Cooperating Witness's Evidence - Essay Example

MEMORANDUM This memorandum is respectfully submitted by to senior counsel pursuant to their request for research. In the matter of v. Doris, it has been averred that the prosecution intends to introduce evidence that defendant had been arrested 15 years ago for domestic violence to a previous spouse; the spouse had refused to testify, and the charges were dropped. In addition, the prosecution intends to call a witness who will testify that the defendant had a reputation for being loud and had a habit of yelling at sports games. FACTS Defendant Doris Night took her daughter to lacrosse practice. The defendant got into an argument with another parent, one Rocky Hadson, about too much rough housing by the children on the field. After arguing for a minute or so, the victim Hadson, who was much smaller than defendant Night, pushed the defendant, and called her the name "Doris-of-the-Night." The defendant knocked the decedent down, kicked him several times, and repeatedly slammed the mans head against the floor, before being pulled off by other parents. Rocky was dead. Doris was charged with manslaughter. Case Analysis: U.S. v. Thomas, 58 F.3d 1320 (1995) FACTS On October 27, 1992, detectives from the Pulaski County Sheriffs Office Narcotics Division went to Apartment 26-B, Brentwood Apartments in Little Rock, Arkansas, to execute an arrest warrant for Ronald Wayne Thomas. When the detectives arrived, they were met by Thomass cousin, who directed them to the rear of the apartment. As the detectives moved through the apartment, one of them heard the sound of a toilet flushing and the sound of the ceramic lid of the toilets water tank being replaced. Thomas was discovered standing in a bathroom off a hallway leading to the master bedroom, which was in the rear of the apartment. He was arrested and advised of his Miranda rights. He was also advised of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. Thomas verbally consented to a search of the apartment, and later executed a written consent form. During the search, a small amount of “crack” cocaine was seized, as were numerous drug-related items. Thomas was taken into custody, but the original warrant was not executed because Thomas agreed to cooperate with the detectives. Thomas subsequently refused to cooperate, and on December 15, 1993, he was charged in a one-count indictment with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). ISSUE Are prior bad acts admissible at trial? Rule As a general rule, under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of prior bad acts is not admissible when introduced solely to support a propensity inference. Rule 404(b) evidence is admissible in the governments case-in-chief when the defendant places his state of mind in issue, even if state of mind is placed in issue by means of a general denial defense. Analysis However, prior bad acts evidence is admissible when used to prove a state of mind that is a material issue at trial. United States v. Thomas, 58 F.3d 1318, 1320 (1995). This circuit has taken the view that Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion that precludes admission of evidence when that evidence is relevant solely to the defendants character. United States v. Wiley, 29 F.3d 345, 350 (8th Cir.). The permissible uses of other bad acts evidence may be categorized as involving either state of mind or identity. Compare 8th Cir.Model Crim.Jury Instr. 2.08 (1994) (acts introduced to prove state of mind) with 8th Cir.Model Crim.Jury Instr. 2.09 (1994) (acts introduced to prove identity when the defendant denies only the criminal act). If, he does not place his state of mind in issue Rule 404(b) renders this type of evidence inadmissible. Conclusion Because Thomass “mere presence” defense raises these issues of intent and knowledge, admission of the prior bad acts evidence was not relevant solely to a propensity inference, and was therefore proper under Rule 404(b). Case Analysis: U.S. v. Cole, 488 F.Supp.2d 792 (2007) FACTS Defendant was charged with possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine, possessing marijuana, and maintaining premises for drug crimes. Parties filed cross-motions in limine to exclude certain categories of evidence. ISSUE Is evidence of defendants prior convictions for drug offenses admissible as prior bad acts? RULE Courts will reverse admission of prior “bad acts” evidence only when such evidence clearly had no bearing on case and was introduced solely to prove defendants propensity to commit criminal acts. ANALYSIS Evidence of defendants prior convictions for drug offenses is admissible at trial as to instant charges of possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine, possessing marijuana and maintaining premises for drug crimes; if such evidence is relevant to showing knowledge and intent where defendant denied charged drug offenses, and convictions were recent and similar in kind to charged offenses. CONCLUSION A cooperating witnesss evidence is neither so voluminous nor so unrelated to the charged offenses as it was and has substantially greater probative value. Therefore, the cooperating witnesss testimony will be admissible at trial in this case. Read More