Opinion ID: 3000291
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Erroneous Admission of Evidence

Text: Warrants a New Trial Testimony concerning Simpson’s past drug sales thus cannot be justified under either the identity exception to Rule 404(b) or under the intricately related evidence doctrine. To succeed on a plain error challenge, a defendant must also demonstrate that the error in admission affected his substantial rights, meaning that the error “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 734. If so, we may correct the error if it seriously affects the “fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 736. Simpson urges that we look not simply at the erroneous admission of evidence about his past drug deals when we consider whether he should receive a new trial. Rather, he 2 (...continued) ments are not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). That a statement is not hearsay, however, does not answer the separate question of whether the statement is precluded as improper propensity evidence, the question at issue in this case. See United States v. Oberle, 136 F.3d 1414, 1418 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Although the statements are party admissions under Rule 801(d) and thus not hearsay, they must nevertheless also be analyzed for admissibility under Rule 404(b) because they reveal or suggest prior criminal conduct.”); United States v. Mickle, 859 F.2d 473, 478-79 (7th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that testimony recounting defendant’s statement qualified as party admission and was not hearsay, but stating that “does not end our inquiry” before analyzing whether statement was admissible under Rule 404(b)); see also United States v. Godinez, 110 F.3d 448, 454-55 (7th Cir. 1997) (analyzing first whether statement constituted inadmissible hearsay, then whether Rule 404(b) precluded its admission). The government offered us two theories in support of the admissibility of this evidence, the intricately related evidence doctrine and proof of identity under Rule 404(b), and we conclude that neither justifies its admission. No. 05-2993 19 contends that the inference the prosecutor drew in his closing argument from the evidence regarding Simpson’s prior crack cocaine sales, along with the erroneous admission of this evidence, deprived him of a fair trial.