Opinion ID: 2159891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Evidence of Prior Possession of a Gun

Text: Before the grand jury, Melvin Seals testified that on at least two occasions prior to the night of the shooting, he had seen appellant in possession of a chrome-colored.32 caliber automatic pistol with a black or brown handle. He said that appellant liked to show the gun so that others in the neighborhood were aware of its existence. Seals testified that he saw the gun at close range two different times in 1994. [3] When he was shot, Seals did not see the gun, but he stated that he knew what it was, and that when [the bullet] went in and out and I seen how little the hole was, and I knew what kind of gun he had, I knew what he hit me with.... In response to a pre-trial motion in limine by the government concerning the admissibility of certain evidence, defense counsel filed a memorandum opposing the introduction of Seals' grand jury testimony about his prior sightings of the gun, claiming that it was not only speculative, remote in time and ambiguous, but also its probative value [did] not outweigh its severe prejudice ... to the defendant. After a hearing, the court ruled that the evidence would be allowed. Although a lengthy gap in time between the prior sightings and the shooting would make the prior sightings less probative (the longer you go makes it less likely that we're talking about the same gun), the court said, as long as the testimony showed that the gun was the same .32 caliber pistol used in the crime, it would be clearly relevant and hence admissible. When Seals was called to testify at trial, he denied knowing who shot him and stated that he was persuaded and tricked into testifying before the grand jury. The court then allowed the government to play an audio tape of Seals' grand jury testimony after giving both parties a chance to redact any objectionable material. Defense counsel moved once again to exclude Seals' grand jury testimony about the prior sightings of the gun. After listening to the tape, and noting that the prior sightings occurred in 1994 or 1995, the court denied the motion, stating: Again, this tends to show that he examined [the gun]. If it's the same gun  if he can say, I saw it ... I examined it, the time frame becomes less relevant. The closeness in time becomes very important if we're trying to rely on some inference that it was the same gun.