Opinion ID: 2796919
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Television News Report

Text: Ford argues that the undercover investigative report captured on videotape by Fox 5 Atlanta was improper character evidence and inadmissible under Rule 12 Case: 14-10381 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 13 of 20 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. At trial, the government alleged that Ford fraudulently obtained personal information and took advantage of homeless and other vulnerable individuals by claiming that she would obtain money for them from a government program. See supra at 3-4. The videotape shows Ford doing both. See supra at 4. It is therefore outside the scope of Rule 404(b) because it is part of the same “series of transactions” as, and also “inextricably intertwined” with, the charged offenses. See Baker, 432 F.3d at 1218 (testimony regarding uncharged conduct in furtherance of same drug conspiracy charged in the indictment “clearly concerns an ‘uncharged offense which arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense’” (citation omitted)); Muscatell, 42 F.3d at 630.4 In the alternative, Ford maintains that the news report is highly prejudicial and therefore should have been excluded under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. While we agree that the “hidden camera” style of an investigative news report could, in some cases, be unduly prejudicial, the video shown to the jury in this case was heavily redacted. All commentary from the reporter was removed and only the bare footage of the defendant’s interaction with the undercover reporters was shown. And any remaining prejudice from the stripped-down video was outweighed by the highly probative value of a videotape showing the 4 This conclusion is underscored by the close proximity in time between the videotape, filmed in early 2007, and the charged offenses, which occurred between October 2007 and May 2011. 13 Case: 14-10381 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 14 of 20 defendant engaging in nearly identical conduct as the charged offenses within the same time period. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in admitting the videotape.