Opinion ID: 2796919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence Regarding Uncharged Offenses

Text: Ford next argues that the district court improperly admitted evidence of uncharged offenses under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). We review the district court’s decision to admit such evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bradberry, 466 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a [defendant]’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Evidence of uncharged conduct is admissible, however, “for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, 8 Case: 14-10381 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 9 of 20 identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” FED. R. EVID. 404(b)(2). Thus, for such evidence to be admissible under Rule 404(b), (1) it must be relevant to an issue other than defendant’s character; (2) there must be sufficient proof to enable a jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the act(s) in question; and (3) the probative value of the evidence cannot be substantially outweighed by undue prejudice, and the evidence must satisfy Rule 403 [of the Federal Rules of Evidence]. United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000)). By contrast, evidence of such criminal conduct falls outside the scope of Rule 404(b), and thus is independently admissible, if it is “(1) an uncharged offense which arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense[s], (2) necessary to complete the story of the crime, or (3) inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense[s].” Id. (quoting United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1205 n.9 (11th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2006)). Whether offered under Rule 404(b) or as intrinsic evidence, the district court must find that the probative value of the proffered evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice and that it meets the other requirements of Rule 403. FED. R. EVID. 403; see Baker, 432 F.3d at 1205 & n.9. Ford challenges three kinds of evidence offered by the government and admitted by the district court: (1) her personal income tax returns; (2) the 9 Case: 14-10381 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 10 of 20 testimony of nine witnesses regarding related, but uncharged, criminal conduct; and (3) the videotape of the television news report.
Ford argues that her personal tax returns are relevant only to her character and thus were inadmissible under Rule 404(b). We disagree. The returns are directly relevant to proving the fraud scheme alleged by the government because they utilize the same methods as the charged conduct, and they demonstrate Ford’s intent, identity, knowledge, and absence of mistake. The 2007 return, for example, listed Ford’s address as 1248 Greenwich Street — the same false address listed on a victim’s 2006 and 2007 tax returns — and it therefore is relevant both to knowledge and identity. And the 2009, 2010, and 2011 returns listed “Jack Fletcher” as her brother and dependent. Mr. Fletcher testified, however, that he was not related to Ford and was not her dependent. These returns therefore demonstrate Ford’s intent and the absence of mistake. Because all four of Ford’s personal income tax returns were relevant to issues other than her character, and there is no dispute that Ford filed these returns, the first two prongs for admission under Rule 404(b) were satisfied. But Ford argues that the prejudicial effect of admitting her personal tax returns outweighs their probative value. The personal returns are highly probative, however, because they uniquely demonstrate Ford’s intent, identity, knowledge, 10 Case: 14-10381 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 11 of 20 and absence of mistake. Her personal returns also directly tied her to the method of using false addresses and dependents, and evidenced her knowledge regarding one particular false address. Moreover, the district court’s contemporaneous limiting instruction when Ford’s 2009, 2010, and 2011 personal tax returns were admitted in evidence cured “[a]ny possible unfair prejudice.” United States v. Spoerke, 568 F.3d 1236, 1251 (11th Cir. 2009). The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the returns in evidence under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Seventeen alleged victims of Ford’s fraud scheme testified at trial. Only eight of those, however, were victims of the offenses charged in the indictment. Ford argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of the remaining nine victims concerning tax returns Ford filed using their identities either as the taxpayer or, falsely, as a dependent on someone’s return. She maintains that this was impermissible under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 404(b) is the wrong place to begin the analysis of this claim. Our Circuit repeatedly has held that evidence of uncharged conduct that is part of the same scheme or series of transactions and uses the same modus operandi as the charged offenses is admissible as intrinsic evidence outside the scope of Rule 11 Case: 14-10381 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 12 of 20 404(b). See United States v. US Infrastructure, Inc., 576 F.3d 1195, 1210-11 (11th Cir. 2009) (such evidence admissible if it “is linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime and concerns the context, motive or setup of the crime; or forms an integral part of the crime; or is necessary to complete the story of the crime”); United States v. Muscatell, 42 F.3d 627, 630-31 (11th Cir. 1995) (testimony regarding uncharged conduct that was part of the same fraud scheme “was properly admissible as intrinsic evidence of the same series of transactions as the charged offenses” and was outside the scope of Rule 404(b)). The testimony of the additional victims concerned fraudulent tax returns that were filed by Ford, during the same time period, and using the same methods. For example, many of the returns contained false Schedule C information, like the returns charged in the indictment. Others used the same common false addresses or false dependents — again, like the returns charged in the indictment. And several of the victims also were homeless like at least one of the victims whose return was charged in the indictment. Such testimony is probative evidence inextricably intertwined with the scheme charged in the indictment. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion.
Ford argues that the undercover investigative report captured on videotape by Fox 5 Atlanta was improper character evidence and inadmissible under Rule 12 Case: 14-10381 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 13 of 20 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. At trial, the government alleged that Ford fraudulently obtained personal information and took advantage of homeless and other vulnerable individuals by claiming that she would obtain money for them from a government program. See supra at 3-4. The videotape shows Ford doing both. See supra at 4. It is therefore outside the scope of Rule 404(b) because it is part of the same “series of transactions” as, and also “inextricably intertwined” with, the charged offenses. See Baker, 432 F.3d at 1218 (testimony regarding uncharged conduct in furtherance of same drug conspiracy charged in the indictment “clearly concerns an ‘uncharged offense which arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense’” (citation omitted)); Muscatell, 42 F.3d at 630.4 In the alternative, Ford maintains that the news report is highly prejudicial and therefore should have been excluded under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. While we agree that the “hidden camera” style of an investigative news report could, in some cases, be unduly prejudicial, the video shown to the jury in this case was heavily redacted. All commentary from the reporter was removed and only the bare footage of the defendant’s interaction with the undercover reporters was shown. And any remaining prejudice from the stripped-down video was outweighed by the highly probative value of a videotape showing the 4 This conclusion is underscored by the close proximity in time between the videotape, filmed in early 2007, and the charged offenses, which occurred between October 2007 and May 2011. 13 Case: 14-10381 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 14 of 20 defendant engaging in nearly identical conduct as the charged offenses within the same time period. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in admitting the videotape.