United States v. Eddie Lee
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16041
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Eddie Lee was tried (after withdrawing a plea) for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute >50 grams of crack cocaine; a jury convicted him and the district court imposed a 20-year sentence.
- Government’s evidence: testimony of purchaser/cooperator Darin Hurt describing four 2009 transactions with Lee, phone records corroborating calls between Hurt and Lee, video of controlled buys (Lee not present during buys), and 210 grams of crack found in a car Lee was driving in December 2009 with Lee’s fingerprint on a bag.
- The defense argued Lee was an innocent bystander: the car wasn’t registered to him, the cocaine was not found during an earlier roadside search and was discovered hours later at the tow yard, and key witnesses (Hurt, informant Pickett) had credibility problems.
- Before the second trial, the government sought admission under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) of Lee’s 2004 conviction for possession of crack cocaine to prove knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake; the district court admitted it without an on-the-record Rule 404(b) analysis and gave a limiting instruction.
- The Seventh Circuit found the admission improper because the prior conviction (for simple possession) was used effectively to show propensity, its probative value on contested issues (knowledge/intent/mistake) was minimal, and the limiting instruction did not cure the propensity inference.
- Because the prior-conviction evidence likely affected juror persuasion (not harmless), the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting Lee’s 2004 crack-possession conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) to prove knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake | Gov’t: prior conviction shows familiarity with cocaine trade and is probative of Lee’s knowledge, intent to distribute, and that drugs were not planted | Lee: prior conviction only shows propensity; it was remote and for simple possession (not distribution); admission was unfairly prejudicial and lacked proper 404(b) analysis | The admission was an abuse of discretion: the prior conviction was probative only of propensity, not of a non-propensity purpose sufficient under Rule 404(b); error was not harmless — conviction reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 673 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2012) (prior drug conviction improperly admitted where it only supported forbidden propensity inference and prejudiced defendant)
- United States v. Shackleford, 738 F.2d 776 (7th Cir. 1984) (articulated four-part test for admission of other-acts evidence)
- United States v. Beasley, 809 F.2d 1273 (7th Cir. 1987) (trial judge must identify applicable 404(b) exception and balance probative value against unfair prejudice)
- United States v. Hicks, 635 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2011) (analysis of when other-acts evidence is admissible to rebut innocence defenses)
- United States v. Chavis, 429 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2005) (discussion of limits on using prior convictions to show intent)
- United States v. Kreiser, 15 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 1994) (example where prior transactions were sufficiently similar to be admissible to show knowledge/plan)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (noted in procedural history regarding Fair Sentencing Act application)