United States v. Richard Williams, A/K/A Malik Nash Bey
458 F.3d 312 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)'s prohibition against introducing evidence of prior bad acts to prove a person's character and propensity to act in conformity therewith applies universally to any person, including a third party, and is not limited to evidence offered against a criminal defendant.
Facts:
- On May 16, 2003, detectives from the East Orange Police Department were surveilling a house at 12 Birchwood Avenue for reported drug activity.
- Richard Williams and Leon Clark arrived in an Audi, and a third man, Andre Urlin, who was waiting in the driveway, then parked the car in the garage.
- When police converged on the scene, Williams fled into the house while clutching what a detective described as a 'machine-pistol type weapon' against his chest.
- Detectives chased Williams through the house and cornered him in a bedroom where he was found crouching over a bed.
- After apprehending Williams, an officer found a semi-automatic handgun hidden between the mattress and the box-spring of the bed over which Williams had been crouching.
- Williams, Urlin, and Clark were all present at the location of the arrest.
- A subsequent consensual search of the house revealed heroin, cash, and a second stolen vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Williams was charged by the United States with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and prosecuted in the U.S. District Court.
- Prior to trial, Williams filed a motion in limine to admit 'reverse 404(b)' evidence of Andre Urlin's recent conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon.
- The District Court (the trial court) denied Williams's motion at the close of evidence.
- A jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- The District Court sentenced Williams to 63 months' imprisonment.
- Williams, as the appellant, filed a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, challenging the District Court's evidentiary ruling and the reasonableness of his sentence.
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 Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) permit a criminal defendant to introduce evidence of a third party's prior conviction for a similar crime when the evidence is offered solely to show the third party's propensity to commit such crimes and suggest they were the actual perpetrator?
Opinions:
Majority - Aldisert, Circuit Judge
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)'s prohibition on using prior bad acts to prove character or propensity is not limited to the accused but applies to any person. While defendants are given more leeway under United States v. Stevens to introduce evidence of a third party's similar crimes for a permissible purpose, such as proving identity, they cannot introduce such evidence solely to show a third party's propensity to commit the crime. The plain language of Rule 404(b) bars evidence of other crimes to prove the character of a 'person,' not just the 'accused,' to show action in conformity therewith. Here, Williams sought to introduce Urlin's prior firearm conviction simply to argue that Urlin has a propensity to possess firearms, which is an impermissible use of the evidence. Furthermore, the prior conviction was too generic to be admissible for the permissible purpose of proving identity, as it shared no distinctive characteristics with the charged offense.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the 'reverse 404(b)' doctrine established in United States v. Stevens. The court reinforces that while defendants receive a more lenient standard for admitting evidence of a third party's bad acts for non-propensity purposes (like identity or plan), the core prohibition against propensity evidence remains absolute for all parties. This prevents defendants from using a third party's criminal record as a general character attack to create reasonable doubt. The ruling solidifies the principle that evidence of other crimes, whether offered against the defendant or a third party, must have a specific, logical connection to the case beyond just showing that a person is of a certain character.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Richard Williams, A/K/A Malik Nash Bey