United States v. Gomez, No. 12-1104 (7th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseGomez was convicted of drug-related crimes and sentenced to concurrent 84-month terms. A panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments concerning admission of evidence of his possession of cocaine weeks after the charged crimes, and that the judge did not specify his perjurious statements when increasing his sentencing range for obstruction of justice. The court later considered the case en banc to clarify the framework for admitting other-act evidence and held that the circuit’s four- part test should be replaced by an approach that tracks the Rules of Evidence. The extent to which a proffered “other crime, wrong, or act” is close in time and similar to the conduct at issue in the case may have a bearing on its relevance, but the importance of testing for similarity and recency will depend on the specific purpose for which the other-act evidence is offered. The proponent of the other-act evidence should address its relevance directly, without an artificial checklist. Rule 404(b) allows the use of other-act evidence only when its admission is supported by some propensity-free chain of reasoning. A trial court should not just ask whether the proposed other-act evidence is relevant to a non-propensity purpose but how exactly the evidence is relevant to that purpose; these questions will help identify evidence that serves no permissible purpose. Applying a rules-based framework, the court concluded that the cocaine found in Gomez’s bedroom should not have been admitted, but that the error was harmless, and affirmed.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 5, 2013.
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.