United States v. Mokol, 646 F.3d 479

Mokol was charged with four counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm related to two May 2008 burglaries; he was acquitted of charges from the first burglary but convicted of possessing the stolen gun and a magazine in the second burglary.
Key testimonial evidence included Lori Miller’s claim that Mokol threatened anyone who would inform on him would be harmed, which the government introduced as consciousness-of-guilt evidence.
Michelle Arnold testified about a gun incident at the Rising Sun nude dancing club that defense characterized as a joke; a parallel proffer about drugs found in her car was limited and ultimately excluded from cross-examination.
The district court precluded cross-examination on the drug-discovery incident after a contested proffer outside the jury, finding it irrelevant and potentially confusing under Rule 403.
During jury instructions, the court gave a constructive possession pattern instruction over Mokol’s objections, allowing conviction on a theory where possession could be attributed to others in certain circumstances.
Mokol timely appealed asserting four trial-procedure errors: admission of Lori Miller’s threat testimony, admission of Michelle Arnold’s Rising Sun gun incident, cross-examination restrictions on Michelle, and the constructive possession instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of threat testimony	Mokol’s threat remark is probative of consciousness of guilt and falls within Rule 404(b) exceptions.	The threat was an impermissible prior bad act and overly prejudicial under Rule 403.	Admission was proper as probative of guilt and not an abuse of discretion.
Admission of the Rising Sun gun incident	The gun incident established possession and supported the felon-in-possession charge.	The incident was prejudicial and should have been restricted as bad-acts evidence under Rule 404(b) or 403.	Admission was proper; the incident was probative and not unduly prejudicial.
Cross-examination restricting Michelle Arnold	Cross-examination limits preserved jury focus and avoided confusion while still allowing probing of bias.	The court improperly limited exploration of potential bias and fear of prosecution by Michelle.	No error; limits properly balanced confrontation rights with potential for confusion.
Constructive possession instruction	Pattern instruction properly conveyed that possession can be shown through control or constructively via others.	Instruction risked convicting on conspiracy-type liability and misled jurors.	Instruction proper; constructive possession theory supported by evidence and distinct from conspiracy liability.

United States v. Johnson, 624 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2010) (threats admissible as consciousness of guilt)
United States v. Calabrese, 572 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2009) (witness threats admissible in various contexts)
United States v. Miller, 276 F.3d 370 (7th Cir. 2002) (Rule 404(b) evidence and probative value)
United States v. Balzano, 916 F.2d 1273 (7th Cir. 1990) (witness threats and consciousness of guilt)
United States v. DeAngelo, 13 F.3d 1228 (8th Cir. 1994) (threats as direct evidence; Rule 404(b) considerations)
United States v. Zierke, 618 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2010) (consciousness of guilt in various contexts)
Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1988) (limits on cross-examination and bias)
United States v. Martin, 287 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2002) (cross-examination and bias; Sixth Amendment)
United States v. O'Neill, 116 F.3d 245 (7th Cir. 1997) (juror instruction interpretation and jury comprehension)
United States v. Lloyd, 71 F.3d 1256 (7th Cir. 1995) (constructive possession viability)
Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions for the Seventh Circuit, No. 5.10 (7th Cir.) (definition of possession; conspiracy vs. possession)