Opinion ID: 1034078
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: MySpace Message and Mobile Home Burning

Text: Defendants challenge the admission of two pieces of evidence relating to alleged witness intimidation. First, Wanda White testified that she received a threatening MySpace message from Brian Hubbard after she testified before a grand jury regarding the instant case.24 R. 846 (02/24/2010 Trial Tr. at 63) (Page ID #6132). Second, Wanda White also testified that a month after Terry Smith testified before the grand jury, the 22 The evidence was also not admissible as “background” evidence for the same reasons that the drug dealing testimony from Day, Lewis, and Lawson was not admissible. 23 We note that Maricle’s statement that “a substantial percentage of voters can be bought on election day, and by substantial, I mean thirty percent or more” is relevant and proper evidence under Rule 404(b). The government alleged that Maricle directed the conspiracy. In order prove that theory, the government needed to show that Maricle possessed the knowledge and plan to control evidence. Thus, Maricle’s statement that thirty percent of voters could be bought is relevant because it shows Maricle’s intimate understanding of just how many votes can be bought in Clay County. If the video had been limited to this portion, it would have been admissible. 24 Wanda White testified that the message said something along the lines of “good job, look what you’ve done with your lies” and contained a picture of a man pointing a gun at the viewer. R. 846 (02/24/2010 Trial Tr. at 63) (Page ID #6132). Nos. 11-5291/ 5308/ 5311/ 5312/ 5313/ United States v. Adams et al. Page 39 5336/ 5337/ 5366 mobile home that he rented from Wanda and Kennon White burned down.25 Id. at 65–66 (Page ID #6134–35); see also R. 878 (03/04/2010 Trial Tr. at 112) (Page ID #9454). The district court admitted both as intrinsic evidence or, alternatively, under Rule 404(b). See R. 846 (02/24/2010 Trial Tr. at 4–24) (Page ID #6073–93). In United States v. Barnes, we explained: “Intrinsic” acts . . . are those that are part of a single criminal episode. Rule 404(b) is not implicated when the other crimes or wrongs evidence is part of a continuing pattern of illegal activity. 49 F.3d 1144, 1149 (6th Cir. 1995). The contours of what constitutes “intrinsic” evidence are not exactly clear; however, we have recognized that intrinsic evidence requires a connection to the charged offense.26 Id. (“[T]here was a direct connection between the earlier ‘short’ drug shipment and the receipt of the one for which defendants were charged.”); United States v. Gonzalez, 501 F.3d 630, 640 (6th Cir. 2007) (“But here too there was a connection . . . between Rodriguez’s tutoring of Gonzalez in the drug trade as Gonzalez drove him to the earlier transactions and Gonzalez’s role as driver of the ‘drug car’ in the offense charged against Gonzalez and Rodriguez.”). The government concedes on appeal that “testimony later at trial did not directly bear out the government’s proffer that defendants or their co-conspirators . . . were behind the acts.”27 Gov’t Br. at 76. With no connection to the charged conspiracy, the evidence was not admissible as intrinsic evidence. Similarly, the evidence is not admissible under Rule 404(b). As we recognized in Clay, “the issue is not whether the [other act] occurred but whether there is sufficient 25 They also testified that the home was uninsured and did not have electricity (suggesting that arson was involved). 26 We acknowledge that the distinctions among res gestae, inextricably intertwined evidence, intrinsic evidence, and background evidence is far from clear. See David P. Leonard, The New Wigmore: Evidence of Other Misconduct and Similar Events, § 5. For this reason, our court has relied previously on cases involving background evidence when analyzing intrinsic evidence. See United States v. Gonzalez, 501 F.3d 630, 639 (6th Cir. 2007) (discussing Hardy in the context of intrinsic evidence). 27 With regard to the MySpace message, Hubbard testified that he was not asked by defendants to send the message. R. 878 (03/04/2010 Trial Tr. at 92) (Page ID #9434). Nos. 11-5291/ 5308/ 5311/ 5312/ 5313/ United States v. Adams et al. Page 40 5336/ 5337/ 5366 evidence that [the defendant] committed the act.” 667 F.3d at 699. Defendants requested that the district court make this finding. The district court responded that “at this time, . . . there is sufficient evidence if, in fact, the United States offers proof, as indicated that they will offer in the case, that there would be a connection to one or more defendants in this matter.” R. 846 (02/24/2010 Trial Tr. at 24 (Page ID #6093). As noted before, the government concedes that it did not make that connection. Thus, the district court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence of witness intimidation.28