Opinion ID: 61205
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Testimony Concerning Events

Text: Outside the Dates of the Charged Conspiracy We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938, 946 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 1305 (2007). “[W]hen employing an abuse-of-discretion standard, we must affirm unless we find that the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong legal standard.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1259 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Rule 404(b) provides that “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Rule 404(b) is not applicable, however, “where the evidence concerns the context, motive, and set-up of the crime and is linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.” United States v. Smith, 122 F.3d 3 1355, 1359 (11th Cir. 1997). “[E]vidence is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense it if forms an “integral an natural part of the witness’s accounts of the circumstances surrounding the offenses for which the defendant was indicted.” United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). “Nonetheless, evidence of criminal activity other than the charged offense, whether inside or outside the scope of Rule 404(b), must still satisfy the requirements of Rule 403.” Id. (citation omitted). Under Rule 403, relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . .” Fed.R.Evid. 403. a. Geter’s Violent Threats to Competitors At trial, the CI testified that Geter protected his “territory” by threatening competitors. The CI further testified that, one week after a controlled buy on December 15, 2004, he observed Geter threatening a man, noting that the man had been selling drugs marked with the symbol of another supplier. Although this testimony concerned events that were, admittedly, outside the time frame of the charged conspiracy, it was nevertheless “on or about” December 16, 2004, the date charged in the indictment. See United States v. Pope, 132 F.3d 684, 688-89 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that “time is not an essential element of the offense, so long as the government establishes that the conduct occurred reasonably near the date that 4 the indictment mentions”). Thus, the CI’s testimony is, arguably, linked in time with the charged conspiracy, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it as intrinsic evidence. See Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1346; Smith, 122 F.3d at 1359. Moreover, even accepting Geter’s argument that the probative value of such testimony was outweighed by its prejudicial effect, “it is doubtful that [the CI’s] testimony caused any unfair prejudice.” Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1346. “[I]n a criminal trial, relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial; it is only when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value that [Rule 403] permits exclusion.” Id. (quotation and alteration omitted). This is particularly true in light of the remaining evidence of Geter’s guilt, discussed below. b. Geter’s Pre-2004 Drug Distribution Here, the indictment alleged that Geter conspired with others to possess with the intent to distribute heroin “on or about October 21, 2004, and continuing through on or about December 16, 2004.” At trial, Orjuna testified that, from 1998 until October 2003, he sold heroin for Geter on a daily basis. Orjuna noted that Geter led an organization consisting of two lieutenants and multiple sellers, who sold specifically-marked heroin at various locations in Overtown. Orjuna noted that Geter gave drugs to the lieutenants, who distributed them to the sellers and collected the drugs proceeds, which they returned to Geter. Orjuna also identified 5 the key participants in the organization, including Geter and his two lieutenants, “Zeus” and Thomas Jerry. Orjuna’s testimony is consistent with the CI’s account of the events that occurred within the time frame of the charged conspiracy. The CI testified that he contacted Geter and, eventually, began to sell drugs for him on 14th Street in Overtown. Geter employed two lieutenants, Zeus and Jerry, who coordinated the distribution of the drugs, which Geter packaged in speciallymarked bags, and collected the drug proceeds at the end of each shift. Jerry provided the CI with packs of heroin, and assigned him to work on a specific street corner with another seller, Dominick Jagne. The CI sold the heroin as instructed and returned the proceeds to Jerry. Although Orjuna’s employment with Geter ended with his arrest in October 2003, before the time frame of the charged conspiracy, this separation does not automatically make his testimony extrinsic. See United States v. Muscatell, 42 F.3d 627, 630 (11th Cir. 1995). In Muscatell, we held that testimony regarding a continuing course of conduct “involving the same principal actors, in the same roles, employing the same modus operandi,” was properly admissible as intrinsic evidence, despite the fact that some of the acts occurred outside the time frame of the charged offenses. Id. at 630-31. We reasoned that “[o]ther transactions connected with the offenses charged have long been used to show a general 6 pattern, the necessary criminal intent, or the guilty knowledge of the defendant.” Id. at 631 (quotation omitted). Moreover, evidence of prior drug dealings is highly probative of intent in later charges of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. United States v. Diaz-Lizaraza, 981 F.2d 1216, 1224 (11th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Orjuna’s testimony because it established the intent and motive behind the instant conspiracy, demonstrated a pattern of ongoing conduct involving Geter and his coconspirators, and was integral to the explanation of the circumstances surrounding the charged conspiracy.