20 F.4th 1127
7th Cir.2021Background:
- DEA executed a search warrant at Michael Perryman’s Indianapolis home (Spring 2018) and found fentanyl, baggies, and a digital scale on a shelf in the master bathroom and a loaded AR-15 in the master closet about three to four steps away.
- Perryman lived alone at the residence, paid bills, and was seen leaving as agents arrived; he later admitted the drugs were his and named a supplier but did not claim ownership of the rifle.
- Perryman told a girlfriend (Maurita Thomas) to lie about the rifle’s movement; she initially did so but recanted under oath, admitting she lied to protect Perryman.
- Perryman was indicted for possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)), and possession of a firearm as a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- The district court excluded evidence of a 15‑year‑old written reprimand for Sergeant Clifton Jones (an officer involved in the search) as more prejudicial than probative; Perryman argued the exclusion violated the Confrontation Clause.
- A jury convicted Perryman on all counts; he was sentenced to 228 months. On appeal, he challenged sufficiency of the evidence and the Confrontation Clause ruling; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Perryman's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to convict for possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute | Perryman did not possess the fentanyl; his confession was false; others had access | Perryman confessed ownership, lived alone, drugs were in master suite near his clothes; jury could infer constructive possession | Affirmed—evidence sufficient; constructive possession established |
| Whether the AR-15 was possessed "in furtherance" of drug trafficking (§ 924(c)) | Even if he possessed the rifle, it was not used in furtherance of drug activity | Rifle was loaded AR-15, immediately proximate to drugs, accessible, and expert testified proximity suggests protection of drugs | Affirmed—holistic factors support finding the gun was possessed in furtherance |
| Felon in possession of a firearm (§ 922(g)(1)) | Perryman did not possess the gun; ownership may belong to another (girlfriend) | Constructive possession through exclusive control of residence, gun in his closet near clothes and drugs, Perryman transported rifle to the home | Affirmed—constructive possession proven; ownership paperwork irrelevant |
| Exclusion of Sergeant Jones’s 15‑year‑old reprimand under Confrontation Clause | Exclusion prevented impeachment on credibility; implicated confrontation rights | Reprimand was remote, unrelated, and would be unfairly prejudicial or confusing; district court has discretion to limit cross-examination | Affirmed—no Confrontation Clause violation; evidence did not implicate core bias/motive and could prejudice/confuse jury |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Griffin, 684 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2012) (defines constructive possession: power and intent to exercise dominion)
- United States v. Castillo, 406 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2005) (discusses "in furtherance" and relevance of contextual factors)
- United States v. Morris, 576 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2009) ("substantial connection" standard for constructive possession when exclusive control is absent)
- United States v. Caldwell, 423 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2005) (residential control supports inference of possession of items seized there)
- Henderson v. United States, 575 U.S. 622 (2015) (§ 922(g) covers constructive possession)
- United States v. Brown, 724 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 2013) (lists factors relevant to whether a firearm is possessed in furtherance of drug trafficking)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (trial courts have wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination without violating the Confrontation Clause)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (Confrontation Clause includes right to cross-examine for bias or motive to lie)
- United States v. Hart, 995 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2021) (limitations on cross-examination are permissible when they do not implicate a core confrontational value)