Opinion ID: 2995177
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Wallet Contents

Text: David contends that the district court erred in admitting into evidence the contents of his wallet at the time of his arrest, thereby allowing the government to unfairly argue on rebuttal that David must be a drug dealer because he had unexplained wealth. At trial, David’s attorney objected to the admission of the contents of the wallet, but did not object to the government’s statements during rebuttal which referred to those contents. Therefore, our review of the district court’s evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Gibson, 170 F.3d 673, 680 (7th Cir. 1999), but our review of the government’s comments during rebuttal is for plain error only, see United States v. Anderson, 61 F.3d 1290, 1299 (7th Cir. 1995). Over David’s objection, the contents of his wallet at the time of his arrest-- which included $928 in cash as well as receipts for purchases totaling approximately $2500--were admitted into evidence during the government’s direct examination of one of the arresting officers, Investigator Woytko. Both Investigator Woytko and David testified briefly as to the amount of cash found in David’s wallet at the time of arrest, but neither witness discussed the receipts. Then, during rebuttal, the prosecutor made the following statement: And again, this money . . . this $928 that the defendant has in his pocket when he’s arrested. Not bad for a guy who is unemployed, who’s been unemployed for quite some time. In addition, if you look at those receipts that were found in there, you will find another 25-2600 dollars’ worth of receipts in expenditures that the defendant did within the two weeks preceding that drug deal. Not bad for a guy who is unemployed, has no money. Tr. of Trial of David Carrera at 294. David argues that the admission of the wallet’s contents--which led to thestatement about unexplained wealth in rebuttal--was erroneous because the evidence was irrelevant and confusing. We disagree with David’s contention that the contents of his wallet were irrelevant to the jury’s determination of his guilt. Expensive trips, gambling, and other instances of free spending and high living may be pertinent in crimesinvolving a motive of enrichment. United States v. Kwitek, 467 F.2d 1222, 1225 (7th Cir. 1972). Similarly, evidence of unexplained wealth is admissible in drug cases as long as: (1) the evidence presented creates an inference that the defendant was involved in drug trafficking; (2) the unexplained wealth was acquired during the period in which the drug crime allegedly occurred; and (3) the government presents other evidence to support the charge, including evidence that the income was not obtained through legitimate means. See United States v. Penny, 60 F.3d 1257, 1263 (7th Cir. 1995). David contends that the government failed to show any evidence that the money was not obtained through legitimate means. He claims that, although the government argued in rebuttal that David was unemployed at the time of the drug deal, no evidence was presented to that effect. According to David, the government based its claim that he was unemployed at the time of the drug transaction on a misunderstanding of his trial testimony. On direct examination, David was asked whether he was working on the day of his arrest and he replied no. When asked why, he stated, cause I was off--I was off because the doctor told me to be off because I had a . . . I was sick, really. Then, on cross, the following exchange took place: Q: Mr. Carrera, when you were arrested you had a lot of money on you, didn’t you? A: I don’t know. Like how much you say is a lot of money? Q: Like $928.28, you consider that a lot of money? A: Yeah, it’s quite--it’s some, yes. Q: You were not working at the time you were arrested, were you? A: That’s correct. If David’s first answer was the only evidence that he was unemployed at the time of his arrest, he might have a stronger claim. Given the second exchange however, we can not say that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the government had presented at least some evidence that the unexplained wealth was not derived from legitimate means. We also reject David’s claim that it was improper for the government to argue in closing that David had unexplained wealth because $900 in cash and receipts for a few luxury items do not suggest wealth. How much money is wealth is an issue that the jury is well-equipped to evaluate. Moreover, even if the government’s claim that David was unemployed at the time of the transaction was incorrect, the government’s statements did not infect the trial with unfairness to such a degree as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. United States v. McClinton, 135 F.3d 1178, 1188 (7th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation omitted). So long as the jury has evidence in its possession and is equipped to ascertain whether the government’s characterization is accurate, a statement characterizing that evidence is not improper. United States v. Velez, 46 F.3d 688, 692 (7th Cir. 1995).