Opinion ID: 2974343
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: mr oh ’s request for a new trial

Text: Mr. Oh argues that he should have been granted a new trial on Counts 1 and 5 because of the admission of prejudicial evidence during his trial. The district court denied Mr. Oh’s motion and we affirm. Mr. Oh offers three reasons that a new trial should have been granted: (1) the admission of evidence concerning prior contracts not at issue in this case prejudiced Mr. Oh; (2) James Stec’s testimony prejudiced Mr. Oh, despite the court’s instruction that the jury disregard the testimony; and (3) because the court rejected Mr. Oh’s guilty plea as to Counts 2, 3, 6, and 7, the jury heard facts and circumstances of charges that Mr. Oh did not dispute. First, Mr. Oh argues that the district court improperly admitted testimony regarding earlier contracts related to bell housing tanks and Inconel parts, which were not part of this indictment. Mr. Oh contends that the testimony of James Hartman and Boyd Taylor was admitted in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and that he was unfairly prejudiced by this testimony because it 14 tended to confuse the jury. Mr. Hartman testified inter alia that in inspecting a Euclid Machine contract to supply the Government with bell housings, he discovered that the parts did not meet the Government’s specifications, even though the parts had been previously inspected, provided with a DD-250 form, and were ready to be shipped. He testified that when he informed Euclid Machine, the company conducted further testing and terminated the contract when the parts continued to fail the tests. Mr. Taylor testified to an incident involving replacements for Inconel parts. According to Taylor, Mr. Oh wanted to buy non-certified material to use in the parts, and when Taylor informed him that using the non-certified material would violate the contract, Mr. Oh replied: “How are they going to know?” Under Rule 404(b), evidence of other acts is “not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith . . . .” But evidence of other acts is admissible “for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” FED .R.EVID . 404(b). The Government introduced testimony of Hartman and Taylor to demonstrate that Mr. Oh had a working knowledge of the certification process and the need to produce parts that comply with Government specifications, and that he understood that there were ways to deceive the Government by using nonconforming material. The district court properly instructed the jury that it could consider the testimony only to the extent that it provided evidence that Mr. Oh did not make a mistake in how he handled the T-38 speed brakes, but that he was well aware of the Government’s process for buying parts and demanding specification compliance. We find no error here. Second, regarding James Stec’s testimony, Mr. Oh argues that he was unfairly prejudiced because the jury heard some of Stec’s testimony before the district court judge determined that the 15 testimony was inadmissible. Stec testified that Mr. Oh had asked him to backdate a gauge to reflect a particular thermometer calibration in order to show that a part had been tested under proper conditions of temperature and humidity. The court ruled the testimony inadmissible and instructed the jury to disregard Stec’s testimony. Mr. Oh now argues that the jury was likely unable to disregard the testimony, and that he was therefore prejudiced. The Supreme Court has determined that courts should “presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is ‘overwhelming probability’ that the jury will be unable to follow the court’s instructions.” Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 767 n.8 (1987). Mr. Oh has failed to demonstrate anything resembling an “overwhelming probability” that the jury could not follow the court’s instruction, and the district court did not err in denying a new trial on this ground. Finally, Mr. Oh argues that he was prejudiced because the jury heard additional, “spillover” evidence about his culpability as to the counts in his indictment to which he attempted to plead guilty. This evidence pertained to the 2003 contract to provide KC-135 housing assemblies to WPE, and the doctored certifications that suggested that testing had taken place on particular dates when it had not. The district court rejected Mr. Oh’s guilty plea after determining that he had not actually acknowledged his guilt. Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 11. This contention is meritless. The district court properly determined that in light of Mr. Oh’s insistence that he had not intended to defraud the government, pleas of guilty to these four fraud counts were inappropriate. The Government was therefore entitled to present the evidence relative to these counts to the jury. The court did not err in denying a new trial on these grounds.