Court Opinion

ID: 9489602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:19:34.443679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:37.055530
License: Public Domain

ROGERS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
The law in this circuit has long cautioned the district court and the prosecutor about the grave prejudice to the defendant that may result from the introduction of other-crimes evidence, particularly where the other crime is identical, or nearly identical, to the crime for which the defendant is on trial. See United States v. Dockery, 955 F.2d 50, 53 (D.C.Cir.1992); United States v. Daniels, 770 F.2d 1111, 1116 (D.C.Cir.1985); see also Drew v. United States, 331 F.2d 85 (D.C.Cir.1964). The implication of our decisions is that there is a point at which the district court has a sua sponte duty to act. Otherwise, the district court risks reversal for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).
For reasons made explicit in United States v. Jones, 67 F.3d 320, 324-25 (D.C.Cir.1995), it was improper for the district court and the prosecutor to refer in the presence of the jury to the nature of Myles’ underlying conviction for the charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The nature of the underlying felony is not part of the government’s burden of proof. Jones, 67 F.3d at 324-25 (and cases cited). Thus, contrary to the government’s suggestion on appeal, Appellee’s Br. at 18, with which the court apparently agrees, Maj. Op. at 8, the absence of a defense offer to stipulate to the prior felony conviction did not render permissible otherwise impermissible and gratuitous references to the nature of the prior conviction; the failure to stipulate was irrelevant.1 Moreover, defense counsel’s attempts at amelioration during argument to the jury following the prosecutor’s opening reference to the nature of the prior conviction indicated concern about the prejudice, not a waiver of the right to be free from it. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 733, 113 S.Ct. at 1777. Nor can the record reasonably be read to suggest that Myles’ counsel had chosen a deliberate defense tactic of allowing repeated references to unnecessary, prejudicial evidence.
Rather than establishing a per se rule, this court has left the fashioning of appropriate remedies to the district court. See, e.g., Daniels, 770 F.2d at 1115. Surely, the district court appreciated the prejudice to Myles without having to be reminded of this court’s prior entreaty to “proceed with caution.” See id. at 1118. Yet, unlike the district court in Jones, 67 F.3d at 322, it did not even instruct the jury not to consider Myles’ prior conviction as evidence of his guilt on the cocaine distribution charge for which he was *498being tried. See United States v. Fennell, 53 F.3d 1296, 1302 (D.C.Cir.1995), rev’d in part on other grounds per curiam on reh’g, 77 F.3d 510 (1996); Daniels, 770 F.2d at 1118; see also United States v. Poore, 594 F.2d 39, 41-42 (4th Cir.1979). But see United States v. Rhodes, 62 F.3d 1449, 1454 (D.C.Cir.1995), vacated on other grounds mem., - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1562, 134 L.Ed.2d 662 (1996). In the end what saves the conviction for the government is the absence of a colorable defense by Myles. Unlike Jones, 67 F.3d at 325, where the evidence left room for a defense of casual user, the government’s strong evidence left Myles’ weak misidentifieation defense in tatters. Accordingly, I concur in holding that Myles has failed to show the requisite prejudice for reversal. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. at 1777.

. In Jones, the court noted circuit precedent consistent with the government’s concession that the district court erred in permitting the jury to learn the nature of Jones' prior felony conviction after Jones had offered to stipulate to his status as a felon. 67 F.3d at 325 n. 10. The court did not suggest that it condoned unnecessary prejudicial references to the nature of a prior conviction in the absence of an offer to stipulate. See id. at 323 (quoting from and adopting the First Circuit’s approach in United States v. Tavares, 21 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1994)); Jones, 67 F.3d at 324.