Opinion ID: 2994129
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Guns at the 1996 Cannabis Arrest

Text: Mr. Poole contends that questions concerning the presence of guns at his 1996 arrest for possession of cannabis were improper because he was not charged with any firearms violations as a result of that incident. Moreover, he submits, the prosecutor’s questions were very prejudicial because they portrayed him as a man of violence. Appellant’s Br. at 21. He submits that the district court should have used the Rule 404(b) test to exclude the evidence. The Government counters that the circumstances surrounding the 1996 cannabis arrest were introduced to impeach Mr. Poole’s testimony. We review the district court’s decision to allow this line of questioning for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Given, 164 F.3d 389, 393 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 132 (1999). The record discloses that Mr. Poole testified, on direct examination, that, when James approached him and asked if he knew anyone who had a gun, Mr. Poole said that he knew nothing about guns. He further testified that, while James and James’ friend were looking at guns in the gun shop, he did not know what to look for, so he stood aside and did not participate in the conversation. The prosecutor, on cross- examination, first questioned Mr. Poole about his participation in the purchase of the firearms. He again denied that he knew anything about the guns that were being purchased. The prosecutor then pointedly asked him whether he knew anything about guns. Tr. III at 234. He answered that he did not and that he did not even know how to shoot one. See id. The defense counsel then asked for a sidebar and objected to the line of questioning on the ground that the Government was setting the stage to ask Mr. Poole about the presence of guns at his 1996 cannabis arrest. The district court determined that, by asserting that he was not knowledgeable about guns, the Government was allowed to impeach him on that statement. The following cross-examination then took place: Q: Now, Mr. Poole, you just told the members of the jury that you didn’t know anything about guns, is that correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: In fact, you didn’t even know how to shoot a gun, right? A: Correct. Q: You didn’t handle any of the guns that were purchased by James, is that correct? A: No, sir, I did not. Q: And you didn’t handle any of the guns that were purchased by his partner? A: No, sir. Q: But you had handled guns before, hadn’t you? A: No, sir. Q: Wasn’t it true that in that 1996 conviction, Mr. Poole, that five handguns were found in your apartment? A: No, sir, not in my apartment. Down the hallway but not in my apartment. Tr. III at 237. Notably, Mr. Poole was given an opportunity to dispute the Government’s suggestion that the guns were in his apartment. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in admitting this testimony. Because the Government’s case rested on the showing that Mr. Poole was purchasing the guns for someone else as a straw purchaser, any evidence of Mr. Poole’s personal possession of guns would not have benefitted, in any direct way, the Government’s case. However, as the district court noted, this line of questioning would address Mr. Poole’s credibility and therefore was admissible for that limited purpose. When used for impeachment purposes, the statements do not require the Rule 404(b) analysis that Mr. Poole argues. See United States v. Cerro, 775 F.2d 908, 914 (7th Cir. 1985).