Opinion ID: 3001004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Post-July 29, 2003 Threats

Text: Savage also challenges the district court’s exclusion of letters that Valdez sent to Savage after July 29, 2003, the date of the drug purchase. Savage argues that the letters, which included threats of physical violence, would lend credibility to Savage’s version of events and support his defense of coercion. The district court found that post-conduct threats would be irrelevant for Savage’s coercion defense, because they would have no bearing on Savage’s state of mind on July 29, 2003. The court further held that the evidence would only be offered for the inadmissible purpose of showing Valdez’s propensity for violent behavior.1 The 1 In the course of the deliberations on this matter, the district court inadvertently referred to Valdez as Savage: I’ve ruled . . . that any post July 29th, 2003, statements are not relevant insofar as they could have had any bearing on Mr. Savage’s state of mind. I’m talking about statements by Mr. Savage or people associated with Mr. Savage. If it’s being offered to show that Mr. Savage was somehow a person of violent behavior. I think there’s evidence of that already and his propensity in that regard. I’m not going to let further evidence after the occurrence be admitted before the jury. (continued...) 8 No. 06-1990 court also noted that evidence of Valdez’s violent character had already been introduced, and that additional evidence would be confusing to the jury. Later, the district court further discussed why it excluded the evidence: Let me also say that I kept that out because I thought that it would just raise unnecessary issues that would confuse the jury, and, secondly, the probative value of the threats from Valdez and his wife are more probative of threatening Mr. Savage to deter him from persisting in prosecuting Mr. Valdez, which at one point appeared to be the case, and really aren’t probative of any pre-crime threats towards—any pre-crime coercion of Mr. Savage. Tr. at 319-20. We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Luster, 480 F.3d 551, 556 (7th Cir. 2007). Because we give great deference to the trial judge’s evidentiary rulings, we will not reverse unless the record contains no evidence upon which the trial judge rationally could have based his decision. United States v. Gajo, 290 F.3d 922, 926 (7th Cir. 2002). Typically, federal prosecutors employ Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence to introduce evidence of a criminal defendant’s prior convictions or other misconduct as proof of that defendant’s “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, or identity” with regard to a different crime for which the defendant is being prosecuted. United States v. Reed, 259 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir. 2001). However, “[e]vidence regarding other 1 (...continued) Tr. at 234-35. It is clear from the context of the discussion that the court was discussing Valdez’s propensity for violence, not Savage’s. No. 06-1990 9 crimes is admissible for defensive purposes if it tends, alone or with other evidence, to negate the defendant’s guilt of the crime charged against him.” Id. In determining whether to allow a criminal defendant to admit such evidence, known as “reverse 404(b) evidence,” a district court must balance “the evidence’s probative value under Rule 401 against considerations such as prejudice, undue waste of time, and confusion of the issues under Rule 403.” United States v. Seals, 419 F.3d 600, 606 (7th Cir. 2005). The evidence Savage sought to introduce at his trial, demonstrating that Valdez threatened Savage after July 29, 2003, fits into the category of “reverse 404(b)” evidence. First, we must determine whether the evidence is probative—i.e., whether it makes it more likely than not that Valdez coerced Savage into purchasing the drugs— and, if so, whether its probative value is trumped by Rule 403. In analyzing the probative value of the proffered evidence, the district court focused heavily on the fact that the threats occurred after July 29, 2003. We note that this fact does not ipso facto render the evidence inadmissible under Rule 404(b). We have recognized that Rule 404(b) does not restrict the evidence concerning other acts to events which took place before the alleged crime. See United States v. Anifowoshe, 307 F.3d 643, 646-47 (7th Cir. 2002) (observing that “by its very terms, 404(b) does not distinguish between ‘prior’ and ‘subsequent’ acts”); United States v. Betts, 16 F.3d 748, 757 (7th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Mills, 122 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 1997); 22 Charles A. Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 5239 (1978 ed. & 2007 supp.). That said, the “chronological relationship between the charged offense and the other act” may play an important role in determining the probative value of such evidence. Anifowoshe, 307 F.3d at 647. 10 No. 06-1990 In this case, we agree with the district court’s underlying conclusion that the probative value of post-conduct threats is somewhat limited. The text of threatening letters—two containing the word “REDRUM,” or “murder” backwards, and a third with a threat to “come down there right now and kid napp you and beat you for a weak [sic]”—do not reference the drug deals that Savage argues Valdez coerced him into doing. The threats occurred well after the drug deal, which, though not a dispositive factor, lessens the probative value of the letters. The probability that a jury would view these letters as further support of Savage’s coercion defense is slight. The district court properly weighed this limited value against other important considerations under Rule 403. Because the threats were made at a time when Savage was cooperating with the government against Valdez, the jury may have confused the issue of whether Valdez coerced Savage into ending his cooperation with the government with the issue of whether Valdez coerced Savage into dealing drugs. In addition, at the point in the trial when Savage proffered the post-conduct threats, substantial evidence of Valdez’s violent character had already been introduced in Savage’s case in chief, as well as the government’s. Any further evidence on this point, especially considering its low probative value, seems unnecessary. We find that the court properly exercised its discretion in finding that concerns for confusion of the issues and presentation of cumulative evidence outweighed the limited probative value of the letters. Even if the evidence involving Valdez’s other threats should have been admitted, its exclusion was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence presented by the government at trial. We will only reverse a defendant’s conviction if the erroneous decision by the district court to exclude evidence “had a substantial influence over the jury and the result reached was inconsistent with subNo. 06-1990 11 stantial justice.” Seals, 419 F.3d at 607. In assessing the harmlessness of the district court’s evidentiary ruling, we consider the “overall strength of the prosecution’s case against the defendant.” Id. The government introduced Savage’s admission to Special Agent Morris that he had purchased the powder and crack cocaine with the intent to sell it. This admission was corroborated by Savage’s own testimony to the grand jury. In his defense, Savage testified that Valdez had forced him to carry out the drug transaction with the threat of physical violence on numerous occasions. However, his testimony regarding the threats was contradicted by Special Agent Brazao and Savage’s own expert, Dr. Rubin. Other elements of Savage’s testimony, including his denial that he knew that the drugs were crack and his denial of his intent to sell the drugs, contradicted his own grand jury testimony. In toto, the evidence against Savage overcomes any doubt that the exclusion of Valdez’s other threats led to a result “inconsistent with substantial justice.” Savage argues that the exclusion of the evidence deprived him of his right to present a complete defense. We have held that the “[e]xclusion of evidence which is the only or the primary evidence in support of a defense is deemed to have had a substantial effect on the jury.” Seals, 419 F.3d at 608. This is not the case here. Savage testified to the existence of the other threats, so the post-conduct threats were not the only evidence in support of his defense. Nor were the post-conduct threats, which were both remote and vague in their meaning, the primary evidence of coercion. Savage’s detailed description of the threats on the morning of July 29, 2003 was the primary evidence. The exclusion of Valdez’s subsequent threats was not so fundamental to Savage’s defense that it had a substantial effect on the jury. 12 No. 06-1990