Opinion ID: 2974031
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Newsom’s trial

Text: 1. Admission of evidence regarding Newsom’s tattoos that depicted firearms Craig, the friend who drove Newsom to his mother’s home, testified on direct examination that she had never seen Newsom with a gun. She also said that if she had thought that he had a gun when she went to pick him up on the day in question, she would not have let him get into the car. As cross-examination began, the government approached the bench and stated: “Your Honor, I am going to ask that we be able to go into the tattoos that the defendant has on his body. He has several tattoos on his body indicating possessing a firearm.” Defense counsel responded by saying: “Judge, this is pretty far afield,” and “Your Honor, this is awfully far afield . . . . This is just ridiculous.” The district court ruled that the fact that Newsom had tattoos depicting firearms “might go to attack [Craig’s] credibility, but I don’t think it shows that he had a firearm. He could still love firearms and not have one on this day in question.” The court later reaffirmed that the government was permitted to ask Craig about the tattoos “to challenge her credibility that she had [not] seen him with a gun because he had guns tattooed on him.” After the bench conference concluded, the following exchange took place between the government’s counsel and Craig: Q. Are you aware that the defendant has tattoos? A. Yes. Q. With firearms on his body? Defense counsel then objected that the question was leading, but the court overruled the objection. Craig answered that she did not know what kind of tattoos Newsom had. After this exchange, defense counsel felt that he had “[no] choice but to broach the subject” of Newsom’s tattoos, so he asked his later witnesses about the tattoos that they had seen on Newsom’s body. Newsom’s nephew, Eddie Readus, said that he remembered tattoos with the names of his mother and brother. Newsom’s sister, Teresa Sanders, testified about a tattoo with the name of Newsom’s father and another with his daughter’s face. Defense counsel’s goal was to show that Newsom’s tattoos were “not really about guns.” But the government’s cross-examination drew out the details of Newsom’s other tattoos. For example, Readus was asked whether he was aware “that [Newsom] has a [tattoo of] a man holding a gun that says ‘fuck y’all’ on it,” to which Readus replied “[n]o.” More detail came out through the government’s questions put to Sanders. The government questioned Sanders about the following other tattoos on Newsom’s body: No. 05-5030 United States v. Newsom Page 4 • one “on [the] right side of his neck with a gun on it,” • one “on the left side of his neck” that said “98 MMCG” (Although Sanders did not know what this tattoo meant, Newsom later explained that it meant “98 Main Street Mafia Crip Gang,” and was placed there to honor a friend who was a victim of a gang murder.), • one that said “something pretty ugly on his stomach,” • one “on his upper chest that says ‘feel my pain,’” • one “on his right bicep . . [that] ha[s] the word ‘mob,’” • another “on his right forearm . . . [that] also ha[d] the word ‘thug life,’” and • one “on his left arm [with the words] ‘live for and die for’ around a bag of money.” During a discussion of whether to issue a jury instruction regarding the tattoos, the district court reiterated its position on the tattoo evidence: The Court still feels that [the] tattoos are not really relevant to the issue or issues in this case, and the Court admitted it initially to challenge the testimony of a witness and for that purpose only. But it was expanded not through rulings by the Court but by I guess the lawyers’ efforts to correct that challenge or to meet the challenge or to explain them more fully. 2. Jury instructions regarding Newsom’s prior convictions, tattoos, and other acts The district court instructed the jury with respect to Newsom’s prior convictions, tattoos, and other acts as follows: PRIOR CONVICTIONS You have heard that before this trial the defendant was convicted of prior crimes. These earlier convictions were brought to your attention only as one way of helping you assess his credibility and decide how believable his testimony was. You cannot use the earlier convictions for any other purpose. It is not evidence and cannot be considered as evidence that he is guilty of the crime that he is on trial for now. OTHER ACTS OF DEFENDANT You have heard testimony that the defendant committed some acts other than the ones charged in the Indictment. This evidence may not be considered to prove the character of the Defendant in order to show he committed the offense charged. You cannot consider this testimony as evidence that the defendant committed the offense for which he is on trial now. Instead, you can only consider it for other limited purposes, such as proof of motive, intent, identity, or absence of mistake. Do not consider such evidence for any other purpose. No. 05-5030 United States v. Newsom Page 5 You also have heard evidence that the Defendant has tatoos [sic] on his body. Evidence of these tatoos [sic] must not be considered by you in determining if the Defendant committed the offense charged in the Indictment. This evidence was admitted initially to challenge the credibility of a witness, not to prove that the Defendant is guilty of the charged offense. Remember, the defendant is on trial here only for the specific offense alleged in the Indictment, not for any other acts. Do not return a guilty verdict unless the government proves the offense charged in the Indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. Newsom did not object to any of the jury instructions.