Opinion ID: 786827
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tattoo Evidence Used to Establish Gang Affiliation

Text: 29 The specific exhibits showing Bobby and Seantai Suggs's tattoos and Aaron Davis's gold tooth did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 403. As established above, gang membership is relevant evidence in showing a drug distribution conspiracy. Tattoos that help to establish gang membership are admissible to support a showing of a joint venture or conspiracy. See United States v. Lewis, 910 F.2d 1367, 1372 (7th Cir.1990). Our cases holding tattoo evidence to have been inappropriately admitted are factually inapposite because they did not involve criminal conspiracies. See United States v. Thomas, 321 F.3d 627, 630-33 (7th Cir.2003) (vacating a conviction, in part because the admission of a photo of a gun tattoo could only have been intended as propensity evidence in the defendant's conviction for possession of firearms by a felon); United States v. Irvin, 87 F.3d 860, 864-66 (7th Cir.1996) (balancing the low probative value of gang-membership tattoo evidence in proving non-conspiracy drug charges and the high prejudicial value of tattoos and motorcycle gang affiliation in finding error in the trial court's admission of the evidence). 30 Here, the trial judge was within his discretion in allowing the jury to view these exhibits. Certainly, the presence of tattoos or gold teeth could be used purely as an unfairly prejudicial emotional appeal to the jury. But in the instant case, the government presented evidence that linked drug distribution in the Concord neighborhood to membership in CCA, a gang with links to the Vice Lords. The jury could consider common gang affiliation as circumstantial support for the existence of a conspiracy (as opposed to unconnected drug transactions). Moreover, the Defendants refused to stipulate to the fact that they were gang members, instead insisting they were only connected by their participation in and promotion of a rap group. In this context, it is unconvincing to argue that the government should have been limited to only the least prejudicial evidence of gang affiliation.