Opinion ID: 2827456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence of a Second Drive-by Shooting

Text: Prior to trial, the government informed the defense that it intended to solicit testimony from Godwin regarding a threat made by Defendant and a second drive-by shooting that occurred nearly one month after the tragic events at the carwash. Godwin would testify that, on September 19, 2013, he was approached by Defendant, who threatened that if Godwin did not stop talking about how Defendant was responsible for the August 28 shooting and Pookie’s death, Godwin would be the next person to get murdered. Godwin would also testify that, two days after being threatened, Defendant and his comrades riddled Godwin’s vehicle with at least thirty bullets while they were both driving down the highway. The government proposed to corroborate Godwin’s story with the testimony of one of the individuals who was a passenger in Godwin’s vehicle during the battery and with crime scene photographs that captured the damage done to Godwin’s sports utility vehicle. The government professed that the evidence was especially probative and, moreover, it was necessary because the defense intended to attack Godwin’s credibility on cross by highlighting his failure to initially identify Defendant to the police. The defense objected to the testimony on the basis that this incident constituted a separate bad act, unrelated to the charged offense. Therefore, defense counsel argued, the evidence was barred by Rule 404(b), to the extent it was being utilized merely to highlight Defendant’s bad character and suggest that Defendant had a propensity for committing similar bad acts. The government’s view, however, was that the evidence could be admitted pursuant to the “res gestae” exception to Rule 404(b), which allows for the introduction of background or intrinsic evidence that is necessary to complete a witness’ story. The district court agreed that details surrounding the highway drive-by shooting were necessary to complete Godwin’s story, and it 1 The foundational challenge was abandoned after a witness, outside the presence of the jury, was able to testify to the timeframe in which the video was taken. No. 14-6344 United States v. Gibbs Page 5 also found that, even if the testimony did not constitute background evidence, it was not barred by Rule 404(b) because it served a permissible purpose—mainly, to help establish identity and motive. Therefore, the testimony was allowed (over defense counsel’s objection) after the district court first considered Godwin’s testimony outside the presence of the jury. Notably, the district court permitted the government to solicit Godwin’s testimony on direct examination, prior to any attempts by the defense to impeach Godwin’s credibility.