Opinion ID: 802339
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Esteves Plot

Text: that although “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act” is inadmissible to prove a person acted “in accordance with [his or her] character,” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1), it may be admitted for “another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident,” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). 10 Our references to documents on the District Court’s docket cite to the pagination contained in the ECF-generated header on each page. 9 Esteves, too, was a former client of Bergrin’s who “operated a large scale drug trafficking business based in New Jersey.” (D.N.J. ECF no. 09-369, doc. no. 304-1, at 23.) He was prepared to testify that, when he met with Bergrin in May 2008, after being charged in the Superior Court of New Jersey with drug trafficking, Bergrin told him that “the only way to beat the case was if [Esteves] took care of the witnesses” on a list of those Bergrin believed were cooperating with the government. (Id.) During that conversation, Bergrin also told Esteves that he “hate[d] rats and … would kill a rat himself,” that “this was not the first time he ha[d] done this,” and that, “if there are no witnesses, there is no case.” (Id.) An informant named Oscar Cordova, whom Bergrin believed was a hitman, subsequently recorded Bergrin instructing him to kill a witness on that list. (Id.; see Joint App. at 225-28 (describing the plot).) In that conversation, Bergrin stated, “we gotta make it look like a robbery. It cannot under any circumstances look like a hit. … We have to make it look like a home invasion robbery.” (D.N.J. ECF no. 09-369, doc. no. 304-5, at 3.)