Opinion ID: 3000291
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Evidence Concerning Prior Unre-

Text: lated Drug Sales Simpson argues on appeal that Agent Hendon’s testimony concerning Simpson’s involvement in unrelated drug deals was admitted in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Evidence that he had sold crack cocaine in the past, Simpson argues, could show only his propensity to sell crack cocaine, not that he was the person responsible for selling crack cocaine to a confidential informant on March 6, 2003. The government, however, contends that this evidence was admissible either under the “identity” exception to Rule 404(b) or pursuant to the “intricately related evidence” doctrine.
When a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence during trial, as here, our review of a challenge to the evidence’s admission is for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-35 (1993); James, 464 F.3d at No. 05-2993 7 709; cf. United States v. Chavis, 429 F.3d 662, 667 (7th Cir. 2005) (reviewing decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion where timely objection made). Our review for plain error asks whether (1) error occurred; (2) the error was “plain”; (3) and the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. James, 464 F.3d at 709; see also United States v. Meadows, 91 F.3d 851, 855 (7th Cir. 1996) (defining “error” as a “deviation from a legal rule” and an error that is “plain” as one that is “clear or obvious”) (citations omitted). If these three conditions have been met, we may exercise our discretion to correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. James, 464 F.3d at 709.
Sales Constitutes Error That Was Plain Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident . . . . The first sentence in Rule 404(b) plainly prohibits the government from introducing evidence of prior bad acts to show that the defendant’s character is consistent with a propensity to commit the charged crime. United States v. Holt, 460 F.3d 934, 937 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Macedo, 406 F.3d 778, 792-93 (7th Cir. 2005). As thenJudge Breyer put it, “Although . . . ‘propensity evidence’ is relevant, the risk that a jury will convict for crimes other than those charged—or that, uncertain of guilt, it will convict anyway because a bad person deserves 8 No. 05-2993 punishment—creates a prejudicial effect that outweighs ordinary relevance.” United States v. Moccia, 681 F.2d 61, 63 (1st Cir. 1982); see also Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 475-76 (1948); United States v. Seals, 419 F.3d 600, 610-11 (7th Cir. 2005) (Posner, J., concurring).
The government maintains that the evidence of Simpson’s prior unrelated drug sales is admissible to show “identity” under Rule 404(b). Rule 404(b) is first a rule of prohibition: “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith” (emphasis added), subject only to limited exceptions. The presumption set forth in the Rule is against admissibility. And, we emphasize, simply because the evidence in question tends to show intent, motive, identity, or the like does not mean the evidence is automatically admissible. Rather, the second sentence of the rule makes explicitly clear that such evidence “may” be admissible, not that admission is automatic. See Jones, 455 F.3d at 810 (Easterbrook, J., concurring). With these principles in hand, we turn to the four-part test this circuit has adopted for determining whether evidence should be admitted under Rule 404(b). We have said that evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts is admissible only if four requirements are met: (1) the evidence is directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged; (2) the evidence shows that the other act is similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue; (3) the evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the No. 05-2993 9 similar act; and (4) the evidence has probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Jones, 455 F.3d at 806; United States v. Owens, 424 F.3d 649, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). Simpson maintains that in this case, neither the first nor the fourth requirement has been satisfied. First, and most importantly, we must determine whether the statements in question are directed toward establishing a matter other than Simpson’s propensity to sell crack cocaine. Although Simpson maintains the testimony showed only his propensity to sell drugs, the government argues the statements were directed toward establishing Simpson’s identity as the person responsible for the March 6, 2003 drug delivery. One way we have allowed admission of a defendant’s prior bad acts is to prove identity through evidence of a defendant’s distinctive manner of operation, or modus operandi. See, e.g., United States v. Anifowoshe, 307 F.3d 643, 647 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Rollins, 301 F.3d 511, 519 (7th Cir. 2002). We only allow evidence to be admitted under the modus operandi theory when the evidence bears “a singular strong resemblance to the pattern of the offense charged” with the similarities between the two crimes “sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit an inference of pattern for purposes of proof.” United States v. Thomas, 321 F.3d 627, 634-35 (7th Cir. 2003). The reason we allow the use of other acts to show modus operandi is that the same person probably committed both the other acts and the charged crime due to their sufficiently idiosyncratic similarities. See United States v. Robinson, 161 F.3d 463, 468 (7th Cir. 1998). This reasoning does not require an inference concerning the defendant’s character. But we have cautioned that “[i]f defined broadly enough, modus operandi evidence can 10 No. 05-2993 easily become nothing more than the character evidence that Rule 404(b) prohibits.” United States v. Smith, 103 F.3d 600, 603 (7th Cir. 1996); see also Thomas, 321 F.3d at 635 (“If a pattern so generic can establish modus operandi, this fairly limited exception to Rule 404(b) would gut the Rule, rendering it useless as a check on character evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible.”). The same caution holds true for identity evidence that is not evidence of a defendant’s modus operandi. “Certainly, the need to prove identity should not be, in itself, a ticket to admission.” 1 McCormick on Evidence § 190 (6th ed. 2006). Simply because the identity of the person who sold crack cocaine to Emmanuel Bradley on March 6, 2003 was disputed does not give the government free reign to introduce evidence about any prior crack cocaine deal in which Simpson took part. Yet that seems to be the government’s argument. It maintains that because Simpson denied that he was the person who delivered the drugs in question, it could introduce evidence that he had sold crack cocaine in the past, in transactions unrelated to the one at issue—evidence that we would otherwise deem improper propensity evidence—simply because it needed to prove that Simpson sold the drugs on March 6, 2003. Our decision in United States v. Wright, 901 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1990), is instructive. There, the government contended that a wiretapped telephone call containing the defendant’s admission that he participated in other drug deals had been properly admitted to show that the defendant committed the drug sale in question. 901 F.2d at 6869. In particular, the government maintained that Rule 404(b) did not prohibit the introduction of the evidence, as it contended the evidence was admissible to show identity. Id. at 69. Soundly rejecting this argument, we wrote that the telephone conversation in question in Wright “may well show that [the defendant] is more likely to be guilty of the No. 05-2993 11 crime with which he is charged than the average man on the street, who is not a drug dealer, but it does not in the least show that the man who had sold the plainclothes officers four bags of crack [in the transaction at issue] was correctly identified” as the defendant. Id. Those words hold true here. That Simpson allegedly admitted to prior crack cocaine deals may well show that he was more likely than an average person who had never before dealt in drugs to have sold the drugs in question. But it does not show that the identity of the person who sold drugs to Emmanuel Bradley on March 6, 2003 was Robert Simpson. We recognized in Wright that evidence of prior drug crimes might tend to show the identity of the defendant if, for example, “the conversation had indicated that [the defendant] was at that time selling drugs on streets near where the transactions occurred, or if he had said something that only a party to those transactions would know.” 901 F.2d at 69. Neither scenario exists here. Simpson’s acknowledgment that he sold crack cocaine during the same general time period (he admitted he had sold drugs for several years prior to his arrest), and in similar quantities, is nowhere near the similarity we contemplated in Wright. The unfortunate reality is that Simpson was far from the only person selling crack cocaine during March of 2003 in the greater Joliet, Illinois area, and Simpson’s acknowledgment that he was one of those persons does not help clear up the identity of the person responsible for the charged crime. Similarly, that Simpson named Hatton as his supplier does not tend to show that Simpson was guilty of this crime. Although there was testimony that Hatton was one of many persons who were part of law enforcement’s “large scale” investigation into drug activity in the area, the government has never contended that Hatton was involved in the March 6 transaction, that Hatton had any relationship with Bradley, or that Hatton had supplied the drugs at issue. 12 No. 05-2993 Cf. United States v. Joseph, 310 F.3d 975, 978 (7th Cir. 2002) (defendant’s prior mail theft helped to establish identity in instant case because it linked defendant with one of the aliases used by the perpetrator). This evidence, then, did not help establish a matter in issue other than his propensity to sell crack cocaine.1 Furthermore, the admission of the evidence carried a significant danger of unfair prejudice. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it will cause the jury to decide the case on “improper grounds.” Chavis, 429 F.3d at 668. Here, the jurors were invited to conclude that Simpson’s prior drug deals proved his guilt for the transaction charged in the indictment. Significantly, too, the government’s evidence did not stop at Simpson’s statement that it was “possible” 1 In United States v. Gibson, 170 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 1999), to which the government points, the defendant pursued the specific defense that his brother had sold the drugs in question. Id. at 679. There, the defendant’s history of drug dealing distinguished him from the only other person he contended had committed the crime. Here, in contrast, Simpson put forth no defense except to deny that he was responsible for the charged crime and to maintain the government had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Wright, not Gibson, governs this case. And as in Wright, evidence of Simpson’s prior drug activity was not admissible to show identity, unless “[b]y ‘identity’ the [government] must have meant ‘guilt,’ ” 901 F.2d at 69, which, of course, is not proper. We explained in Wright that the “logic of the district court’s ruling [to allow evidence of the defendant’s unrelated drug deals] is that a drug defendant’s prior drug convictions are admissible per se, even if they do not help to clear up a question of identification or establish a modus operandi or otherwise illuminate the particular conduct of which the defendant is accused, and even if he does not take the stand . . . .” Id. at 70. But “[t]his use of other crimes to establish a propensity to commit the type of crime charged is the use of such evidence that Rule 404(b) forbids.” Id. No. 05-2993 13 he had delivered the crack cocaine at issue. Instead, additional details regarding Simpson’s prior crack cocaine deals were revealed. Agent Hendon testified that Simpson thought his involvement was possible “because he had done similar type[s] of transactions” and he had “delivered for an individual that he primarily dealt with by the name of Michael Hatton.” Agent Hendon then continued to provide details about Simpson’s drug-dealing past: he told the jurors that Simpson said he had been a dealer of crack cocaine, that he had been a dealer for three to four years, and that he purchased a half ounce of crack cocaine from his supplier about every two or three weeks, which he would then break up and sell. In addition, the jurors did not receive a relevant limiting instruction, which can minimize prejudice from the introduction of Rule 404(b) evidence. See Jones, 455 F.3d at 809; Chavis, 429 F.3d at 668-69; United States v. Kreiser, 15 F.3d 635, 640 (7th Cir. 1994) (upholding evidence’s admission for purposes of knowledge, intent, and motive where the “district court carefully explained to the jury that Kreiser was not on trial for anything that happened in 1984, but only for the events of 1991”); see also Jones, 455 F.3d at 811 (Easterbrook, J., concurring). The jury did receive the following instruction: “If you find that the defendant did make the statement, then you must decide what weight, if any, you feel the statement deserves. In making this decision, you should consider all matters in evidence having to do with the statement . . . .” This instruction drew attention to Simpson’s purported statements to Agent Hendon, but the jurors did not receive any instruction limiting how they could or should use the statements. We conclude that the identity exception to Rule 404(b) does not support the admission of evidence pertaining to Simpson’s prior unrelated drug sales. 14 No. 05-2993
Nor is this evidence admissible under the “intricately related evidence” doctrine, the only other theory the government suggests to supports its admission. By its terms, Rule 404(b) only applies to “other” crimes and conduct; it does not apply to acts that provide proof of the charged conduct. See United States v. Lane, 323 F.3d 568, 579 (7th Cir. 2003). As a result, “[e]vidence of uncharged criminal activity does not implicate the character/propensity prohibition of Rule 404(b) if the evidence is ‘intricately related’ to the facts and circumstances of the charged offense.” United States v. McLee, 436 F.3d 751, 760 (7th Cir. 2006). Admission is, of course, still contingent on successfully passing the balancing test set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. James, 464 F.3d at 709; Holt, 460 F.3d at 937-38. The government argues that Agent Hendon’s testi- mony was admissible as evidence that was intricately related (or “inextricably intertwined”) with that of the charge that Simpson delivered crack cocaine on March 6, 2003. According to the government, the details Simpson provided about his involvement in uncharged drug deals were admissible because they arose out of “the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense.” See United States v. Lott, 442 F.3d 981, 985 (7th Cir. 2006). We have upheld the admission of evidence under the intricately related evidence doctrine when the evidence was necessary to complete the story of a crime on trial. McLee, 436 F.3d at 760; United States v. Gibson, 170 F.3d 673, 682 (7th Cir. 1999); cf. 1 McCormick on Evidence § 190 (6th ed. 2006) (cautioning that “[t]his rationale should be applied only when reference to the other crimes is essential to a coherent and intelligible description of the offense at bar”). We have also done so when the No. 05-2993 15 evidence was needed to avoid a conceptual or chronological void in the narrative of the crime on trial. United States v. Andreas, 216 F.3d 645, 665 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Hattaway, 740 F.2d 1419, 1425 (7th Cir. 1984). And we have found evidence admissible under the intricately related evidence doctrine when it is so blended or connected that it incidentally involves, explains the circumstances surrounding, or tends to prove any element of the charged crime. United States v. Heath, 447 F.3d 535, 539 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Spaeni, 60 F.3d 313, 316 (7th Cir. 1995). These rationales do not apply here. Simpson was not charged with conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. He was not charged with responsibility for a series of drug transactions. He was not charged with selling drugs on Hatton’s behalf. Instead, he was on trial for only one delivery, on one day, to one person. Evidence of any prior unrelated drug sales was simply not necessary to complete the story of the single delivery on trial. Nor was it needed to avoid a conceptual or chronological void in the story of the March 6, 2003 delivery. And it was not necessary to explain the circumstances of the single crack cocaine delivery on March 6, 2003. The case to which the government pointed us when we asked for an analogous case, United States v. Lott, 442 F.3d 981, is inapposite. First, Lott did not involve admission of unrelated, uncharged drug activity in a case where only a single drug delivery was at issue. Cf. James, 464 F.3d at 710 (finding evidence of drugs seized one month after drug offense for which defendant was indicted not intricately related to charged conduct). In Lott, officers recovered from a vehicle driven by the defendant a loaded pistol on top of a bag containing a white powder that turned out to be a crushed prescription drug. 442 F.3d at 985. The defendant was charged with being a felon in 16 No. 05-2993 possession of a firearm, and we upheld the admission of evidence that he possessed the bag of white powder and that he had previously dealt in “dummy drugs” under the intricately related evidence doctrine. Id. We did so because the evidence explained the motive for the defendant’s possession of a firearm, the crime with which he was charged—to defend himself from angry customers. Id. Unlike the admitted evidence in Lott, which helped complete the story of the crime on trial in that case, evidence relating to Simpson’s prior drug involvement would not help a jury form a more complete picture of the March 6 drug deal for which he was on trial. Evidence that Simpson had sold drugs over the last three or four years does not explain why he, as compared to any other person who had also sold drugs at that time, was re- sponsible for the drug sale for which he was on trial. The government argues otherwise, contending that “details” Simpson gave after stating it was “possible” he had sold the drugs in question corroborated his “confession” that it was possible he had sold the drugs on March 6. First, there was no confession. Certainly, if Simpson had told Agent Hendon he sold crack cocaine to Bradley on March 6, 2003 under circumstances matching the government witnesses’ testimony, the government could have argued to the jury that Simpson had admitted to the crime for which he was charged. But Simpson did not do that. His statement that it was “possible” he was responsible for the charged transaction, but that he did not remember, does not constitute a confession of responsibility for the March 6, 2003 drug deal. “A confession is a suspect’s oral . . . acknowledgment of guilt often including details about the crime.” United States v. Gilbertson, 435 F.3d 790, 798 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 317 (8th ed. 2004)); see Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 91 n.7 (1954). Here, at best, Simpson stated he did not remember the transaction. At no time did he No. 05-2993 17 acknowledge he was guilty of selling illegal drugs to Bradley on the date in question. He provided no details whatsoever about the March 6, 2003 drug deal, as he could not even remember if he was there. Admitting that he had engaged in similar drug deals in the past, making “possible” his responsibility for the drug deal at issue, falls far short of an acknowledgment of responsibility for the charged deal. Next, the “details” to which the government points—that he had sold crack cocaine before, for a number of years, at times in the same quantity—were only details about prior uncharged drug deals and did not shed any light on the question of the person responsible for the March 6 sale. These “details” about prior unrelated drug deals on unknown dates with unknown persons did not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the March 6 transaction for which he was on trial. Evidence of prior unrelated drug deals is not “intricately related” to the transaction on trial simply because knowledge of the other deals was gained in the same interview. The testimony about Simpson’s prior acts did nothing more than cloak him before the jury in his prior crack cocaine deals. In short, had the jurors heard nothing about Simpson’s prior drug sales, “it would not have occurred to them that they were missing anything or have made any of the other evidence in the case unintelligible.” See United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 475 (7th Cir. 2005). Admission of the evidence of Simpson’s prior drug sales cannot be justified under the intricately related evidence doctrine, and the evidence’s admission constitutes error that was plain.2 2 The dissent maintains that the agent’s testimony concerning details Simpson gave about his involvement in past drug deals constituted admissions against Simpson’s interest. Such state- (continued...) 18 No. 05-2993
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.