Opinion ID: 379254
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admissibility of Evidence of Other Crimes

Text: 11 As previously noted, the indictment charged Watson with falsely responding to a question whether he had ever requested other contractors to submit a complementary bid on his behalf. At trial, he moved in limine for a two-pronged order excluding evidence (1) that Watson had been involved in bid rigging and (2) that he submitted complementary bids at the request of any other contractor. The trial judge denied the motion, and on appeal, defendant contends such denial was error. 12 Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits the admission of evidence of crimes extrinsic to the one charged in the indictment if such evidence is offered to prove knowledge (and like matters) rather than merely to prove criminal disposition. 9 Watson does not dispute that the evidence he sought to exclude by his motion in limine is relevant to the question whether he knew the negative answer he gave to the grand jury was false. Watson does contend, however, that the admission of the evidence was improper because it was not necessary to the government's case and because it made the jury conclude that the (d)efendant had a propensity for perjurious acts despite a cautionary instruction that the evidence was to be considered only with regard to the element of knowledge. These arguments are apparently based on Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 10 13 The balancing of probity and prejudice required under Rule 403 is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, United States v. Fairchild, 526 F.2d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 942, 96 S.Ct. 1682, 48 L.Ed.2d 186 (1976), and we are obligated to afford substantial deference to the evidentiary ruling of the trial court. United States v. Dolliole, 597 F.2d 102, 107 (7th Cir. 1975). Although our review might have been facilitated by written findings on this issue by the district court, we do not believe the district court here abused its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence. 14 The evidence adduced at trial showed a scheme for the exchange of complementary bids. Evidence that Watson asked for complementary bids was necessary to demonstrate that he was aware of the falsity of his testimony before the grand jury. Evidence challenged under the second prong of his motion, namely evidence that he submitted, or agreed to submit, complementary bids for others, was so intertwined with proof of his solicitation of bids that one practice could not be adequately demonstrated without testimony about the others. Given this interplay, evidence that Watson submitted bids for others has great probative value. We do not believe that this evidence was unnecessary since it was a crucial part of each witness' explanation of the manner in which the contractors allegedly sought to allocate construction projects among themselves. Cf. United States v. Aleman, 592 F.2d 881, 885-86 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Jones, 438 F.2d 461, 465-66 (7th Cir. 1971). 15 Any prejudice arising from the admission of evidence of Watson's submission of bids for others was slight. The judge properly instructed the jury concerning the proper use of this evidence. 11 We do not find, as Watson contends, that the jury was misled. This is not a case in which evidence of acts other than those charged in the indictment was misused or argued improperly to the jury. See United States v. Vargas, 583 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1978); United States v. Goodwin, 492 F.2d 1141 (5th Cir. 1974). 16 Our discussion has not addressed Watson's primary and broader request for exclusion of all evidence of his involvement with bid-rigging. Nowhere in the record do we find a specification of what this request entailed. To the extent the request covered proof of his solicitation of bids, it was properly rejected since that evidence was highly probative of the element of knowledge. To the extent it referred to Watson's submission of complementary bids, the request was duplicative of the more specific prong of the motion which we have discussed. We find the district court properly rejected both parts of Watson's motion in limine.