Opinion ID: 797256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Armstead's additional trial issues

Text: 18 In his motion for a new trial, Armstead raised several other issues beyond the Brady claim discussed above. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Armstead first contends that the district court wrongfully admitted evidence of his prior bad act, see Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), when it allowed testimony that he had ordered the beating (or violation, in GD parlance) of a wayward gang member. But this evidence was not a prior bad act; it was part of the conspiracy, showing Armstead's leadership role and shedding light on how the GDs enforced their drug sale policies. See United States v. Hernandez, 330 F.3d 964, 970-71 (7th Cir.2003) (evidence of beatings admissible to show how drug-selling gang conducted business). 19 Next, Armstead argues that the district court erred by allowing the government to provide the jury with a transcript of the October 2001 meeting, the tape recording of which was played at trial but was difficult to hear. (The gang meeting was held in a public park near a noisy highway, perhaps, the government suggests, for the very purpose of frustrating any turncoats wearing a wire.) 3 A district court has broad discretion to admit a transcript of an audio recording as an aid to the jury. United States v. Breland, 356 F.3d 787, 794-95 (7th Cir.2004). Moreover, the district court repeatedly admonished the jury that only the tape was evidence, and that if jurors could not make out parts of the recording, they should disregard the corresponding portions of the transcript. That is all our precedents require. See United States v. Ceballos, 385 F.3d 1120, 1124 (7th Cir.2004). 20 Armstead next contends that the district court should have given an entrapment instruction. (The government directed cooperating co-defendant Collins to call Armstead in order to talk about drugs.) But when Armstead requested the instruction, the district court demanded an offer of proof that he could put on an entrapment defense, and Armstead did not pursue the matter further. We cannot say that we are surprised: an entrapment defense would have required showing that Armstead was induced to perpetrate a crime he was not predisposed to commit. United States v. Burke, 425 F.3d 400, 408-09 (7th Cir.2005). Before Collins's phone calls, Armstead was caught in several meetings and phone conversations discussing the substantial drug business over which he presided. He could not possibly have disproven his predisposition to commit further drug crimes. 21 Finally, Armstead argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to sever his trial from the trials of Wilson and Thomas. But there is a strong preference that co-conspirators be jointly tried, particularly when they were indicted together. See United States v. Souffront, 338 F.3d 809, 828 (7th Cir.2003). Moreover, a defendant challenging the denial of a motion to sever must show actual prejudice, id., and Armstead does not do this. He contends that separate trials would have allowed him to examine Wilson and Thomas as witnesses, but all he says they would have shown is that he did not personally sell drugs at the 340 building. Even assuming that he could get his co-defendants to testify on his behalf, Armstead was charged as the leader who controlled the conspiracy from afar. The fact that he didn't sell drugs himself proves nothing.