The Seventh Circuit had two new opinions in criminal cases in the past week, with the government winning both appeals.  By some coincidence, both cases involved the use of prior crimes evidence at trial, a topic that was also the focus of my last “Week in Review” post.  Indeed, one of this past week’s cases was strikingly similar in its facts to Perkins from the previous week, but was analyzed in a rather different manner.

United States v. Webb (No. 08-1338) was the new case similar to Perkins.  Webb was arrested in connection with the discovery of drugs in the house of his friend Hartman.  At Webb’s trial on drug trafficking charges, the government introduced into evidence Webb’s 1996 conviction for distributing cocaine.  Following his conviction on the new charges, Webb argued on appeal that this evidence violated Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which prohibits the use of prior crimes evidence for the purpose of establishing a defendant’s propensity to commit new crimes.  In response, the government argued (precisely as it had in Perkins) that the prior crimes evidence helped to establish intent and absence of mistake, which are two permissible purposes for such evidence.  In last week’s post, I argued that the Seventh Circuit accepted these arguments too uncritically in Perkins; based on the reasoning of that case, it was hard for me to see how prior drug trafficking convictions would ever be kept out of evidence in new drug distribution cases.

But in Webb, the Seventh Circuit (per Chief Judge Easterbrook) correctly recognized how tenuous the government’s intent/mistake theory was.  The court also recognized the “tension” in its prior cases regarding the use of prior drug crimes evidence.

The Seventh Circuit had two new criminal opinions in the past week, including a partial defendant win that broke a string of at least eleven consecutive victories by the government.  The two opinions focus on the admissibility of a defendant’s prior convictions at trial and the application of the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines, respectively.  Because I have a bit more than usual to say about the two cases, I will just cover the prior convictions case here, and leave the crack case (featuring a partial defendant victory) for another post tomorrow.

In United States v. Perkins (No. 07-3383), a jury in the Southern District of Illinois convicted Perkins of various drug trafficking offenses.  During his trial, the prosecutor introduced into evidence Perkins’ three prior convictions for cocaine-related offenses, as well as testimony that Perkins had attempted to hide cocaine in his mouth when he was arrested in connection with one of the earlier convictions.  On appeal, Perkins argued that the evidence should have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).  Although the Rules do indeed prohibit the use of prior convictions to establish a defendant’s propensity to commit new crimes, the Seventh Circuit (per Judge Bauer) rejected Perkins’ argument.  More specifically, the court held that Perkins’ prior convictions were admissible because they helped to establish “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake” — all acceptable purposes of prior convictions evidence under Rule 404(b).

For what it’s worth, my own view is that propensity evidence actually should be admissible as such.