United States v. Robert William Green
873 F.3d 846 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(22), a judgment of conviction based on a nolo contendere plea is inadmissible hearsay when offered to prove the underlying facts of the prior act for Rule 404(b) purposes, as it cannot by itself establish that the defendant committed the act.
Facts:
- In early 2013, Robert Green was on pre-trial release for state offenses and was required to wear a GPS monitoring bracelet.
- GPS data showed Green was consistently present at the trailer home of Jodi Simmons.
- On April 3, 2013, the Sheriff’s Office discovered Green had removed and was no longer wearing the GPS bracelet.
- A week later, officers went to Simmons's trailer to arrest Green.
- In the master bedroom, officers found a man's camouflage jacket, a pair of men's shoes, a loaded firearm on a nightstand, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia.
- Officers found Green hiding shoeless under a pile of clothes in the master bedroom closet.
- After his arrest and receiving Miranda warnings, Green told an ATF agent that he had acquired the gun by trading methamphetamine for it.
- Several months later, Green recanted his statement to the same agent, claiming the gun was not his and he only owned a BB gun.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Government charged Robert Green in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
- Before trial, Green moved to exclude evidence of his 2006 Florida conviction for ammunition possession, which resulted from a nolo contendere plea. The district court denied the motion.
- Green also objected to the indictment's reference to his prior 'crimes' in the plural after he stipulated to being a felon; the court overruled the objection.
- At the close of the prosecution's case, Green moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the district court denied.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict.
- The district court sentenced Green to 262 months in prison, applying an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
- Green (Defendant-Appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, with the United States as Plaintiff-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 a judgment of conviction based on a plea of nolo contendere constitute sufficient proof under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to allow a jury to find that a defendant committed the prior act by a preponderance of the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Julie Carnes
No. A judgment of conviction based on a nolo contendere plea is not sufficient proof under Rule 404(b) to establish that a defendant committed the prior act. The court reasoned that Rule 404(b) requires the proponent of prior-act evidence to provide sufficient proof for a jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the act. While a conviction from a trial or a guilty plea suffices, a nolo contendere plea is distinct, as it is a consent to punishment without an admission of the underlying facts. The court looked to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(22), which excludes judgments based on nolo contendere pleas from the hearsay exception for convictions. This implies such convictions are inadmissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the defendant actually committed the crime. Therefore, the district court erred by admitting Green's 2006 nolo conviction as the sole proof of the prior act. However, the court found this error to be harmless due to the overwhelming independent evidence of Green's constructive possession of the firearm.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear precedent in the Eleventh Circuit regarding the evidentiary value of nolo contendere convictions for Rule 404(b) purposes. It holds that prosecutors cannot rely solely on the fact of a nolo conviction to prove a defendant committed a prior act; they must introduce independent evidence of the underlying conduct. This aligns the circuit with the Ninth Circuit's reasoning and creates a significant hurdle for prosecutors wishing to use such prior acts to prove elements like intent or knowledge. While the error was deemed harmless in this specific case, the ruling provides a strong basis for future defendants to exclude this type of evidence, forcing the prosecution to either find other ways to prove the prior act or abandon its use entirely.
