Opinion ID: 4657163
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Machinegun Evidence

Text: Next, the Government argues the court erred in excluding its evidence about the availability, cost, and ease of obtaining devices that convert semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons. The Government seeks to introduce this evidence in response to Hamzeh’s evidence that machineguns are rare and expensive. Citing United States v. Hollingsworth, the court found Hamzeh’s evidence about the expense and rarity of machineguns admissible on the issue of his “positional predisposition.” 27 F.3d 1196 (7th Cir. 1994). We do not opine on the propriety of 16 No. 19-3072 admission of this evidence under Hollingsworth. See 18 U.S.C. § 3731. Instead, we only consider whether admission of this evidence makes the Government’s evidence relevant, since the court, in essence, found the evidence not relevant to the crime charged. 12 When relevance depends on a fact, also known as “conditional relevance,” “proof must be introduced suﬃcient to support a ﬁnding that the fact does exist.” Fed. R. Evid. 104(b); see generally Fed. R. Evid. 401 advisory committee’s notes (referencing conditional relevance); see, e.g., United States v. Collins, 966 F.2d 1214, 1223 (7th Cir. 1992) (applying conditional relevance in the context of conspiracy). This case presents a less common application of the rule, in that the relevance of the Government’s machinegun evidence depends on Hamzeh’s introduction of facts (that machineguns are rare and expensive), not the Government’s introduction of its own facts. If Hamzeh’s evidence is introduced at trial, he puts at issue his ability to commit the oﬀense, making evidence that bears on ability relevant. The Government’s evidence that the acquisition of parts to assemble machineguns and assembly itself is easy makes a fact of consequence—ability (as raised by Hamzeh)—more likely. Stated otherwise, Hamzeh’s evidence creates a fact in issue, laying the foundation for admission of the Government’s evidence. The Government’s evidence is conditionally relevant; once Hamzeh’s evidence is 12 Hamzeh argues this Court cannot consider the issue because the Government did not make an offer of proof. This argument lacks merit. The district court’s order dated October 15, 2019, repeats the Government’s proffer that Special Agent Lindeman would testify about the availability of various conversion devices and the ease of converting a semi-automatic firearm into a machinegun. No. 19-3072 17 admitted, the Government may admit its evidence in rebuttal. Thus, the district court erred.