Opinion ID: 1436466
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Flight Evidence and the Government's Arguments

Text: Ajijola failed to object to the pre-trial motion to introduce evidence of his flight from law enforcement. Likewise, Ajijola did not object during closing argument when the government asserted that hearing running water in the bathroom is synonymous to hearing flushing. So we review the admission of the flight evidence and the assertions made by the government for plain error. United States v. Schalk, 515 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir.2008); United States v. Johnson, 437 F.3d 665, 671 (7th Cir.2006). Under the plain error standard, the party asserting the error must establish (1) that there was in fact an error; (2) that the error was plain; and (3) that the error affects substantial rights. U.S. v. Van Allen, 524 F.3d 814, 819 (7th Cir.2008) (citations omitted). Moreover, we will not consider the error unless it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. (citations omitted). Ajijola argues that it was plain error to admit the flight evidence because the attempt to escape from police occurred more than three months after the relevant conduct and there was a compelling alternative explanation for his flight, i.e., he was not legally in the United States on the date of his arrest. [2] Further, Ajijola asserts that there was no evidence that he believed he was being pursued for the acts charged in the indictment. In support of this argument, Ajijola cites to United States v. Jackson, 572 F.2d 636 (7th Cir.1978), where this Court held that evidence of flight should have been excluded because three and one-half months had elapsed between the time that the defendant committed the crime charged and his flight from authorities. Jackson held that the more remote in time the flight is from the commission or accusation of an offense, the greater the likelihood that the flight was the result of something other than a sense of guilt concerning that offense. Id. at 641. Conversely, the importance of the immediacy factor is greatly diminished, if not rendered irrelevant, when there is evidence that the defendant knows that he is accused of and sought for the commission of the crime charged. Id. Accordingly, Jackson concluded that when a defendant's flight occurs a substantial time after the crime, we will place significance on a defendant's knowledge that he is accused of or sought for the crime charged. Id. The government counters that the conspiracy in which Ajijola was charged occurred from the late summer 2003 through the date of his arrest. And, co-defendant Chief Nuamah (Chief) testified at trial that co-conspirator James U. Nduribe (Rasta) (who was never apprehended) telephoned Ajijola on the morning of Ajijola's arrest to tell him that police were looking for Chief and Rasta. Therefore, the government maintains that at a minimum, on the morning of his arrest, Ajijola knew that law enforcement was looking for two of his co-conspirators. In addition, there was testimony at trial that police were, in fact, looking for Ajijola on the date of his arrest. Nor did Ajijola present any testimony or evidence to support a contention that he was fleeing law enforcement because of his immigration status. The government maintains that the proximity of time between the telephone call and Ajijola's back-door exit from his apartment shows a strong connection between his criminal behavior and the flight and, accordingly, his flight to avoid apprehension supports a strong inference of a consciousness of guilt concerning the crimes charged. Nor does it appear that the evidence complained of seriously affected the outcome of the case. Schalk, 515 F.3d at 777. The government presented evidence that Rasta told Ajijola that the police were looking for Rasta and Chief on the date of his arrest; hours later when police arrived at his apartment, Ajijola tried to flee from the premises. The flight evidence was admissible to support an inference of consciousness of guilt of the crimes charged. And even if the flight evidence had been excluded, the remaining evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Ajijola was involved in a conspiracy to distribute heroin. We therefore find no error, plain or otherwise. Nor was it error to allow the government to argue the reasonable inferences during closing argument. There is nothing in the record that would warrant a new trial.