Opinion ID: 1322793
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Green's Request for Hill to Pose as Stripper

Text: Clark's final argument on appeal is that the district court improperly excluded Hill's statement that, prior to Clark's release from prison in 2005, Green had asked her to pose as a stripper to get someone to pay a drug debt. Clark attempted to introduce Hill's statement on cross-examination of Green after he denied having made that request, to show that Hill and Green had conspired together without Clark. The government objected, claiming that the entire incident was irrelevant to the crimes charged, and pointed out that it was undisputed that Green and Hill met before Clark was released from prison, and that they continued to have a drug relationship after Clark was imprisoned again in early 2006. The district court sustained the government's objection and excluded evidence of the alleged incident. Because the incident made no fact of consequence more or less probable and did not lend support to Clark's patsy defense, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence. See Fed.R.Evid. 401 (Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.); Lee, 502 F.3d at 696 (same). Both Hill and Green testified that they had met prior to Clark's release in 2005, and that their drug relationship continued after his re-incarceration in January 2006. It was therefore undisputed that Green and Hill engaged in a large-scale cocaine distribution scheme when Clark was absent. Accordingly, the evidence of the incident had no probative force and was properly excluded.