United States v. Wright
901 F.2d 68 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of a defendant's other crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible to prove a person's character or propensity to commit the crime charged; it may only be admitted if it has a specific, non-propensity purpose, such as proving a unique modus operandi or knowledge directly relevant to the charged offense.
Facts:
- In May 1988, three plainclothes police officers purchased a total of four bags of 'crack' cocaine from a man selling at curbside on a Chicago street.
- The man handed the drugs through the window of the officers' unmarked police car during daylight hours.
- Using police photographs after the sales, the officers identified the seller as Stanley Wright.
- Six months later, in November 1988, police obtained court authorization for a wiretap on Wright's telephone line.
- The wiretap intercepted a conversation in which Wright bragged to an unidentified woman about being a drug dealer.
- In the conversation, Wright described his role as a wholesaler who organizes the process and has other people sell the drugs at the retail level.
Procedural Posture:
- The government charged Stanley Wright in a federal trial court with two counts of distributing cocaine and two counts of distributing it near a school.
- At trial, the government introduced a tape recording from a wiretapped conversation over Wright's objection.
- The trial judge admitted the recording into evidence for the limited purposes of establishing identity and intent.
- A jury found Wright guilty on all counts.
- The trial court sentenced Wright to seven years in prison.
- Wright, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing the trial court erred by admitting the recorded conversation.
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 the admission of a defendant's recorded conversation boasting about being a drug dealer to prove his identity as the perpetrator of prior, specific drug sales, when the conversation has no unique connection to the charged crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) does not permit the admission of a defendant's conversation about being a drug dealer to prove identity when it serves only to show a general propensity to commit drug crimes. The admission of the tape was an error because its only relevance was to depict Wright as a drug dealer, which is impermissible character evidence. The conversation did not help establish Wright's identity as the specific person who sold drugs to the officers six months prior; it contained no details that only the perpetrator would know, nor did it describe a similar modus operandi. In fact, the conversation suggested Wright was a wholesaler, while the charged crime was a retail sale. Equating the defendant's identity as a 'drug dealer' with his guilt in the specific crime charged is the exact kind of prejudicial reasoning Rule 404(b) is designed to prevent.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the core prohibition of FRE 404(b) against using 'other acts' evidence as general character or propensity evidence. Judge Posner's analysis clarifies that for such evidence to be admissible for a specific purpose like 'identity,' it must have a direct, logical connection to the crime charged beyond showing the defendant is the 'type' of person who would commit it. The ruling serves as a powerful precedent against the government's attempt to erase Rule 404(b) by broadly interpreting its exceptions. It underscores the high risk of unfair prejudice when a jury hears evidence of a defendant's general criminality, which might lower the government's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the specific offense.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Wright