United States v. Brown, 5:25-cr-00188

Defendant Jerry Ray Brown is indicted for one count of attempted bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) allegedly occurring March 28, 2025, in Choctaw, Oklahoma.
Government filed a Rule 404(b) notice seeking to admit evidence of Brown’s prior convictions for two bank robberies in 2020 (Skiatook and Sperry, OK); Brown was sentenced in 2022 and released from BOP custody in October 2024.
Proffered prior-act evidence includes photographs of the three bank buildings and images showing similar perpetrator apparel (ski/cloth masks, hooded sweatshirt or cap, black gloves), use of a black duffle bag, demands for money “from the vault,” no weapon or demand note, and similar getaway tactics.
Brown moved to exclude the 404(b) evidence as impermissible character/propensity evidence; the government argues the evidence is admissible to prove identity and intent.
The Court applied the Rule 404(b) framework (proper purpose, relevance, Rule 403 balancing, limiting instruction) and concluded the prior robberies share a “signature quality” (totality of geographic, appearance, and conduct similarities) probative of identity; the five-year lapse was minimized by Brown’s indictment/incarceration.
The Court denied the motion to exclude, reserved ruling on intent and impeachment under Rule 609, and invited proposed limiting instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Rule 404(b) (proper purpose: identity)	Prior 2020 robberies show a unique modus operandi/signature linking Brown to the 2025 attempt	Prior acts are character evidence and not sufficiently similar (time gap, distance)	Admissible for identity; similarities constitute a signature quality
Relevance of prior acts	Prior robberies make Brown’s involvement in 2025 more probable	Five‑year lapse and geographic distance render prior acts irrelevant	Relevant; probative despite lapse and distance given incarceration/indictment period
Rule 403 prejudice balancing	Probative value is high and limiting instruction can mitigate prejudice	Prior convictions are highly prejudicial and suggest propensity	Probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; exclusion denied
Use for intent and impeachment (other purposes)	May also prove intent and possibly be used for impeachment	Should not be used to prove intent or impeach under Rule 609	Court reserved decision on intent and Rule 609 impeachment; will rule later

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984) (pretrial evidentiary rulings and in limine practice)
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (threshold relevance inquiry for other‑act evidence under Rule 404(b))
United States v. Moran, 503 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2007) (articulating four‑factor 404(b) test)
United States v. Tan, 254 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2001) (404(b) is inclusive; excludes only propensity‑only evidence)
United States v. Smalls, 752 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2014) (prior acts may prove identity via unique modus operandi)
United States v. Shumway, 112 F.3d 1413 (10th Cir. 1997) (totality of comparison and ‘signature quality’ principle)
United States v. Porter, 881 F.2d 878 (10th Cir. 1989) (prior act sharing modus operandi increases probability of involvement)
United States v. Caraway, 534 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2008) (definition and analysis of unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
United States v. Mares, 441 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2006) (proper purposes under Rule 404(b))
United States v. McGuire, 27 F.3d 457 (10th Cir. 1994) (geographic/targeting pattern as evidence of common scheme)