United States v. Trenkler
61 F.3d 45 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of a prior criminal act is admissible to prove identity if the prior act and the charged offense share a 'conjunction of several identifying characteristics' that are sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit an inference that the same person committed both, even if no single characteristic is highly distinctive.
Facts:
- In 1986, Alfred Trenkler constructed a remote-control, radio-activated explosive device for his friend, Donna Shea, to intimidate the owners of the Capeway Fish Market in Quincy, Massachusetts.
- The Quincy bomb was made with a military flash simulator, a radio receiver from a toy car, a large donut-shaped magnet, various batteries, and was wrapped in duct tape.
- The Quincy bomb was attached to a truck and detonated, resulting in no injuries and minimal property damage.
- On October 28, 1991, a powerful, remote-control bomb exploded at the Roslindale home of Thomas L. Shay, Sr., killing one Boston police officer and severely injuring another who were investigating it.
- The Roslindale bomb was constructed with dynamite, two electrical blasting caps, a Futaba radio receiver, various batteries, and multiple magnets, and it was housed in a black wooden box.
- Trenkler had an established relationship with Thomas A. Shay, Jr., the son of the bombing's target. Shay Jr. purchased a toggle switch identical to one used in the Roslindale bomb from a Radio Shack near where Trenkler was working.
- While incarcerated together in 1992, Trenkler admitted to a fellow inmate, David Lindholm, that he had built the Roslindale bomb but denied placing it on the car.
- Shortly after the Roslindale bombing, Trenkler drew a circuit diagram for ATF agents that included two electrical blasting caps, a distinctive feature of the bomb that had not yet been made public.
Procedural Posture:
- Alfred Trenkler and Thomas A. Shay, Jr. were charged in a federal indictment for conspiracy and other crimes related to the 1991 Roslindale bombing.
- The district court granted Trenkler’s motion to sever his trial from that of Shay Jr.
- Prior to Trenkler's trial, the government filed a motion in limine to admit evidence of Trenkler's involvement in a 1986 bombing in Quincy.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing and granted the government's motion, ruling the Quincy bomb evidence admissible.
- A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts convicted Trenkler on all counts.
- Trenkler appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the First 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:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), is evidence of a defendant's involvement in a prior bombing admissible to prove their identity as the maker of the bomb in the charged crime, where the two bombs share multiple common features but also possess significant dissimilarities?
Opinions:
Majority - Stahl, Circuit Judge.
Yes. Evidence of the prior bombing is admissible because the 'totality of the comparison,' including numerous similarities in components, design, assembly, and modus operandi, was sufficiently idiosyncratic for a reasonable jury to find it more likely than not that the same person built both devices. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of other acts may be admitted to prove identity if it bears a 'special relevance.' For identity, this requires showing that the acts share a commonality of distinguishing features sufficient to earmark them as the handiwork of the same individual. The court need not find the features are identical, but rather that the 'coalescence' of them is persuasive. Here, factors such as both bombs being remote-controlled, using magnets for attachment to vehicles, employing similar power supplies and construction techniques, and being built for a friend, collectively created a 'signature.' The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the probative value of this evidence on the issue of identity was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. However, the court erred in admitting testimony derived from the EXIS computer database under the residual hearsay exception, as the government failed to establish that the underlying reports possessed the requisite 'circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.' This error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt, including Trenkler's multiple admissions.
Dissenting - Torruella, Chief Judge
No. The admission of the prior bombing evidence was improper because the trial court's decision relied on the erroneously admitted EXIS database evidence, the admission of which violated Trenkler's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights, and this error was not harmless. The EXIS database evidence was 'utterly unreliable' and misleadingly presented as scientific fact, giving it an 'aura of scientific infallibility' that could powerfully influence a jury. The record shows the district court explicitly stated it was 'adding' the EXIS evidence to the expert testimony to find sufficient similarity, meaning the constitutional error tainted the entire basis for admitting the Quincy bomb evidence. The remaining evidence was not 'overwhelming'; it consisted of 'inconclusive circumstantial evidence and an inherently unreliable alleged jailhouse confession.' Given the significant differences between the two bombs—one a powerful dynamite device, the other using a firecracker-like simulator—the erroneously admitted 'scientific' evidence may have been 'the clincher' for the jury, and therefore its admission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This case provides a key interpretation of the 'signature crime' or 'modus operandi' exception under FRE 404(b) for proving identity. It establishes that a collection of shared characteristics, none of which may be unique on its own, can combine to form a sufficiently idiosyncratic pattern to warrant admission. The ruling lowers the bar from requiring a single, highly distinctive feature to allowing a 'totality of the comparison.' The court's finding that the admission of unreliable, computer-generated statistical evidence was a harmless error demonstrates the high threshold for reversal, especially when a defendant has made incriminating statements, and underscores the weight courts give to confessions, even those from jailhouse informants.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Trenkler