Opinion ID: 1192061
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Background to the Crime

Text: To be relevant, evidence need only tend to prove the government's case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government's proof of the charges can have that tendency. United States v. Gonzalez, 110 F.3d 936, 941 (2d Cir.1997). Thus, evidence is often admissible to provide background for the events alleged in the indictment or to enable the jury to understand the complete story of the crimes charged. United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 91-92 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We disagree that the contraband evidence was relevant as background to the crime. The physical evidence from the apartment was not particularly helpful to explain the crime. The Government's version of the facts was simple and complete: the police responded to a report of a shooting in the building; they approached a group of people outside the building; Jackson fled; Officer Jordan saw a gun in Jackson's pocket; the police later apprehended Jackson; and an officer found the gun near where Jackson had run. The Government did not need the contraband to explain why the police were at the building, why Officer Jordan pursued Jackson, why Jackson was arrested, or why Jackson was charged with possessing a firearm. Failing to detail the contents of the apartment would not have left any gaps in the Government's case, nor have left the jury wondering about missing pieces of the story. Cf. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 188-89, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997) (holding that the prosecution is entitled to present a complete narrative of the crime that satisf[ies] jurors' expectations about what proper proof should be). We think the evidence more likely confused the jury than assisted its understanding of the case. Indeed, the district court wisely interrupted Jordan's testimony about the photographs to explain that the case ha[d] nothing to do with a narcotics charge, and admonished the jury not to consider the evidence of drugs for any reason whatsoever. A jury might fairly puzzle over how evidence that it should not consider for any reason is relevant to the issues it has to decide. The Government's brief on appeal hardly seems convinced that the evidence was background to the crime. The few sentences it devotes to that argument assert merely that the evidence completed the narrative and was inextricably intertwined with proof of the charged offense without any explanation as to why this is so. We are compelled to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the guns and photographs of the weapons, drugs, and related contraband as background evidence.