United States v. Scott
677 F.3d 72
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Scott was arrested July 28, 2009 in the Bronx after detectives observed a hand-to-hand drug sale surrounding him.
- Detectives Moran and Geary testified they recognized Scott from prior interactions and had spoken to him on multiple occasions.
- Cocaine found: eighteen plastic bags in a cigar wrapper hidden in a tree; no drugs were recovered from Scott or the woman.
- Government sought to elicit testimony about prior encounters with Scott to prove recognition by the detectives.
- Defense objected to this line of questioning, arguing it would invite improper propensity reasoning and prejudice, but the district court allowed it.
- Convicted at trial; district court sentenced Scott to 21 months; Scott timely appealed challenging admissibility under Rule 404(b) and related Rule 403 analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recognition testimony is admissible under Rule 404(b). | Scott argues testimony is improper 404(b) evidence. | United States contends it is admissible as non-propensity evidence. | Testimony qualifies as 404(b) evidence and is admissible for proper purposes. |
| Whether the recognition testimony was offered for a proper purpose under Huddleston. | Scott contends purpose was improper propensisty and not identity. | Government argues it aided identity and credibility. | Not a proper purpose; admission abused Huddleston analysis. |
| Whether the testimony was relevant to an issue in dispute. | Identity was not disputed; testimony not relevant to issue. | Recognition could aid proof of identity. | Identity was not in dispute; testimony not properly relevant. |
| Whether the probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect under Rule 403. | Probability of prejudice outweighed any probative value. | No such prejudice was properly weighed; testimony helpful for corroboration. | Probative value did not outweigh prejudice; abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the error was harmless. | Admission could have changed the verdict. | The error would not be harmless given its impact. | Not harmless; requires reversal and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (establishes Huddleston four-factor test for 404(b))
- United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 1999) (recognition testimony not always 404(b) when tied to area observations)
- United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2004) (inclusionary approach to 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review of 404(b) admissibility)
- United States v. Bermudez, 529 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2008) (limits on use of 404(b) to explain why officers focused on defendant)