United States v. Jackson, No. 08-5151 (2d Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

08-5151-cr United States v. Jackson 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 -------- 4 August Term, 2009 5 (Argued: September 25, 2009 6 Decided: October 27, 2009) Docket No. 08-5151-cr 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -----------------------------------------------------------X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 26 firearm because the district court admitted evidence that the 27 defendant had been in an apartment from which weapons and drugs 28 were later recovered. 29 purpose, and the error was not harmless. Appellee, - v. DURRELL WILLIAMS, Defendant, RORY JACKSON, also known as Roy Jackson, Defendant-Appellant. -----------------------------------------------------------X Before: McLAUGHLIN, KATZMANN, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, District Judge.* We vacate the defendant s conviction for possession of a 30 31 The evidence was not admitted for a proper VACATED AND REMANDED. * The Honorable Edward R. Korman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 JUSTIN D. LERER, Assistant United States Attorney (Jo Ann M. Navickas, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York, for Appellee. DONALD YANELLA, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant. McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge: 11 Rory Jackson appeals his conviction after trial in the 12 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York 13 (Dearie, C.J.) for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in 14 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 15 because the district court improperly admitted evidence that 16 Jackson had been present in an apartment where police later found 17 a cache of weapons and other contraband. BACKGROUND 18 19 We vacate the conviction On November 1, 2006, New York City police officers responded 20 to a 911 call reporting a gunshot in an apartment building in 21 Queens. 22 into Apartment B26 below. 23 Jonathan Jordan arrived at the building shortly after the call 24 and saw Durrell Williams, Rory Jackson, and Zanika Arnold 25 outside. The officers identified themselves and asked the three 26 to stop. Williams fled, and Officer Sommer pursued him. 27 28 The shot was fired from Apartment B36 on the third floor Police officers William Sommer and As Sommer chased Williams, Officer Jordan approached Jackson and told him to show his hands. Jackson took a can of juice out 2 1 of his pocket, threw it at Jordan, and turned to flee. 2 Jackson turned, Officer Jordan spotted what he believed to be the 3 butt of a gun in Jackson s jacket pocket. 4 description of Jackson and chased him for approximately 50 to 100 5 feet before giving up the chase. 6 As Jordan radioed a Officer Scott Ferrari arrived at the scene to help establish 7 a police perimeter. He saw Jackson exit a nearby building 8 looking disheveled and wearing his pants inside-out. 9 refused Ferrari s and other officers commands to stop and 10 instead crouched behind a parked car. 11 Jackson at gunpoint. 12 Jackson later and identified Jackson. 13 Ferrari then apprehended Jordan arrived approximately 40 minutes Ferrari and other officers searched the area for the gun 14 that Jordan believed he had seen in Jackson s pocket. Ferrari 15 found a gun in a garbage can in a courtyard between the locations 16 where Jordan had chased Jackson and where Ferrari later 17 apprehended Jackson. There were no fingerprints on the gun. 18 The day after Jackson s arrest, New York City police 19 officers executed a search warrant on Apartment B36, from which 20 the shot had been fired. 21 firearms, other weapons, bullet-proof vests, drugs, and cash. 22 Jackson was indicted in the Eastern District for violating 18 23 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits a person previously convicted Among other things, they found 3 1 of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year from 2 possessing a firearm. 3 Jackson s trial was scheduled to begin on Monday, June 25, 4 2007. 5 Government moved to admit evidence of the contraband that police 6 recovered from Apartment B36. 7 witness testimony would establish that, shortly before the shot 8 was fired, Jackson was in possession of the items recovered 9 from Apartment B36: 10 11 12 13 14 15 At approximately 11:15 p.m. on Sunday, June 24, the The Government proffered that eye four loaded firearms, including a revolver with an attached laser pointer, two bullet proof vests, at least 150 rounds of live ammunition of various types, a metal knuckle knife and machete, quantities of cocaine and marihuana, empty ziplock bags, several scales and over $4,000 in United States currency. 16 The Government suggested two reasons for admissibility: (1) 17 necessary background to the charged crime; and (2) to show 18 Jackson s opportunity, plan and lack of mistake in possessing 19 the gun. 20 The district court admitted the evidence, stating that 21 [y]our party is put in that apartment with that kind of armament 22 moments before the shot occurs. 23 unduly prejudicial. 24 It is prejudicial, but not It is highly relevant. During the trial, the Government called Zanika Arnold to 25 testify, apparently as the eye witness who would establish 26 Jackson s possession of the contraband in Apartment B36. 4 1 Arnold testified that, at about 9:20 p.m. on the night Jackson 2 was arrested, she went to visit her boyfriend Durrell Williams at 3 the third-floor Queens apartment in which he was staying. 4 Although the record is unclear as to the apartment number, the 5 Government argued to the jury during its closing statement that 6 it was Apartment B36. 7 Jackson downstairs. 8 B36 so that she could use the bathroom. 9 nothing further to link Jackson to the apartment or, 10 significantly, to the weapons and drugs found in it. 11 When Arnold entered the building, she saw Jackson escorted her upstairs to Apartment The Government offered Testifying for the Government, Officer Jordan stated that he 12 saw what [he] thought was the butt of a black gun in [the] left 13 [pocket] of Jackson s black leather jacket. 14 but a spotlight lit the area outside the building. 15 examination, Jordan admitted that he was not sure that Jackson 16 had a gun and that he did not see Jackson throw a gun away while 17 running. It was dark out, On cross- 18 Through testimony from Jordan and Officer Philip Mathew, who 19 helped execute the search warrant, the Government showed the jury 20 four guns recovered from the apartment and a series of 21 photographs depicting the weapons, cash, and drug paraphernalia 22 found in Apartment B36. 23 district court instructed the jury that the case ha[d] nothing During Officer Jordan s testimony, the 5 1 to do with a narcotics charge, adding that the jury should not 2 consider the evidence of drugs for any reason whatsoever. 3 court explained that the jury was receiving the evidence merely 4 because these are the materials that were found in the 5 apartment. 6 7 8 9 The After the Government rested its case, Jackson moved for a judgment of acquittal. The district court denied the motion. During its summation, the Government specifically focused on the contraband found in Apartment B36, telling the jury: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [Y]ou heard a lot of evidence about things that were recovered in that apartment. You saw guns and you saw scales and a knife and things. And I want to remind you . . . the defendant is not charged with any of those things. The reason . . . the Government presented you with that evidence is just so that you know the whole story, that you know exactly what was going on that day . . . , and that you know who the defendant really is . . . . (Emphasis added.) 20 In the Government s rebuttal summation, it argued that 21 Jackson had access to the apartment and that drug dealers don t 22 let you just walk into their apartments. 23 prosecutor, the fact that Jackson had access to the apartment 24 allowed the jury to make a reasonable conclusion about the 25 defendant and whether he had a gun . . . that night. 26 The jury found Jackson guilty. 6 According to the 1 After trial, Jackson retained new counsel who sought 2 reconsideration of the motion for acquittal and moved for a new 3 trial. 4 evidence that weapons and drugs had been found in the apartment. 5 He also contended that he had received ineffective assistance of 6 counsel and that newly discovered evidence undermined the 7 verdict. Jackson renewed his challenge to the admissibility of the 8 In April 2008, the district court denied Jackson s motions. 9 Carefully explaining its reasoning, the court remarked that the 10 critical part of this case, given the circumstantial nature of 11 the specific charge, has to do with the contents of the 12 apartment. 13 and photographs] as 404(b) evidence. . . . 14 15 16 The district court added, I did not admit [the guns The district court subsequently sentenced Jackson to 60 months imprisonment. Jackson now appeals. DISCUSSION 17 18 We conclude that Jackson s conviction must be vacated 19 because the evidence recovered from Apartment B36 the day after 20 his arrest was not admissible for any proper purpose. 21 hold that admission of the evidence was not harmless error. 22 need not address Jackson s other challenges to his conviction and 23 sentence. 7 We also We 1 I. 2 Standard of Review We review admissibility of evidence at trial for abuse of 3 discretion. 4 2009). 5 II. United States v. Mercado, 573 F.3d 138, 141 (2d Cir. Background to the Crime 6 To be relevant, evidence need only tend to prove the 7 government s case, and evidence that adds context and dimension 8 to the government s proof of the charges can have that tendency. 9 United States v. Gonzalez, 110 F.3d 936, 941 (2d Cir. 1997). 10 Thus, evidence is often admissible to provide background for the 11 events alleged in the indictment or to enable the jury to 12 understand the complete story of the crimes charged. 13 States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 91-92 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal 14 quotation marks omitted). 15 evidence was relevant as background to the crime. 16 United We disagree that the contraband The physical evidence from the apartment was not 17 particularly helpful to explain the crime. 18 version of the facts was simple and complete: the police 19 responded to a report of a shooting in the building; they 20 approached a group of people outside the building; Jackson fled; 21 Officer Jordan saw a gun in Jackson s pocket; the police later 22 apprehended Jackson; and an officer found the gun near where 23 Jackson had run. 8 The Government s 1 The Government did not need the contraband to explain why 2 the police were at the building, why Officer Jordan pursued 3 Jackson, why Jackson was arrested, or why Jackson was charged 4 with possessing a firearm. 5 apartment would not have left any gaps in the Government's case, 6 nor have left the jury wondering about missing pieces of the 7 story. 8 (1997) (holding that the prosecution is entitled to present a 9 complete narrative of the crime that satisf[ies] jurors 10 11 Failing to detail the contents of the Cf. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 188-89 expectations about what proper proof should be ). We think the evidence more likely confused the jury than 12 assisted its understanding of the case. 13 court wisely interrupted Jordan s testimony about the photographs 14 to explain that the case ha[d] nothing to do with a narcotics 15 charge, and admonished the jury not to consider the evidence of 16 drugs for any reason whatsoever. 17 over how evidence that it should not consider for any reason is 18 relevant to the issues it has to decide. 19 Indeed, the district A jury might fairly puzzle The Government s brief on appeal hardly seems convinced that 20 the evidence was background to the crime. 21 devotes to that argument assert merely that the evidence 22 completed the narrative and was inextricably intertwined with 23 proof of the charged offense without any explanation as to why 9 The few sentences it 1 this is so. 2 abused its discretion in admitting the guns and photographs of 3 the weapons, drugs, and related contraband as background 4 evidence. 5 III. Opportunity or Motive 6 We are compelled to conclude that the district court The Government asks us to affirm admission of the evidence 7 on the alternative ground that, under Federal Rule of Evidence 8 404(b), it was relevant to prove that Jackson had the 9 opportunity and motive to possess a gun. 10 Rule 404(b) renders inadmissible evidence of other crimes, 11 wrongs, or acts . . . to prove the character of a person in order 12 to show action in conformity therewith. 13 Under the Rule, however, a court may admit prior-act evidence to 14 show, among other things, proof of motive, opportunity, intent . 15 . . or absence of mistake. 16 the evidence was admissible under a Rule 404(b) analysis fails 17 for at least two reasons. 18 Id. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The Government s argument that First, whether Jackson had the opportunity or motive to 19 possess a gun was not put in issue during the trial. See Hynes 20 v. Coughlin, 79 F.3d 285, 291-92 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding that a 21 prior act was not admissible to show intent when intent was not 22 contested at trial). 23 insufficient evidence to prove that he possessed a gun at all, Jackson s defense was that there was simply 10 1 not, for example, that he would have been unable to procure a gun 2 or that he lacked a reason to have one. 3 Second, while the evidence that Jackson had ready and 4 contemporaneous access to an apartment in which firearms were 5 recovered constituted a relevant piece of circumstantial evidence 6 tending to prove that he possessed the weapon at issue, the 7 evidence offered at trial went far beyond what was necessary for 8 this purpose. 9 which should clearly be taken . . . to limit the prosecutor s Its admission ignored a common sense precaution 10 presentation to such facts . . . as are reasonably necessary to 11 prove the point for which the evidence is admitted, and to 12 exclude unsavory details which go beyond what is necessary to 13 make the point. 14 Federal Evidence § 140, at 209 (rev. ed. 1985); see also United 15 States v. Bradwell, 388 F.2d 619, 622 (2d Cir. 1968) (discussing 16 the undue prejudice that can result when the minute peg of 17 relevancy [is] entirely obscured by the dirty linen hung upon it 18 (citation omitted)). 19 David W. Louisell & Christopher B. Mueller, More significantly, during the trial the Government did not 20 argue or even assert that Jackson had the opportunity or motive 21 to possess a gun. 22 showed exactly what was going on that day, adding delphically 23 that it established who the defendant really is. Instead, it maintained that the contraband 11 It also 1 suggested that the evidence allowed the jury to make a 2 reasonable conclusion about the defendant. 3 Government s only use of the evidence was to argue that it 4 illuminated Jackson s character. 5 tactics. 6 defendants lip service to the proper principle for admitting 7 evidence under Rule 404(b), defendants actually used prior-act 8 evidence to establish plaintiff s propensity for violence). 9 IV. 10 Thus, the Rule 404(b) prohibits such See Hynes, 79 F.3d at 292 (holding that despite Harmless Error We might affirm Jackson s conviction if the district court s 11 error were harmless. See Mercado, 573 F.3d at 141 12 ( [E]videntiary rulings are subject to harmless error 13 analysis. ). 14 that the evidence did not substantially influence the jury. 15 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, we cannot conclude with fair assurance Id. 16 The Government s case was by no means overwhelming. The 17 jury heard evidence of Jackson s flight, and Officer Jordan s 18 testimony that, as Jackson was running from him at night (though 19 with the aid of a spotlight), he saw what looked like a black gun 20 handle protruding from Jackson s black leather jacket. 21 examination established that Jordan was not sure that he saw a 22 gun. 23 found a gun near where Jackson had run, the Government did not Cross- Although the Government also proved that Officer Ferrari 12 1 recover any fingerprints from the gun, and no witnesses saw 2 Jackson place the gun in the garbage can or even run past the 3 garbage can. 4 We note that the district court believed that the evidence 5 from the apartment was critical to the Government s case. 6 Given the borderline evidence, there is a substantial risk that 7 the jury was nudged from reasonable doubt to conviction by the 8 suggestion that Jackson possessed, or associated with those who 9 possessed, laser-scoped firearms, bullet-proof vests, machetes, 10 11 and more mundane materials of the drug trade. Finally, we do not believe that the district court s 12 limiting instruction can salvage the conviction. The court 13 instructed the jury essentially to ignore the evidence of drug 14 dealing, noting that the evidence was admitted simply because 15 these are the materials that were found in the apartment. 16 Although we ordinarily presume that the jury followed the court s 17 instructions, this presumption is dropped where there is an 18 overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow 19 the court s instructions and the evidence is devastating to the 20 defense. 21 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). 22 probability and prejudice here. United States v. Colombo, 909 F.2d 711, 715 (2d Cir. 13 We find such 1 The instruction was too general and vague to ensure that the 2 error in admitting the evidence was harmless. [I]t is 3 imperative that [limiting] instructions be clear and 4 unequivocal. 5 Cir. 2007). 6 weapons found in the apartment, only to the drugs. 7 jury might have believed that the weapons found in the apartment 8 could contribute to a finding that Jackson possessed the gun. 9 See id. (holding that a reasonable juror might have assumed that United States v. Becker, 502 F.3d 122, 133 (2d The instruction did not expressly advert to the Thus, the 10 she was permitted to consider evidence for a purpose not 11 expressly prohibited by a limiting instruction). 12 Moreover, we have held that a jury will likely disregard an 13 instruction that evidence is merely background in the face of 14 shocking evidence that the Government puts at the center of the 15 trial. 16 may not have been as inflammatory as the rape and sodomy in 17 Colombo, see id., it is likely that the jury could not have 18 ignored the parade of guns and photographs that the Government 19 put before it, which was a major focus of the prosecutor s 20 closing arguments. 21 See Colombo, 909 F.2d at 715. Although the evidence here The evidence was also devastating to Jackson. Without this 22 evidence, the Government s case was that Jackson was a convicted 23 felon with a gun who ran from the police. 14 With the evidence, the 1 Government invited the jury to infer that Jackson at least 2 associated with dangerous drug dealers equipped with an array of 3 weapons who operated a narcotics business out of a residential 4 apartment building. 5 little chance to prevail on his argument that he did not possess 6 a single handgun. 7 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 22157, at *39 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2009) 8 (vacating attempted murder conviction where gratuitous references 9 to defendant s nickname, Murder, short-circuited the jury s 10 10 11 In light of such evidence, Jackson had Cf. United States v. Farmer, ___ F.3d ___, fact-finding regarding a plausible defense). Admitting the evidence cannot be viewed as harmless error. Accordingly, Jackson s conviction cannot stand. CONCLUSION 12 13 For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the judgment of 14 conviction and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with 15 this opinion. 15

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.