ILNews

7th Circuit cautions about propensity inference

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed a man's drug convictions with intent to distribute, but questioned how a previous drug conviction showed the man had intent or absence of mistake in the instant case.

Titorian Webb appealed his convictions of possessing cocaine, marijuana, and ecstasy with intent to deliver in United States of America v. Titorian O. Webb, No. 08-1338, challenging the admittance of his 1996 conviction of distributing cocaine. The District Court allowed the prosecutor to introduce the 1996 conviction to show Webb's intent and the absence of mistake under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).

"It is hard to see how the 1996 conviction shows either intent or absence of mistake," wrote Judge Frank Easterbrook.

The charges against Webb had an intent element, but Webb argued he didn't possess the drugs found in his girlfriend's house for any purpose. In terms of the absence of mistake element, Judge Easterbrook questioned how a conviction could show this except by the prohibited inference that a person who had distributed drugs once would do it again. The apparent position of the prosecutor - that a drug conviction can always be used in another drug prosecution, even if the crimes have nothing else in common - was rejected by United States v. Beasley, 809 F.2d 1273 (7th Cir. 1987), and United States v. Simpson, 479 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2007).

There are several case holdings showing a district judge hadn't erred in admitting prior convictions to show intent or absence of mistake in drug prosecutions, including United States v. Hurn, 496 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 2007). None of the opinions explain why a prior conviction shows intent or absence of a mistake, but it could be because the parties assumed the evidence was relevant and didn't present the question in an adversarial manner for decision on appeal, wrote the judge.

But the appellate court decided not to tackle the "tension" between Beasley and Hurn in the instant case because "even the lighter harmless-error standard would require us to affirm Webb's conviction," wrote Judge Easterbrook.

Based on the evidence, the fact Webb had a drug conviction on his record couldn't have affected the jury's verdict.

"The harmless-error rule means that district judges, rather than courts of appeals, are the principal enforcers of limits on other-crime evidence," he wrote. "We trust that district judges will review evidence of this kind carefully to ensure that it really is relevant, and serves a legitimate goal rather than leading to the forbidden propensity inference."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT