United States v. Watson, 695 F.3d 159

Watson was convicted after a four-day jury trial of attempting to kill a federal witness with intent to prevent testimony and communication with law enforcement under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(A), (C) and was also convicted on related force-counts, receiving a 360-month sentence.
The government introduced various prior-act materials tying Watson to a past stabbing and witness-cooperation history, including documents and testimony about the 2002 Paul Pierce case and the 2000 Buzz Club stabbing.
A prior trial involving Paul Pierce and related testimony was referenced, with judicial notice taken of facts from that case, including a witness recantation and the nature of the prior proceedings.
Watson challenged several evidentiary rulings: admission of 404(b) material, testimony related to the Camacho conspiracy, Ann Jackson's eyewitness testimony, and an inadvertently disclosed portion of his criminal history in an affidavit.
Watson also challenged the prosecutor’s closing argument as improperly prejudicial, arguing it created unfair prejudice against him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 404(b) evidence about the Paul Pierce case was properly admitted	Watson	Watson contends 404(b) use was improper and overly prejudicial	No plain error; evidence had special relevance to motive and guilt.
Whether testimony about the Camacho conspiracy was admissible	Watson	Camacho testimony was probative of motive and substantial element	Admissible under Rule 404(b) for motive; not unfairly prejudicial given limiting context.
Whether Ann Jackson's eyewitness testimony was properly admitted	Watson	Jackson’s inconsistent memory was probative; fear explanation permissible	Not error; testimony properly admitted and weighed by jury with cautionary limits.
Whether inadvertent inclusion of Watson's criminal history in a footnote requires reversal	Watson	Footnote was inadvertent and not emphasized to jurors	No plain error; overwhelming evidence supported conviction.
Whether the prosecutor's closing argument created reversible prejudice	Watson	Remarks were improper but not outcome-determinative	Not plain error; strong testimonial evidence mitigated prejudice.

United States v. Barrow, 448 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review with plain-error standard when no objection)
Udemba v. Nicoli, 237 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain-error review for evidentiary rulings without objections)
United States v. Savarese, 686 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard for evidentiary issues affecting fairness)
United States v. Mare, 668 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2012) (special relevance of 404(b) evidence when probative of an element)
United States v. DeCicco, 370 F.3d 206 (1st Cir. 2004) (balance under Rule 404(b) for probative value vs. prejudice)
United States v. Alzanki, 54 F.3d 994 (1st Cir. 1995) (Rule 404(b) admissibility when relevant to an element)
United States v. Gilbert, 229 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2000) (consciousness-of-guilt as basis for 404(b) special relevance)
United States v. Charles, 456 F.3d 249 (1st Cir. 2006) (admission of 404(b) evidence supported by context)
United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (issues not developed on appeal waived)
United States v. Mejia-Lozano, 829 F.2d 268 (1st Cir. 1987) (jury instructions can mitigate prejudice)
United States v. Verrecchia, 196 F.3d 294 (1st Cir. 1999) (prosecution comments in closing not reversible where evidence is strong)
United States v. Manning, 23 F.3d 570 (1st Cir. 1994) (closing argument impact diminished by strong evidence)
United States v. Gonzalez-Vazquez, 219 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2000) (cautionary instructions mitigate prejudice)