United States v. Silva
889 F.3d 704
| 10th Cir. | 2018Background
- On April 23, 2014, an armed intruder committed home invasions and a shooting; DNA from the crime scenes matched Silva in a database and victims identified him from photo arrays. Police later arrested Silva on July 1, 2014, while he was driving a rented vehicle in which officers found a handgun, ammunition, heroin, and restraints. Silva had multiple prior felony convictions.
- A federal grand jury returned a six-count indictment: Counts 1–5 stemmed from the April 23 incidents (including carjacking and related § 924(c) charges); Counts 5 and 6 charged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession). Count Six alleged possession of a specific pistol and specified cartridges.
- The district court severed Count Six for separate trial. Silva moved to exclude any reference to his prior felonies and offered to stipulate that he was a “prohibited person” rather than admit to felony convictions; the court denied that request and accepted a government-form stipulation that he had prior felony convictions and instructed the jury using the statutory language.
- First trial (Count Six) resulted in conviction; evidence included the recovered firearm and ammunition and Silva’s stipulation that he was previously convicted of a felony. Second trial (Counts 1–5) resulted in convictions based largely on DNA expert testimony linking Silva to blood found in a truck and a house; cross-examination revealed typographical errors in the analyst’s recordkeeping.
- District court sentenced Silva to a total of 564 months. On appeal, Silva argued (1) the court erred by allowing reference to his prior felony convictions rather than accepting his “prohibited person” stipulation, (2) insufficient evidence supported Count Six (possession of charged ammunition), and (3) the DNA expert’s testimony should have been excluded because of typographical errors.
Issues
| Issue | Silva's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior-felony evidence under Rule 403 / Old Chief | District court should have accepted Silva’s proposed stipulation that he was a “prohibited person” (less prejudicial) and excluded explicit reference to prior felony conviction | Government was entitled to use a stipulation reciting the statutory language (convicted felon); it did not introduce nature of prior offenses | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; government-form felony stipulation was not substantially more prejudicial than Silva’s alternate and avoided confusion; de novo Rule 403 review likewise sustains admission |
| Sufficiency of evidence on Count Six (gun and ammunition) | Conviction should be reversed because government failed to prove Silva possessed the charged ammunition | § 922(g)(1) is satisfied by possession of firearm or ammunition; evidence of firearm possession was sufficient | Affirmed: conjunctive charging rule allows conviction if evidence proves any alternative charged means; firearm possession was proved |
| Admissibility/reliability of DNA expert testimony (typographical errors) | Typographical errors in lab records rendered the analysis unreliable and testimony inadmissible under Rule 702/Daubert | Errors were typographical only; analyst reliably applied accepted methods; errors go to weight, not admissibility | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; errors were minor and addressed on cross-examination; admissibility was proper and any reliability concerns were for the jury to weigh |
| Jury instruction / choice of language for felon-status element | Silva sought jury instruction using “prohibited person” language to avoid prejudice | Government insisted on instruction tracking statutory language (convicted felon) | Affirmed: instruction tracking statute and pattern jury instruction was appropriate and not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (Sup. Ct. 1997) (when a defendant offers a stipulation that proves an element, a court must weigh whether detailed proof of the prior offense is unfairly prejudicial and reject more prejudicial proof if an equally probative, less prejudicial alternative exists)
- Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1970) (guilty verdict on conjunctively charged acts stands if evidence suffices as to any one act)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (trial court gatekeeping role for admissibility of expert scientific testimony under reliability and relevance standards)
- Benford, United States v., 875 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 2017) (elements of § 922(g)(1): prior felony, knowing possession, and effect on interstate commerce)
- Lazcano-Villalobos v. United States, 175 F.3d 838 (10th Cir. 1999) (district court need not expressly articulate detailed Rule 403 balancing when record supports the ruling)