United States v. Hitt
981 F.2d 422 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, evidence must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury. Where evidence has very slight probative value, it is an abuse of discretion for a court to admit it if there is even a modest likelihood of unfair prejudice or a small risk of misleading the jury.
Facts:
- Dale Lee Hitt was prosecuted for possessing an unregistered machine gun, which the government alleged he had illegally modified from a semiautomatic rifle.
- Hitt's defense was that the rifle malfunctioned and fired automatically because its internal parts were dirty, worn, or defective, or that it had been modified by a previous owner.
- The government's expert testified that the rifle fired automatically in a test.
- Hitt's expert, whose test was witnessed by two police officers, testified that the rifle did not fire automatically.
- To rebut the defense's theory about defective internal parts, the prosecution introduced a photograph of the rifle.
- The photograph showed Hitt's rifle alongside approximately a dozen other weapons, including assault-style rifles and knives.
- These other weapons in the photograph belonged to Hitt's housemate, not to Hitt himself.
Procedural Posture:
- Dale Lee Hitt was prosecuted in U.S. District Court (trial court) for possession of an unregistered machine gun.
- At trial, the government introduced a photograph of the rifle along with other weapons; Hitt's counsel objected under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
- The district court overruled the objection and admitted the photograph into evidence.
- A jury convicted Hitt of the charge.
- Hitt, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the trial court erred by admitting the prejudicial photograph. The United States was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a photograph depicting the defendant's rifle alongside numerous other weapons owned by a third party violate Federal Rule of Evidence 403 when the photograph has minimal probative value and a high risk of creating unfair prejudice and misleading the jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Kozinski, J.
Yes, the admission of the photograph violates Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Its minimal probative value was substantially outweighed by the significant danger of unfair prejudice and misleading the jury. The photograph's probative value was 'exceedingly small' because the defense theory centered on the rifle's internal condition (dirt, wear, defects), which is not revealed by its external appearance. The photograph was also too distant to discern any detail about the rifle's external condition. Conversely, the photograph was highly prejudicial and misleading because it depicted an arsenal of 'nasty-looking weapons' that the jury would inevitably, though incorrectly, attribute to Hitt, as his housemate was never mentioned at trial. This could lead the jury to convict based on character—seeing Hitt as a dangerous person—rather than on the evidence. It could also mislead them into logically but falsely concluding that a gun enthusiast with so many weapons would know about modifications or keep them clean, thus undermining his defense. Because the photograph's potential for prejudice and confusion was high and its probative value was nearly zero, admitting it was an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This case serves as a clear illustration of the application of the Federal Rule of Evidence 403 balancing test, emphasizing that a trial court's discretion is not limitless. It establishes that when evidence has extremely low probative value, even a modest risk of unfair prejudice is sufficient for exclusion. The ruling cautions prosecutors against introducing evidence, such as other weapons not used in the crime, that serves primarily to paint the defendant as a bad or dangerous person. This precedent strengthens the protection against convictions based on character assassination rather than on evidence directly relevant to the charged offense.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Hitt