| Venue: |
Ct. App. 7th Cir
|
|
| Facts: |
Zapata's phone calls are recorded, and he gets caught with a car
that has specially modified compartments to hold cocaine.
One of his customers aided in the investigation, after he
(the customer) was arrested. |
|
| Posture: |
Convicted at trial. Appeal. |
|
| Issue: |
Several:
- Was admitting evidence of a prior uncharged drug transaction
(accompanied by a limiting instruction) error?
- Was refusing to strike the direct testimony of a government witness
who claimed the 5A privilege on cross error?
- Was admitting hotel registration records error?
|
|
| Holding: |
Conviction affirmed. In order:
- No, although the jury instruction erred when it said "predisposition," but
that was harmless.
- No.
- No.
|
|
| Rule: |
- Rule 404(b), and jury instructions should be taken as a whole.
- The court only needs to strike those portions of the direct testimony
relevant to the 5A protection later claimed.
- Rule 803(6)
|
|
| Reasoning: |
That one word in a jury instruction isn't enough to change the outcome
in a case this strong. The list of factors in 404(b) is suggestive,
not exhaustive. As long as a judge exercises discretion (and there
was evidence here that briefs were read and arguments heard) rulings
on admissibility won't be disturbed. And that goes also for the
ruling about the hotel records. |
|
| Dicta: |
|
|