Opinion ID: 2973072
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Williams’ Appeal of His Conviction

Text: -3- Nos. 04-5677/04-5704/04-5678 United States v. Williams Williams challenges his conviction for conspiracy on the basis that the district court admitted unfairly prejudicial evidence of his affiliation with the Vice Lords gang. He admits that he was the leader of the gang but denies that he was part of a drug-trafficking conspiracy. Williams’ challenge pertains to the district court’s ruling under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which states in part: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . .” Fed. R. Evid. 403. We review such rulings for abuse of discretion, taking a “maximal view of the probative effect of the evidence and a minimal view of its unfairly prejudicial effect . . . .” United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408, 429 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Sassanelli, 118 F.3d 495, 498 (6th Cir. 1997)). Even if the evidence had an unfairly prejudicial effect, reversal is not warranted if the error was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). Although prejudicial to a defendant, evidence of gang affiliation can be sufficiently probative to survive a Rule 403 challenge. Gibbs, 182 at 430. As in Gibbs, the government in the instant case sought to introduce evidence of Williams’ gang membership based on the theory that all gang members were engaged in the drug-trafficking conspiracy. Although it remained the government’s burden to prove that membership in the Vice Lords was synonymous with membership in the conspiracy, we detect no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to permit the introduction of the challenge evidence for this limited purpose, particularly in light of the fact that it gave the jury an instruction to that effect.