Opinion ID: 201500
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Michael's Interactions with the Bulger/Flemmi Group

Text: 39 We now consider whether the district court erred in admitting testimony pertaining to Michael's interactions with the Bulger/Flemmi group. Michael argues that this testimony constituted unduly prejudicial evidence of uncharged misconduct that should have been excluded pursuant to Rules 403 and 404(b). Rule 404(b) provides that [e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Nevertheless, 40 other bad acts evidence is admissible so long as the following, two-part test is satisfied: First, in accordance with Rule 404(b), the evidence must have special relevance to an issue in the case such as [motive,] intent or knowledge, and must not include bad character or propensity as a necessary link in the inferential chain.... Second, consistent with Rule 403, the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 41 United States v. McGuire, 389 F.3d 225, 229 (1st Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We identify, and evaluate Michael's objections to, the relevant statements below. 42 Testimony Concerning Michael's Interactions with Weeks 43 Weeks was permitted to tell the jury that he engaged in loan sharking in Michael's presence without trepidation because Michael was Ste [phen's] brother and Weeks trusted him. Weeks also testified that, after his gun license was revoked, Michael saw him with guns and, on two occasions, loaned him a gun. Weeks stated that he was not afraid [that Michael] was going to arrest [him] for [carrying a gun without a license]. Michael objects to the admission of this testimony for the first time on appeal, and as a result, our review is for plain error. 44 We find no error, and therefore, no plain error, in the admission of this testimony. The government tried Michael on the theory that he lied and obstructed justice to shield members of the Bulger/Flemmi group from prosecution. Thus, the testimony had special relevance in that it demonstrated Michael's knowledge that members of the group engaged in unlawful activities and evidenced his intent 16 to protect those individuals from facing the legal consequences of their actions. 17 Moreover, we do not think that the district court abused its discretion in balancing the probative value of this testimony against the danger of unfair prejudice. 45 Testimony that Michael Handled Stephen's Criminal Affairs 46 The next challenge involves testimony that Michael helped handle Stephen's affairs while Stephen was in prison. St. Croix testified that after Phil Costa died and [ ] Weeks was indicted, [he and Michael were the only people] left to handle [Stephen's] affairs on the outside. St. Croix also testified that, after Stephen's arrest, Michael was picking up money from various bookmakers ... owed to [Stephen]. 18 In addition, Weeks testified that Michael participate[d] in th[e] process of picking up [proceeds from an extortionate] sale. 19 47 Michael insists that the district court should have excluded the above statements. We disagree. The statements were specially relevant not only to show that Michael had knowledge of, and occasionally assisted in, Stephen's illegal activities (which helped establish that he had a motive to engage in the crimes with which he was charged — to conceal from the grand jury his and his brother's wrongdoing, as well as the intent to do so), but also to demonstrate that while Stephen was in prison, St. Croix and Michael were among the few people he trusted to help him with his illegal activities. This explains why Stephen would feel comfortable telling St. Croix about the hide and asking him to move the guns (and why St. Croix would then feel comfortable enlisting Michael to help). See Santana, 342 F.3d at 67 (allowing the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence to explain the trust that existed among the coconspirators). Although the testimony may have caused the jury to view Michael in a negative light, we do not think that the district court erred in admitting the evidence after balancing its significant probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice. 48 Testimony that Michael Informed Weeks of Stephen's Arrest 49 Michael also contests the admission of Weeks' statement that Michael told him that Stephen had been arrested soon after the arrest. Michael's claim is unavailing. The statement had special relevance that could reasonably have been found to outweigh any danger of unfair prejudice, as it helped establish Michael's knowledge of Stephen's legal troubles and wrongdoing. Moreover, the statement was independently admissible as a necessary component of Weeks' ensuing testimony, the admission of which Michael does not contest. Weeks testified that he responded to the news about Stephen's arrest by telling Michael, I told [Stephen] to take off, to which Michael replied, I know, I know. This exchange is probative of Michael's knowledge of Stephen's criminal wrongdoing and intent to obstruct justice (Michael acknowledged that he was aware that Stephen had been told to take off to avoid capture).