United States v. Hicks, 635 F.3d 1063

Hicks was convicted of distributing more than 50 grams of crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
The government introduced recordings of Hicks’s conversations with a confidential informant (Hurd) and other witnesses, recorded with FBI involvement.
The government moved to admit Hicks’s two prior drug convictions under Rule 404(b) to show knowledge and lack of mistake.
The district court admitted the 404(b) evidence over Hicks’s objection, later allowing Hicks to present an entrapment defense.
Juror #9 was dismissed for cause after recognizing Hicks’s witness Tanya Lear, who was also Hicks’s girlfriend.
Hicks testified after the 404(b) ruling, and the jury was instructed on entrapment; conviction was later vacated and case remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror dismissed for cause based on witness relation proper?	Hicks argues dismissal was error due to improper grounds.	Hicks argues juror bias compromised impartiality.	Yes; dismissal upheld; juror replacement within discretion.
Tape recordings admissible to contextualize statements?	Hurd's statements were non-testimonial context for Hicks’s remarks.	Recordings violate Confrontation Clause; claims hearsay.	Admissible to contextualize Hicks’s statements; not hearsay.
Agent testimony about counter-surveillance admissible as lay opinion?	Testimony improperly escalates to expert opinion.	Agents’ personal observations are lay observations.	Admissible as lay observations based on personal observations.
Prior 404(b) convictions properly admitted to show knowledge/intent?	Convictions show Hicks’s knowledge and lack of mistake.	Convictions are improper propensity evidence; not relevant to issue.	Improper under Rule 404(b); reversed for reversal of conviction.
Effect of 404(b) error on substantial rights; remedy?			Rule 404(b) error affected substantial rights; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial.

United States v. Hatchett, 245 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2001) (knowledge as to absence of mistake and participation in prior deal admissible in certain contexts)
United States v. Manganellis, 864 F.2d 528 (7th Cir. 1988) (prior acts not admissible to prove intent in general intent crimes)
United States v. Shackleford, 738 F.2d 776 (7th Cir. 1984) (intent issues and prior acts; caution against propensity reasoning)
United States v. Goodapple, 958 F.2d 1402 (7th Cir. 1992) (predisposition in entrapment case; timing of evidence)
United States v. Blanchard, 542 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir. 2008) (Rule 404(b) error and harmlessness standard)