United States v. Clay
667 F.3d 689
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- In 2007 Kathryn White, an IRS employee in Chattanooga, was carjacked at gunpoint while exiting her vehicle.
- An hour later White’s bank cards were unsuccessfully used at an ATM, suggesting a link to the carjacking.
- Police identified Gary Clay as the suspect from ATM video and a comparison of photos with his license.
- Officers located the Grand Prix involved in the carjacking at Clay’s apartment; Clay was arrested there.
- A search of the apartment recovered items linked to prior thefts and a disc with Clay wearing a distinctive red-and-white shirt.
- Pretrial rulings admitted evidence of a 2006 assault and of an uncharged handgun theft under Rule 404(b) and res gestae, which the government used at trial; Clay was convicted on carjacking and brandishing a firearm and sentenced to 360 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the 2006 assault as Rule 404(b) evidence | Clay sought to exclude; government relied on 404(b) to show specific intent. | Assault was not probative of specific intent and was unfairly prejudicial. | district court erred in admitting assault evidence under 404(b) and its error was not harmless. |
| Admissibility of the uncharged handgun theft under res gestae/404(b) | Theft evidence completes the story and shows preparation/identity. | No proper link to charged offense; res gestae/404(b) improper. | Theft evidence was not properly admitted under res gestae or 404(b); error reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jenkins, 345 F.3d 928 (6th Cir.2003) (three-step Rule 404(b) analysis; abuse of discretion review with de novo legal questions and clear-error factual findings)
- United States v. McDaniel, 398 F.3d 540 (6th Cir.2005) (de novo review of legal determinations under 404(b); factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Geisen, 612 F.3d 471 (6th Cir.2010) (admission of 404(b) evidence reviewed de novo for legal conclusions; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Martinez, 588 F.3d 301 (6th Cir.2009) (McDaniel approach to 404(b) review in identifying permissible purposes and prejudicial impact)
- United States v. Hardy, 228 F.3d 745 (6th Cir.2000) (framework for Rule 404(b) admissibility and balancing prejudice vs. probative value)
- United States v. Bell, 516 F.3d 432 (6th Cir.2008) (admissibility of prior-crimes evidence based on distinctive similarity/modus operandi)