Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Akeem Caldwell, 3rd Cir. (2014)
United States v. Akeem Caldwell, 3rd Cir. (2014)
10
4:28, at 731.
Finally, and if the defendant requests it, the court
must provide a limiting instruction, which advises the
jury that the evidence is admissible for a limited purpose
and may not be considered in another manner. Davis, 726
F.3d at 445. If such a request is made, the court should
provide the instruction at the time the evidence is
admitted. Id.
To summarize, Rule 404(b) provides that prior act
evidence is inadmissible unless the evidence is (1)
offered for a proper non-propensity purpose that is at
issue in the case; (2) relevant to that identified purpose;
(3) sufficiently probative under Rule 403 such that its
probative value is not outweighed by any inherent danger
of unfair prejudice; and (4) accompanied by a limiting
instruction, if requested. Davis, 726 F.3d at 441 (citing
United States v. Huddleston, 485 U.S. 681, 69192
(1988). With these principles in mind, we turn to whether
the evidence of Caldwells prior convictions was
properly admitted. We address the four factors seriatim.
B.
(1)
We first consider whether the government offered
Caldwells prior convictions for an acceptable, nonpropensity purposei.e., one that is at issue in, or
20
404(b) forbids.
We can envision numerous scenarios where, with
slightly different facts, a proper, non-propensity chain
might be forged. For example, assume that Caldwells
knowledge was at issue because he claimed to have
believed the gun in his hand was a toy. Under this
hypothetical, the chain of inferences leading to the
admissibility of the evidence would be as follows:
Caldwell was twice previously convicted of unlawful
firearm possession; he is, thus, familiar with the touch
and feel of an authentic firearm; and because he knows
what a real firearm feels like, it is more likely that he
knew the gun in his hand on this occasion was a real
firearm.
Alternatively, assume the gun was discovered
inside a backpack that Caldwell was carrying, and that he
defended the charge by claiming the gun was placed
there without his knowledge. If the proffered evidence
consisted of eyewitness testimony that Caldwell
threatened another individual with a black handgun two
hours before his arrest, the chain of logical inferences
could be forged as follows: Caldwell possessed a black
handgun earlier that evening, therefore it is less likely
that a similar black handgun was unknowingly deposited
in his backpack.
Importantly, however, the chain of inferences in
this latter hypothetical may not necessarily extend to
33
C.
The Government maintains that, even if erroneous,
the admission of Caldwells prior convictions does not
warrant reversal because any error was harmless. The
test for harmless error is whether it is highly probable
that the error did not contribute to the judgment. United
States v. Cunningham, 694 F.3d 372, 39192 (3d Cir.
2012) (citations omitted). This [h]igh probability
requires that the court possess a sure conviction that the
error did not prejudice the defendant. Id. at 392.
To support its claim that the error was harmless,
the Government contends that the remainder of the
evidence offered against Caldwell was overwhelming,
noting that two detectives testified that they observed
Caldwell with the gun and no one was able to place the
gun in Tigneys hands. Though the prosecutions case
may have been strong, it does not provide us with a sure
conviction that the evidence of Caldwells prior
convictions did not contribute to the judgment.
This is not a case where the defendant declined to
offer a substantive defense and chose instead to hold the
government to its burden of proof. Rather, Caldwell
vigorously maintained his innocence throughout both
trials, testifying on his own behalf and introducing
witness testimony corroborating his claim that he held a
cell phone rather than a firearm. Caldwells theory that
Tigney possessed the firearm was bolstered by evidence
39
so:
[T]he respective rules operate in two completely
different situations. In a criminal setting,
evidence offered under Rule 404(b) is
substantive evidence against the accused, i.e., it
is part of the governments case offered to
prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Rule
609 evidence on the other hand has to do with
the accuseds ability to tell the truth when
testifying on his or her own behalf. While both
rules speak of probative value and
prejudice, it is critical to note that evidence
offered under the respective rules is probative
as to different matters. The probative character
of evidence under Rule 609 has to do with
credibility of a witness, while 404(b)
probativeness essentially goes to the question
41
43
14
15
53