Court Opinion

ID: 9495818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:11:02.982462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:12.899289
License: Public Domain

McKEE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part, and dissenting in part.
I fully concur in the analysis Judge Greenberg sets forth in parts II A (“Motion to Suppress”), II C (“Morgan’s Testimony”), II D (“Base Offense Level and Firearms Enhancement”), and II E (“Ineffective Assistance of Counsel”) of the majority opinion. However, for the reasons that follow, I believe the district court’s denial of Givan’s motion in limine to exclude his prior conviction under Fed. R.Evid. 404(b) is inconsistent with our caselaw. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent from part II B of the majority opinion affirming that ruling.
I.
Fed. R. of Evid. 404(b) provides:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident ....
Although evidence of a prior “bad act” is admissible if it is being admitted to establish something other than the defendant’s character, we have cautioned that such testimony is not easily divorced from the improper purpose of suggesting bad character or criminal propensity. Thus, we have noted that “inquiries of relevance and proper purpose are intimately intertwined. Evidence that is not relevant, by definition cannot be offered for a proper purpose, and evidence that may be relevant for *466some purposes may be irrelevant for the purpose for which it is offered.” United States v. Morley, 199 F.3d 129, 133 (3d Cir.1999).
In order to insure that evidence offered under Rule 404(b) is being offered for a proper purpose and not merely to establish a defendant’s criminal propensities, we have held that the proponent of such evidence must clearly articulate why it is relevant for something other than establishing criminal propensity or character. In United States v. Himelwright, we declared “[t]he proponent must clearly articulate how that evidence fits into a chain of logical inferences, no link of which may be the inference that the defendant has the propensity to commit the crime charged.” 42 F.3d 777, 782 (3d Cir.1994) (emphasis added) (citing United States v. Jemal, 26 F.3d 1267, 1272 (3d Cir.1994)). That pronouncement is clearly the law of this circuit. Yet, it is so often honored in the breach that it resonates about as loudly as the proverbial tree that no one heard fall in the forest.
Here, the chain of inferences is forged from conclusory statements such as: “circumstances of this case illustrate the probative value of Givan’s past drug conviction on the question of whether he had knowledge of the heroin in the back seat; whether, with such knowledge, he had intent to secrete it; and that the presence of heroin immediately underneath his body was not there because of accident or mistake.” Maj. Op. at 460-461. That nexus would be tenuous at best even if the prior conviction involved heroin. However, Gi-van’s 1992 conviction involved cocaine, not heroin as is the case here, and there is absolutely nothing on this record that would allow the jury to make any meaningful or relevant comparison of the charged heroin to the prior cocaine distribution other than Givan’s character. Absent any testimony about the similarity of cocaine to heroin, the government simply cannot establish that familiarity with one is relevant to a defendant’s knowledge of the other. Rather, the cocaine conviction is only relevant because it establishes Givan’s character and his propensity for involvement with illegal drugs. The logical inference became: “He was guilty in 1992, so he must be guilty here.”
When asked, the prosecutor confirmed that the prior conviction was being admitted to establish “modus operandi,” and the district court accepted that. Trial Transcript Vol. I., pp.12, 36. The court further noted that the conviction could be relevant to “knowledge or absence of mistake,” Id. at 33-4. The prosecutor also insisted that the 1992 incident was admissible under Rule 404(b) by arguing that “[i]t ... goes to intent and absence of mistake.” Id. at 13.
In United States v. Sampson, we stated: “Although the government will hardly admit it, the reasons proffered to admit prior bad act evidence ... is often mixed between an urge to show some other consequential fact as well as to impugn the defendant’s character.” 980 F.2d 883, 886 (3d Cir.1992). The prosecution’s attempt to impugn Givan’s character, as well as the wisdom of Himelwright’s requirement that the proponent articulate a permissible chain of inferences, both become apparent from a careful study of this trial transcript.
The prosecutor initially insisted that the prior conviction was relevant because Gi-van had been arrested in a car where cocaine was later found hidden under a seat just as occurred here. The prosecutor suggested that this detail was more probative of Givan’s guilt here than the fact of his prior conviction. He argued:
The fact is, I called the sergeant [the arresting officer in 1992], he told me about the circumstances surrounding the *467arrest, and it seemed to me, and indeed I’m arguing here today, it is indeed more probative of the issue of intent and absence of mistake than would be just a piece of paper that says he was convicted of a drug offense.
Trial Transcript, Vol. I, p. 13. The prosecutor had subpoenaed Sgt. Beaird, the arresting officer from Iowa. Beaird participated in a controlled buy of cocaine from Givan in April of 1992. A warrant issued for Givaris arrest shortly after that buy. However, although Givan was placed under surveillance following the April distribution, he was not arrested until September of 1992. His car was searched following that arrest, and a quantity of cocaine was found under the driver’s seat. Givan had not been the driver when arrested, but he was questioned by Sgt. Beaird and admitted that the cocaine was his.1
Beaird informed the prosecutor of this background when the prosecutor contacted him about the 1992 conviction before this trial. The prosecutor then tried to admit Givaris confession regarding the cocaine in the car in 1992 as well as the conviction that had been the subject of the motion in limine. The district court explained, “as I understand, the government is ... under 404, claiming ... there was a similar mo-dus operandi, if you will, years ago would be probative of the fact that there was cocaine secreted under the seat in this instance. Are you going beyond that?” The prosecutor confirmed that this was the only reason he wanted to admit the confession. He responded: “No, Judge, I would just say that it was heroin in this case, cocaine in that case.” Trial Transcript, Vol. I., p 12. The court then sought further clarification and asked the prosecutor, “is your basis for seeking admissibility here, not that he was convicted, but that the drug was secreted in the same manner as you claim it was secreted here?” Id. The prosecutor responded: “Yes, that is the basis for it.” Id. at 13. The court then noted that the prior incident was “somewhat similar to the factual situation here, ... concealing ... the drug packet under ... or between the ... back seat.” Id. at 19 (emphasis added).
Thus, at this point, one could state the chain of inferences under Himelwright as follows: Givan was convicted of distributing cocaine in 1992 and cocaine was found under the seat of his car when he was arrested for that distribution. He admitted that the cocaine was his. Therefore, if one ignores the evidentiary disconnect between cocaine and heroin (other than its relation to criminal propensity) one could conclude that the prior conviction was being offered to show a similar “modus oper-andi” or method of hiding the controlled substance. Indeed, this is exactly why the prosecutor said he wanted to admit Givaris 1992 confession, and he insisted that he was not “going beyond that.”
However, this evidentiary chain does not survive close scrutiny. “[T]he government has been unable to articulate any theory that unites these isolated events which occurred six years apart, without resorting to the kind of character-based inference prohibited by Rule 404(b).” Government of the Virgin Islands v. Pinney, 967 F.2d 912, 916 (3d Cir.1992).
A jury can rationally infer from evidence that the defendant committed a prior crime in an unusual and distinctive manner and evidence that a second similar crime was committed in the same unusu*468al and distinctive manner that the defendant committed the second crime. This case, however, does not involve such signature evidence. The evidence concerning the manner in which the two alleged crimes were committed here was neither sufficiently detailed nor significantly unusual to permit any inference.... There are similarities between the two alleged incidents.... But these shared characteristics are not sufficiently unique....
Id. at 916; see also McCormick on Evidence § 190, at 559-60 (3rd ed. 1984) (“Much more is demanded than the mere repeated commission of crimes of the same class.... The pattern and characteristics must be so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.”).
The act of hiding illegal drugs under the seat of a car is hardly so -unique as to create an inference that it was the defendant who hid heroin under the car seat here because he had hidden cocaine under a car seat seven years before. Moreover, the court here did not allow any testimony about Givan’s September 1992 arrest, the subsequent confession, or the fact that cocaine was found under the car seat when he was arrested in 1992. After protracted argument by counsel and after hearing the testimony of Sgt. Beaird outside the presence of the jury, the district court ruled that the 1992 confession should not be admitted because it was obtained illegally,2 and that any probative value of Givan’s confession was outweighed by the danger of prejudice and confusion. See Trial Transcript, Vol III, pp. 52-3. Nevertheless, the prosecutor was permitted to inform the jury about Givan’s 1992 conviction even though the asserted (albeit tenuous) relevance of that conviction disappeared when the court refused to allow evidence of the September 1992 seizure and confession into evidence.
Accordingly, I fail to see how the 1992 conviction for cocaine distribution was probative of anything other than the fact that Givan was the kind of person who would have put the heroin under the seat. This is exactly what defense counsel argued in opposing this evidence. While objecting to evidence of the 1992 confession defense counsel argued: “Judge, ... it’s not showing knowledge or mistake. It’s showing a propensity. It’s ... suggesting what this defendant has a propensity to do.... And how do we show this? Because he’s done this before.... And I say, that’s not probative, that’s prejudicial.” Trial Transcript, Vol I, p. 35.
The government relies in part on United States v. Boone, 279 F.3d 163 (3d Cir.2002), in arguing that Givan’s prior conviction for cocaine was relevant for the proper purpose of establishing intent or absence of mistake. See Appellee’s Br. at 37. However, Boone, proves the contrary. Boone was charged with numerous offenses including illegal delivery of cocaine. 279 F.3d at 171. At trial, he attempted to argue that he was merely an ignorant “gofer” without any knowledge of the contents of the bags that he admitted delivering. Id. at 187. The trial court allowed the government to introduce evidence of Boone’s two prior convictions for cocaine distribution to rebut that defense. Id. We affirmed noting that the evidence of the prior convictions was “admitted to show that Boone was familiar with drug trafficking practices.... ” Id. The probative *469chain that bridged the evidentiary gap there is obvious. Boone’s familiarity with drug trafficking practices and his ability to recognize cocaine and its packaging was clearly relevant to determining if he knew what he was doing when he delivered bags to certain people. Id. The jury was not asked to swing across any break in the chain of logical inferences by clinging to an evidentiary vine woven from testimony of the defendant’s bad character and criminal propensity. Yet, here the prosecutor never articulated any “chain of logical inferences,” Jemal, 26 F.3d at 1272, relevant to anything other than propensity. That is all that connected the prior conviction to the heroin found in the car here.
The majority correctly notes that the trial court cautioned the jury not to consider this evidence as evidence of Givan’s criminal personality or bad character. Rather, the court told the jury that, based upon Givan’s familiarity with “the drug,” “you may consider that in determining whether — as he was seated in the back seat — •... he had knowledge of the heroin .... you may consider that conviction only for that limited purpose.” (emphasis added). However, as noted above, “the drug” involved in the prior conviction was cocaine, not heroin. Moreover, it can not seriously be argued that the act of placing drugs under the seat of a car is so unique as to imprint a defendant’s “signature” upon the crime. Pinney, 967 F.2d at 916. Absent some admissible evidence to forge the link required under Himelwright, the jury could only have considered the prior conviction to establish Givan’s criminal propensity.3 Accordingly, I cannot agree that the prior conviction was relevant and admissible evidence.
My colleagues stress that we must assume that jurors follow a judge’s instructions. The Majority concludes that we must therefore assume that the jury only considered the prior conviction for a proper purpose, and not as evidence of Givan’s character. See Maj. Op. at 462 (citing United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d. Cir.1991)). However, absent something akin to a “signature crime” or circumstances showing Givan’s familiarity with the way cocaine is packaged based upon the six year old conviction, the jury could hardly have considered this evidence for anything other than character. Nothing else ties the six year old cocaine conviction to Givan’s culpability here, and the district court’s instruction did not change that.
Indeed, the court in Morley also gave a cautionary charge; one that was much stronger than the one given here. Yet, we stated, “the court’s charge can not cure the danger inherent in the [bad acts] testimony....” 199 F.3d at 140.4 Similarly, the jury in Pinney was told:
*470The defendant is not on trial for committing acts not alleged in the Information. The defendant is on trial on the single charge in the Information. Therefore, you may not consider the evidence of a similar act as a substitute for proof that the defendant committed the crime charged in the Information, nor may you consider such evidence of a similar act as proof that the defendant has a criminal personality or a bad character. If you determine that the defendant committed the act charged in the Information and, also, committed one or more similar acts as well, then you may, but you need not, draw an inference that in doing one or more of them, and in doing the act charged in the Information, the defendant acted knowingly and intentionally and not because of some mistake, accident or other innocent reason. So, too, if you find that the defendant did engage in such alleged conduct, and if you find that such other conduct has sufficiently similar characteristics to that charged in the information, you may, but you need not, infer ... that the act charged in the Information and such other alleged, similar conduct, were part of a common plan or scheme permitted [sic] by the defendant. Evidence of similar acts may not be considered by you for any other purposes. Specifically, you may not use such evidence to conclude that because the defendant committed such other act, he must, also, have committed the act charged in the Information.
967 F.2d at 915. Finally, in Sampson, the court instructed:
Now you heard testimony regarding the defendant’s prior convictions for drug offenses. You may not consider the defendant’s prior convictions as evidence tending to establish a tendency to commit the offense with which he is charged in this case. In other words, you may not infer because the defendant was convicted of drug offenses in the past it is any more likely that he committed the offense charged in the indictment. You may consider the defendant’s prior convictions only as they relate to proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, and not for any other purpose.
980 F.2d at 888-89. Yet, we held in Sampson that, “[t]his instruction does not cure the error. Where the government has not clearly articulated reasons why the evidence is relevant to any legitimate purpose, there is no realistic basis to believe that the jury will cull the proper inferences and material facts from the evidence.” Accordingly, I must conclude that “there is no realistic basis to believe” that this jury was somehow able to “cull the proper inferences and material facts from the evidence” here.5
II.
Moreover, even assuming that the prior conviction was relevant for a proper pur*471pose, I believe that its probative value was still outweighed by its potential for prejudice and it therefore should have been excluded under Rule 403. Fed.R.Evid. 403 requires that the court balance the prejudicial impact of admissible evidence to insure that its probative value outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice. Jemal, 26 F.3d at 1272. This is, of course, particularly important when evidence of bad acts is being admitted under Rule 404(b).
There can be little doubt of the prejudicial impact of Givan’s prior conviction. Although the testimony of Morgan and Billings, if accepted, established that Givan was involved in a conspiracy to distribute heroin, the only evidence connecting Givan to the heroin in this case is the testimony of Billings. Of course, Billings was also in the car and could have placed the heroin under the rear seat himself. There was, in fact, testimony that could have raised a reasonable doubt regarding whether Billings placed the heroin under the seat, or whether Givan did. Trooper Rossi testified that when he approached the car the passenger seat where Billings was sitting was reclined and that at times Billings was turning around facing the rear passenger. Trial Transcript Vol. II, p 49. He also conceded on cross examination that he had previously testified that it appeared to him that Billings seemed to be reaching backwards “towards the back seat.” Id. at 96. Billings denied this and testified that he did not make any motions toward the back seat. Id., p. 237. However, the very fact that Billings disputed the Trooper’s testimony could have raised a reasonable doubt about Billings’ veracity and the joint and/or constructive possession of the heroin.
I realize, of course, that the combined testimony of Morgan and Billings may still have been enough to convince a jury either that Givan placed the heroin under the seat, or that he at least possessed it jointly in the course of a conspiracy to distribute it. However, testimony of Givan’s 1992 conviction creates too substantial a risk that the jury convicted Givan because of the propensity “evidenced” by that conviction and not because Billings’ testimony proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, the police actually found heroin on Billings. This combined with Billings’ obvious motive to fabricate and attribute the rest of the heroin in the car to someone else could easily have raised a reasonable doubt as to Givan’s involvement with the heroin in the car absent the evidence of Givaris conviction. Although one can argue that this is exactly why evidence of the prior conviction was relevant, that position flies in the face of the prohibition contained in Rule 404(b).
III.
The evidentiary evil of evidence of bad character is that it has this visceral relevance that subtly and “logically” suggests its admissibility absent the kind of careful scrutiny that HimelwrigM, and its progeny require. We all assume that one who has previously been convicted of dealing drugs is more likely to have something to do with drugs hidden in his vicinity than someone with no prior drug involvement. However, that logical inference is not one that Rule 404(b) allows the trier of fact to draw absent some other proper relationship between the prior conviction and subsequent illegal conduct he may be charged with. We addressed this visceral relevance in HimelwrigM. We concluded that it is only when the proponent is required to articulate a proper chain of inferences unconnected to character or propensity that the trial court can insure that evidence of bad acts is not being admitted for an improper purpose. 42 F.3d at 782.
*472Failure to follow the analysis we set forth there all too often results in evidence of propensity or bad character being paraded before the jury with the ever-present refrain of “intent, common scheme, plan, design, absence of mistake” that will always accompany an attempt to admit evidence under Rule 404(b). Absent more of an analysis than appears on this record, the discipline required under Rule 404(b) is easily displaced by “logical” but forbidden inferences that disguise propensity and character as something else. That is what happened here. Accordingly, I must dissent from the majority insofar as it concludes that Given’s prior conviction was properly admitted under Rule 404(b).

. For reasons I will explain infra, Givan was thereafter convicted only of the April delivery, and charges arising from the discovery of cocaine in his car and his confession were dismissed.

. Sgt. Beaird informed the court that the cocaine that was discovered was later suppressed along with Givan’s confession because the suppression court determined that the search was not conducted pursuant to a general policy for inventory searches. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). Accordingly, Givan was only convicted of the earlier distribution of cocaine in April 1992.

. The gap in the required chain of logical inferences is all the more egregious here because Beaird was available as a witness and the prosecutor therefore had an opportunity to question him about the appearance of the cocaine he purchased in 1992, and establish how it compared to the heroin taken from the car here that the Troopers would describe. See Trial Transcript, Vol III, pp. 1-18.

. The court in Morley charged:
[Yjou've heard evidence of ... the alleged act of the defendant obtaining notary seals on bonds of ... Mr. DeStefano. There are no charges pending in this case with respect to that. You must not consider any of that evidence in deciding if the defendant committed the acts charged in the indictment.
However, you may consider this evidence for other very limited purposes. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt from other evidence in this case that the defendant did commit the acts charged in the indictment, then you may consider evidence of similar alleged conduct on another occasion ... to determine whether the defendant had the state of mind or intent necessary to commit *470the crime or crimes charged in the present indictment....
[Y]ou are only permitted to use that other conduct to show his intent ... in the present indictment. They are not permitted to show that he is — his general character. That would be an improper use of that evidence.
199 F.3d at 140

. Of course, "[t]he foregoing discussion ... seems very much beside the point to any experienced litigator. The obvious reason the government wanted [the prior conviction] testimony before the jury was because of the substantial likelihood that one or more members of the jury would use this highly inflammatory evidence for exactly the purpose Rule 404(b) declared to be improper....” Pinney, 967 F.2d at 917.