Opinion ID: 714971
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of the Evidence

Text: 8 On retrial of Counts I, II, and V, Morris moved to strike from Count I, which involved a charge of conspiracy to money launder, all references to the Cypresswood Apartments. Morris also sought a motion in limine prohibiting the Government from introducing evidence of this transaction, which constituted one of the overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy under Count I. Morris asserted that he would be unfairly prejudiced by the evidence because the jury acquitted him under Count III of laundering drug money through the sale of the Cypresswood Apartments, and Count I's Cypresswood overt act and Count III contained identical factual allegations. 9 The Government responded that conspiracy to commit an offense and the actual commission of that offense involve separate and distinct crimes. See United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 390-92, 112 S.Ct. 1377, 1385, 118 L.Ed.2d 25 (1992); United States v. Garza, 754 F.2d 1202, 1209 (5th Cir.1985). Thus, the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not bar the Government from introducing evidence of overt acts despite the fact that Morris had been acquitted on Count III. The district court agreed that the Government was not collaterally estopped from using the Cypresswood transactions as evidence of overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy. 2 10 The district court, however, prohibited the Government from introducing evidence of the Cypresswood transactions because of the likelihood of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading of the jury if this evidence is admitted. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. The Government asserts that the district court erred in excluding the evidence under Rule 403 because the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury. 11 A district court has broad discretion in assessing admissibility under Rule 403, and its determination is reviewed only for abuse. See United States v. Royal, 972 F.2d 643, 648 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 911, 113 S.Ct. 1258, 122 L.Ed.2d 655 (1993). Because Rule 403 requires the exclusion of relevant evidence, it is an extraordinary measure that should be used sparingly. United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 2180, 128 L.Ed.2d 899 (1994); United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862, 100 S.Ct. 128, 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979). 12 Examining the record and the district court's order, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence. While recognizing that Rule 403 should be used sparingly, the Court determined that the circumstances warranted an exclusion. Although the Government contends that the evidence is not unfairly prejudicial to Morris, the court appeared more concerned about confusion of the issues and misleading the jury. 3 Despite the Government's assertion that a proper instruction could be formulated to aid the jury in distinguishing between the substantive act and the conspiracy, the record provides no indication that it ever offered such an instruction to the district court. 13 The Government argues that district courts often rule this type of evidence admissible after performing a Rule 403 balancing analysis. The admission in other cases, however, does not render erroneous the district court's exclusion of the evidence in the instant cause. To conclude otherwise would eviscerate a district court's discretion to determine admissibility based on the unique facts of each case. The Government correctly asserts that courts often rely on limiting instructions to resolve problems under Rule 403. See, e.g., United States v. West, 22 F.3d 586, 597 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 584, 130 L.Ed.2d 498 (1994); United States v. Acosta, 972 F.2d 86, 89 (5th Cir.1992); United States v. Wyatt, 611 F.2d 568, 569 (5th Cir.1980). In the instant cause, however, the district court, after careful consideration and analysis, concluded that any limiting instruction would only further confuse and mislead the jury. Because the district court presided over the first criminal trial and was intimately familiar with the peculiar facts of this case, we cannot conclude that it abused its discretion in making such a determination. 4