2. It is similar enough and close enough in time to a
matter in issue.

3. There is more than enough evidence that the other
act was committed.

4. It cannot be said that the probative value of the
challenged evidence is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice (this factor satisfies the
balancing test prescribed by Rule 403).

Conclusion
Accordingly the objections to the government's motion that
have been interposed by the memoranda submitted by counsel for
Abrahams and Bell are rejected. On the premise that the
government will be able to deliver as advertised as to the
evidence at issue, its motion for admissibility of that evidence

is granted.

Ce hla D Geta.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: December 2, 2002


Mioute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton L Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 CR 511 DATE 12/2/2002
CASE USA vs. Narada Abrahams and Robert Bell
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e-¢., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented. ]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) gq Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

@) a Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___.

4) o Ruling/Hearing on___setfor____att

(5) im] Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—set for at

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—setfor_——saat__.
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on _ at.

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at.

(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

CERCP4(m) Local Rule 41.1 CFRCP41(a\(1) 1 FRCP41(a)(2).

a0) «xf [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Accordingly the objections to the
government’s motion that have been interposed by the memoranda submitted by counsel for Abrahams
and Bell are rejected. On the premise that the government will be able to deliver as advertised as to the
evidence at issue, its motion for admissibility of the evidence is granted. (63-1)

dl) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

o | Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.
Docketing to mail notices. —_—

Mail AO 450 form.

LYNOD LILSIG sn

Copy to judge/magistrate judge. waa
courtroom agso ad 2-930 20
SN deputy’s
initials

QT G sbaividad teteived in

central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 02 CR 511

NARADA ABRAHAMS and ROBERT BELL,

Vii
Defendants. bey Mie
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ~ yg

This Court has given full consideration to the responses
filed by defendants Narada Abrahams (“Abrahams”) and Robert Bell
(“Bell”) to the government's motion that seeks the admissibility,
during the forthcoming trial scheduled to begin on December 9, of
evidence as to the attempted but unsuccessful robbery by
Abrahams, Bell and two of their cohorts of a Walgreens drug store
in Evanston, Illinois on May 20, 2002--the day before the bank
robbery that is the subject of the superseding indictment on
which Abrahams and Bell are going to trial. There are at least
two grounds that render that incident both relevant and
admissible under the standards that apply to such “other crimes,
wrongs or acts” as established by Fed. R. Evid. (“Rule”) 404 (b)
and the caselaw construing and applying that Rule.

This is not at all an instance of the impermissible use of
such other acts for the purpose prohibited by Rule 404(b): to
serve as adverse character evidence--as demonstrating defendants'

propensity to commit the actually charged crime. Instead the

d


incident serves as part and parcel of a demonstration of the
motive and intent of defendants in committing the charged crime
itself. According to the government:

1. On May 21 Abrahams and Bell, together with
codefendant Marcel Grant (who has pleaded guilty and is a
likely witness at trial), met to discuss their need for
money and different ways in which they could obtain money
illegally.

2. That discussion led to their agreement to rob the
Walgreens drug store.

3. That effort proved unsuccessful because Grant (who
was chosen to go into the store because he had previously
worked at that Walgreens location) fled when an employee
began to scream.

4. Finally, the defendants met next day, again
discussed their need for money and other possible robberies,
and ultimately settled on the bank robbery that is the
subject of the superseding indictment.

All of that being so, the disputed evidence more than
readily meets the four conditions for admissibility as regularly
reconfirmed by our Court of Appeals (see, e.g., United States v.
Poole, 207 F.3d 893, 897 (7% Cir, 2000)).

1. %It relates to a matter other than defendants'

propensity to commit the charged offense.