United States v. Kim Arnold
29 Fed. R. Serv. 482, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 17671, 890 F.2d 825 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of prior joint criminal activity between a defendant and a defense witness is admissible to impeach the witness by showing bias, provided its probative value in demonstrating the witness's potential to slant testimony is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
Facts:
- In Spring 1983, Dennis Erikson and Stephen Powell arranged to store a large shipment of marijuana at a property in Galesburg, Michigan, that Kim Arnold was purchasing.
- A few weeks before the shipment, Arnold told one of his own marijuana customers to 'stick around.'
- On or about August 15, 1983, a semi-truck carrying 43,000 pounds of marijuana from Colombia arrived at the property.
- Over the next two days, approximately 8,000 to 10,000 pounds of the marijuana were transported to Arnold's property for distribution by Arnold and a co-defendant.
- Witnesses identified Arnold as one of the biggest customers for this shipment, receiving 2,000 to 3,000 pounds on consignment.
- Frederick Schmalfeldt testified that he purchased approximately 6,000 pounds of marijuana from Arnold at the property.
- At trial, Arnold presented an alibi defense, claiming he was 138 miles away in Ludington, Michigan, from August 12 through August 21, 1983.
- John Lewellen, a long-time friend of Arnold, testified in support of the alibi, stating he was with Arnold in Ludington for that entire period.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury returned a three-count indictment against Kim Arnold and 16 other defendants.
- The defendants were severed into two groups for trial in the U.S. District Court.
- At the conclusion of his trial, a jury found Arnold guilty of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute.
- The district court sentenced Arnold to thirteen years in prison and imposed a $20,000 fine.
- Arnold, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by allowing the prosecution to cross-examine a defense alibi witness about prior drug transactions with the defendant for the purpose of showing the witness's bias?
Opinions:
Majority - Wellford, Circuit Judge.
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by allowing the prosecution to cross-examine a defense alibi witness about prior drug transactions with the defendant because such evidence is highly probative of the witness's potential bias. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Abel established that bias is a permissible basis for impeachment and that trial courts are accorded wide discretion in determining the admissibility of such evidence. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, relevant evidence should only be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Here, the evidence of prior drug dealings demonstrates a relationship between Arnold and the witness that might lead the witness to slant his testimony. While acknowledging it was a 'very close question,' the court deferred to the trial judge's discretion, reasoning that the prejudicial impact of a minor transaction from 18 years prior was minimal compared to the strong evidence of Arnold's involvement in the massive conspiracy charged in the indictment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad discretion afforded to trial courts under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 when balancing the probative value of evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice. It solidifies the principle from United States v. Abel that a shared history of criminal activity can be a powerful indicator of a witness's bias, justifying the admission of what would otherwise be inadmissible prior bad acts evidence. The ruling makes it more challenging for defendants to succeed on appeal when challenging the admission of such impeachment evidence, as appellate courts will grant significant deference to the trial court's assessment. Consequently, defense attorneys must be prepared for prosecutors to probe into shared criminal histories between defendants and key defense witnesses to undermine their credibility.
