Opinion ID: 2708887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Molton’s gang involvement

Text: Before trial, Molton moved to preclude the government from mentioning, in its case‐in‐chief, both Brown’s shooting No. 13‐2525 5 and Molton’s alleged gang involvement. The court denied Molton’s motion, reasoning that Molton’s alleged membership in Brown’s gang was relevant to multiple aspects of the case: “the overarching factual scenario at issue, Molton’s presence at the scene, and why he would have a rifle.” We review this ruling for abuse of discretion. United States v. Alviar, 573 F.3d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 2009). Relevant evidence is generally admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402, but may be excluded if it is unduly prejudicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence of gang affiliation must be handled with care, because “a jury is likely to associate gangs with criminal activity and deviant behavior,” raising the “specter of guilt by association or a verdict influenced by emotion.” United States v. Santiago, 643 F.3d 1007, 1011 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, “we examine the care and thoroughness with which a district judge considered the admission or exclusion of [such] evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). Yet we have repeatedly upheld the admission of gang affiliation evidence when it is more probative than prejudicial. Id.; see also United States v. King, 627 F.3d 641, 649 (7th Cir. 2010) (admission of gang evidence is appropriate “to demonstrate the existence of a joint venture or conspiracy and a relationship among its members” (citation omitted)); United States v. Montgomery, 390 F.3d 1013, 1018–19 (7th Cir. 2004) (admission of gang evidence proper to help establish motive); United States v. Butler, 71 F.3d 243, 250–51 (7th Cir. 1995) (evidence that defendant acted as security in a gang was admissible because it provided a motive for his gun possession). No. 13‐2525 6 In this case, the district judge correctly summarized the law and gave logical reasons for denying Molton’s motion to exclude the evidence. We accord the district judge’s evidentiary decision “great deference, and it will be disturbed only if no reasonable person could agree with” it. United States v. Ozuna, 674 F.3d 677, 682 (7th Cir. 2012). We have previously admitted gang affiliation evidence for the purpose of showing motive, including in gun possession cases. Montgomery, 390 F.3d at 1018; United States v. Sargent, 98 F.3d 325, 328 (7th Cir. 1996) (admission of gang membership evidence was not unduly prejudicial because it “was necessary to explain the motive behind the crime charged”); Butler, 71 F.3d at 251–52. The district judge also gave a limiting instruction, and we have suggested that such instructions help reduce concerns about the prejudice inherent in this kind of evidence. See, e.g., Ozuna, 674 F.3d at 682; Butler, 71 F.3d at 251–52. For these reasons, the district court’s evidentiary ruling was not an abuse of discretion.