United States v. Smalls
752 F.3d 1227
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Smalls was held in NM pre-trial custody when Gantz was murdered in 2004; Cook, Melgar, and another cellmate were co-defendants.
- Melgar and Cook testified against Smalls; Melgar later pleaded and provided a taped FBI statement; Smalls argued they testified falsely.
- Gantz had cooperated with federal authorities; the government proposed a plan to kill him and cover the death with alleged asthma as a pretext.
- Smalls was convicted of five federal offenses related to retaliation, tampering, and killing while assisting a federal investigation.
- Smalls appealed alleging evidentiary errors, prosecutorial misconduct, jury-instruction errors, and insufficient evidence; district court rulings were affirmed.
- Evidence at issue included Rule 404(b) signature-quality evidence, Rule 609 impeachment, co-conspirator statements, prior consistent statements, and video surveillance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 404(b) admissibility of signature-quality evidence | Smalls asserts the asthma-coverup remark is improper as propensity evidence. | Smalls contends it shows identity and plan for the murder. | Admissible for proper purposes; probative with safeguards. |
| Rule 609 impeachment of Smalls | Names and nature of prior convictions admitted to impeach credibility were prejudicial. | Names and details were properly limited by dissimilarity and probative value. | No abuse of discretion; admissible as impeachment under Rule 609(a)(1). |
| Co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) | Melgar's and Smalls’ statements fit co-conspirator admissibility. | Melgar’s statements were not properly ruled; but evidence supported admissibility and impeachment use. | Correctly admitted; statements properly governed by co-conspirator rule. |
| Prior consistent statements under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) | Cook and Melgar’s statements were admissible to rebut fabrication and as substantive evidence. | Statements may be unreliable given timing post-arrest. | Admitted; statements deemed non-hearsay and properly reliable under precedent. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence showed Smalls participated in the murder and had intent to retaliate and tamper. | Evidence conflicting on key details imperforably undermines guilt on several counts. | Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions; no cumulative-error warrant. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Becker, 230 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Cardinas Garcia, 596 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 2010) (Rule 404(b) inclusion and balancing considerations)
- United States v. Stiger, 413 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2005) (plain-error review standard for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2007) (plain-error standard for evidentiary review)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (four-part test for Rule 404(b) admissibility)
- United States v. Gutierrez, 696 F.2d 753 (10th Cir. 1982) (signature-quality evidence framework)
- United States v. Shumway, 112 F.3d 1413 (10th Cir. 1997) (signature-quality assessment guidance)
- United States v. Connelly, 874 F.2d 412 (7th Cir. 1989) (signature-quality indicators and uniqueness of features)