Opinion ID: 3023731
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Forbes’ Challenge to His Conviction

Text: The prosecution elicited testimony at trial that Forbes used a foam baseball bat with a hard core to break the nose of a 21-year-old woman, who sold drugs for him, because she owed him money. Forbes argues that the District Court abused its discretion by allowing this testimony to be presented to the jury. Specifically, he claims that, even if 1 Following a four-day trial, the jury found Forbes guilty of unlawfully distributing 500 grams or more of crack cocaine and five grams or more but less than ten grams of heroin; using a telephone to commit a felony drug offense; using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to drug trafficking; and criminal conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more but no more than 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. The jury found Forbes not guilty of interstate travel in aid of drug trafficking. 2 relevant, the testimony was both cumulative and highly prejudicial, and therefore should have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which provides: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. We review a district court’s ruling regarding the admissibility of evidence under Rule 403 for abuse of discretion. “We have [repeatedly] held that because the trial judge is present in the courtroom as the challenged evidence is offered, and is therefore ‘in the best position to assess the extent of prejudice caused by the party,’ the trial judge must ‘be given very substantial discretion’ in ‘balancing’ probative value on one hand and ‘unfair prejudice’ on the other.” United States v. Universal Rehabilitation Servs. (PA), Inc., 205 F.3d 657, 665 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Long, 574 F.2d 761, 767 (3d Cir. 1978)). Accordingly, we will not reverse a district court’s ruling unless it is “arbitrary or irrational.” In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 113 F.3d 444, 453 (3d Cir. 1997); see also Long, 574 F.2d at 767 (“If judicial self-restraint is ever desirable, it is when a Rule 403 analysis of a trial court is reviewed by an appellate tribunal.”). The first step in a Rule 403 analysis is to determine whether the challenged evidence has probative value. Here, the Second Superseding Indictment alleged that Forbes maintained the drug trafficking conspiracy “through force, fear, violence and intimidation.” Testimony regarding Forbes’ assault of a woman who was selling drugs for him is certainly probative of this allegation. 3 Forbes nevertheless argues that the graphic testimony “was so severely prejudicial that any probative value was . . . dramatically outweighed by that prejudice.” We disagree. The District Court’s determination that the testimony was admissible to establish that Forbes was “an organizer and leader of an activity and tried to control the people in his organization through violence [and] intimidation” was neither arbitrary nor irrational. (App. at 200.) We therefore find that it was well within the District Court’s discretion to conclude that the probative value of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by any potential unfair prejudice.