United States v. Anthony Johnson
20-3138
| 3rd Cir. | Nov 19, 2021Background:
- On Jan. 9, 2016 Shyhiem McDowell was shot in the head after meeting Anthony Johnson and Hydiea Banks; surveillance showed the three enter a breezeway and Johnson exit before the shooting.
- Police interviewed Johnson twice; he at first said he thought they were buying drugs, later admitted planning a robbery with Banks, and in the second interview said, in explaining his exit, that ‘from my history of doing stick-ups’ he knew to leave when the job was done.
- Banks was arrested and the pistol used in the shooting was recovered; McDowell later testified that Banks pointed a gun, Johnson tried to take McDowell’s chain, told Banks “you know what to do then,” and left before Banks shot McDowell.
- The government played Johnson’s recorded interviews at trial, including the ‘history of doing stick-ups’ remark; Johnson did not testify.
- A jury convicted Johnson of Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and § 924(c) firearms offenses; he appealed, arguing admission of the ‘history’ statement violated FRE 404(b) and 403.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Rule 404(b) (propensity) | Johnson: statement was prior-bad-act evidence used to show propensity; inadmissible. | Gov.: statement served a non-character purpose—context, background, and an explanation of defendant’s claimed conduct and mens rea. | Admissible: statement had a proper 404(b) purpose (context/background; relevant to mens rea) and met the 404(b) threshold. |
| Prejudicial effect under Rule 403 | Johnson: probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice from suggesting past crimes. | Gov.: probative value high to explain Johnson’s defense and detectives’ skepticism; prejudice not unfair because Johnson volunteered the explanation. | No abuse of discretion: trial court performed balancing; probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. |
| Harmless-error (if admission erroneous) | Johnson: admission infected substantial rights and warrants new trial. | Gov.: independent, strong evidence (videotaped admissions, McDowell’s testimony, recovery of gun) shows high probability statement did not affect verdict. | Harmless: even if error, admission did not contribute to verdict; substantial evidence supports conviction. |
Key Cases Cited:
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (Rule 404(b) threshold: evidence must be probative of a material issue other than character)
- United States v. Cruz, 326 F.3d 392 (3d Cir. 2003) (articulates four-part test for admitting similar-acts evidence)
- United States v. Sampson, 980 F.2d 883 (3d Cir. 1992) (Rule 404(b) favors admissibility; government need only some showing of relevance)
- United States v. Green, 617 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2010) (background and context can be proper 404(b) purpose)
- United States v. Repak, 852 F.3d 230 (3d Cir. 2017) (evidence relevant to mens rea can have significant probative value)
- Langbord v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 832 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2016) (harmless-error standard: high probability error did not contribute to verdict)