district court conducted the necessary voir dire in this case, excusing for

cause those jurors whose views would prevent or substantially impair their

41
performance, particularly those who had predetermined their death penalty vote.

Brown complains that in the process of doing so, the district judge misstated the

law, implying to jurors that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment

unless the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors. Brown provides

several examples of this claimed error that occurred during the questioning of

panel members who were eventually placed on the jury, the most egregious of

which were:

Question posed to venireman Little: If you decide that there is
sufficient mitigating evidence, mitigating meaning less, or something
that lessens the impact, could you vote for life imprisonment without
benefit of parole?

Question posed to venirewoman Brewer: And if you were convinced
that there were mitigating circumstances that made life imprisonment
without benefit of parole the more appropriate sentence, could you
vote for that?

Brown maintains that the same error occurred with respect to seven other members

of the jury, although the two examples noted above are the most explicit.

The Federal Death Penalty Act makes clear that a jury must consider both

aggravating and mitigating factors at the penalty stage of the trial. But, as the

statute makes abundantly clear, a jury need not find a mitigating factor in order to

impose a non-death sentence:

[T]he jury . . . shall consider whether all the aggravating factor or
factors found to exist sufficiently outweigh all the mitigating factor or

42
 factors found to exist to justify a sentence of death, or, in the absence
of a mitigating factor, whether the aggravating factor or factors alone
are sufficient to justify a sentence of death.

18 U.S.C. § 3593(e) (emphasis added). The district judge’s questions during voir

dire were not to the contrary. The court never told a venireperson that he could

impose a life sentence if and only if he found a mitigating circumstance justifying a

non-death sentence. Rather, the trial judge simply asked, as he was required to do,

whether the prospective juror could impose a life sentence if he felt that was the

punishment warranted.

The district judge’s questions may have been inartfully worded. However,

there are several large, inferential leaps between the district judge’s question

asking whether a juror could impose a life sentence and the juror’s conclusion that

he would be permitted to impose a life sentence if and only if he found the

existence of a mitigating factor. Moreover, any juror who actually drew that

attenuated conclusion -- and there is no evidence that any did -- was later given

explicit jury instructions that correctly stated the law. There was no error, plain or

otherwise.

But, even if there were plain error, it did not affect Brown’s substantial

rights because the district judge explicitly corrected the purported error when he

gave the jury the following instruction before they began their deliberations:

43
 you are to determine whether the aggravating factors found to exist
sufficiently outweigh the mitigating factors; or, in the absence of
mitigating factors whether the aggravating factors alone are sufficient
to support a finding that a sentence of death be imposed[. R]egardless
of your findings with respect to aggravating and mitigating factors,
however, you individually or collectively are never required to
recommend a sentence of death.

This instruction plainly told the jury that it could impose a life sentence even if it

found no mitigating factors and explicitly made clear that a jury is never required

to impose a death sentence. “A curative instruction purges the taint of a prejudicial

remark because a jury is presumed to follow jury instructions.” United States v.

Simon, 964 F.2d 1082, 1087 (11th Cir. 1992) (quotation marks omitted). See also

United States v. Noone, 913 F.2d 20, 35 (1st Cir. 1990) (finding that a misleading

question in voir dire was cured by proper jury instructions and therefore did not

result in “manifest injustice” under a plain error analysis).11

11
Similarly, we find unpersuasive Brown’s argument that the trial judge’s questions
prevented him from obtaining a properly death-qualified jury because the questions gave him no
guarantee that the jurors selected would be able to vote for life imprisonment absent mitigating
factors. The death-qualification process is designed to weed out only those jurors whose
personal beliefs would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties as jurors in
accordance with the court’s instructions and oath. Morgan, 504 U.S. at 728. The trial judge has
substantial discretion in conducting this process, and there are no set questions that must be
asked. See Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 (1985) (noting that “determinations of juror
bias cannot be reduced to question-and-answer sessions which obtain results in the manner of a
catechism”). Brown has not established that any particular juror lacked impartiality based upon
a potential misunderstanding of that juror’s province to impose a life-sentence even in the
absence of mitigating factors. Id. at 423 (noting that the burden of showing impartiality is on the
party wishing to exclude a juror). Thus, we find no error. See Ramsey v. Bowersox, 149 F.3d
749, 757 (8th Cir. 1998) (rejecting a challenge to voir dire where the trial judge addressed the
“crucial” disqualification issue of whether a juror would automatically vote for or against the
death penalty, thus “reasonably assur[ing]” the defendant the chance to detect a juror’s potential

44
H. Juror Fahey

Brown also cites as error the district court’s decision to dismiss one juror,

Kristin Fahey, for cause. We review a district court’s decision to strike a

prospective juror for cause for abuse of discretion. United States v. Abraham, 386

F.3d 1033, 1035 (11th Cir. 2004).

Juror Fahey was struck for cause during the death-qualification stage of voir

dire. The district judge and counsel for both sides asked her numerous questions

concerning her ability to impose the death penalty. She struggled with her

answers, saying that generally she was opposed to the death penalty, but that there

might be circumstances where she could vote for a death sentence. She indicated

she would want to listen to all the facts and had not predetermined whether she

would vote for or against the death penalty.

However, toward the end of the inquiry, she had the following exchange

with the prosecutor:

[A.U.S.A.] Newman: Ms. Fahey, would you make your decision on
the ultimate punishment in this case based on your internal set of
values or on what the law is that [the judge] will give you to apply,
which by your oath as a juror you would be sworn to follow?

Juror: I believe I would probably make the decision based upon my
own internal values.

bias).

45
 Mr. Newnan: Even if those might conflict and be different than what
[the judge] is telling the jury to apply?

Juror: Yes.

The district judge acknowledged that this was a very close call.

But the last question when she said - - and I think she’s altogether
candid - - I think we all agree, one, that here is a juror that is
struggling. She is, by anybody’s judgment, also at the point where
she will say under no circumstances would she impose the death
sentence. But she is not prepared to go quite that far, because she can
imagine certain circumstances that she would go. But then she says,
again in total candor, that I would have to impose my standards and I
could not necessarily follow the law or the instructions.

The Supreme Court made it clear in Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980),

that it is proper to strike for cause those potential jurors whose views on capital

punishment “would prevent or substantially impair the performance of [their]

duties as . . . juror[s] in accordance with [the court’s] instructions and . . . oath.”

Id. at 45. See also id. (“[t]he State may insist, however, that jurors will consider

and decide the facts impartially and conscientiously apply the law as charged by

the court”); id. at 48 (noting that the State could “exclude prospective jurors whose

views on capital punishment are such as to make them unable to follow the law or

obey their oaths”) (emphasis added). Determining when a juror will reject the law

as given by the trial court in favor of her own belief system is a difficult

undertaking, but despite the difficulty inherent in the task and that the record will

46
not always make bias “unmistakably clear,” “there will be situations where the trial

judge is left with the definite impression that a prospective juror would be unable

to faithfully and impartially apply the law.” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412,

425-26 (1985). Thus, “deference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and

hears the juror.” Id. at 426.

Based on Fahey’s equivocating answers and her ultimate conclusion that she

would vote based on her own internal values and not on the instructed law, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in striking her for cause. Cf. Stewart v.

Dugger, 877 F.2d 851, 855 (11th Cir. 1989) (finding no Witherspoon violation

where a potential juror, although indicating a strong aversion to the death penalty,

admitted that after hearing the facts he could “maybe” consider imposing death).

I. Statement To Juror Regarding Guilty Plea

Brown also claims that he is entitled to a new trial because the district judge

inadvertently told a prospective juror, who was eventually seated on the jury, that

Brown had pled guilty. Neither party objected and, therefore, we review the issue

for plain error. See United States v. Massey, 89 F.3d 1433, 1442 (11th Cir. 1996)

(failure to object to jury instructions reviewed for plain error).

While death-qualifying the potential jurors, the transcript indicates that the

following colloquy took place between the trial court and a woman who was

47
eventually seated as a juror:

The Court: Now, you understand that the defendant has entered a
plea of guilty.

Juror: Yes, Your honor.

The Court: The law presumes him to be not guilty. You understand
that.

Juror: I do.

The Court: And the responsibility is on the government to convince a
fair and impartial jury, and each member of it, that he is
guilty of the offense charged, and his guilt must be
demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. You
understand that.

Juror: I do.

Clearly, the district judge’s statement that Brown had entered a guilty plea was

either a slip of the tongue or a transcription error. It was immediately followed by

statements indicating that the law presumes the defendant not guilty and that the

government has the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The

district judge later instructed the jury that the government had the burden of

overcoming the presumption of innocence by proof that removes all reasonable

doubt and specifically told the jury that “it will be your duty to decide whether the

government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the specific facts necessary to

find the defendant guilty of the crime or crimes charged in the indictment.”

48
 If the district judge did, in fact, tell the juror that Brown had entered a guilty

plea, there was error and it was plain. However, we have some difficulty believing

so obvious and egregious an error would have occurred without immediate

objection from both the defendant and the government. Because there was no

objection, a transcription error may be the more plausible explanation.

But, even if the district judge did make a slip of the tongue, it did not affect

Brown’s substantial rights because it occurred well before jury deliberations and

was explicitly corrected during the court’s jury instructions. See United States v.

DeMasi, 40 F.3d 1306, 1321-22 (1st Cir. 1994) (noting that “the challenged

statements, though problematic, are isolated snippets culled from over thirty pages

of generally cautious, careful, and correct instructions. At most, the statements

were inadvertent slips of the tongue with limited prejudicial force.”); United States

v. McCue, 643 F.2d 394, 396 (6th Cir. 1981) (no reversible error where judge

inadvertently said the word “convict” when he meant to say “acquit” in the course

of otherwise correct jury instructions).

J. Hearsay

Brown also objects to the introduction of three statements received in

evidence at the trial on grounds that they were hearsay and violated his rights under

the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

49
 First, Brown objects to the testimony of Darlene Washington, which was

offered at the guilt-innocence stage of the trial. Washington testified that she was

in the Post Office on the morning of the robbery and overhead Brown tell Gaglia

that his name was “Jason.” Brown did not object to this testimony at trial, so we

review it for plain error. See United States v. Campbell, 223 F.3d 1286, 1288

(11th Cir. 2000). In the first place, Brown’s statement of his name was not hearsay

because it was the statement of a party-opponent. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A);

United States v. Munoz, 16 F.3d 1116, 1120 (11th Cir. 1994) (noting that “a

statement is not hearsay if it is the statement of the party against whom it is

offered”). Moreover, admission of the statement did not violate the Confrontation

Clause. See United States v. Zizzo, 120 F.3d 1338, 1354 (7th Cir. 1997); United

States v. Moran, 759 F.2d 777, 786 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Rios Ruiz,

579 F.2d 670, 676-77 (1st Cir. 1978); see also 4 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A.

Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 802.05[3][d] at 802-25 (2d ed. 2005)

(noting that “a party cannot seriously claim that his or her own statement should be

excluded because it was not made under oath or subject to cross-examination”).

Next, Brown objects to Dietrechusn Davis’s testimony, which was also

offered by the government at the guilt-innocence stage. Davis testified that Sadie

Brown (Brown’s mother) received a phone call and said “Meier, where you at?

50
Meier, you didn’t kill that lady, no.” Davis testified that Sadie then started crying,

at which point he left. The defendant objected at trial, alleging hearsay and that “I

can’t cross examine her.” We review a district court’s hearsay ruling for abuse of

discretion. United States v. De La Mata, 266 F.3d 1275, 1300-01 (11th Cir. 2001).

The district judge overruled the hearsay objection. Although his reasons for doing

so are not entirely clear from the record, the statement was an excited utterance and

thus subject to a hearsay exception. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(2) (providing a hearsay

exception for “[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while

the declarant was under stress of excitement caused by the event or condition”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the statement was

admissible.

Brown also claims that Davis’s testimony violated his confrontation clause

rights and was impermissibly admitted in contravention of the Supreme Court’s

recent decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). In Crawford, the

Supreme Court held that testimonial evidence from an absent witness may be

admitted only when the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior

opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Id. at 68. The Crawford rule applies

only to testimonial evidence. Id.; United States v. Cantellano, 430 F.3d 1142, 1145

(11th Cir. 2005) (noting that non-testimonial evidence “is not subject to

51
confrontation”).

Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Crawford, offered some examples

of what the Court had in mind when it used the term “testimonial” evidence:

ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent - that is,
material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony
that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial
statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used
prosecutorially . . . extrajudicial statements contained in formalized
testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony,
or confessions . . . statements that were made under circumstances
which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the
statement would be available for use at a later trial.

Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51-52 (quotation marks, citations and alterations omitted).

The Court further noted that a historical version of Webster’s Dictionary defines

“testimony” as “[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of

establishing or proving some fact.” Id. at 51 (citing 1 N. Webster, An American

Dictionary of the English Language (1828)) (alteration in original).

We need not divine any additional definition of “testimonial” evidence to

conclude that the private telephone conversation between mother and son, which

occurred while Sadie Brown was sitting at her dining room table with only her

family members present, was not testimonial. See id. (noting that “[a]n accuser

who makes a formal statement to government officers bears testimony in a sense

that a person who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not”); United

52
States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 181 (3d Cir. 2005) (surreptitiously monitored

conversations not testimonial); Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 83-84 (1st Cir. 2004)

(holding that a statement from a conversation, admitted under the state-of-mind

exception to the hearsay rule, was non-testimonial because it was private, was not

made under examination, was not contained in a formal document, and was not

made “under circumstances in which an objective person would reasonably believe

that the statement would be available for use at a later trial” (quotation marks

omitted)). The phone conversation Davis overheard obviously was not made under

examination, was not transcribed in a formal document, and was not made under

circumstances leading an objective person to reasonably believe the statement

would be available for use at a later trial. Thus, it is not testimonial and its

admission is not barred by Crawford.

Finally, Brown objects to the testimony of Catherine Webb, Gaglia’s sister,

which was offered at the penalty phase of the trial. Webb testified about how

Gaglia’s death affected Gaglia’s husband and children. She did not testify about

any direct statements any other family member made; instead, she testified as to

how those people were affected by Gaglia’s death. Thus, for example, she said that

one of Gaglia’s sons “felt under his emotional state of mind that he could not [go

to college] at this time. He could not concentrate to go onto college.” Webb stated

53
that “I just spoke with [Gaglia’s husband] just a few minutes ago. He could not

appear. His emotional state, he is going through therapy. . . And he knew that

under the advise of his therapist, and a counseling group that he had gone to with

other family members that have lost closed [sic] loved ones, that he could not, he

could not manage to go through this court hearing.” There was no objection to the

admission of Webb’s testimony, so we review it for plain error. See United States

v. Campbell, 223 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2000).

First, we do not believe that any of Webb’s testimony was hearsay. Hearsay

is defined as a “statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at

the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”

Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). “A ‘statement’ is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2)

nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.” Fed.

R. Evid. 801(a). Webb’s testimony did not include statements by Gaglia’s husband

or children. Rather, Webb simply offered her impression of how they were coping

with Gaglia’s death, which was not hearsay.

Moreover, even if the statements could be characterized as hearsay, the

Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply during the penalty phase of a federal

capital trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c) (“Information is admissible [during the

penalty phase] regardless of its admissibility under the rules governing admission

54
of evidence at criminal trials except that information may be excluded if its

probative value is outweighed by the danger of creating unfair prejudice, confusing

the issues, or misleading the jury”); United States v. Johnson, 223 F.3d 665, 674

(7th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he Federal Death Penalty statute does not require evidence of

aggravating or mitigating factors be admissible under the rules of evidence.”).

Cf. Chandler v. Moore, 240 F.3d 907, 918 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that hearsay is

admissible at a state capital sentencing hearing as long as the state statute allows

the defendant the opportunity to rebut any hearsay information). Brown has not

shown that Webb’s testimony was unfairly prejudicial, that it confused the issues,

or that it misled the jury. Moreover, he had every opportunity to rebut the

evidence. Thus, there was no statutory error.

Brown also says that admission of Webb’s testimony violated Crawford.

We need not determine whether Crawford applies to the penalty phase of a federal

capital trial because, even if it did, the challenged evidence is not testimonial. The

evidence provided by Webb was based on her observations of Gaglia’s family

members. To the extent that any of those people made statements about which

Webb then testified (again, we can discern no “statements,” at least to the extent

that term is defined in the hearsay context), they were not testimonial in nature.

They were made by one grieving family member to another. They were not made

55
in the context of an examination, were not recorded in a formal document, and

were not made under circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe

they would be later used at trial. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the

family members were unavailable; to the extent Brown wished to do so, he could

have called any of them as a witness. Thus, because the statements were not

testimonial, we need not address whether Crawford applies in the penalty phase of

a federal capital trial.12

12
We have held that Crawford does not apply in the context of non-capital sentencing.
See United States v. Cantellano, 430 F.3d 1142, 1146 (11th Cir. 2005). However, death is
different, and we have held, in the state habeas context, that the constitutional right to cross-
examine witnesses applies to capital sentencing hearings. Proffitt v. Wainwright, 685 F.2d 1227,
1254-55 (11th Cir. 1982) (noting that the right of cross-examination applies at capital sentencing
hearings and that the right of cross-examination is “implicit” in the Sixth Amendment right of
confrontation); see also Chandler, 240 F.3d at 918 (holding that in order to comply with the
Sixth Amendment, a state capital sentencing statute must allow the defendant the opportunity to
rebut hearsay evidence). Our view is, however, far from universally accepted. See, e.g., United
States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281, 324 (4th Cir. 2003) (noting that “[i]t is far from clear that the
Confrontation Clause applies to a capital sentencing proceeding” and citing our decision in
Proffitt as being contrary to Fourth Circuit law); Szabo v. Walls, 313 F.3d 392, 398 (7th Cir.
2002) (citing Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949), for the proposition that the
Confrontation Clause does not apply to capital sentencing and noting that the Supreme Court
“has never questioned the precise holding of” Williams). District courts that have considered
this question in federal capital cases post-Crawford have done so in the context of a bifurcated
penalty phase (three stages all together -- a guilt-innocence phase, a death-eligibility phase, and a
penalty phase) and have held that the Confrontation Clause and Crawford apply in the
“eligibility” portion of the penalty phase (where the jury determines whether the defendant is
statutorily eligible for the death penalty) but not in the “selection” portion of the penalty phase
(where the jury determines whether it will actually impose the death penalty). See United States
v. Johnson, 378 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1059-62 (N.D. Iowa 2005) (holding that the Confrontation
Clause does not apply to the penalty phase after assuming, without deciding, that it applied at the
eligibility phase); United States v. Bodkins, No. 4:04CR70083, 2005 WL 1118158, at *4-5
(W.D. Va. May 11, 2005); United States v. Jordan, 357 F. Supp. 2d 889, 901-904 (E.D. Va.
2005). We do not decide whether Crawford applies at the penalty phase of a federal capital trial
precisely because the challenged evidence offered in this case was so clearly non-testimonial.
Moreover, we offer no opinion on the propriety of trifurcating a federal capital trial so that the

56
K. Crime Scene Photographs

Brown also cites as an evidential mistake that the district court admitted

color crime-scene photographs of Gaglia’s body. Again, we review the trial

court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ruiz, 253

F.3d 634, 639-40 (11th Cir. 2001). In reviewing issues under Rule 403, we look at

the evidence in a light most favorable to its admission, maximizing its probative

value and minimizing its undue prejudicial impact. United States v. Jernigan, 341

F.3d 1273, 1284 (11th Cir. 2003).

The trial court allowed the admission of six photographs investigators took

of Gaglia’s body as it appeared at the crime scene. The photos were admitted at

the guilt stage but were not republished at the penalty phase. Brown moved to

suppress the photographs before trial, and the district court denied his motion

subject to renewal at trial when relevance would be more apparent. Brown

renewed his objection at trial.

The evidence is undoubtably relevant; the photographs make facts of

consequence, such as Gaglia’s death and the number and nature of stab wounds to

her body, more probable than they would be without the evidence. See Fed. R.

Evid. 401; United States v. DeParias, 805 F.2d 1447, 1453 (11th Cir. 1986)

penalty phase would be conducted in two distinct parts.

57
(holding that “[p]hotographs of homicide victims are relevant in showing the

identity of the victim, the manner of death, the murder weapon, or any other

element of the crime”), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Kaplan, 171

F.3d 1351, 1356-57 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Moreover, at the penalty phase of

the trial, the photographs were relevant in determining the existence of one of the

alleged statutory aggravating factors: whether Brown “committed the offense in an

especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner in that it involved torture or serious

physical abuse to the victim.” 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c)(6).

However, evidence that is otherwise relevant “may be excluded if its

probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”

Fed. R. Evid. 403. Brown says that the pictures were unfairly prejudicial because

the condition of the body as displayed in the photographs was not the same as the

condition of the body after he committed the murder because the body was moved

when rescuers attempted to revive Gaglia. Moreover, Brown contends that

resuscitation efforts increased the amount of blood on and around the body,

making the attack look more vicious than it really was. We are unpersuaded.

In DeParias, we rejected an argument that admitting photographs of a “badly

decomposed corpse” was an abuse of discretion under Rule 403. 805 F.2d at 1453-

54. Although we did not specifically address an argument that the changed state of

58
the body rendered the photos unfairly prejudicial, we implicitly rejected such a

contention. The changes in appearance that accompany decomposition are

significantly greater, and more gruesome, than those that were present in this case.

Although there may have been slightly more blood shown in the photographs than

there was when Brown left the scene, that is a direct and natural consequence of his

decision to repeatedly stab the victim. There was no unfair prejudice.

Brown also argues that the photos were unnecessary, cumulative and

therefore unfairly prejudicial because the government introduced other evidence,

such as the testimony of the medical examiner, that established Gaglia’s cause of

death. We explicitly rejected this argument in DeParias and find it no more

compelling here. See id. at 1454 (noting that “Rule 403 does not mandate

exclusion merely because some overlap exists between the photographs and other

evidence. The admission of these photographs in addition to the testimony of the

coroner hardly constitutes such a needless accumulation of evidence as to amount

to an abuse of discretion” (citation omitted)).

Finally, even if this amounted to an abuse of discretion, it would be harmless

error at both the guilt and penalty phases. Brown directs us to Spears v. Mullin,

343 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2003), a case where the Tenth Circuit held that crime-

scene photographs introduced at the penalty phase of a state capital trial rendered

59
the proceeding fundamentally unfair because they were only minimally relevant to

the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating factor. Id. at 1227-28. In Spears,

which was decided under Oklahoma law, whether a crime was heinous, atrocious,

or cruel depended on whether the defendant had inflicted unnecessary suffering

while the victim was still conscious. See id. at 1226-27. The evidence in Spears

showed that only two of the fifty to sixty stab wounds were inflicted peri-mortem.

Id. at 1228. Thus, the relevance of the photographs was limited in that case. The

court found that, in light of the limited relevance, the gruesome depictions of the

body, which included exposed intestines and large gash wounds, were unduly

prejudicial. Id. at 1227-28.

Our case is different from Spears in several important respects. First, we are

proceeding under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Second, the pictures here were

relevant to both guilt and penalty considerations. Moreover, unlike Oklahoma law,

the federal law does not limit the “heinous, cruel, or depraved” aggravating

circumstance to abuse inflicted while the victim was alive, so each of the stab

wounds in this case is individually relevant. Finally, the pictures themselves were

not nearly as gruesome as those in Spears, significantly lessening their prejudicial

impact. Thus, even if this were error -- and we find none -- it would be harmless

because it did not result in the type of “fundamentally unfair” proceeding that

60
infected the Spears case.

L. Denial Of Funds For Two Requested Experts

Brown also claims the district court erred in denying his request for funds to

hire a forensic social worker and a future dangerousness expert. The magistrate

judge denied the application for funds for the forensic social worker because he

concluded that expert would do work duplicative of the work being performed by

other court-funded experts (a mitigation specialist and psychologist) and denied

funds for the future dangerousness expert because that testimony could be

presented by lay witnesses. The district court agreed. We review the district

court’s denial of funds for abuse of discretion. See In re Lindsey, 875 F.2d 1502,

1507 n.4 (11th Cir. 1989); accord Riley v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 302, 308 (5th Cir.

2004).

The district court may order funds for “investigative, expert, or other

services” that “are reasonably necessary for the representation” of a defendant

charged with a crime punishable by death. 21 U.S.C. § 848(q)(9). Although we

have not analyzed the term “reasonably necessary,” the Fifth Circuit has held that

the statute requires the defendant to demonstrate a “substantial need” for the

requested assistance. Riley, 362 F.3d at 307.

In his motion for funds for a forensic social worker, Brown argued that this

61
expert was necessary to: (1) diagnose and make recommendations about mental

status; (2) provide a comprehensive social history interpreting Brown’s

environment and social functioning; (3) conduct comprehensive clinical

interviews; (4) conduct diagnostic interviews to tell the Defendant’s story; (5)

provide counseling to Brown and his family; and (6) serve as an expert witness.

The motion included an affidavit from David I. Bruck, who serves as Federal

Death Penalty Resource Counsel. Bruck conceded that there is some overlap

between the roles of a mitigation specialist -- for whom the court had already

approved funds -- and a forensic social worker. He noted that while some

mitigation specialists could testify as experts, “it is a common practice for

mitigation specialists to work as investigators in support of the work of forensic

social workers as well as other mental health professionals such as psychologists

and psychiatrists.”

The district court concluded that the work of the forensic social worker

would be unnecessary and duplicative because it had already approved funding

both for a mitigation specialist and a psychologist. Brown says, nevertheless, that

without a forensic social worker, he was unable to present coherent testimony

relating to the background, upbringing, and social context of his life. That

argument is contradicted by the record. At the penalty phase, Brown presented

62
fourteen witnesses who testified about Brown and his childhood. Those witnesses

described the deplorable conditions under which Brown was raised, noting that

there were frequent fights in his home, that his parents used drugs, that his father

left the home after shooting his stepson when Brown was seven, that a child died at

Brown’s home after drowning in a septic tank, and that the police were frequently

called to break up fights, shootings, and stabbings. Brown offers no explanation

for why neither his court-funded mitigation specialist nor his court-funded

psychologist was called as an expert, nor why they could not offer additional

evidence on precisely these points. Quite simply, the district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying funds for the forensic social worker.

The same result applies to the denial of funds for a future dangerousness

expert. The district court found that Brown could present lay testimony to

establish that he would not be a danger to society if sentenced to a life term, and

that is exactly what happened at the trial. Brown presented the testimony of the

Assistant Jail Administrator for Liberty County, who said that Brown had been a

stellar inmate in the past, had no disciplinary problems while in jail, had been

appointed a jail trustee (a position reserved for inmates with a positive attitude and

a good disposition), had served admirably as a jail trustee, had never engaged in

acts of violence while in jail, and had actively participated in church and choir

63
activities while in jail. Additionally, he presented the testimony of the Assistant

Jail Administrator for Chatham County, who likewise testified that Brown had not

engaged in any acts of violence or caused any disciplinary problems while he was

housed in the Chatham County Jail.

In Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986), the Supreme Court held

that “evidence that the defendant would not pose a danger if spared (but

incarcerated) must be considered potentially mitigating.” Id. at 5. The Supreme

Court ruled that the trial court should have permitted the testimony of former

jailers who would have opined on the defendant’s good jail behavior, the very type

of evidence that was introduced in this case. The Skipper Court said nothing about

the need for expert testimony on this subject, and, in light of the ample lay

testimony presented on this topic, and the ease with which the jury could

understand it, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying funds for a

future dangerousness expert.

Brown also raises a non-statutory argument concerning the denial of funds,

claiming that he was denied his rights under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).

In Ake, the Supreme Court held that “when a defendant demonstrates . . . that his

sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must,

at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will

64
conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and

presentation of the defense.” Id. at 83. We have not extended Ake to non-

psychiatric experts, see Conklin v. Schofield, 366 F.3d 1191, 1206 (11th Cir. 2004)

(assuming for the sake of argument that Ake applies to non-psychiatric experts,

and denying the claim), but, if we were to assume that Ake applies, Brown would

have to show that (1) he made a timely request for the expert assistance, (2) it was

unreasonable for the trial court to deny the request, and (3) the denial rendered the

trial “fundamentally unfair.” Id. at 1206.

Under an Ake analysis, Brown fails on both the second and third prongs. As

noted above, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court’s decision was

entirely reasonable. See id. at 1208 (noting that reasonableness is determined by

the sufficiency of the defendant’s explanation for why he needed the expert

assistance). Moreover, Brown fails on the final prong because he cannot show that

the alleged Ake error had “substantial and injurious effect or influence in

determining the jury’s verdict.” Id. at 1209 (quotation marks omitted). Brown

presented copious and coherent testimony regarding both his social history and his

future dangerousness. We readily conclude that the district court committed

neither statutory nor constitutional error in denying the requested funds.

M. Constitutionality Of The Federal Death Penalty Act

65
 Brown also claims that the Federal Death Penalty Act (“FDPA”) is

unconstitutional because it does not require the prosecutor to charge the necessary

aggravating factors in the indictment. The district court found the statute

constitutional. We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. United States

v. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218, 1225 (11th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

Once a defendant has been found guilty of a death-eligible crime, there are

several findings a jury must make before it may consider the death penalty. First,

the statute says that it must find the existence of one of four statutorily proscribed

mens rea requirements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2).13 Next, if the mens rea

requirement is satisfied, the jury also must find the existence of one of sixteen

statutorily proscribed aggravating factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c). Only after

13
To be death eligible, the jury must find that the defendant:

(A) intentionally killed the victim;
(B) intentionally inflicted serious bodily injury that resulted in the death of the
victim;
(C) intentionally participated in an act, contemplating that the life of a person
would be taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with a
person, other than one of the participants in the offense, and the victim died as a
direct result of the act; or
(D) intentionally and specifically engaged in an act of violence, knowing that the
act created a grave risk of death to a person, other than one of the participants in
the offense, such that participation in the act constituted a reckless disregard for
human life and the victim died as a direct result of the act.

18 U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2).

66
those considerations have been satisfied is a defendant death-eligible.14 Then, the

jury must decide whether all of the statutory and non-statutory15 aggravating

factors sufficiently outweigh the mitigating factors to justify a sentence of death,

or, if there are no mitigating factors, whether the aggravating factors alone are

sufficient to justify death. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(e).

The original indictment in this case charged Brown with committing three

federal crimes: murder within the federal jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. § 1111); murder

of a federal employee (18 U.S.C. § 1114); and robbery of federal property (18

U.S.C. § 2114). It then went on to list six special findings. In those special

findings, the grand jury charged that Brown: 1) was eighteen years of age or older

at the time of the offenses; 2) intentionally killed the victim; 3) intentionally

inflicted serious bodily injury that resulted in the victim’s death; 4) intentionally

participated in one or more acts, contemplating that the life of a person would be

taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with a person,

other than a participant in the offense, and the victim died as a result of such act or

acts; 5) intentionally and specifically engaged in one or more acts of violence,

14
Additionally, the statute provides that no person may be sentenced to death who was
less than eighteen years of age at the time of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3591(a).
15
After listing sixteen specific aggravating factors, the statute provides that the jury “may
consider whether any other aggravating factor for which notice has been given exists.” 18
U.S.C. § 3592(c). These “other” aggravating factors are generally referred to as “non-statutory”
factors.

67
knowing that the act or acts created a grave risk of death to a person, other than one

of the participants in the offense, such that participation in such act or acts

constituted a reckless disregard for human life, and the victim died as a direct

result of such act or acts; and 6) committed the offense in an especially heinous,

cruel, or depraved manner in that it involved serious physical abuse to the victim.

Special findings two through five correspond to the mens rea requirements of 18

U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2), and special finding number six corresponds to one of the

sixteen statutory aggravating factors, found at 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c)(6). In a

superseding indictment, the grand jury made one additional special finding,

charging that Brown committed the offenses in the expectation of the receipt of

something of pecuniary value, which corresponds to another of the sixteen

statutory aggravating factors, found at 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c)(8).

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584

(2002), Brown argues that the FDPA is facially unconstitutional because it does

not require the government to allege the necessary aggravating factors in the

indictment. This argument was rejected by the district court.

In Ring, the Court held that an aggravating factor necessary for imposition

of the death penalty has to be found by a jury; it cannot be determined by the

sentencing judge. 536 U.S. at 609. Although Ring was a Sixth Amendment case,

68
other circuits have unanimously found that the holding applies with equal force in

the context of a Fifth Amendment challenge to the lack of statutory aggravating

factors in an indictment charging a death-eligible crime under the FDPA. See

United States v. Allen, 406 F.3d 940, 942-43 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc); United

States v. Robinson, 367 F.3d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 2004); United States v. Higgs, 353

F.3d 281, 297-98 (4th Cir. 2003). Accord United States v. LeCroy, --- F.3d ---,

No. 04-15597, slip op. at 9 (11th Cir. March 2, 2006) (assuming without deciding

that at least one statutory aggravating factor must be included in the indictment).

We agree with our sister circuits that at least one statutory aggravating factor,

which is necessary to elevate the maximum sentence from life imprisonment to

death, must be charged in the indictment.

Here, Brown concedes that all of the relevant statutory aggravating factors

were alleged in the indictment. Nevertheless, he argues that the FDPA is facially

unconstitutional anyway because it does not require those factors to be alleged in

the indictment. Essentially, Brown argues that the grand jury cannot “fix” the

defect in the statute by simply alleging the aggravating factors in the indictment;

according to Brown, only Congress can cure the deficiency in the law. We

recently rejected that argument in LeCroy. Id. at 10-11.

“A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult

69
challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of

circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” United States v.

Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). As the Fifth Circuit recently held,

[t]he FDPA is not facially unconstitutional under the Indictment
Clause. Although [the defendant] is correct to point out that nothing
in the FDPA requires prosecutors to charge aggravating factors in an
indictment, he fails to note that there is nothing in that law inhibiting
such a charge. The government can easily comply with both its
constitutional obligations (by first going to the grand jury) and its
statutory obligations (by later filing a § 3593(a) notice of intention to
seek the death penalty). As a result, the statute is not facially
unconstitutional.

Robinson, 367 F.3d at 290. Other circuits have rejected facial challenges to the

FDPA on similar grounds. Allen, 406 F.3d at 949; United States v. Barnette, 390

F.3d 775, 788-90 (4th Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds, 126 S. Ct. 92 (2005).

The FDPA is not facially unconstitutional. Nothing prohibits the government from

presenting aggravating factors to a grand jury and then, if appropriate, charging

those aggravating factors in the indictment. Indeed, that is precisely what the

government did in this case.

Brown also argues that non-statutory aggravating factors must be alleged in

the indictment. Here, the government provided notice (albeit not in the indictment)

of its intent to seek five non-statutory factors: (1) the defendant caused injury,

harm, and loss to Gaglia and her family; (2) the manner of the defendant’s

70
commission of the offense was intended to reduce the likelihood of detection; (3)

Gaglia was an employee of the U.S. Postal Service, killed in the performance of

her official duty; (4) the defendant has committed an array of other criminal acts,

some but not all of which have resulted in conviction; and (5) repeated prior efforts

to rehabilitate and deter the defendant from criminal conduct have failed. The jury

found the existence of each one.

In LeCroy, we soundly rejected the argument that non-statutory aggravating

factors must be alleged in the indictment. LeCroy, No. 04-15597, slip op. at 13.

Other circuits have done the same. See United States v. Purkey, 428 F.3d 738,

749-50 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bourgeois, 423 F.3d 501, 507-08 (5th Cir.

2005); Higgs, 353 F.3d at 298-99. The non-statutory aggravating factors, although

relevant to determining whether a jury decides to impose the death penalty, do not

make a defendant statutorily eligible for any sentence that could not be otherwise

imposed in their absence. “They are neither sufficient nor necessary under the

FDPA for a sentence of death.” Purkey, 428 F.3d at 749. This rule comports with

recent Supreme Court precedent because a non-statutory aggravating factor does

not “increase the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum,”

see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), nor does it somehow allow

the imposition of a more severe sentence than could have been imposed without it.

71
See Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303-04 (2004). Thus, a non-statutory

aggravating factor is not one of those “facts legally essential to the punishment”

that must be included within the indictment. See id. at 313.16

N. Pecuniary Gain

Brown further claims that the district court erred in denying his motion for a

directed verdict on the aggravating circumstance of pecuniary gain and in

improperly instructing the jury regarding the scope of pecuniary gain. Motions for

directed verdicts have been abolished since the creation of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure, and Brown’s motion properly should be treated as one seeking

a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, see

United States v. Tatum, 496 F.2d 1282, 1285 n.1 (5th Cir. 1974), the denial of

which we review de novo. United States v. Acosta, 421 F.3d 1195, 1197 (11th Cir.

2005). We review jury instructions de novo, “to determine whether they misstate

the law or mislead the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party.” Brochu v. City

of Riviera Beach, 304 F.3d 1144, 1155 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks

16
However, even if it were constitutional error to omit the non-statutory aggravating
factors from the indictment, in this case that error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
See Allen, 406 F.3d at 945 (holding that the failure to include statutory aggravating factors in the
indictment was subject to a harmless error analysis); Robinson, 367 F.3d at 286 (same). Brown
had notice of the non-statutory aggravating factors the government intended to use at trial, and
the evidence “overwhelmingly shows that there existed probable cause to charge [Brown] with
the [non-statutory] aggravating factors used in his sentencing.” Robinson, 367 F.3d at 288-89.

72
omitted).

The government charged two statutory aggravating factors: (1) the defendant

committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner in that it

involved torture or serious physical abuse to the victim, 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c)(6);

and (2) the defendant committed the offense as consideration for the receipt, or in

the expectation of the receipt, of anything of pecuniary value. 18 U.S.C. §

3592(c)(8). The jury found that both aggravators applied.

Brown argued to the district court, in the course of requesting jury

instructions and again in his motion for a directed verdict, that the “pecuniary

value” aggravating factor does not apply when the death-eligible offense (here,

murder) is the culmination of a robbery. Essentially, Brown says, the pecuniary

gain aggravating factor can apply only when the defendant knows in advance he

will receive something of pecuniary value by committing the murder; he offers the

example of murder-for-hire. The district court rejected Brown’s argument,

denying the motion for a directed verdict and instructing the jury on pecuniary

gain. Brown reprises these same arguments on appeal, relying on two cases;

United States v. Bernard, 299 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002) and United States v.

Chanthadara, 230 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2000). Neither supports his claim.

In Chanthadara, the defendant was convicted of robbery under the Hobbs

73
Act and using a firearm in a crime of violence under circumstances constituting

first-degree murder (the conviction for which death was authorized). When the

district judge instructed the jury that it had to find that “the offense” was

committed in the expectation of receiving something of pecuniary value, he did not

clarify whether the offense was robbery or murder. The Tenth Circuit held that

section 3592 of Title 18 requires “that the pecuniary gain factor apply where the

gain was expected as a result of the victim’s death.” Chanthadara, 230 F.3d at

1263 (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the murder, and not the

robbery, had to be committed with the expectation of receiving something of

pecuniary value. Id. at 1264 (holding that “[t]he instruction failed to specify the

‘offense’ to which it referred was the homicide, not the underlying robbery, and

thereby failed to impose a necessary limitation. Therefore, the instruction was

erroneous.”).

In Bernard, the defendant was charged with murder committed on federal

land. It was alleged that Bernard and his co-defendants set out to commit a

robbery. They carjacked a young couple, took their ATM cards, demanded the pin

numbers, and forced the victims into the trunk of their own car. The defendants

withdrew money from the victims’ accounts and then proceeded to drive around,

with the victims still in the trunk, for several hours. Eventually, the defendants

74
drove to a remote area on the Fort Hood military reservation and shot and burned

both victims, stating that they had to kill the couple because the victims had seen

the attackers’ faces. The jury imposed the death sentence, finding that the

pecuniary gain aggravating factor applied. Bernard, 299 F.3d at 471-73.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the pecuniary gain aggravating factor did

not apply, holding that the “aggravating factor is only applicable where the jury

finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder itself was committed ‘as

consideration for, or in the expectation of’ pecuniary gain.” Bernard, 299 F.3d at

483. The court found that the defendants were not hired to commit the murder, and

they did not commit the offense of murder in expectation of pecuniary gain.

Rather, the sole reason for the murder was to prevent the victims from reporting

the crimes to the police. Accordingly, the court found the evidence legally

insufficient to support the “pecuniary gain” aggravating factor. Id. at 483-84

(rejecting the government’s argument that the murder was a “necessary step” in

finishing the carjacking plan).

Neither Chanthadara nor Bernard supports the argument that the pecuniary

gain factor is somehow inapplicable in cases involving a robbery or that the factor

is limited to cases of murder-for-hire. Rather, they simply stand for the

unremarkable proposition that the murder itself, and not an underlying robbery,

75
must be committed in expectation of something of pecuniary value. See also

United States v. Barnette, 390 F.3d 775, 807-08 (4th Cir. 2004), vacated on other

grounds, 125 S. Ct. 92 (2005) (finding, in a case involving carjacking and murder,

that the district court’s instructions properly limited the pecuniary gain factor to the

murder, and that the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the murder itself

was committed with the expectation of receiving pecuniary gain); United States v.

Roman, 371 F. Supp. 2d 36, 46 (D.P.R. 2005) (rejecting the defendants’ motion to

strike the pecuniary gain aggravating factor because the murder and robbery were

committed “practically simultaneous[ly]” and therefore a jury could properly infer

that the murder was committed for the express reason to effect the robbery, rather

than being incident to, or as an afterthought to the robbery); United States v.

Cooper, 91 F. Supp. 2d 90, 105-06 (D.D.C. 2000) (denying defendant’s motion to

strike the pecuniary gain aggravating factor because a jury could reasonably infer

that the murder of a store employee during an unsuccessful robbery could have

been motivated by the fact that the employee was frustrating the robber’s ultimate

goal, which was to obtain money from the robbery).

Quite simply, the “pecuniary gain” aggravating factor may apply in the

“murder-for-hire” scenario (if the defendant committed the murder “as

consideration for the receipt of . . . anything of pecuniary value”) or in the robbery

76
scenario (if the defendant committed a concomitant murder “in the expectation of

the receipt of anything of pecuniary value”). See 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c)(8). The

“consideration” and “expectation” clauses are two separate ways by which the

pecuniary gain factor may be satisfied, and they both must have meaning. See

Cooper, 91 F. Supp. 2d at 105 (discussing the two separate prongs). The pecuniary

gain factor will not necessarily apply to every robbery/murder scenario, however,

and, therefore, we must examine the facts of this case.

The only direct testimony presented at trial describing Gaglia’s actual death

is found in Brown’s videotaped confession. He offers little that occurred between

when he initially jumped through the counter window and when he started riding

home on his bike. Brown stated that he did not go to the Post Office with the

intention of hurting Gaglia; instead, he testified he used the knife just to scare her.

He suggested that if he “put her in shock . . . she is not going to be coherent,”

which, presumably, would have lessened the chance that she would be able to later

identify him.

Brown said that he tripped when going through the counter window, and

“accidently” cut Gaglia. Although it is not entirely clear, presumably that initial

stab wound occurred before he gained control of the money orders, because it

appears from his testimony that he did not obtain the money orders until after he

77
vaulted through the window. The medical examiner testified that Gaglia had ten

stab wounds, two of which could have been fatal. He was unable to identify the

order in which the wounds occurred, and Brown has no recollection of any

stabbing after the initial wound that happened “accidently” while he was going

through the window. Thus, because that first wound may have been one of the two

fatal wounds, the jury could reasonably have found that Brown killed Gaglia

before he had control of the money orders, and that the killing was necessary so

that Brown could complete the robbery (which, obviously, carried with it the

expectation of pecuniary gain).17

Additionally, there is evidence from which the jury could find that Gaglia

put up a struggle. Brown testified that she said nothing during the incident and that

she did not fight back. However, the medical examiner testified that two of the ten

stab wounds were to the victim’s extremities -- the anterior section of her left

forearm and the back of her left wrist. The doctor explained that when an

individual receives multiple stab wounds, cuts found on the extremities are

classically described as defensive types of injuries. If the jury credited the medical

17
Moreover, although Brown admits only the initial “accidental” stabbing, the physical
evidence establishes that Gaglia was stabbed ten times. For all we know (and for all the jury
knew), Brown might have inflicted all ten of those wounds (including the two fatal ones) before
he gained control of the money orders. Thus, a jury could reasonably conclude that Brown killed
Gaglia before he stole the money orders and that the killing was carried out so he could complete
the robbery.

78
examiner’s testimony, it could reasonably have concluded that Gaglia was

struggling and that Brown had to kill her in order to successfully complete the

robbery. See Roman, 371 F. Supp. 2d at 46. Either of the two scenarios provide a

reasonable basis for the jury to conclude that Brown killed Gaglia in the

expectation of pecuniary gain.

To the extent the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on

this point, we are required to draw all reasonable inferences in the government’s

favor. United States v. Peters, 403 F.3d 1263, 1268 (11th Cir. 2005). To affirm

the district court’s denial of what should be viewed as a Rule 29 motion, “we need

only determine that a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the evidence

established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotation marks

omitted). Because the murder and the robbery occurred nearly simultaneously, and

because there is conflicting evidence regarding the extent to which Gaglia may

have resisted, a jury reasonably could have found that Brown committed the

murder in expectation of pecuniary gain.

The jury instructions are a somewhat closer question. In explaining the

various findings the jury would have to make in the penalty phase, the district court

began by stating that “[y]ou have found the defendant guilty of two capital

offenses, Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment. You must now decide two questions as

79
to his punishment.” Thus, the court made it clear from the outset that the

“offenses” under consideration in the penalty phase were related to the murders

alleged in counts one and two (robbery was count three). Later in the instructions,

when describing the pecuniary gain aggravating factor, the court offered the

following explanation: “Pecuniary gain means the expectation of the receipt of

anything of economic value, benefit, or advantage. There is no requirement that

the government prove that something of value actually changed hands, only that

the defendant expected to receive something of value.”

The district court could have stated more explicitly that the expectation of

pecuniary gain must arise from the murder itself, and not from the robbery.

However, the trial judge plainly narrowed the field of consideration to the murder

counts, i.e to counts one and two at the outset of the instructions, and thus,

adequately tied pecuniary gain to the murder. The trial court did not misstate the

law. When the instructions are not a misstatement of the law, “the trial judge is

given wide discretion as to the style and wording employed in the instruction.”

United States v. Fulford, 267 F.3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir. 2001). “Under this

standard, we examine whether the jury charges, considered as a whole, sufficiently

instructed the jury so that the jurors understood the issues and were not misled.”

Id. (quotation marks omitted). “We will reverse the district court . . . only if we are

80
left with a substantial and ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly

guided in its deliberations.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

Here, the district judge gave an initial limiting instruction making clear that

the capital offenses were the murder allegations in counts one and two. In

Barnette, the Fourth Circuit found pecuniary gain instructions sufficient when the

district court stated that the government had to prove that “the defendant

committed the offense in Count 7 in the expectation of the receipt of anything of

pecuniary value.” Barnette, 390 F.3d at 805. The instructions in this case were

nearly identical, but for the fact that there was a temporal break between the

mention of the applicable counts (one and two) and the specific discussion of the

pecuniary gain. That short temporal break is not enough to create a “substantial

and ineradicable doubt” as to whether the jury understood the instructions, and we

therefore conclude that the district judge did not commit reversible error when he

instructed the jury. Cf. Chanthadara, 230 F.3d at 1263-64 (noting that the

instruction wholly failed to specify the “offense” to which the aggravating factor

applied).

O. Right Of Cross-Examination On Remand

Finally, Brown contends the district court erred in failing to hold a post-

remand evidentiary hearing. After this case was initially appealed, Brown moved

81
this Court for a remand to the district court for reconstruction of the record, based

on his belief that there may have been ex parte hearings, which were not

transcribed, related to his request for funds for a forensic social worker and a future

dangerousness expert. We granted the defendant’s motion and remanded the case

to the district court for the limited purpose of:

(1) determining whether there are, in fact, any missing transcripts of
ex parte hearings on the applications for funding for a forensic social
worker or an expert on Appellant’s future dangerousness to prison
staff and inmates, or both, and (2) if the district court determines there
are such missing transcripts, it should attempt to reconstruct, as
provided in Fed. R. App. P. 10(e), those materials.

Brown filed no motions in the district court upon remand, and, on February

10, 2005, the district court entered an order finding that there were no missing

transcripts and thus nothing to reconstruct. The district court stated that it had

“searched its records and consulted with its Court Reporter. No such ex parte

transcripts exist. Nor does anyone on the Court’s staff recall any un-recorded

hearings in this case. Especially since this is a capital case, the Court was

meticulous about thoroughly documenting all motions and rulings.” The district

court observed that no party had filed a proffered reconstruction for the court’s

approval pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c), but added that it

would reconsider its ruling if counsel could “point to any evidence that they in

good faith believe should alter this finding.”

82
 Brown moved for reconsideration, arguing that the district court should have

held an evidentiary hearing at which time it could have heard from Brown’s trial

counsel and the magistrate judge. The district court denied the motion, concluding

that Brown had still not filed a reconstruction of any unrecorded conversations

pursuant to Rule 10(c), and had instead indicated only that an unidentified ex parte

communication had taken place between the magistrate judge and trial counsel.

Additionally, the district court noted that the magistrate judge and his staff “report

no recollection of any un-recorded contacts with defense counsel concerning any

substantive matters.”

On appeal, Brown argues that the trial court denied him the right to confront

witnesses by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the

record required reconstruction. We review a district court’s failure to conduct an

evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gay, 251 F.3d

950, 951 (11th Cir. 2001); Ashcroft v. Paper Mate Mfg. Co., 434 F.2d 910, 915-16

(9th Cir. 1970) (in the context of a Rule 10(e) remand).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to hold an

evidentiary hearing for two reasons. First, we did not require a hearing in our

remand order. In prior cases where we have wanted the district court to hold an

evidentiary hearing after remanding a case pursuant to Rule 10(e), we have made

83
the order explicitly clear. See United States v. Preciado-Cordobas, 923 F.2d 159,

160 (11th Cir. 1991) (remanding with instructions to “conduct an appropriate

hearing . . . for the purpose of supplementing the record” (quoting United States v.

Selva, 546 F.2d 1173, 1174 (5th Cir. 1977)) (alterations in original)). We did not

do so here, instead instructing that the district court should determine whether there

were any missing transcripts, and, if so, only then should it attempt to reconstruct

the record.

Second, Rule 10 provides a detailed method by which the record should be

supplemented when proceedings were not recorded or a transcript is unavailable:

the appellant prepares a statement of the evidence or proceedings, and serves the

appellee, who may file objections or proposed amendments, after which the matter

is presented to the district court “for settlement and approval.” Fed. R. App. P.

10(c). Brown made no proffer to the district court regarding any hearings that

were not transcribed or for which a transcript was unavailable. Indeed, even after

the district court invited him to do so, Brown still only obliquely referred to an ex

parte communication between trial counsel and the magistrate judge. He did not

provide any details of the substance of that communication, let alone comply with

the “statement of the evidence or proceedings” requirement of Rule 10(c), despite

the fact that his appellate attorney was in contact with the trial counsel that

84
allegedly engaged in these communications. The district court acted well within its

discretion finding -- based on its inquiry of its own staff, the court reporter, and the

magistrate judge -- that there were no ex parte communications.18

III.

We have considered all the arguments of both parties, and, after thorough

review of the record we are confident the district court did not commit reversible

error. Brown’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

18
Moreover, even if we were to find that the district court should have conducted a
hearing, Brown’s absence at that hearing would not have violated his due process or Sixth
Amendment right to be present. See United States v. Boyd, 131 F.3d 951, 954 (11th Cir. 1997)
(finding that a defendant’s absence from an evidentiary hearing related to his motion for a new
trial did not violate his rights under the Sixth Amendment or the Due Process Clause, in part
because there was no showing that his presence would have contributed to the fairness of the
proceeding). Brown is entitled to no relief on this claim.
Finally, Brown also argues on appeal that he intended to present two other arguments at
the post-remand hearing, both related to an allegedly incomplete record of the jury selection
process. However, those issues were outside the scope of our order on remand and thus would
not have been appropriate for consideration even if the district court had conducted a hearing.

85
BARKETT, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.

86