# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 14 23

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Fred ric k Ern es t Gra ha m

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 13 , 20 16
Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 22 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, SMITH, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

A jury co nv ic te d Fred ric k Graha m of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), an d th e di st ric t co ur t se n t e n c e d h im to 10 5 1

The Hon or ab le Ro nn ie L. W hi te

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.m on th s in pr is on an d th ree y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Grah am ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at

th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by ad m it ti ng ev id en ce of hi s 20 09 fir earm

rel at ed arre st an d by refu si ng hi s pr op os ed jury in st ru ct io n on im pl ic it raci al bi as

. W e

affi rm

.

At 11 :3 0 p.m

. on Sep te m

be r 3, 20 14

, Sai nt Lou is

, Mi ss ou ri, Po li ce Dete ct iv es Greg or y Kli ps ch an d Mat th ew Man le y were pa tro ll in g an area th at ha d ex pe rie nc ed

a sp at e of ro bb eri es , sh oo ti ng s, an d ot he r vi ol en t cri m es

. The de te ct iv es were dr iv in g

an un m ark ed car an d wer e weari ng cl ot hi ng em bl azo ne d wi th th e wor d “ POLICE.”

The de te ct iv es sa w Grah am walk in g on th e si de walk as th ey dr ov e sl owl y do wn th e
bl oc k a nd ob se rv ed Grah am ’s rep eat ed gl an ces ov er hi s sh ou ld er in th ei r di rect io n.
Grah am su dd en ly tu rn ed

, le ft th e si de walk

, ap pr oa ch ed a res id en ce, an d ad jus te d th e
le f t si de of hi s wais tb an d as he walk ed up th e st ep s an d on to th e fro nt po rch of th e
ho us e. The de te ct iv es st op pe d th ei r car an d sa w t h a t G r a h a m d id no t kn oc k on th e

fro nt do or or e n t e r t h e res id en ce bu t co nt in ue d to lo ok ov er hi s sh ou ld er in th ei r
di rect io n.

Man le y , st il l s eat ed in th e un m ark ed car, i de nt ifi ed hi m se lf a s a p ol ic e o ffi cer

an d a sk ed Grah am

if he li ve d at th e res id en ce. Grah am rep li ed th at he di d, b ut aft er
be in g un ab le to pr ov id e th e ho us e’s ad dr es s, he st at ed th at it was act ua ll y hi s si st er’s

res id en ce an d th at he di d no t kn ow th e ad dr es s. As th e de te ct iv es ex it ed th ei r ve hi cl e

to in ve st ig at e fu rth er, Grah am fle d. Kli ps ch ga ve ch as e on fo ot an d sa w th at Grah am

was ho ld in g th e le ft si de of hi s wais tb an d. Grah am ev en tu al ly rem ov ed a fir earm fro m

hi s wais tb an d du rin g th e ch as e, th rew it to th e gr ou nd

, an d c on ti nu ed to fle e. Afte r

se ve ral ti m es or de rin g Grah am to st op an d sh ou ti ng th at he was un de r arre st

, Kli ps ch

was ab le to ap pr eh en d Gra ha m on ly after d ep lo y in g h is tas er.

The de te ct iv es se arch ed Grah am in ci de nt to hi s arre st , s ei zi ng a sk i m as k an d

a pa ir of gl ov es fro m a po ck et of hi s sh or ts . The det ect iv es th en ret ur ne d to th e area
whe re Grah am

ha d t hr own th e fir earm an d reco ve red a fu ll y lo ad ed an d fu nc ti on in g

-2

-Si g Sau er se m i

- a u t o mati c pi st ol

. Dur in g a la te r in te ract io n wit h Offi cer Man le y ,

Grah am st at ed , “ I th ou gh t ab ou t s ho ot in g you . That ‘ Si g’ wou ld ha ve hu rt, t oo .”

Grah am pr oc eed ed to tri a l on th e si ng le fel on -in -p os se ss io n ch arg e. The

go ve rn m en t pr ov id ed no ti ce t h a t it in te nd ed to of fer ev id en ce at tri al of Grah am ’s

Octo be r 20 09 fir earm -rel at ed arre st

. Dur in g th at in ci de nt

, Sai nt Lou is po li ce of fic ers
ob se rv ed Grah am at te m

pt in g to hi de be hi nd a bu sh whi le cl ad in a cam ou fla ge jack et

. Grah am fle d in to a ne arb y res id en ce as th e of fi c e r s a p p r oa ch ed

, ho ld in g hi s jack et

po ck et as he di d so

. The of fic ers fo l l o w e d, an d aft er rece iv in g th e ho m eo wne r’s

p e r mi s s i on to en te r th ey di sc ov ered th e no w-u njac ke te d Grah am st an di ng in th e

ha ll way . The o ffi cers se iz ed a lo ad ed Co br a se m i-a ut om at ic pi st ol fro m a po ck et of

th e jack et

, whi ch ha d be en di sc ard ed in th e li vi ng ro om

. Grah am fil ed a m o t i o n in

l i mi n e to ex cl ud e th is ev id en ce, an d th e go ve rn m en t fil ed a si m il ar m ot io n fo r it s
ad m is si on

. Afte r a he ari ng on th e m ot io ns , th e di st ric t co ur t an no un ced it s pr el im in ary

ru li ng to ad m it th e ev id en ce.

Grah am de cl in ed to st ip ul at e to hi s pr io r co nv ic ti o n s , t h e reb y pu tt in g th e

go ve rn m en t to it s bu rd en of pr oo f to es ta bl is h each el em en t of th e fel on -in -p os se ss io n
ch arg e. The go ve rn m en t cal le d fo ur wit ne ss es at tri al to te st ify to th e fact s as se t fo rth

ab ov e. Out si de th e pr es en ce of th e jury, th e co ur t he ard ad di ti on al arg um en t reg ard in g
ad m is si on o f t he 20 09 fir earm -rel at ed arre st

. The go ve rn m en t as se rte d th at th is

ev id en ce was ad m is si bl e un de r Fed eral R u l e of Evi de nc e 40 4( b) be cau se it was
rel ev an t to Grah am ’s kn owl ed ge of an d in te nt to po ss es s th e fir earm an d b e c a u s e it

was hi gh er in pr ob at iv e va lu e th an in pr ejud ic ia l effe ct

. Grah am arg ue d, ho wev er, th at

kn owl ed ge an d in te nt were no t at is su e be cau se hi s th eo ry of de fen se was th at he ha d

ne ve r po ss es se d th e fir earm , n ot th at he di d no t kn ow he ha d po ss es se d it or di d no t

in te nd to po ss es s it

. Thu s, Grah am arg ue d, th e go ve rn m en t was of feri ng ev id en ce of

hi s 20 0 9 arre st m erel y to pr ov e hi s cri m in al pr op en si ty—an im pe rm is si bl e pu rp os e

un de r Ru le 40 4( b)

. The di st ric t co ur t reject ed Grah am ’s arg um en t an d ov erru le d hi s
ob jecti on

. Afte r th e co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury th at th is ev id en ce was be in g ad m it te d fo r

-3

-a li mite d pu rp os e, on e of th e arre st in g of fic ers te st ifi ed reg ard in g th e de ta il s of th e

20 09 in ci de nt , as s et for th ab ov e.

At th e cl os e of ev id en c e , G r a h a m of fere d a pr op os ed jury in st ru ct io n, whi ch

di rect ed th e juro rs to reac h th ei r ve rd ic t “ wit ho ut di sc riminat io n” an d wit ho ut

“ co nside r[ ing Grah am ’s] race , co lo r, rel ig io us be li efs

, na ti on al or ig in

, or se x.” He al so

of fere d a rel at ed ve rd ic t cert ifi cat io n fo rm , whi ch req ui red th e juro rs to c e r t i f y th at

th ey di d no t di sc riminat e in reac hi ng th ei r ve rd ic t. Grah am arg ue d th at th e pr op os ed

in st ru ct io n an d cert if

i cat io n fo rm , al th ou gh no t pa rt of th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it Pat te rn

In st ru ct io ns , were in te nd ed to co un te ract th e juro rs ’ “ im pl ic it bi as ” an d “ un co ns ci ou s
raci al at ti tu de s.” The di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed th e pr op os ed in st ru ct io n an d cert ifi cat io n

fo rm , in st ead gi vi ng a se co nd Ru le 40 4( b) li m it in g i ns tru ct io n.

W e rev ie w fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n th e di st ric t co ur t’s ad m is si on of ev id en ce of

a de fen da nt ’s pr io r ba d act s un de r Ru le 40 4( b)

, an d wil l rev ers e on ly whe n th e

ev id en ce “ cl earl y

ha d n o b eari ng on th e cas e an d was in tro du ced so le ly to p ro ve th e
de fen da nt ’s pr op en si ty to co m m it cri m in al act s.” Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 79 6 F.3 d

95 1, 95 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bas se tt

, 76 2 F.3 d 68 1, 68 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 14 )), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 6 S. Ct

. 14 50 (2 01 6 )

. B e c a u s e Ru le 40 4( b) is a ru le of

i nc lu si on , “ ev id en ce of

fere d fo r pe rm is si bl e pu rp os es is pr es um ed ad m is si bl e. ” I d

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W il so n, 61 9 F.3 d 78 7, 79 1 (8 th C i r. 20 10 )). Evi de nc e is

pr op erl y ad m it te d un de r Ru le 40 4( b) if, am on g ot he r req ui rem en ts , “ it is rel ev an t to

a m at eri al is su e” an d “ it s po te nt ia l pr ejud ic e do es no t su bs ta nt ia ll y o u twei gh it s

pr ob at iv e va lu e.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ro bi ns on , 63 9 F.3 d 48 9, 49 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 )). 2

R u le 40 4( b) ev id en ce m

us t al so be si m il ar in ki nd an d no t ov erl y rem ot e in 2

ti m e to th e ch arg ed of

fen se an d m

us t be sup po rte d by su ffi ci en t evi de nc e. Bec au se Grah am do es no t co nt en d t ha t t he ev id en ce of his 20 09 fir earm -rel at ed arre st fai le d

to sat is fy th es e req ui rem en ts for

ad m is si on , we nee d n ot di sc us s t he m fur th er.

-4

-In ge ne ral

, “ [e]vi de nc e th at a de fen da nt po ss es se d a f i r e arm on a pr ev io us

oc cas io n is rel ev an t to sh ow kn owl ed ge an d in te nt .” Id

. at 95 9 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. W al ke r, 47 0 F.3d 12 71

, 12 74 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). As he di d bef or e th e di st ric t cou rt,

Grah am as se rts th at th e ev id en ce of hi s 20 09 fir earm -rel at e d arre st was no t rel ev an t

to th e fel on -in -p os se ss io n ch arg e be cau se th e go ve r n ment pr oc eed ed on a th eo ry of

act ua l po ss es si on an d th ereb y ren de red hi s kn owl ed ge an d in te nt irr el ev an t. W e ha ve

pr ev io us ly reject ed th is arg um en t an d do so ag ai n he re. See id .; se e al so Uni te d St at es
v. Oak s, 6 06 F.3d 53 0, 5 39 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) . “ Kno win g po ss es si on of a fir earm is an
el em en t of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), an d [Grah am ] pl aced hi s kn owl ed ge of th e fir earm ’s

p r e s e n c e at th e sc en e on hi s pe rs on at is su e by pl ead in g no t gu il ty to th e cr i me a n d

req ui rin g th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e hi s gu il t be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” See Oak s,

60 6 F.3 d at 53 9. W he n, as he re, a de fen da nt pl ead s no t gu il ty to a fel on -in -p os se ss io n
ch arg e, he pl aces h i s k n o wled ge an d in te nt at is su e ev en whe n th e go ve rn m en t

pr oc eed s so le ly on an act ua l-p os se ss io n th eo ry

. See W il li am s, 79 6 F.3 d at 95 9; Uni te d

St at es v. Halk

, 63 4 F.3 d 48 2, 48 6- 88 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) ( h o l d i n g th at pr ev io us fir earm

po ss e s s i o n s w ere rel ev an t to sh ow de fen da nt ’s kn owl ed ge an d in te nt to po ss es s a

fir earm whe re po li ce sa w d efen da nt ho ld in g an d di sc ard in g a gu n)

. Grah am ’s 2 00 9

fir earm -rel at ed arre st was t hu s re le va nt to sh ow h is kn owl ed ge an d i nt en t.

Grah am al so arg ue s th at th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of th is ev id en ce was su bs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh ed by it s pr ejud ic ia l effe ct

. W e di sa gr ee. “ Tho ug h al l Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce
is in h e r e n t l y p r e

ju di ci al

, th e te st

. . . is whe th er it s pr ob at iv e va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh ed by th e da ng er of un fa ir pr ejud ic e.” Uni te d St at es v. Co ok

, 45 4 F.3 d 93 8,

94 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). The go ve rn m en t di d no t pl ace un du e em ph as is on th e 20 09 arre st

whe n i t was in tro du ced in to ev id en ce, n or di d i t re fer t o s uc h e vi de nc e in it s cl os in g

arg um en t. Mo reo ve r, th e di st ric t co ur t t w i ce in st ru ct ed th e jury th at su ch ev id en ce

co ul d be co ns id ered on ly fo r li m it ed pu rp os es

. W e gi ve “ gr eat de fere nc e” to a di st ric t

co ur t’s de te rm in at io n t h a t t h e da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e is no t ou twei gh ed by th e

pr ob at iv e va lu e of Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce. See W il li am s, 79 6 F.3 d at 96 0. And we

ha ve “ be en rel uc ta nt to fin d th at [s uc h] ev i d e n c e w a s un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l whe n th e

-5

-di st ric t co ur t ga ve an ap pr op ria te li m it in g in st ru ct io n.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v.

Ken t, 53 1 F.3 d 64 2, 65 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). Bec au se th e ev id en ce of Grah am ’s 20 09

arre st was rel ev an t an d it s pr ob at iv e va lu e ou twei gh ed an y da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e

fro m it s ad m is si on , th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng it

.

Grah am ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by de cl in in g to gi ve hi s pr op os ed in st ru ct io n on im pl ic it raci al bi as

. W e di sa gr ee. A di st ric t co ur t ha s
br oa d di sc ret io n to fo rm

ul at e jury in st ru ct io ns

. See Uni te d St at es v. Fari sh

, 53 5 F.3 d

8 1 5, 82 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e rev ie w ju ry in st ru ct io ns as a who le an d affi r m i f t h e y
“fa i r ly an d ad eq ua te ly su bm it te d th e is su es to th e jury.” Id

. The di st ric t c o u r t ’s

in st ru ct io ns fai rly in fo rm ed th e jury of th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e of fen se ch arg ed

,

as well as of th e go ve rn m en t’s b ur de n of pr oo f. Add it io na ll y , th e in st ru ct io ns

sp eci fic al ly di rect ed th e jury th at it sh o u l d “n o t al lo w sym pa th y or pr ejud ic e to

in flu en ce y ou

. The la w de m an ds of y ou a jus t ve rd ic t, un affe ct ed by an y th in g ex cep t

th e ev id en ce, y ou r co m

m on se ns e, an d th e la w as I gi ve it to y ou .” The di st ric t co ur t

di d n ot ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de cl in in g t o g iv e Grah am ’s pro po se d i ns tru ct io n.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-