United States v. Alayeto, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25804

Alayeto is convicted of illegal possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine based on drugs found in her vagina after a July 4, 2007 stop involving co-defendant Gonzalez.
Gonzalez, a known gang member, dropped a bag containing crack cocaine into Alayeto's lap during the stop; she concealed it in her pants.
After arrest, a female officer recovered the bag; Alayeto later claimed the drugs belonged to her alone and not Gonzalez.
Alayeto sought to elicit Gonzalez's post-arrest conduct as reverse 404(b) evidence to negate her own intent; the district court excluded it as inadmissible.
The district court also excluded Gonzalez's jailhouse calls and related evidence on hearsay and relevance grounds; Alayeto moved for mistrial but was denied.
The jury found Alayeto guilty; she appeals asserting evidentiary exclusions violated her due process and right to present a defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding reverse 404(b) evidence	Alayeto argues exclusion deprives defense of relevant proof of lack of her intent.	Alayeto contends reverse 404(b) should be admitted; court should relax limits for defense evidence.	No abuse; evidence had negligible probative value and risked confusion.
Whether exclusion of reverse 404(b) evidence violated the right to present a defense	Alayeto claims due process requires admission of evidence that would negate guilt.	District court properly limited marginally relevant evidence to prevent confusion.	No violation; exclusion did not deprive meaningful defense.

United States v. Murray, 474 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2007) (Rule 404(b) allows other acts for purposes like intent)
United States v. Reed, 259 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2001) (reversal requires substantial influence on jury)
Agushi v. Duerr, 196 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 1999) (reverse 404(b) admissibility framework)
United States v. Seals, 419 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2005) (defense evidence not required to meet same standard as prosecution)
United States v. Walton, 217 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2000) (relevance and Rule 404(b) balancing)
United States v. Della Rose, 403 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2005) (hearsay limitations on 404(b) evidence)
United States v. Wilson, 307 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2002) (Rule 403 balancing and risk of confusion)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (defendant may exclude marginally relevant evidence absent due process violation)
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (constitutional right to present a defense)
United States v. Vargas, 552 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2008) (contextual evaluation of evidentiary impact on the proceeding)