ILNews

Circuit Court orders new trial on Rule 404(b) grounds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has found an Indiana federal court should not have allowed evidence of a defendant’s prior drug convictions under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). As a result of the violation, the judges reversed the man’s drug conviction and ordered a new trial.

In United States of America v. Billy L. Hicks, No. 09-3608, Billy Hicks appealed his conviction of knowingly distributing cocaine base, challenging the dismissal of a juror based on her relationship to his girlfriend, who was a witness; admittance of tape recordings between Hicks and a confidential informant; and the District Court’s allowance of federal agents to testify regarding their personal observations during an arranged drug buy.

Hicks also challenged the trial court’s allowance of two prior drug convictions under Rule 404(b) to prove his knowledge of the drug industry and his intent to distribute crack cocaine during a July 2006 sale to the confidential informant. On this issue, the 7th Circuit ordered Hicks’ conviction be vacated.

The government never explained why the prior convictions were relevant to show that Hicks’ actions were a result of a mistake, wrote Judge Ann Claire Williams, and the Circuit Court was also not persuaded by the government’s argument that the prior convictions were admissible to show intent.

Hicks didn’t put his intent at issue during the government’s case-in-chief. Hicks also didn’t introduce his entrapment defense until after the government’s case-in-chief. The government should have waited until after Hicks’ entrapment defense materialized to offer the convictions, she wrote.

“In our view, the only apparent relevance of the prior convictions was the very inference that Rule 404(b) prohibits — that is, that Hicks had sold drugs in the past and probably did so this time as well,” the judge continued. “The government has failed to demonstrate that Hicks’s prior convictions established knowledge, lack of mistake, or intent.”

This error affected Hicks’ substantial rights, so the Circuit Court vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial.

The judges also ruled that the District Court did not err in dismissing for cause the juror who recognized Hicks’ girlfriend’s voice once she began testifying; in admitting the taped recordings between Hicks and the confidential informant, who had died before trial; and in admitting FBI agents’ testimony regarding alleged counter surveillance during an attempted meeting with Hicks.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT