Opinion ID: 2678179
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Bulletproof Vest

Text: Huff asserts that the District Court erred in admitting his bulletproof vest into evidence, citing Rules 401 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Because defense counsel did not object to its admission, we review for plain error.2 See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734-35 (1993). Under this standard, “before an appellate court can correct error not raised at trial, there must be (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) affect[s] substantial rights. If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997)). Huff claims that the bulletproof vest was irrelevant within the meaning of Rule 401. Under this Rule, evidence is deemed relevant as long as “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence[.]” Fed. R. Evid. 401(a). In this case, Huff denies being in possession of a firearm at the time of his arrest. That he was wearing a bulletproof vest during the incident in question increases the probability that he also possessed a gun. See United States v. Lee, 612 F.3d 179, 183-85 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding that possession of bulletproof vest is permissible circumstantial 2 The Government argues that plain error review is inappropriate because Huff went beyond merely forfeiting the issue of admissibility and affirmatively waived it. It cites two instances in which Huff’s counsel expressly stated that he had no objection to the admission of the bulletproof vest. See App. at 45, 118. Because the District Court did not commit plain error, we need not decide whether waiver is possible in this case. 4 evidence of gun possession). Accordingly, the District Court did not plainly err by admitting the vest into evidence. Relevance notwithstanding, Huff also argues that the vest should have been excluded from evidence under Rule 403 because it was unnecessary, confusing, and prejudicial. Per the Rule, “[a] court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. Here, the District Court’s decision to admit the vest into evidence was not plainly erroneous, as it is “not unfairly prejudicial to suggest that bullet-proof vests and guns often accompany one another.” Lee, 612 F.3d at 185.