Opinion ID: 762439
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Gibson's Prior Incriminating Statements

Text: 7 to the FBI 8 Gibson argues that the district court erred in allowing the government to admit into evidence the incriminating statements Gibson made to the FBI concerning his prior drug dealing activities. Gibson moved, prior to trial, to bar the government from introducing this evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Gibson argued that the statements had no relevance to the drug charges in this case. The district court denied Gibson's motion, ruling that Gibson's admissions [were] directly relevant and probative of his guilt, even though he did not confess to the specific undercover sales in this case. 9 On appeal, it appears that Gibson has abandoned his relevancy objection to this evidence and, instead, maintains that the statements were inadmissible evidence of other crimes within the meaning of Rule 404(b). 1 Rule 404(b) generally prohibits the introduction of character evidence relating to a defendant's other crimes, wrongs, or acts when such evidence is offered to show conduct in conformity with the activity that is the subject of current litigation. United States v. Macias, 930 F.2d 567, 572 (7th Cir.1991). Gibson submits that the statements were offered only to show his propensity to commit the charged crimes and, therefore, the admission of this evidence violated Rule 404(b). 10 Our review of the record indicates that Gibson failed to raise a Rule 404(b) objection to the admission of this evidence before the district court. This failure to make a timely objection before the district court constitutes a forfeiture of this argument on appeal. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); 2 United States v. Wilson, 134 F.3d 855, 862 (7th Cir.1998). We therefore review the district court's decision to admit this evidence for plain error only. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-35, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); Wilson, 134 F.3d at 862-63; United States v. Ross, 77 F.3d 1525, 1538 (7th Cir.1996). 11 Plain error review under Rule 52(b) allows us to reverse the district court only if we conclude that: (1) error occurred; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 731-35, 113 S.Ct. 1770; Wilson, 134 F.3d at 862-63; Ross, 77 F.3d at 1538. An error within the meaning of Rule 52(b) occurs if a legal rule has been violated during the district court proceedings, and the defendant did not knowingly waive his right to object to the violation. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-34, 113 S.Ct. 1770. Plain means clear or obvious. Id. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (At a minimum, a court of appeals cannot correct an error pursuant to Rule 52(b) unless the error is clear under current law.). Finally, plain error affects substantial rights if the error was prejudicial, meaning that the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. Id. The defendant, not the government, bears the burden of persuasion with respect to prejudice. Id. Moreover, even if all three conditions are satisfied, the decision to correct a forfeited error lies within the sound discretion of the court of appeals, and the court should not exercise that discretion unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (citations and internal quotations omitted). 12 Our first task is to determine whether the admission of the statements constituted error under Rule 404(b). We conclude no such error occurred. As stated, evidence of other crimes or wrongs is not admissible under Rule 404(b) to show that the defendant acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Rule 404(b) contains a proviso, however, that permits evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to be introduced for other non-propensity purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident. Id. 13 This Court has established a four-prong test to determine the appropriateness of admitting evidence under Rule 404(b). Under this test, evidence may be admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b) if: (1) the evidence is directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged; (2) the evidence shows that the other act is similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue; (3) the evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the similar act; and (4) the evidence has probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Lampkins, 47 F.3d 175, 179 (7th Cir.1995); United States v. Hubbard, 22 F.3d 1410, 1418 (7th Cir.1994). 14 Gibson challenges the district court's decision to admit this evidence on three of the four prongs; he concedes that his admission of prior drug dealing is sufficient to support a jury finding that he committed those acts. With respect to the first prong of the test, Gibson argues that the admission of the statements he made to the FBI can serve no purpose other than to show his propensity to deal drugs. The government counters that the FBI statements were directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than Gibson's propensity--the statements were relevant to the issue of identity. We agree with the government's assessment of the evidence. See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); United States v. Bursey, 85 F.3d 293, 297 (7th Cir.1996) (reasoning that prior bad acts are admissible under Rule 404(b) to show identity). Gibson's identity was the material issue in this case because his primary defense at trial was that of mistaken identity. Gibson took the position at trial that the individual with whom Agent Banks dealt was not Gibson, but rather his brother. Thus, Gibson's statements to the FBI, in which he admitted that he began selling crack cocaine in 1994 and that he had last purchased crack for resale as late as January of 1997, were certainly relevant to prove identity under Rule 404(b). This evidence helped establish that Agent Banks dealt with Gibson, not his brother, in the charged 1996 drug transactions even though Gibson did not confess to the specific undercover sales in this case. See United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 676, 678 (6th Cir.1996) (concluding that a co-defendant's testimony about the defendant's involvement in prior uncharged drug transactions was relevant to prove identity under Rule 404(b) when the defendant's primary defense at trial was that he was not the person who sold drugs to the undercover police officer). 15 With respect to the second prong, we conclude that Gibson's admitted prior drug activities were substantially similar to the charged crimes and were close enough in time to be relevant to the charges in this case. Gibson was charged with the illegal distribution and possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. In his statements to the FBI, Gibson admitted to having sold crack cocaine. Clearly, the activities Gibson admitted to having engaged in were similar enough to the charged crimes to be relevant to the charges in this case. See Hubbard, 22 F.3d at 1418 (concluding that other act evidence was similar enough to charged crime when the charged crime was conspiring to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute PCP and the other act evidence related to a prior sale of PCP); see also United States v. Hernandez, 84 F.3d 931, 935 (7th Cir.1996) (concluding that prior marijuana conviction was similar enough for Rule 404(b) purposes to charged crimes of distributing cocaine and heroin, even though different drugs were involved, because both incidents concerned distribution amounts of drugs and illicit transport). 16 We also conclude that the temporal proximity between the other acts and the charged crimes in this case is sufficiently close for Rule 404(b) purposes. Gibson, who was twenty-two at the time of the FBI interview, admitted that he had been trafficking in narcotics since he was approximately fourteen or fifteen years old, that he began selling crack cocaine in 1994, and that he last purchased crack cocaine for resale in January of 1997. This evidence does not refer to an isolated drug sale committed years ago, but rather suggests a continuous enterprise of drug dealing engaged in by Gibson over a seven or eight year period. When viewed in this light, the evidence of his drug dealing is sufficiently close in time to the charged conduct for purposes of Rule 404(b). See, e.g., United States v. Mounts, 35 F.3d 1208, 1214-15 (7th Cir.1994) (concluding that seven years between acts is a sufficiently close nexus); United States v. Kreiser, 15 F.3d 635, 640-41 (7th Cir.1994) (same). 17 Finally, under the fourth prong, we conclude that the probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Although the statements may have been somewhat prejudicial, the probative value of the FBI statements was obviously quite high when considered in light of Gibson's mistaken identity defense at trial. See United States v. Paredes, 87 F.3d 921, 924-25 (7th Cir.1996) (concluding that two prior convictions for the same offense, proffered to show, in part, the defendant's identity under Rule 404(b), was not substantially outweighed by the potential risk of unfair prejudice because the similarity of the prior offenses to the charged offense actually increased the probity of that evidence and decreased the potential risk of unfair prejudice). 18 Even if we were to find that the admission of these statements constituted plain error, we would still conclude that the admission of this evidence did not affect Gibson's substantial rights--the third condition under the plain error doctrine. Gibson has not made the requisite showing that the admission of this evidence affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. Olano, , 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. Even without the admission of these statements, there was more than enough evidence offered by the government at trial to convict Gibson. In each of the undercover transactions forming the basis for the charges in this case, Agent Banks met face-to-face with Gibson, and Agent Banks testified to that effect at Gibson's trial. Moreover, each of these transactions was under either audio or video surveillance (or both), and these recordings were admitted into evidence at Gibson's trial. Thus, the jury had the opportunity to review the surveillance videos and photographs and make their own determinations whether that evidence depicted Gibson or his brother. Furthermore, two of the transactions were under additional surveillance by the FBI, and an FBI agent testified at trial that Gibson was the person transacting with Agent Banks on those occasions. Based on the overwhelming evidence arrayed against Gibson, we are confident that any possible error in the admission of Gibson's statements did not affect the outcome of the proceedings below. 19 In sum, Gibson has failed to satisfy the three conditions necessary to demonstrate that the district court committed plain error in admitting Gibson's statements to the FBI under Rule 404(b)--namely, that the district court committed error, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court's admission of this evidence did not constitute plain error. 20