Opinion ID: 3047112
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: El Forasteros Evidence

Text: The primary case Frank relies on to argue the district court erroneously admitted evidence pertaining to the El Forasteros motorcycle gang is United States v. Street, in which this Court held it was error to admit similar evidence during Street's trial. 548 F.3d 618, 633 (8th Cir. 2008). Street, however, is distinguishable for two reasons. First, the main purpose of the El Forasteros evidence introduced at Street's trial was to illustrate the violent, lawless propensities of outlaw motorcycle gangs. Id. at 629. After discussing the testimony in depth,2 the Court found its net effect was to locate El Forasteros within a tradition of misogynistic, hardened outlaws. Id. at 631. In contrast, the El Forasteros evidence introduced at Frank's trial was sharply limited, focusing mainly on their view of snitches. Second, the Street court found significant that Street did not have any serious ties to El Forasteros. Frank, on the other hand, was a former 2 The Court summarized: [The government's witness] testified to incidents of violence from as long ago as 1947 and from as far afield as Las Vegas, Nevada, and Hollister, California. He described arcane insignia and painful tattoos intended to set gang members apart from the rest of civilized society. He recounted nauseous and brutal initiation procedures. He made repeated references to shootings, assaults, and theft. He explained the general contempt gang members displayed towards women. Id. at 631. -5- member of the motorcycle gang, and there was testimony indicating Frank had adopted its view of snitches. These distinguishing factors render the El Forasteros testimony relevant and not overly prejudicial. As such, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting it.