Opinion ID: 2995380
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Salami’s Post-Confession

Text: Drug Transactions Salami’s next contention is that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted Salami’s post-confession drug transactions, which occurred while he was working as a government agent, as evidence of his participation in a conspiracy to distribute heroin. According to Salami, the district court should have excluded those transactions from evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Salami’s principal argument is that it is unfair for the government to use evidence of his post-arrest and post-confession actions against him because those actions occurred while he was cooperating with the government. We find that Salami’s arguments on this issue lack merit. This circuit’s caselaw supports the entry of a defendant’s post- arrest cooperation as evidence against a defendant, particularly after that defendant has withdrawn from his cooperation with the government./6 See, e.g., United States v. Hubbard, 22 F.3d 1410, 1416-17 (7th Cir. 1994). Lastly, we find that any prejudicial effect attendant upon the admission of Salami’s post-arrest actions was blunted by the fact that Salami was afforded ample opportunity to highlight (in both cross- examination and in closing argument) that the disputed purchases occurred at the direction of the government.