United States v. Theodore Howard
692 F.3d 697
7th Cir.2012Background
- Howard, formerly Brown’s partner, sought reconciliation but engaged in acts to harm Brown after their breakup; protective orders restricted contact and visitation.
- A series of 2006–2007 acts included a caustic liquid attack, surveillance of Brown, and threats to shoot, with documents and testimony tying these to Howard.
- Howard allegedly hired others (including Windom and later Virgin) to injure Brown and planned murder via a staged train shooting; evidence connected to a broader pattern of obsession and intent.
- Virgin testified to Howard’s involvement in arranging shootings, providing crack for compensation, and later retrieving weapons from an impounded car using a forged-like document.
- The government admitted multiple Rule 404(b) “other acts” to prove motive, plan, and intent; the district court gave limiting instructions.
- Howard challenged the admissibility of 404(b) evidence and the district court’s denial of empaneling a new jury; the district court ruling was upheld on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 404(b) other-acts were admissible. | Government argues acts show motive/intent, not propensity. | Howard argues acts are prejudicial and lack probative purpose. | Admissible for permissible non-propensity purposes. |
| Sufficiency of 404(b) evidence to prove the acts. | Government contends sufficient corroboration and testimony support acts. | Howard challenges credibility and independence of witnesses. | Evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury. |
| Denial of new-jury empanelment after juror-notes. | Howard claims juror notes show prejudice and prejudgment. | Court properly assessed impartiality and took remedial steps. | District court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Long, 86 F.3d 81 (7th Cir. 1996) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 404(b) rulings; four-factor test)
- United States v. Reese, 666 F.3d 1007 (7th Cir. 2012) (four-part Rule 404(b) admissibility framework)
- United States v. Montani, 204 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2000) (purpose, similarity, sufficiency, prejudice balancing)
- United States v. Jones, 389 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2004) (purpose of evidence and non-propensity use)
- United States v. Baker, 665 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2011) (similarity and proximity in time under 404(b))
- United States v. Moore, 641 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2011) (probative value vs. prejudice balancing under 403)
- United States v. Vargas, 552 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2008) (limiting instructions presumed effective against prejudice)
- United States v. Chavis, 429 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2005) (unfair prejudice vs. probative value considerations)
- United States v. Lott, 442 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2006) (discretion in denying jury-removal motions)