Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03638/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03638-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Reginald Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3638

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Reginald Williams, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 18, 2006

Filed: April 24, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After police received an anonymous tip that a woman had crack cocaine at a day

care center, officers Reginald Williams and Terrell Carter went to the center and

arrested Rolanda Watkins, who confessed she was holding the cocaine for Demetrius

Childs. When Childs went to the center to retrieve the cocaine from Watkins,

Williams and Carter arrested Childs and the two other men in his vehicle. Williams

planted drugs in the car, and stole $740 from Childs. Williams then wrote a police

report of the events that was completely false. Williams later pressured the United

States Attorney to prosecute the three men based on his police report. After Carter

confessed Williams had planted drugs on the arrested men, the Government filed

Appellate Case: 05-3638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036326
*

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, presided over Williams’s trial. The Honorable Catherine D.

Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sentenced

Williams. 

-2-

charges against Williams. Others then came forward stating Williams had treated

them similarly. 

Before trial, the Government gave notice of its intent to use some of the specific

instances of Williams’s other bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). At

trial, over Williams’s objection, the Government presented two of the incidents as

Rule 404(b) evidence. Michael Watson, a drug dealer, testified that when he refused

Williams’s request to cooperate against others, Williams created a false police report

claiming to have found drugs on Watson. During the arrest, Williams stole $1500 and

a cell phone from Watson, and ran up $1700 in charges on the phone. Michael Banks,

an airport employee, also testified that on the day he cashed his paycheck, Williams

created a false police report in which he claimed to have seen Banks dealing drugs,

and stole $750 from Banks. Williams testified in his own defense. A jury convicted

Williams of hindering prosecution, obstruction of justice, and making a false

statement, and the district court*

 sentenced him to 78 months in prison.

On appeal, Williams contends the district court committed error in allowing the

Government to introduce the Rule 404(b) evidence. We review the admission of Rule

404(b) evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Voegtlin, 437 F.3d 741,

745 (8th Cir. 2006). The district court has broad discretion to admit the evidence, and

we reverse only when the “‘evidence clearly had no bearing on the case and was

introduced solely to prove the defendant’s propensity to commit criminal acts.’” Id.

(quoting United States v. Thomas, 398 F.3d 1058, 1062 (8th Cir. 2005)). 

Rule 404(b) states that evidence of a defendant’s earlier crimes or acts is not

admissible to show the defendant acted in conformity with the earlier acts, but is

Appellate Case: 05-3638 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036326
-3-

admissible for other purposes, such as to prove intent or plan. Evidence of earlier bad

acts is admissible when it is relevant to a material issue, similar in kind and close in

time to the charged crime, and proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as long as

the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of

unfair prejudice. Id.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of

Watson and Banks. Williams arrested both men for drug offenses, although they had

none. He then planted drugs, stole their cash, and filed false police reports. These

incidents were highly relevant because they were nearly identical to the charged

crime, and helped the jury decide Williams’s intent, plan, and method of operation.

Williams attacks witness credibility, and claims the incident involving Watson was

too remote in time. It was the jury’s duty to assess the credibility of the witnesses

providing the Rule 404(b) evidence, United States v. Jourdain, 433 F.3d 652, 659-60

(8th Cir. 2006), however, and the nine-year time span between Watson’s arrest in 1996

and Williams’s trial in 2005 was not unreasonable, see United States v. Koski, 424

F.3d 812, 818 (8th Cir. 2005) (seven-year span reasonable); United States v. Strong,

415 F.3d 902, 905-06 (8th Cir. 2005) (thirteen-year span reasonable). Further, the

probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential prejudicial effect. 

Williams also contends the district court should not have admitted evidence

about the arrest of Cortez Brown under Rule 404(b). Contrary to Williams’s

contention, the evidence was not admitted under Rule 404(b). Near the end of

Carter’s testimony for the Government, the Government questioned him about his

nonprosecution agreement, his beating of one of the wrongly arrested men, and his

falsification of a police report about the arrest of Cortez Brown. Carter stated he

wrote the report with false facts suggested by Williams and later swore under oath that

those facts were true. Williams did not object to admission of the evidence at trial,

and used the information to try to impeach Carter. We conclude the district court did

not commit plain error in admitting the testimony. The Government was entitled to

Appellate Case: 05-3638 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036326
-4-

present evidence that could be used to impeach its own witness. United States v.

Carpenter, 11 F.3d 788, 789-90 (8th Cir. 1993). 

Accordingly, we affirm Williams’s conviction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3638 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036326