United States v. Moore, 641 F.3d 812

Moore was convicted after a four-day trial of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the conspiracy charge and 120 months on the firearm charge, to run concurrently.
The government alleged a conspiracy from October 2002 to March 7, 2007; the jury acquitted Moore of the firearms-for-hire count under § 924(c).
Moore challenged four trial-influencing rulings: a challenged mistrial motion over a gang-question, admission of prior drug-transaction evidence, dog-fighting-related evidence, and juror contact during lunch.
The district court admitted 404(b) evidence of two 2000 crack transactions and related documents; it also admitted testimony regarding Moore’s control of the Murder Ave house and dog-fighting references.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, concluding no reversible error occurred and that cumulative error did not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial question on gangs and mistrial	Moore argues the gang question tainted the trial and warranted a mistrial.	USA contends the question was not improper in isolation and did not deprive Moore of a fair trial.	No reversible error; mistrial denied.
Admissibility of prior drug transactions under Rule 404(b)	Moore contends the court erred by admitting the evidence without an explained rationale and the evidence failed Rule 404(b).	USA argues the evidence is admissible to show knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake and that limiting instructions mitigated prejudice.	Admissible under 404(b); the admission was not reversible error.
Evidence suggesting dog fighting	Moore asserts dog-fighting evidence was unfairly prejudicial and inadmissible.	USA maintains it was probative of Moore's control and not unfairly prejudicial.	No error in admitting dog-fighting-related evidence.
Mistrial based on juror lunch-break interaction	Moore seeks mistrial due to potential jury prejudice from juror contact.	USA argues voir dire and subsequent proceedings adequately safeguarded impartiality.	Mistrial denied; court did thorough voir dire and found no prejudice.
Cumulative error doctrine	Moore contends that cumulative errors require reversal.	USA contends there were not multiple reversible errors supporting cumulative reversal.	Cumulative error doctrine did not apply.

United States v. Lane, 591 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for mistrial; two-step prosecutorial-misconduct standard)
United States v. Hale, 448 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2006) (unfair-trial analysis; due-process test for prejudicial comments)
United States v. Irvin, 87 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 1996) (policy on gang-affiliation evidence in trial; caution in admission)
United States v. Beasley, 809 F.2d 1273 (7th Cir. 1987) (framework for Rule 404(b) balancing)
United States v. Ciesiolka, 614 F.3d 347 (7th Cir. 2010) (four-part Rule 404(b) admissibility test; Rule 403 balancing)
United States v. Wash, 231 F.3d 366 (7th Cir. 2000) (similarity/proximity in Rule 404(b) analysis)
United States v. Ruiz, 178 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 1999) (timing of prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
United States v. Dennis, 497 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2007) (four-part 404(b) test articulation)
United States v. Zahursky, 580 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2009) (limiting instructions and prejudice considerations)
United States v. Vargas, 552 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2008) (limiting instructions effectiveness)