# 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- 36 49

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

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.

Ant ua n R oc he ll e Gai ne s

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 Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 0, 2 01 7
Fil ed : J un e 2 3, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Ch ie f Ju dg e, GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge , and SCHREIER, 1 2

Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __

RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

The Hon or ab le W il li am Ja y Ri le y st ep pe d do wn as Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d 1

St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it at th e cl os e of bu si ne ss on Mar ch 10

, 20 17 . He has be en su ccee de d b y th e Hon or ab le Lave ns ki R. Sm it h.

The Hon or ab le Karen E. Sch rei er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 2

of So ut h Dak ot a, si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.A n t ua n Gain es ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on fo r be in g a fel on in po ss es si on o f a

fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), arg ui ng (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed 3

it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng ga ng -rel at ed ev id en ce, an d (2 ) th e ev id en ce in tro du ced at

hi s jury tri al was in su ffi ci en t to fin d hi m gu il ty. Hav in g ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on un de r

28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we af

fir m

.

I. BACKGRO UND

In th e earl y aft ern oo n of Nov em be r 4, 20 13

, Lit tl e Ro ck

, Ark an sa s, pl ai n
cl ot he s po li ce of

fic ers ob se rv ed a pe rs on -o f-i nt eres t in a ho m ic id e in ve st ig at io n

st an di ng in a pa rk in g lo t wit h a gr ou p of m en dr es se d in red an d bl ack at ti re. Due to

a co nc ern fo r sa fet y , be cau se th e of fic ers were aware of a rece nt in c r e as e in ga ng

act iv it y an d th e in di vi du al s’ cl o t h i n g in di cat ed th ey m ig ht be m em be rs of a lo cal

ga ng , th e of

fic ers cal le d fo r un ifo rm ed ba ck up

. Sev eral m ark ed p ol ic e cars

res po nd ed

. As Offi cer Ch arl es St arra tt ap pr oa ch ed th e gr ou p, he sa w on e m an , la te r
id en ti fie d as Gain es , m ak e a m ot io n to ward th e m an ’s wais t an d th en du ck do wn ou t

of th e of fic er’s si gh t n e x t t o a v eh ic le

. Offi cer St arra tt th en he ard “ a m et al on

pa ve m en t so un d.” G a i n e s ob ey ed of fic ers ’ co m

m an ds to ge t on th e gr ou nd

, an d

whi le ha nd cu ffi ng Gain es , Offi cer St arra tt sp ot te d a ha nd gu n un de rn eat h th e car ne xt

to whi ch Gain es ha d b een st an di ng

.

Gain es was in di ct ed fo r 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 pr oc eed ed to a jury tri al in Feb ru ary 20 16

. Befo re tri al

, th e

go ve rn m en t fil ed no ti ce of it s in te nt to pr es en t e v i de nc e of Gain es ’s “ ga ng

m em be rs hi p, an d t he fact th at he was wi th se ve ral ot he r m em be rs of th e ga ng whe n
he an d th ree ot he rs were fo un d in po ss es si on of fir earm s” an d “ [l]im i t e d ev id en ce

reg ard in g th e ho m ic id e in ve st ig at io n” as “ ‘relev an t to m ul ti pl e as pe ct s of th [e] cas e:

th e o ve rarc hi ng fact ua l s cen ari o a t i ss ue , [Gain es ’s] pre se nc e at th e sc en e, an d wh y

The Hon or ab le Kris ti ne G. Bak er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 3

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-he wou ld ha ve a [ f i r e a r m] .’ ” (Sec on d an d th ird al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng
Uni te d St at es v. Mo lt on , 74 3 F.3 d 47 9, 48 2 (7 th Ci r. 20 14 ). The di st ric t co ur t

pe rm it te d th e go ve rn m en t to in tro du ce li m it ed ev id en ce of Gain es ’s ga ng affi li at io n,
bu t n ot ed “ an y

so rt o f ex pe rt t ak in g t he st an d an d gi vi ng a di ss ert at io n o n g an g l ife

an d th e vi ol en ce of ga ng s an d th e vi ol en ce of th is ga ng in pa rti cu la r,

. . . at so m e po in t

th at be co m es ob

jecti on ab le un de r 40 3.” See Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 3 (“ The co ur t m ay

ex cl ud e rel ev an t ev id en ce if it s pr ob at iv e va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by a
da ng er o f . . . unf

ai r pr ejud ic e.”).

Ove r Gain es ’s ob

jecti on at tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t al lo wed an ex pe rt wit ne ss to

te st ify ab ou t Gain es ’s in vo lv em en t in a lo cal ga ng

. Befo re th is te st im on y , th e di st ric t

co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury to co ns id er th e ev id en ce on ly as to Gain es ’s kn owl ed ge , in te nt , and m ot iv e in po ss es si ng th e fi rear m

. 4

The li m it in g i ns tru ct io n re ad to th e jury was: 4

Lad ie s an d ge nt le men o f t h e jury, I an ti ci pa te th at y ou wil l he ar

ev id en ce th at Mr. Gain es is al le ge d t o b e a ffi li at ed wit h a ga ng

. You

m ay co ns id er th is ev id en ce on ly if y ou un an im ou sl y fin d it m or e li ke ly

tru e th an no t tru e. You de ci de t h a t by co ns id eri ng al l of th e ev id en ce

an d de ci di ng wha t ev id en ce is m or e be li ev ab le

. Thi s is a lo wer st an da rd
th an pr oo f be y on d a reas on ab l e d o u b t

. If y ou fin d th is ev id en ce ha s be en pr ov ed , t he n y ou m ay co n s i d e r i t to he lp y ou de ci de Mr. Gain es ’
kn owl ed ge , in te nt

, an d m ot iv e reg ard in g th e ch arg es ag ai ns t hi m in th is

cas e. You sh ou ld gi ve it th e weig ht an d va lu e y ou be li ev e it is en ti tl ed

to rece iv e. If y ou fin d th at th is ev id en ce ha s no t be en pr ov ed

, y ou m us t di sr eg ard it

.

Rem em be r, ev en if y ou fin d th at Mr. Gain es m ay ha ve co m m it te d
si m il ar act s in th e pa st

, th is is no t ev id en ce th at he co m m it te d su ch an
act in th is cas e. Yo u may n ot co nv ic t a pe rs on si m pl y be cau se y ou be li ev e he m ay ha ve co m m it te d si m il ar act s in th e pa st

. Mr. Gain es is

on tri al on ly fo r cri m es ch arg ed an d y ou m ay co ns id er th e ev id en ce of

pr io r act s o nl y

on th e is su es th at I ha ve ex pl ai ne d i n t hi s i ns tru ct io n.

-3

-Th e ex pe rt te st ifi ed th e lo cal ga ng , Hi gh la nd Park Pi ru s (HPP), is as so ci at ed

wit h th e co lo r red an d in cl ud ed th e pa rk i n g l o t whe re Gain es was arre st ed in it s

te rri to ry

. The go ve rn m en t ha d pr ev io us ly in tro du ced ph ot og rap hs —t o whi ch Gain es
di d no t ob

ject at tri al —o f th e cl ot he s Gain es was weari ng th e d a y of hi s arre st

, in cl ud in g a kn it cap wit h th e in it ia ls HPP, an d th e ex pe rt wit ne ss te st ifi ed th is cap

in di cat e d Gain es was affi li at ed wit h th e HPP ga ng

. As pa rt of th e ex pe rt wit ne ss ’s

te st im on y , the gove rn m en t at te m pte d to int ro du ce ph ot og rap hs of cl ot hi ng it em s wor n by in di vi du al s ot he r th an Gain es in th e pa rk in g lo t th e da y of hi s arre st th at refe ren ced

th e HPP ga ng , bu t th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th es e ph ot og rap hs un du ly pr ejud ic ia l. The

go ve rn m en t th en in tro du ced

, ove r G ai ne s’ s obj ectio n, ph ot og rap hs of two of Gain es ’s

ta tt oo s t ha t t he ex pe rt wi tn es s al so id en ti fie d a s as so ci at ed wit h t he HPP g an g.

The ex pe rt wit ne ss wen t on to te st ify th at m em be rs of st reet ga ng s li ke HPP are

in vo lv ed in il le ga l act iv it y an d po ss es s fir ear ms , b u t th e di st ric t co ur t su st ai ne d

Gain es ’s ob

jecti on s to fu rth er te st im o n y r e g a rd in g why m em be rs of st reet ga ng s

po ss es s gu ns , an d th at th e ho m ic id e th e of fic ers were in ve st ig at in g was ga ng -rel at ed

.

In ad di ti on to th e ex pe rt te st im on y l i n k i ng Gain es to th e lo cal st reet ga ng , Offi cer St arra tt te st ifi ed he res po nd ed to th e cal l fo r ba ck up an d, whi le ap pr oa ch in g

th e gr ou p, Gain es cau gh t hi s at te nt io n “ [b ]ecaus e he m ad e a m ot io n [Offi cer St arra tt ]

w o u l d c o n s i de r as a th reat to [h is ] pe rs on .” Offi cer St arra tt te st ifi ed he di sc ov ered

th e fir earm un de rn eat h th e ve hi cl e aft er Gain es dr op pe d ou t of si gh t ne xt to th e

ve h i c l e a nd Offi cer St arra tt he ard a “ m et al on pa ve m en t so un d.” W hi le Offi cer

St arra tt te st ifi ed “ [t]he re was an ot he r in di vi du al at th e fro nt of th e car” ne ar Gain es , he a l s o t e s t ifi ed no ot he r in di vi du al was wit hi n reac hi ng di st an ce of th e gu n. No

A li m it in g in st ru ct io n in th e fin al jury in st ru ct io ns in cl ud ed su bs ta nt ia ll y th e sa m e la ng ua ge

.

-4

-of

fic er te st ifi ed to act ua ll y se ei ng Gain es wit h a f ire arm , an d no ph y si cal ev id en ce

ti ed Gain es to th e fi rear m reco ve red at t he sce ne

.

Gain es m ov ed fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al at th e cl os e of th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e,
whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

. Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d Gain es ’s m ot io n to

ex cl ud e ev id en ce of hi s po te nt ia l w i t n e s s e s’ affi li at io n wit h th e HPP ga ng , Gain es

res te d wit ho ut in tro du ci ng an y ev id en ce. The di st ric t co ur t in st ru c t e d t h e ju ry an d

in cl ud ed a se co nd li m it in g in st ru ct io n on th e g a n g

- a f f i li at io n ev id en ce. The jury

ret ur ne d a gu il ty verd ic t. Gai ne s fi le d t im el y no ti ce o f ap pe al

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Ga ng -Rel at ed Ev id ence
Gain es arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n i n o v erru li ng hi s
ob jecti on s to th e in tro du ct io n of ev id en ce of Gain es ’s ga ng affi li at io n— na m el y ,
p h o to gr ap hs of hi s ga ng -rel at ed cl ot hi ng an d ta tt oo s an d th e ex pl an at or y e x p e r t

te st im on y

. See Uni te d Stat es v. McKay

, 43 1 F.3d 10 85

, 10 93 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ W e

rev ie w di st ric t co ur t ru li ng s on th e ad m is si on of pr ejud ic ia l ev id en ce su ch as al le ge d

ga ng affi li at io n fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” ).

“ Evi de nc e o f ga ng m em

be rs hi p i s ad m is si bl e if

rel ev an t to a di sp ut ed is su e,”

Uni te d St at es v. Lem on , 23 9 F.3 d 96 8, 97 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ), bu t no t “ if it s pu rp os e is

so le ly ‘to pr ejud ic e th e de fen da nt or pr ov e hi s gu il t by as so ci at i on wit h un sa vo ry
ch arac te rs ,’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Ell is on , 61 6 F.3 d 82 9, 83 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) ( q u ot in g

McKa y , 43 1 F.3 d at 10 93 ). As we rece nt ly ou tl in ed in Uni te d St at es v. Payne-Owen s,

ga ng -rel at ed ev id en ce is of te n ad m is si bl e whe re “ th e de fen da nt is

. . . a ga ng m em be r

hi m se lf,” th e is su es in th e cas e “ ‘con cern th e mer e f a c t o f a de fen da nt ’s ga ng

m em be rs hi p’ rat he r th an ‘san ct io n[ in g] a wid e ran gi ng in qu iry in t o t h e ge ne ric

cri m in al it y an d vi ol en t di sp os it io ns of ga ng s,’” an d th e ev id en ce “ ‘is ge ne ral ly an

un av oi da bl e in ci de nt of pr es en ti n g o t h e r pe rm is si bl e ev id en ce.’” Uni te d St at es v.

-5

-Payne-Owen s, 84 5 F.3 d 86 8, 87 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. St reet

, 54 8

F.3 d 6 18 , 63 2 (8 th Cir . 20 08 )).

Gain es cla im s “ th ou gh th e go ve rn m en t att em pt ed to di sg ui se th e ev id en ce as
ad m is si bl e [Ru le ] 40 4( b) ev id en ce, th e ev id en ce was of fere d m erel y to pr ejud ic e Mr.

Gain es an d pro ve hi s gu il t by as so ci at io n.” See Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4( b) (“ Evi de nc e of

a cri m e, wro ng , or o th er ac t i s n ot ad m is si bl e to pro ve a p ers on ’s cha ract er i n o rd er

to sh ow th at on a pa rti cu la r oc cas io n th e p e r s o n a ct ed in acco rd an ce wit h th e
ch ara c t e r.

. . . Thi s ev id en ce m ay be ad m is si bl e fo r an ot he r pu rp os e.”). Gain es

arg ue s an y rel e va nc e of hi s ga ng affi li at io n was “ su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by th e
da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e” whe n “ th e go ve rn m en t wen t th e ‘gui lt y by as so ci at io n’

ro ut e.” See Fed . R. Evi d. 4 03

.

W e ha ve pr ev io us ly cau ti on ed ag ai ns t th e “ rel en tl es s at t e mp t t o co nv ic t [a

de fen da nt ] th ro ug h hi s as so ci at io n” wit h a ga ng whe n th e go ve rn m en t “ in jecte d in to

th e tri al ov er de fen se co un se l’s ob jecti on ” th e ga ng ’s “ ge ne ral rep ut at io n fo r dr ug

rel at ed act iv it ie s,” an d di d so “ m erel y to sh ow th at [th e de fen da nt ] is a ba d pe rs on an d

th us m or e li ke ly to ha ve co m m it te d th e cri m e.” Uni te d St a t e s v

. R oa rk

, 92 4 F.2 d

14 26

, 14 30 -3 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ). Bu t “ [h ]ere, un li ke in Ro ark

, th e go ve rn m en t di d no t

rel en tl es sl y at te m

pt to c o nv ic t [Gai ne s] by arg ui ng gu il t by as so ci at io n.” PayneOwens

, 84 5 F.3 d at 8 7 4. In st ead

, in th e go ve rn m en t’s wor ds

, th e ev id en ce of

Gain es ’s ga ng affi li at io n was of fere d to “ gi ve [] co nt ex t to th e reas on th at th e of fic ers

were th ere th at da y , th e st ep s th at th ey to ok th at da y , th e reas on th at th ey st op pe d th at

da y ” an d to est ab li sh Gain es ’s kn owl ed ge , in te nt

, m ot iv e, or op po rtu ni ty. Gain es ’s

m em be rs hi p i n t h e HPP ga ng pr ov id ed im po rta nt ba ck gr ou nd fo r th e of fic ers ’

te st im on y of why th ey were in th e area an d cal le d fo r un ifo rm ed ba ck up to ap pr oa ch

th e men in th e pa rk in g lo t. The ph ot og rap hs of Gain es ’s ga ng -rel at ed cl ot hi ng an d

ta tt oo s were al so pr ob at iv e of Gain es ’s m ot iv e to po ss es s a gu n “ ev en if th at al le ge d

m ot iv e d eri ve d fr om

hi s g an g i nv ol ve m en t.” Pa y ne -Owen s, 8 45 F.3d at 8 74

.

-6

-The go ve rn m en t’s ex pe rt wit ne ss al so te st ifi ed br ie fly ab ou t th e HPP ga ng an d

Gain es ’s affi li at io n wit h th em

. Aga in

, w e f i n d n o r ev ers ib le erro r. The ex pe rt

in fo rm ed th e jury th at Gain es ’s cl ot hi ng an d ta tt oo s wer e in di cat iv e of ga ng

mem be rs hi p, an d we ha ve rep eat ed ly he ld ex pl an at or y ev id en ce li ke th is to b e
ad m is si bl e. See, e

. g

. , Payne-Owen s, 84 5 F.3 d at 87 2 (aff irming ad m is si on of

“ ge ne r ic an d fle et in g te st im on y ” by an ex pe rt wit ne ss ab ou t ha nd si gn s an d sl an g

as so ci at ed wit h a lo cal ga ng ); Uni te d St a t e s v

. S il ls

, 12 0 F.3 d 91 7, 92 0 (8 th Ci r.

19 97 ) (aff irming ad m is si on of te st im on y to ai d th e jury wit h th e m ean in g of g a n g

rel at ed gr affi ti ). The ex pe rt al so te st ifi ed ab ou t ho w, in hi s ex pe rie nc es , st reet ga ng s

are in vo lv ed in il le ga l act iv it y an d m em be rs of te n po ss es s fir earm s. Thi s is a bi t m or e

co nc ern in g. Bu t th e go ve rn m en t an d it s wit ne ss th en m ov ed on , ha vi ng on ly sh ared

a well -k no wn ge ne ral it y ab ou t ga ng s’ i nv ol ve m en t in il le ga l act iv it ie s. The se br ie f

st at em en ts —s it ua te d w i t h i n a li m it ed am ou nt of ga ng ev id en ce we ha ve al read y
de em ed ad m is si bl e—d o no t ti p th e sc al e s s o mu c h as to co ns ti tu te an ab us e of

di sc ret io n o r un fai r pr ejud ic e th at req ui res a ne w tri al

.

Any un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l effe ct of t h e g an g- rel at ed ev id en ce di d no t

su bs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh it s pr ob at iv e va lu e. See Fed . R . Ev id . 4 03 . The m ajor it y of

th e te st im on y at tri al fo cu se d on th e of fi c e r s ’ ob se rv at io ns at th e sc en e, an d th e

g o v e r n ment in tro du ced li m it ed ev id en ce Gain es was affi li at ed wit h HPP, a far cr y
fro m th e “ex te ns iv e, pr ejud ic ia l te st im on y co nc ern in g th e vi ol en t te nd en ci es an d

cri mina l di sp os it io ns of ga ng s in ge ne ral an d of [th e lo cal ga ng ] in pa rti cu la r” we

ha ve pr ev io us ly fo un d to be un du ly pr ejud ic ia l. St reet

, 54 8 F.3 d at 63 1. The di st ric t

co ur t care fu ll y co ns id ered each pi ec e of ga ng- re la te d ev ide nc e th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht

to in tro du ce an d ba la nc ed it s pr ob at iv e va lu e ag ai ns t it s pr ejud ic ia l na tu re, an d we

can no t s ay

th e res ul t o f th is de li be rat e b al an ci ng was a n a bu se of d is cret io n. 5

Th e di st ric t co ur t was pr es en te d wit h a Cat ch -2 2 in ru li ng on th e ad di ti o n a l 5

ga ng -rel at ed ev id en ce th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht to in tro du ce. On o ne ha nd , all owi ng th e ex pe rt wit ne ss to te st ify as to why ga ng m em be rs po ss es s gu ns an d pr es en t ga ng

rel at ed in fo rm at io n a b o u t th e ho m ic id e th e of fic ers were in ve st ig at in g wou ld ha ve

-7

-Gran te d, th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e ga ng -rel at ed ev id en ce was no t st ro ng , an d

th e go ve rn m en t ris ke d tu rn in g th e fo cu s o f t h e t ria l to Gain es ’s ga ng m em be rs hi p

rat he r th an h is kn owi ng po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Yet we can no t sa y “ ‘the ev id en ce
cl earl y ha d no be ari ng on th e cas e an d was in tro du ced so le ly to s h o w d e f e nd an t’s

pr op en si ty to en ga ge in cri m in al m is co nd uc t.’” Uni te d St at es v. Gan t, 72 1 F.3 d 50 5,

50 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Fari sh

, 53 5 F

. 3 d 8 1 5

, 81 9 (8 th Ci r.

20 08 )). W ha t m ay ha ve de ve lo pe d in to an un du l y p reju di ci al effe ct of th e ga ng

rel at ed ev id en ce was m it ig at ed by th e di st ric t co ur t’s care fu l ba la nc in g of each pi ece

of ev id en ce an d rep eat ed cau ti on s th at th e jury co ns id er ev id en ce of Gain es ’s g an g

affi li at io n on l y “t o he lp [th em ] de ci de Mr. Gain es ’ kn owl ed ge , in te nt

, an d m ot iv e

reg ard in g th e ch arg es ag ai ns t hi m .” See Payne-Owen s, 84 5 F.3 d at 87 4; McKa y , 43 1

F.3 d at 10 93

. By al lo win g th e go ve rn m en t to pr es en t ev id en ce of Gain es ’s g a ng

affi li at io n on ly as an im

po rta nt co nt ex tu al ex pl an at io n an d as ev id en ce of Gain es ’s

m ot iv e to po ss es s a f

ire arm , th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n.

B. Suff

ic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence
Gain es al so co nt en ds th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h he kn owi ng ly

po ss es se d th e fir earm

. “ To ob t a i n a co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ) th e

go ve rn m en t m

us t ‘pro ve be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t (1 ) [th e de fen da nt ] pr ev io us ly

ha d be en co nv ic te d of a cri m e pu ni sh ab le by a te rm of im pr is on m en t ex ceed in g on e

y ear, (2 ) [th e de fen da nt ] kn owi ng ly po ss es se d a fir earm , an d (3 ) th e fir earm ha d be en

m ad e Gain es ’s ga ng m em be rs hi p m or e rel ev an t— th e ba ck gr ou nd in fo rm at io n wou ld
ha ve pr ov id ed m or e cl ari ty o n why Gai ne s’s ga ng mem be rs hi p co ul d m ot iv at e hi m
to po ss es s a gu n an d why th e o f f i c e r s were in te res te d in ap pr oa ch in g th e ga ng

m em be rs in th e pa rk in g l o t

. O n t he ot he r ha nd

, th is ev id en ce wou ld ha ve tu rn ed
Gain es ’s ga ng m em

be rs hi p in to a si gn ifi can t th em e of th e tri al an d m ay ha ve ti pp ed
th e sc al es to ward un du e p reju di ce. The di st ric t co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n in

at te m pt in g to walk a care fu l li ne be t w e e n al lo win g th e go ve rn m en t to in tro du ce rel ev an t ev id en ce an d e ns ur in g Gai ne s was no t u nf ai rly preju di ced

.

-8

-in or h ad affe ct ed in te rs ta te co m m erce .’ ” Uni te d S ta te s v

. Co wli ng , 64 8 F.3d 69 0,

6

70 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 47 4 F.3 d 10 44

, 10 48 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 )). “ W e rev ie w su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce cl ai m s d e n ov o a nd rev ers e o nl y if

no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve f o un d [th e de fen da nt ] gu il ty.” Uni te d St at es v.

Dan ie ls , 6 25 F.3 d 52 9, 53 2 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ). Taki ng “ th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d acce pt [in g] al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at can be dr awn ”

fro m th at ev id en ce, we fin d th e ev id en ce su ffi ci en t. Uni te d St at es v

. G rif fit h, 78 6

F.3 d 1 09 8, 1 10 2 (8 th Cir . 20 15 ).

“ ‘A de fen da nt kn owi ng ly pos se ss es a fi rear m if h e h as act ua l o r co ns tru ct iv e

po ss es si on of it ,’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Green

, 83 5 F.3 d 84 4, 85 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng
Uni te d St at es v. W el ls

, 46 9 F.3 d 71 6, 71 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )), bu t “ [m]e re

pr ox im it y

. . . is in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on .” Co wli ng , 64 8 F.3 d

at 70 0. W e ag ree wit h th e go ve rn m en t’s as se rti on th at “ th e ev id en ce at tria l pro ve d

m or e th an m ere pr ox im it y

. Ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce was pr es en te d

. . . th at Gain es

rem ov ed th e fir earm fro m hi s wais t a n d d r o p p e d it un de r a car be fo re he co ul d be

arre st ed .” As Gain es hi gh li gh ts

, th e gu n was in a pu bl ic area , no wit ne ss es te st ifi ed

th ey sa w Gain es ho ld in g th e fir earm , an d no fo ren si c ev id e n c e t i e d Gain es to th e

fir earm

. Bu t on e of

fic er di d te st ify he sa w Gain es “ m ak e a m ot io n to ward th e rear of

th e ve hi cl e to ward hi s wais t” an d du ck ou t of si g h t

, a n d t h e n th e of fic er he ard “ a

m et al on pa ve m en t so un d” be fo re di sc ov eri ng th e fir earm un de rn eat h th e car ne xt to

whe re Gain es ha d st oo d. Thi s is su ffi ci en t ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en c e t o s u p po rt

Gain es ’s con vi ct io n. Cf

. Uni te d Stat es v. W hi te

, 81 6 F.3d 97 6, 98 5 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6)
(“ [B]ecau se ‘a ju r y r a r e l y ha s di rect ev id en ce of a de fen da nt ’s kn owl ed ge of a

fi r e a r m’s pr es en ce

. . . kn owl ed ge is ge ne ral ly es ta bl is he d th ro ug h ci rcu m st an ti al

Gain es st ip ul at ed at tri al he w a s a f e l o n an d th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d 6

su ffi ci en t ev id en ce at tri al th at th e fi rear m ch arg ed in th e in di ct m en t h ad be en in or ha d affe ct ed in te rs ta te co m m erce

. Gain e s o n l y ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce t o p ro ve he kn owi ng ly pos se ss ed th e fi rear m

.

-9

-ev id en ce.’” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bat tl e, 7 7 4 F

. 3 d 50 4, 51 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )

(o m is si on in ori gi na l))

.

Gain es ’s co nt en ti on th e go ve rn m en t’s wit ne ss es co nt rad ic te d on e an ot he r “ so

m uc h so th at a rat io na l jury co ul d no t ha ve fo un d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e

ev id e n c e es ta bl is he d th at Mr. Gain es kn owi ng ly po ss es se d th e fir earm ” is

un co nv in ci ng

. “ In rev ie win g th e m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

. . . th e co ur t do es

no t as se ss th e cred ib il it y of th e wit ne ss es , b ecau se th at is th e pr ov in ce of th e jury.”

Uni te d St at es v. St ewart

, 85 4 F.3 d 47 2, 47 5 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 7 )

. Th e rel at iv el y m in or

in co ns is te nc es be twee n th e of fic ers ’ te st im on y

—t he nu m

be r of pe op le pr es en t in th e

pa rk in g lo t, th ei r pr ox im it y to on e an ot he r, an d wha t co m m an ds of fic ers ga ve be fo re
Gain es ’s arre st —d o no t es ta bl is h th at no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve be li ev ed th e

m ajor po in ts of t he off

ic ers ’ te st im on y

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng cert ai n ga ng

rel at ed ev id en ce an d th e ev id en ce ov eral l was su ffi ci en t to su pp or t Gain es ’s

co nv ic ti on , we affi rm

.

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

-1 0-