Opinion ID: 347528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Claim of Prejudice

Text: 124 Objection was made to the introduction of evidence of the Ellsberg break-in on the ground that the prejudice engendered by the admission into evidence of such prior acts of criminal misconduct outweighed their legitimate probative value. Ehrlichman br. at 45-53a; Haldeman br. at 4. Rejecting this objection, the court admitted the evidence as being probative of motive. The Government now contends it was properly admitted on two grounds: 125 (1) to show a central motive for the conspiracy by proving the occurrence of activity the conspirators desperately wanted to conceal, and (2) to explain the background and meaning of Hunt's threats to expose the seamy things he had done for the White House if his money demands were not met. 126 Govt. br. at 222. As Mr. James Neal, the Government prosecutor, explained to the court in arguing for the admission of the evidence in question: 127 MR. NEAL: Your Honor, we say the purpose of the conspiracy was to conceal those involved in the planning and implementation of the break-in as well as other matters. 128 Now, our contention and theory in this case and we will put on proof this was one of the reasons for covering up was that if they really got into this matter, if the investigation of the planning and implementation of the break-in was explored and divulged, it would lead them to the operations of Hunt and Liddy and others with respect to the Ellsberg affair. 129 Tr. 2298-2299. 130 The general rule in this country is that evidence of other crimes is admissible to show, inter alia, motive, so long as its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. 145 As Dean Wigmore pointed out, this is basically a question of relevancy, 146 and the fact that the circumstance offered also involves another crime by the defendant charged is in itself no objection, if the circumstance is relevant (to show motive). 147 We do not understand Haldeman and Ehrlichman to challenge this statement of the law; rather, as we have noted above, they argue that (w)hen balanced against the lengthy, inflammatory evidence of Ehrlichman's involvement in the Ellsberg matter    the probative value of this prior criminal activity was outweighed by the prejudice which it caused to Mr. Ehrlichman's defense. Ehrlichman br. at 50. Having reviewed the facts carefully, we disagree and find the balance to lie clearly in favor of the probative value of the evidence with only minimal danger of improper prejudice. 131 Appellants list four factors which, they contend, made this evidence unduly prejudicial and therefore inadmissible: (1) the tenuous connection between the Ellsberg affair and the Watergate cover-up; 148 (2) the adduction of a large quantum of evidence which went to the very heart of Mr. Ehrlichman's conviction in the 'Plumber's Trial' ; 149 (3) the introduction and reading of an August 11, 1971, memorandum from David Young and Egil Krogh to Ehrlichman which bore Ehrlichman's initialed approval of a proposed covert operation    to examine all the medical files still held by Ellsberg's psychoanalyst    ; 150 and (4) the fact that the prior crime was mentioned in the Government's opening statement, contrary to United States v. Bailey, 164 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 505 F.2d 417 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 961, 95 S.Ct. 1350, 43 L.Ed.2d 438 (1975).