Opinion ID: 3010410
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Five Prior Drug Transactions.

Text: The defendants also object to the admission of five prior cocaine deals. The government offered evidence, through the testimony of Lopez, of five prior cocaine transactions purportedly to show Lopez's relationship with Montalvo and Pacheco. In addition, the government contended that Lopez's testimony about the prior deals was probative to rebut Montalvo's and Pacheco's claim of noninvolvement with Lopez. Lopez, however, had absolutely no involvement with the charged drug conspiracy -- that is, the thirty-kilo cocaine deal. The defendants therefore argue that the five prior deals did not relate to anything at issue in the case. Although it is clear that the district court found the evidence to be classic 404(b), it is unclear from the record whether the district court conducted a balancing analysis under Rule 403. J.App. at 94. The district court judge merely stated that: [T]hat's other crimes evidence. I already told you, I balanced -- I balanced that last night, I certainly couldn't see the fourteen kilos as part of this transaction, but I think it's appropriate other crimes evidence. J.App. at 101. Moreover, the district court discussed the prior five deals as part and parcel of the fourteen-kilo deal, rather than as separate 404(b) evidence. Again, because the district court did not offer reasons for its ruling, we must engage in Rule 403 balancing as to the five prior deals ourselves. See Himelwright, 42 F.3d at 781. While the evidence of the five prior deals clearly shows a relationship between Montalvo and Pacheco, we question whether that evidence had much probative value because the relationship between Montalvo and Pacheco had already been established by the fourteen-kilo deal. On the other side of the scale, however, the risk of prejudice to the defendants by introducing that evidence was significant. Through its admission, the government may have been able effectively to convey to the jury that Montalvo and Pacheco were career drug dealers and bad people. Nevertheless, we find it unlikely that any prejudice resulting from the admission of [the 404(b) evidence] . . . `cause[d] the jury to base its decision on something other than the established propositions in this case.'  United 20 States v. McGlory, 968 F.2d 309, 339 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Carter v. Hewitt, 617 F.2d 961, 972 (3d Cir. 1980)). In other words, given that the five prior deals were relatively small scale and that evidence of the fourteen-kilo deal had already been properly admitted, the admission of thefive prior deals likely had no effect on the jury's decision. Accordingly, while we are concerned with the district court's failure to explain its reasons for admitting the five prior cocaine deals, we do not think that the admission of that evidence rises to the level of reversible error.