Opinion ID: 12447
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gangs

Text: Wright assigns as error the district court’s admission of evidence “pertaining to gangs and violence.” Because Wright did not object to the admission of this testimony at the time of trial, we review for plain error. United States v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1054 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1165 (1995).10 The only references to the term “gang” in the course of the trial were contained in Agent Brown’s testimony that she was assigned to the “organized crime gang squad in the Dallas Division [of the FBI]” and that she received information about the Frazier Courts area from the gang unit of the Dallas Police Department. The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing this testimony. In any event, Wright cannot show that such reference to 10 We review for plain error even though the matter admitted was the subject of a pretrial Rule 404(b) ruling because Wright made no contemporaneous objection to the admission of the testimony at the time of trial. See Clements, 73 F.3d at 1337 n.7 (citing United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546, 1551-53 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1081, 114 S. Ct. 1829 (1994)). At the pretrial Rule 404(b) hearing, the government introduced evidence that Wright was affiliated with the “415 Bloods.” The district court ruled that the government could mention gangs generally, but that he would rule separately on any specific extrinsic criminal act related to gangs. At trial, the government made no attempt to prove any defendant’s affiliation with a gang or even that gangrelated activity was occurring in the area. 26 gangs prejudiced his substantial rights, much less that the reference “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, Wright has not shown plain error.11