Opinion ID: 1192061
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Opportunity or Motive

Text: The Government asks us to affirm admission of the evidence on the alternative ground that, under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), it was relevant to prove that Jackson had the opportunity and motive to possess a gun. Rule 404(b) renders inadmissible evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts ... to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Under the Rule, however, a court may admit prior-act evidence to show, among other things, proof of motive, opportunity, intent ... or absence of mistake. Id. The Government's argument that the evidence was admissible under a Rule 404(b) analysis fails for at least two reasons. First, whether Jackson had the opportunity or motive to possess a gun was not put in issue during the trial. See Hynes v. Coughlin, 79 F.3d 285, 291-92 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding that a prior act was not admissible to show intent when intent was not contested at trial). Jackson's defense was that there was simply insufficient evidence to prove that he possessed a gun at all, not, for example, that he would have been unable to procure a gun or that he lacked a reason to have one. Second, while the evidence that Jackson had ready and contemporaneous access to an apartment in which firearms were recovered constituted a relevant piece of circumstantial evidence tending to prove that he possessed the weapon at issue, the evidence offered at trial went far beyond what was necessary for this purpose. Its admission ignored a common sense precaution which should clearly be taken ... to limit the prosecutor's presentation to such facts ... as are reasonably necessary to prove the point for which the evidence is admitted, and to exclude unsavory details which go beyond what is necessary to make the point. David W. Louisell & Christopher B. Mueller, Federal Evidence § 140, at 209 (rev. ed. 1985); see also United States v. Bradwell, 388 F.2d 619, 622 (2d Cir.1968) (discussing the undue prejudice that can result when the minute peg of relevancy [is] entirely obscured by the dirty linen hung upon it (citation omitted)). More significantly, during the trial the Government did not argue or even assert that Jackson had the opportunity or motive to possess a gun. Instead, it maintained that the contraband showed exactly what was going on that day, adding delphically that it established who the defendant really is. It also suggested that the evidence allowed the jury to make a reasonable conclusion about the defendant. Thus, the Government's only use of the evidence was to argue that it illuminated Jackson's character. Rule 404(b) prohibits such tactics. See Hynes, 79 F.3d at 292 (holding that despite defendants' lip service to the proper principle for admitting evidence under Rule 404(b), defendants actually used prior-act evidence to establish plaintiff's propensity for violence).