United States v. Barry Mills
704 F.2d 1553, 13 Fed. R. Serv. 396, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 27500 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a defendant's involvement in a criminal organization and other related acts is admissible if it is inextricably intertwined with the charged offense, forming the context, motive, and setup of the crime, provided its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Additionally, copying an inmate's correspondence does not violate the Fourth Amendment if it serves a legitimate penological need for security and crime investigation.
Facts:
- On May 20, 1979, inmate John Sherman Marzloff was stabbed to death in the recreation shack of the United States penitentiary in Atlanta.
- The prosecution's theory was that Marzloff had cheated Tommy Silverstein, a "commissioner" in the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang, in a drug transaction.
- As a result, Silverstein allegedly put out a murder "contract" on Marzloff.
- This contract was allegedly communicated to Barry Mills, another Aryan Brotherhood "commissioner" at the Atlanta penitentiary.
- Danny Holliday, another inmate, accompanied Mills to the recreation shack, armed with a knife, at the time of the murder.
- Another inmate, Robert Lee Hogan, who had a history of other murders, confessed multiple times to killing Marzloff, though his confession contained factual errors matching an incorrect newspaper report.
- During his incarceration, Mills wrote a letter to another inmate using Aryan Brotherhood slang, discussing gang activities and alluding to other crimes, which was intercepted and copied by prison officials.
Procedural Posture:
- Barry Mills was convicted by a jury in the U.S. District Court for murder and conspiracy to commit murder in violation of federal law.
- Mills, the appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence of a defendant's membership and activities in a prison gang, along with a letter he wrote discussing gang activities, admissible to prove the context and motive for a charged murder conspiracy, or is such evidence barred as improper character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) or as unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403?
Opinions:
Majority - Vance, Circuit Judge
No, the admission of the evidence is not barred. Evidence that is inextricably intertwined with the charged offense is admissible to provide the jury with the context, motive, and setup of the crime, subject to the balancing test of Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The court found that the evidence regarding the Aryan Brotherhood was not extrinsic "other acts" evidence under Rule 404(b) but was intrinsic to the crime, as it was necessary to make the events comprehensible to a jury. It explained how the gang functioned, established Mills's membership, provided a motive for a contract killing, and showed how such a contract could be communicated between prisons. The court then applied the Rule 403 balancing test and concluded that the probative value of this contextual evidence was substantial and not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, especially given the covert nature of the prison gang. Similarly, testimony about witnesses' fear of the gang was deemed essential to rebut the defense's impeachment strategy that witnesses were fabricating testimony to gain entry into the Witness Protection Program. The court also held that copying Mills's letter did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights because prison officials have a legitimate penological interest in monitoring inmate correspondence to maintain security and investigate crime, making the minimal intrusion of photocopying reasonable.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the "inextricably intertwined" doctrine, allowing prosecutors greater latitude to introduce evidence of a defendant's affiliation with criminal organizations and related uncharged acts. It establishes that when such evidence is necessary to provide a coherent narrative of the crime, including motive and context, it is treated as intrinsic to the offense and is not presumptively barred by Rule 404(b). The analysis then shifts primarily to the Rule 403 balancing test, where the necessity of the evidence to explain the crime is weighed against its prejudicial effect. This case reinforces the principle that while relevant evidence is often prejudicial, it is only unfair prejudice that warrants exclusion, thereby setting a high bar for defendants seeking to exclude contextual evidence of gang activity in conspiracy cases.
