United States v. Theodore Richards
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12026
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Richards was stopped after tailing officers observed a gray Lexus meet his car after a Pinecrest warehouse drug sale; cocaine was found in Richards’s backpack in the trunk.
- An undercover officer had just purchased ten kilograms of cocaine at the Pinecrest house, establishing recent drug activity there.
- Richards testified he believed the backpack contained money, not drugs, and his defense placed knowledge of drug trafficking at issue.
- The government introduced taped calls between Richards and a California contact known as Pelón to show knowledge of drugs; Richards objected under Rule 404(b).
- The district court admitted the California calls for knowledge non-propensity purposes but allowed limited testimony after a voir dire.
- Closing arguments heavily relied on the California calls to label Richards a drug dealer, prompting a defense objection and appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to stop/search the Lexus | Richards | Richards | Probable cause existed; stop/search upheld |
| Admissibility of the California calls under Rule 404(b) | Richards | Richards | California calls admissible for knowledge non-propensity purpose |
| Closing argument use of Rule 404(b) evidence to argue propensity | Richards | Richards | Prosecutorial propensity argument improper; conviction vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 627 F.3d 247 (7th Cir. 2010) (probable cause based on totality of the circumstances, including prior drug activity)
- United States v. Funches, 327 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2003) (drug activity inferred from circuitous conduct and prior drug dealing patterns)
- United States v. Bohman, 683 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2012) (mere proximity to suspected criminal activity without corroboration is insufficient)
- United States v. Ingrao, 897 F.2d 860 (7th Cir. 1990) (connections must be more than mere presence near suspicious activity)
- United States v. Miller, 673 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2012) (non-propensity Rule 404(b) purpose must be identified and disputed by defendant)