United States v. Terrance Craig
953 F.3d 898 (2020)
Rule of Law:
The government cannot publish an unadmitted and unauthenticated exhibit to a jury for impeachment purposes if the exhibit is highly prejudicial and the jury is not given a proper limiting instruction, as doing so violates bedrock principles of admissible evidence.
Facts:
- On November 26, 2017, Terrance Craig was arrested after firing a gun from a moving vehicle in which he was a passenger in Akron, Ohio.
- Police officers heard gunshots, pursued an SUV, and observed Craig exit the vehicle, briefly return to throw a black object into the backseat, and then flee on foot.
- When apprehended, Craig was wearing a shoulder holster underneath his jacket.
- Officers located a 9mm firearm with an extended magazine and shell casings in the backseat of the abandoned SUV, and .45 caliber bullets from another vehicle struck surrounding houses.
- Evidence showed gunshot residue on Craig's hands and his DNA was identified on the 9mm firearm found in the SUV.
- Officer Ball testified that he had seen a Facebook rap video he believed depicted Craig rapping and holding a firearm with an extended magazine, and Craig responded that he rarely saw extended-magazine guns, and that they are for show and usually jam.
- At trial, Craig admitted to being a felon in possession of a firearm but testified that he possessed it only long enough to defend himself and his friends during the firefight after the driver handed him the gun and instructed him to return fire.
Procedural Posture:
- Terrance Craig was charged with one count of possessing a firearm and ammunition after a felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- Craig took the case to a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
- During cross-examination of Craig, the Government played a rap video to the jury, over Craig's counsel's objection that it was unauthenticated, the individual was masked, and it was more prejudicial than probative.
- The district court permitted the video to be played without requiring authentication or issuing a limiting instruction.
- During closing arguments, the Government referenced the unadmitted video as evidence of Craig's prior possession of the gun.
- During deliberations, the jury requested to see the rap video again, and the district court informed them it was not admitted into evidence but they should "call into your recollection of that," without further instruction.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- At sentencing, the district court applied a four-level enhancement under the Guidelines for using a firearm in connection with a felony offense, finding Craig had discharged a firearm over a public road, and sentenced him to 110 months in prison.
- Craig appealed his conviction and sentencing 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 district court abuse its discretion by allowing the government to play an unauthenticated and unadmitted rap video to the jury during cross-examination, without a limiting instruction, when the video is highly prejudicial, central to the defense's credibility, and the error is not harmless?
Opinions:
Majority - John K. Bush
Yes, a district court abuses its discretion by allowing the government to play an unauthenticated and unadmitted rap video to the jury during cross-examination, without a a limiting instruction, when the video is highly prejudicial, central to the defense's credibility, and the error is not harmless. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the Government to publish the unauthenticated and unadmitted rap video to the jury. First, the video was never authenticated, as required by Fed. R. Evid. 901(a), because the Government failed to provide sufficient evidence that Craig was the masked individual or that this was the video the officers had seen, especially after Craig denied being in it. Second, the Government's reliance on Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) (impeachment by specific instances of conduct) was misplaced because Rule 608(b) explicitly prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence for impeachment, only allowing inquiry during cross-examination, not publication to the jury. Furthermore, the video depicting a masked individual rapping and holding a firearm has nothing to do with a witness's character for truthfulness. The court also rejected arguments for impeachment under Rule 613 (prior inconsistent statements) or common-law impeachment by specific contradiction, as both still require authentication and the evidence must be used for impeachment purposes only. Crucially, even if the video's use was somehow permissible, the district court failed to issue a limiting instruction about how the jury should consider it, and the Government improperly used it as substantive evidence of guilt in closing arguments. The error was not harmless because the video was "extremely prejudicial" and "extremely damaging to Craig’s testimony," directly undermining his justification defense which relied on credibility. The jury's sole question during deliberations—to see the video again—further indicated its substantial influence on their verdict. The court emphasized the need for proper authentication for social media content due to its potential for manipulation and lack of verification.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict requirements for admitting evidence, particularly extrinsic evidence used for impeachment, and highlights the dangers of publishing unauthenticated social media content to a jury. It clarifies that Rule 608(b) permits inquiry into specific instances of conduct, but generally prohibits the introduction of extrinsic evidence, such as videos, to prove those instances. The decision also underscores the importance of clear limiting instructions when evidence is admitted for a narrow purpose, and the heightened scrutiny applied to errors affecting witness credibility, especially when a defense hinges on it. Future cases will likely face closer review regarding the authentication of digital evidence and the proper application of impeachment rules, especially concerning highly prejudicial materials.
