Fifth Circuit
Case: United States v. Jones, No. 18-50086, 2019 WL 2127566, at *1 (5th Cir. May 16, 2019)
Type of Case: Criminal
Charges/Counts: (1) Possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine; (2) Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine; (3) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; (4) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Rule(s) of Evidence Cited
- The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause
Holding: The Fifth Circuit held that the defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated by a case agent’s testimony about information he received from a confidential source. The Court vacated the conviction.
At trial, the government offered the testimony of a federal agent. In explaining why law enforcement stopped the defendant’s car, the agent testified that the agent’s confidential source had told him that the defendant had received a large amount of methamphetamine. The defendant objected to this testimony, arguing that it violated the Confrontation Clause because the defendant had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the confidential source. The district court overruled the objection.
The Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred. And because the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the Fifth Circuit vacated the conviction. The Court reasoned: “Because Agent Clayborne’s testimony about his conversation with the confidential informant ‘point[ed] directly at the defendant and his guilt in the crime charged,’ it was not a permissible use of tipster evidence.”
- FRE 404(b)(2)
Holding: The Fifth Circuit held that the district court’s admission of the defendant’s prior conviction did not violate Rule 404(b)(2).
During the trial, the government had introduced the defendant’s prior conviction for participation in a methamphetamine conspiracy. The defendant argued that the court’s admission of this conviction violated Rule 404(b)(2).
The Fifth Circuit disagreed for two reasons. One, the Court ruled that Rule 404(b)(2) did not apply because the government had charged the defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm. According to the Court, the defendant’s prior conviction was directly relevant to that offense. Jones, 2019 WL 2127566, at *4 (“[The defendant] was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the evidence of his prior conviction was relevant and necessary to establish an element of this offense, namely, that he was a felon.”). Two, even if Rule 404(b) did apply, the district court was within its discretion in holding that the prior conviction was admissible under that rule.
You can read the entire opinion here: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/18-50086/18-50086-2019-05-16.pdf?ts=1558027857
Seventh Circuit
Case: Varlen Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 17-3212, 2019 WL 2135551, at *2 (7th Cir. May 16, 2019)
Type of Case: Civil
Charges/Counts: Declaratory judgment action regarding insurance policies.
Rule(s) of Evidence Cited
- FRE 702
Holding: The Seventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the testimony of a geologist regarding the nature of chemical leaks.
In an insurance coverage dispute case, Varlen Corporation offered expert testimony to prove that chemical leaks or discharges were “sudden and accidental.” The insurer moved to strike the testimony as unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 (1993). The district court struck the testimony, finding it unreliable.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Court wrote: “In short, [the expert] failed to demonstrate that his conclusions were anything more than guesses.”
You can read the entire opinion here: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/17-3212/17-3212-2019-05-16.pdf?ts=1558027887
Eighth Circuit
Case: United States v. Bradley, No. 18-2295, 2019 WL 2096592, at *1 (8th Cir. May 13, 2019)
Type of Case: Criminal
Charges/Counts: 28 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 841(b)(1)(B) and 851 (possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base); 18 §§ U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (felon in possession of a firearm).
Rule(s) of Evidence Cited
- FRE 404(b)(2)/FRE 403
Holding: The Eighth Circuit held that the government’s admission of jail phone calls made by the defendant was not 404(b) evidence.
At trial, the government offered recordings of phone calls that the defendant had made from jail after his arrest. In the calls, he discussed the facts surrounding his arrest. The defendant argued that the district court’s admission of the calls violated Rule 404(b)(2) because they were “improper prior-bad-acts evidence.” The defendant also argued that the calls were substantially more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the court’s admission of the calls. As for Rule 404(b), the Court wrote: “[The defendant’s] post-arrest statements express concern about the charges against him, which is direct evidence of consciousness of guilt. The evidence is thus intrinsic to his charged crimes, so Rule 404(b) does not apply.” As for Rule 403, the Court wrote that “Evidence is not unfairly prejudicial merely because it tends to prove a defendant’s guilt.”
You can read the entire opinion here: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/18-2295/18-2295-2019-05-13.pdf?ts=1557761420
